Studies in Numismatic Method Presented to Philip Grierson

Studies in Numismatic Method

Philip Grierson

Studies in Numismatic Method presented to PHILIP G RIERSON

edited by

C. N. L. BROOKE, B. H. I. H. STEW AR T, J. G. POLLARD andT. R. VOLK

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge London New York New Rochelle Melbourne Sydney

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo, Delhi Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521225038 © Cambridge University Press 1983

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1983 This digitally printed version 2008

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 81-15524 ISBN 978-0-521-22503-8 hardback ISBN 978-0-521-09133-6 paperback

Contents

page vii

Acknowledgements

viii ix

Abbreviations

Phi lip Grierson's contribution to numismatics

I

A bibliography of the writings of Phi lip Grierson Introduction Thoughts on the beginnings of coinage

xv xxvi

M. J. PRICE 2

The life of obverse dies in the Hellenistic period

II

OTTO M0RKHOLM

3 Roman coinage of the Cyrenaica, first century

BC

to first century

AD

23

T. V. BUTTREY

4 Roman imperial coin types and the formation of public opinion

47

M. H. CRAWFORD

5 Coin hoards and Roman coinage of the third century

AD

R. A. G. CARSON

6 Belgian finds of late fourth-century Roman bronze

75

J. LALLEMAND

7 The re-use of obsolete coins: the case of Roman imperial bronzes revived in the late fifth century

95

CECILE MORRISSON

8 Interpreting the alloy of the Merovingian silver coinage

II3

D. M.METCALF

9 Carolingian gold coins from the Ilanz hoard

12 7

ERNESTO BERNAREGGI 10

The novi denarii and forgery in the ninth century

137

JEAN LAFAURIE II

On the rejection of good coin in Carolingian Europe

147

ST ANISLA W SUCHODOLSKI

12 JElfred the Great's abandonment of the concept of periodic recoinage

153

MICHAEL DOLLEY

13 King or Queen? An eleventh-century pfennig of Duisburg

161

PETER BERGHAUS

14 Personal names on Norman coins of the eleventh century: an hypothesis F. DUM AS

v

171

Contents 15 The Gornoslav hoard, the Emperor Frederick I, and the Monastery of

Bachkovo

179

M. F. HENDY

16 Coinages of Barcelona (1209 to 1222): the documentary evidence

193

T. N. BISSON

17 Finds of English medieval coins in Schleswig-Holstein

205

G.HATZ

18 Privy-marking and the trial of the pyx

225

C. E. BLUNT

19 Judicial documents relating to coin forgery

231

PIERRE P. COCKSHA W

20 Mint organisation in the Burgundian Netherlands in the fifteenth century

239

PETER SPUFFORD

21 Coinage in Andrew Halyburton's Ledger

263

MARION M. ARCHIBALD

22 Imitation in later medieval coinage: the influence of Scottish types abroad

303

IAN STEW ART

23 Barter in fifteenth-century Genoa

327

CARLO M. CIPOLLA

Index

VI

Acknowledgements

The initiative for a volume to celebrate the scholarship of Phi lip Grierson came from Christopher Brooke and Ian Stewart. Our share of the work has been as follows. Day-to-day editorial responsibility was undertaken at the Department of Coins and Medals, Fitzwilliam Museum, by Graham Pollard and T. R. Yolk; and at every stage the four editors have discussed the development of the book. Individually they have been responsible for the brief appreciation (Brooke and Stewart) and the bibliography (Pollard) of the honorand. The editors are grateful to the contributors for their ready collaboration and patient support; to the University Press for undertaking the publication of a demanding volume; and to the Fitzwilliam Museum not only for permission to illustrate from the University's cabinet, but also for aid and support to the editors. The assistance of students in the Department of Coins and Medals and of others, Countess Antonini, Miss K. M. Brayshaw, Mr T. W. Gallant, Miss E. R. Mullett, Miss S. K. L. Parker, Fr!. R. Sturm, and Mrs B. F. Whiting, principally in the drafting of English translations, is willingly acknowledged, as is the secretarial help of Mrs S. N. L. Lorimer and Mrs H. C. Scotney, Fitzwilliam Museum, and the skilful advice of Mrs E. L. Wetton and Miss A. E. M. Johnston, Cambridge University Press. The editors' greatest debt is, however, to Phi lip Grierson himself, not only as the inspiration for the book, but for much practical help and advice. With the contributors, they hope that this volume will be accepted as a small token of gratitude and affection to a great scholar and dear friend. C. N. L. BROOKE

J. G. POLLARD

B. H. I. H. STEW AR T

YU

T. R. YOLK

Abbreviations

A NS-MN BNJ BCEN BIHR BSFN DAN DOP EHR JHS JMP JRS LMN MA NC NCirc NZ RBen RBNS RBPH RIN RN SEER SSAM THS ZjN

American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes British Numismatic Journal Bulletin du Cercle d' Etudes Numismatiques Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research Bulletin de la Societe Franraise de Numismatique Dark Age numismatics (reprints of 29 articles by Phi lip Grierson, 1979. See Bibliography no. 15) Dumbarton Oaks Papers English Historical Review Journal of Hellenic Studies Jaarboek voor Munt- en Penningkunde Journal of Roman Studies Late medieval numismatics (reprints of 22 articles by Philip Grierson, 1979. See Bibliography no. 16) Le Moyen Age Numismatic Chronicle Spink's Numismatic Circular Numismatische Zeitschrift Revue Benedictine Revue Beige de Numismatique et de Sigillographie Revue Beige de Philologie et d' His to ire Rivista Italiana di Numismatica Revue Numismatique Slavonic and East European Review Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull'Alto Medioevo, Spoleto Transactions of the Royal Historical Society Zeitschrift fur Numismatik

Vlll

Philip Grierson's contribution to numismatics

In 1960 there appeared in the Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient an article entitled 'The monetary reforms ofl\bd AI-Malik: their metrological basis and their financial repercussions' (Bibliography, no. 116). Many years before, Henri Pirenne had propounded his celebrated hypothesis about the history of early medieval trade and civilisation, one of whose central themes and pillars was the survival OC gold coinage in the West until the early ninth century. For Pirenne its disappearance was the last act in the decline and fall of Rome in the West, and its cause the depredations of Islam. Through all the smoke raised by the ensuing debate 'The monetary reforms of'Abd AI-Malik' shines like a gleam of pure flame. It shows that the caliph's reforms caused a shift in the relative value of silver and gold in Islam at exactly the right moment at the turn of the seventh and eighth centuries to explain the flight of silver to the West and of gold to the East, and so resolved the puzzle of the rise of silver currency in western Europe in the century which followed. 'Obviously this cannot be the whole explanation of so complex and far-reaching a phenomenon as the establishment of the silver monometallism that endured for five centuries in western Christendom, but it must have been a major factor in it' (no. 116, 264). Whatever place the caliph ultimately comes to hold in the economic history of the West, the article on his reforms will remain a fundamental contribution to the problem; and who but Philip Grierson could have commanded the range of learning, the mastery of history and numismatics, the confidence and the daring to see the economy of West and East as a whole, and study their relations, without taking to the wings of fantasy which have seduced some other workers in the field? Yet his range is much wider than this. The main centre of his work lies in the coinage of Byzantium and the West, and its historical context, from the fourth to the fifteenth centuries. He has gone further back, into Roman coinage and counterfeiting; he has travelled further afield, into anthropology and the basic nature of money, into economic and chemical analysis. He can show the historians how little they understood of coins, on any showing a fundamental historical source; and he can show the numismatists how little they know of the world from which their coins come. ix

x

PHILIP GRIERSON

Phi lip Grierson is a native of southern Ireland who came to this country first as a schoolboy and a student; originally destined for a medical career, he arrived in Cambridge with a taste for reading history already formed, and immediately transferred his allegiance. In recent years his adventures in metrology and his wide reading in science fiction are the fruit of his early interest in science; but his interests steadily shifted, down to the early 1940s, in directions very much of his own choosing. He has often expressed his warmth of feeling for those who taught or guided him - Z. N. Brooke, C. W. PreviteOrton, and the eminent Belgian scholar, F.-L. Ganshof; but their influence has never been fundamental. 'To my own surprise and everybody else's,' he modestly claims, 'I won the Lightfoot scholarship in 1931' (no. 206) and this embarked him on his first career, as an ecclesiastical historian. His early research lay in the history of Flanders, first its ecclesiastical history - hence papers on the abbots and relics of Ghent and Bruges, on Grimbald of St Bertin, and on early libraries, and his important edition of the annals of St Peter's Ghent and of Saint-Amand (no. I); then its social and economic history too, as appears in his paper on the relations of England and Flanders (nos. 38, 171). On a side-wind, a visit to Russia in 1932 led to an interest which blossomed in his bibliography of recent books on Soviet Russia in 1943 (no. 2). The most decisive shift in interest came soon after; for he made his debut as a numismatist in 1945, first as a modest collector, then, very soon, as a student of coins: 'It took another piece of happen stance to turn them into my major field of research ' - a lecture in Belgium in 1947 on 'the relevance of numismatic evidence for determining the chronology of the transition from antiquity to the middle ages' led rapidly to his appointment (1948) to the Chair of Numismatics in Brussels, a part-time post he held until 1981 (no. 206, pp. 41-42). It is a sobering thought for those of us who have worked a single furrow for two or three decades that in 1948 the paper on the Caliph 'Abd AI-Malik, with the immense range of learning it reveals, was only a dozen years away. Through all these shifts there remained some strong threads of continuity: in his relation to his parents, to whom he was always closely devoted; in his service to Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, to which he came as an undergraduate in 1929, of which he has been a Fellow since 1935, and which has been since then, without a break, his home. He has served it as Director of Studies in History, as Librarian, and as President - and over and above all, as a symbol of continuity in the resident fellowship of the College. It is against this background of stabilitas that we view the extension of his research to Byzantium and Islam, of his friendships to Italy, Switzerland, France, Germany, Poland, America and elsewhere; and his travels to many parts of Europe and North America - and in imagination, perhaps, to the moon. His services to history have been large, to numismatics unique. In Cambridge he has lectured in medieval history from 1938 till his retirement in 1978; he was University Assistant Lecturer in History 1938-45, Lecturer, 1945-59, Reader in Medieval Numismatics, 1959-71, Professor of Numismatics, 1971-8; and beyond the normal call of duty in teaching and examining and serving his Faculty, he has been, inter alia, a Syndic of the University Library for many years, latterly Chairman of the Syndicate, in which role he presided over the affairs of one of the world's greatest libraries, and both Honorary

An appreciation

Xl

Keeper of Coins and a Syndic of the Fitzwilliam Museum. In the Museum his own collection resides, and for its comfort the University has provided the Grierson Study Room, which will form in future years one of the world's principal centres of numismatic research. In other ways he has fostered the interests of the Museum and supported the growth of its specialist library. Outside Cambridge he has been Professor at Brussels 1948-81, Advisor in Byzantine Numismatics at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C., since 1955, Literary Director of the Royal Historical Society, 1945-55, as well as many more temporary or purely honorific appointments: Ford's Lecturer at Oxford, 1956-7, medallist of the Royal Numismatic Society (1958) and the American Numismatic Society (1963), President of the R.N.S., 1961-6, Honorary Vice-President since 1978, member, corresponding or honorary, of the International Numismatic Commission of the Societe Suisse de Numismatique, the Swedish Numismatic Society, the Medieval Academy of America, the American Numismatic Society, the Societe Royale de Numismatique de BeIge, the Istituto Siciliano di Studi Byzantini e Neoellenici; F.S.A. since 1949, Litt.D. since 1971. Finally, he holds honorary doctorates ofGhent (1958) and Leeds (1978); and he is a Corresponding Fellow of the Belgian Academy and a Fellow of the British Academy (1958). Phi lip Grierson is that rare combination, a great collector who is also a great scholar. After he became Advisor to Dumbarton Oaks, he gave up collecting Byzantine coins on his own account, and a large part of his Byzantine collection went there. This apart, he has spent a high proportion of his time and energy over the last thirty-five years in acquiring European and related coins from the fifth to the early sixteenth centuries, with the exception of the British Isles. The collection is probably the most important of its kind in existence today. In range, quality and balance the Grierson Collection is remarkable, and reflects the personal achievement of its collector; these qualities are unthinkable, indeed, save in a scholar's personal collection. One warmly hopes that in due course it will be published; and a catalogue of the Grierson Collection will provide in itself a manual of medieval numismatics, and a contribution to medieval studies of the first rank. It has been said of him, with pardonable exaggeration, that as befits the Life Fellow of a Cambridge College, he rarely allows a year to pass without subscribing his name to thirty-nine articles. In sober truth the number of his articles on numismatic subjects is legion, and in recent years there has been a remarkable swelling in his books. Yet he still contributes articles from time to time of general historical interest, and throughout his teaching career in Cambridge made notable sallies, especially into the theme of medieval Europe and the wider world, looking out far beyond the Caliphate. He is a voracious reader of everything save conventional literature, and something of a polymath, with a good working knowledge of mathematics, statistics, methods of metallurgical analysis, and a range of languages which have enabled him to master the literature of a subject which has generally been pursued on local or national lines. He is uniquely equipped for the task he has undertaken, a thorough-going reappraisal of medieval coinage. As Professor in Brussels, he has been since 1948 concerned not only to provide a

Xll

PHILIP GRIERSON

general introduction to numismatics, but to study and teach the general implications of coinage for the historian, and the methods of the subject. These fields of enquiry have blossomed in a series of lectures, opening with his inaugural at Brussels, in three numismatic bibliographies, and in two general books, both showing a panorama ofiarge areas of the history of coinage from different viewpoints. In his Presidential Addresses to the R.N.S. (nos. 131, 142, 145, 155, 161) and in his Stenton Lecture at Reading (no. 19) the study of weights and measures was set on a new foundation, and many earlier doctrines weighed in his balance and found wanting. The Presidentials also contain some of his contributions to general numismatic theory, on hoards and finds and coin wear; and he has written elsewhere on the manufacture of coins, and entered joyfully into the arguments on the output of mints. His work on metrology and metallurgical analysis is fundamental. It is not only in technical studies of measures that he has made fundamental contributions to economic history: his papers on the nature of commerce in the Dark Ages and the social function of money in early Anglo-Saxon England have set all students of these themes on new paths (nos. 108, 119); the basic structure of Byzantine political history has benefited from his study of the tombs and obits of the emperors (no. 132); a characteristic contribution to a recent Settimana at Spoleto surveys the symbolism of charters as well as coins nell'alto medioevo (no. 199); he has opened a new world in a study of the effects of fresh supplies of bullion on European coinage and economy in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (no. 177). In recent years there has been a major impetus to the study of Byzantine numismatics for which he has been largely responsible. Three of the five volumes of the Dumbarton Oaks Catalogue, published or projected, are his alone, and he has had a major part in the others. He has written on many corners of Byzantine numismatic history, and a substantial handbook on Byzantine coinage has just been published. His main interest in Western coinage has been in the early Middle Ages. Among his most important publications are a series of articles on the coinage of Charlemagne and the gold solidi of Louis the Pious, on the St Martin's Hoard from Canterbury, the Albertini Tablets, and on gold in China, on Anglo-Saxon shillings, on the mancus; he is at present working on a general book on early medieval coins. His contributions to the later medieval period have been more scattered, yet often of great importance. Thus in two papers, on Pegolotti's book of exchange rates (no. 99) and on coins in the Cely Papers (no. 168), he has clarified vital documentary evidence for the international circulation and value of money. Even the Venetian gold ducat has won prestige from his pen. The full sweep of the subject is brilliantly illuminated in his Monnaies du moyen age (no. 13). Equally characteristic of the man are his history of his College in the Victoria History of Cambridgeshire (no. 107), and his memoirs of Z. N. Brooke and H. T. Deas in the Caian (nos. 41, 180), personal testimony to his more parochial friendships and the warmth of his loyalties. For if one had to list briefly his most striking qualities, one might easily say - simplicity and warmth. There is some paradox in this, for great men are never wholly simple. Grierson's friends and colleagues have often delighted in his minor foibles, in his occasional brusqueness or joyous outbursts of candour, in his occasional admission

An appreciation

Xlll

to harmless vanity. Yet at a deeper level the candour is an expression of exceptional integrity - he never resents criticism, and he will listen with equal attention to young and old, research student and professor - and in personal dealings constantly softened by a mellowing sensitivity and warmth; he is a man of many friends. No doubt the scholarly achievement of the last thirty years involved an immense concentration of effort, and economical use of time; all this has meant a restriction on his social life; yet it is hard for his friends to discern. In earlier days his rooms were one of the main social centres of the College, where undergraduates of all disciplines gathered to listen to his records and to read his books; in more recent years they have often met him on the squash court, and even his colleagues incapable of squash can bear witness to the stream of exhausted young Caians who have shown that his vigour in the squash court remained unabated into his seventies. For many of his friends, two settings are especially associated with him: in Hall and Combination Room at Caius, where he was President from 1966 to 1976, giving freely of his time and gifts in looking after his own and his colleagues' guests; and as speaker and participant in numerous meetings oflearned societies and international conferences. He has greatly enjoyed and benefited from his contact with scholars from many lands. He is a generous host, and enjoys entertaining and being entertained; yet this is characteristically united with a strong puritan streak which makes him spartan and austere when on his own, and censorious of other men's extravagance. The financing of his great collection is a mystery beyond the comprehension of economics; suffice it to say that he is very strict in his standards of academic and commercial probity; but equally addicted to the doctrine that money should work as hard as he does - he never likes modern coins to lie idle, or medieval ones uncommented. He is as much at home in an aeroplane as in his modest suite of rooms in College; and this helps to explain how he has come to buy coins in so many foreign sale rooms, how many friends he has among the curators and the conoscenti of the world, how often his friends who cross his path are delighted to find traces in distant parts of his reputation for generosity and learning. His modesty and enthusiasm have greatly helped him to advance his subject. His approach is concrete, and he is sceptical of large generalisations: 'It is the same way in which a scholar who is also a yachtsman may know that particular voyages ascribed to earlier sailors ... could never have been undertaken, either because they were beyond the sailing capacity of such ships as then existed or would have been rendered impossible by prevailing winds or currents whose existence is not apparent from modern maps. Inspired guesses induced by this rather concrete approach have given me as much pleasure as anything else in my studies ... ' - and he went on to cite his observation that the number of small gold pieces in the Sutton Hoo ship treasure, 37 coins and 3 blanks, equalled exactly the number of the forty oarsmen needed to row the boat and so may have been designed to provide a passage for each to the underworld (no. 206, 47; see nos. 176, 187). Thus he sometimes takes more pride in his minor brilliancies than in his major works; and it is this combination of modesty and enthusiasm which helps to explain how deeply conversations with younger numismatists - especially those who have been in Cambridge in his teaching years - have fructified the work of a younger generation, many of whom are contributors to this volume.

XIV

PHILIP GRIERSON

Thus, indirectly, he has made important contributions to British numismatics and to Britain he has 'dedicated a scatter of his articles and studies; and the Syl/oge of early British and Anglo-Saxon coins in the Fitzwilliam Museum (no. 8), which set the pattern for the British Academy's Syl/oge project, is one of his most remarkable achievements. For the rest, he has left Britain to his colleagues; but among the numismatists of Continental Europe, of the east and west, he is a unique phenomenon. Numismatists in other fields have equalled his technical contributions to one series; but no one has shown equal mastery of the monetary, economic, historical and technical aspects of the subject combined in a single view. Nor is it easy to think of anyone who has had such a wide and perceptive grasp of the whole subject outside his specialist period. His small Numismatics (no. 12) has an admirable, concise survey of non-European coinage; he has a good working knowledge of Greek, Roman, Islamic and modern European and world-wide coinage, His comparative knowledge is without rival, and this extra perspective infuses all his work. It is the combination of collector, numismatist and historian which explains the special character of his achievement. This book reflects the width of his interests, and is drawn from a small selection of his many friends; it concentrates on aspects of numismatic method, which has been one of his most characteristic concerns. In it we try to express, in the currency appropriate to friends and disciples, our homage. Note: This brief study is based on personal knowledge and is a small token of a deep admiration and affection. We are also indebted to notes provided by Philip Grierson himself, to the interview with him printed in The Caian, 1978, 33-55 (no. 206: the quotations on xi, xii, xv, above are from The Caian nos. 34,41-42,47), and to the help of several colleagues and friends, especially 1. G. Pollard and T. R. Yolk. Quotations from his own work are cited by the number in the Bibliography in bold type.

Bibliography

xv

A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE WRITINGS OF PHILlP GRIERSON

This bibliography ignores reviews and a few ephemeral publications, and has the materials arranged in three groups, of books, pamphlets, and articles. The order is that of the printed date of publication. The place of publication for books is London unless otherwise indicated. The periodicals which are cited on three or more occasions are shown with abbreviated titles.

BOOKS

I937 I Les annales de Saint-Pierre de Gand et de Saint-Amand (Commission royale d'histoire de Belgique), Brussels I943 2

Books on Soviet Russia, 1917-1942. A bibliography and a guide to reading, London (reprinted, Twickenham, I969)

I95 2 3 F. L. Ganshof, Feudalism, translated by Philip Grierson, Foreword by Sir F. M. Stenton, F.B.A., London (2nd edition, New York I96I) 4 C. W. Previte-Orton, The shorter Cambridge medieval history, edited by Philip Grierson, 2 vols., Cambridge I954 5 Coins and medals. A select bibliography (Historical Association, Helps for Students of History 56) 6 Herbert E. Ives, The Venetian gold ducat and its imitations, edited and annotated by Philip Grierson (Numismatic Notes and Monographs I28), New York (published I955) I95 6 7 Studies in Italian medieval history presented to Miss E. M. Jamison, edited by Philip Grierson and John Ward Perkins (Papers of the British School at Rome XXIV) I95 8 8 Sylloge of coins of the British Isles. Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, Part i. Ancient British and Anglo-Saxon coins I9 66 9 Bibliographie numismatique (Cercle d'Etudes Numismatiques, Travaux rr), Brussels (see also no. 17) I9 68 IO

Catalogue of the Byzantine coins in the Dumbarton Oaks and in the Whittemore Collection, vol. rr, Parts i and ii, Phocas to Theodosius Ill, 602-717, Washington, D.C.

xvi

PHILIP GRIERSON

1973 II

Catalogue 0/ the Byzantine coins in the Dumbarton Oaks and in the Whittemore Collection, vol. Ill, Parts i and ii, Leo III to Nicephorus Ill, 717-1081, Washington, D.C.

1975 12

Numismatics

1976 13 Monnaies du moyen age, Fribourg (also German edition, Munzen des Mittelalters) 14 Monnaies et monnayage. Introduction a la numismatique, edition francaise par Cecile Morrisson, Paris (a translation of Numismatics, 1975) 1979 15 Dark Age numismatics. Reprints of 29 articles with 13 pp. of addenda and corrigenda. The reprinted materials are marked in this bibliography by DAN followed by a roman number for the particular section of the book. 16 Late medieval numismatics (I Ith-16th centuries). Reprints of 22 articles The reprinted materials are indicated in this bibliography as LMN followed by a roman number for the particular section of the book. 17 Bibliographie numismatique, 2nd edition (Cercle d'Etudes Numismatiques, Travaux IX), Brussels PAMPHLETS

195 1 18 Numismatics and history (Historical Association, General Series, G.19) 197 2 19 English linear measures, an essay in origins (The University of Reading, The Stenton Lecture, 1971), Reading 1973 20

Byzantine coinage, Exhibition at Dumbarton Oaks (anonymous pamphlet of 16 pp.), Washington, D.C.

1977 21

22

The origins o/money (The University of London, The Creighton Lecture in History, 1970). Translated into Danish by J. Sten Jensen as 'Pengevae senets oprindelse' in separately paginated supplements to Montsamlernyt, 8 iirgang, 7-10, 1977, with illustrations. The lecture has been reprinted, with a few corrections, in Research in economic anthropology I, ed. G. Dalton, Greenwich, Conn. 1978, 1-35 Les monnaies, Typologie des sources du moyen age occidental XXI, Turnhout

xvii

Bibliography ARTICLES

1934 23 Rostagnus of Aries and the pallium, EHR XLIX, 74-83 24 Hugues de Saint-Bertin: etait-il archichapelain de Charles le Chauve?, MA3

XLIV,

241-251

1935 25 Eudes ler eveque de Beauvais, MA3

XLV,

161-198

193 6 26 A visit of Earl Harold to Flanders in 1056, EHR LI, 90-97 27 The early abbots of St Peter's of Ghent, RBen XLVIII, 129-146 1937 28 The early abbots of St Bavo's of Ghent, RBen XLIX, 29-61 29 The translation of the relics of St Donatian to Bruges, RBen

XLIX,

170-190

1938 30 La maison d'Evrard de Frioul et les origines du comte de Flandre, Revue du Nordxxlv, 241-266 1939

3 I The identity of the unnamed fiscs in the' Brevium exempla ad describendas res ecciesiasticas et fiscales', RBPH XVIII, 437-461 32 L'Origine des Comtes d'Amiens, Valois et Vexin, MA3 X-XLIX (continuous), 81-125 33 The translation of the relics of St Amalberga to St Peter's of Ghent, RBen, LI, 292-315 1940 34 35 36 37

Les livres de l'Abbe Seiwold de Bath, RBen LII, 96-rr6 La bibliotheque de St Vaast d'Arras au xn e siecie, RBen LII, 117-140 Abbot Fulco and the date of the 'Gesta abbatum Fontanellensium', EHR Grimbald of St Bertin, EHR LV, 529-561

LV,

275-284

1941 38 The relations between England and Flanders before the Norman conquest, THS4 XXIII, 71 - I 12 (see no. I71) 39 Election and inheritance in early Germanic kingship, The Cambridge Historical Journal VII, 1-22 194 6 40 Books and pamphlets on Russia, 1942-45, SEER XXIV, 133-147 41 Z. N. Brooke: a memoir, The Caian LI, 95-105 42 An abbreviated version of no. 41, printed in The Cambridge Review January 1947), 196- 1 98

XLVIII,

no. 1659 (18

1947 43 Books and pamphlets on Russia, 1946-47 (sic, in error for 1945-46), SEER xxv (1946-:-7), 508-5 1 7

xviii

PHILIP GRIERSON

44 Bibliography of Professor C. W. Previte-Orton, Litt.D., F.B.A., The Cambridge Historical Journal IX (1947---9), 118-119 45 Errata attribuzione alla zecca di Mileto, Numismatica XIII, 119 1948 46 The present position of medieval studies in England, BIHR XXIII (1946-8), 101-106 47 Books and pamphlets on Russia, 1947, SEER XXVI (1947-8), 512-518 48 Earlier medieval history, 500-1200, Annual Bulletin of Historical Literature XXXII (Publications of the year 1946), 12-16 49 Earlier medieval history, 500- I 200, Annual Bulletin ofHistorical Literature XXXIII (Publications of the year 1947), 11-16 50 Ein unediertes 'Kopfchen' von Arnold 11. von Randerath (1290-1331), Hamburger Beitriige zur Numismatik I-ii (1947-8), 68-69 51 La collezione numismatica del Museo Civico di Pavia, Bollettino della Societa Pavese di Storia Patria N.S. 11,111-114 52 Three unpublished coins of Zeno, NC" VIII, 223-226 1949 53 Earlier medieval history, 500- I 200, Annual Bulletin ofHistorical Literature XXXIV (Publications of the year 1948), 13-19 54 Books and pamphlets on Russia, 1948, SEER XXVII (1948-9), 556-562 1950 55 56 57 58 59 60

La numismatique et l'histoire, Revue de rUniversite de Bruxelles N.S. 11, 23 1-248 Books and pamphlets on Russia, 1949, SEER XXVIII (1949-50), 486-492 Dated solidi of Maurice, Phocas and Heraclius, NC" X, 49-70 The consular coinage of 'Heraclius' and the revolt against Phocas of 608-610, NC" A barbarous North African solidus of the late seventh century, NC6 X, 301-305 A follis of Nicephorus Bryennius (?), NC" X, 305-311

X,

71-93

195 1 61 62 63 64 65 66

Oboli di Muse', EHR LXVI, 75-81 (LMN vii) Books and pamphlets on Russia, 1950, SEER XXIX (1950-1), 550-557 Un denier d'Henri 11 d'Allemagne frappe it Dinant, RBNS XCVII, 117-119 The gold solidus of Louis the Pious and its imitations, JMP XXXVIII, 1-41 (DAN xxii) The Isaurian coins of Heraclius, NC" XI, 56-67 (with C. Brooke) Round halfpennies of Henry I, BNJ XXVI, 286-289

195 2 67 The dating of the Sutton Hoo coins, Antiquity XXVI, 83-86 68 The coronation of Charlemagne and the coinage of Pope Leo Ill, RBPH XXX, 825-833 (DAN xx) 69 Pegged Venetian coin dies; their place in the history of die adjustment, NC" XII, 99-105 1953 70 Report on medieval numismatics from 1930 to 1952, Congres International de Numismatique (Paris, 6-11 July 1953), I: Rapports, Paris, 55-101

Bibliography

XiX

71 The Canterbury (St Martin's) hoard of Frankish and Anglo-Saxon coin-ornaments, BNJ XXVII, 39-51 (DAN vi) 72 La trouvaille monetaire d'Ilanz, Gazette Numismatique Suisse IV, 46--48 (DAN xvi) 73 Visigothic metrology, NC6 XIII, 74-87 (DAN xii) 74 A new Anglo-Saxon solidus, NCS XIII, 88-91 (DAN vii) 75 A new Isaurian coin of Heraclius, NCS XIII, 145-146 76 A Byzantine hoard from North Africa, NC6 XIII, 146--148 77 A stray from the Crondall Hoard, NC6 XIII, 148-149 78 Deux fausses monnaies venitiennes du moyen age, Gazette Numismatique Suisse IV, 86-90 1954 79 Cronologia delle riforme monetarie di Carlo Magno, RIN LVI, 65-79 (DAN xvii) 80 Carolingian Europe and the Arabs: the myth of the mancus, RBPH XXXII, 1059-1074 (DAN iii) 81 Nomisma, tetarteron et dinar: un plaidoyer pour Nicephore Phocas, RBNS c, 75-84 82 The debasement of the bezant in the eleventh century, Byzantinische Zeitschrift XLVII, 379-394 83 Zum Ursprung der karolingischen Goldpriigung in Nordwest-Europa, Hamburger Beitriige zur Numismatik 11.8 (1952-4), 199-206 (DAN xxi) 84 A rare Crusader bezant with the Christ us vincit legend, ANS-MN VI, 169-178 (LMN ix) 85 Le sou d'or d'Uzes, MA4 IX-LX (continuous), 293-309 (DAN xxiv) 86 Problemi monetari dell'alto medioevo, Bollettino della Societa Pavese di Storia PatriaLv, 67-82 (DAN i) 1955 87 The thirty pieces of silver and coins of Rhodes, NCirc LXIII, 422 88 Una ceca bizantina en Espafia, Numario Hispanico IV, 305-314 89 The Kyrenia girdle of Byzantine medallions and solidi, NCS XV, 55-70 195 6 90 The Roman law of counterfeiting, in Essays in Roman coinage presented to Harold Mattingly (ed. R. A. G. Carson, C. H. V. Sutherland), Oxford, 240-261 9 I A note on the stamping of coins and other objects, in A history of technology 11 (ed. C. Singer, E. J. Holmyard, A. R. Hall, and T. I. Williams), Oxford, 485-492 92 The Salernitan coinage of Gisulf 11 (1052-77) and Robert Guiscard (1077-85), in Studies in Italian medieval history presented to Miss E. M. Jamison (ed. P. Grierson and J. Ward Perkins), Papers of the British School at Rome XXIV, 37-59 (LMN ii) 93 The silver coinage of the Lombards, Archivio storico lombard0 8 VI, 130-140 (DAN xiv) 94 I grossi 'senatoriali' di Roma, 1253-1363, I. Dal 1253 al 1282, RIN LVIII 36--69 1957 95 On some fol1es of Heraclius and the location of George of Pisidia's ITYAAI, Seaby's Coin and Medal Bulletin, 98 96 Mint output in the tenth century, EHR2 IX (1956--7), 462-466 97 The debasement of the nomisma in the XI century, Congres International de Numismatique (Paris, 6-1 I July 1953),11: Actes, Paris, 297-298 (a summary of no. 82) 98 La moneta veneziana nell'economia mediterranea del Trecento e Quattrocento, in La civilta veneziana del Quattrocento (Fondazione Cini), Florence, 75-97 (LMN xii)

xx

PHI LIP GRIERSON

99 The coin list of Pegolotti, in Studi in onore di Armando Sapori I, Milan, 483-492 (LMN xi) 100 (with A. H. M. lones and l. A. Crook), The authenticity of the Testamentum S. Remigii, RBPH xxxv, 356-373 101 The dates of the' Livre des Mestiers' and its derivatives, RBPH xxxv, 778-783 (LMN xiv) 102 La monetazione salernitana di Gisulfo 11 (1052-1077) e di Roberto il Guiscardo (1077-1085), Bollettino del Circolo Numismatico Napoletano XLII, 9-44 (translation of no. 92) 103 Halfpennies and third-pennies of King Alfred, BNJ XXVIII (1955-7), 477-493 104 The Eagle Crown: a gold coin of the minority of lames V of Scotland, BNJ XXVIII (1955-7), 65 6- 658 195 8 105 The Roman tombs at Vasa. Appendix 11: The coins, in Report of Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 1940-1948, 61-67 106 Some modern forgeries of Carolingian coins, in Centennial publication of the Amtrican Numismatic Society (ed. H. Ingholt), New York, 303-315 (DAN xxviii) 1959 107 GonviIle and Caius College, in A history of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely III (Victoria History of the Counties of England), 356-362 108 Commerce in the Dark Ages: a critique of the evidence, THS5 IX, 123-140. This work was summarised, without the notes, in The Pirenne thesis: analysis, criticism and revision (ed. A. F. Havighurst), Lexington, Mass. 1969,90-96 and again slightly revised in the 3rd edition, Lexington, Mass. 1975, 146-159. The article was reprinted in full in Studies in economic anthropology (ed. G. Dalton) (Anthropological Studies VII), Washington, D.e. 1971,74-93, and DAN ii 109 Ercole d'Este and Leonardo da Vinci's equestrian statue of Francesco Sforza, Italian Studies XIV, 40/48 (LMN xvii) IIO The Tablettes Albertini and the value of the solidus in the fifth and sixth centuries AD, JRS XLIX, 73-80 (DAN iv) I I I The' Patrimonium Petri in illis partibus' and the pseudo-imperial coinage in Frankish Gaul, RBNS CV, 95-II I II2 Matasuntha or Mastinas: a reattribution, NC6 XIX 119-130 I 13 Solidi of Phocas and Heraclius: the chronological framework, NC6 XIX, 13 1-154 114 Venray 1957, JMP XLVI, 102 19 60 115 Comments on 'Two unpublished Byzantine coins', The Numismatist, LXXIII, 147-149 II6 The monetary reforms of 'Abd al-Malik: their metrological basis and their financial repercussions, Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 111,241-264 (DAN xv) I 17 Una moneta d'argento inedita di Teoderico il Grande, Numismatica N .S. I, I 13- I 15 (DAN v) 19 61 118 Monete bizantine in Italia dal VII all'XI secolo, Moneta e scambi nelralto medioevo (Spoleto, 1-27 April 1960). SSAM VIII, 35-55; discussione, 123-163 119 La fonction sociale de la monnaie en Angleterre aux VIIe-VIIle siecles, SSAM VIII, 341-362 (discussione 363-385) (DAN xi)

Bibliography

xxi

120 Coinage and money in the Byzantine Empire, 498-c. 1090, SSAM VIII, 411-453 121 Sterling, in Anglo-Saxon coins. Studies presented to F. M. Stenton on the occasion of his 80th birthday, 17 May 1960 (ed. R. H. M. Dolley), 266-283 (LMN vi) 122 Notes on the fineness of the Byzantine solidus, Byzantinische Zeitschrift UV, 91-97 123 Coins monetaires et officines a l'epoque du Bas-Empire, Gazette Numismatique Suisse XI (1961-2), 1-7 124 The date of the Dumbarton Oaks Epiphany medallion, DOP XV, 221-224 19 62 125 Tetarteron or counterfeit? A note on Mr Uzman's coin, NCirc LXX, 53 126 Die alterations and imperial beards: a note on the early solidi of Constans 11 and Justinian 11, NCirc LXX, 159-160 127 Kiurike I or Kiurike 11 of Lori-Armenia? A note on attributions, ANS-MN X, 107-112 128 A tremissis of the Suevic King Audeca (584-5), Estudos de Castelo Branco, VI, 7-12 (DAN xiii). Translated into Portuguese by L. Pinto Garcia as 'Urn tremissis do rei suevo Audeca (584-5)', Moeda III-ii 19n 27-33 129 An unrecognised florin of Charles the Bad, Count of Evreux and King of Navarre, RN6 IV, 18 7- 192 130 (with R. J. H. Jenkins), The date of Constantine VII's coronation, Byzantion XXXII, 153- I 58 131 Numismatics and the historian (Presidential Address, Royal Numismatic Society), NC7 11, i-xiv (LMN xviii) 132 The tombs and obits of the Byzantine emperors (537-1042), DOP XVI, 1-60, with an additional note by Cyril Mango and Ihor Sevcenko, 61-63 19 6 3 Mint output in the time of Offa, NCirc LXXI, 114-115 (DAN xxv) Carat-grains and grains in 16th century assaying, NCirc LXXI, 139 Some aspects of the coinage of Offa, NCirc LXXI, 223-225 (DAN xxvi) La cronologia della monetazione consolare di Eraclio, Numismatica, N.S. IV, 99-102. The authenticity of the York 'thrymsas', BNJ XXXI, 8-10 (DAN viii) The miliaresion of Leo Ill, NCirc LXXI, 247 A misattributed miliaresion of Basil 11, Recueil des travaux de rlnstitut tf Etudes Byzantines VIII, Melanges G. Ostrogorsky I, Belgrade, I I 1-116 140 La date des monnaies d'or de Louis le Pieux, MAt XVIII (continuous, LXIX) 67-74 (DANxxiii) 141 A new triens of Reccared (586-601) of the mint of Calapa, NC7 Ill, 81-82 142 Coin wear and the frequency table (Presidential Address, Royal Numismatic Society), NC7 Ill, i-xvi (LMN xix) 133 134 135 136 137 138 139

19 64 143 Les foyers de culture en Angleterre au haut moyen age, in Centri e vie di irradiazione della civilta nell'alto medioevo (Spoleto, 18-23 April 1963), SSAM XI 279-285 144 A coin of the Emperor Phocas with the effigy of Maurice, NC7 IV, 247-250 145 Weight and coinage (Presidential Address, Royal Numismatic Society), NC7 IV, iii-xvii (LMN xx) 146 The origins of the English sovereign and the symbolism of the closed crown, BNJ XXXIII, 118-134

xxii

PHILIP GRIERSON

19 65 147 Trace elements in Byzantine copper coins of the 6th and 7th centuries, in Dona Numismatica Waiter Hiivernick zum 23. Januar 1965 dargebracht, Hamburg, 29-35 148 HENRICVS IMP or ALBRICVS PRINCIPS. A note on the supposed denaro of Pope Leo IX (1049-54) and Henry Ill, Numismatiska Meddelanden xxx, 51-56 (DAN xxix) 149 Le gillat ou carlin de Naples-Provence: le rayonnement de son type monetaire, in Centenaire de la Societe Frans:aise de Numismatique, 1865-1965 (catalogue de l'exposition a I'Hotel de la Monnaie, Paris 1965) Paris, 43-56 (LMN xiii) 150 The Great King, Charlemagne and the Carolingian achievement, in The Dark Ages (ed. D. Talbot Rice), 169-298 151 Coinage and currency (The declining Roman Empire 11), The Listener LXXIV, 656--659 152 A supposed Byzantine coin-die, NCirc LXXIII, 232 153 Money and coinage under Charlemagne, in Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und Nachleben (ed. W. Braunfels), I. Personlichkeit und Geschichte (ed. H. Beumann), Diisseldorf, 501 -536 (DAN xviii) 154 Two Byzantine coin hoards of the 7th and 8th centuries at Dumbarton Oaks, DOP XIX, 207-228 155 The interpretation of coin finds, I (Presidential Address, Royal Numismatic Society), Ne' v, i-xiii (LMN xxi) 156 The copper coinage of Leo III (717-41) and Constantine V (720--75); Ne' v, 183-196 19 66 157 From solidus to hyperperon: the names of Byzantine gold coins, NCirc LXXIV, 123-124 158 (with M. Thompson), The monogram of Charlemagne in Greek A NS-MN XII, 125-127 (DAN xix) 159 Byzantine gold bullae, with a catalogue of those at Dumbarton Oaks, DOP XX, 239-253 160 Harald Hardrada and Byzantine coin types in Denmark, Byzantinische Forschungen I, 124- I 38 (LMNv) 161 The interpretation of coin finds, 2 (Presidential Address, Royal Numismatic Society), Ne' VI, i-xv (LMN xxii) 162 Entries in Chambers's Encyclopedia I, Amsterdam, History; Antwerp, History; Artevelde, Jacob van; Artevelde, Philip van; Artois, History. 11, Belgium, History, The Middle Ages; Brabant; Bruges, History; Brussels, History; Burgundy. Ill, Charles the Bold. IV, Dauphine. v, Emden, History; Flanders, History; Franche-Comte. VI, Ghent, History; Groningen, History; Hainault, History. VII, Holland, History. VIII, John (Jean sans Peur); Liege, History; Limburg, History; Luxembourg, History (medieval). IX, Namur, History; Netherlands, History (medieval). X, Philip, the Bold; Philip, the Good. XI, Provence, History. XIV, Utrecht, History 19 67 163 The volume of Anglo-Saxon coinage, Economic History Review 2 XX, 153-160 (DAN xxvii) 164 The gold and silver coinage of Basil 11, ANS-MN XIII, 167-187 165 Byzantine numismatics, in A survey of numismatic research, 1960--1965 11: Medieval and oriental numismatics (ed. K. Skaare, G. C. Miles), Copenhagen (International Numismatic Commission), 52-62

Bibliography

xxiii

166 The monetary reforms of Anastasius and their economic consequences, in The patterns of monetary development in Phoenicia and Palestine in antiquity (ed. A. Kindler) (International Numismatic Convention, Jerusalem, 27-31 December 1963), Jerusalem, 183-301 167 Anomalous pentanummia of Justin I, NCirc LXXV, 234 168 Coinage in the Cely Papers, in Miscellanea mediaevalia in memoriam Jan Frederik Niermeyer, Groningen, 379-407 (LMN xv) 169 Byzantine coins as source material (Main Paper x), in Proceedings of the XIlIth International Congress ofByzantine Studies (Oxford, 5- IQ Septembefl966)(ed. J. M. Hussey, D. Obolensky, S. Runciman), Oxford, 317-333 170 Victor Tourneur (obituary notice), Compte-rendu de la Commission Internationale de Numismatique XIV, 27-28 1968 171 The relations between England and Flanders before the Norman conquest, Essays in medieval history selectedfrom the Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (ed. R. W. Southern), 61-92 (a revised and abbreviated version of no. 38) 172 A follis of Leo III from officina r, NCirc LXXVI, 260 173 Variations in die-output, NCirc LXXVI, 298-299 174 Un gros tournois de Borculo, BCEN v, 106-108 1969- 197 0 175 Entries in Encyclopedia Americana. x, Einhard. XII, Fritigern; Gaiseric. XIV, Heruli; Huns. XVII, Lothair; Lothair I (Frankish Emperor); Lotharingia; Louis 11, King of the Western Franks; Louis Ill, King of the Western Franks; Louis IV, King of France; Louis V, King of France; Louis I, Frankish Emperor; Louis 11, Frankish Emperor; Louis Ill, Frankish Emperor; Louis, King of the East Franks; Louis (younger) King of the East Franks; Louis (the child) King of the East Franks 176 The purpose of the Sutton Hoo coins, Antiquity XLIV, 14-18 (DAN ix) 197 1 177 The monetary pattern of sixteenth century coinage (The Prothero Lecture, 1970), THS· 45-60 (LMN xvi) 178 Nummi scyphati. The story of a misunderstanding, NC7 XI, 253-260

XXI,

197 2 179 Numismatic commentary (pp. 235-236) on T. Padfield, Analysis of Byzantine copper coins by X-ray methods, Methods of chemical and metallurgical investigation of ancient coinage (ed. E. T. Hall and D. M. Metcalf) (R.N.S. Special Publication no. VIII) 180 (with G. T. Griffith), H. T. Deas (obituary notice) The Caian, 54-57 181 La cronologia della monetazione salernitana nel secolo XI, RIN LXXIV, 153-165 (LMN iii) 182 The origins of the grosso and of gold coinage in Italy, Numismaticky Sbornik XII (1971-2), 33-44 (discussion 44-48) (LMN x) 183 Notes on early Tudor coinage, BNJ XLI (published 1974), 80--94. I. King Henry VII's dandyprats. 2. Erasmus's lead tokens. 3. The proclamation of 5 July 1504 and its implications. 4. The origin of the portrait groats. 5. The' gold pence' of the proclamation of 1505

xxiv

PHILIP GRIERSON

1973 184 Byzantine numismatics, in A survey of numismatic research 1966-1971, 11. Medieval and oriental numismatics (ed. 1. Yvon, H. W. Mitchell Brown), New York (International Numismatic Commission), 3-21 1974 185 La lettre R au revers de folles de Justinien 11, BCEN XI, 30--32 186 Muslim coins in thirteenth-century England, in Near Eastern numismatics, iconography, epigraphy and history. Studies in honor of George C. Miles (ed. D. K. Kouymjian), Beirut, 387-391 (LMN viii) 187 The Sutton Hoo coins again, Antiquity XLVIII, 139-140 (DAN x) 188 A new early follis type of Leo III (718), Ne' XIV (published 1975), 75-77 189 (with W. A. Oddy), Le titre du tari sicilien du milieu du XIe siecle it 1278, RN'l XVI (published 1975) 12 3- 134 190 A new Audulfus Frisia triens, JMP LX/LXI 1973-74 (published 1977), 153-156 1975 191 The European heritage, in Ancient cosmologies (ed. Carmen Blacker and Michael Loewe), 225-258 192 The monograms on late sixth-century pentanummia of Antioch, NCirc LXXXIII, 5 193 The date and fineness of Byzantine' neatly-clipped' tracha, NCirc LXXXIII 58 194 La date des 'baudekins' de Marguerite de Constantinople, BCEN XII, 7-8 195 Une trouvaille imaginaire: le tresor de Cuenca, BSFN XXX, 810--812 197 6 196 Nicephorus Bryennius or Nicephorus Basilacius? NCirc LXXXIV, 2-3 197 Heraclius's half-follis, Class 4: an anomalous type, NCirc LXXXIV, 51 198 Numismatics, in Medieval studies: an introduction (ed. J. M. Powell), Syracuse, N.Y., 103-150 (LMNi) 199 Symbolism in early medieval charters and coins, in Simboli e simbologia nell'alto medioevo (Spoleto, 3-9 April 1975), SSAM XXIII 2, 601-630 (discussione, 631-640) 200 La signification de De Clementia et les formules semblables sur les monnaies medievales, BSFN XXXI,2-4 1977 201 La monetazione amalfitana nei secoli XI e XII, in Amalfi nel medioevo, Atti del convegno internazionale (Salerno, 14-16 June 1973), 215-243 (LMN iv) 202 A pattern nomisma of Basil 11 (976-1025), NCirc LXXXV, 97 203 Un denier carolingien de Saint-Bavon de Gand, BCEN XIV, 59-61 1978 204 Un denier de l'empereur Arnoul frappe it Milan en mars 896, BSFN XXXIII, 286-289 205 John Caius' Library, in Biographical history ofGonville and Caius College VII (ed. M. 1. Prichard and J. B. Skemp), Cambridge, 509-525 206 Some memories, The Caian, November 1978, 33-55

Bibliography

xxv

1979 207 Notes sobre les primeres amonedacions reials a Barcelona: els termes 'Bruneti', 'Bossonaya' i el Chronicon Barcinonensi, ID Symposium Numismatico de Barcelona (27-28 February) IT, 278- 28 7 208 Letter on 'The Moving Mint', NCirc LXXXVII 248 209 'Coniazione per dispetto' nell'Italia medievale, Quaderni Ticinesi di Numismatica e Antichita Classiche VIII, 345-358 1980 210 Byzantium and the Christian Levant, 717-1453, Coins. An illustrated survey 650 BC to the present day (ed. M. J. Price), 13
Introduction

The range of his learning, his searching curiosity, his flair for setting numismatic problems in their wider context have given Phi lip Grierson's contributions to numismatic method a particular significance. The contributors to this volume were, therefore, invited to submit papers which, whatever the details of the topic, would illustrate numismatic method and we are most grateful to them for the way in which they have responded. The papers are placed in the broad chronological order of the coinage discussed, beginning with the earliest issues of the Greek world and continuing to the close of the Middle Ages. The approaches which they illustrate include coining technology, the choice of types, the interpretation of find evidence, and the correlation of coins themselves with contemporary documents. The resulting volume does not pretend to be a complete exposition of the methods available to the student, but it is hoped that it will have a special usefulness in demonstrating current directions and techniques in the study of coinage. Perhaps the one general conclusion which the collection allows is the value of combining more than one method for the solution of a problem - a fitting tribute to the scholar to whom this volume is dedicated. The methods and technology of coin production provide one of the principal means for answering such basic questions as when and where a coinage was produced, and in what quantity. For many series the evidence of production is limited to what can be inferred from the specimens that survive. Spufford, however, is able to reconstruct from contemporary account books the organisation of Netherlandish mints during the fifteenth century. While strictly appropriate to the circumstances of late medieval coins and to mints organised along' factory' lines, incidental details, such as the provision of dies, are relevant to coining at other periods. Indeed, in the absence of mint documents, it is the study of dies that often best informs a discussion of chronology, mint attribution, and size of issue. Such were the methods for manufacturing most ancient and medieval coins that the products of particular dies can usually be identified by close comparison of the surviving specimens. From die assemblages of two Hellenistic series, one large, the other oflesser importance, M0rkholm notes how individual dies could under certain xxvi

Introduction

xxvii

circumstances be held available over relatively long periods. Such extended die-life suggests that flexibility may be required in determining the relative date of die-linked coins. Shared dies among coins of two issues in the Carolingian series are noted, too, by Lafaurie and Bernareggi, and the question is put whether such linkages, which occur through one face only, may be evidence for use in each case of a single mint. This would require a revised interpretation of the various town-names, the characteristic type of both series and otherwise taken as mint signatures. Establishing the number of dies employed in a coinage is also a more efficient means of calculating the size of issue than simply counting the coins that chance to survive. So, Berghaus suggests that a controversial imperial issue of Duisburg, though known from only eight specimens, may have been a relatively substantial coinage. This belies its supposedly commemorative function. On the other hand, recognition of die identities among coins comprising a single hoard leads Lallemand to infer the limited currency role of a particular denomination. Die studies are not, however, always appropriate, either from the poor condition of the coins or from the disproportionate labour in the collection and analysis of the material. In these cases, inferences from fabric, the facture of the uncoined blank, the composition of the metal, and the weight of the struck coin, are especially useful. Detailed study of the fabrics and especially of the metrology of the Crete/Cyrenaica bronze series under the Roman Republic and early Empire, in conjunction with other arguments, enables Buttrey not only to demonstrate the denominational system, but to suggest the relative chronology of the constituent issues. The stylistic homogeneity shown by some of the dies in this series, here not supported by shared usage, is gainsaid as evidence for centralised minting by the use of flans of a fabric distinctive to each part of this sometime joint province. Flan size is also shown by Buttrey to be on occasion a more reliable indicator of denomination than the very variable weights registered for particular issues. Variations in the weights of the several Carolingian gold coinages contained in the Ilanz hoard are considered by Bernareggi to indicate the acceptability, in certain circumstances, of a metrological range even among coins of precious metal. Scientific assays of their gold content are, however, lacking. The imprecision of non-destructive metal analysis is brought out by Metcalf in his study of the Merovingian silver coinage. Beyond. any 'economic' inferences, the method is potentially useful as a chronological control and as evidence for the use of distinguishable metal sources. How the' state' might enhance the face-value of a coinage by the use of alloyed metal and of differential weights and the effects of these on circulation are considered by Suchodolski, interpreting the Carolingian documents that also serve as the basis for Lafaurie's study. Finally, a particular class of fabric, the recognition of which is of special importance in studies of coin circulation, comprises re-used earlier issues. For Buttrey, the appearance of cut coins in the Cyrenaica provides a striking parallel with contemporary practice in the western provinces of the Roman Empire following Augustus' reform of the metropolitan coinage, while Morrisson demonstrates the methods and circumstances by which countermarked coins of the early Roman Empire were accommodated to the currency of sixth-century North Africa and Italy. Apart from its immediate physical characteristics, a coin's most easily distinguishable

xxviii

Introduction

features are its types - designs and inscriptions. The first requirement is, therefore, a correct reading. Berghaus bases his close examination of the Duisburg issue on a study of the individual dies. Types, their local associations, their continuity from earlier issues, and their imitation of the contemporary metropolitan coinage, are one of the principal means by which Buttrey is able to impose order on the apparently inchoate material that comprises the Crete/Cyrenaica coinage. In addition to confirming the evidence of circulation and metrology for the denominations and chronology of the series, analysis of the coin types distinguishes the issues intended for each half of the joint province. The typology and occasion of imitation in general is considered by Stewart in a detailed account of the influence of Scottish types on Continental coinage, and the particular example of imitation of English sterling in northern Germany is noted by Hatz. On the other hand the danger of over-refinement in assessing the smallest features of types, such as privy-marks, is emphasised by Blunt in demonstrating from contemporary mint indentures and the surviving coins that in the English medieval series such marks cannot be rigidly related, as previously proposed, to the periodic trials of the Pyx. On occasion, however, varieties and even changes of main type have undoubtedly an administrative purpose, as Carson notes for the Roman imperial series and Lafaurie and Dolley infer for the early Middle Ages. The significance of types, especially those of ancient coins, has long attracted scholarly attention and controversy. The limited perception of the Roman imperial currency by its contemporary users is argued by Crawford. After surveying the notices and appreciations of coins and other material remains given by ancient authors, he concludes that the only important element in a type was to identify the issuing authority. Price re-considers the nature of the authority whose types and inscriptions appear on the earliest Greek coins, suggesting their personal rather than official or state character. For Bernareggi, however, the significance of the legends on the Carolingian gold coins in the Ilanz hoard is straight-forwardly political, though he doubts their role as currency. Finally, the many 'signatures' that occur on a particular Norman series of the second half of the eleventh century are identified by Dumas, not as the names of moneyers, but as those of ducal officers effectively usurping the right of coinage. One of the numismatist's principal tools is the study of coin finds. Various classes of find are therefore either the object of specific studies or a point of departure for other contributions. Price emphasises the need to consider the whole archaeological context in which finds of coins are made. The value of single-finds in describing the area of a coinage's circulation is argued by Buttrey and Morrisson, the former inferring from the narrow circulation of bronze the attribution of the Crete/Cyrenaica series. The value of hoards not only in providing a chronological framework for undated issues, but also in determining the structure and articulation of given series is illustrated by Cars on from the favourable circumstance of a relatively large number of hoards from a single century. In particular, they serve to distinguish substantive coinages from the secondary, often commemorative, issues of the Roman series and to authenticate the regular coins from the irregular. Carson's reflections on possible monetary, rather than violent, reasons for depositing individual hoards provide a useful introduction to Lallemand's study

Introduction

xxix

comparing the composition of hoards concealed in Belgium during the last quarter of the fourth century AD with the occurrence of contemporary coins among Belgian site-finds. Another concentration of finds, mainly hoards, from a closely defined geographical area enables Hatz to identify trade and tribute payments as alternative reasons for the arrival of considerable numbers of English coins in Schleswig-Holstein between the eighth and fourteenth centuries. Hoards also define the problems posed by the Norman series whose legends are studied by Dumas, both by dating them and by providing an indication of the size of issue. Other hoards are remarkable for being limited largely, or exclusively, to single issues, a characteristic of periods in which the currency was subject to demonetisation or withdrawals. Lafaurie adduces the restricted composition of Carolingian hoards to explain the currency regulations fragmentarily preserved in ninth-century documents, while Dolley interprets the disappearance of periodic recoinage in England as the outcome of JElfred's monetary policy. Single hoards are the subject of papers by Bernareggi and Hendy. The Ilanz gold hoard, studied by the former, is one of those exceptional finds which has provided us with a good sample of a coinage otherwise virtually unknown. The apparently random number (786) of coins in Hendy's late Byzantine hoard from Bulgaria proves to be an independently documented sum of money concealed on an identifiable occasion, an exceptional conjunction of circumstances for a coin hoard. Similar precision regarding the date of withdrawal, as well as some of the circumstances surrounding their acquisition, is, however, obtained in respect of Archibald's so-called 'paper' hoards, although these payments, booked by a Scottish agent in the Netherlands at the end of the fifteenth century, are markedly different in composition from the few contemporary gold coin hoards known from the same area. An aid largely denied the ancient numismatist comprises contemporary documents treating of coinage, either directly, as mint-records, or more broadly, as currency ordinances and notarial instruments. The information contained in such documents not otherwise to be inferred from the coins themselves may often supplement the material evidence br be explained by it. In yet other cases, the documents describe the social and economic background against which the function and behaviour of particular series or issues can best be understood. The late medieval French documents studied by Cocks haw illustrate the universal phenomenon of forgery, both for private gain and as unlicensed issues. In each case those responsible for the irregularity were either officers or workmen of properly constituted mints, but the product of their frauds, if it survives, cannot now be distinguished from the regular coinage. The important role of mint officials in the production of' forgeries' in the Carolingian empire is also inferred by Lafaurie, partly from the surviving ordinances, but also from the move to centralised control of minting attested independently by the die-links. Similarly, his re-interpretation of the same documents in the light of hoard evidence reveals a chronological framework for the ninth-century imperial coinage. The various ways in which classes of documentary evidence can be related to the numismatic material are discussed by Bisson in a detailed analysis of the sources for coinage at Barcelona in the early thirteenth century. Not only does the written record supply a coinage now wholly lacking from the numismatic corpus, but it documents public, or market, reaction to changes in the king's coining standard.

xxx

Introduction

The wider context necessary for a proper understanding of coinage is again revealed by Spufford's study of mints in the Netherlands. Beyond the details of coin manufacture, the documents provide indications of the place of mint officers and contractors both in the royal administration and in local society. An understanding of contemporary social structure is crucial, too, to Price's discussion of the very origins of coined money. Here, however, inferences have to be made from anthropological sources rather than documents. Social organisation and documentary evidence are finally combined by Cipolla in his demonstration from late medieval Genoa of how the study of coinage by itself must provide a partial account only of economic transactions.

1 Thoughts on the beginnings of coinage M. J. PRICE

It was probably almost twenty years ago that Phi lip Grierson turned my thoughts to the

problems involved in the first appearance of coined metal. Since then his pen has been responsible for many important papers in various numismatic fields; but for the ancient historian the publication of his Creighton Lecture l deserves particular attention. It brings together many different strands of evidence to concentrate on the origins of money, reminding us that history is in the first instance about people, a fact which is rarely evident in numismatic studies. In that lecture the question of the origin of coinage had to be passed over in favour of the broader, more basic problems of money itself; and I would like to take the opportunity offered by this volume of essays to explore this subject further, in deep admiration of Phi lip Grierson's contributions to many spheres of numismatic study. The broad picture of the development of the first coinage is well attested, although evidence for accurate chronology is sti11lacking. 2 The earliest context in which coins have been found is in the foundations of the archaic temple of Artemis at Ephesus, finally constructed, after three earlier 'phases', during the reign of Croesus of Lydia, 560-546/5 BC. The first structure built on the site consisted of two rectangular bases linked by a cross wall, and it is one of these, filled with votive offerings, which provides the earliest context for coins. The sides of that base apparently burst, and a retaining wall was thrown around the whole complex making a single rectangular platform for the second stage of the building. This was then extended to form the third stage, and the platform of the so-called' Croesus' temple was finally thrown over the whole to make the fourth stage. The only room for disagreement is in the absolute chronology accorded each stage of building, and here scholars have been vague. Hogarth 3 dismissed the evidence of the numismatist B. V. Head, and put the first building shortly before 700 BC. Gjerstadt,4 in answer to those who thought that all the structures were merely foundations of a single building, underlined the correctness of the archaeological evidence for the phases, but on no real evidence gave each stage a 25-year existence. Jacobsthal and Robinson,5 on I UP

2

M. J. PRICE

the more pragmatic grounds of the objects discovered in the original Basis deposit, decided that a date c. 600 BC must be about right for its construction, even though it had to be admitted that there were some probable sixth-century pieces present. 6 Neither stressed the remarkable similarity of objects found inside and outside the first structure; and their date too may have been influenced by the need to provide sufficient time for three buildings to rise and fall before the construction of the platform of the Croesus temple. In the deposits as reconstructed by Hogarth and Head, some of the latest coins were found in the earliest context (pI. I, nos. 1-4,8-10, depict some of the types found in the Artemisium). An electrum coin inscribed with the name Walwel was present in the original basis, from the same reverse punch die as one found outside. 7 This small coin was struck by only half the obverse die, which in its complete state depicted two lion heads facing inwards with the inscription down the centre (pI. I, no. 2). Stylistically it comes at the end of a long series with a single lion's head, uninscribed, which has been attributed to Sardes (pI. I, no. 7).8 Typologically it resembles the coins attributed to Croesus of the mid sixth century (pI. I, nos. 11-12); and, if the latter are rightly attributed,9 it is difficult indeed to see how the Walwel issue could be far removed from the time of Croesus. In the filling of the other base, also of the first building period, was found a coin with stag forepart type (pI. I, no. 4) which shows close affinities to the famous issue ofPhanes (pI. I, nos. 5-6),10 and in particular the manner in which the head and dappled coat of the stag have been engraved suggests the possibility that the coin found in the base is a fraction of that same issue. The exact date of the Phanes coins has not been established; but the reverse punches have been engraved with patterns, and this together with the presence of the inscription would suggest a date well after the striking of the first coins. Again it is difficult to see how such well-developed types could have been engraved 50 or more years before the time of Croesus. A sixth-century date seems to be necessary for this coin also. The commonest coins found throughout the four building periods are pieces with lion's head and the fractions with a type described as a lion's paw (pI. I, no. 8). These are as common in the Basis deposit as elsewhere,l1 and since the limited number of dies from which they were struck demands a rather short period of issue, it would be surprising indeed to find them apparently as fresh and little used as ever during the building of the fourth structure, if that took place 50 or more years after the construction of the first. It should be noted that there is no evidence of any architectural member from above the foundation level to be connected with the three earlier phases. It is possible, of course, that the buildings were constructed of wood; but the fact is that we know nothing of them except that the foundations existed, and that objects of a not dissimilar nature were enclosed with each phase. A further important fact to note is that the Artemisium was built on wet sand, and we know that the earliest builders experienced difficulties in raising the structure, since Pliny 12 tells us that Theodoros ofSamos was brought in - presumably after local builders had failed - to lay the foundations on charcoal and fleeces to prevent them from sinking. It should be suggested that the four building phases were in fact tentative steps towards a final structure. We know that the original basis collapsed, and

Thoughts on the beginnings of coinage

3

~

• 6

5

10

9

8

7

4

3

2

12

II

13

Plate

I

4

M. J. PRICE

in the marshy conditions this could have happened only a short time after its construction. The second phase might be attributed to Theodoros as a trial and the pot hoard discovered in this context, found at the bottom of an earth filling, may be a second foundation deposit complementing that found in the original basisP The third phase would then be an extension of that trial to form the foundations of the temple proper. At this point another of the traditions becomes meaningful. We are told 14 that the original scheme of the architect Chersiphron was enlarged and completed by his son; and this tradition could reflect the extension of the third phase to the final platform that had begun at least during Croesus' reign. 15 If this interpretation were correct, the original basis may have been constructed less than a lifetime before the temple attributed to Croesus was started. There may never have been three separate sanctuaries constructed before the final temple was erected; and a date as late as c. 575 could be given to the earliest Basis deposit. If that were so, the recent attempt to push back the origin of coinage into the early seventh century BC must be rejected,16 and even the 'traditional' date of c. 640, based on a late seventh-century date for the earliest deposits of the Artemisium at Ephesus, may prove to be too early. Or Weidauer's study of the dies of these early electrum coins shows how few were employed for any particular series, and at the same time her work emphasises how difficult it is to place the various series in a sequence. 17 It seems rather that there were several places of minting, each with fairly short series, rather than one or two mints producing a long sequence over a long period of time. Whatever the minting arrangements, if the Walwel coin and the fraction possibly associated with the Phanes stater are to be placed before 600 BC, there is very little coinage extant which may be attributed to the years immediately preceding Croesus. On the other hand, there is very little sign of development in technique and fabric between the earliest electrum pieces (e.g. pI. I, nos. 1-10) and coinage attributed to Croesus (e.g. pI. I, nos. 11-12), less indeed than in any hundred-year period of Greek coinage; and this alone makes a date before 650 BC extremely suspect. Changing types and stylised fabric continue to be a feature of the electrum coinage of Cyzicus, Mytilene, and Phocaea; but such aspects may have developed from the tradition of early electrum, and the distinction between the early electrum and silver coinage must be made. Apart from the Artemisium deposits, the only terminus ante quem is the earliest appearance in literature of a probable coin term,18 when Alcaeus was given 2,000 staters for military expenses early in the sixth century. All in all, a date in the last quarter of the seventh century, rather than in the third quarter or earlier, for the appearance of the earliest coins seems very probable. Silver dumps, flattened but not struck with a type, were found in the deposits from the Artemisium;19 but neither there, nor in the four main hoards of related electrum coins,20 were silver coins present. It appears that in the area of Lydia and Ionia, where the electrum coinage originated, no silver coinage was minted until the time of Croesus. 21 For at least 50 years electrum coins alone were struck, even though, as the Artemisium deposits show, ingots of silver, or indeed of gold, could be used beside the coins. This phenomenon requires some explanation, particularly when viewed against later practice. In the years after Croesus the minting of electrum was considerably restricted, and by the end of the sixth century the use of silver as a coin medium had virtually supplanted

Thoughts on the beginnings of coinage

5

electrum. The earliest electrum coins are found in western Asia Minor, in the general area in which they must have been minted. Their alloy, as far as has been ascertained,22 is extremely variable, although the weights are accurate, and the coins must therefore have been used at a fixed, generally accepted value. This in turn must have been no lower than the highest point of the range of their intrinsic value, with the result that most of the coins must have been valued above their intrinsic value. This overvaluation in itself would account for their remaining within a close radius of their place of origin, since no foreign merchant would accept an overvalued nugget of metal which would not retain its value abroad. In this the early electrum differs from the later sixth-century silver coinage, of which it is true to say that most coins are more commonly found outside the area of origin than in its vicinity. On the other hand, the hoards and the deposits from Ephesus show that within the Lydian and Ionian sphere there must have been some travelling of coin to account for the remarkable variety of types found together, which can hardly have all been the products of one mint. 23 It is normally assumed that the stamp of the punch and the resulting type acted as a guarantee for the coin; but if so, such a guarantee could only hold within the limited area controlled by the issuing authority. Coins of varying intrinsic value would require some more general guarantee of value if they were to be accepted in transactions outside the immediate area of the mint, and this would be more probably effected through some convention accepted amongst traders of the ratio of electrum to gold, than through a stamp impressed on the coin. It is possible that this idea of a guarantee is an assumption based on a preconceived notion of the function of coinage, which in turn is based on later practices. Differences between the early electrum and silver coinages have already been mentioned with regard to types and circulation, and there is also a difference in the denominations minted. Whereas sixth- and early fifth-century silver is normally of stater size, with few small fractions, much of the early electrum has survived in minute and impractical fractions, down to the ninety-sixth of a stater. Some allowance must be made for the chances of survival of small silver and large electrum; but to those handling the coins, this difference is very marked, and, added to the other differences noted, suggests the possibility that the early coins of electrum and of silver were not intended to perform exactly the same functions. It has been suggested from the time of Aristotle onwards that coins were intended to facilitate trade by providing ready weighed and guaranteed pieces of metal. This is often thought of as retail trade, trade in small quantities for daily necessities; but Dr Kraay24 has pointed out that even the smallest electrum piece must have had a fair value in terms of silver, about two Attic obols, and would thus provide a whole day's pay rather than the exchange for a loaf of bread. The idea of a retail trade grows out of the existence of a generally accepted medium practical for small transactions; and conversely payment for service through a single medium is only practical when retail trade in commodities of very small value is established. Such retail trade as is demanded of an urban society could not have taken place through the medium of minute shavings of electrum, silver, or gold. It was as a result of the progress of the economy towards such a system that

6

M. J. PRICE

bronze coinage was instituted during the second half of the fifth century, and that very small denominations in silver began to be commonly minted. If the above observations are correct, it is clear that the theory proposed by R. M. Cook,25 and now widely accepted, that coinage was to provide payments for mercenaries, does not fit the facts as we now know them. Not only is it clear that the localised circulation would require that such mercenaries settled in local communities, but it is also doubtful whether mercenaries would happily have accepted overvalued lumps of electrum as payment. Or Kraay proposed a more complicated view to take account of the facts, that governments were seeking by means of these objects to standardise payments to their own servants, so that in return they could standardise taxes, fines, and similar payments to the state. 26 This appears to obviate the necessity to view the electrum coins as supplying a retail trade; but in the first instance the coins must in the main have been put into circulation as payments. The theory assumes that payment for service was acceptable, and this in turn would suggest at least in part that coins were suitable for retail trade. Fines and taxes would still represent only a small part of the coins' function. The theory also rests on the assumption that the state or monarch was the issuer of the object. Although with later coinage this is clearly so, the nature of the early electrum coinage does not preclude the possibility that private individuals might have been responsible for their issue. 27 Again, the difference with later silver coinage must be emphasised. Electrum coins were issued in numerous small series of many different types, very few of which were later adopted as city types or are obviously religious symbols - whereas the silver coinage forms into recognisable issues of particular city mints. None of the electrum coins from before the time ofCroesus appears to have been inscribed with the name of a city.28 The coins of Walwel found in the excavations at Ephesus were once thought to be the issue of King Alyattes of Sardes; but a new variety is linked by the use of the same reverse punch to the Walwel issues, but is inscribed Kalil,29 a name which has no connection with the royal line of Lydia. Another variety with facing boar heads has other letters which again do not form arecognisable royal name. 30 There are two other inscriptions, one not legible, the other the famous Phanes issue (pI. I, no. 5), which includes the surprising addition EMI 1:HMA which would be entirely superfluous if the type was a royal or state symbol, but which is perfectly acceptable if the type was derived directly from the seal of an individual. Once in circulation some coins were repunched with countermarks, mainly of a linear type, but the function of which may be related to the main type. 31 These countermarks at least must be private marks, and it must be admitted that the evidence could point to the coins themselves being the issues of private individuals not of states. Monarchs as individuals no doubt struck coins, such as the lion's head issues of 'Sardes'; but any interpretation of the function of the earliest coins should take into account the possibility that their issue was not the monopoly of the state. How much less can an individual, albeit as influential person such as a banker, 'guarantee' the circulation of a coin at a value above the intrinsic value of the metal. There can be little doubt that the origin of the coin type in general terms lies in seals, whether they are the marks of cities or of persons. The seal was a mark of ownership,

Thoughts on the beginnings of coinage

7

and in acting as a signature it identified the authority of its owner. In the same way a coin type gave the object an official mark of origin, not necessarily to guarantee its circulation, but like a seal to identify its source. At this stage in the economy there is no reason to presuppose an extension of the function of the seal merely because the types were applied to nuggets of precious metal. It is also reasonable to assume that at this stage in the economy payment in metals for service was not normal. Metals only provide livelihood when exchanged, and, as stated above, daily requirements call for a retail trade in minute quantities of metal. We can gain some idea of the practice of employment from literature;32 and it would seem that employees were normally given board and lodging in return for service, and 'payment' was received at the end of service by way of a bonus, which could presumably, but not necessarily, be given in metals. This is very different from the idea of payment for service, such as the dikastikon and the ekklesiastikon of fifth-century Athens, since the bonus was more in the form of a parting gift. The arrangement did not require that livelihood should depend on payments of money, and such a system worked perfectly well without the existence of coins for over 1,000 years, even though metals were well recognised as a form of amassing wealth or of giving valuations. 33 The servant must have been very much tied to his master, and democracy could hardly flourish without the freedom that a system such as that of coinage brought to society. The introduction of coinage could and did bring about a change in the previous system; but there is no reason to believe that the change had already taken place before the appearance of the first electrum coins. Coins could well have provided a means for standardising bonus payments, or gifts of any sort. In the first instance coins must have been regarded as payments in the broadest sense, since only in this way could they have been put into circulation. But there is this difference; that, as bonus payments, the coins are far more akin to gifts (or medals) than to coins as we know them. On a theoretical level, others such as Edouard Will 34 have stressed the importance of the gift in the early Greek economy, and the personal nature of early electrum coins seems to require a specific function of this sort. The donor could be the state, or a monarch, or indeed a private individual. While it might be realised that the recipient could use the metal to acquire other objects or to make any form of payments, he could equally keep it as indicative of wealth. This, after all, is in the nature of a bonus. The coin type as the seal of origin represents the source of the bonus, the personal authority of the issuer. The coin, accurately weighed according to a recognised weight system, would be perfectly acceptable as a gift or bonus, even if made of electrum and not of gold or silver. On the other hand it is notable that for the first 50 or so years only this alloy was struck into coin, and we may suppose that the attraction of coining electrum lay in the profit that the use of such an alloy brought to the issuer. The place of such objects in the economy would grow as the practice of electrum bonus payments and gifts of coin became more widely adopted and as the coins circulated in other transactions. By the time Croesus of Sardes had brought within his kingdom the cities of the western seaboard such as Ephesus, the economy was ripe for the reform which brought gold and silver coinage into existence for the first time. It is then that the view

8

M. J. PRICE

of coinage as a medium for standardising payments to the state becomes attractive. With the existence of coins it would become nonnal to standardise in tenns of coins; but even so, during the later sixth and early fifth centuries the evidence would suggest that much of the silver coined at the main mints went abroad, either through mercenaries or in the fonn of trade; and in these cases it seems unlikely that the issues were made specifically for use within the state. With the increasing use of coin in payments of all sorts, the fifth and fourth centuries saw many cities overvaluing coin against bullion, so that valuable silver, 'With certain notable exceptions, tended to stay at home. At the same time overvalued copper was introduced to provide a practical medium for a daily retail trade. The problems involved in the introduction of coinage are very far from being solved; but the suggestion that the early electrum coins represent gifts or bonus payments made first in the last quarter of the seventh century BC is an attempt to fonnulate a picture that is in accordance with the facts. The basic questions of data and attribution still require to be studied in detail, and it is necessary before further progress can be made to place the earliest coins in their social and historical context, so that their function can be conceived in tenns of the people who first produced them.

NOTES

P. Grierson, The origins of money, London 1977· 2 For the most recent discussions see L. Breglia, 'Il materiale proveniente dalla base centrale dell' Artemision di Efeseo e le monete di Lidia', Annali delf Istituto Italiano di Numismatica XVIII/XIX 1971/1972 [19741, 9-23; c. M. Kraay, Archaic and classical Greek coins (hereafter ACGC), London 1976, 20--30; T. Hackens, 'Chronique numismatique I. Les monnaies grecques les plus anciennes (VIle-VIe s. av. J.-c.)', L' Antiquite Classique XLVI 1977, 205-218 at 205-213; L. Weidauer, Probleme der fruhen Elektronpriigung (hereafter Probleme), Typos I, Fribourg 1975. 3 D. G. Hogarth, Excavations at Ephesus. The archaic Artemisia (hereafter Ephesus), London 1908, 239-246; compare B. V. Head, 'The coins', in the same volume, 74-93 at 91-92 (present disposition of the coins: Arkeoloji Miizesi, Istanbul). 4 E. Gjerstad, 'Studies in. archaic Greek chronology 11. Ephesus', Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology issued by the Liverpool Institute of Archaeology XXIV 1937, 15-34· I

5 P. Jacobsthal, 'The date of the Ephesian foundation deposit', JHSLXXI 1951,85-95; and E. S. G. Robinson, 'Coins from the Ephesian Artemision reconsidered' (hereafter 'Artemision '), in the same volume, 156-167. Comparing the 2,000 unstratified objects with the 1,000 of the Basis deposit, both agree (Robinson, 'The date of the earliest coins', NCS XVI 1956, 1-8 at 3) that 'many resemble basis types so closely that they can with certainty be dated to the same period'. 6 Emphasised by R. M. Cook, 'Ionia and Greece, 800--600 BC', JHS LXVI 1946,67-98 at 90 n. 190. 7 Head, Ephesus, 83, no. 43 (Basis); 85, no. 72 (unstratified); Weidauer, Probleme, 26-27, nos. 99 and I 12 (Istanbul: Arkeoloji Miizesi). 8 A. R. Bellinger, 'Electrum coins from Gordion', Essays in Greek coinage presented to Stanley Robinson (ed. C. M. Kraay, G. K. Jenkins), Oxford 1968, 10--15 at 13; compare Weidauer, Probleme, 60. 9 A good deal of what follows is based on the assumption that the earliest gold and silver pieces, with heads of lion and bull, were

Thoughts on the beginnings of coinage

IQ

I I

12

13

14 15 16

17

indeed struck under Croesus 560-546/5 BC. The coinage of these types continued to be struck under the Persians to the last quarter of the sixth century, and there are no grounds for placing their introduction much before the middle of the century. Kraay, ACGC, 23; P. R. Franke, R. Schmi tt, 'Phaneos - phanos emi sema', Ch iron IV 1974, 1-4. Head, Ephesus, 82-85. Basis deposits, 14 examples; later phases, 22 examples. Pliny, Natural History xxxvi 14. The burnt layer found in the excavations (Hogarth, Ephesus, 32 and 239) adds a graphic touch to the story. Early sixth-century sherds were found below the burnt layer (Hogarth, Ephesus, 32). Head, Ephesus, 74-75. E. S. G. Robinson, 'The date of the earliest coins', N0 XVI 1956, I -8 at 3, would prefer the coins of the pot hoard to be earlier; but the context does not allow this. Differences in engraving technique, given the novelty of engraving coin dies, could equally be due to geographical as to chronological considerations. Vitruvius vii 159; compare Strabo xiv 1-22. Herodotus i 92. The insistence of Weidauer, Probleme, 72-76, that the temple of Artemis destroyed by the Cimmerians must be on the site of the Croesus temple is without foundation. Compare Robinson, n. 13 above, 7-8. On the contrary, the destruction of that sanctuary in 626 BC could well have resulted in the move to a new site; and if so, the destruction may even provide a terminus post quem for the Basis deposit. Weidauer, Probleme, 43-57. T. R. Volk reminds me that the idea of a progression from unstruck dump to struck coin with striated surface (pI. I, no. I) to struck coin with type is an unnecessary rationalisation of the situation. There is no need to view the latter two steps as separate phases of development. All three clearly circulated together; and coins with striated surfaces and coins with recognisable types may well have been made in different places at the same time.

9

18 Alcaeusfrag. D II; L. Breglia, 'Gli stateri di Alceo', Quaderni Ticinesi [dz1 Numismatica e Antichita Classiche III 1974, 7-12. An inscription from Chios of comparable date mentions staters: A selection of Greek historical inscriptions to the end of the fifth century BC (ed. R. Meiggs, D. Lewis), Oxford 1969, 14, no. 8, B3. 19 Together with the unstruck dumps of electrum: Robinson,' Artemision', 166--167, nos. I and 48. 20 An inventory of Greek coin hoards (ed. M. Thompson, O. M0rkholm, C. M. Kraay), New York 1973, 155, no. II54 (pot hoard, Ephesus); 155-156, no. II58 (Samos); 156, no. II61 (Hellespont); 158, no. 1176 (Gordion). 21 M. Price, N. Waggoner, Archaic Greek coinage. The Asyut hoard, London 1975, 122; C. M. Kraay, 'The Asyut hoard: some comments on chronology', Ne XVII 1977, 189-198 at 197. This view may not be subscribed to by H. A. Cahn, 'Asiut. Kritische Bemerkungen zu einer Schatzfundpublikation', Schweizer Numismatische Rundschau LVI 1977, 279-287 at 281-286. 22 S. Bolin, State and currency in the Roman Empire to 300 AD, Stockholm 1958, 38-40. For an important discussion of early silver and electrum coinage from the metallurgical point of view see J. Dayton, Minerals, metals, glazing, and man, London 1978, 103- 11 5. 23 The thirteen main varieties are listed by Kraay, ACGC, 22. Of these only four may be related to later city coinage of Ionia. 24 Kraay, ACGC, 318 n. 2. 25 R. M. Cook, 'Speculation on the origins of coinage', Historia VII 1958,257-262. 26 C. M. Kraay, 'Hoards, small change and the origin of coinage', JHS LXXXIV 1964, 76--9 1 ; ACGC, 317-324. Philip Grierson makes a similar observation for the early gold Germanic and Anglo-Saxon coinages, but he also underlines the importance of the gift in the economy in 'La fonction sociale de la monnaie en Angleterre aux VIIe-VIlIe siecles', Moneta e scambi nelfalto medioevo (Spoleto, 1-27 April 1960), SSAMvIII 1961, 34 1-362 at 357-359 (reprinted in Dark Age numismatics as article xi).

10

M. J. PRICE

27 Kraay recognises this possibility in ACGC, 23, but would limit it to rulers and tyrants. With the subjugation of much of this area by the Lydian empire, one wonders whether a rich Lydian such as Pythios (Herodotus vii 27), whose wealth at a slightly later date was given as 4,000,000 darics, might not have been on an equal footing, as far as coining was concerned, with the tyrants of the Ionian cities. 28 With the possible exception of the stater of 'Phocaea' with seal type, of which a forty-eighth was present in the Basis deposit: Head, Ephesus, 87, no. 87. L. H. Jeffery, Local scripts of archaic Greece, Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology, Oxford 1961, 341, is very doubtful about the letter form. 29 M. Thompson, 'Some noteworthy Greek accessions',ANS-MNxII 1966, 1-18at 1-4; C. M. Kraay, 'Report of the Acting Keeper

30

31 32

33

34

of the Heberden Coin Room', Report of the Visitors [of the] Ashrnolean Museum 1968, 39-50at43-44; Weidauer, Problerne, 46-47· Weidauer, Problerne, 21, no. 56 (London: British Museum). For a detailed study of the Phanes issue, but publishing a coin of which the authenticity has been doubted, see P. R. Franke, R. Schmitt, n. 10 above. E.g. A. R. Bellinger, n. 8 above, I I: examples from the Gordion hoard. E.g. Homer, Odyssey xviii 350--361 and Iliad xxi 450--452. Compare the method of paying mercenaries in the Hellenistic period: G. T. Griffith, Mercenaries in the Hellenistic world, Cambridge 1935,264-316. See the formula evolved to describe a rich man: Homer, Iliad vi 48; x 379; xi 133; Odyssey xxi 10. E. Will, 'Refiexions et hypotheses sur les origines du monnayage', RN" XVII 1955, 5-23 at 18-21.

KEY TO ILLUSTRATIONS

Plate I I Electrum 1stater, type1ess (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: SNG IV, no. 4835). 2 Electrum 1 stater, two lion heads facing inwards, Walwel, as Head, Ephesus, pI. ii, no. 71 (Arkeoloji Miizesi, Istanbul). 3 Electrum 1 stater, similar (British Museum: BMC Lydia, p. 3, no. 16). 4 Electrum stater, forepart of stag, as Head, Ephesus, pI. ii, no. 74 (Istanbul). 5 Electrum stater, stag, Phanes (British Museum: BMC /onia, p. 47, no. I). 6 Electrum! stater, similar (British Museum). 7 Electrum 1stater, lion's head (Fitzwilliam Museum: SNG IV, no. 4837). 8 Electrum stater, lion's paw, as Head, Ephesus, pI. ii, no. 56 (Istanbul). 9 Electrum 1 stater, forepart of goat, as Head, Ephesus, pI. i, no. 14 (Istanbul). 10 Electrum! stater, two cocks, Ephesus, pI. i, no. 20 (Istanbul). I I Gold stater (croeseid), foreparts of lion and bull (Fitzwilliam Museum: McClean Collection, no. 8635). 12 Silver stater, similar (Fitzwilliam Museum: general collection). 13 Electrum 1 stater, lion's head, showing punch marks on obverse and reverse (Fitzwilliam Museum: SNG IV, no. 4838).

n

n

2 The life of obverse dies in the Hellenistic period OTTO M0RKHOLM

A new and important numismatic method which has been developed since the end of the last century is to try to identify the individual dies from which a series of coins was struck by comparing as many as possible of the surviving pieces. Obverse and reverse dies deteriorate at different rates, and they break and are replaced at different times. It is therefore possible to establish sequences of die links for specimens which share a common die, and the order of the dies within the sequence may be determined by careful study of the progressive wear of a given die as it is exhibited through successive strikings. In this way many series have been classified and the relative chronology of issues established, providing a detailed understanding of how certain mints operated. 1 In applying this method it is usually taken for granted that if two coins can be shown to be the product of the same die, they were struck at about the same time and in the same place. What, however, is meant by 'the same time'? Surely not necessarily 'within one day' or 'within one week'? Most scholars would probably agree that even a month may be too briefa span for many issues. But what then? Several months, a year, several years, even decades? And how are we to explain coins made for the same ruler or for a league of cities which bear different mint signatures on the reverse but were struck from a common obverse die? In this paper, dedicated to a scholar with a special interest in the methqdology of numismatics, I shall try to answer the first of these questions: what is meant by 'the same time'? For this I shall examine the life of some obverse dies from the Hellenistic period. The material consists of a number of dated issues which are already fully published or are shortly to be the subject of detailed studies. Conclusions derived from an examination of these issues may be helpful in estimating the likely working life of obverse dies employed for undated issues, both from Hellenistic times and from other periods. The magisterial study of Margaret Thompson of the New Style coinage of Athens enables us to examine the operation of this important mint during the second century and the early years of the first century BC. 2 The great advantage of this series is that, within each year, the coins were usually dated to the month in which they were produced. 11

12

OTTO M0RKHOLM

New Style tetradrachm (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge)

This was indicated by a letter of the Greek alphabet (A-M = 1-12,with N added for an intercalary thirteenth month) placed on the amphora of the reverse type. The life of these obverse dies can therefore be determined within narrow limits. The individual obverse dies used for the tetradrachm series in general lasted for no more than three or four months, though for periods in which relatively few coins were produced the same dies were used over four or five months. 3 To date about a thousand obverse dies have been identified, of which only 41 can be shown to have lasted for seven or more months. 4 Of the 41 dies, 23 were employed over seven months: four over eight months,6 eight over nine months,7 three over ten months,S two over a twelve-month period 9 and one over a period of fifteen months. lo This last die (no. 418) was used during months 7, 8 and 9 of one year and again in month 9 of the following year. Margaret Thompson's lists indicate that for the first of these two years there was no coinage after month 9 and in the following year coining appears to have begun in month 3. It follows that during the fifteen-month period over which obverse die no. 418 was used it may well have lain idle for five consecutive months. Similarly, obverse die Thompson no. 1231 was used only during months 1 and 12 of the same year; since these are the only two months for which coins are known, it is possible that coining was suspended during the intervening ten months. The case of the second obverse die employed over twelve months (Thompson no. 1169) is different. Here the die is recorded for months 10 and II of the first year, and months 8 and 9 of the following year. The mint, however, was certainly active in the interval, so that the eight-month gap in the history of this die may well be more apparent than real and, in due course, bridged by new material. Obverse die Thompson no. 714 was used continuously in each of nine successive months. All the obverse dies mentioned above are exceptional in having a life of seven or more months. They comprise only 4 % or so of the total number of obverse dies, though it must be borne in mind that new material may add to this figure. In the case of the New Style drachms, the obverse dies lasted much longer. Of 107, fourteen, or about 13%, were used over seven or more months, including one over 32 months and another over at least 25. 11 Production of this denomination was, however, more sporadic and fewer coins were actually struck. Margaret Thompson is therefore

The life of obverse dies

13

surely right in maintaining that 'the life span of a representative obverse die is ... in inverse relationship to the production rate of the issue'.12 In order to compare a mint such as Athens, which was characterised by continuous and generally quite prolific production, with the practice of lesser mints, I shall consider some statistics from three Ptolemaic mints in Cyprus active during the second century BC. The material derives partly from the Paphos hoard 13 and partly from my own unpublished notes on these issues. Coining at the mints of Salam is, Citium and Paphos began during the reign of Pto lemy V (204-180 BC); for a period of about 80 years, down to year 5 of Pto lemy X Alexander I (= 110/109 BC), the date of the latest Cypriot coins in the Paphos hoard, the material is abundant. During this period the three mints together used some 390 obverse dies to strike tetradrachms. The' coins are dated by the regnal years of successive kings, not by months as at Athens. Instances of obverse dies being employed over two years are not infrequent,14 but in most cases they were presumably in use at the end of one year and were simply carried over to the beginning of the next, so that in fact the life of these dies may have spanned only a few months. There are, however, several cases of obverse dies lasting longer. These may be listed as in Table I. Of the 390 obverse dies employed at the three Cypriot mints, 27 (about 7 %) have lives extending over three or more regnal years. Some of these long-lived obverse dies occur in periods when only one pair of dies was in use at the mint at anyone time. Examples are Table I, nos. I, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, I7, 23 and 24. Die no. 24 is of special interest because it was used over no fewer than five consecutive regnal years; this, so far as I know, is the longest recorded life for an obverse die in continuous use, at least for the Hellenistic period. 1D Dies no. 25-27 seem to have lain unused for several years at a time. This is quite certain in the case of die no. 27, since coins were not struck at Paphos for the years 33-35 of Ptolemy VI. Die no. 22 is a special, and rather awkward, case. The amount of wear to this obverse die revealed on coins dated to year 45 of Ptolemy VIII suggests that the reverse die was in fact used in a later year. On coins dated year 47 the obverse die appears new and fresh, while on coins of year 48 the impression of the obverse shows conspicuous traces of wear. The die is in this same damaged state when it is combined with the reverse dated 45. This reverse die must still have been available at the mint in year 48 when by some unexplained mistake it was put into use again. 20 Although this case is certainly exceptional, it provides a warning against necessarily taking dates on coins at their face value. Similar instances of the use of an obverse die over three or four years are to be found in the dated issues of other Hellenistic mints. For example, the issues of Sidon for Alexander the Great, a dated Ptolemaic series which I have recently attributed to Aradus, and that mint's autonomous series from the second and first centuries BCY These, however, add nothing to the picture derived from the more comprehensive Cypriot material discussed above. Depending on the scale of a mint's production, I would draw the following conclusions. At large and important mints, such as Athens, coin production was continuous and usually involved the simultaneous use of several pairs of dies. Under these circumstances

14

15 Table 0,,",_ die no.

I.

Use of obverse dies over several regnal years

IDterva1iDRlgDal~

Mint

"'OS

from fim

Regnal yean (corresponding datl: BC iD ilaliC$)

U~.

,

Ptolcmy VI

PtolemyVI PtokmyVI Pto1cm.yVm

• " "

173/2

171./1

1,2/1

fJI/JO

150/49

147/6

146/5

145/4

11413

Salamis

'" "

"

"

Cilium

PtolemyV

19[/90

"

" If}ll/89

'7 189/8

Cilium

PtoiemyV

'9 187/6

18()/J

'"

185/4

Citium

PtolmlY VIII

'7 144/3

143/"

"

142/1

44 127/6

U6/J

125/4

"

"

117/ 16

116/'J

112/11

1I1/IQ

Citium

PtolemyVm

Citium

PtolemyVrn

Cilium

Ptolemy IX PtolemyX

Paphos

PtoiemyVI

Paphos

Ptolemy VIII

IIB/17

,

Ptolemy V

13

Salamis

PtolemyV

14

Salamis

Ploiemy VIII

IS

Citium

Ptolemy VIII

16

Citium

PtolemyVIII

,.

54

,

,

,

177/6

17615

"

141./1

141/40

/43/2 Salamis

,.

I10/9 7 175/4

5

,.

'5 191

5

W

JO '7

/fJlJ

189/ 8

'4 IS21I

180/79

"

44 IJ7/6 49

JIB/17

"

116/15

186/5

"

,

184/3

"

183/2

1l5/14

"3/I l

Irl/Il

143/Z

142 / 1

PtolcmyVI

17

Salamis

PtolemyIX PtolemyV

"

Cilium

Ptolemy IX

'9

Paph05

129/8 47 12 4/3

122/1

Pto)emyX

PtoiemyVlII

"

[45/4 Salamis

PtolemyVI

Salami!

Ptolemy VI

Salamis

PtolemyVIII

45

126/5 31 '34/3

'7 144/3

"

, "

'7

1"/4,

157/6

"

147/6 Ptolemy VIII

23

,." '7

I'3phos

Ptolemy VIII

Citium

Ptolemy VI

Salamis

PtolemyVI

PaphOll

PtolcmyVJII Ptolemy VI

,., "

154/3 144/3

'7

"

150/49

SaLamis

"

47 124/3

,.

132/1

"

149/8

'5

JO

148/7

"

["/4

[57/6 lJ 138/7 152 / t

J4

.. "

123/2

IJI/jO J5 '47/6

"

146/5

,.

"

150/49

[32/1

"

151/50

"

150/49

"

146/5

NOICS to Table I: The regnal years carried by Ihe reverse dies are given with the corresponding date BC. Where an ob... en;e die is combined with a reverse in the Dame ofa second king, the year n[the latter's reign is shown below lhecorrespolKliog dat\: BC, c.g. DO. 8: obven:e combined with reverscs of both Pto1emy VIIl and Ptolemy IX, each dated to yeaN corresponding to 117/16 BC. I u. Svoronos u 219. DO. 1]).4a.. pL xlv, DO. 10 (London: British MUSl:WD); h. SvomnOllllo, no. 1336a, pI. xlv, uo. 12 (Hague: Koniuldijk Kabioet van Munten, Penningen en Gesocdcn Stenen): c. Svoronos 120, no. 13370%, pi, x1y, no. 13 (Hague); aU coios wrongly attributed to Ptolemy V.

1 a. SYoronoa 141. no. 1461y (Berlio: Lilbbecke Coli.); h. Paphos 30 obY. die no. 11; SYoronos 241, no. 1463,0 (Berlin: Staatl.k:he Museen); no. 14631i (VieDlla: Kuosthistorisches Museum); 153, no, 1533r (London); c. SYoronos 153. no. IW! (London); the last two coins wrongly IIltributed La Ploh:my VIII. 3 a-.:. Paphos 30, obY. die 00. 13. 4 I'l. Unpublished (llltll.nbul: Arkeoloji Miizcsi); h. Syoronos 111, no. 1362.:1, pI. xlvi, no. 11 (Athens: Etlmikon Nomismatikon MOUill:ion); c. Poenaru Bordell'· 113. no, 6 (Buc:han:~t: InstilUWl de Arheologie). 5 I'l. UnpublUhed (Winlenhur: StadLische Miinzkllbineu); b. SYoronos 111, no. 1365<11, pi. xlvi, no. 16 (paris: Bibliotheque Nationale); ,'. SYoronos 111, no. 1369a, pI. xlvi, no, 10 (Hague), 6 a. Svoronoo 156. no. 157sa. pI. IY, DO. 3 (AIeJ;lIndria: Musee GrU::o-romain); /)....c. Pap/tw 53, obY. die no. 14. 7 a, c. Paplros 56, ODv. die DD. 50; h. Syoronos 159, no. l60sa, pi. ly, 30 (Paris trade). S a-.:. Pophos 5S, ohY. die no. 6S. 9 a-c. PophO$ 5()-60, ob'V. die no. 75. 10 I'l. SYoronos liS, no, 13loa, pi. xliY, no. 9 (Athens); b. Pocnalll Bordea 113, no. 3 (Bucharest); c. SYorooos 113, no. 131111 (Berlin); no. 1313" (Berlin); coins described at 0 and c wrongly attribuled to Ptolemy V. 11 a. SYOrODOS 138, 00.1#1«, pl. xlix, no. 15 (Vienna), wrongly attributed to Ptolemy VI; h'. u.apublished (New York: American Nwnismatic Society). 11 n. SYOl"OOOS 110, no. 1339<1, pI. xly, no. 15 (London); b. SYoronos 110, no. 134QCl. pI. xly, no. 16 (London). 13 n. Syoronos 110, no. 1348a:, pI. xlv, no. 13 (Athens); h. SYoronos 119 no. 1314CI. pI. .\ly, no. 1 (Berlin), wrongly attrihuled to Ptolemy V. 14 a-h. Pnphos 33. obY. die no. 57. IS a-h. Paphor 56, obY. die no. "11. 16 a-h. Papilor 57-53, ob\I. die no. 65. 17 a. SYoronos 110, no. 1343<:1, pi. xlY, no. 19 (Athens); h. SvoronOI110, no. 134sa, pl. xlv, 00. 20 (Copenhagen: Nationalmuscet); c. SYoronos 110. no. 1346a.. pi . .\ly. no. 11 (Paris); d. uopublished (Brussels: Bibliolhb::(ue Royale). 18 o-d. Papilos S8-"I9. obv. die no. 7:. (Pll) 19 a. PophO$ 74, ob'V. die 00. "I; h. SYoronos 24t). no. 1"1011%, pi. lii, no. 1 (Berlin); c. SNG (GB) ml? v pl. lxii, no. 3443 (now London); d. unpublished (Vicuna). (Pll) le) a, c. P6phO$ 19. ob'V. die 00. 14; b. unpublisbed (Berlin). (1'1. 1) 11 a. Uopublished (Paris); h. Paphos 19. obY. die no. 15, allributed to Ptolem.y VI. (PI. 3) 11 a-c. Papilos 33-34, obY. die no. 61. h. also uopublished (New York). (PI. 3) 13 a-c. Papilos 75. obY. die 00. 8; a. also unpublished (New York); c. BI!iO unpublished (Paris), (PI. 3) 24 0-£. Papilos 51. obv. die 00. 10. o. also unpublished (Oxrord: Asbmoleao MUill:IIJD); h. Blso unpublished (New York); c. also unpublished (London); d. BI!iO unpuhlished (Paris). (Pl. 3) lS a. Paphos 19. obY. die no. 13; unpublished (London); b. unpublished (Berlin); c. SYoronos ]53. 154UL, pI. liii. no. 11 (Albens); unpublished (New York). (PI. 4) 16 a-h. Pophos 31-31. obv. die no. 4' (Pl.4) 17 a. Unpublished (VieoDB); h. SNG Copenhagen'· xL, pI. xx, no. 610; c. SNG Copenhagl.'lo XL, pI. xx, no. 611; d. SNG Copenbagl.'lO XL. pI. xx, no. 611 (1'1.4)

16

OTTO M0RKHOLM

the life of an obverse die was inevitably rather short, perhaps three to five months. A working life of more than seven months was exceptional, while a die with nine months' continuous use (Thompson no. 714) constitutes the longest recorded period. On the other hand, smaller mints, such as those established by the Ptolemies on Cyprus, though active at some point in most years, could meet the coining requirements of some years from a single pair of dies. In this class of mint an obverse die might be used for three, four or even, as in one case, five years in a row. The few instances of the use of obverse dies over a period of more than five years (M0rkholm nos. 25-27) are presumably to be explained by there being no coinage struck in some of the intervening years. Clearly the working life of coin dies must stand in inverse relation to a mint's production rate. If mints were inactive over prolonged periods dies may have been available over a much longer span of time than the five years suggested above. I know of no evidence from the Hellenistic period, but there is some possibly relevant evidence from Roman imperial times. From a group of Roman medallions struck for Marcus Aurelius, P. R. Franke has identified a reverse die used in AD 167/8 that had been used six years earlier in 161/2. 22 Further, this reverse had already been used for Hadrian between 132 and 138; this gives a working life of about 30 years. But the minting of medallions was sporadic, and there is no evidence for the use of that particular die during the intervening years. Similarly, H. von Aulock has noted a reverse die from the city of Dalisandus in Lycaonia 23 and several reverses from Codrula in Pisidia24 which were used over periods of between 30 and 80 years. In the case of Dalisandus, where the break is 80 years, von Aulock supposes that the mint simply did not function between AD 166, when this die was used for an issue for Marcus Aurelius, and some time during the reign of Philip I, when it was again used for an issue for Phi lip 11 as Caesar (244-7). The 30to 40-year gaps in the use of dies at Codrula must also result from only occasional minting. A similar case from the early modern period noted by Phi lip Grierson is the combination of an obverse die for a dicken of Basel with dated reverses from both 1499 and 1535. 25 Long-lived dies, however, are most unusual, and their longevity must be explained by their use for coinages that were produced only occasionally and in small quantities. As far as normal coin production is concerned, the examples of two classes of Hellenistic mint discussed in this paper may perhaps provide a basis for estimating the life of obverse dies elsewhere and in other periods. NOTES 1

The first student to suggest obverse die links as a means of relating and then ordering different coin issues was F. lmhoof-Blumer, •Die Miinzen Akarnaniens', NZ x 1878, I - I 80 at 56 and 69. The method was developed and applied systematically in the preparation of the Berlin corpus; see H. Gaebler, Die antiken Munzen von Makedonia und Paionia, Die antiken Miinzen

Nord-Griechenlands(ed. Elmhoof-Blumer) Berlin 1906, vii. It was also used by K. Regling in his monograph Terina, Winckelmannsprogramm XLVI, Berlin 1906, and by E. T. Newell in his studies of the coinage of Alexander, the first results of which were published in Reattribution of certain tetradrachms of Alexander the Great, New York 1912 (reprinted from American

Ill,

The life of obverse dies

2

3 4

5

6 7 8 9 10 II

Journal of Numismatics XLV 191 I, 1-10, 37-45,113-125, 194-200; XLVI 1912,22-24, 37-49, 109-116). The new method was vigorously discussed in Germany: Regling's work was criticised severely by H. von Fritze and H. Gaebler in their review, 'Terina', Nomisma I 1907, 14-22, while Gaebler's own use of the method was thought' by some to be too meticulous and too expensive in terms both of working time and of costs, see H. von Fritze, 'Nochmals das Corpus Nummorum', Nomisma 11 1908, 36-41; and F.Imhoof-Blumer, 'Bericht iiber das griechische Miinzwerk', Congres International de Numismatique, Brussels 1910, 1-3 at 2. Margaret Thompson, The New Style silver coinage of Athens (hereafter Thompson), Numismatic Studies X, New York 196 I. The impact of this important work on questions concerning mint organisation has been regrettably small, presumably because the heated discussion of the chronology has overshadowed all other aspects, see C. M. Kraay, 'Mainland Greece and Asia Minor', A survey of numismatic research 196~1965,' I. Ancient numismatics (ed. O. M0rkholm), Copenhagen 1967,35-53 at 37-38. Thompson, 72 1. I am considering only the tetradrachms from the period when the months are invariably indicated, i.e. from the twentieth issue or 177 /6 BC on Thompson's chronology. From then until the end of the series 997 tetradrachm obverse dies have been recorded. Obverse dies Thompson nos. 335, 379, 453, 468,600,619,621,691,700,717,719,753, 773,805,809,817,818,829,899,1013,1064, 1123, 1165. Obverse dies Thompson nos. 618, 673, 771, 1122. Obverse dies Thompson nos. 500, 679, 702, 714, 84 2, 884, 885, 894. Obverse dies Thompson nos. 721, 802, 126 3. Obverse dies Thompson nos. 1169, 1231. Obverse die Thompson no. 418. Obverse dies Thompson nos. 308, 326, 356, 4 11 , 473, 626, 628, 685, 722, 733, 747, 758,

12 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 21

17

800, 1130. Of these no. 41 I was used in months I, 2, 6, 8, and 10 of year 162/1 BC and again in months 3, 4, and 8 of year 160/59 BC; no. 685 is recorded for the first month of the year 145/4 BC and for an illegible month of year 143/2 BC (all dates according to Thompson's chronology). Thompson, 72 I. I. Nicolaou, O. M0rkholm, A Ptolemaic coin hoard (hereafter Paphos), Paphos I, Nicosia 1976 (present disposition of coins: Cyprus Museum, Nicosia). H. Kyrieieis, 'Die Portriitmiinzen Ptolemais V. und seinen Eltern', Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archiiologischen Instituts LXXXVIII 1973, 213-246 at 229 n. 55. J. A. Svoronos, Ta nomismata tou kratous ton Ptolemaion (hereafter Svoronos), Athens 1904-1908. Gh. Poenaru Bordea, 'Monede mai putin cunoscute din timpullui Ptolemaios al V -lea emise in Cipru', Studii Clasice XI 1969, 221-224. E. S. G. Robinson, The Lockett Collection v. Lesbos - Cyrenaica, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum (GB) Ill, London 1949. A. Kromann, O. M0rkholm, The Royal Collection of coins and medals, Danish National Museum XL. Egypt,' the Ptolemies, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum (Denmark), Copenhagen 1977 (hereafter SNG Copenhagen). Kyrieleis (n. 14 above), 229, figs. 12-16, who first drew attention to this obverse die and rightly stressed that the evident traces of wear gradually increased during its five years of use. Nicolaou, M0rkholm, Paphos, 42. E. T. Newell, The dated Alexander coinage of Sidon and Ake, Yale Oriental Series. Researches 11, New Haven 1916, 12-13 and 16-18: obverse die Q was used for years 7- I0 and obverse die cc in the years 14, 16, and 18; O. M0rkholm, 'The Ptolemaic coins of an uncertain era', Nordisk Numismatisk Arsskrift 1975-1976, 23-58 at 27-30: obverse die A5 was used in years 49, 50, and 51; obverse die A8 in years 70, 71, and 72; and obverse die AI7 in years 79, 80, and 81; G. F. Hill, Catalogue of the Greek coins of Phoenicia [in the British Museum], London

18

OTTO M0RKHOLM

1910, xxxiii and 31-32, nos. 256-262 (Aradus years 284, 285, and 287). 22 P. R. Franke, 'Zur Verwendungsdauer romischer Medaillonstempel', Chiron v 1975, 40 7-4 10. 23 H. von Aulock, Milnzen und Stiidte Lykao-

niens, Istanbuler Mitteilungen. Beiheft XVI, Tiibingen 1976, 37. 24 H. von Aulock, Milnzen und Stiidte Pisidiens I, Istanbuler Mitteilungen. Beiheft XIX, Tiibingen 1977, 33· 25 P. Grierson, Numismatics, London 1975, 110.

19

The life of obverse dies

18a

18b

19a

18c

19c

19b

20a

18d

20b Plate

19d

20c 2

OTTO M0RKHOLM

20

24b

23c

23a

21b

21a

24a

22c

22b

22a

24c

Plate 3

24d

24e

The life of obverse dies

25a

27a

25b

25c

26a

26b

27b

27c Plate 4

21

27d

3 The Roman coinage of the Cyrenaica, first century BC to first century AD T.

v.

BUTTREY

When the Romans assumed control of the Cyrenaica in the first century BC they found a Ptolemaic monetary system in use. Gold and silver coin had to be imported, presumably from Egypt; the bronze small change was locally struck, bearing Ptolemaic types but of denominations which perhaps had nothing to do with the Egyptian system (figs. 1-3).1

2

3

Ptolemaic bronze issues

How the Romans first coped with this system is unknown, but they soon began to piece out the existing currency with their own local bronze, produced sporadically until the reign of Tiberius. These were issued in limited quantities, and were often poorly struck, from dies of execrable quality. The issues are not as yet all certainly described, their denominations are conjectural, and their chronology is a tangle, for the authorising magistrates are unidentifiable. A further difficulty lies in our uncertainty over the fluctuating relationship of the Cyrenaica to Crete, with which it was sometimes bound in a single Roman province, for several magistrates struck for both areas. The study which follows consists first of a series of Notes, observations on several of the issues from various points of view - fabric, weight and denomination; type and style; mint and find spot. While these individual Notes are often on a point of detail, taken together they then help to define the nature of small-change circulation in the Cyrenaica during this period, for they make possible a re-examination of relative and absolute chronology, the relation of earlier types to later, and the relation of types to denomination.

23

T. V. BUTTREY

24

This exercise in methodology is dedicated in affection to the colleague who would appreciate it best, and whom another has already best described as notre maitre. NOTES ON THE COINAGE OF ROMAN CYRENAICA I.

The types of Lollius

L. Lollius struck six varieties of bronze, which have been recognised as representing three denominations in each of two parallel series, the one with Greek legend, the other with Latin (Robinson, BMCCyr., nos. 3-23) (pI. 5, nos. 25-30). That they circulated in two different areas is suggested by the fact that the Greek series tends to be found in the Cyrenaica, the Latin in Crete. Differential circulation might suggest separate production, which is confirmed by the differences in manufacture: the Greek legend series is struck on bevelled flans with die position usually i L the Latin on rounded flans with die position usually i i (Robinson, BMCCyr., ccxv). It is best then to follow Robinson in attributing the Greek issue to a mint in the Cyrenaica, presumably at Cyrene itself, and the Latin issue to a mint in Crete. The obverse style of the six varieties, however, is coherent, the use of die control letters is similar in both issues, and the denominations are para1\el. This bespeaks a single conception animating the whole issue. The dies must have been cut in a single workshop, presumably that of Crete given its relatively larger importance than the Cyrenaica. The Greek dies would then have been shipped to Cyrene for striking while the Latin dies were retained in Crete. This operation bears on the identification of Lollius' types, for they too can be seen as conceived in parallel series. The most obvious case is that of the Half-unit,2 where the reverse of the Greek series is the dromedary 3 appropriate to the Cyrenaica, while that of the Latin series is the stag appropriate to Crete. This kind of balance can be seen throughout the issue. Unit. The Greek bears the head ofZeus Ammon, sceptre before (Robinson, BMCCyr., no. 19). The Latin bears a 'youthful male head', sceptre before (Robinson, BMCCyr., no. 3). The reverse of both series is the sella curu/is. The types are plainly para1\el. Identification of the Latin obverse has been doubtful: Mii1\er, Afrique 1,158, notes several unlikely possibilities, e.g. a portrait of Ptole my Apion; while Robinson, BMCCyr., ccxv, takes it to be a portrait of Antony in the guise either of Dionysus with thyrsus, or of the beardless Zeus Velchanos with sceptre. The identification with Antony is fanciful- the head bears no resemblance to him at a1\ - but a Cretan Zeus to balance the Libyan Zeus is exactly right, and the sceptre is appropriate to him, as against other gods, e.g. Apo1\o, who are not norma1\y depicted with this symbol of power (see H. G. Lidde1\, R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford 1940, s. V. (T'Kij1T7POV 11.2). But which Zeus? Zeus Velchanos is not a likely candidate; his sole numismatic appearance, on coins of Phaistos, shows him without sceptre and holding a cock. 4 Nor does he appear to have been widely worshipped in Crete, or to have represented Crete in any general manner. This last point is important since the bust of the Latin Unit ought to convey the notion of Crete in general, to balance the head of Ammon for the Cyrenaica. For that, another

Roman coinage of the Cyrenaica

25

beardless Zeus lies to hand, Zeus Diktaios, the young Cretan Zeus par excellence, whose birthplace was the island. The hymn from Palaikastro addresses him as kouros and associates him with Dikte; and we know that at Dikte stood the statue of a beardless Zeus. 5 The Unit of Lollius presents the two major manifestations of Zeus for the two parts of the province: for Crete, Zeus Diktaios, for the Cyrenaica, Zeus Ammon. Half-unit. The Greek coin bears a head of Apollo with bow and quiver. The head cannot be that of Libya, in spite of a superficial similarity of hair style;6 for she was not a hunting goddess, and does not have the bow and quiver as attributes. The Latin coin bears a head of Artemis with bow and quiver. The animals of the reverses refer to the two parts of the province. The dromedary for the Cyrenaica is obvious; the stag, though an evident symbol of Artemis, here refers to Crete. 7 The horizontal pairing of Apollo and Artemis is evident, but each also functions independently in the appropriate series. Apollo had instigated the earliest Greek colonisation of the Cyrenaica, and his temple was one of the most important at Cyrene. In Crete, Artemis was a national goddess in her manifestation as Diktynna. Quarter-unit. The Greek coin bears a head of Libya with reverse symbols of fertility and commercial success - caduceus with poppy and grain ear - while the Latin piece bears the club, symbol of Heracles, and wreath, symbol of victory. For the local significance of the latter, note that the Cretans believed their Heracles Idaios to have founded the Olympic games. 8 The wreath, though everywhere a common coin type, might in this context bear that extra significance. The obverse types of the two series not only refer to the two parts of the province, but cohere to form a single mythological statement. On the Unit of each series Zeus is portrayed in an appropriate local manifestation; on the Half-units are two of his Olympian offspring; on the Quarter-units are two further children of Zeus of some local eminence but less important mythologically. The identification of Zeus Diktaios as the head of the Latin Unit ties together the typology of the entire issue.

2.

The mints of Crassus

The coins of Crassus, like those of Lollius, were struck in both Greek and Latin series, but not in paired denominations as far as is now known (pI. 6, nos. 31-35). Nor were the dies cut centrally, as is shown by the differing styles of the Latin Apollo and the Greek Libya and crude Tyche. In manufacture the two series of Units are so distinct that their weight ranges barely overlap. Robinson (BMCCyr., ccxxi) properly assigns the Latin series to Crete, the Greek to the Cyrenaica, where however Crassus used two mints, Ptolemais and Cyrene, the only official of Roman times who appears to have done so. The Tyche Unit bears the inscription IITOAEMAI. Robinson knew no inscription for the rare Libya Unit (BMCCyr., ccvii, no. 25 his b = Svoronos, Ptoiemaion, no. 1902) but an example preserved in the office of the Director of Antiquities, Cyrene, can be read: ~l}l X, to 1. and r. of head. The Libya Quarter-unit also reads KYPA. Crassus' mints, therefore, struck distinctive types, and the Libya head appears to have been thought of as appropriate to the mint of Cyrene.

26

T . V . BUTTREY

3. The types of A. Pup ius Rufus

It is worth noting that the three denominations of Pupius (pI. 6, nos. 36-38) bear obverse types appropriate historically to Cyrenaican coinage: Ammon head, ram, Libya head (figs. 5, 7, 9)· The first had appeared from early times on archaic and classical silver (fig. 4), later on pre-Ptolemaic and Ptolemaic aes, most recently on the Greek Unit of Lollius (Robinson, BMCCyr., nos. 19-20). The ram had appeared rarely on aes of independent Cyrenaica (fig. 6), and most recently on a Ptolemaic issue (Robinson, BMCCyr ., cxlvi, no. ro8a) in a module just slightly smaller than that of Pupius. The Libya head was frequent on Ptolemaic aes (fig. 8). Both the Ammon head and the ram had been cut on obverse dies, mated with reverses which bore the authorising legend. Pupius simply substituted his own reverse types of sella, subsellium and serpent.

Pre-Roman

4

6

8

A. Pupius Rufus

5

7

9

Zeus Ammon

ram

Libya

4. Cyrenaican bronze of Antony and Cleopatra After the issues noted above, that of Antony and Cleopatra astonishes by its complete lack of types: the coins bear nothing but the legends ANHljYTIAjr j jBALIAj0EAjNE (Svoronos, Ptolemaion, nos. 1899-1900). The consular da te fixes the issue to 31 BC. It was struck in two denominations, the Unit and Half-unit, of which the latter is very rare (pI. 7, nos. 39-40). The major problem with this coinage is mint attribution. Muller originally omitted it, but later included it in his Afrique Supplement as Cyrenaican, 30, no. 428a. Svoronos accepted the attribution to Cyrene,9 but Regling, reviewing Svoronos, argued that it

Roman coinage of the Cyrenaica needed to be supported by find evidence. 1o As a result of these doubts the issue is not even mentioned by Robinson in BMCCyr.; Grant gave it to Patras in the Peloponnese;l1 and I have denied that it had anything to do with the Cyrenaica. 12 But a conclusive find is now to hand. In the current excavations by the University of Pennsylvania under Prof. Donald White in the Demeter Sanctuary at Cyrene, a well-worn example of the Unit has appeared. It is also halved. The issue is not likely to have travelled much, and a halved piece is most likely to have been cut locally. These coins must be restored to Cyrene; and it then follows (as Miiller, Afrique, loco cit., long ago noted) that the curious Augustan issues of Capito and Palikanus without types of any kind are easily explained as imitative of the earlier issue of Antony and Cleopatra. The literary sources note that Antony's donation to Cleopatra included Cyrene (' Libya '), of which she, according to Plutarch, Antony 54.5, or their daughter Cleopatra, according to Dio xl 41.3, was made the queen. The coin confirms Plutarch's version. If Crete too now lay in Cleopatra's domain (Dio xl 32.5), no comparable coinage was struck for the island. 5. The denominations and types of Seato Of the four varieties signed by Seato (pI. 7, nos. 41-44), two bear the head and name of Augustus (CAESAR TR POT). The obverse of the smaller is an imitation of Augustus' reformed as, with its head of the emperor (Mattingly, BMCRE I, 29, no. 137) (figs. lo-II).13 The obverse of the larger does not imitate the imperial dupondius (Mattingly, BMCRE I, 29, no. 135) whose obverse wreath appears as Seato's reverse (figs. 12-13), but bears two heads perhaps in indication of the coin's value: if one head indicates the as, two heads should indicate the dupondius. 14 Seato's other two varieties are smaller and bear no reference to Augustus, but rather the types of the same modules as struck by Pupius, namely ram and Libya/serpent. Since none of Pupius' coins bears any reference to Augustus or his reformed coinage, his issues must be earlier than Seato's, and Seato's coins, imitations. This division in Seato's typology - with Augustus and without - has for some scholars defined two separate periods of issue, indeed two different occasions on which Seato held

10

11

12

Issues of Seato with Roman prototypes

13

28

T. V. BUTTREY

office in the province: 'It is conceivable that Scato had two periods of governorship' (Robinson, BMCCyr., ccxxiv). This notion depends in good part on the assumption that the four varieties represent only three denominations: (I) dupondius and as with Augustus, (2) as and semis without Augustus. Two types of the as would mean two separate issues. But the second' somewhat lighter' as (Robinson, BMCCyr., ccxxiii) actually weighs just half of the first in the average of examples known to me. It makes more sense to see this variety as the semis, and Scato's lightest piece as the quadrans. There are then four different denominations in Scato's coinage, and there is no need to posit different issues on that basis. Nor need there be any division on the basis of the types, which are easily explained: all are imitations. Both the dupondius and the as repeat the obverses of the reformed issues of Rome (figs. 12-13, Io-II). That the smaller pieces do not mention Augustus is owing simply to there having been no Augustan prototype. The semis was not struck at the Rome mint under Augustus; the quadrans not so early. Scato therefore copied the types of his predecessor for his semis and quadrans, and struck them on flans of the appropriate fractional weight of the as. His four varieties can be regarded as a coherent set of denominations, all of whose types were deliberately derivative, struck on one occasion. 15 6. The denominations and types of Capito and Palikanus

The relative order of the two coinages is unknown;16 since the types are identical, one borrowed from the other (pI. 7, nos. 45-48). Each official struck two varieties, A with types and legends: IMP A VG TR POT in wreath/ sella (name); and B with legends only: IMP A VG TR POT /(name). Variety A reproduces on the obverse the obverse of Augustus' reformed dupondii (figs. 14-15). The reverse of the Roman issue bore the name of the moneyer, here replaced by the local official's name and title, with the received Cyrenaican type of sella. That the dupondius type is not repeated on variety B indicates that it is of another denomination, certainly then the asY It cannot be the semis, for it weighs on average about half again as much as Scato's semis. Here averages are important to take, for the individual specimens are erratic in weight, so much so that Robinson (BMCCyr., ccxxv) concluded that variety A was struck as both dupondius and as (so that it would have been impossible to distinguish between the two denominations by type). Five specimens of Palikanus' variety A, Robinson, BMCCyr., nos. 44-48, weigh 18.14, 15.23,9.16,8.27 and 7.94 g. respectively; while two of Capi to (British Museum, London, 1946 acquisition, and Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris) weigh 12.39 and 9.00 g. These terrible variations in weight are not owing to the state of wear. Most of these pieces show average use, but the example weighing 12.39 g. is in splendid condition. Rather, this is an aspect of poor manufacturing techniques. Of the first three pieces of Palikanus in Robinson, BMCCyr., all are struck from the same obverse die, yet the first weighs almost double the third. The reason is poor control of the thickness of the flans, which vary considerably and influence the weight accordingly. (The phenomenon is not limited to these issues. Sixteen Greek Units of Lollius average 20.46 g. and 32.3 mm diameter;18 yet a thin flan piece of 32 mm in the American Numismatic

29

Roman coinage of the Cyrenaica

14

15

Issue of Capito with Roman prototype

Society, New York, weighs only 15.13 g., and a still thinner one of 33 mm in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, weighs only 12.50 g.) This is fair warning that weight can be misleading in determining denomination, and that type and flan size should be given first consideration. We ought therefore to reject Robinson's argument (BMCCyr., ccxxv) that variety A occurred on both the dupondius and the as, the latter subsequently losing its types (= variety B) so as to be distinguishable (so BMCCyr., ccxxvii n.). Rather, variety A pertains exclusively to the dupondii, which were however manufactured with great carelessness, while variety B indicates the as.

7. The denominations of Tiberius Robinson's observation (BMCCyr., ccxxvi) that three denominations are here represented must be correct (pI. 8, nos. 49-5 I). It is true that the types of the first two are almost identical, obverse Drususjreverse Tiberius and Germanicus. But they differ in the detail that on the larger denomination the head of Drusus occurs with lituus and simpulum, which are lacking on the smaller. There is no overlap of weight or of flan size between the larger and the smaller denominations in the examples available to me (BM, ANS, Cyrene excavations). The average weight (g.) of the three denominations accords well with those calculated by Mattingly in BMCRE I, liv-lvi, for Tiberian aes from Rome and Gaul:

Dupondius

Cyrene Rome or Gaul

As

Semis

3.9 2 3. 61

I take no account of the possible differences in alloys between mints. Those of Cyrene are as yet unascertained.

30

T. V. BUTTREY

8. Halved coins at Cyrene The examples known to me are: Roman Republican. One halved as was found in the Apollonia excavations, too worn for more precise identification.19 It is exactly equivalent to the material which appears in Western Europe. Soter / Libya. One halved piece is in a private collection, from Cyrene (cf. Robinson, BMCCyr., 83, no. 48, '221-140 BC '). The halving is most unusual, but the module of the piece at 27 mm is equivalent to that of the smaller Republican asses and those of Pupius Rufus. Presumably the older Ptolemaic coin was simply swept up with the Roman for cutting. 20 A. Pupius Rufus. Three halved Units are in the Cyrene Museum, the ANS (ex-Norton)21 and a private collection, all from Cyrene. The first and third have been cut horizontally across the reverse, the arms of the sella serving as guidelines. Antony and Cleopatra. One piece is fr~m the current excavations in the Demeter Sanctuary at Cyrene, a halved Unit, mentioned above. Although the piece is typeless the cut is in the manner of the Republican halvings, on the vertical axis of the obverse. Seato. The Apollonia excavations produced one halved as of Scato with head of Augustus,22 and a second has been found at Cyrene, now in a private collection. The same collection includes yet another halved coin from Cyrene, of identical module and fabric with the other two, probably of Scato but too worn to be identified.

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE ROMAN COINAGE OF THE CYRENAICA

The relative chronology proposed by Robinson is in general unassailable on present evidence, but his absolute chronology must be questioned. None of the coins aside from those of Antony bears a date, and the officials who signed most of the other issues are completely unknown. Scholarly argument has been based largely on speculation concerning the identity and function of the officials, as well as the historical and constitutional implications in the connection between Crete and the Cyrenaica, or want of it, indicated by a given issue. For a survey of recent opinion see Perl, who reviews the problem fully without moving it any closer to solution. 23 Robinson's arrangement of the Cyrenaican material, enlarged by the addition of the Antonian issues, is as follows :24 The Lollius issue. These are the first Roman coins of the province which can be related to the Roman monetary system (see below). They are struck from dies of better style than any which follow, and the Unit is heavier. Greek and Latin series were struck for, and circulated in, the Cyrenaica and Crete. Robinson (BMCCyr., ccxiii-ccxv) dates the issue sufficiently late to coincide with Antony's Fleet Praefect bronze, and attempts to discover a portrait of Antony on the Latin as. Both suggestions are fanciful. Lollius' date remains unknown, but if it is considerably earlier than Antony's, the issue of Crassus and Pupius which follow can also be pre-Antonian. The Crass us issue. These are oflighter weight and cruder style. Greek and Latin series

Roman coinage of the Cyrenaica were struck for the Cyrenaica and Crete. This issue must follow Lollius', given the weight standard. (Grant, FITA, 55-58, reverses the two without explanation, and without noticing the weight difference.) Crassus' issue has been assigned to c. 37-34 BC on the grounds that the crocodile of the Latin as refers to Egypt; therefore the coinage was struck under Egyptian authority; therefore only while Crete and the Cyrenaica were united under Egyptian control could Crassus have struck, that is after Antony's donations to Cleopatra (Robinson, BMCCyr., ccxxi, ccxxii; Grant, FITA, 55-56). Now the whole chronology and extent of the donations is still unclear. 25 The crocodile alone (fig. 18),

16

17

18

crocodile

here said to symbolise Egyptian authority, does not derive from Egyptian coins. It elsewhere appears on Roman coins only to signify the conquest of Egypt, namely on Octavian's aurei and denarii with the legend AEGYPTO CAPTA (Mattingly, BMCRE 1, nos. 650-655), and enchained on the aes of Nemausus (figs. 16-17). Further, it is not accompanied on Crassus' coin by any authorising legend beyond his own name; why not BAnAILLAL [KAEOTIATPAL] as on the Cyrene bronze of Antony and Cleopatra? Whatever the significance of the crocodile type, Crassus' coin omits to make precisely those claims which are made for it in the modern scholarship. On balance, since Crassus claims no higher authority, I am inclined to place his coins earlier than the donations. The A. Pupius Rufus issue. These are of lighter weight than Crassus', and were struck in a Greek series only, therefore in the Cyrenaica. Robinson, Grant and Perl all place him after Actium. In the relative chronology I include him in the pre-Actian period by inserting Antony's bronze after his issue. The evidence is ambiguous. (i) Weight and module. From Crassus through the Augustan issues the weight and module of the as steadily declined. Pupius' as best fits this scheme if it precedes rather than follows Antony's, which is closer to Seato's. On the other hand, the semis and quadrans of Pup ius seem to be very close to Seato's. (ii) Type. Capito and Palikanus ignored the as type of Seato and preferred to imitate that of Antony. If Pupius was post-Antonian, their later imitation of Antony becomes even more remote. (iii) Signature. All other post-Antonian dupondii and asses bear the name, and in some cases the image, of Augustus or (under Tiberius) members of the imperial family. Pupius' usage would be strangely independent

32

T. V. BUTTREY

and anachronistic. On balance, therefore, I prefer to place Pupius' issue pnor to Antony's. Antony and Cleopatra, dated to 3 I BC by the reference to Antony's third consulship. I place the issue after those signed only with the magistrates' names, and before those which refer to Augustus. Denarii of Scarpus, struck first for Antony (fig. 19), then with quinarii for Octavian, 3 I BC (figs. 20, 22). These issues are not included in Robinson, BMCCyr., though struck

19

20

21

22

Issues of Scarpus with prototype of Octavian

in Cyrene, because they are Roman military issues. They are conveniently collected in Grueber, BMCRR n, 583-58626 = Crawford, RRC, no. 546. 27 Note that the imitation of local types which is a feature of Roman Cyrenaican coinage is found here too, in Scarpus' use of the Ammon head as obverse type. Scarpus' coinage for Antony is limited to 31 BC by the consular date and Scarp us' change of allegiance in September; his coinage for Octavian presumably followed at once. Note the close stylistic connection in the Zeus Ammon heads of the two series (Grueber, BMCRR rn, pI. cxxii, 7-ro), the work of the same engraver. So Crawford, RRC, no. 546. In Grueber, BMCRR n, 582-586, and Mattingly, BMCRE1, cxxvi, II I-I 12, Scarp us' coinage for Octavian/Augustus is dated from 30 to 27 BC for two reasons which no longer hold: the evident imitation of Octavian's type of Victory on globe (Mattingly, BMCRE I, nos. 602-604) (fig. 21) and the variant with A VGVSTVS which could date no earlier than 27 BC. But some of the IMP CAESAR and CAESAR DIVI F issues ofOctavian, from which the Victory derives, are now plausibly viewed as pre-Actian by Crawford ;28 and the A VGVSTVS piece of Scarpus appears to be imaginary (Mattingly, BMCRE I, cxxvi). Indeed Dio li 9. I suggests that Scarp us abandoned his troops to Cornelius Gallus very soon after his defection from Antony. The Scato issue. I have argued above that there was only one issue, struck after 23 B.C given Augustus' TR POT. :rhe style of the series is somewhat better than that of Capito and Palikanus, and the weights are less erratic. Grant (FITA, 138) places Scato after the other two on the basis of a supposed weight reduction. This, however, depends on reading his largest piece as a sestertius, the next as a dupondius, contrary to the meaning of the types (see above).

Roman coinage of the Cyrenaica

33

The Capito and Palikanus issues in the name of Augustus. Priority between the two issues cannot be established, and neither can be more precisely dated than subsequent to the reform of the aes of Augustus (itself of uncertain date) whose dupondius they imitate. The issue in the name of Tiberius. From the reference to Tiberius Gemellus and Germanicus, the issue must date post AD 19. 29

DENOMINATIONS AND DENOMINATION-TYPES OF THE ROMAN COINAGE OF THE CYRENAICA

The weights and types of these issues provide the evidence that they formed a single system, based on contemporary Roman coinages. As long ago as Muller (Afrique I, 169-170, Table v) Roman denominations were imposed on these coins, but without any supporting argumentation. Robinson (BMCCyr., ccxxvii) also provides Roman values for them, disagreeing with Muller as to what they might be. (Grant, FITA, 138, follows Robinson, save for the case ofScato where he follows Muller.) The treatment of the coins of Lollius reveals how the two positions arose. (I) Muller says, 'Les pesees ... correspondent assez bien au poids du dupondius romain de ce temps ... A l'epoque ou la Cyrenaique filt faite provide romaine, l'as etait du poids d'une demi-once c.il.d. de 13, 5 grammes' (169). The heaviest of Lollius' Units known to Muller weighed 27.4 g.; the semuncial as weighed a theoretical 13.6 g., i.e. one half of the Roman ounce; the Unit was therefore a semuncial dupondius. (2) Robinson (BMCCyr., ccxiii) takes Lollius' Unit to be, rather, a sestertius, on the argument that its weights correspond to that denomination in Antony's Fleet Praefect coinage. Neither of these positions can be accepted. (I) While Muller's point might theoretically be correct, in fact the coinage of the semuncial as ceased at Rome after 84 BC, according to the chronology of Crawford, RRC, nos. 354-355. The later military issues in bronze, of which Sextus Pompey's and Octavian's were struck in very considerable numbers, were light uncial asses, not semuncial; so too the local Gallic aes ofOctavian. 30 The dupondius did not exist at all as a denomination in the first century BC until the Triumviral period when one issue was struck, so small that today only a single specimen survives.31 If the Unit of Lollius was intended to conform to Roman Republican monetary usage, it cannot have been a dupondius. (2) Similarly, Antony's Fleet Praefect coinage was at variance with normal usage, in that it included a curious range of denominations including a tripondius, and was struck to two standards, quartuncial and octuncia1. 32 Not only are these pieces idiosyncratic in the extreme, but their locus of production is quite unknown. To my knowledge no example of this variegated coinage has ever been attested in a Cyrenaican find, and there is no evidence that they ever had anything to do with the province. Robinson's association of this material with Lollius' coinage (itself of uncertain date) is entirely arbitrary and unsupported by any evidence. The association of Lollius' Unit with an imaginary Republican dupondius and with the Fleet Praefect coinage has contorted the whole picture of the Cyrenaican denominations. Nonetheless, that our aes was struck in terms of Roman denominations is certainly correct. A coherent account of the whole range from Lollius to Tiberius can

34

T. V. BUTTREY

be constructed if the Cyrenaican monetary circulation of the first centuries BC and AD is laid out as it really was: see Table 2 below, which includes average weights of the specimens known to me, and suggested denominations. Since the latest issues are the clearest, and since later issues tend to imitate earlier ones, the overall shape of these coinages will emerge most easily if they are taken in reverse order. Tiberius: As indicated above the denominations dupondius, as and semis are certain from the Roman and Gallic analogues of denomination and weight. The camel of the smallest denomination must have been copied from the only piece on which the type had earlier appeared, the Apollo/camel variety of Lollius. I will argue below that Lollius' piece must have been a semis, so that the imitation under Tiberius is of denominational, not simply antiquarian significance. Capito and Palikanus: The heavier piece in each series imitates the dupondius of Augustus' reformed coinage and approaches its theoretical weight of 13.7 g. The lighter piece is typeless, but it must be the as and therein imitates the common issue of Antony and Cleopatra, which is of that denomination. Seato: The largest piece with its two heads is in obverse type analogous to the Gallic dupondius (i.e. the revalued asses of Copia and Vienna), and to the reformed dupondius in reverse type and in weight; the second piece with head of Augustus similarly imitates the obverse of the Augustan reformed as. It follows that the two smallest pieces, whose types had already appeared on coins of Pupius, must on the basis of weight be identified as semis and quadrans. Antony and Cleopatra: The larger, and much the commoner, of the two modules cannot be evaluated by type - it has none. But the average weight of normally well-circulated specimens approaches that of the semuncial as, theoretically 13.6 g. The heaviest individual specimen attested is Svoronos, Ptolemaion, no. 18996' at 15.40 g.; next come two die-linked pieces in the British Museum at 12.94 g. each. The smaller denomination then can only be the semis, of relatively low weight and narrow flan by comparison with the later issue of Scato; but only three weights are to hand (Svoronos, Ptolemaion, nos. 1900 et, P; BM 1952 acquisition). The weight of the Unit, its imitation on the asses of Capito and Palikanus, and the fact that an example has been found halved, all tie it into the Roman system and identify it as a semuncial as. A. Pupius Rufus: The Unit here too approaches the theoretical weight of the semuncial as; the heaviest example known to me, Robinson, BMCCyr., no. 28, weighs 13.08 g.33 The reverse type of sella was taken over by Pupius from the Unit of Lollius, also to be regarded as an as. The two smaller denominations bear the same obverse types - ram and Libya - as the later Scato pieces ofthe same weight and module, and must represent the same denominations, viz. semis and quadrans. That is, imitation of specific types, already seen to be so frequent at Cyrene, has a denominational function quite apart from those types associated with the reform of Augustus. Pupius himself had already borrowed both types, the Libya of the quadrans from Crassus, the ram of the semis not from Crassus (who depicted Apollo) but from a Ptolemaic prototype (see above). Nonetheless, there may be more continuity here than strikes the eye. Robinson (BMCCyr., clxviii, ccxxxiv) believed that the ram refers to, and indeed may represent, Zeus Ammon. But the other

Roman coinage of the Cyrenaica Table

2 39

Average weight (g.)

Weight (g.) Obverse type

35

Average diameter (mm)

Diameter (mm)

Figure no. (pis. S-8)

Denomination (number of examples)

Uncial standard L. Lollius Greek Latin Greek Latin Greek Latin

Zeus Ammon Zeus Diktaios Apollo Artemis Libya wreath

as semis quadrans

20.46 (16) \.. 20.84(2S) 21'SI (9) J 11.60 (8)} 10.67(4S) 10"47 (37) 4.3 6 (4) } 4·33(13) 4.3 1 (9)

32.3 (19) \.. 32.3 (9) 27.2 (10) \ 27. 6 (3S) { 17·0 (4) 16.8 (9) J

J

32.3(28) 27·S(4S) 16·9(13)

2S 26 27 28 29 30

Semuncial standard Crassus Greek

Libya Tyche Latin crocodile Latin Apollo Greek Libya A. Pupius Rufus Greek Zeus Ammon Greek ram Greek Libya Antony and Cleopatra Greek Greek

as'0

l

28·4 29·9 26·3 20.8 IS·8

I

31 32 33 34 3S

semis quadrans

IS·29 (2) 13.78 (2) 11.68 (12) 7. 0 3 (S) 3.0 3 (6)

as semis quadrans

11.67 (II) S·12 (7) 2.61 (I)

28.1 (13) 21.9 (8) 16·S (I)

36 37 38

as semis

10·97 (14) 4.66 (3)

26.1 (7) 19·5 (2)

39 40

J

12·39(16)

(3) (3) . (6) (4) (6)

J

27·7(12)

Reform of Augustus Scato Latin

Augustus and Agrippa Augustus ram Libya

Latin Latin Latin Capito wreath Latin Latin Palikanus Latin wreath Latin Tiberius Greek Drusus with symbols Greek Drusus Greek camel

dupondius

13.9 1 (4)

29·9 (S)

41

as semis quadrans

10.21 (S) S·14 (3) 2·34 (3)

26.1 (S) 21.3 (3) IS·9 (3)

42 43 44

dupondius as

12-40 (1)41 9.02 (S)42

26·8 (2) 24. 2 (2)

4S 46

dupondius as

II.7S (S) 7. 00 (2)

27·9 (S) 22·9 (2)

47 48

dupondius

14. 19 (4)

28.0 (4)

49

as semis

9· II (4) 3.9 2 (2)

24.6 (4) 20·9 (2)

So SI

T. V. BUTTREY

ram god, Apollo Carneius, was well known at Cyrene, where his head figures on many coins dating from the fourth century BC onwards (Robinson, BMCCyr., ccxl, p. 16, no. 68). The semisses of Lollius and Crassus had borne a head of Apollo who is, to be sure, not horned as Carneius; but it might be that Pupius redesigned that denomination with a view to its continuing to refer to Apollo, but in another form equally well known at Cyrene, Carneius, via a symbol, the ram, as appropriate to him as it was to Zeus Ammon. Crassus: The individual Units, with their unhelpful types, vary considerably in weight and flan size, owing to particularly poor manufacturing control, but the average of all our specimens is that of circulated semuncial asses. The average Half-unit is a bit heavy at 7.03 g. for the semuncial semis, but note that e.g. BMCCyr., no. 25 his, at 7.85 g. is struck on an unusually thick flan. 34 The average Quarter-unit falls just under the theoretical semuncial weight for the quadrans, and bears the head of Libya which we have already seen on the quadrantes of Pupius and Scato. Crassus' three denominations are therefore the semuncial as, semis and quadrans. Finally, the issue of Lollius: Plainly the six types represent three denominations, falling into corresponding Greek and Latin series. The Greek types are all imitated later as denomination-types: Apollo and Libya on the semis and quadrans of Crassus, Zeus Ammon and Libya on the as and quadrans of Pupius. Lollius' weights however are distinctly heavier than theirs. His Unit, given its type, ought to be the as, and cannot be the dupondius (see above); therefore his is an uncial issue, probably not struck up to full theoretical weight, but in that regard very like the asses of Sextus Pompey and Octavian. Given the regular inclination which we have now seen at Cyrene to imitate denomination-types, it can only be that Lollius' denominations were the same as those of Crassus' and Pupius' later and lighter issues, just as at Rome during the Republic the bronze denomination-types remained constant through various diminutions in the weight standard. A further confirmation of the adherence in the Cyrenaica to Roman weights and denominations is found in the phenomenon of the halved coins. Halved Roman asses have been found in large quantities in Italy and Sicily, Gaul and Germany.35 There were two instances of halving, involving material of different weight and module, and separated by roughly half a century. (I) In the first instance, Roman sextantal, uncial, and to a certain extent semuncial asses were divided in half, cut along the obverse vertical axis between the two parts of the Janus head, or the two heads of the late Republican provincial bronzes of Octavian. This instance is to be dated to the 20S BC and associated with Augustus' reform, which introduced an as ofless than semuncial weight and bearing one head as type. The older Janus head asses must therefore have been retariffed as dupondii, and some subsequently halved so as to provide asses again, each now with one head. Such halves are found by the hundreds all over the West. (2) The second instance occurred under Tiberius, when reformed asses of Augustus, a certain number of Tiberian asses, and early Imperial asses of the Gallic mints as well, were halved. This occurrence seems to have been virtually confined to the valley of the Rhine, and to have had the purpose of providing small change. 36 The evidence now available from the Cyrenaica adds this area to those already known

Roman coinage of the Cyrenaica

37

to have experienced halving. Here, as elsewhere, halving was carried out on the spot, as is proved by the halves oflocal coins. Two pieces disturb the scene somewhat. A halved semis of Pupius was obtained by Norton in Cyrene and is now in the American Numismatic Society.37 There is no explanation for it, although rare halved Republican semisses are known. 3B A quartered as of Pupius is in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Quarters are particularly uncommon everywhere, and should probably be considered freaks rather than evidence of a deliberate monetary innovation. The last two pieces aside, the picture is consistent, equivalent to the two phases of the Western halving: (I) Roman Republican to Antony and Cleopatra, (2) Seato. It is the evidence of the halving of phase (2) which is unexpected, for these halves are attested in the West almost exdusively in the Rhine valley. Here, as in the West, the Augustan asses are perceptibly smaller than those which preceded them, so that it would have been easy to distinguish between them when halving was carried out - i.e., as in Germany, the Republican and the Augustan asses ought to have been halved on two different occasions. There seem to be only three possible explanations, each of which has its difficulties: A. The asses of Seato were cut, presumably accidentally, in the 20S BC when the older Republican and local asses were revalued as dupondii and halved. The difficulty is that the reformed as of Augustus and its imitation by Seato were deliberately designed so as to demonstrate denomination at once: one head = one as. It would bespeak a particularly thoughtless process to halve the very coins which were already defined as equivalent to the halved old as. B. The asses of Seato were independently cut later, under Augustus. The difficulty lies in discovering the occasion and the purpose. C. The asses of Seato were cut under Tiberius, as in Germany. The difficulty is the hardly plausible association of the Cyrenaica with Germany in this enterprise, and the fact that the other Augustan issues, of Ca pi to and Palikanus, have not been found halved. Whatever the solution, the examples from Cyrene not only reveal that halving in the Western European mode was carried on in Africa as well, but gratifyingly confirm thereby that a Roman, rather than a local, monetary system had been in use in the Cyrenaica in the late Republic. The weight standard was first uncial, in the case of Lollius, semuncial thereafter. The denominations of as, semis and quadrans were regular. With the reform of Augustus at Rome, the dupondius was introduced at Cyrene as well. Both dupondius and as were struck under Augustus and Tiberius. The highly erratic weights of the individual specimens do not obscure the fact that taken together they reflect a deliberate adherence to a standard equivalent to that being struck at Rome.

NOTES I

The Soter /Libya issues had been struck in various modules, tending toward the smaller as time went on (E. S. G. Robinson, Catalogue of the Greek coins of Cyrenaica [in the

British Museum] (hereafter BMCCyr.), London 1927, 80-89; but ultimately without the clear distinctions of size, and therefore of denomination, which character-

T. V. BUTTREY

ised the Egyptians' own coinage. In addition, in the late second/early first centuries BC the mint of Cyrene struck a mass of small bronze coins measuring 10-15 mm, of the types Ammon/eagle and Ammon/lsis head-dress. These are not included in Robinson, BMCCyr., and were given to Egypt by J. Svoronos, Ta nomismata tou kratous ton Ptolemaion (hereafter Ptolemaion), Athens 1904, nos. 1646, 1652, 1655-1656, 17 15-1717, 17 20 - 17 24, 173 21733, 1845; but they are as a group unlike the Egyptian in crudity of style and fabric. More important, they are found in the Cyrenaica in considerable quantity: (I) at Apollonia, 42 pieces of these issues were identified, including four minor varieties not in Svoronos (T. V. Buttrey, 'The coins' (hereafter Apol/onia), Apol/onia, The port of Cyrene. Excavations by the University of Michigan, 1965-1967 (ed. J. H. Humphrey), Tripoli 1976, 345-346); (2) at Cyrene, Norton recovered 171 pieces, including examples of three varieties not in Svoronos (Buttrey, Apol/onia, 366--367); (3) in the current excavations of the Demeter Sanctuary at Cyrene, 184 examples have so far been identified; (4) E. S. G. Robinson, 'Greek coins found in the Cyrenaica', NCS IV 1944, 105- I 13, notes over 40 examples; and so on. These all must have been struck at Cyrene, as I have argued at greater length in Appol/onia, 337-338. But when the reattribution is made, nothing remains of this module in the late Ptolemaic coinage of Egypt proper. Svoronos gives only three other bronze issues measuring as little as 15 mm which he can date as late as the reigns of Ptolemy VI and VIII, in the second century BC, and all are very uncommon (nos. 1408, 1428, 1639). There is no evident coordination between the large module bronze which continued to be struck in Egypt, and the small, crude bronzes produced in great quantity at Cyrene in the second/first centuries BC. It is possible, then, that on the level of small change the monetary systems of the two areas were not commensurate. 2 For the denominations of Lollius see below. 3 The dromedary has one hump, the camel it

4

5 6

7

8 9

IO

I I

12

13

14

15

has two. Or else the other way around. On this difficult question, L. Muller, Numismatique de fancienne Afrique I-Ill and supplement (hereafter Afrique), Copenhagen 1860-1874; Ill, 191, annotation to p. 159. W. Wroth, Catalogue of the Greek coins of Crete and the Aegean islands [in the British Museum], London 1886,63, nos. 18-19. A. B. Cook, Zeus I, Cambridge 1914, 15, 65 2 . So suggests Anne E. Chapman, 'Some first century B.C. Bronze coins of Knossos', NC7 VIII 1968, 13-26 at 18, not seeing the bow and quiver. But they can be made out on Robinson, BMCCyr., pI. xlii, no. 2. For the stag in Crete in classical times see 'Kreta', Paulys Real-encyclopiidie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 2 (ed. G. Wissowa, W. Kroll) xl-ii, Stuttgart 1924, 1741, 1742-1743. Pausanias v 7, 6-8, I; v 13, 8. And went further in his catalogue, adding to the Cyrene listings the tetradrachm with busts of Antony and Cleopatra and her legend ... 0EA NE!lTEPA as on the bronze (Ptolemaion, nos. 1897-1898). But he withdrew this suggestion in text, at vrry, and reassigned the tetradrachm to Syrian Antioch. K. Regling, [review of] Svoronos, Ptolemaion, ZjN xxv 1906, 344-399 at 397. M. Grant, From imperium to auctoritas (hereafter FITA), Cambridge 1946, 64-65. T. V. Buttrey, 'Thea neotera on coins of Antony and Cleopatra', ANS-MN VI 1954, 95- 109. H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum I. Augustus to Vitellius (hereafter BMCRE I), London 1923. T. V. Buttrey, 'Halved coins, the Augustan reform, and Horace, Odes I. 3', American Journal of Archaeology LXXVI 1972, 31-48. Grant (F/TA, 138) concurs, but he approaches the question from a different angle, and concludes that Scato's coins (or only the two larger denominations?) were struck at Cnossus. But the as (= Grant 'dupondius'; see below) appears to occur only in Cyrenaica: for one example from Apollonia see T. V. Buttrey, Apol/onia, 346, no. 54; for a second from Cyrene, Buttrey,

Roman coinage of the Cyrenaica

16

17

18

19 20

21 22 23

24

Apollonia, 367, no. N74; a third is in a private collection, from Cyrene; for a fourth, J. Boardman, J. Hayes, Excavations at Tochra 1963-1965, The archaic deposits II, London 1973, 123. Robinson's order, Palikanus - Capito, is apparently arbitrary; see BMCCyr., ccxxv. Grant (FITA, 135) accepts Palikanus' coins as the earlier' by their higher weight and closer imitation of the Roman models'. But Capito's dupondius is of marginally better style (Robinson, BMCCyr., pI. xliv, no. 5, as against nos. I -3), and heavier weight. See Table 2. As noted above, the typeless variety B must have been imitated from the typeless issue of Antony and Cleopatra, which suggests the continuing circulation of those coins under Augustus. Robinson, BMCCyr., 116, nos. 19-20; BMCCyr., cciv-ccv, nos. 18 bis a to 20b, 2od-20f, 20h; BM, 1936 acquisition; G. Macdonald, Catalogue of Greek coins in the Hunterian Collection, University of Glasgow Ill, Glasgow 1905, 576, no. 66; ANS, 2 pieces. Buttrey, Apollonia, 346, no. 56. In the same way, several halved Mamertine bronzes were found at Morgantina, of the same module as Republican asses and presumably cut along with them, see T. V. Buttrey, n. 14 above, 40 n. 57. Buttrey, Apollonia, 367, no. N72. Buttrey, Apollonia, 346, no. 54. G. Perl, 'Die romischen Provinzbeamten in Cyrenae und Creta zur Zeit der Republik', Klio LII 1970, 3 I 9-354; 'Nachtriige', Klio LIII 1971,369-379. The first two issues catalogued by Robinson appear to be exclusively Cretan in origin. (I) Roma/bee. These uncommon pieces are struck on an old-fashioned dumpy flan, quite unlike any of the properly Cyrenaican issues (pI. 5, no. 23). Although one find in the Cyrenaica is attested (R. C. Bond, J. M. Swales, 'Surface finds of coins from the city of Euesperides', Libya Antiqua II 1965, 101, no. 137), the coinage is undoubtedly Cretan for the types can be paralleled there. See B. V. Head, A guide to the principal coins of the Greeks, London 1932,

83,

39

VII.B. 10, a tetradrachm of Gortyna c. 69 with types Roma (i.e. helmeted female head)/ Artemis Ephesia with bee symbol. (2) The Licinius issue. These are struck on a thin flan of small module and low weight, again not relating to any of the issues from the Cyrenaica (pI. 5, no. 24). Although the legends of the two faces point to both parts of the joint province-KPHTA, AIBYH-two pieces with provenience come from Crete (Robinson, BMCCyr., I 13, no. 2; cciii 2 bis a), while none of the Cyrenaican excavations known to me has produced any. 25 For a resume of the problem as far as Crete is concerned, see Chapman n. 6 above, 13-'4· 26 H. A. Grueber, Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum (hereafter BMCRR) I-Ill, London 1910. 27 M. H. Crawford, Roman republican coinage (hereafter RRC), Cambridge 1974. 28 M. H. Crawford, [Review of] K. Kraft, Zur Munzpragung des Augustus, JRS LXIV 1974, 246- 247. 29 I omit several suggested additions to the list of Roman Cyrenaican issues. Grant introduces an entirely new coinage, struck by P. Cosconius, otherwise unknown (FITA, 260-261). The attribution depends on identifying the reverse type, a curious plant, as the silphium. To my eye it bears no resemblance. Alfoldi (who believes Pupius, Scato, Capito and Palikanus to have been praefecti class is) would add the aes of Clovius and Oppius (Crawford, RRC, nos 476, 550) and the aurei and denarii of Q. Cornuficius (Crawford, RRC, no. 509) (,Commandants de la flotte romaine stationee it Cyrene sous Pompee, Cesar et Octavien', Melanges d'archeologie, d'epigraphie et d'histoire offerts a Jerome Carcopino, Paris 1966, 25-43). There are two major arguments, neither of which is tenable. (I) The style of these issues is said to be related, and that of Oppius very close to the coins ofCornuficius. The three obverse types of the last include a head of Jupiter Ammon, historicaiJy the major type of the coinages of Cyrene. Cornuficius' mint would then have been at Cyrene, and so too the mint of the two aes BC

40

T. V. BUTTREY

issues. But even allowing the stylistic associations, Cornuficius himself was never anywhere near Cyrene as far as the sources indicate, and his obverse types also include a bust of Africa, never found at Cyrene, and a head of Tanit, historically the major type of the coinages of Carthage. Clearly the obverses taken together refer to his province and cannot be assumed to be equivalent to mintmarks. (2) Alfoldi's chronology places Clovius' coinage in 46 BC, then Cornuficius' and Oppius', in 41-40 BC. Lollius' style, he believes, could then derive from Oppius' (p. 30), and the rest of the Roman coinages of Cyrene follow. In other words, Clovius would stand earliest in the Roman coinages of the Cyrenaica. But in stylistic justification of his attribution of Cornuficius' coinage and the aes said to be related to it Alfoldi looks for 'ne ... pas une simple Moneta castrensis temporaire, mais un hotel des monnaies bien installe, avec une longue tradition artistique. Or, precisement, l'outillage, I'experience et le personnel necessaires it un resultat aussi accompli existaient it Cyrene' (p. 29). This is not the case at all; there had been no mint in operation at Cyrene for at least 50 years prior to the date which Alfoldi would assign to Clovius, that is since the land was bequeathed to the Romans on the death of Ptolemy Apion. And the last coinage struck under Ptolemaic authority consisted ofiarge quantities of unutterable junk (Robinson, BMCCyr., 86-89, and the small bronzes discussed in n. I above). The 'long artistic tradition' had been dead for a couple of centuries. There is then no reason to assign either the aes issues of Clovius and Oppius or Cornuficius' coinage to Cyrene. 30 Buttrey, n. 14 above, 34-37: the average of a number of Sextus' Janus-Pompey asses is 21.52 g; of Octavian's DIVOS IVLlVS asses, 20.80 g.; of asses of Copia and Vienna, 19.13 and 19.43 g .. respectively. The one exception is the rare semuncial as of Atratinus, Crawford, RRC, no. 530 = Grueber, BMCRR 11, 501 (14.2 g.). 31 T. V. Buttrey, 'The unique "as" ofCn. Piso Frugi, an unrecognized semuncial dupondius', Studi Oliveriani XI 1963,3-10. I accept

32

33

34

35 36

37 38 39

40

the revised date suggested by Crawford, RRC, no. 547. GrueberinBMCRRII, 511-512 n.,doubted that there actually had been two standards in use. But their distinction and identification can be supported statistically; see T. V. Buttrey, 'Studies in the coinage of Marc Antony' (diss. Princeton 1953), Appendix I. The weight of Robinson, BMCCyr., 118, no. 30, '7.95' g., should be corrected to 11.54 g. The weight given in Robinson, BMCCyr., '8-48' g., is in error. Several of the diameters reported for Crassus in BMCCyr. should be corrected, viz., no. 25,0.87 inch; no. 25 his, 0.79 inch; no. 26,0.59 inch. Buttrey, n. 14 above. T. R. Volk now informs me of one halved reformed as certainly found in Italy (see G. B. Frescura, 'Monete romane trovate a Lagole nel 1950-51', Archivio Storico di Belluno, Feltre, e Cadore XXII 1951,74-75), now in the Museo della Magnifica Comunitit di Cadore, Pieve di Cadore. Additionally a small number in northern Italian collections may well have been found locally - Aosta (M useo Archeologico), 3; Benevagienna (Museo Civico), I. Buttrey, Apollonia, 367, no. N73· Buttrey, n. 14 above, 33 n. 16. The examples collected for this Table are from Robinson, BMCCyr., including both those in the introduction and in the catalogue proper; subsequent BM acquisitions, coins from the Hunterian and Fitzwilliam Museums, the ANS, a few pieces from the curren t Cyrene exca va tions or in the Cyrene Museum, and a private collection assembled in Cyrene; for Antony and Cleopatra, the examples listed by Svoronos, Ptolemaion. I have not usually included the weights given by Muller, since some might be duplications of the other material, and in any case the state of preservation is not ascertainable. Not only are the three as issues from the three mints divergent in average weight, their weight ranges do not even overlap save for a single heavy crocodile (Latin) piece: Libya (Greek), 15.32-15.25 g.; Tyche

Roman coinage of the Cyrenaica (Greek), 14.30--13.25 g.; crocodile (Latin), 15.08,13.10--9.08 g. Consequently the average as weight and diameter given here are informational only, but it is the case that in weight the denomination does approach the semuncial standard. 41 The British Museum specimen. A second piece in Paris weighs only 9.00 g., but is holed.

42 Here only I have averaged in Muller's weights (Staatliche Munzsammlung, Munich, and Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen) with the others (Paris, ANS, private collection). The range is still enormous, I 1.80--5.57 g. The ANS piece at I 1.32 g. is struck on a very thick flan, fully 3 mm thick.

KEY TO ILLUSTRATIONS

Text figures I Ptolemaic, mint of Cyrene, 3rd/2nd c. BC, as Svoronos, Ptolemaion, no. 872 (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: Leake Collection). 2 Ptolemaic, mint of Cyrene, 2nd/1st c. BC, as Svoronos, Ptolemaion, no. 1655 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Leake Collection). 3 Ptolemaic, mint of Cyrene 2nd/1st c. BC, as Svoronos, Ptolemaion, no. 1845 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Leake Collection). 4 Cyrene, 5th/4th c. BC, rev. silver tetradrachm (Fitzwilliam Museum: McClean Collection, no. 993 6). 5 Pup ius Rufus, obv. bronze Unit (British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xliii, no. 2). 6 Ptolemaic, mint ofCyrene, (?), 3rd/2nd c. BC, obv. bronze issue (Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen: SNG XL, no. 456). 7 Pup ius Rufus, obv. bronze half-unit (British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xliii, no. 4). 8 Ptolemaic, mint of Cyrene, rev. bronze Unit (Fitzwilliam Museum: Weber gift). 9 Pup ius Rufus, obv. bronze Quarter-unit (Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen: SNG XLI, no. 1317). 10 Augustus (Rome), obv. copper as of C. Asinius Gallus (Fitzwilliam Museum: general collection). I I Scato, obv. bronze as (Fitzwilliam Museum: general collection). 12 Augustus (Rome), obv. orichaIcum dupondius of C. Asinius Gallus (Fitzwilliam Museum: general collection). 13 Scato, rev. bronze dupondius (British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xliii, no. 7). 14 Augustus (Rome), orichaIcum dupondius of Cn.Piso Cn.f. (Fitzwilliam Museum: general collection). 15 Capito, obv. bronze dupondius (British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xliv, no. 2). 16 Augustus (Rome), rev. silver denarius dated 28 BC (Fitzwilliam Museum: Hart gift). 17 Nemausus, rev. bronze as (Fitzwilliam Museum: Hart gift). 18 Crassus, obv. bronze as (Fitzwilliam Museum: general collection). 19 Scarpus for Antony, silver denarius (Fitzwilliam Museum: general collection). 20 Scarpus for Octavian, silver denarius (Staatliche Munzsammlung, Munich). 21 Octavian (Rome), rev. silver denarius (Medagliere Capitolino, Rome). 22 Scarpus for Octavian, silver quinarius (Fitzwilliam Museum: general collection).

Plate 5 23 Crete, bronze Unit (British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xxxix, no. 4). 24 Licinius (Crete), bronze issue (British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xxxix, no. 5).

42

T. V. BUTTREY

(For nos. 25-51 see Table 2) 25 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xli, no. 7. 26 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xxxix, no. 27 British Museum. 28 British Museum. 29 British Museum. 30 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xli, no. 3.

10.

Plate 6 31 British Museum. 32 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna: BMCCyr., pI. xlii, no. 33 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xlii, no. 8. 34 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xlii, no. 9. 35 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xlii, no. 12. 36 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xliii, no. 3. 37 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xliii, no. 4. 38 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xliii, no. 6.

10.

Plate 7 39 British Museum. 40 British Museum. 41 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xliii, no. 7. 42 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xliii, no. 8. 43 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xliii, no. 9. 44 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xliii, no. 10. 45 Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris: BMCCyr., pI. xliv, no. 5. 46 Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris: BMCCyr., pI. xliv, no. 6. 47 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xliv, no. I. 48 British Museum. Plate 8 49 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xliv, no. 7. 50 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xliv, no. 9. 51 British Museum: BMCCyr., pI. xliv, no. 10.

I am grateful to the Curators of the collections cited for providing casts and photographs.

43

Roman coinage of the Cyrenaica

24

29

30

Plate 5

44

T. V. BUTTREY

31

32

33

35

38

Plate 6

Roman coinage of the Cyrenaica

45

40

44

43

46

Plate 7

T. V. BUTTREY

49

50

Plate 8

51

4 Roman imperial coin types and the formation of public opinion M. H. eRA WFORD

The authority and personality of the Roman emperor and his government were mediated to the subject population in a variety of ways. Perhaps the most important was the complex of stories circulating probably even among relativdy humble people, many of them about contact with the emperor or his representatives. 1 Of course such contact itself, when it occurred, also mediated the authority and personality of the emperor and his government; the imperial cult, too, had an important role to play, as did the erection of figured monuments and imperial buildings and the distribution of imperial largesse. Within the empire as a whole, the plebs in Rome naturally had privileged access to the benefits of imperial rule and saw far more of the emperor and his works. On the nature and importance within this context of the role of the imperial coinage widely differing views are expressed; at one extreme there is the view that the emperor himself paid particular attention to the choice of types for his coinage in order to draw attention to his virtues and his successes and that these types had a major impact on the population of the Roman Empire, at the other extreme the view that only a minor department of government was involved and that the pictorial types of the imperial coinage were little noticed and often misunderstood. 2 I begin by looking at the extent to which historians in antiquity made use of buildings, statues, inscriptions, archaeological discoveries and coins as historical evidence and then consider the impact which was made by all of these and by coins· in particular on the public as a whole. My conclusions are perhaps valid only for the educated classes, who created most of such records as we have which are relevant to this investigation - but it is unlikely that the impact of a coin on an illiterate peasant was greater. Thucydides, as we might expect, uses an antiquarian's method of research to aid historical enquiry.3 He attempts to use the evidence provided by the clearance of the graves on Delos in order to establish the identity of the primitive inhabitants of the island. 4 He is aware in his discussion of Mycenae of how little can be deduced from architectural remains about the size or importance of a city." The dedicatory inscription

47

M. H. eRA WFORD

of Pausanias on the tripod at Delphi, erected after the battle of Plataea, is admitted as evidence for the improper ambitions of that wayward monarch. 6 The altar of Apollo and a stele on the Acropolis are used as evidence for the family of Peisistratus. 7 Similarly, Aristotle cites an inscribed discus at Olympia in his discussion of Lycurgus. 8 Polybius, whose testimony is unwisely rejected by Livy, records the size and composition of Hannibal's army for the invasion of Italy on the basis of the bronze inscription set up by Hannibal in the temple of Hera Lacinia at Croton, an inscription which Polybius himself sought out and inspected. 9 And in his critique of Timaeus, Polybius' mounting indignation reaches its peak with the remark that Timaeus went to the trouble of collecting inscriptions from hidden and inconspicuous parts of the buildings; and still he was inaccurate. lo Diodorus justifies his belief in the revival of Sicily after Timoleon by an appeal to the number and grandeur of the buildings erected. l l When Cicero was trying to reconstruct the composition of the Commission of Ten sent to help L. Mummius with the settlement of Greece after the fall of Corinth in 146 BC, he accepted Atticus' identification of A. Postumius Albinus as a member of the Commission on the basis of a statue at the Isthmus. 12 Suetonius adduces statues of Vespasian's father, dedicated 'to an honest tax-collector', in his account ofVespasian's family.13 And Plutarch occasionally (unlike Suetonius) uses statues as a guide to the appearance of the subjects of his Lives, in order to be able to argue from their appearance to their character. 14 For the use of coins as historical evidence we have only, so far as I know, the example of the Historia Augusta, where they are used rather to lend verisimilitude to historical fiction. But their use in this way implies the possibility of their use in history. In the most explicit example, the author and his friends are debating whether or not one Firmus was ever emperor. The opinion is advanced that he wore the purple, struck coins and was called Augustus. Severus Archontius even produces coins of Firmus to prove the point. Needless to say, none now survive and there is no reason to suppose that they were ever more than a figment of the imagination of the author of the Historia Augusta. 15 The technique is a favourite one of his; Odenathus, Trebellianus, Victoria, all are endowed with coins and the title of Augustus or Augusta. 16 None deserves a place in history. It is nonetheless interesting to note that the assumption lying behind the argument is that the issuing of coinage is a mark of sovereignty, an assumption to which I return below. It is also interesting that the modern discovery of an emperor from his coins, Uranius Antoninus, regarded by Michael Grant as one of the chief services of numismatics to history, should share its methodology with historical fictionY It is apparent, then, that the use of monuments of one sort or another, including coins, as historical evidence was known to the historians of antiquity. It is also apparent that the people responsible for all these monuments, buildings, statues, inscriptions and coins, attached some importance to them. One might presume this in any case from the expense normally involved in their production, but explicit evidence may also be found. For Theopompus, inscriptions were so important to the community responsible for their erection that a plausible accusation to level against Athens could be that of forging the inscription relative to the peace of Callias. 18 In the private sphere, three Thebans of

Roman coin types and public opinion

49

the second rank went to the length of erecting a monument bearing an inscription explaining that it had really been they, not Epaminondas, who had won the Battle of Leuctra. 19 For a later period, Polybius records a remarkable debate among the Aetolians besieging the city of Medion. They were on the point of reaching the annual change over of generals and they believed that they were about to capture the city. A full-scale debate ensued - who should have the right to have his name inscribed on the trophy, the general who had conducted the siege or the general who would within the next few days receive its submission? The Aetolians reached the equitable decision that both should be inscribed on the trophy. Unfortunately, the Illyrians appeared on the scene, the Aetolians were soundly defeated and the siege was raised. The citizens of Medion gleefully inscribed the names of both defeated generals on the trophy which they erected. 20 For the Roman period, Dio records as a matter of some importance the decision of Tiberius to inscribe the temple of Castor and Pollux with the name of Drusus as well as with his own.21 And Vespasian, established as the ruler of the Roman state, took steps to replace the inscribed records of that state destroyed in the fire on the Capitol in AD 69. 22 Again, in the private sphere, Trimalchio's long discussion of what sort of tomb he wanted ended with the quotation of the inscription it was to bear, not the least important part of which was the statement that he never listened to a philosopher. 23 There is also much evidence for the importance attached to imperial statues. An unsuccessful attempt at a prosecution for maiestas under Tiberius involved the charge that the defendant had sold a statue of Augustus along with some gardens. Tiberius' reply is well known, that his father had not been deified in order that the honour should be the ruin of his fellow-citizens. 24 But later history belied these good intentions and the relevant title in the Digest states that wanton damage to, melting down or sale of consecrated statues of the emperor were all illegal. The emperors cared for their statues. 25 For the only explicit evidence that the emperors cared for the types of their coinage we have to go to the fourth-century treatise, de rebus bellicis. The author of this tract, in the course of his suggestions for the better government of the Empire, offers some new ideas for coin types. As preserved, his designs are sadly unimaginative, but no matter. They would hardly have been offered unless the author believed that the subject was of interest to an emperor. 26 This belief is widely shared by modern scholars who are under no obligation to believe that the emperor cared for everything; and the fact that much trouble seems to have been taken over the imperial coinage is adduced in support of their notion. It can hardly be denied that great care was indeed lavished on the imperial coinage, in both design and execution, and I should not wish to reject the belief of the author of the de rebus bellicis as wholly unfounded. But explanations other than direct imperial interest may be invoked for the high quality of much of the imperial coinage and a consideration of other evidence suggests that the author of the de rebus bellicis was expressing a hope rather than documenting an actuality. Some monuments certainly made an impact on those who saw them, even if they were not historians in search of source material. The author of the speech concerning Neaira preserved in the Demosthenic corpus would hardly have appealed to his listeners'

50

M. H. eRA WFORD

knowledge of a painting in the Painted Stoa to prove the presence of the Plataeans at the Battle of Marathon unless he and they had been reasonably familiar with itY The paintings carried in Roman triumphs to portray the course of the war are recorded in an abundance of sources, not only historical and antiquarian. 28 They are included, for instance, in the derisive account given by Cicero of the triumph which Piso claimed was his for the asking. Herodian remarks on the impression made on the population as a whole and on himself by pictures of the emperor. And right at the end of classical antiquity the author of the panegyric to Maximian and Constantine talks of the painting in the palace at Aquileia depicting in effect the mission of Constantine, a painting about which the author seems to have heard in ordinary conversation. 29 When Demosthenes was attempting to stir the Athenians to action against Philip II of Macedon, he appealed to his audience's knowledge of the buildings of Athens and the marvels of the temples and the offerings therein, the achievements of the great days of the fifth century, as well as to his audience's knowledge of the deeds of Miltiades, Aristides and the rest. 30 Statues also excited attention. The Elder Cato of course rebuked those who regarded the honour of a statue as important. 31 Cicero made effective use of the statues in the Forum in the Sixth Philippic, inviting his audience to compare those of L. Antonius and of Q. Marcius Tremulus, victor over the Hernici in 306 BC. 32 The thirty-first and thirty-seventh orations of Dio Chrysostom are full of references to statues. As for inscriptions, in his defence of M. Fonteius, Cicero appeals to the antiquity of his client's family, an antiquity documented and known from the inscribed records of its achievements. The younger Pliny records an inscription which he has himself seen, that of Pallas on his tomb along the Via Tiburtina. 33 But what of coins? The ancients certainly examined their coins carefully, if only to make sure that they were not false. They also had the habit of scratching inscriptions on coins (fig. 1).34 Many of these appear to be gibberish, meaningless collections ofletters,

KOPArrnN

in faint graffito before head

but those which are intelligible often suggest that the coins were intended as presents, whether to gods or to other human beings. It would be surprising if no-one ever noticed what type or legend was on a coin and it is possible that conscious selection sometimes took place of a type suitable as a present or to accompany a burial. An as of Domitian with Fortuna as reverse type was found in the mast step of the Roman ship from

Roman coin types and public opinion

51

Blackfriars. 35 But the range of things which were regularly noticed, or at any rate noticed and recorded, is curiously limited. Before looking at these records, we must make two important distinctions. References to coin types may be of two kinds, which I should like to call direct and indirect. If a man takes a coin out of his purse, looks at the type and then records it, that is a direct reference, even if it comes to us by way of another author. But a chronicler may also record of a ruler that he struck a certain type, without ever seeing any example of the coin in question, but deriving his information from the records of government. I regard a reference to a coin type of this kind as indirect. The second distinction which I wish to make is this. The types and legends of an ancient coin normally had two functions, first to identify the authority responsible for the coin, second to proclaim the message, if any, which that authority wished to put out. The first function is clearly the more important. There is good evidence that in the Greco-Roman world the striking of coins was universally regarded as a mark of sovereignty. 36 As I have noted above, this universal belief appears to lie behind the use, or abuse, of numismatic evidence by the author of the Historia Augusta. But we can go further than that. In the course of the celebrated debate between Agrippa and Maecenas, staged by Dio in 29 BC, Maecenas assumes that Rome can regulate the coinages of the cities of the Empire. And a curious story told by Dio of Vitellius, that he made no attempt to eliminate the coinage of Nero, Galba and Otho, carries the same implication, that the striking of coinage and the possession of sovereign power were linked. 37 Thus Vespasian began to strike coinage soon after his proclamation; alleged coins of Perennis were regarded as evidence of a plot to seize the throne; Severus allowed coins to be struck for Albinus after making him Caesar.38 And it is because the striking of new coinage was linked with the refoundation of Abonouteichos as lonopolis that Lucian records the fact; his actual description of the coins is phantasmagorical. 39 In considering references to coin types we must therefore distinguish carefully between references to types which identify the issuing authority and references to those which convey some further message. Some of the most striking references to coin types conveying some message which we possess seem to be indirect. This comes out particularly clearly in the case ofDio's record of the placing of Caesar's head on the coinage; the measure is recorded by Dio along with the other measures voted by the senate towards the end of Caesar's life. 40 There is no evidence that Dio or his sources ever saw the coins in question (fig. 2). Perhaps the most dramatic coin types of antiquity are those of the celebrated issue of Brutus, with the head of the Liberator on the obverse and the cap of Liberty between two daggers with the legend EID MAR on the reverse (fig. 3). The production of this issue is duly recorded by Dio: 41 'Brutus dealt with these affairs (before going to Asia to meet Cassius), and on the coins which he struck he placed his portrait and the pileus with two daggers, proclaiming thus and by the legend that he had freed his country with Cassius.' The description is tolerably accurate, but again there is no reason whatever to suppose that Dio or his sources ever saw one of these coins. They were not produced in large quantities and are of extreme rarity now. Furthermore the description of the

M. H. eRA WFORD

2 JULIUS CAESAR

3

4

BRUTUS

AUGUSTUS

5

6

NERO

CONSTANTlNE

legend, with the involvement of Cassius, is not such as one would derive from an inspection of the coins, which bear no reference to Cassius. I think we may believe that Dio's record of the coin does not derive from autopsy by anyone, but from a chronicle of the activities of Brutus. The same is true, I think, of a record in Suetonius of a coin type of Augustus. In 45-44 BC, while the future Augustus was at Apollonia waiting for Caesar, his fortune was told by Theogenes on the basis of his horoscope. In due course, Suetonius continues, he made his horoscope public and struck a silver coin with as its type the sign of the zodiac Capricorn, under which he was born (fig. 4). Augustus was, of course, not born under Capricorn, but under Libra, but the reason for the error of Suetonius (and of Manilius) need not detain US. 42 The linking of the remark about Augustus' coin type with the story of his horoscope and its publication suggests to me that the record of the coin type comes from the memoirs of Augustus or an associate, not from observation. There is no way of telling whether the brief reference by Suetonius to the coin type of Nero showing him playing the lyre derives from observation (fig. 5).43 Only with the description of the consecration coinage of Constantine in the Vita Constantini of Eusebius am I reasonably sure of the relevance of observation (fig. 6).44 While we cannot conclude from the passages we have been considering that the Greeks and Romans often noticed the programmatic coin types with which they were confronted, one inference is possible. If chroniclers thought it worthwhile to record what rulers put on their coins, we may reasonably infer that the rulers themselves and the educated classes as a whole attached at least some importance to the subject. The belief of the author of the de rebus bellicis, which we have already considered, is thus to a certain extent vindicated. What did the Greeks and Romans notice about the coins which they handled? The

Roman coin types and public opinion

53

7

8

9

quadrigatus

bigatus

victoriatus

10

11

'double'

cistophorus

most straightforward procedure for naming a coin is to adopt the name of the denomination, to treat it in fact as purely and simply a piece of money. Both drachma and denarius are names of this kind. But both in the Greek and in the Roman world coins were often named after their types. The Roman examples which come most readily to mind are quadrigati, bigati, victoriati, each named after a type, Jupiter in a quadriga, Victory in a biga and Victory crowning a trophy respectively (figs. 7-9).45 (It is presumably not an accident that in each case the legend ROMA is associated with the reverse type.) Tetrarchic nummi were perhaps called' doubles' because they bore two figures on the reverse (fig. 10).46 Greek examples are equally ready to hand. One of the commonest coins of the later Hellenistic world was the cistophoros, named from the cista mystica which it bore (fig. I I). Similarly, the New Style silver coinage of Athens was distinguished from the Old Style by the olive-wreath which it bore on the reverse, occasioning the name stephanephoros (fig. I2). The late Lycian issues were known as citharephoroi, from the lyre which formed the reverse type (fig. 13).47 Coin types in the Greek world were also noticed without giving their names to the coins in question. The type of the Persian daric (fig. 14) provided Agesilaus with the occasion for a bitter joke at the expense of the Athenians and Thebans bribed by Persia to stir up trouble in Greece, that he was driven from Asia by 30,000 archers. 48 The basic types of the Republican bronze coinage, a head of a deity on the obverse and a prow on the reverse (figs. 15-16), similarly found their way into the imagination

54

M. H. eRA WFORD

stephanephorus

13

14

citharephorus

•archer'

16

as

quadrans

of the users of the coinage. The Roman equivalent of the slightly curious English expression, heads or tails, was capita aut navia. 49 Two further comments may be made. The erroneous belief that these coins were the oldest produced by Rome made their types the most discussed of all antiquity and provided the stimulus for increasingly wild antiquarian and etymological speculation. 50 But despite this interest, Pliny, true to form, asserted wrongly that while the reverse type of the as was a prow, that of the triens and quadrans, two of the fractions of the as, was a raft. 51 He was misled by the poetic expression quadrans ratitus which he had read in Lucilius and generated a clear example of the preference for literary speculation rather than visual investigation. The Greeks and Romans, then, noticed at least some coin types which had no necessary connection with the issuing authority. But all the coin types so noticed were very common indeed (despite which they were still sometimes mistakenly read or reported) and were almost devoid of any kind of programmatic content. The only hypothesis which could justify the belief that programmatic coin types were noticed is unverifiable and improbable. It could be argued that their interest was limited to the period of their appearance, and that they were not recorded precisely because of their ephemeral significance. But, if this is so, it is surprising that Cicero's numerous references to ephemeral political concerns of the late Republic do not include a reference to coin types. Cicero knew that Pompeius struck coinage at Apollonia in 49 BC, but he does not record the types of this or any other issue. 52 In any case, by far the most widely noticed feature of ancient coins was that element

Roman coin types and public opinion

55

in the types which indicated the issuing authority. This appears most clearly in the case of the Roman imperial coinage, on which the head of the emperor is the most significant feature. The best-known example is probably the one from the New Testament, where Jesus examines the image and title of the emperor on a denarius and pronounces the dictum, 'give to Caesar what is of Caesar'.53 The same concern with the head of the emperor occurs also in Talmudic texts, where it is stated that the coins used for the redemption of the second tithe must have the imperial image intact. 54 The colloquial expression domini for coins, surely deriving from observation of the imperial image, is also worth noticing in this context. 55 The phrase Kaisaros nomisma was used by Epictetus, 'neither a banker nor a shopkeeper may reject the coinage of the emperor, but ifsomeone produces it, whether he wishes or not, he must give over what is being sold for it'.56 We need not doubt that the identifying feature of the coinage of the emperor was the image of the emperor. An imperial law of AD 343 made the point explicitly, 'all the solidi, on which our images appear and for which there is universal veneration, must be treated as of the same value ... '57 Of course, the corollary of the fact that the emperor's head on the Roman imperial coinage symbolised his authority was the fate which this head suffered when the emperor portrayed fel1. 58 The defacement of reliefs and inscriptions which included a representation or a mention of an emperor who suffered damnatio memoriae is a wen-known phenomenon. It did not escape notice in antiquity. On Domitian's death the senate decreed that his inscriptions were everywhere to be destroyed and his memory to be obliterated. 59 As early as the fourth century BC, Lycurgus told a story (probably apocryphal) about the melting down of a statue of Hipparchus, son of Charmus, sentenced to death in absentia for treason. 60 Coins of the Roman Empire, surely because of the presence on them of the imperial portrait, did not always escape the fate of the man responsible for their production. Dio records that after the death of Caligula the senate decreed that an the bronze coinage which bore his image should be melted down. An analogous political judgment is implied in Statius' derisive reference to an as Gaianus. 61 Some thrifty souls in the Rhine army camps who seem to have wished to

17 CARACALLA

and

18 GET A

NERO

M. H. eRA WFORD

express their disapproval of Ca ligula without going to the lengths demanded by the decree of the senate contented themselves with a chisel blow to deface the emperor's image. Their handiwork survives to be inspected. 62 Caracalla had the coinage of Geta melted down.63 A political judgement is also implied in another story of Epictetus. A man was offered a coin of Nero and rejected it in favour of one of Trajan, despite the fact that the coin of Nero was of greater intrinsic value. 64 There is a curious Jewish example of the same attitude; because of the outrages committed by Hadrian against the Jews in and after AD 132, some Talmudic texts held that the coins bearing his image should not be used and even went so far as to reverse their normal rule, saying that they could be used when so worn that the image could not be recognised. 65 The evidence of coinages other than the Roman imperial confirms the view that the only really important element in the typology was that which served to identify the issuing authority. Many Greek coins were named after the city which issued them, Kyzikenoi and so on. But one can go further: the norm for Greek coinages was for the type of the coinage of a city to be the current badge of that city. When Sestos decided to resume bronze coinage in the second century BC, the twin reasons given are that the sema of the city (in this case a seated Demeter) may be current and that the city may derive profit from the coinage (fig. 19).66 A city's sema was known independently of her coinage; it was often used in the fourth and third centuries BC to decorate an inscription relating to the city or to one of its members. 67 In the field of coinage, the p%i (colts) of Corinth

19

20

21

Sestos

Corinth

Aegina

22

23

24

Athens

Athens

Arab imitation

Roman coin types and public opinion

57

(fig. 20), the chelonai (tortoises) of Aegina (fig. 21) are familiar, and the glaukes (owls) of Athens (fig. 22) are the most familiar of all. The importance of the sema of Athens is apparent not only from the extent to which it was copied (figs. 23-24), but also from the comment of Xenophon that the coins of Athens were in demand everywhere and even carried a premium outside Athens. 68 Their preponderance in the Aegean at the turn of the fifth and fourth centuries is attested by a story of Plutarch. Gylippus was entrusted with the money being sent back to Sparta by Lysander. The money was placed in bags and sealed with a note inside each bag saying how much there was. But in the course of the journey home Gylippus unpicked the stitching at the bottom of the bags, removed some of the money and stitched the bags up again. The ephors were at a loss to account for the discrepancy until Gylippus' servant informed them that there were many owls asleep under Gylippus' roof-tiles. 69 Further evidence that the only really important thing about a coin was whether it issued from a respectable authority or not may be drawn from the habit of naming coins after people. The Lydian Kroiseioi (fig. 25) and Persian Darics (fig. 26) belong to this class, as do the Carian Maussoleia (fig. 27) and the Macedonian Philippeioi (fig. 28), the great gold coinage which found its way into Hellenistic literature as the gold coinage par excellence and made its way from there through early Roman comedy into Augustan poetry; coins were likewise named for Alexander and his successors. The whole ofSulla's coinage in the east was named Lucullion (e.g. fig. 29), largely, I think, because Lucullus was remembered as the collector of the levies of money which went to provide the metal for the coinage. 7o Three oddities are coinages apparently named from women, the Philistideion, the Berenikeion and the Demareteion. The Philistideion is simply mentioned by Hesychius and is presumably the portrait issue struck by Hieron 11 (fig. 30). The Berenikeion is mentioned only in passing by Pollux in the middle of a list and presumably refers to the coinage of Berenice 11, consort of Ptolemy III Euergetes and ruler of Cyrenaica in her own right, a coinage which bears her portrait and inscription (fig. 31).71 The Demareteion is a curious and instructive case. By analogy with other coins named after people, it should be a common coin. But it cannot now be identified with certainty. Diodorus, Pollux and Hesychius tell contradictory, etiological stories about its origin, which are patently invented. Again by analogy, it should either be named, like the Lucullion, because Demarete provided the wherewithal to produce it, or because it bore what was believed to be her portrait. 72 In my view it is the common fifth/fourth-century tetradrachm of Syracuse, with the head of Arethusa mistaken for that of Demarete (fig. 32). It seems, then, that there is little evidence for official interest in coin types and even less evidence that in the Greco-Roman world coin types which may be called programmatic had much impact, although other aspects of coins and coin types were noticed. 73 This fact is probably even more significant than the fact that the situation with respect to coin types differs markedly from the situation with respect to other monuments. But the facts require at least some attempt at explanation. Why did the inhabitants of the Roman Empire not notice the programmatic element in the ever-changing coin types with which they were bombarded?

58

M. H. CRAWFORD

25

27

26

28

29 ~.--......

.

.....i~~~ .: . .~r:/, .. :'

' ~~'

J'

f

.",.,/

I

I

~ ' .'j.."" :i"I "~(i) . t}: I. ',

.. t

I

'~:-=J/- .

30

31

32

First of all, surely, because those who were educated enough systematically to make sense of the reverse types of the imperial coinage had much better ways of finding out about the emperor and his activities. It is also relevant precisely that the types were ever-changing. The vast majority of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire, if they saw . coins at all, saw new issues as a tiny part of a mass of issues covering a century or more. It is not surprising that it was the head of the emperor which was noticed - and doubtless alone symbolised for many people the fact that they belonged to the Roman Empire. Another factor must have been sheer size. A picture carried in a triumph is both more striking and easier to see than the type of a coin an inch or less across.

Roman coin types and public opinion

59

One problem remains, to find an explanation for the diversity, imaginativeness and often great beauty of Roman imperial coin types. The rulers of the Roman Empire were on the whole intelligent men and I find it hard to believe that with so much else on their hands they, or indeed their senior advisers, devoted day-to-day attention to the devising and designing of types of which almost no-one took any notice. The reason, I think, is a combination of accident and human nature. The accident is that Rome, when it adopted the idea of coinage, was governed by an intensely competitive oligarchy. The Republican oligarchy entrusted the production of its coinage, as it was bound to do, to an annually changing magistracy; the rest followed. We saw earlier that the norm for Greek coin types was the badge of the city and all that the Roman oligarchs did with the coinage of their city, when they abandoned the public types with which it began, was to place their own private badges on it. Questions about the reception of this coinage by those who saw it probably did not arise. The victor in the civil wars eventually excluded all but his own badges from the coinage and from this point or from one very soon after it the imperial coinage was, I think, largely carried on by an independent artistic tradition. The Romans were technically capable of the mass-production of coin dies, but they do not seem to have attempted this until very late, no doubt for the same reasons which inhibited technological advance in other fields. Instead they employed artists, engravers, to cut the dies. It would not be surprising if this group experimented and innovated, bringing their skill to bear in the creation of artistically satisfying types, which represented their ideas of the moment about the state and the ruler for whom they worked. In other words, the model I propose is a largely ascending one; of course, an emperor may have issued a general directive to ensure that his coinage represented his 'personality' and the model may thus far be a descending one; but the pattern for the most part is surely one of a mint doing its best for its patron. The most conspicuous results of this effort are of course the great medallions of the later Empire. The officials of the mint doubtless knew how to portray an emperor without much prompting,just as a governor of Asia, Avidius Quietus, writing to Aezani, knew very well how to portray Hadrian. 74 One can easily understand the obvious fact that the coinage of some emperors reflects their reigns quite accurately, without postulating a massive effort to mould public opinion, directed from above and doomed to failure. One can also easily understand that the coinage of some emperors only reflects their reigns in a very odd way: thus the coinage of Vespasian, at firs\ sight innovatory, with its enormous range of changing types, in fact borrows almost every type from the Republic or earlier emperors.75 The mint is presumably following a general directive to make the coinage as like earlier coinage as possible; the result is as far removed from anything resembling propaganda as one can imagine. Not the least of an emperor's functions was that of patron of the arts; conspicuous consumption in this field was expected of him. But no-one has suggested, I think, that all emperors personally inspected and passed the designs for all the buildings and statues erected on their behalf. There is no reason to suppose that they did this for the coinage either.

60

M. H. eRA WFORD NOTES

The following additional abbreviations are employed: ANRW ILLRP BMCRR

McClean OGIS RE RIC RRC SNG

Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt: Principat (ed. H. Temporini, etc.), Berlin/New York 1972A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones latinae liberae rei publicae, Florence 1957-63. H. A. Grueber, Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum, London 19 10. S. W. Grose, Catalogue of the McClean Collection of Greek coins [in the Fitzwilliam Museum], 3 vols., Cambridge 1923-9. W. Dittenberger, Orientis graeci inscriptiones selectae, Leipzig 1903--05. Paulys Real-encyclopiidie der classischen. Altf'rtumswissenschaft (ed. G. Wissowa, etc.), Stuttgart, Munich 1894The Roman imperial coinage (ed. H. Mattingly, etc.), London 1923M. H. Crawford, Roman republican coinage, Cambridge 1974 (pubiished 1975). Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum [GB], London 1931-

See, provisionally, F. G. B. Millar, The emperor in the Roman world, London 1977, 3-4· 2 The central expositions of the first view in recent times have been by H. Mattingly, The emperor and his clients, Todd Memorial Lecture II, Sydney 1948; and C. H. V. Sutherland, Coinage in Roman imperial policy, London 1951 (compare the attempt to defend the approach by the latter in the President's Annual Address, N0 XI 1951, Proceedings, 6-20 at 13-19). An incisive critique of this approach is that of A. H. M. Jones, 'Numismatics and history', Essays in Roman coinage presented to Harold Mattingly (ed. R. A. G. Carson, C. H. V. Sutherland), London 1956, 13-33 at 15 (reprinted, with a brief bibliographical mise-au-point by myself, in A. H. M. Jones, The Roman economy (ed. P. A. Brunt), Oxford 1974,62-81). Sutherland replied in 'The intelligibility of Roman imperial coin types', JRS 2GLIx 1959, 46-55, whence the brief exposition in The emperor and the coinage, London 1976, 96-101; the approach is essentially sterile, since it ignores much of the available evidence. 3 See A. D. Momigliano, 'Ancient history and the antiquarian' , Journal ofthe Warburg and Courtauld Institutes XIII 1950,285-315 at 287-288 (reprinted in A. D. Momigliano, Contributo alia storia degli studi classici, I

Storia e Letteratura XLVII, Rome 1955, 67-106 at 100; Studies in historiography, London 1966, 1-39 at 4); see also R. Weiss, 'The study of ancient numismatics during the Renaissance', NO VIII 1968, 177-187. 4 Thucydides i 8, I; for attempts to relate the evidence of Thucydides to the archaeological evidence see R. M. Cook, 'Thucydides as archaeologist', Annual of the British School at Athens L 1955, 266-270; c. R. Long, , Greeks, Carians and the purification of Delos', American Journal of Archaeology LXII 1958, 297-306; J. Boardman, 'Sickles and strigils', JHS XCI 1971, 136-137; compare Plutarch, Solon 10,4-5, for an alleged allusion to burial habits by Solon and his opponents in the argument over the Athenian claim to Salamis. 5 Thucydides i 10, 1-3; Cook, n. 4 above. 6 Thucydides i 132, 2; compare [Demosthenes]lix 97. 7 Thucydides vi 54, 6-55, 2, with A. W. Gomme, K. J. Dover, A. Andrewes, A historical commentary on Thucydides IV, Oxford 1970, 317-337 at 330-334. 8 Plutarch, Lycurgus I = Aristotle (ed. V. Rose, Leipzig 1886),frag. 533. 9 Polybius iii 33, 18; 56,4; Livy xxi 38, 2. 10 Polybius xii I I, 2. I I Diodorus xvi 83. 12 Cicero, ad Atticum xiii 32, 3; on the whole episode see E. Badian, • Cicero and the

Roman coin types and public opinion commission of 146 BC', Hommages a M. Renard(ed. J. Bibauw), Collection Latomus Cl, Brussels 1969, 54-65; E. Rawson, 'Cicero the historian and Cicero the antiquarian', JRS LXII 1972, 33-45 at 40. 13 Suetonius, Vespasian I; compare Vespasian 12 for the actual tombs of the Vespasii. See in general A. Stein, Romische Inschriften in der antiken Literatur, Prague 1931; R. Chevallier, Epigraphie et litterature aRome, Faenza 1972, ch. 2. 14 A. E. Wardman, 'Description of personal appearance in Plutarch and Suetonius: the use of statues as evidence', Classical Quarterly2 XVII 1967, 414-420, with earlier bibliography. 15 Scriptores Historiae Augustae (hereafter SHA), Firmus 2, I. 16 SHA, The 30 pretenders 26,3; 31, 3; The two Gallieni 12, I for Odenathus; K. Menadier argues that the type alleged is that of the coinage of the age of Julian (' Die Miinzen und das Miinzwesen bei den Scriptores Historiae Augustae', ZjNXXXI 1914, 1-144 at 55). For other numismatic figments of the imagination of the author of the Historia Augusta see Alexander Severus 25, 9; Antoninus Diadumenianus 2, 6. 17 M. Grant, Roman history from coins, Cambridge 1958, 58. 18 F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin 1923- , fr. 153-154, compare Plutarch, Omon 13, 4-5. Note also H. Volkmann, 'Die Inschriften im Geschichtswerk des Herodot', Convivium, Beitriige zur Altertumswissenschaft. Konrat Ziegler dem Lehrer und Freunde . .. zum 70. Geburtstag, Stuttgart 1954, 41-65. 19 M. N. Tod, A selection of Greek historical inscriptions 11, Oxford 1948, 92--94, no. 130. 20 Polybius ii 2, 8-1 I and 4, 1-2. 21 Dio Iv 27, 4. 22 Suetonius, Vespasian 8; compare Demosthenes xxii 69-78. 23 Petronius, Satyricon 71, 12. 24 Tacitus, Annals i 73, 2. 25 Digesta Iustiniani xlviii 4. 4, 1-6; see also Suetonius, Tiberius 58; Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana i 15. It remains true, of course, that people did not always care whether a statue was really of the person

61

named on its base, Cicero, ad Atticum vi I. 17; A. E. Wardman (see n. 14 above); H. Blanck, Wiederverwendung alter Statuen als Ehrendenkmiiler bei Griechen und Romern 2, Rome 1969, Studia Archaeologica XI. See also K. Scott, 'The significance of statues in precious metals in emperor worship', Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Associatian LXII 1931, 101- 12 3. 26 Anonymous, de rebus bellicis 3, 4; see E. A. Thompson, A Roman reformer and inventor, Oxford 1952, 36-37. Eusebius, Vita Constantini 4,15, also assumes that the emperor chose coin types (see n. 44 below). 27 [Demosthenesl lix 94; on this text see A. M. Snodgrass, Arms and armour of the Greeks, London 1967,94; on the fame of the Stoa Poikile see R. E. Wycherley, 'The painted stoa', Phoenix VII 1953, 20--35; C. M. Robertson, Greek art, Cambridge 1975, 24 2. 28 W. Ehlers, 'Triumphus', RE VIIA, 493-5I1 at 503. 29 Cicero, in Pisonem 60; Herodian iv 8, 1-2; v, 5, 7; Panegyrici latini 7 (6), 6. 30 Demosthenes iii 25. 31 Plutarch, Cato Maior 19. 32 Cicero, Philippics vi 12; compare vii 16. 33 Cicero, pro Fonteio 41; Pliny, Letters vii 29; compare viii 6. 34 J. Friedlaender, 'Eingeritzte Inschriften auf Miinzen', ZjN III 1876, 44-46 (expanding 'Miinzen mit eingeritzten Aufschriften', Berliner Bliitter fur Munz- Siegel- und Wappen-kundev 1868, 146-147); G. F. Hill, A handbook of Greek and Roman coins, London 1899, 197; BMCRR 1,30; ILLRP I, 88, no. I14 - d'Ailly Collection no. 921 (Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris); ILLRP I, 127, no. 191; C. WCl on RRC 1,419-436, no. 408 (Staatliche M useen, Berlin); C. M. Kraay, Archaic and classical Greek coins, London 1976, 16-17; C. T. Seltman, The temple coins of Olympia, Cambridge 1921, 10, no. 218 A (reprinted from Nomisma VIII 1913, 23-65; IX 1914, 1-33; XI 1921, 1-39). 35 P. R. V. Marsden, A ship of the Roman period from Blackfriars, London 1967. 36 See Herodotus iv 166. 2; I Maccabees 15,6.

62

37

38 39

40 41 42

43 44

45 46

47

48 49

50

M. H. eRA WFORD

OGIS I, 370, no. 229 at line 55 (in a treaty between Smyrna and the incolae of Magnesia, the legal tender of Smyrna is imposed in Magnesia). Dio lii 30, 9, with my remarks in 'Finance, coinage and money from the Severans to Constantine', ANRWII-2, 560-593 at 561; Dio Ixiv 6, I. Tacitus, Histories ii 82; Herodian i 9, 7; ii 15, 5· Lucian, Alexander 58; in view of Alexander's hostility to the city of Amastris, it is ironical that dies for the coinage of Abonouteichoslonopolis were probably always made in Amastris (U. Westermark, 'Amastris-Abonoteichos', Numismatica Stockholmiensia I 1975/ 197 6 [197 8], 7-8 at 7). Dio xliv 4, 4· Dio xlvii 25, 3. Suetonius, Augustus 94; Manilius ii 497; K. Kraft, 'Zum Capricorn auf den Miinzen des Augustus', Jahrbuch fur Numismatik und Geldgeschichte XVII 1967, 17-27 at 17 for this error (reprinted in Gesammelte Aufsiitze zur antiken Geldgeschichte und Numismatik I (ed. H. Castritius, D. Kienast), Darmstadt 1978, 262-272). Suetonius, Nero 25. Eusebius, Vita Constantiniiv 73; veiled head of Constantine on the obverse; Constantine going up to heaven in a chariot on the reverse. Compare iii 47 for the mother of Constantine on gold coins; iv 15 for Constantine looking upwards on gold coins. I suspect that with the advent of the Christian Empire coin types were more noticed, though I am not sure why. Pliny, Natural History xxxiii 46. See the texts collected in Crawford, n. 37 above, 580 n. 80. l. R. Melville lones, 'Greek coin names in -phoros', Bulletin of the Institute for Classical Studies XXI 1974, 55-74. Plutarch, Agesi/aus 15, 6; Artaxerxes 20, 4; Moralia 211b. Macrobius, Saturnalia i 7, 22; Festus, de verborum significatu at Navia; Origo gentis romanae iii 5. RRC, 7 I 8, n. 2. Roman antiquarian speculation actually invented coin types: Plutarch, Quaestiones romanae 274e-f; Poblicola

51 52

53 54

55 56 57 58

59

I I - ox, sheep, and pig as types, on the grounds that these were the source of the wealth of early Rome. Pliny, Natural History xxxiii 45. Cicero, ad familiares xiii 29, 4. Lucilius 278-281W suggests that the rich did not normally handle coins but this does not of course mean that Cicero would not have reported changes in coin types, if their impact had been politically important. Luke 20, 24; Mark 12, 17; Matthew 22, 2 I. E. Lambert, 'Les changeurs et la monnaie en Palestine du ler au I1l e siecle de l'ere vulgaire d'apres les textes talmudiques', Revue des Etudes Juives L1 1906,217-244 at 243 n. 4; LII 1906, 24-42 at 29 n. 2. The exposition of D. Sperber, Roman Palestine 200-400, Ramat-Gan 1974,69, is less lucid. Martial iv 28, 5. Arrian, Epictetus iii 3, 3. Codex Theodosianus ix 22. To show disrespect for the coinage of a living emperor was of course lese majeste, see the texts cited in nn. 24-25. Suetonius, Domitian 23; Pliny, Panegyricus

51.

60 Lycurgus, in Leocratem I 17; see H. Blanck, n. 25 above, 109-112, for other examples; Plutarch, Solon 12, 3. 61 Dio Ix 22, 3; Statius, Si/vae iv 9, 22. See W. Trillmich, Familienpropaganda der Kaiser Caligula und Claudius, Antike Miinzen und Geschnittene Steine VID, Berlin 197 8, 46 n. 99. 62 H. Chantraine, Novaesium III: Die antiken Fundmunzen der Ausgrabungen in Neuss, Limesforschungen VIII, Berlin 1968,22. For the countermarking and overstriking of coins of Elagabalus from Phoenicia and Palestine, see A. Kindler, 'The damnatio memoriae of Elagabal on city coins of the near East', Gazette Numismatique Suisse no. 1171980,3-7; on ancient erasures in general see M. Bernhart, 'Erasionen', [Festschrift] Heinrich Buchenau, Munich 1922, 1-8 (I owe this. reference to T. R. Volk); K. Regling, ZjN 1922, 166 n. 5, at 169; P. Berghaus, Festschrift F. Dorner I, Leiden 1980, 158. 63 Dio Ixxvii 12,6. See K. A. Neugebauer, 'Die Familie des Septimius Severus', Antike XII

Roman coin types and public opinion 1936, 155-172 at 162; fig. 17, a coin with facing portraits of Caracalla and Geta, the latter erased. 64 Arrian, Epictetus 5, 17. For contemporary cancellation of Nero's portrait, see fig. 18. 65 Lambert, n. 54 above, [u] 241-243. 66 OGIS I, no. 339; see the commentary of L. Robert, 'Les monetaires et un decret hellenistique de Sestos', RN6 xv 1973,43-53. Note Periplus of the Red Sea 47 for the legends of the coins of Apollodotus and Menander. 67 L. Lacroix, 'Les "blasons" des villes grecques', Etudes d' Archeologie Classique I 1955/1956[1958] (Annalesdef Est: Memoire no. 19),91-115; T. Ritti, Sigle ed emblemi sui decreti onorari greci, Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei: Memorie della Classe di Scienze Morali 8 XIV-V, Rome 19 69. 68 Xenophon, Poroi 3, 2. 69 Plutarch, Lysander 16, 2. 70 RRC, 80 n. I; compare Martial xii 57, 7 for Neronia massa. 71 Pollux ix 85. 72 Diodorus xi 26, 3; Pollux ix 86; Hesychius s. v. !!./Ylpap€T€tov; for a dedication by Gelon and his brothers see [Simonides] (ed. E. Diehl, Anthologia Lyrica Graeca 11, Leipzig 1925), no. 106. 73 Contra, e.g. H. Gesche, 'Die Reiterstatuen der Aemilier und Marcier', lahrbuch fur Numismatik und Geldgeschichte XVII 1968, 25-42; M. Manson, 'La Pietas et le sentiment de l'enfance a Rome d'apres les monnaies', RBNS ex XI 1975, 21-80; R. Fears, Princeps a dUs electus: the divine

election of the emperor as a political concept at Rome, Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome XXVI, Rome 1977, 199-205; D. H. Euan-Smith, 'Obverse portrait propaganda', Quaderni Ticinesi [dll Numismatica e Antichita Classiche VI 1977, 257-269; W. Trillmich, n. 61 above, 4-5. Contrast the caution, on general grounds, of D. Mannsperger, 'ROM ET AVG. Die Selbstdarstellung des Kaisertums in der romischen Reichspragung', ANRW II-i, 919-996, doubting whether the coin types or legends of antiquity resembled a newspaper or a royal diary and pointing to the likely roles of tradition, climate of opinion and initiative in the adoption of a coin type. 74 OGIS I, no. 502; see R. Fears, n. 73 above, 279, for a clear use of rather striking - and appropriate - types being chosen without intervention by the emperor. 75 T. V. Buttrey, 'Vespasian as moneyer', NC7 XII 1972, 89-109; the suggestion that Vespasian had been moneyer under Tiberius and so acquired a numismatist's love of diverse coin types is, as Buttrey admits, fanciful. Note that G. G. Belloni, 'Monete romane e propaganda. Impostazione di una problematica complessa', Contributi del lstituto di Storia Antica [della Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore] IV 1976, 131-159, and'Significati storico-politici delle figurazioni e delle scritte delle monete da Augusto a Traiano', ANRWII-i, 997-1144, sees coin types as for record purposes, not for persuasion.

KEY TO ILLUSTRATIONS

(All Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge) Text figures I Metapontum, obv. didrachm (FM: McClean Collection, no. 924). 2 P. Sepullius Macer for Julius Caesar, denarius as RRC, 489, no. 480/5b (FM: Museum of Classical Archaeology, Gow Collection). 3 L. Plaetorius Cestianus for Brutus, denarius as RRC, 518, no. 508/3 (FM: Hart gift). 4 Augustus, denarius as BMCRE I, 56, no. 305 (FM: general collection). 5 Nero, dupondius as BMCRE 1,249, no. 256 (FM: Young gift).

M. H. eRA WFORD

6 Constantine 11, etc., for Divus Constantinus, nummus as RIC VIII, 539, no. 12 (FM: general collection). 7 Roman Republic, didrachm as RRC, 145, no. 30/1 (FM: general collection). 8 Roman Republic, denarius as RRC, 251, no. 206/1 (FM: Young gift). 9 Roman Republic, victoriatus as RRC, 192, no. 102/1 (FM: McClean gift). 10 Third tetrarchy: Galerius Maximian, nummus as RIC VI, 208, no. 676a (FM: Grierson gift). I I Ephesus, cistophoric tetradrachm (FM: SNG lv-vi, pI. lxxxv, no. 4434). 12 Athens, New Style tetradrachm (FM: SNG Iv-iv, pI. lix, no. 3206). 13 Patara (Lycia), drachm (FM: SNG lv-vii, pI ci. no. 5045). 14 Persia, 5th-4th centuries BC, gold daric as Kraay, Archaic and classical Greek coins, pI. iv, no. 82 (FM: Leake Collection). 15 Roman Republic, as as RRC, 158, no. 56/2 (FM: general collection). 16 Roman Republic, quadrans as RRC, 159, no. 56/5 (FM: general collection). 17 Stratonicea (Caria) for Caracalla and Geta, bronze issue (FM: SNG lv-vi, no. 4732); for an undefaced specimen of this issue, see SNG Copenhagen XXVI, pI. xii, no. 510. 18 Nero, dupondius, type ofD. W. MacDowell, The western coinages of Nero, Numismatic Notes and Monographs CLXI, New York 1979, 172, no. 193 (FM: general collection). 19 Sestos, bronze issue (FM: McClean Collection, no. 4173). 20 Corinth, stater (FM: McClean Collection, no. 5312). 21 Aegina, stater (FM: McClean Collection, no. 6042). 22 Athens, tetradrachm (FM: SNG Iv-iv, pI. lvi, no. 3063). 23 Athens, triobol (FM: SNG Iv-iv, pI. lvi, no. 3109). 24 Gaza (Palestine), drachm (FM: McClean Collection, no. 9547). 25 Croesus, gold stater (FM: McClean Collection, no. 8635). 26 Persia, 5th-4th centuries BC, gold daric (FM: Tremlett bequest). 27 Maussolus, tetradrachm (FM: McClean Collection, no. 8519). 28 Philip 11, gold stater (FM: SNG Iv-iii, pI. xxxvi, no. 2026). 29 Roman provincial administration, New Style tetradrachm of Athenian type (FM: SNG Iv-iv, pI. lix, no. 3231). 30 Syracuse, sixteen litrae (FM: McClean Collection, no. 29 I 2). 31 Cyrene, didrachm (FM: McClean Collection, no. 9966, as of Berenice I). 32 Syracuse, tetradrachm (FM: SNG Iv-ii, pI. xxii, no. 1245).

5 Coin hoards and Roman coinage of the third century AD R. A. G. CARSON

In his little book Numismatics, l in the chapter devoted to coin finds and hoards, Philip Grierson wrote that' hoards are for the most part less obviously interesting than coins in collections, since they often consist of hundreds of virtually identical objects ... but, quite apart from being the ultimate source of all the coins that one sees in collections, coin finds are the numismatist's most valuable single guide to classification and dating'. This statement is of general application to all series of coins, and to all periods within any given series, but there are some series and periods for which the evidence of coin hoards is more valuable than for others, and for the Roman coinage of the third century AD the evidence of coin hoards is, for a variety of reasons, particularly valuable, and the techniques by which this evidence can be exploited merit consideration. The ultimate object in the study of any series of coins is to create, from a mass of material, as fully detailed a chronological picture of the coinage as possible, so that evidence of the coinage can make its contribution to the history of the period. In such a re-creation one of the prime sources, that of contemporary historians, is conspicuously lacking in the third century, in contrast with both the earlier and later centuries of the Empire. The contemporary sources fail in the early part of the century, Dio Cassius in the reign of Severus Alexander (222-35), and Herodian only a few years later in 238, and recourse must be had to the testimony found in the epitomists or in the juridical sources, or else in documents such as papyri and inscriptions. In the third century, also, the amount of coinage which carries a reasonably overt indication of date of issue is significantly smaller than hitherto, and it becomes much less common for offices such as the consulship, whose dates are known, or the annual recording of the tribunician power, to appear in the imperial titulature on coins in anything like the fashion of coinage in the first and second centuries. The methods so far advocated for calculating the total output of coinage at any given period are neither convenient nor, seemingly, reliable, for it remains true that the coins available for study are only a sample of those that have been found, while coins that have been found form only a sample of those that have been lost, and these in turn are

66

R. A. G. CARSON

only a sample of those originally in circulation. 2 While it is true that the formation and deposition of hoards are affected by factors other than quantity and availability of coins, it is the case that hoards of Roman coinage of the third century are much more numerous, at least in Britain and in other western areas of the Empire where there is a long tradition of satisfactory recording of hoards, than hoards of coins of the first two centuries AD. The evidence of coin hoards of the third century is therefore of particular value, for only when a significant number of hoards are of a similar pattern can we safely regard them as representative of the circulating medium. Given the availability of a satisfactorily large number of hoards, it becomes possible from the study of them, and the careful comparison of one hoard with another, to arrange in chronological order whole classes of coins whose precise relation to each other would otherwise be uncertain. In the third century the only hoards which are of significant use in respect of establishing the pattern of the coinage are those of the silver denominations, first the denarius, and later the antoninianus. It is only the hoards of silver that provide a frequency both of occurrence and quantity that can be utilised for this purpose. Gold was indeed also hoarded, but the occurrence of such hoards is so rare that their evidence can make little contribution to this particular problem. The same unfortunately is true of hoards of bronze coins, and for this there appear to be two basic reasons. In the first place it is not surprising that fewer hoards of bronze coins than of precious metal coins were formed in antiquity, both because coins in bronze were token and oflittle intrinsic value, and because any appreciable sum made up of such coins would be cumbersome and weighty. In the second place, hoards of bronze coins discovered in modern times, as they fall outside the purview of treasure trove regulations, are less likely to be reported and, thus, recorded; furthermore, as bronze coins in general are less valuable in commercial terms less effort is made to market them, a process which might bring the existence of such a hoard to light. In the third century, therefore, it is in reality only the hoards of either denarii or antoniniani that exist in sufficient numbers to enable consistency of pattern to be checked, and which present quantities of each type sufficient to provide a basis for statistical analysis. Even here, where there is a considerable number of large hoards, the totality of the potential evidence is not available to be used; for it is the unfortunate truth that from the many hoards which are known covering any specified period within the century, the proportion which is recorded with the sufficiency of detail to make the reconstruction of the hoard assured is usually small. For instance, in the one detailed exercise of this type which I have carried out, for the coinage of Severus Alexander from AD 222 to AD 235, a rigorous search of publications yielded only twelve hoards recorded with adequate detail, 3 out of a total of some 46. Of the types of evidence provided by such hoards one of the most obviously useful is that of statistics, which has at least two major applications. An analysis of the numbers of each reverse type in a given coinage points to a numerical distinction between reverses which furnish its staple constituents, the substantive issues, and reverses which, distinctive in their types as they are, represent a special issue. Of the denarii of Severus Alexander, those with reverse types which are associated with special events such as the

Hoards and Roman coinage of the third century assumption of a consulship, repairs to the Colosseum and the Nymphaeum, the re-dedication of the temple of Jupiter Ultor, exist as very rare examples in collections, but never appear in hoards; and where those with a Liberalitas reverse, recording the largesse dispensed on such special occasions, do appear in hoards, their quantity is sufficiently less than that of ordinary reverses to confirm them as components of a special, restricted, and short-lived issue. For instance, of the denarii of the special issue associated with the accession of Severus Alexander, the reverse with the processional quadriga is completely absent from the great Reka-Devnia hoard, 4 and the accompanying Liberalitas reverse is represented by 77 examples. This is to be compared with such quantities as 148, 60, 176, and 108 in the same hoard for the reverses of the substantive issue, marked as early by TRP in the inscription and thus falling in the same period as the Liberalitas reverse of the special issue. 5 That this is not a chance survival is confirmed by the statistics of other hoards which, being numerically much smaller than Reka-Devnia, show the reverses of this substantive issue represented by single figures, but the special issue Liberalitas reverse represented by, at best, one coin, and more often not represented at all. The incidence of the various reverses of any group of coins in a hoard does not provide a prime criterion for establishing the pattern of issues, but it does perform a useful function in this context. The re-creation of the composition of an issue, and the pattern of issues, depends in the first place on the premise that in the first half of the century the coinage of the mint of Rome was produced by a six-officina system, though it is only on some issues of Phi lip I and his family (244--<) that the coins are marked by officina numerals, either Roman or Greek. The reconstruction of an issue is achieved by building round such dated reverses as there are, reverses which can be associated through a shared form of titulature, similarity of portrait and content of reverse type. It is at this point that the statistics provided by coin hoards can be used to check the correctness of the proposed issue. Where the figures for the six reverses of an issue are seen to be more or less of the same order of magnitude, the acceptability of the grouping of six reverses in an issue is enhanced. Again from the Reka-Devnia hoard, the figures for the six types assigned to issue four of the coinage of Severus Alexander are 40,47,25,40,18,33, and, when the data from the further I I hoards analysed is added, the totals for the types of this issue are 56, 60, 35, 45, 28, 38.6 The content of hoards which span the coinage of a whole reign can be used in such ways, but even where a hoard covers only part of a reign, its content of types can be added to a cumulative total for the issues which it does include. Hoards, however, whose content includes the coinage of only part of a reign, have a particular use in establishing the pattern and sequence of issues, especially when the content includes dated coins. Such hoards, when analysed, provide at least a reasonable indication that certain undated types fall within specific date brackets, and there fortunate chance has provided a number of hoards which terminate at successive points in a reign, a whole range of undated types can be attributed to specific periods. This was found to be the case with the coinage of Julia Mamaea, mother of Severus Alexander, none of whose coins carries an overt indication of date. Four of the recorded

Table ). Incidence oJ reverse types oJ Julia Mamaea in Jour British hoards Hoard

,7

Hoard

226 (?)

Terminating

AD

Severus Alexander

!RP v

(?)

IVNO CONSERVATRIX

AD

28

229

LIB£RALIT AS AVG IlII

IVNO CONSERVATRIX

Hoard 3' AD

230

TRP VIlli

I¥NO CONSERVATIUX

Hoard 4 10 AD

232

TRP XII

fYNO CONSERVATRlX

VENVS GENETRIX

VENVS GENETRIX

VESTA

(palladium)

VEST A

VESTA (patera)

VENVS VICTRIX

(palladium)

VESTA

(palera)

VENVS VICTRIX

VENERI I-r:UCI

F[LlCITAS PVBUCA

standing

FELlCIT AS PVBLlCA

seated

FECVND AVGVSTAE

standing

FECVND AVGVST AE

seated

IVNO AVGVSTAE

R. A. G. CA RSON

70

hoards do not include the whole range of the coinage of Sever us Alexander and Mamaea, but terminate within the reign at points marked by the latest dated coin of Severus Alexander in each hoard. The coins of Mamaea present in each of the four hoards can be tabulated as in Table 3. Analysis points to the issue of five reverses by about AD 226 (viz. Juno Conservatrix, Venus Genetrix, Vesta (palladium), Vesta (patera), Venus Victrix), the addition of one further reverse by AD 229 (Veneri FeJici), of yet another by AD 230 (Felicitas Publica (standing», and by AD 233 a further four reverses (Felicitas Publica (seated), Fecund Augustae (seated, standing), Juno Augustae). This is as far as analysis of the hoards can advance the allocation of reverses of Mamaea within the reign of Severus Alexander, and the more detailed attribution to specific issues within the periods must depend on the use of other criteria. The data assembled from a large number of hoards covering a particular area of coinage has one further function of considerable utility. The true picture of the content of any coinage is usually much obscured in standard listing by the lack of distinction between entries which represent the real .coinage material and entries which, on investigation, represent either at best hybrids or inaccurately reported coins or even forgeries. The comparison of data from a number of hoards with standard lists readily distinguishes these latter categories by their absence from hoards, and, by their removal, leaves the true coinage material for detailed investigation. This point can be illustrated from the coinage of Claudius 11 (268-70). For antoniniani of the mint of Rome, RIC lists 100 reverse types of which about half are recorded with two forms of obverse inscriptions, and thus a material of some 150 coin types. l l The material thus presented is inchoate and not meaningful, but an analysis based on the changing forms of obverse inscription, coupled with the observable absence initially of officina letters in a six reverse-type issue, and then the presence of marks of a I 2-officina system in three stages, produces a pattern

IMP C CLA VDlVS AVG

IMP C CLA VDlVS AVG

IMP CLA VDlVS AVG

IMP CLA VDlVS A VG

rev.

rev.

rev.

rev.

SALVS AVG

GENIVS AVG

GENIVS AVG

SECVRlT AVG

~I Synopsis of issues for Claudius II (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge)

Hoards and Roman coinage of the third century

71

of four successive issues involving only 42 coin types, something less than a third of the total suggested by the RIC entry. The validity of this pattern was borne out by the statistics derived from the Hollingbourne hoard 12 which contained 432 antoniniani of Claudius 11 of the mint of Rome. The existence of the pattern of this coinage is no novelty, for its essentials were worked out almost a century ago by Markl,13 though his account obscures the picture by listing every coin of Claudius 11 of which he could find a record. From his lists it is clear that the majority of the recorded coins, which cannot be substantiated from comparison with hoard material, consist of hybrid coins mostly with reverses of Gallienus, defective coins, misreported coins, and dubious coins with no authority other than the lists of Banduri and Tanini.l 4 It is only in the latter half of the third century that the signatures of the mints begin to appear on the coins, usually in the form of their initial letters, but this is by no means as universal or consistent a practice as it becomes after Diocletian's reform. The attribution of antoniniani to mints has, therefore, to depend on the use of other criteria such as the known number of officinae in use at a mint, the form of officina marking either by Roman numerals, initials of Latin ordinals, or Greek numerals, forms of obverse inscription, form of obverse portrait, or, less objectively and securely, style of portrait. Hoards can provide some assistance. From an analysis of hoard material groups of antoniniani can be segregated with reasonable certainty, representing the product of various mints, and the find spots of hoards can make some contribution to the identification of the mints of the several groups. It is probably a statement of the obvious, but in general terms the varying quantities of each group of coins have a bearing on the location of mints in relation to the find spot of a hoard, the mint of the most numerous group being nearest to the find spot, with a downward progression to the most distant mint having the smallest representation. For a hoard with a find spot in Britain, for instance, the mints of the groups in descending order of magnitude are likely to be situated in Gaul, in Italy, in the Balkans, and in the eastern provinces, though there may, of course, at times be political or other circumstances which distort the general rule. Where mints are located in relative proximity to each other in contrast with the distance from either to the find spot, the difference in frequency of the identifiable groups is likely to be so slight as not to be of real help in identifying the mints. To take the instance of the hoard from Hollingbourne in Kent already mentioned,15 the statistics of the coins of the Gallic emperors, Marius, Victorinus, and the Tetrici, attributed to two mints identified by Elmer as Cologne and Trier, are: Emperor Marius (268) Victorinus (268-70) Tetricus I and 11 (270--3)

Cologne

Trier

9 536 568

31 7 212

11

For Victorinus and the Tetrici Cologne shows some preponderance, though not overwhelming, over Trier, despite the fact that the putative mints are almost equidistant

72

R. A. G. CARSON

from the find spot. The mint of one group identified as Cologne by Ehner had earlier been thought to be Lyons, but, if the above statistics have any significance, they support Cologne as the mint rather than the more distant Lyons. I6 The statistics of groups of antoniniani also shed some light on historical and monetary circumstances of a period. In the large Gloucester hoard I7 the statistics of the main western mint groups are as follows:

Emperor

Lyons

Milan

Ticinum

Rome

Siscia

Other mints

Aurelian (270--5) Tacitus (275-6) Florian (276) Probus (276-82)

41 2,772 148 4,57 8

948

37 2 385 5 762

34 1 487 29 780

735 34 9 37 2

302 11

9 44

In the coinage of Aurelian the very small number of coins from the mint of Lyons reflects the short space of time between the recapture of Gaul from Tetricus in 274 and Aurelian's death in August of the following year. The quantity of coins of the north Italian mints of Milan and Ticinum is of remarkable dimensions. The mint of Milan is positively identified by the addition of its initial letter before the mint was moved to nearby Ticinum, which adds its initial letter to the officina letter and the formula XX of Aurelian's reformed antoninianus in the exergue. The quantity of coins, 948 for Milan and 372 for Ticinum, offers a check on the suggested date for the reform of early 274, a date to which the number of pre-reform coins of Milan compared with that of the post-reform coins of Ticinum lends support. The relatively small number of 341 coins of Aurelian from the mint of Rome compared with 1,320 from the combined mints of Milan and Ticinum, as well as 735 coins from the Balkan mint of Siscia, requires an explanation. The pronounced activity of Siscia in this reign is in marked contrast with what is shown by the statistics of the following reigns tabulated above, where the product of Siscia is less than a tenth of that of Rome for Tacitus and Florian, and less than half for that of Probus. At first sight, the unexpectedly large quantity of coins from SisciaI8 compared with those from Rome for Aurelian prompted the suspicion that some of the traditional attributions to Siscia might be erroneous, especially since for some issues there is a co-incidence at the two mints of officina pattern and marking, but no secure grounds for varying the attributions could be discovered. Since the reduction in the Rome coinage appears on the evidence for the following reigns to be peculiar to Aurelian, the explanation that suggests itself is that the reduction is linked with a specific event, the temporary closure of the Rome mint after its first issue for Aurelian, a closure which may have been either the cause or the effect of the reported revolt of the moneyers at Rome early in Aurelian's reign. The evidence of a complex of coin hoards which have a similar or approximately similar terminal date can also serve to illuminate wider considerations than the detailed sequence of coinage issues or even the mints of a period. Sir George Macdonald, in one

Hoards and Roman coinage of the third century

73

of the earliest considerations of the interpretation of coin finds,19 noted that three possible reasons for burying money were contained in the definition of a thesaurus in the Digest - vel lucri causa vel metus vel custodiae. 20 He was rightly dismissive of gain as a normal reason for concealing treasure, but unreasonably sceptical about safe-keeping as a cause, and maintained that the only real reason for concealment was because of fear. He cited as a prime example the well-known story of Samuel Pepys concealing his wealth in gold in June 1667, when the Dutch fleet sailed up the Thames, and turned to third-century coin hoards for another instance. He regarded the rash of hoards in Gaul concealed in the reign of Postumus as being caused by fear occasioned by barbarian incursions across the Rhine. 21 The evidence of these hoards has been examined more closely by van Gansbeke,22 who, from the terminal dates and find spots of hoards, plotted the routes of several invasions in northern and eastern Gaul in the first two years of Posturn us' reign, and again in his final year. The observations of Macdonald and van Gansbeke provide an instance where the evidence derived from a complex of coin hoards can support a rather general historical statement, and add a certain amount of precision and detail. In this instance there appears to be some validity in the conclusions advanced, but the traditional view, as advanced by Macdonald, that the concealment of hoards was caused mainly by metus, arising from circumstances of warfare and upheaval, does not appear to be universally valid. The large number of hoards of antoniniani in Britain, which, though their last substantial element consists of coins of the Tetrici, almost invariably have a 'tail' of reformed antoniniani of Aurelian and Tacitus, and, in some cases, even of Probus and the family of Carus, cannot be ascribed to this cause, for in Britain at the time there is no record of war and invasion such as marked the reign of Postumus in Gau!. The evidence of this complex of hoards may perhaps bear on the tariffing and relation of the earlier antoninianus to the antoninianus of Aurelian's reform. If the value placed on the earlier antoninianus was unacceptable, it may be that hoards of such antoniniani were put away in the hope that the coins they contained might some day be worth retrieving. The endeavour has been to consider some of the ways in which the evidence of coin hoards in this particular period can be utilised, not only to work out matters of numismatic detail and arrangement, but also to contribute to the understanding of the wider historical context of events. As Phi lip Grierson has ranged widely over many aspects of numismatic method, including the question of coin hoards, it is hoped that the matter of this paper will prove appropriate to this volume in his honour.

NOTES

1 P. Grierson, Numismatics, London 1975, 12 5. 2 P. Grierson, 'The interpretation of coin finds. I', Ne v 1965, Proceedings, i-xiii at v (reprinted in Late medieval numismatics as article xxi). 3 R. A. G. Carson, Coins of the Roman

Empire in the British Museum vI. Severus Alexander to Balbinus and Pupienus (hereafter BMCRE VI), London 1962, 42. 4 N. A. Mouchmov, 'Le tresor numismatique de Reka-Devnia (Marcianopolis)', Annuaire du Musee National Bulgare v 1934, supplement.

74 5 Carson, BMCRE

R. A. G. CARSON VI,

43.

6 Carson, BMCRE VI, 43.

7 H. Mattingly, 'Find of Roman denarii in Denbighshire', NC5 III 1923, 152-155. 8 G. Macdonald, 'A hoard of Roman denarii from Scotland', NC5 XIV 1934, 1-30. 9 J. Evans, 'A hoard of Roman coins', NC3 XVIII 1898, I26-- 184. 10 R. A. G. Carson, J. W. Brailsford, 'The Elvedon (Suffolk) treasure trove', NCS XIV 1954, 204- 208. II P. H. Webb, Valerian I to F/orian, The Roman imperial coinage v-i (ed. H. Mattingly, E. A. Sydenham), London 1927, 212-219, nos. 13-II3. 12 R. A. G. Carson, 'Hollingbourne treasure trove', NCI 11961, 2II-223. 13 A. Markl, 'Die Reichs-Miinzstatten unter der Regierung Claudius 11. Gothicus und ihre Emissionen', Numismatische Zeitschrift XVI 1884,375-460. 14· A. Banduri, Numismata imperatorum romanorum, Paris 1718; with supplementum by E. Tanini, Rome 1791.

15 See n. 12 above. 16 G. Elmer, 'Die M iinzpragung der gaIlischen Kaiser in Koln, Trier und Mailand " Bonner lahrbucher CXLVI 1941, 1-106 at 58-93. 17 Unpublished; for a preliminary notice, see R. A. G. Carson, 'The reform of Aurelian', RN6 VII 1965, 225-235 at 225. 18 R. A. G. Carson, 'Coinage and history in Pannonia in the third century AD', Arheloski Vestnik XXIII 1972, 27-34 at 30-31. 19 G. Macdonald, 'Coin-finds and how to interpret them', Proceedings of the Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow XXXIV 1902/1903, 282-300. 20 Digesta Iustiniani xli 1.3 I. I. 2 I A. Blanchet, Les tresors de monnaies romaines et les invasions germaniques en Gaule, Paris 1900, 39-41. 22 P. van Gansbeke, 'Les invasions germaniques en Gaule sous le regne de Postume (259-268) et le temoignage des monnaies', RBNS XCVIII 1952, 5-30.

6 Belgian finds of late fourth-century Roman bronze! J. LALLEMAND

Official Roman bronze coins were still reaching northern Gaul in fairly large numbers during the last quarter of the fourth century AD.2 The subject of this paper is the widespread circulation within the confines of what is today Belgium of the bronze coins issued between the accession of Theodosius Ion 19 January 379 and that of Theodosius 11 on IO January 402. It provides an opportunity to examine the value of finds drawn from a restricted geographical area and of a plentiful but chronologically limited series. Theodosian bronzes are known from some 40 Belgian sites. The total number of fourth-century coins produced by these sites is 3,362, that is of issues struck from the reform of Diocletian in 294 to the year 402, when the regular supply of Roman bronze to the area was interrupted. 3 Of this number, 809 are coins of the Theodosian period, giving an annual mean (i.e. a rough guide to relative frequency established by the total of specimens divided by the number of years) of 35, if the period is taken as one of 23 years, or 38, if the reformed coinage of Gratian is not supposed to have begun until 38I.4 By comparison, the annual mean for the same sites taken over the whole period 294-402 is no more than 3 I coins. For northern Gaul, supplied mainly with coins struck at Gallic and Italian mints, the circulation of Theodosian coinage may be examined for three distinct periods: (I) the final years of the reign of Gratian (379-83); (2) the revolt of Magnus Maximus (383-8); and (3) from the fall of Maximus to the accession of Theodosius 11 (388-402). Period

I: 37~83

The bronze hoard discovered in tomb 173 of the Roman cemetery at Oudenburg is most likely to have been buried at this time, since the most recent coin was an )E3 of Aries for Theodosius I, with the reverse type Concordia auggg. This is the only coin later than 378, the bulk of the hoard being composed of )E3 of the reigns of Valentinian I and of Valens (79 coins out of a total of 88).5 By contrast, the Hemptinne hoard, buried about 387 in Period 2, is composed almost exclusively of )E2 coins later than 378 and their

75

J. LALLEMAND

copies. 6 Of the 846 regular issues in the Hemptinne hoard that are legible, 352 can be attributed to the reign of Gratian. The sites have produced only 35 coins of Period I, and whether this is calculated as of three years (381-3) or of five (379-83), this is clearly far fewer than the annual mean of 31 coins estimated for the century as a whole. A further twelve coins could belong either to this period or to Period 2: eight regular .£2 of the Reparatio reipub type, but on which the name of the emperor can no longer be read, and four copies of the same type, two in the name of Valentinian 11. However, even if all these coins are given to Period I, the combined total would still give a low annual mean. Table 4. Site finds Emperor Gratian Valentinian 11 Theodosius I Arcadius Illegible emperor Total Percentage

Al2

Al3

12 2 4

Al4

Total

7

20 3 7

2 3

18 51.43

3 8·57

14 40 .00

4 35 100.00

The most frequent site finds, over half of the total, are .£2 coins. A further 40% of these finds are of .£4 coins, while less than 10% are of .£3. During this period the Roman mints in Gaul and Italy struck few .£3 issues, and the same dearth of finds of this denomination is observed in other areas of the West. 7 Though issued in much greater quantity than .£4 coins, the .£2 issues are not as common as site finds in northern Gauls as might be expected, since they were subject to hoarding soon after being put into circulation. This is clearly indicated by the quite large number of coins in the Hemptinne hoard which are die-linked, some through one side only, others double-linked through both common obverse and reverse dies. Further, die-links occur not only among the coins of Ma gnus Maximus, which are contemporary with the hoard's deposit, but among those of Gratian and of his co-rulers dating to the start of the hoard's formation. Two final points: the hoard seems to close in 387 when Maximus ceased to strike .£2 coins; and a relatively high proportion of the Hemptinne material, nearly 16% of the total, consists of'£2 coins struck later than 379, almost all of which are copies. It would seem, therefore, that, common as they were, the demand for .£2 coins in northern Gaul greatly exceeded their availability. Most of the .£2 coins, including all those of Gratian, are of the Reparatio reipub type, a reverse rare in the East except at Antioch; only one has the reverse Gloria romanorum, an issue of Constantinople for Theodosius. All the .£2 in the name of Gratian were produced at Gallic mints, all those for Valentinian 11 and Theodosius I at Italian mints. The remarkable predominance of coins for Gratian (60% of the attributed'£2 and more

77

Table 5. Mints Emperors

Trier

Lyons

Aries

Aquileia

Rome

Siscia

Constantinople

Cyzicus

Illegible

Total

A. Site finds

Gratian Valentinian 11 Theodosius I Arcadius Illegible emperor Total Percentage

20

4 I

5. 26

7 36 .84

5 26.32

I

5. 26

10·53

16

I

I

I

5. 26

5. 26

5. 26

35 99·99

0.89

0.00

0.00

100.01

B. Hemptinne Gratian, etc. (%)

13.3 1

38 .76

28.70

2·37

15.9 8

J. LALLEMAND

than 63 % of the attributed Al4) is explained by the low number of coins struck at most Gallic mints in the names of his co-rulers. In the Hemptinne hoard, for example, there are 255 coins of Gratian as opposed to 66 of Vale ntini an 11 and 31 of Theodosius I. The coins from Gratian's reign included in the hoard show almost no traces of circulation. It is interesting to compare the issuing mints for the site finds as against those for the Hemptinne material. Except for Rome, the non-Gallic mints struck few bronzes at this time, so that in both samples the largest block of coins is from the Lyons mint, with Aries mint coins at second place in much the same proportions. Trier and Rome coins are both better represented in the hoard than on the sites, but the higher site proportion for coins of Aquileia and Siscia results from the presence of a single coin in each case. Indeed, the most remarkable feature of the comparison between the mint percentages in Hemptinne and those of the site finds is that, although the legible specimens of the latter are so few (19), the site figures for each mint are in every case within one coin, plus or minus, of the nearest equivalent percentage to that of the much larger sample in Hemptinne. Nevertheless, the proportion of coins supplied from local mints is higher in the Hemptinne material than among the site finds. Period 2: 383-8

The Hemptinne hoard closes during this period; it contains 494 Al2 coins of Magnus Maximus, 466 with legible mint-marks. The site finds for these six years consist of 75 coins, a slightly larger total than that of Period I. But it is still very small when compared with the annual mean of 3 1 coins estimated for the fourth century as a whole. As in the case of Period I, it is possible that up to eight Al2 coins of the Reparatio reipub type and some four imitations of the same type belong here; but even with all of these, the yearly average remains low. Less than 40 % of the total of coins is made up of Al2 struck at Gallic mints, the Table 6. Site finds £2

Emperor Magnus Maximus Flavius Victor lllegible emperor

lE4

Reparatio reipub

Victoria augg

25

3

Victoria Victoria Spes auggg romanorum 2 Victories augg

18 10

Total

47

10

5

Valentinian 11 Theodosius I Arcadius lllegible emperor 25

3

33

Total

2

5 2

3

3

2 6

2 6

13

75

Belgian finds of late fourth-century bronze

79

Table 7. Mints Emperors

Trier Lyons Aries Aquileia Rome Uncertain

Total

A. Site finds

Magnus Maximus Flavius Victor Valentinian 11 Theodosius I Arcadius Illegible emperor Total Percentage

8 16·33

Magnus Maximus (%)

19·53

5 3

8

20

13 3

2

I

47 10 2 3 2

8

11

3 2 10 21 2 20 04 1 42 .86 4. 08 B. Hemptinne 37·55 42·92

8 16·33

26

75 100.01 100.00

remainder consisting of ..£4. Magnus Maximus ceased striking ..£2 coins at about the time he made his son Flavius Victor co-ruler in 387, a year before the end of their reign. Maximus' ..£4 coins with the type Victoria augg and a single Victory are rare, and so it is not surprising that only one example has been found. Neither the issue of ..£4 coins with Victoria auggg and two Victories made in Italy by the central government before Maximus' invasion, nor that of the Spes romanorum type struck by the usurper first in Gaul and then at Rome and Aquileia, following his entry into Italy, is very common. But unlike "£2, these small pieces are not so likely to have been hoarded and are therefore not uncommonly found on sites. The central government's Italian issues of ..£4 represent just over 17% of all the coins found (13 out of 75) and some 28% of the total of ..£4 pieces (13 out of 46). These proportions, which are consistent with the number of coins from Italian mints circulating in northern Gaul during the second half of the fourth century,9 suggest that the revolt of Magnus Maximus did not interrupt the area's long-standing links with the rest of the Empire. Nearly 43% of the site finds consists of coins from the Aries mint; 20% are of the Lyons mint, and just over 16% each from Trier and Rome. The proportion of Aquileia coins (2 only) is a mere 4 %. From this Trier would appear to have been marginally more active at this time than during Period I, though 16% seems low bearing in mind that this was the mint closest to the region where the finds were made. In contrast with Period I, there are more coins of Aries than of Lyons, a situation that contiIJues until the end of the century. The coins of Magnus Maximus in the Hemptinne hoard all come from Gallic mints: at more than 19% the proportion of Trier coins is slightly higher than among the site finds; the Aries mint is again better represented than that of Lyons, but less so than on the sites.

80

J. LALLEMAND

Period 3: 388-402

The coins of this period which reached northern Gaul were supplied almost exclusively from mints in Gaul and Italy. The number of bronze hoards lost at this time is exceptional;lo of these the most important is the Lierre (Anvers) treasure with 2,876 specimens. l l It is composed almost exclusively (nearly 95 %of the total) of .£4 coins with either the reverse Victoria auggg and a single Victory, or that of Sa/us reipublicae. The latter type appeared in Italy and in the East after Maximus' defeat in 388. The Victoria auggg and single Victory type issued at Aquileia, Rome, and Siscia between 385 and 386, while continuing to be struck at Siscia, rapidly gave way in Italy to the Victoria auggg and two Victories type. After 388 the earlier Victoria auggg type was adopted by the Gallic mints. No specimen of the Italian Victoria auggg and two Victories type, an issue everywhere of great rarity, has been found in northern Gaul, either in the hoards or among the site finds, and the number of coins from the Siscia mint is considerably diminished compared with Periods 1 and 2. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that both .£4 issues reached northern Gaul only after 388. Coins of the Sa/us reipublicae type continued to be struck at Rome until 402; but at Aquileia, in common with the Gallic mints, the striking of bronze appears to have ceased shortly after the death ofTheodosius I in January 395. Among the site finds almost all the bronzes to be dated after 388 are .£4 coins. Only two .£3 pieces are known, both of the Antioch mint: a coin of the Gloria romanorum type in the name of Theodosius I and one of the Virtus exerciti type for Arcadius.l 2 Copies of regular coins issued in this period are not especially common; there are 21 of the single Victory type compared with 449 regular coins with this reverse, and 13 of the Sa/us reipublicae type against 202 of the official issue. All told some 653 coins of this period have been recovered from the sites, giving a higher than average annual mean of 43. There are only four examples of issues securely dated to the period after the death of Theodosius I. All were struck at Lyons and all show on the reverse in the left of the field the letter V, a mark known only for Arcadius and Honorius. As for Period I, there is a marked difference in the mints supplying the coins found on the sites and those for the hoarded material (the Lierre treasure), though now it is the site finds whose local character is the more pronounced. In both samples the largest block of coins consists of pieces struck at Arles, but while just under a third of the site finds with legible mint-marks are from this source, the same mint supplied almost half the post-388 .£4 coins found at Lierre. The proportions of Trier and Lyons pieces are noticeably lower in the hoard than among the site finds, and their order is reversed with coins from Lyons more common at Lierre than those of Trier. But the most remarkable disparity between the two samples is in the relative proportions of the Rome and Arles coins. These differences are not easy to explain. The Lierre coins are notable for their unusually fine condition, perhaps indicating that a part, at least, of the material was imported directly from southern Gau\. But that hypothesis does not explain satisfactorily

81 Table 8. Mints Mints Table 8. Salus reipublicae reipublicae

Victoria auggg

Emperors

Valentinian II Theodosius I Arcadius Honorius Eugenius Illegible emperor Total Percentage

.£4 * 4 (%)

Trier Lyons

Aries

7 5 19

12 6

—

3 2

24

Siscia

1

222 2

—

—

2

1

—

1

—

—

—

54 27.27

15 4466 23.23 23. 2 3

17 58 29 29.29 29.

—

9.12 12 9.

11.71 11.71

45-99 45·99

22 22

1

0.511 0.5

Illegible Aquileia Rome A. Site finds 1finds 16 2 14 M 3 57 4 7 3 — — 196 4 16 290 8.08 B. Lierre 4.06 4·06

4 3 3 2 —

10

Thessalonica

— — — — — —

Cyzicus

— — 1 — — — T

22 22 I J.II 11.11

0

28.76

0.18

0.511 0.5

Illegible

9 14 14 7 — 119 "9

16 1633

Total

53 48 48 144 22 1I

83 3383 65 1 651 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

82

J. LALLEMAND

why the predominance of Rome mint coins over those of Aquileia should be much more marked in the hoard than among the site finds, unless it is further supposed, as indeed seems quite reasonable, that in the vicinity of ArIes coins struck at Rome circulated in greater numbers than those from Aquileia.

Conclusions

The relative scarcity on Belgian sites of coins issued during Period I (379-83) is due to three principal reasons. The reintroduction after a lapse of more than fifteen years of a large (}E2) bronze coin; effectively a deflationary measure, it inevitably brought about a reduction in the number of coins actually struck. In northern Gaul that tendency was exaggerated by hoarding; the owner of the Hemptinne hoard was surely not alone in collecting}E2 coins, since forgers rightly judged it profitable to supply him with additional material. Finally, and most importantly, the nearest mint, that at Trier, struck very few bronze coins at this time. During Period 2 (383-8), the situation changed quite markedly, ending in the West ;- ... )

;-",..."

I.... '

r:.J_",<:)J ~

,-_oJ

,

"..,

I

\.0 _ _ _ '

.Oudenburg

eo

,, ,,

"

" '-" Helchteren l'

.lierre

-,)

•

••

r )

~ ,/

,

\

\,

"\

\

,,~

J~

,...r,

eo.

\

Taviers

o·

• Tournai

, <.......

o eo.

Gembloux liberchies.

.1-;' ""

""-,

IRsti~n 0

'"'- _J\,

"'s,", (/ I

r""

Maille~ 6.

.

.Dourbes,.l

N,sm.esd 06.0

,

j,. ~

,

,

1

I

...•

eo. 0

• 'il;~er

·~oiseux

Matagne -Furfooz laGrg'1.d~. la.Pet,eol!.o l!.o -Eprave

_- _._/,--

Hoards

-6h on

p!y6.0 ·~t Ger~rd .S:~gtin oFlavion_ Falaeno6..O

.... Pesche ..... .....

0

\

Villers-le-Bouillet

Matagne

<.."" "

• Map

I

' - .. (r,

• Jambes 0 o · Vieu)(ville

06.0

...... I

...

o

Namur.

,

Sites

1

.Hemptinne

o·

06.0

\

\!J

Tongres

.K~ninksem. ·060 .t r \..,_ oOreye Olixhe

·Orroir

'-)

\

379-83 383-8 388-402

"

o Velm

,

oeo.o

limbourg /

o

~

',....

Belgian finds of late fourth-century bronze at least with a reform of the coinage that was essentially inflationary: in 387 Magnus Maximus halted the production of £2, and in both Gaul and Italy, which at that time he controlled, he struck only £4 coins of reduced size. Very quickly £4 became the dominant denomination, resulting in a corresponding increase in the volume of coin in circulation. Furthermore, Trier struck bronze in greater quantity than previously. This development continued after 388. The circulating medium was made up exclusively of £4 coins struck in large quantities, especially by the mint at ArIes, and in Italy by the Rome mint. The Trier mint, while less active than either that of Lyons or that of ArIes, nonetheless increased its bronze production somewhat. Political events only slightly affected the pattern of coin circulation; its volume and composition, it would appear, depended above all on the size of each mint's issue and on the relative proximity of these mints to the find spots. NOTES

References to P. V. Hill, J. P. C. Kent, R. A. G. Carson, Late Roman bronze coinage, AD 324-498 (hereafter LRBC), London 1960; J. W. E. Pearce, Valentinian I to Theodosius. The Roman imperial coinage IX (hereafter RIC) (ed. H. Mattingly, C. H. V. Sutherland, R. A. G. Carson), London 1951. For the types in general, see the illustrations to the Appendix 'Belgian site finds', below at 84-93; these are drawn from museum collections, as indicated in the accompanying key. 2 In any case, with the death of Valens on 9 August 378 a break occurs in the bronze coinage which appears to have lasted until the accession of Theodosius I, since the first JE3 of the new period bear the legends VICTORIAA VGGG and CONCORDIAAVGGG, the formula proper to the joint reign of the three emperors Gratian, Valentinian 11, and Theodosius I. 3 A single JE4 coin of Rome for Honorius from the period after 410 (LRBC 11, no. 828) has been found at Tongres (Limbourg). 4 Hill, Kent, Carson, LRBC, 42-43. 5 J. Lallemand, 'Monnaies romaines decouvertes a Oudenburg', Helinium VI 1966, 117- 1 38. 6 J. Lallemand, 'Le tresor de Hemptinne: bronzes (JE2) de Gratient a Magnus Maximus', Annales de la Societe archeologique de Namur LIV 1967, 5-59: 857 out of the 874 official issues (98.05%); 163 out of the 166 imitations (98.85%). 7 I. Pereira, J.-P. Bost, J. Hienard, Fouilles de I

Conimbriga Ill. Les monnaies, Paris 1973, 29 1- 293. 8 At Conimbriga, 80.78% of the coins from this period are JE2 compared with 18.77% of JE4· 9 At Oudenburg, the proportion of Italian coins in the combined total of Gallic and Italian issues is 23.21% (13 out of 56); at Hemptinne, for the period 379-83, the proportion is 22.71 % (62 out of 273); at Lierre, a hoard deposited after 395 (see n. I I below), the proportion rises to 32.93% (356 out of 1081). 10 M. Thirion, Les tresors monetaires gaulois et romains trouves en Belgique, Travaux [du] Cercle d'Etudes Numismatiques Ill, Brussels 1967, 61, no. 47 (Clavier I); 78, no. 88 (Falaen); 93, no. 127 (Helchteren); 102-103, no. 153 (Koninksem 11); 138, no. 240 (Pesche); 151-152, no. 279 (Spontin 11); 152, no. 280 (Spontin III). II J. Lallemand, 'Lierre: bronzes de Constantin I a Arcadius-Honorius', Etudes Numismatiques (Cabinet des Medailles, Bibliotheque Royale Albert ler) III 1965, 49-87; J. Lallemand, 'Le tresor de Lierre: bronzes jusqu'a Arcadius-Honorius. Supplement', Helinium VIII 1968,22-41. 12 a. Theodosius I: RIC IX 27, no. 69 (b); LRBC 11, no. 2786. From the river Sambre at Namur; among old finds now in the Musee Archeologique, Namur. b. Arcadius: LRBCII, no. 2791. Found in 1970, at a depth of 1.5 metres, in a cellar.

APPENDIX: BELGIAN SITE FINDS PERIOD I

DenominatiOn

R~ ... crse

loc1llity I

a .AVI!:R (Litg~).

.z

DoURAIiS

and

Portrait

type

(jWRIA ROMAM)R"Io4,

IU!PARATIO R['IP"'8

G

T'

A

x

G

V'

T'

LR.Be type 15

A

x

Vcrvoz

S.o\UTOUR (Namur)

3 DOURnliS (Namur), Roch~

a Lommc

.. Epuve (Namut)

Ar.

I

x. , x. ,

s rALAEN (Namur). Monlaigk 6 FLAVION (Namur)

7 Fl.OIlEN"".. U ( Lu1>cmbourg), ChamdeUll

x. ,

8 FUkFOOZ (Namur). ttrnrlrry

9 FUlUlX)'l. (Naroul). (0 GfM8(..OVX

Ibulrrt(~nne

(Namur)

I1 Ha:Io4Pnp..t Nt"(Nam llr) IJ, JAM8~

13 JUPI LL.f

(Namur), Plage des bilins (Mcuse)

L.,

( LiCge)

14 LU&EllOIIES (Hainaul), Bons-Vilkrs I"" U8ERCHI£,S (Hainaul), BTunchaut

16 LIIo480UkC (Liege). Dolhain

L.,

x. ,

17 LIX.IE (Lii:&c) 18 MAltUN (Namur). al Sau ... C'oierc 19 MATA (;N£· L,,-GRA/'OOE" (Namur) ,l.O

R. ,

1-.1

M"r"Gf'JE·L,,·P'ET1TE (Namur)

L.,

11 NA~UR (Namur). lown

u. NA~UR (Namur). Pied du Chateau .23 NA~UR (Namur). Sambre

Aq. I

L.,

R. ,

c,

/., 1.4

NI~ ~ (Nllmur). R()(.:h<

\rour-e

LS NOlswx (Namur) J.6 OM.fY[ (Liege). Bergi~f~ 1.7 OM.1l011l (i;landf"(' Orienlak) l.8 Ovt)Et-I8UfI,C (Flandre <Xtidcntale)

1.9 Pu (Namur). al Rotche JO ROtSlN (Hainautj

Ar. I

/.,

(!'iamur), Try Hallol (Namur)

31 SAINT·GtJitARO

31

SPONi1N

(Liege) (Namur), Samson

33 TA"IEltS 34 TH()t-I

35 TON(;Ra:..Oi;

(LimbouTg). lown

T.,

s. , jIJ TON(;RES (Limbourg). Soulh,W':sl ~mctcry

31

TOURt-IAI

J8

VEUI (Limbourg)

(Hainilul)

J9 VtEVX"IlJ.f.

x. ,

(Lie~)

... VllURS-Ll-8OuILl..H (liege) 41 WANCENNF.S

(Namur)

TOI:.!I

'4

Abbrnladons. PiN/rafu ; A, Arc.1dius; G, Gr.uian; T', Theod osius; V:, Valtntinian 11 : X, IIkgiblt. Mi"u : Aq. Aquikia: AI. Aries: C.Constantinople; I. Imitation; K. Cyzicuy; 1.. Lyo ns; R. Rome : S. Siscia; T. Trier; X. Illegible .

86 PERIOD I

Denomination

4 CO~COJlI)IA

Reverse type

AVGGG

Roma.

LRBC type Loc~lilY

•

CLAVI~_I<

Portrait

G

V1

T'

MVLT

1

A

X

G

V1

T'

A

X

G

xx

V'

T'

A

X

Total

(Liege). Ven'IU

~ [)(,UMRF'i and S"UTUUR (Namur) J DoUJlBES (Namur), Rochc it Lomme

K.

4 EPRAV!::: (N:tmur)

;fr. 2

x .•

x .. K. K.•

5 FA LA ION (Namur). Monlaiglc 6 FLAV]ON (Namur) 1 FLOREl'iVJI.!.E (Luxembourg), Chamclcux 8 FUMfOOl.. (Namur), cemetery 9 FURI'OOZ (Namur), HaulcrclXnne 10 GEMBLUUX (Namur) Il

HI::MPTINI"E

n

1AMK~_'i

(Namur)

(Nemur), Plage des bain:' (Meusc) (Liege) ... lIK£RCIIJ~_" (Hainaut), Bons-Villers IS llai::lIcHIt-)i (Hainaul), Brunchaut

..., 'J

13 JUPH.LE

16 LU'IBOUJ!G (Liege), Dolhain

.6

11 LJ:'
'7 .8

x .•

L..

x. , ,10 MATACNf-LA-PETJl"E

L..

(Namur)

..

x .•

u N ... MUR (Namur). town 11 NAN:UR (Namur). Pied du Cnafeau 1) NAMUR (Namur). Sambre 1.1 NISMES (Namur). Roche [roUtt

'9

,.

ttr. [

x .•

15 NOISEUX (Namur) 16 OJlE't'£ (Liege). 8ergilers ~1 ORROIR (Flandrc Orienlaic) 18 OUDENKURG (Flandre Occidenlale) ~ PRY (Namur). al ROlche JO ROlsl!'! (Hainaul) 31 SAlfIlT·GUtAII.IJ (Namur). Try Hallot J2 SPO:'m!'! (Namur) 33 TAVJERS (Liege) 34 THo!'! (Namur). Samson 33 TO:-.'GRES (Limoourg), lown J6 TONGRES (Limoourg). Soulh·Wesl cemetcry 31 TOUR!'!A! (Hainaut) J8 VH.M (Limbourg) 3'9 VIEUXVJLLE (Litgt) 40 VILl£RS·Lt:·Bouu.lET (Liege) 41 W"NCENNES (Namur)

x.•

x .•

x .• 39

AbbrtYladom. Por"(Jiu: A, Arcadius: G. Gratian; T'. Thcodosius: V!. Valcntinian 11: X, Illegible. Minrs: Aq. Aquilcia; Ar. Aries: C Constantinople; I. Imitation; K. CyztcuS; L. Lyons: R. Rome; S. Siscia; T. Tricr: X. Illegible.

88

89 PERIOD"

• 9

10

\'ICTORIA AV(;GG

A"'GC

LRBC

REPARATlO

Reverse type Locality

Portrait

IYP<4

M

F

M

LRBC type I M

I ClAVIER(Liege). Vervo7.

SPES ROIofAI'iORVM

LRBC type

Victories,

LRBC type

x

M Ar.

(WO

I

V

Tl

2

2

A

X

R.I X.I

R. 2

TOlal

I

R. , :1

DoURllf.5 and SAlJTOUR (Namur)

3

DoURIIES

(Namur), Rochc.it Lomme

L.

4 EPRAVE (Namur)

I;

Ar.

I

Ar. ,; L. J

R.

1'. I;

Ar.

I;

Aq.

I

L.

X.I

J

R.

I

12

3

X.2

I

X. ,

S

(N::.mur). Monlaigle

FALAF.N

6 FLAVION

R. ,

tfr.Z

(Namur)

7 FLORENvlLLE

(Luxembourg), Chamcleux

Ar. X.

I..

I; I;

I.

L.,

X. ,

I

R.

I

I

8 FURfOOl. (Naml.lr). ct:metcry

9 FURFOOZ (Namur). Haulcrcct:nnc

x. ,

X. ,

10 GEMRLOUX (Namur) I1 HEMP'TINNE

1Narnl.lr)

11 J."MBES (Namur), prage des bains (Mcuse) '3

JUPII.LF.

(Liege)

14 liBEJlCHllS (Hllimml), Bons"Villers IS LIB£RClHf.S

X.

T. I

,

X

I

,

,

,

X. ,

(Hainaul), Rruncbaut

,

'S 16 17 ,8

8

19

5

..

16 LIMBOU!l.CO (Liege), Dolhain

0

17 LJXHE (Liege)

0

A,.

18 MAlllEN (Namur). al Sauveniere 19 MATAGNE.L.,,·GRANDt: (Namur)

Ar.2

10 MAlAGNE·L.,,·Pl:.lITE (Namur)

T. A,.

, ,

Ar.

, ,

x.

X I

,

X 1-.2

,

T. , X. I

0

.11 N."MUR (Naml.lr), town 1.:1

1)

2" .15 z6 27 .l8

N"."HJR (Namur). Pi~ du Chiileau NAWUR (Namur), Sambre

Ar. ): T. J X.

NI5.I.4ES (Namur). Roche Irouee NOISEUX (Namlar) OREY!: (Libgc), BtrJl:ilers ORROIR (Flandre Orientale) OUDENRURG (Flandre Qccidenla1e)

,

L.

,

M.

,

Aq. X

X.

I

,

Ar.1

X I

X. I

0

'7 >8

0 0 0

L.I

X. ,

x.

Ar.1

I

,J

J6

I

38

XI

L.' .6

'9 3· 3' P 3J J4 35

J7

Ar.2

X.

'3

... 'S >6

, ,

0

Ar.1

20

0

0

SPONTIN (Namur) 33 TAVIERS (Liege) J4 THON (Namur), Samson

VElM (Limbourg) .19 VIEUXVILU (Uege) .ofO VILLfRS-LE-BouILLH (Liege) -41 WANCENNES (Namur) Tou!1

12

0

)2

JS TONGRES (Limbourg), town )6 TONGRES (Limbourg), Soulh-Wesl cemetery )7 TOURN'AI (Hainaul)

I

0

29 PRy (Namur). al ROl.che JO ROISIN (Hainaul) )1 SAINT-GERARD (Namur)_ Try Hallol

'3

'.

18

0

J8

0

J9

0

411

,

76

.'

Abbrniadom... POr/rail:r: A. ArcadiU$; F. Flaviu$ Vielor; M. Magnus M
90

91 PERIOD III

Denomination

11 Rc\'crsc type Locality

Portrait

GLORIA ROMA,,"ORVM,

V'

T'

A

12 LRBC type H

VIRTVS EXEltCLTI.

19

x

V'

T'

A

LRBC type

2

H

I ClAVll::R (Liege). Vervoz

:z

DOUJl.8B
3 D()uJl.\I."_~ (Namur). Roche it Lommc 4 EPR AVt: (Namur)

.5 FALAEN (N
FIoAVION

(N[lmur)

'1 flOREt-'VILU, (Luxembourg). Ch
FURH)()Z

(Namur). Hautcrcrennc

10 GEM8l0UX (Namur)

r I HE""PT1Nl"F. (Namur) 11 hMBES (Namur), Pl
14 Lrll.ERCHIES (HainaLlI). Bons-Villcrs IS LIBJ::RClUI:S (HlIinaut). Brunehaut 16 L!MDOUR(; (Liege). Dolhain 1'7 LIXHE (Liege) 18 MAILUiN (Namur). al Sauvcnicrc 19 M ATAUt'o'F.-LA-GRANOI: (Namur)

UI MATAGt'JE-LA-PEnn (NlImur)

1I NMoIUJI. (Namur). town .u NA.MUR (Namur). Pied du Chateau

13 NA,MUR (Namur), Sambre 24 NIS ..... ES (Namur). Roche IrouOe 15 NOJSEUX (Namur) Ui OREYE (Liege), Bergilers

An. (

OUO(]l; (Flandre Orientale) OuUENBURO (Flandre Occidemale) 19 Plitv (Namur). al Rotche

1.'7

18

(HainaUI) (Namur), Try HaUo( SPONTIt-' (Namur)

)0 ROISIN

)1 SAINT.(JI'!RARD ~

33 T" VlfJtS (Liege) 34

THQN

(Namur). Samson (Limbourg). IOwn

35 TONOItES

)6

TONOHS

(Limbourg). Soulh·Wesl cemetery

n TOURN", (l-Iainaul) J8 VELM (Limbourg) J9

VI£UXVILLE (Liege) 40 VILLEAS-U-BoUILLET (Liege)

An. I

41 W A.l'lCE'NJ'o/ES (Namur) Tolal

Abbre,l.tions. POTITallS: A. Arcadius: E. Eugenius: H. Hooorius; Tl, Th~odO!liu--" I: Vi, Valtntinian 11; X. lII~gibl~. Mints: An. Amioch: Aq. Aquileia: AT. Aries: K. CyLicus: L. Lyoos: 1. Imilation: S. Siscia; X. lUegible.

93 PERIOD III Dcnominalion.

14

13 Reverse Iype Localil),

, CL.AVn!R (Liege), Vervoz 1.

DoURBES and SAUTOUR (Namur)

3

DoUR DES

(Namur), Roche it Lommc

V'Cffill.lA AVGGG,

T'

V'

Portrait

x. ,

Ar.

I

x. ,

LRBe type

A

H

L. I; Ar. 2

x. ,

I

$ALVS REIPVBUCAE,

X L. r; Ar.

,

T'

A

X.2

x. ,

x. ,

L., X.

T 6: L. 71 Ar. 7; X·94

J

2

X.

I;

R.

T

X

TOlal

X.6

J4

Aq. I

X.6 X. ,

X·4

T. I; L. I T.2:L. T. 4: L. 3 Ar. 2; X, 7 Ar. [; X. 5 Ar.7; X. 22

I

LRBe type H

V'

R. , Aq. I; X. 3 R. 2; X. 3 Aq. 3: K.

, Aq. 2; X. 3

X.6

4

,

Aq. 3: R. 3 X. 44: I. 6

'69

3

X. 17: /. 3

69

4

X.12

50

X. ,

I. 16

T,

Ar.2

4 EPRAV!:: (Namur)

L. I; Ar. J

X. ,

L.2t:T.) X.24 X.18

X. ,

S FALAEI'I (Namur), Monlaiglc

T.

I;

Ar.

I

X. ,

T.1:L.2 Ar. 2: S. I

L.,

Aq. I; R. 3 Aq. I: X.2 Aq.

I;

X. I

X. ,

X. , X. ,

X. ,

X. I

R. ,

X. ,

X·5

(Namur)

6

FLAVION

7

FLORE1'o'VILLE (LLUcmbourg), Chamelcux

X. J

T.r;L.r Ar. I;X 10

T.2:L.31 Ar, I: X. 3

x. 4;

X. ,

9 FURFOOZ (Namur), Haulerccenne

16 17 18 19

LIM90Ult.O (Liege), Dolhain LIXHE (Liege) MAILLEI'I (Namur), al Sauveniere MATAGI'IE-LA-GRAI'IOE (Namur)

20 MATAGNE-LA-PE"TITf (Namur)

X. ,

R. I; X. 6

I: X. I

X. ,

X. ,

L. I I.,

10 GEMBLOUX

'3 JUPILL.I' (Liege) '4 LIBEII.CHIi:3 (HainauI), Bons-Villus '5 UBERCHI13 (Hainaul), Brunehaul

, R.

39

I.J Ar, [

8 FURfOOZ (Namur). cemetery (Namur) 11 HEMPl!NNE (Namur) u h,MBf.5 (Namur), Plage des bains (Mcuse)

Aq. r; X.

X. ,

I.,

T' 0

L.,

,

X. , X. ,

Ar. J

X. , X. ,

TI;L.! Ar. 2; X. 3 Ar. I

TI; X.2 L.I; X. ,

T.7;L.2 Ar.4;X.11 T I; Ar. I

L. I; Ar.

• TI

X. ,

T. I; Ar. 3

,

X. ,

X. ,

I.'

X.8

R. ,

R. ,

I.>

'7

X. J

JJ

X. J

" , , '5,6 0 '7 , 18 " 0 3" , 31

X.6

TJ

'3 14

5 15 0 ,6 '7 0 ,s 66 '9

Aq.

I:

R. 5

Ar. I; X. 4 NA.'\WR (Namur), lown 1.2 NAMUIt. (Namur). Pied du Chaleau 13 NAMUR (Namur), Sambre

Aq. 1

"

1I

11

Ar. J; X. 1 T. I; Ar. 3 L. 5; Ar. 3 S. I; X. 1 X.6

T. I; L. 1

X. ,

Aq. I

X. ,

X. ,

T 2; Ar. 1

14 NISMES (Namur), Roche trouee

X.6

25 16 27 18

NOISEUX (Namur) Olt.Eve (Liege), Bergilers ORROIR (Flandrc Orientale) OUDENDURG (Hlndre Occidenlale) lA) Pu (Namuc), al ROLChe

X. , X. ,

,.(r.1

Ar. , L.! Ar. I

X. ,

X·7

T,

X.4

X. ,

T. I; L.].

L,

--

JO ROISlI'I (Hainaul) 31 SAINT-GERA.J:D (Namur), Try HallOI Jl SPONTfN (Namur) J3 TAVlERS (Liege)

X. ,

L. I; Ar. I

X. ,

X·4

T, R. I; X. 2 X. ,

X. ,

34 THOI'I (Namur), Samson

35 TONGRES (Limbourg), lown

T. ,

X. ,

T.l;

Ar. I T. 3: L. 11

L. I

X. ,

J6

TONORES (Limbourg). South-West cemetery TOURI'IAI (Hainaut) VELM (Limbourg) :39 VIEUXYlLLE (Liege) ..., VILI...ERS-LI!-BouILUT (Liege) 41 WANCfNNES (Namur) Total

X. ,

R. I; X. 1

X.6

Ar.1

.

'3

1')

8 3> 6 33

, "

34

35

J J6 0 37

T. I; X. I

n J8

X. ,

,

JII

0 39

T, J8

L. I; X. I

,8

"J

'0

'70

10

'5

"

'46

." 41

X. 2;1. 1

'5

688

Abbrtvlatloos. POr/rQ;IS; A, Arcadius; E, Eugenius; H, Honorius; Tl, Theodosius I; V\ Valenlinian 11; X, illegible. MinIs: All. Anlioch; Aq. Aquileia: Ar. Aries: K. Cyzicus; L. Lyons; 1.lmilalion; R. Rome; S. Siseia; X. Illegible. t Includes one example wilh V.

94

J. LALLEMAND

KEY TO ILLUSTRATIONS

(All Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, except for fig. 7) Gratian, Aries mint, LRBC 11, no. 548 (FM: Searle gift). Theodosius I, Constantinople mint, LRBC 11, no. 2169 (FM: Burkitt loan). Gratian, Trier mint, LRBC 11, no. 141 (FM: Trinity College loan). Gratian, Antioch mint, LRBC 11, no. 2668 (FM: Trinity College loan). Gratian, Lyons mint, LRBC 11, no. 377 (FM: General Collection). Theodosius I, Trier mint, LRBC 11, no. 149 (FM: Searle gift). Magnus Maximus, Lyons mint, LRBC 11, no. 380 (FM: General Collection). Magnus Maximus, Aries mint, LRBC 11, no. 556 (British Museum). Magnus Maximus, Aries mint, LRBC 11, no. 386 (FM: General Collection). Flavius Victor, Aquileia mint, LRBC 11, no. 1004 (FM: Searle gift). Theodosius I, Aquileia mint, LBRC 11, no. 1092 (FM: Trinity College loan). I I Arcadius, Cyzicus mint, LRBC 11, no. 2575 (FM: Bunn gift). 12 Arcadius, Antioch mint, LRBC 11, no. 2791 (FM: General Collection). 13 Theodosius I, Siscia mint, LRBC 11, no. 1580 (FM: Searle gift). 14 Valentinian 11, Cyzicus mint, LRBC 11, no. 2568 (FM: Trinity College loan). I

2 3 4 5a 5b 6 7 8 9 10

7

The re-use of obsolete coins: .the case of Roman imperial bronzes revived in the late fifth century* CECILE MORRISSON

The occasion for the present study was provided some years ago by Philip Grierson's generosity in letting me retain for examination 23 'countermarked' Roman coins from his collection, and in showing me a preliminary study for his forthcoming book on Dark Age coinage. No proper catalogue of these specimens is given here since it will form part of the projected publication of the Cambridge late antique and medieval series. To this already significant core I have added material from a number of other public and private collections; the total of I 13 specimens should offer a fairly representative sample of the series. 1 We are not dealing here with' countermarked' coins in the usual sense of the word, since the LXXXIII and XLII figures which they bear were not punched or stamped with a single instrument, but seem to have been cut or incised individually with several chisel strokes. That several strokes were needed can best be seen on some coins where, for instance, the horizontal bar of the L stretches too far back (fig. I; pI. 9, no. 3) or joins too high (fig. 2, pI. 9, no. 4) or when the two bars of the L are struck at such an acute angle as to form a kind of V (fig. 3; pI. 9, no. 5). A variety of different tools seems to have been used: close inspection of the 102 coins I have been able to examine either directly or from casts and photographs does not reveal any identical strokes. In a few cases they are deeper, wider and neater than others (e.g. pI. 9, nos. 6-7), while at the other end of the scale on some specimens they are mere scratches (pI. 9, no. 3 and pI. 10, no. 9), with intermediate fields of all kinds being found. The mark is usually in the obverse field, deliberately avoiding any defacement to the imperial bust and, generally, in front of it. When the bust is facing right, the mark is in the right field, in most cases placed outwards and reading upwards (fig. 4, e.g. pI. 9, no. 8). Conversely, when the bust is to the left (30 cases), the mark is almost invariably in the left field (27 cases) and placed outwards and reading downwards (fig. 5; pI. 9, no. 3) (24 cases). Very rarely the figures were incised on the reverse: for the instances known to me, no straightforward explanation comes to mind. Fear of damaging the imperial portrait through lack of space might have been the reason for a specimen in Berlin (pI.

95

CECILE MORRISSON

V 3

2

~

~

~

1 6

5

4

1 1 8

9

XL\\ 12

11

\

7

~ IQ

~\\ 13

\

\ K XI 14

Engraved figures on Roman imperial bronzes 10, no. 12); but this does not apply to one of the other examples (pI. 10, no. 10). On two coins in Vienna the figures are scratched as the reverse as well as the obverse (pI. 10, no. I I), presumably the engraver's carelessness. Neither can the reason be a desire to imitate late Vandal or Ostrogothic senatorial bronzes since the countermarked figures are not placed in the exergue. However, given that the choice of the obverse field was apparently the rule, there must be some reason for it: could it have been a desire to associate the new bronze values with the portrait of rulers which symbolised the most prosperous era of the Roman Empire? Minor abnormalities also occur in obverse incisions: these may be placed downwards and inwardly in front of a bust facing right (fig. 6; e.g. pI. 9, no. 5 and pI. 10, no. 13) or upwards and outwardly behind a bust to the left (fig. 7; three specimens in Berlin, not illustrated). On a few examples where the figures are inverted (fig. 8, pI. 10, no. 9; fig. 9, pI. 10, nos. 14 and 16; fig. 10, pI. 10, no. 17) the incisions show other signs of

The re-use of obsolete coins

97

carelessness: in the first case, the figures are mere scratches; in the second, the L seems to have been cut twice and the bars do not join; in the last, the strokes, though neater, partly overlap the imperial bust. Such negligent marks are characteristic of a more important group on which apparently' regular' marks slightly deface the bust of the emperor (e.g., pI. 9, no. 3; pI. 10, no. 18; pI. II, nos. 19-20) on which, more especially, poor cutting either defaces the portrait, or distorts the XLII figure, or both. Such is the case of the specimen in Berlin, where the graffito on the portrait cannot be clearly made out. One has the impression of several unsuccessful attempts to form the figure XLII. On a coin of Severus Alexander seen recently at Baldwin's a defective mark (fig. I I, pI. II, no. 21) (for XLII) is reminiscent of fig. 12 on a specimen in Paris (BN 1972/1269), and figs. 13 and 14 on specimens in Berlin (pI. II, nos. 22-3). Most of these irregular incisions were probably the result of special circumstances: that the burin or graving tool did not cut deeply or accurately enough into the metal, or that it slipped. Possibly this was due to engraving cold and, therefore, harder coins, whereas, as FriedUinder suggested for the more finely incised series, 'the pieces were certainly softened by fire in order to be able to engrave more easily the deep and crude strokes '.2 At all events, such irregularities and crude workmanship seem to point to the markings being done by private persons, at least in the case of these anomalous countermarks. 3 For the more finely incised countermarks, the role of some official authority cannot be excluded: their vertical alignment in relation to the imperial bust may be the result of some official instruction. But there is no clear-cut difference between them and the majority of the countermarked coins, and the question must be left open. Tentatively, I would suggest that an official practice of marking and re-issuing older bronzes was followed with varying success by private individuals as and when they came into possession of similar pieces. How did such coins, dating back four or five centuries, happen to be on hand? It has been suggested that the bulk of them might have come from a hoard unearthed shortly before they were countermarked. Neither the chronological pattern of the coins (see below, Table 9) nor their state of preservation confirms this hypothesis. The overwhelming preponderance of Flavian bronzes (87 specimens, i.e. 77 %) may simply reflect their part in the circulating medium, while the paucity of those produced from the Antonine and Severan periods (8 and 4 specimens respectively) might reflect a gradual driving out of the as by the antoninianus. It is, however, difficult to imagine asses and sestertii circulating continuously for more than three centuries, when the last hoards still to contain a few of them are no later than the mid fourth century.4 A long list could be compiled of examples of ancient coins, whether countermarked or not, that circulated in later periods or otherwise out of context as a result of carestia monetae, or simply because they corresponded roughly to a current denomination: 5 in the Byzantine series, for example, one finds a dupondius of Domitian (81--96) restruck as afollis of Cons tans 11 (641-68) or tetrarchic 'radiati' from the beginning of the fourth century re-used as blanks in the second half of the seventh century.6 One can imagine, therefore, that chance finds of old coins led to their being brought back into circulation after being marked with their current value.

CECILE MORRlSSON

A

The marking was certainly intended to indicate the value in nummi at which the coins were presumably acceptable to the public. There are two values only: LXXXIII and XLII.7 As Phi lip Grierson clearly established twenty years ago, these curious figures are the closest one can get to simple fractions of the si/iqua: 83 instead of 835, 42 instead of 41i, that is a sixth and a twelfth, respectively, of a silver coin of 500 nummi, itself the 24th part of a gold solidus of 12,000 nummi. 8 The figure 83 is known only on a few countermarked sestertii of Galba and Vespasian;9 whereas the 42 mark is well known from Vandalic autonomous folies. The form of the incised XLII itself is clearly akin to the figure on the folies with the horizontal bar of the L prolonged to the right and the II formed of two small letters above it (fig. 4), a form particularly common in inscriptions from North Africa.!o This affinity caused Friedlander, later followed by Wroth in BMC, to assign the series to the Vandals, a common-sense attribution which has never since been queried.!1 Their similarity is also evident in their metrology: with their diameter of c. 26 mm, the countermarked coins correspond closely to the early Vandalic issue of folies, of the Standing Carthage/NXLII types, whereas their average weight of 8.67 g. lies rather within the range of the later Vandalic issue, with Standing Warrior/Horse's head (average weight for 18 specimens of 9.57 g. against 11.39 g. for 18 specimens of the Standing Carthage issue). However, since accuracy in weight was not crucial to ancient bronze coinage, it is not a very reliable criterion and I would rather argue from the similarity of module to place the countermarked asses with the NXLII issue.12 Standard opinion is that the countermarking occurred before the issue of the autonomous folies of Carthage;13 but it does not seem to me reasonable to suppose that old coins could have been marked with values for which there was as yet no contemporary coin.14 Another difficulty arises from the provenance of the countermarked coins. Supposing the marking took place in Vandal territory, one would expect finds in North Africa. In fact, relatively few instances of African provenance are known. These include the LXXXIII piece from the Carthage museum,15 a XLII as of Galba in the Bardo museum, Tunis, and three XLII specimens, one Divus Augustus and two ,£ of Vespasian, bought in Tunisia by the late E. Leuthold. 16 On the contrary, many more have been found in Italy: to the 45 specimens from the Dressel Collection, acquired in Rome over a long period, can be added the LXXXIII dupondius of Titus from Rome and formerly in the Kircher Museum (?now in the Museo Nazionale Romano),17 another LXXXIII coin

The re-use of obsolete coins

99

acquired in Padua and given to the Berlin cabinet,18 and an as of Vespasian for Titus with XLII in the Livorno Museum which may be a local find. 19 From Montelibretti, in the Sabine hills to the east of Rome, come three of the specimens now in the Grierson Collection. 20 In the same collection, a dupondius of Vespasian with XLII is said to have been found in or near Bergamo.2l The 17 specimens in the Museo Nazionale Romano have been found mostly in the Tiber and an as ofTiberius came up in excavations carried out in Velleia. 22 Thus 72 specimens from Italy far outweigh the five coming from Africa. Provenance does not, therefore, appear to support the Vandalic origin of the countermarked coins. If the evidence of provenance points to Italy, it is to show only that the coins were circulating there; it is no proof that their marking took place there. Despite the few finds in Africa, the affinity of the countermarked coins with the Vandalic monetary system is too close to be easily disposed of. However, to account for the use of LXXXIII and XLII marked coins in Italy, two facts must be borne in mind: first, the values, though not represented in the monetary system of the Ostrogoths, could be quite as useful to them as XL. The former represented fractions of the siliqua of 500 nummi, whereas the latter represented only a fraction of a solidus of 12,000 nummi (atoth) without bearing a simple relation to the siliqua. An example of parallel circulation of coins with values quite close one to the other occurs at the end of Justinian's reign when the mint of Ravenna struck silver coins with PK (= 120) and PKE (= 125) (figs. C and D), the former being

c

D

a mUltiple of the follis of 40 nummi and the latter a neat fraction of the siliqua. 23 It could well be the case that the XLII bronzes began to circulate in Italy precisely when the PKE silver coins, each equivalent to three of its countermarked bronzes were being struck; or, conversely, that the silver coins were deliberately issued as a multiple of the former. Whichever was the correct order, the phenomenon would be evidence for a unified monetary system in the western Mediterranean following Justinian's conquests. Other instances bear witness to the arrival of 'Vandalic' or African currency in Italian circulation in the 540s.24 The interchange of coins between Italy and Africa was not reciprocal but rather a one-way traffic to the north, a most natural trend owing to the difference between a relatively peaceful and prosperous Africa and an Italy now devastated by the Gothic war. In conclusion, the following sequence may be proposed: (1) the striking at Carthage (c. 494-6)25 of heavy copper coins of XLII nummi; (2) to supplement this rather meagre issue, the countermarking, partly by an official authority but partly by private persons, of such older coins of corresponding size as happened to be to hand;26

100

CECILE MORRISSON

(3) following Justinian's conquest of Africa, the use of countermarked coins spread to Italy, to which troops had been transferred and where war conditions hindered minting and made official low-value currency scarce. Thus, the countermarked coins may be considered to have constituted a token coinage, or emergency money, in two senses: in the first, as a response to the limited size of the Vandalic issues of autonomous folies, and in the second, by their re-use in Italy under war conditions.

Table 9. Chronological distribution of countermarked bronzes· Augustus (27 BC-AD 14) Tiberius (14-37) Caligula (37-41) Claudius (41-54) Nero (54-68) Unidentified lulio-Claudians Total of lulio-Claudian issues Galba (68---9) Vespasian (69-79) Vespasian for Titus Titus (79-81) Domitian (8 1---96) Unidentified Flavians (Titus or Domitian) Total of Flavian issues Nerva (96--8) Trajan (98- II 6) Hadrian (I I7-38) Ae1ius (136--8) Antoninus Pius (138-61) Marcus Aure1ius (161-80) Commodus (180-92) Total of Antonine issues Septimius Severus (I93-2II) Caracalla (2 II - I7) Macrinus (2I7) Elagabalus (218-22) Severus Alexander (222-35) Gordian III (238-44) Gordian III for Salonina Total of post-Antonine issues TOTAL

2 (3?)

5 5 14 5 50 12 2 12 6 87

3 2

8

2

4 II3

• For sources see n. I below and sale catalouges listed among 'Printed Sources', IQ3 below. The photographs and casts are filed at the Centre d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance (CNRS-Com~ge de France), Paris.

The re-use of obsolete coins Table

10.

Analysis of reverse types/legends

Adventi aug Macedoniae Aequitas Aeternitas Annona Con cordia augusti Consecratio Eagle on globe Emperor in quadriga Emperor on horseback Felicitas publica Fides Fortuna, Moneta, or Virtus lovi conservatori ludaea capta luno regina Libertas publica Mars Vltor Pannonia Pax augusti Providentia aug Roma aeterna Sacrificial implements

I

15

3

2

2

I

4 (3 sestertii) I

6 (2 sestertii) 2

4 3 2

SC

4

Spes Temple of Jupiter Victoria (navalis or augusti) Virtus Two unidentified standing figures Unidentified standing figure Unidentified or uncertain types Illegible types TOTAL

101

12 I

16 2 2

3 17 113

PRINTED SOURCES

J. Friedliinder, 'Vandalische Miinzen', Berliner Blotter fur Munz-, Siegel- und Wappenkunde III 1866,283-284 (alluding to two coins with XLII in Berlin); 'Die Erwerbungen des Konigl. Miinzkabinets vom I. Jan. 1877 bis 31. Miirz 1878', ZjN VI 1879, 1-26 (referring to eight XLII asses and one LXXXIII piece). E. Dressel, 'Monete romane contrassegnate dai Vandali', Bullettino delf lstituto di Correspondenza Archeologica 1879, 126--128 (commenting on 27 coins from his collection either found or bought in or near Rome). A. Engel, 'Notes sur quelques contremarques antiques', RNJ 17 coins with XLII in the Visconti Collection).

V

1887,382-401 at 395-396 (noting

102

CECILE MORRISSON

G. Elmer, 'Neuentdeckte senatorischen Pragungen unter den Gothen in Rom', Mitteilungen der Numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien XVI 1927/1936,214 (describing one XLII coin of Vespasian in Vienna and another unmarked coin of the same emperor, E. suggests that they were imitations struck by Theodahad). K. Elsner, 'Nachtrag zu G. Elmer Neuentdeckte ... ', in the same volume of the Mitteilungen, 244 (describing a XLII coin of Titus from Estergom in Hungary previously noted by M. von Bahrfeldt in 'Contremarken auf Romischen/Kupferrniinzen der ersten Kaiserzeit', Bliitter fur Munzfreunde LXI 1926, 395-396; and a XLII coin of Vespasian in the author's own collection). K. Regling, 'Nachtrag zu G. Elmer Neuentdeckte . .. ', in the same volume of the Mitteilungen, 249 (commenting on the whole series, R. stresses the mainly Italian origin of the coins and the predominance of Flavian bronzes with the reverse type of Victoria imitated by Theodahad). J. P. Derriman, 'Vandal coins from Carthage', Numismatic Review II-ii 1944, II (referring to a sestertius ofVespasian with LXXXIII acquired as a duplicate from the Musee Lavigerie, Carthage). E. Leuthold, 'Bemerkungen zu Elmers Gotenmiinzen', Mitteilungen der Oesterreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft X 1957, 17-19 (reverting to the attribution of the countermarking to the Vandals and alluding to a number of specimens found in Tunis and the surrounding area). F. Panvini-Rosati, 'Contributo numismatico alla conoscenza di Velleia antica', Atti del III Convegno di Studi Veleiati, Piacenza .. . 1967 (Pubblicazioni della Facolta di Giurisprudenza [della Universita di Milano]: Studi di diritto romano VIII), Milan 1967,303-318 (among 3,200 coins found at Velleia some 400 may be identified with fair precision from the excavation journals and other sources; they stretch from the first century BC to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. P-R. cites a recently found XLII as of the Julio-Claudians, probably of Tiberius, and mentions 17 countermarked coins in the collection of the Museo Nazionale Romano.)

SALE CATALOGUES

(This list does not pretend to completeness; references to H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. I. Augustus to Vitellius. London 1923; 11. Vespasian to Domitian. London 1930, hereafter BMCRE.) London. Christie's, 30 May 1949 (Earl Fitzwilliam), lot 488: dupondius ofVespasian (as BMCRE 112, no. 527) with XLII (now in the Fitzwilliam Museum as CM. 19-1949).

II,

Milan. Ars et Nummus (G. Nascia), list nos. 7/8 1960, lot 193: dupondius ofVespasian (as BMCRE II, 132, no. 612) with XLII; found at Bergamo (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). Munich. K. Kress, catalogue 117,26 January 1961, lot 846: as ofVespasian for Titus (reverse as BMCRE II, 143, no. 644, legionary eagle between two standards) with XLII (present whereabouts unknown). Munich. K. Kress, catalogue 121,4 December 1961, lot 630: as ofVespasian (reverse type, Spes) with XLII (present whereabouts unknown). New York. A. G. Malloy, 28 March 1973, lot 552: dupondius of Vespasian (types of BMCRE II, 128, no. 591) with XLII (present whereabouts unknown).

The re-use of obsolete coins

103

New York. H. M. F. Schulman, 27 October 1969 (T. O. Mabbott), lot 5133: dupondius for Divus Augustus (types not described) with XLII (present whereabouts unknown, but see Gibbs specimen below); lot 5134: as ofVespasian (types not described) with XLII (present whereabouts unknown). New York. H. M. F. Schulman, 6 April 1971 (H. D. Gibbs), lot 648 (illustrated as no. 642): as of Tiberius for Divus Augustus (as BMCRE I, 141, no. 146) with XLII (present whereabouts unknown).

NOTES

• A first version of this paper was presented at the joint meeting of the Royal Numismatic Society, the Societe Fran9aise de Numismatique, and the British Numismatic Society held in London on 8 and 9 October 1976 (BSFN XXXI 1976, 120). I should like to thank here all those who on that occasion showed interest in the subject and who were responsible for many helpful suggestions, namely Prof. M. Clover, Dr W. Hahn, Dr J. P. C. Kent, R. A. Merson, Dr B. H. I. H. Stewart, and T. R. Volk, as well as Phi lip Grierson for points communicated to me by letter. They are not responsible for my errors nor do they necessarily agree with my conclusions. The largest holdings are those of the Staatliche Museen in Berlin (61 specimens, of which 51 are from the Dressel Collection), the Fitzwilliam Museum (26 specimens, all but 3 of them in the Grierson Collection and one of them a sestertius) and the Museo Nazionale in Rome (17 specimens). The American Numismatic Society in New York has 6 asses (most of them Fla vi an issues), the British Museum 3 specimens, of which 2 are sestertii, the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris 3 specimens. Single coins have been seen in the trade or noted from sale catalogues and other publications; these are listed among the printed sources given above at 103. For information on coins in their collections I wish to express my thanks to Dr H.-D. Schultz (Berlin), Dr W. E. Metcalf (ANS), Dr J. P. C. Kent (British Museum), T. R. Yolk (Fitzwilliam Museum), T. R. Volk (Fitzwilliam Museum), DrW. Hahn(Institut fiir Numismatik, Vienna) and Dr Enrico Leuthold. Lack of time prevented me from studying the coins in Rome. 2 J. Friedliinder, 'Die Erwerbungen des Konigl. Miinzkabinets vom 1. Jan. 1877 bis 31. Miirz 1878', ZjN VI 1879, 1-26 at 22: 'gewiss wurden die Stiicke durch Feuer erweicht urn die tiefen groben Striche leichter einschneiden zu konnen'. MetallurI

gical analysis might perhaps confirm this hypothesis. 3 Considering the formation and date of the Berlin material and the provenance of some of Philip Grierson's coins (see n. 20 below), we can probably exclude the possibility that these are genuine Roman imperial bronzes countermarked in the 19th or 20th centuries. But forgeries of the countermarked series are not completely unknown; in 1975 I saw a very crude cast forgery in a small antique shop at Sion, Switzerland. 4 For example, two hoards buried in central France during the first half of the 4th century: Osmery I, a mixed deposit of sestertii and antoniniani, and Osmery 11, bronzes from Diocletian to 3 10 but including an as of Claudius. See P. Bastien, A. Cothenet, Tresors monetaires du Cher, Numismatique Roinaine VIII, Wetteren 1974, 24- 25. 5 In his 'Vandalische M iinzen " Berliner Blaller fur Munz-, Siegel- und WappenkundeIII 1866, 283-284at 284,J. Friedliinder cites Roman denarii found in 10th and Ilthcentury German hoards, Spanish countermarks of the 17th century on bronzes of Domitian (81-96) and Theodosius I (379-95), a silver coin of Syracuse countermarked 12 D by the British forces occupying

104

CECILE MORRISSON

Sicily at the beginning of the 19th century. He adds that late Roman, Byzantine, and Artuqid coins were still circulating in Asia Minor in his time. Even in 19th-century France many Roman coins were presented when the currency was called in for recoinage under Napoleon Ill, and during this century an 'obol' of Hadrian was to be found 'current in the Western Sudan in 1916'. I am grateful to R. A. Merson for drawing these last examples to my attention, see in part his 'A curious aspect of monetary history - the use of Roman coins in later ages', Seaby's Coin and Medal Bulletin no. 680 1975, 115-117. H. A. Cahn has published a Roman denarius of Nerva (96--8) with the graffito XXI carefully incised by the bust, apparently to adjust it to the XXI antoniniani struck two centuries later from Aurelian to the time of Diocletian (' Miszellen zur antiken Numismatik', Revue Suisse de Numismatique XXI 1944, 43-63 at 57-58). A completely worn coin, possibly a tessera, with a circular XXIII graffito was found in the Roman amphitheatre at Padua in 1881 (G. Gorini, 'Ritrovamenti monetali a Padova', Bollettino del Museo Civico di Padova LIX 1970, 3-7 I at 29, no. 70, with pI. I, no. 8: I owe this reference to T. R. Yolk). X. Barral i Altet has recently studied a series of late Roman, Suevic, and Visigothic gold coins found in Spain which bear curious graffiti making up XX, L, V, 11 and other less easily deciphered marks in 'Monnaies sueves contremarquees a la pointe', Melanges de numismatique d'archeologie et d'histoire offerts cl Jean Lafaurie (ed. P. Bastien, F. Dumas, H. Huvelin, e. Morrisson), Paris 1980, 167-169. 6 Annual Report of the American Numismatic Society for ... 1979, 17, fig. 14 (Jollis of Heraclius on a coin of Hadrianeia (?) for Hadrian); R. Spahr, Le monete siciliane dai Bizantini a Carlo I tf Angio, Ziirich/Graz 1976, pI. Ill, no. 118 ter.; [So Bendall], of Leontius', 'Three overstrikes NCirc LXXIX 1971, 7 (three half.jolles overstruck on two' radiati' of Constantine I and one of Maximian I); S. Bendall, 'Constans 11 on Constantine 1', NCirc

1975, 338; P. Grierson, Heraclius Constantine to Theodosius III (641-7/7). Catalogue of the Byzantine coins in the Dumbarton Oaks collection (ed. A. R. Bellinger, P. Grierson), II-ii, Washington, D.e. 1968, 629, no. 8b.3 (jollis of Tiberius III overstruck on coin of the First or Second Tetrarchy). I have not seen e. Hale, 'A 7th century 40 nummia piece struck on a 4th century imperial Roman centenionalis', North American Journal of Numismatics VII 1968, 196--108. Also found overstruck on Roman imperial issues are anonymousfulus of the reformed Umayyad coinage with the type of a pious invocation (post 77 AH = post 698/9 AD): L. Ilisch, 'Dieunmayyadischen ... Kupfermiinzen von Hims', Milnstersche Numismatische Zeitung x-iii 1980, 25, for specimens in the author's own collection and for one, bought in Tiflis by General de Bartholomaei, struck on a 'radiatus' of Maximian I (see also J. de Bartholomaei, 'Quatrieme lettre ... sur des monnaies orientales inedites' RBNS4 11 1864, 289-359 at 327-3 28 ). 7 Marks of value apparently different from these on some coins in the Grierson Collection can be otherwise explained: XL on two examples is due to the III strokes taking very faintly (pI. 11, nos 24 and 25); XIX on another specimen is similarly an example of defective marking of XLII (pI. I I, no. 26). An instance of XX cannot be doubted but should probably be explained as an engraver's mistake, since a true XX mark could have been intended to adjust the coin only to the Ostrogothic half.jollis with XX in the reverse exergue, a coin whose size is too small to have served as the prototype (pI. I I, no. 27). 8 P. Grierson, 'The Tablettes Albertini and the value of the solidus in the fifth and sixth centuries AD', JRS XLIX 1959, 73-80 at 78 (reprinted in Dark Age numismatics as article iv). 9 I know of eight (or ten) specimens: one in the Grierson Collection at the Fitzwilliam Museum (pI. 9, no. I), three in the British Museum (e.g., pI. 9, no. 2), and in Berlin. Another was acquired as a 'duplicate' from the Carthage museum during the last war by LXXXIII

The re-use of obsolete coins T. O. Mabbott (J. P. Derriman, 'Vandal coins from Carthage', Numismatic Review ll-ii 1944, I I): I have not been able to trace its present whereabouts. A coin of Titus found at Rome in 1876 was formerly in the Kircher Museum (E. Dressel, 'Monete romane contrassegnate dai Vandali', Bullettino dell'Istituto di Correspondenza Archeologica 1879, 126- I 28 at 128); it is presumably among the specimens now in the collection of the Museo Nazionale in Rome. The mean weight of the eight coins I have been able to check is 22.16 g., with a standard deviation of 5.02; their mean diameter is 30 mm. 10 For example, see L. Poinssot, 'Trois inscriptions chretiennes de Tubernoc', Memoires de la Societe Nationale des Antiquaires de France 8 VIII 1934,66-74 at 68. Although well documented in Africa, this form is not unique to the province as Prof. N. Duval has pointed out to me. Too much weight should not, therefore, be laid on this in seeking the origin of the marks. The prolonged horizontal bar of the L is characteristic of the letter when used as a numeral: J. Mallon, Paleographie romaine, Madrid 1952, 12 4- 12 5. 11 Friedliinder, n. 2 above; W. Wroth, Catalogue of the coins of the Vandals, Ostrogoths and Lombards ... in the British Museum, London 191 I. 12 That the diameter is the most important feature in such cases of the re-use of obsolete coins is proved by the following evidence about Roman bronzes current in Algeria in the 1840s: 'A Tebessa ... des monnaies imperiales romaines de bronze, circulaient en assez grand nombre et etaient echangees concurremment avec les monnaies turques ... Le grand bronzeequivalaiUl I ou 2 centimes suivant le module' (R. Troussel, Recueil des notes et memoires de la societe Archeol. de Constantine LXV-LXVI 1942-8, 145)· 13 Wroth, n. II above, 3-4, 6-7; Grierson, n. 8 above, 77-78; D. M. Metcalf, The origins of the Anastasian monetary reform, Amsterdam 1969,9. 14 This argument does not dispose of the LXXXIII mark, as this has no equivalent on

15 16

I7 18 19

20

105

a struck coin. It must have arisen from the existing value relationship between the dupondius, with which the as was then confused owing to the 0 bscuring, through the passage of time, of the former's distinctive orichalcum colour, and the sestertius. With dupondii (and asses) passing for 42, it was natural that the sestertius should be valued at double. The reason why the larger coin was rated at 83 and not at 84, as Friedliinder believed (see n. 2 above), is that 42 was a rounding-up of 4Ii and, as was normal, this was compensated for by rounding-down the next value (83 for 83i), thus together making exactly 125 nummi. See n. 9 above. See E. Leuthold, 'Bemerkungen zu Elmers Gotenmiinzen', Mitteilungen der Oesterreichische Numismatische Gesellschaft 2 X 1957, I7-19 at 19. I am grateful to Dr E. Leuthold Jr for the three coins' identification (references to H. Cohen, Description historique des monnaies frappees sous I' empire romain 2 , Paris/London 1880-1892): Augustus C. 226; Vespasian C. 453; Vespasian C. 606. In the same article Leuthold refers to 'einige Dupondii von Titus'. These shared the provenance of the earlier coins but were not acquired as being too worn. No details of these coins have survived. I myself have looked in vain for specimens both in Tunisian museums and in private collections formed in Tunisia. See n. 9 above. Friedliinder, n. 2 above, 22. I am grateful to T. R. Yolk for providing casts of this coin (Livorno 0227, pI. I I, no. 28). The collection of the Museo Civico 'as a whole is believed to have derived from local finds (i.e. the Tuscan littoral), though the admixture of some material from N. Africa cannot be ruled out'. They are from a hoard found in 1954, which according to an unpublished report by the late Dr R. Chierici contained imperial bronzes from the third to fifth centuries, together with bronzes of the Eastern Empire (Zeno, Basiliscus, Anastasius, Justinian), the Ostrogoths, and the Vandals (mainly anonymous nummi). This report is cited by F. M. Clover at n. 24 of an as yet

106

2I

22

23 24

CEC1LE MORR1SSON

unpublished article, 'Relations between North Africa and Italy A.D. 476-500: some numismatic evidence', due to appear in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt (ed. H. Temporini, etc.), Berlin/New York. Mr Clover was kind enough to communicate his text to me in advance of publication. See 102 above, Printed Sources: 'Sale Catalogues': Milan; the coin is among the additional Grierson pieces referred to in no. I above. F. Panvini-Rosati, 'Contributo numismatico alia conoscenza di Velleia antica', Alii del III Convegno di Studi Veleiati (Pubblicazioni della Facolta di Giurisprudenza [della Universita di MilanoJ Studi di diritto romano VIII), Milan 1967, 303-318 at 30 6-3°7. See Grierson, n. 8 above. In the Castro dei Volsci (province of Frosinone) hoard, deposited after 541, Vandalic and Byzantine bronzes from Carthage form the second largest group after the mass of coins struck in Italy, see L. Cesano, 'Della moneta enea corrente in Italia nell'ultima eta imperiale e sotto i re ostrogoti', RIN XXVI 1913, 511-556 at 511-525. The same is true of a recent find of fifth- to sixth-century minimi at Massafra near Taranto (E. Travaglini, Thesaurus Massafrensis, Brindisi 1977). On the other

hand, Ostrogothic and other Italian coins are quite rare in N. African finds or collections. 25 C. Morrisson, 'Les origines du monnayage vandale', Actes du VIII'· Congres lnternationaldeNumismatique,New York/ Washington 1973, Paris/Bale 1976, 461-472. 26 Size was certainly the crucial element in re-issuing the coins. Too much emphasis should not be placed on their types. The relatively high incidence of Victoria reverses among the coins held at Berlin led Regling to link them with the folies of Theodahad (rev. VICTORIA PRINCIPIS) (fig. E), supposing that the latter had been inspired by the countermarked Victoria asses. From a survey of all the available material, however, the predominance of the Victoria type among the countermarked asses is less clear (see Table 10 above), so that Regling's conclusion is unsafe. Coins with types of Aequitas and of Spes constitute distinct groups, each nearly equal in number to the Victoria type (15 and 12 coins respectively against 16 with Victoria). Although I have not been able to compare this distribution of types with the pattern of first- to third-century issues, I would suppose that the types of the countermarked coins were roughly in line with those of the original issues.

E

KEY TO ILLUSTRA TIONS

Text figures A Anonymous Vandal issue, 42 nummi, as Wroth, n. I I above, p. 6, nos. 3-7 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). B Anonymous Vandal issue, 21 nummi, as Wroth, n. I I above, p. 6, no. 8 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection).

The re-use of obsolete coins

10 7

C Justinian I, Ravenna mint, 120 noummia (Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale: C. Morrisson, Catalogue des monnaies byzantines I (Paris 1970), 117, no. 4/Rv / lR/15). D Justinian I, Ravenna mint, 125 noummia (Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale: Morrison, Catalogue I, 117, no. 4/RV /lR/12). E Theodahad, JoWs, as Wroth, n. 11 above, 75, no. 19 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). Plate 9 (All coins are asses unless otherwise noted.) I Vespasian for Titus (AD 72/3), rev. Judaea cap ta, sestertius, 26.37 g., cp. BMCRE 11, 117, no. 543 var. (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection, illustrated by Metcalf, n. 13 above, pI. i, no. 4). 2 Vespasian for Titus (72/3), rev. Judaea cap ta, sestertius, 23.75 g., as BMCRE 11, 116, no. 536 (British Museum: Pearce gift 1934-3-4-2). 3 Titus or Domitian for Gennanicus (80/1 or 82), rev. type as BMCREII, 288, nos. 293-5 (Titus) and BMCREII, 416, no. 51 I (Domitian), 10.02 g. (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). 4 Vespasian for Domitian (73), rev. Spes, 10.63 g., as BMCREn, 158, no. 688 (Berlin: Dressel Collection). 5 Domitian, rev. Fides, 8.60 g., types of BMCREII, 377, no. 364 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). 6 Hadrian for Ae1ius (137), rev. Pannonia, 13.22 g., as BMCREm, 547, no. 1936 (Berlin: Dressel Collection). 7 Vespasian (71), rev. Eagle on globe, dupondius, 9.06 g., as BMCREII, 132, no. 612 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection, found in Bergamo). 8 Domitian, rev. Aeternitas, 8.59 g., rev. type generally as BMCRE 11, 266, no. 208 (Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale). Plate 10 9 Commodus, rev. Annona, sestertius, 20.55 g., rev. type as BMCREIV, pI. ciii, no. 3 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). 10 Titus or Domitian for Germanicus (80/1 or 82), illegible epigraphic rev. as no. 3, 8.65 g. (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). I I Vespasian for Titus (72), rev. Spes, 9.30 g., as BMCRE 11, 142, no. 642 (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum no. 191218). 12 Vespasian (76), rev. Spes, 10.80 g., BMCRE 11, 16g, no. 726 (Berlin: Dressel Collection). 13 Commodus for Marcus Aurelius, rev. Consecratio, 8.88 g., rev. as BMCRE IV, 764, no. 405 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). 14 Antoninus Pi us for Faustina I (after 141), rev. Aeternitas, 8.40 g., rev. ? as BMCRE IV, 249, no. 1558 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). 15 Marcus Aurelius for Commodus (179/80), rev. Virtus, dupondius, 13.14 g., as BMCREIV, 683, no. 1724 (Berlin: Dresse1 Collection). 16 Vespasian (?73 or 74), rev. Victoria navalis, 10.76 g., rev. as BMCRE 11, 152, no. 666 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). 17 Claudius (41-54), illegible rev. (? Minerva), 10.75 g. (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). 18 Vespasian, rev. Victoria (?navalis/augusti), 10-49 g., rev. type generally as no. 16 (Berlin: Dressel Collection).

108

ClklLE MORRISSON

Plate I I 19 Vespasian for Titus (77/8), rev. Spes, IO-47 g., as BMCRE II, I75, no. 11 (Berlin: Dressel Collection). 20 Vespasian for Domitian (73), rev. Domitian on horseback, IO.83 g., BMCRE II, 158, no. 689 var. (Berlin: general collection). 21 Severus Alexander, rev. Providentia aug., generally as BMCREvI, 201, no. 883 (formerly stock of A. H. Baldwin & Sons Ltd, London). 22 Hadrian (II9-38), rev.? Felicitas aug., 10.68 g., as BMCRE rn, 481, no. 1589 (Berlin: Dressel Collection). 23 Vespasian (77/8), rev. Victoria august., 10.12 g., as BMCRE II, 174, no. 740 (Berlin: general collection 1918/471). 24 Vespasian for Titus (?72), rev. Pax august., I 1.40 g., rev. as BMCRE II, 155, no .• (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). 25 Vespasian (?7I), rev. Eagle on globe, 9.35 g., rev. type as BMCRE II, 132, no. 612 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). 26 Nero (66), rev. Temple of Janus, 8.73 g., rev. generally as BMCRE 1,244, no. 230 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). 27 Titus (80/1), rev. Aeternitas, 7.98 g., as BMCRE II, 265, no. 206 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). 28 Vespasian for Titus (73 or 74), rev. Victoria navalis, 9.75 g., rev. generally as BMCRE II, 156, no. 677 (Livorno: Museo Civico).

The re-use of obsolete coins

10 9

2

3

4

t

I

~~

)

)

, "(

"',(

11

7

8

Plate 9

I

"'.~\ " '.'l

I "

~J

tt~ ~,

,

CECILE MORRISSON

110

10

9

13

14

Plate

ID

The re-use of obsolete coins

III

19

24

25

28

27

Plate

I I

8 Interpreting the alloy of the Merovingian silver coinage D. M. METCALF

The silver deniers which were the currency of Merovingian Gaul from c. 670 until Pepin's reform in the mid-eighth century have been studied with devoted thoroughness by Lafaurie. He has been at pains to make it clear that our understanding of the series is restricted by the extreme incompleteness and patchiness of the evidence. l The available coins, which nearly all come from a handful of hoards, evidently represent only a tiny proportion of the dies originally used at more than fifty mints. The survival rate seems to be distinctly lower than in the contemporary Anglo-Saxon series. One aspect of the Merovingian silver coinage which has not yet been explored is its alloy. These few pages, dedicated with deep respect and gratitude to Philip Grierson, who supervised my first steps in numismatic research at Cambridge twenty years ago, provide some information to fill the lacuna. 2 Professor Grierson generously made his own collection available for chemical analysis, and the results from a selection of one hundred specimens are presented below (Table I I). Since few numismatists, probably, will realise how scarce Merovingian silver coins are - far more so than Merovingian gold - I may add that the Ashmolean Museum has only two comparable pieces. Professor Hall kindly allowed the use of the 'Isoprobe', an X-ray fluorescence focussing spectrometer in the Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, at Oxford. Limitations of space preclude a detailed account of the instrument, the sample preparation, or the standards used for calibration. They have been described elsewhere. 3 The same methods were used as for the analysis of a series of Anglo-Saxon pennies, the so-called' sceattas', in order to ensure comparability between the two sets of results.4 Analysis on an abraded section on the edge of the coin should in theory discount surface effects, such as corrosion or surface enrichment, and should measure the unaltered alloy; in practice, however, it is a delicate and sometimes perhaps an impossible task, within the limitations of acceptable aesthetic damage, to obtain even an approximately correct result from these tiny coins, particularly when they are debased. The positioning of the coin so that the X-ray beam strikes the exact centre-line of the edge can be critical. The patinated surface often differs markedly in alloy from the interior, so that the silver percentage may be either much higher or much lower.

113

114

D.M.METCALF

Whereas the Anglo-Saxon 'sceatta' coinage reached its full flowering of design in a secondary phase, beginning c. 730, during which there was rapid and severe debasement, there is relatively little evidence of debasement in Gau\. This may be partly because few of the late coins have survived, and few are included in the selection analysed. Most of the Merovingian deniers (other than those of Marseilles) contain c. 93-94 %'silver' - that is, silver including the traces of gold, bismuth, and lead, of which the mint workers would have been unaware and which they would have weighed as silver. The fineness corresponds closely with sterling, which reflects a traditional and practical degree of alloy to give just the necessary hardness to the metal. Two coins associated with the Savonnieres hoard (nos. 5 and 7 below), for which Lafaurie5 has suggested 740-5 as the date of concealment, are fully up to this standard of fineness, in spite of their relatively late date. The coins of Marseilles are known to us chiefly from the Nice-Cimiez hoard, 6 for which a date of deposit of 741 has been suggested. The varieties attributed to the Patrice of Provence Ansedert or Austrebert (nos. 47-50), and which have generally been dated to the end of the seventh century, fall in the range 85-90% 'silver'. Those of Nemfidius (nos. 51-70), which are almost certainly from the turn of the century, seem to fall, according to type, either in the same range or in a lower range (c. 65-75%). Most of the specimens analysed were repositioned several times in the spectrometer, turned this way and that, and re-measured after successive c1eanings of the edge. The results were sometimes different by as much as 10% or even 20%, because of the severe difficulties of overcoming the problems of surface depletion or enrichment. In interpreting the results, which are as reliable as care could make them, common sense is nevertheless an important ingredient. The Nice-Cimiez hoard, moreover, awaits a thorough numismatic study. That said, it seems almost certain that the coinage of Marseilles was being debased some twenty years or more before there was any decline at other mints. Lafaurie has tentatively suggested successive reductions in weight standard with 24-shilling and 25-shilling standards represented in Nice-Cimiez. If weights are plotted against silver contents, the available analyses offer only very limited evidence in support of two standards. Of the debased coins other than those from Provence, nos. 12 and 94 point towards Paris and its region as being active in minting at a date (presumably) towards the middle of the eighth century. It may be that the striking of denarii dwindled away elsewhere, and that the expedient of debasement was not adopted. In Frisia, the secondary so-called 'porcupines' are appreciably debased; and the 'interlace' coins of Maastricht decline from an originally very acceptable standard (no. 34) to an eventual 35% silver.7 The Frisian pattern thus seems to have been closer to the English. Tin is a quite regular constituent in the alloy of the coins, commonly in a ratio of as much as one to eight in relation to copper. In the debased coins of Marseilles, however, the total tin content rarely exceeds about 2 %. A more lavish use of tin, as found in the Anglo-Saxon 'sceattas' of the secondary phase, is rare in Gaul. Measurable amounts of zinc showed up in half-a-dozen of the coins which are characteristic of the Civitas

The alloy of M erovingian silver coinage

115

Biturigum, the region of Bourges (nos. 14- 19). They hint at the exploitation of some local source of calamine in the Massif Central. 8 There are no very obvious patterns in the gold traces, and none for bismuth. 9 It should be said, however, that X-ray fluorescence spectrometry is not the most suitable method of measuring trace elements. Reliable comparisons between the trace elements in the later Merovingian deniers, in those of Pepin's reform, and in Offa's pence remain a desideratum.lO

THE ANALYSES

Abbreviations: B A. de Belfort, Description generale des monnaies merovingiennes par ordre alphaberique des ateliers I-V, Paris 1892-1895. Bais M. Prou, S. Bougenot, Catalogue des deniers merovingiens de la trouvaille de Bais, Paris 1908 (reprinted from RN4 XI 1907, 184-228; 362-396; 481-514). BMC A-S c. F. Keary, R. S. Poole, A catalogue of English coins in the British Museum, Anglo-Saxon series I, London 1887. M-F A. Chabouillet, Catalogue raisonne de la collection de deniers merovingiens des viie & viiie siecies de la trouvaille de Cimiez donnee au Cabinet des Medailles de la Bibliotheque Nationale par M' Arnold Morel-Fatio, Paris 1890. N Nohanent: see n. I below. P M. Prou, Les monnaies merovingiennes, Catalogue des monnaies franc;aises de la Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris 1896. Pia. Plassac: see n. I below. St-P Saint-Pierre-Ies-Etieux: see n. I below. S Savonnieres: see n. 5 below.

Il6

D.M.METCALF

12

Table

I I.

Civitas

Mint, etc.

I LYON 2 CHALON 3 CHALON 4 CHALON 5 TOURS 6 TOURS 7 CHARTRES 8 PARIS 9 PARIS 10 PARIS I l PARIS 12 PARIS 13 BoURGES 14 BoURGES 15 BoURGES 16 BoURGES 17 BoURGES 18 BOURGES 19 BOURGES 20 BOURGES

Lyon Chalon Chalon Chalon Tours Uncertain Chateaudun Paris Paris Paris Paris Paris ? Gournay Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain Uncertain

3

4

5

13

14

15

Analyses of Merovingian silver coins

Moneyer, etc.

lnportunus

Bibliography P nos. 99- 101 BI, no. 1278 BI, no. 1260 = N no. 6 =Sno.13 Bais no. 289 S 7 I ; pI. viii B BIll, nos. 3414ff. ? = BIll, no. 3534 Bm, no. 3542 ? = BIll, no. 3540 =St·p no. 40 Cr. St·p no. 46 (?) Cr. Pia. no. 56 Cr. SI-P no. 37 ? = Pia. no. 72

P. no. 2255; see commentary at St-P p. 16<}, no. 52

Iq

The al/oy oJ Merovingian silver coinage

16

7

8

9

17

18

19

10

20

Percentage content Finds

Nohanent

Sa vonnieres Eck

St-Pierre

Plassac (?)

Weight (g)

Ag

Cu

Au

Pb

Sn

Zn

Ni

Bi

1.15 1.26 1. 29 1.02 1.10 0.90 0.96 1.12 1. 2 5 1.3 1 I.t4 0·95 1.13 1.13 1.04 1.06 1.20

93. 20 9 2 .61 91.9 1 91.50 9 2.7 8 88.50 91.9 2 91.49 9 2. 27 91.08 91.66 57·81 93. 0 3 9 2 .77 9 2.74 93. 02 9 2 .77

5A2

0·57 0·57 0·54 0·54 0.4 2 0.60 0.64 0·70 0·57 0.82

0·54 0.86 0.64 0.7 6

0 0.27

0.16 0.16 0 0 0 0.27 0 0 0.18 0

0·95 1.33 1.27

91.54 91.49

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.26 0 0 0 0.25 0 0.24 0 0.29 0

0.11 0.14 0.06 0.13 0.09 0.07 0·09 0.15 0.09 0.10 0.1 I 0.02 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.07

89A6

5·39 6·39 6.36 5.9 2 9. 29 5. 8 7 5. 84 5. 89 6.86 5·33 40·17 5AI

5AO 4. 88 5AI 4·88 5·84 5. 84 8.85

0·53 0·35 0.65 0·54 0·58 0·57 0·70 0.58 0.61 0.64

0·59 1.27 0.82 1.17 0.7 1 0.82 0.64 OAI 0·54 0.65 0.98 0·54 0.68 1.17 0.70 0.98

OA6 0.7 1 0.20 0 0.66 0.65 0.29 0.3 2

OA9 1. 2 3 0.25 0 0 0 0.27 0.61 0.50 0

0·97 0 0 0·54

OA9 0·37 0·34 0.18 oAI 0

"Silver"

94A2 94. 18 93. 15 9 2.93 93. 88 90 .44 9).47 93.5 1 93. 64 9 2 .82 9 2.94 58 .59 94·34 94. 0 7

94AO 94. 21 94. 25 93.3 8 9 2 .95 91.15

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 IZ

13 14 15 16

I7 18 19 20

D.M.METCALF

118

21

22

31

Table

32

I I

ZI

33

25

35

34

(cont.)

Mint. etc.

Civitas

22 23 24 2S 26 27 z8 29 30

24

23

BoURGES BOURGES BOURGES BOURGES liMOGES liMOGES POITlERS POlTtERS METZ TOUL

Uncertain

? RHEIMS

Rheims ? Rheims ? Rheims Maastricht Maastricht 'sceat' 'sceat'

Moneyer. etc.

= Pia. no. 67 Cf. St-P no. 52 er. Pia. no. 63

Uncertain Uncertain

Uncertain Neuvic-d'Ussel Poitiers Uncertain Metz Void of legend

Bibliography

Theodoa/ Code/aeo (Codo/aieus)

= Pia. no. 89

MeJeramnus

= St-P no. 66 = BII. no. 3228 (' pale, gold')

31 32 33 34 3S 36 37

? RHEIMS ? RHEIMS MAASTRICHT MAASTRICHT FRISIA FRtSIA JII FRISIA 39 FRISIA 40 FRIStA

er. Bill, nos. 3786ff. er. Bill, no. 3790 er. BII, no. 1870 = Bill, nO. 3786 er. Metcalf, Hamblin (n. 7 below),

?

. scear ~

'sceat' 'sceat'

Series D Series D Series D Series D Imitation, after series D

er. BMCA-S Cf. BMCA-S er. BMCA-S er. BMCA-S

I. I, I, I,

4 4 4 4

(type (type (type (type

2C), 2C), 2C), 2C),

no. no. no. no.

28 28 28 28

35

The alloy oJ Merovingian silver coinage

26

36

37

28

29

38

39

119

40

Percenlage con lent Finds Plassac

Plassac SI-Pierre

Weighl (g) 1.14 1.08 1.01 1.15 1.)1 1.0) 1.10 1.02 1-40 1.16 1.19 0.85

Ag 9 0 . 25 91.19 88.61 90 .74 9 2 -49 90 .08 88·59 6'.02 9 2.2) 90 . 16 8\.82

0·79 0.8) 0.9 1 \,27 1. 0 5 0.8)

87·74 0 86-47 4\.86 92.') 91.82 91.5 1

0·73 0.62

90 c.25

Cu 7·)2 6.86 8·76 7. 8 9 5.9 0 7·8) 9·)0 )8.20 5. 8 9 6·79 15·58 6.60 100 10.69 51.16 6-40 5·)4 4·)1

Au

Pb

Sn

0·70 0·58 0-42 0.66 0.85 0.52 0-45 0.12

1.00 0.82 0.88 0.6) 0-47 0.6) 0.56 0.20

0-44 1.27 0 0.20 0.86 1.06

0·71 2.04

0·71 0.81

0·74 0-4 2 0 0·)9 0.60

0·9) 1.98 0 0.96 0·77 0.)8 0.86 1.28

0·54 1.00 0.98

0.62

0·44 0 0.10 0.85 0.81 0 1-46 5.5 8 0-47 0.85 0.88 1.00

c·75

• element delecled bUI nOI quanlified

Zn

Ni

Hi

'Silver

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-4 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.11 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.06

92.06 9 2 .7 0 89.98 92.11 9).9 0 91.)1 89. 65 61.)6 9)·71 9)·12

0 2.)' 0 0 0 0 0 0.60

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.)1

0.11

0.08 0·'4 0 0.0) 0.0) 0.07 0·14 0.1)

8)·57 90.28 (Copper) 87. 85 4)·26 9)·12 9)·82 9).9 0 90 c.25

ZI ZZ

23 24 25 26 27 z8 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

D.M.METCALF

120

et 44

45

It

• • 51

Table

I I

• • • • • 53

52

54

55

(cont.)

Civila.'1

Mint, etc.

41 FRISIA 41 FRISIA 43 FRISIA 44 ? MARSEILLE

'sceat' ? Marseille

45 ? MARSEILLE

?

46 ? MARSEILLE 47 MARSEILLE 411 MARSEILLE 49 MARSEILLE 50 MARSEILLE 51 MARSEILLE 51 MARSEILLE 53 MARSEILLE 54 MARSEILLE 55 MARSEILLE 56 MARSEILLE 57 MARSEILLE sS MARSEILLE 59 MARSEILLE 60 MARSEILLE

? Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille

Moneyer, etc.

Series 0

Marseille

Ansedert (Austrebert) Ansedert Ansedert Ansedert Nemfidius Nemfidius Nemfidius Nemfidius Nemfidius Nemfidius Nemfidius Nemfidius Nemfidius Nemfidius

Bibliography Cr. Pia. nos. 159-160 BIV, nos. 5737-5743 Cr. BMCA-S I, 4 (type 2C), no. 28 = N no. 11; see commentary al St·p pp. 74-76 M-F, pp. 26--28; pI. vi-vii, nos. 106-117

M-F no. 8; pI. i, no. 3 M-F no. 9; pI. i, no. 4 M-F no. 13; pI. i, no. 8 M-F no. 13; pI. i, no. 8 M-F no. 26; pI. iii, no. 43 M-F no. 36; pI. iii, no. 53 M-F no. 38; pi. iii, no. 55 M-F no. 43; pI. iii, no. 58 M-F no. 48 ; pI. iii, no. 60 M-F no. 48; pI. iii. no. 60 M-F no. 50 bis; pI. iii, no. 63 M-F no. 51; pI. iii, no. 64 M-F no. 53; pI. iv, no. 66 M-F no. 57; pI. iv, no. 70

The alloy of Merovingian silver coinage

46

47

48

49

56

57

58

59

121

50

60

Percentage content Finds

Weight (g)

Nohanent

Ag

Cu

Au

Pb

Sn

Zn

Ni

Bi

'Silver

0·93 1.15 1. 2 5

9 2 .44 79·37 81.10 9 2 -42

5.9 0 16.26 15-45 4. 86

0·98 0·71 0·37 0-4 2

0·59 1.14 0.62 0-97

0 1.97 2·43 0·53

0 0-49 0 0.68

0 0 0 0

0.09 0.08 0.04 0.12

94. 10 81.30 82.13 93·93

41 4Z 43 44

1.11

91.94

6.92

0-42

0-42

0.24

0

0

0.07

9 2 .8 5

45

0.9 1 1.00 1.24 1.21 1.01 1.16 1.16 1.09 0.86 1.14 1.14 1.15 1.13 1.13 1.11

70-40 83. 67 87-49 89-47 89. 14 89.50 87. 80 84.5 8 82.75 86-41 86·54 84.5 2

25.3 8 15·35 10.81 8.85 8.82

0.61

1.02 0.61

2·45 0 0.81

0 0 0 0 0.26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.13 0 0.03 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.02 0 0.06 0.11 0 0.07 0.05 0.07

72.16 84.65 88.38 90 . 80 90.28 90·60 89·18 85.08 8).49 87.92 88.28

46 47 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

84·98 86.9 1

sS

70·79 72.78

59 60

1.28

85·74 69·87 70 .9 8

9·39 9.7 6 14·93 15-7 6 11.78 10·70 14·33 12.81 27·17 26.25

0·37 0.3 2 0·53 0-48 0-45 0·70 0.18 0·37 0.98 0·77 0·17 0-46 0.29 0·94

0·54 0·71 0.62 0.56 0.58 0.30 0·37 0-47 0.86 0.29 0.64 0.58 0·79

0·36 0.65 0 1.05 0 0·74 0.29 1.0 3 0.69 0.28 2.04 0-97

4B

57

D.M.METCALF

122

61

62

63

64

71

72

73

74

Table

I I

65

75

(cont.)

Ci'llila.'i

MinI. elc.

61 MARSEILLE 62 MARSEILLE 63 MARSEILLE 64 MARSEILLE 6s MARSEILLE 66 MARSEILLE 67 MARSEILLE 68 MARSEILLE 69 MARSEILLE 70 MARSEILLE 71 MARSEILLE 72 MARSEILLE 73 MARSEILLE 74 MARSEILLE 75 MARSEILLE

Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille Marseille

76 (NIMES") 77 (NIMES") 78 MARSEILLE 79 MARSEILLE 80 MARSEILLE

Moneyer. elC. Nemjidius Nemjidius Nemjidius Nemjidius Nemjidius Nemjidius Nemjidius Nemjidius Nemfidius Nemjidius mAC (in mAC (in mAC (in mAC (in

monogram) monogram) monogram) monogram)

Ranemir

Palladius Anlenor 1/ ca. 714" Antenor 1/ ca. 714" Anlenor 1/ ca. 714"

Bibliography M-F M·-F M-F M-F M-F M-F M-F M-·F M-F M-F M-F

no. 58--{j1; pI. iv. nos. 71-74 nos. 58--{j1; pI. iv, nos. 7 1-74 no. 64; pI. iv, no. n no. 64; pI. iv, no. n no, 64; pI. iv. no. n no. 67; pI. iv, no. 80 no, 70, etc.; pI. iv, nos. 83-85 no. 70, eIC.; pI. iv, nos. 83-85 no. 71; pI. iv, no. 86 no. 71; pi. iv, no. 86 nos. 86-89; pI. ii. nos. 32-35

M-F no. no. 73 M-F no. M-F no. M-F no. M-F no. M-F no.

93; pI. ii, no. 38; cr. SI-P. 98 ; pi. vi, no. 94 103; pI. vi, no. 91 110; pI. vii, no. 120 110; pI. vii, no. 120 I I I; pI. vii. no. 12.

The alloy of Merovingian silver coinage

66

67

76

77

68

12 3

69

70

80

79

78

Percenlage con lent Finds

Weigh I (g)

Ag

Cu

Au

Pb

Sn

Zn

Ni

Si

'Silver'

1.l8 1.01 1.08 1.12 /.05 1.15 0·95 0·96 1.09 1.17 1.18 1.14 1. 0 9 1.03 1.24

64. 60 93-4 1 86.09 90 .90 61-4 8 87. 6 5 65·93 79·54 76.76 82·53 82.01 7 6.74

3 2.54 5·44 11.19 5·80 36. 10 11.95 3 2.47 18.66 21.65 16.3 1 16.21 20-40 22-43 23. 60 5. 82

0-44 0·33 1.07 0·57 0-43 0.22 0.20

0·73 0.23 0·90 0-4 6

0 0 0 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.57 1.35 0·32 0.10

0 0 0 0.58

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.18

0.04 0.03 0.02 0.06 0·09 0 0 0.02 0.03 0 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.12

65·81 94·00 88.08 91.99 62·73 88.05 66-45 80-46

0·54 0-49 1.03

0·32 0-45 0·17 0·33 0-49 0·72 0.56 0.83 1.05

1. 6 5 0·57 0·73 2.03 1.17 0 1.08 0.87 1.26 0.63 0.81

1.19 1.15 0·93 0·94 1.01

54. 20 58 .09 81.7 6

42·58 40·37 16·74 44·12 27·09

0.5 1 0.61 0.18 0.26 0-4 8

0·75 0.9 ' 0·33 0·33 0·54

1.94 0 0-49 1.3 1 0-4 6

0 0 0-49 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0.03 0.02 0 0.04 0

55·49 59. 6 3 82.27

77

54·56 7 2.44

79 80

75·09 74·73 91.14

53·93 71.42

0-45 0.13 0.20 0-44 0.5 1

0·73 0.18

77-09 83.06 82·99 78.02 76 . 23 76.08 93. 22

61 62 63 64

lis 66

67 68

69 70 71 72 73 74 75

76 78

D.M.METCALF

124

81

82

83

91

92

93

Table

84

85

95

I I (cont.)

Civitas

81 Uncertain ecclesiast ica I mint 82 Uncertain mint 83 Uncertain mint 84 Uncertain mint 85 Uncertain mint 86 Uncertain mint 87 Uncertain mint 88 Uncertain mint 89 Uncertain mint 90 Uncertain mint 91 Uncertain mint 9 2 Uncertain mint 93 Uncertain mint 94 Uncertain mint 95 Uncertain mint 96 Uncertain mint 97 Uncertain mint 98 Uncertain mint 99 Uncertain mint lOO Uncertain mint

Mint. etc.

Moneyer. etc, Rada eels

(Uzes?) Hedelmaric

(Tours?) (Paris?) (Poitiers?)

Apalsar

Bibliography Cf. Pia. ·no. 128

M-F no. 112-114; P no. 280 5 B no. 2105 Cr. Pia, no. 2)? M-F no. 206 Cr. M-F nos. 19)-195 Cf. N no. I)? B no. 5680; see Pia. no. 20 B no. 5692; Bais no. 274 = B no. 5698 Cf. B no. 5716? = B no. 575) = B no. 6692 B. no. 6697

The alloy of Merovingian silver coinage

86

87

96

88

97

12 5

89

90

98

100

Percentage content

Weigh I Finds

(g)

Ag

Cu

Au

Ph

Sn

In

Ni

Bi

. Sliver'

1.22

93. 24

4·39

o.H4

0·53

0·59

0.30

0

0.11

94.7 2

81

1.20 1.19 0.86

61.74 88.11 9 2 .9 2 46.22 9 2 .6 9 9 2 -40 89. 21 81. 89 91.45 91.60 88.13 91.6g 74·38 90 . 19

33. 24 10.89 5-4 1 48. 11 2.87 5.9 0

0.20

0·34 0·54 0.65 0.3 6 1.61

4-4 6 0

0 0 0 0

0·17 1.16 0.98 0.05 0 1-48 0.60 0.9 1 0·17 0.24 0.19 0 0-43

1.43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

62.30 89·10 94. 26 46.89 94·70 93·94 91.61 82.84 9 2 .3 8 9 2 .57 89·81 93.3 8 77-50 91.45

0·39 0

0·39 0

0.02 0.06 0.11 0.03 0.26 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.11 0.04 0.12 0.11 0.06 0.11 0.10 0.18 0.08

82 83 84 8S

0·71 1.00 0-4 8

0 0 0 0 1.01 0 0 0 0.69 0 0 0.18 0.63 0 0 0

0·99 1.06 1.3 0 0·92 1'13 1. 29 1.00 0.84 1.27 1.23 1.31 1.01 0.88 0.87 1.10 0.90

93·34 91.95 93·73 91.20

7·23 16.18 6.88 7-43 8·72 5. 8 5 20.98 8.38 4-40 6·39 ).91 7·39

0·39 0.5 8 0.28 0.14 0·71 1.29 0·39 0·33 0.27 0-42 0·75 0·91 0·70 0·95 0.61 0-47 0-44

0·55 0·59 1.22

0.82 2.10 0.50 0·97 0·77 0·94 0-44

0·33 5·00 0

> 95 • elemen! delected but not quanlified

86 87

88

89 90 91 92 93 94 95

95·37 93-43 95.3 2 92. 16

96

> 95

100

97 g8

99

126

D.M.METCALF NOTES

J. Lafaurie, 'Monnaies d'argent merovingiennes des VIle et VIne siecles: les tresors de Saint-Pierre-les-Etieux (Cher), Plassac (Gironde), et Nohanent (Puy-de-Dome)" RN'l XI 1969, 98-219, with extensive bibliography. 2 In view of the large number of mints which struck silver, hundreds of analyses will be needed. An important consideration is to secure comparability between sets of results obtained in different laboratories. 3 See E. T. Hall, F. Schweizer, P. A. Toiler, 'X-ray fluorescence analysis of museum objects: a new instrument', Archaeometry xv 1973, 53-78, and, for detection limits, Schweizer in Applicazione dei metodi nucleari nel campo delle opere d'arte, Rome 1976, 227-245; D. M. Metcalf, F. Schweizer, 'The metal contents of the silver pennies of William 11 and Henry I (1087-1135)', Archaeometry XIII 1971, 177-190; D. M. Metcalf, 'The quality of Scottish sterling silver, 11 36--1280', Coinage in medieval Scotland (I/oo-/600) (ed. D. M. Metcalf), British Archaeological Reports 45, Oxford 19n 73-84. 4 D. M. Metcalf, 'Chemical analysis of English sceattas', RNJ XLVIII 1978,12-19.

5 J. Lafaurie, 'Tresor de deniers merovingiens trouve it Savonnieres (Indre-et-Loire)" RN'l V 1963, 65-81. 6 See 115 above, 'Abbreviations' at M-F. 7 D. M. Metcalf, L. K. Hamblin, 'The composition of some Frisian sceattas', JMP LV 1968, 28-45. 8 E. Salin, La civilisation merovingienne Ill. Les techniques, Paris 1957, particularly the chapter, 'Le cuivre et ses alliages', 116--166. 9 See the important experiments on cupellation in H. McKerrell, R. B. K. Stevenson, 'Some analysis of Anglo-Saxon and associated Oriental silver coinage', Methods of chemical and metallurgical investigation of ancient coinage (ed. E. T. Hall, D. M. Met-

calf), Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication 8, London 1972, 195-209. 10 A recent survey of the numismatic background is provided by J. Lafaurie, 'Numismatique: des Merovingiens aux Carolingiens " Francia II 1974, 26--48. Photographs courtesy of the Department of Coins and Medals, Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.

9 Carolingian gold coins from the Ilanz hoard ERNESTO BERNAREGGI

As a whole, the Carolingian gold coins in the Ilanz hoard, now in the Ratisches Museum at Chur, have been dealt with only in a rather casual fashion up to now. The most recent study is one by myself, published in 1977,1 but this was limited to reproducing the legends of all the specimens, to identifying the dies and to posing a number of questions without any claim to having provided answers to them. Such a neglect of valuable numismatic material is surprising when one considers that these gold coins are the only ones certainly struck 2 during the reign of Charlemagne, that they are of extreme rarity, with perhaps not more than ten other authentic specimens known,3 and that they bear legends that are, at least in part, without parallel on any other Carolingian coins. Even if their issue was brief and localised, and so cannot be regarded as representing one of the more important of Charlemagne's coinages, their association with a particular economic and political situation 4 allows us to document the final stages of the transition from the gold monometallism of the Constantinian tradition to the silver monometallism that was Frankish in origin and Carolingian in fulfilment. The study of these coins seems to have been inadequate from the outset. Jecklin, who was responsible for cataloguing them immediately after the hoard was discovered,s left gaps and ambiguities in his description. Even the number of coins in the hoard is uncertain from his account: 32 specimens are described but 34 different weights are given. Further, Jecklin does not note when the specimens are in fragments and cannot fully be reassembled; he does not distinguish between different issues and does not take account of die identities. It would be unfair to blame him for these omissions; he worked alone in difficult conditions and he had no numismatic experience. Unfortunately, however, his data, deductions and conclusions have subsequently been accepted without reservation or verification. Since the number of Carolingian gold coins at Chur is in fact neither 32 nor 34 but 40,6 for six specimens were inexplicably overlooked, we need to start afresh with a complete listing. This is set out below (Table 12). For each specimen I first give a serial number (from 1-40) that makes immediate identification possible for the purposes of 12 7

128

ERNESTO BERNAREGGI

Table

No.

Fragments

Size (mm)

12.

Contents of the Ilanz hoard

Weight (g.)

Die-axis

Jecklin no.

Museum no.

Bernareggi, 1977 no.

Issue A obv. ~ DOMINS CAROLVS, cross potent rev. FLA MEDIOLANO, six-pointed star 18 \0 0.895 35 35 18 0·900 "'35 a 18·5 0.9 04 ! 35 b obv. similar, rev. FLAVIA nCINO 63 63 0·967 19·5 ! Issue B obv. ~ DOMNS CAROLVS - RX F rev. FLA VIA CVRlA M - CIVI 1.028 ,/ 20·5 54 54 Issue C obv. ~ DN CAROLVS REX, cross potent with central circle rev. FLAVIA LVCA, six-pointed star 61 61 1.048 16·5 ! Issue D obv. oB DN CAROLO RX, cross potent rev. oB FLA MEDIOLANO, radiate cross 1.028 /' 19 34 34 (0.694) 33 33 18·5 0·966 36 36 "',/ 17·5 0·945 37 37 18 38 0·979 38 "'\0 18 0.9 62 39 39 18 0·973 ! 40 40 18 41 41 0·937 ! 1.015 19 42 1 4 2a ,/ 18 42b 0·973 4 2a (0.781 ) ! 43 43 ,/ 1.003 19 44 ,/ 18·5 0.9 89 44a 44 20 /' 1. 0 57 44 b /' 1.029 19 44C ,/ 0.988 44d 19·5 18 <0·903 45 45 ,/ 1.03 1 19 46 46 (0.804) /' 47 47 ---> 18 0.9 14 48 48 ,/ 1.000 19 49 49 /' 0.926 19 49 a 20 0.9 84 50 50 "'18 1. 0 5 1 51 51 1 ---> 19 52 52 0·989

*

2 3 4

X

*

79 80 81 82

*

5

*

6

7 8 9 10

XX X

II

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

83

XX

XX X

77

45 44 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

The Ilanz hoard

12 9

Table 12. Cont.

No.

Fragments

32 33

Size (mm)

Weight (g.)

Die-axis

X XX X

40

XX

Museum no.

It' 19 52a 0·994 19 0·966 It' 53 53 Obv. similar, rev. ~ FLA BERGAMO, cross with rays 18 0.94 0 55 55 /' 56 0.97 0 56 18·5 18 0.95 2 57 57 i /' 18 58 58 0.9 84 (0.861) 18 59 59 60 60 18 0·984 Obv. similar, rev. ~ FLA SEBRIO, cross with rays 62 62 It' 18·5 (0.828)

"

34 35 36 37 38 39

Jecklin no.

...."

Bernareggi, 1977 no. 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 78

this study. A general indication of legend and type is given for each group, though for precise details it is necessary to consult my 1977 paper. The second column indicates which individual specimens are in fragments but can be fully reassembled (X), or in fragments that cannot be fully reassembled (XX); next come the size in millimetres, the weight in grams, 7 and the position of the obverse die in relation to that of the reverse (indicated The three final columns give the numbering used by Jecklin,8 that at present in use at the Ratisches Museum, and by myself (see n. 1 below). From this listing, we can identify four different types or issues, and it will be helpful to examine each separately. Of issue A we have three specimens from Milan and one from Pavia. Nos. 1 and 2 of Milan are from the same dies, both obverse and reverse; the three specimens of Milan are very close to each other in weight, and the Pavia specimen is a little heavier but within the limit of tolerance of one Troy grain (0.065 g.), so that all four specimens weigh 14 Troy grains. 9 To the eye, they appear to be of a reasonable standard of fineness. The reverse must be a copy of the star type of Desiderius, the last Lombard king.lO The obverse legend reads DOMI(nus) - or DOM(inus) - N(o)S(ter) CAROLVS. Iregard this as the earliest issue for two reasons: firstly because Charlemagne does not yet use the title REX;ll and secondly, because after February 774 Charlemagne's official documents always use the name Papia 12 for the town of Ticinum. There is no reason why it should not have been used on the coinage, since this, too, was in the nature of an official state document. I have already dealt elsewhere with the meaning and significance of the epithet Flavia;13 here I note merely that the towns of Tuscany adopted this title as a sign of administrative autonomy in about 730, a time when the central power of the Lombards was weak. King Aistulf (749-56) recognised this autonomy in return for a promise of loyalty; King Desiderius (757-74) recognised it in his turn and extended it to include all the towns and

n.

13 0

ERNESTO BERNAREGGI

Issue A

Issue B

Issue C

Issue D The four issues of Carolingian gold coins represented in the Ilanz hoard ( x 2) Plate

12

The Ilanz hoard

13 1

comitati of northern Italy in order to secure their help in the war against the Franks. I suggest that at first Charlemagne also recognised this title with its implicit promise of 10yalty14 in order to draw forces away from the enemy and so conclude as quickly and conveniently as possible a campaign that was unpopular with the Franks. Of issue B, Simonett15 has recently published an extensive study that takes my 1977 essay as a starting point. 16 According to him, the reverse legend should be interpreted as: FLA VIA CVRIA - M(ONETA) CIVI(TA TIS), even although' on no other (Carolingian) coin is a separate M found and no parallel to it can be cited '. Further, 'the term Civitas is, like the M, unique, and the obverse monogram, too, completely original, having a large horizontal S beneath it; similarly, on the reverse, the dotted circle does not enclose a monogram, only the word CIVI'. However, this dotted circle helps to date the coin 'near the time of Carloman'. This coinage was probably issued in 773 and should, in Simonett's view, be linked to a document, dated by the form of the royal title 17

to between 772 and 774, in which year Charlemagne acknowledged the right of the population of Rhaetia to retain the laws and customs of their forefathers, in return for their loyalty. The issue of coinage would ratify this pact of loyalty in return for administrative autonomy, and the coins themselves might even have been used to pay the Rhaetian army. To my mind, Simonett's conclusions confirm my view that the name FLA VIA should not be considered a purely literary epithet18 but implies an obligation of a political nature. I agree with Simonett's date of c. 773, that is before the campaign against the Lombards ended with the surrender ofPavia; Charlemagne calls himself Rex Francorum only19 and the obverse legend - DOM(inus)N(o)S(ter) CAROLVS - repeats that of issue A, which is earlier than February 774. This coin (no. 5) has none of the physical characteristics of the starred coinage: it weighs c. 16 Troy grains and its fineness appears to be good, certainly better than that of the specimens of type A.20 There is only one specimen of issue C, from Lucca, and it corresponds exactly to the star type of Desiderius: a cross potent (with a central circle) on the obverse, a six-pointed star on the reverse. The obverse legend also continues the Lombard tradition: D(ominus) N(oster) ... REX, the final X serving both in REX and as the initial cross of the inscription, though closely resembling neither. 21 Tuscan coinage under the Lombards had special characteristics,22 notably a small module (diameter 16.5 mm) and higher weight (1.04 g. = 16 Troy grains); it also had the appearance of good quality metal. Evidently Charlemagne did not want his coinage to fall short of the traditions that had been in use for more than a century. It is difficult to date this issue; it is possible that, like types A and B, it was minted in 773 (it could be regarded as imitating the Lombard type still current in that year) but it could also have begun a little later. Grierson points out that the presence in the hoard of a single specimen from a mint in Tuscany seems to indicate that circulation of coinage in Italy at that time had a strictly regional character ;23 in the present state of our knowledge and on the available find evidence, it is reasonable to suppose that the tendency towards regional coinage, which was to become the rule in the Middle Ages, was already evident. 24 Issue D is certainly the most plentiful, important and interesting issue in the whole hoard. In the first place, the traditional Lombard star type, retained for issues A and

ERNESTO BERNAREGGI

C, was abandoned. In fact, while a simplified cross potent remains on the obverse,25 the six-pointed star was replaced on the reverse by a cross within the quarters of which are oblique rays that touch neither the centre of the cross nor the border of the surrounding circle. 26 The obverse inscription is unique in the whole of Charlemagne's coinage: D(omino)N(ostro)CAROLO RX. It is surprising that the RX has not, like the king's name, been put in the dative or ablative case; perhaps RX should be seen almost as a symbol in its own right and so beyond grammatical rules: a fixed element in the royal titulature whose form could not be changed. The form' Carolo' grammatically could be ablative or dative, but I do not see how the ablative could be justified, particularly since the legend on the oth~r side must be in the ablative. 27 I am thus inclined to consider it as dative, and so dedicatory in character. The complete legend (obverse and reverse) would therefore seem to be: Moneta in Flavia (Medio/ano, Bergamo, Sebrio) percussa. Domino Nostro Caroio dicata - a homage which the cities paid to Charlemagne and, at the same time a declaration of their subjection. This shows an important change in the relationship between the two parties: issue A revealed a contract between the sovereign and his subjects, with promises of self-government in return for loyalty; issue D emphasises the homage due by subjects to their sovereign, at the same time reminding him of the promise of self-government. Thus I find no difficulty in accepting Grierson's view 28 that this issue (begun in my opinion after the conquest) was continued for some considerable time and was withdrawn only after the capitulary of Mantua of 781. 29 As is well known, having conquered and seized Desiderius, Charlemagne did not initiate drastic reforms at once. He did not introduce changes in the organisation of the Lombard kingdom, and left the conquered people their laws and customs. Taking only the title Rex Longobardorum, he gave the Lombards the illusion that nothing had changed except the person of their ruler. Changes were gradual, a slow and progressive evolution linked to the general reforms which, little by little, modified the Carolingian monarchy, until all power was centralised in the person of the king. In these conditions, it is reasonable to suppose that a coinage based on a particular political contract could continue to be issued and to circulate even when the contract had lost its significance. When, through almost unnoticed reforms in administration, a fundamental change in the political situation had been brought about, the coinage could have been quietly withdrawn from circulation without arousing any reaction. In this issue, die identities are numerous. Double identities (obverse and reverse) are: nos. 16 and 31; nos. 18 and 21; nos. 27 and 28; nos. 36 and 38. No. 9 is from the same obverse die as no. 25; nos. 18, 19,21,22,32 and 33 are also from a single obverse die, as are nos. 34, 36 and 38. The only reverse die identities are nos. 12, 16 and 31.30 An important point arises from the fact that the same obverse die is used for nos. I I, 34, 36 and 38, the first from Milan, the other three from Bergamo. Even though there was no great distance between them (about 50 km), it seems more likely that all coins, regardless of the place name they bear, were struck in the same town,31 than that the same die was used successively in different mints. This is not a difficult assumption if these coins are considered as dedications, homage to the sovereign; the principal mint (probably Milan)32 would have struck them all using the names of the cities that wished

The Ilanz hoard

133

to be remembered to the king. The die duplicates do not share a die-axis, indicating that moveable dies were used. Where both dies are the same, weights are within a centigram of each other; only in the case of nos. 27 and 28 is there a noticeable difference in weight, but no. 28 has clearly been tampered with. Carolingian gold coinage is often said not to be of consistent weight,33 but this is not entirely true. Already we have seen how issue A is based on a standard of 14 Troy grains (within a tolerance of one grain). On the basis of a single example of each, we cannot judge the significance of 16 Troy grains of issues Band C. Of issue D we have 34 specimens: five of these are of no use for this purpose because they are fragmentary and cannot be fully reassembled. Six other specimens (nos. 10, 14, 23, 26, 28 and 34)34 have been the subject, if not of clipping, at least of cUlling. The remaining 23 specimens vary in weight from 0.952 to 1.057 g., concentrating at about 0.97 /0.98 g. The issue is therefore on a standard of 15 Troy grains (with a grain of tolerance). One might go further and argue for an initial issue on a standard of about 16 Troy grains (to which nos. 20, 21, 24 and 30 belonged) in line with issues Band C, and a subsequent issue on a standard of 15 Troy grains. But for that period it is unrealistic to talk in terms of differences of a centigram. Contrary to the general opinion, it therefore seems to me reasonable to conclude that the whole issue was struck to a single standard and was remarkably consistent. 35 Consideration of metrology also involves the question of alloy: what is the standard of fineness of this issue? Jecklin states that, when it was discovered, the hoard contained, as well as the Carolingian pieces, many fragments of Lombard gold coins. Chemical analysis of the Carolingian fragments gave the following proportions: Au 40.9%; Ar 55.8%; Cu 3.3 %. Faced with these statements, the first question that comes to mind is: if one is really dealing with fragments, how can one distinguish the Lombard from the Carolingian? To make such a distinction at least a few letters of the legend would have to be legible. Further, were they' fragments', or really' fractions'? It is therefore the more regrettable that this material was destroyed, without making a photographic record. This could have thrown light on the vexed question of the cutting of gold coins in Italy at this period to make fractions.36 Jecklin gives only a single figure for fineness. He does not explain whether only a single fragment was analysed, whether several were melted together for analysis, or whether it is the average of several separate analyses. The usefulness of his figure is in any case very limited, since the various issues are to the eye clearly different in fineness. Even today it would be difficult to make an analysis (to be really effective, it would have to be destructive) of such valuable material. Nonetheless, I believe that the appearance of issue D suggests a high standard of fineness ; and none of these coins (unlike the Lombard ones) shows any visible deterioration in fineness. With the foregoing reservations, I conclude that the alloy is always good, if not of the very finest. Further, since in general for this series the larger the module, the heavier the weight, this would seem to suggest that the flans were of uniform thickness and the alloy of consistent quality (it should be remembered that specific gravity or density of pure gold is greater than that of any of its alloys).a'

134

ERNESTO BERNAREGGI

One last remark: the Carolingian coins from llanz are in an excellent condition and evidence no wear from circulation. This confirms Grierson's opinion38 that' their use in commerce was in fact of a marginal character. They provided a standard of value and a means of storing wealth, but they did not yet play anything like the same role as a medium of exchange that coins were to do in the later middle ages and still do in the modern world. ' NOTES I

2

3

4 5

6

7

8

E. Bernareggi, 'I tremlSSl longobardi e carolingi del ripostiglio di Ilanz nei Grigioni ' (hereafter Bernareggi •Tremissi '), Quaderni Ticinesi [dll Numismatica e Antichita Classiche VI 1977, 341-364. On the supposed later gold issue of Charlemagne, see P. Grierson, 'Money and coinage under Charlemagne' (hereafter •Charlemagne '), Karl der Grosse I. Personlichkeit und Geschichte (ed. H. Beumann), Diisseldorf 1965, 501-536 at 531-533 (reprinted in Dark Age numismatics as article xviii). D. Massagli, Memorie e documenti per servire alia storia di Lucca, Lucca 1870, 172-173, nos. 1-4; Corpus Nummorum Italicorum Xl. Toscana, Rome 1929, 58-59, nos. 1-7 (Lucca), 286, no. I (Pisa); V. Dessi, •Due tremissi inediti di Carlo Magno', RIN xv 1902, 143-150; H. H. Volkers, Karolingische MunzJunde der Fruhzeit, Gottingen 1965, 73ff., 165; K. F. Morrison, H. Grunthai, Carolingian coinage, Numismatic Notes and Monographs CLVIII, New York 1967, 343; P. Grierson, 'Charlemagne', 507, 5 14ff. P. Grierson, 'Charlemagne', 530--53 I. F. Jecklin, •Der langobardisch-karolingische Miinzfund bei Ilanz', Mitteilungen der Bayerischen Numismatischen GesellschaJt xxv 1906/1907, 28-79. Grierson agrees with this total, 'The gold solidus of Louis the Pious and its imitations " JMPXXXVIIl 1951, 1-41 at 10. For the likely causes of the deposit also see Bernareggi, •Tremissi ' . The weights recorded here differ slightly from those recorded in Bernareggi, •Tremissi', for which a defective balance was used. The present weights are correct. A small dash (-) indicates that the

specimen was not taken into account by Jecklin. 9 Precisely, 0.0648 g. A. Luschin von Ebengreuth, '11 sistema monetario degli aurei italiani di Carlomagno', RIN XXI 1908, 89-96 at 92. I accept the rounded figure 0.065 g. given by Grierson, •Charlemagne', 510 and passim. Grierson (530) also says that the Troy / barley grain system remained in use in Carolingian coinage up to the introduction of the heavy denier (793/794) and hence during the whole age of the issue of the gold coin (which ended with the capitulary of Mantua in 781). The points that I am making, however, are valid even if the system was the wheat-grain one, allowing of course for proportional change. 10 For discussion see E. Bernareggi, Il sistema economico e la monetazione dei Longobardi nelfItalia Superiore, Milan 1960, 168-183; 'Le monete dei Longobardi nell'Italia Padana e nella Tuscia', RIN LXV 1963, 33-142 at "0--121; 'Conclusioni sulle diverse fasi della monetazione Longobarda', RINLXXIII 1971,135-155; 'Strutturaeconomica e monetazione del Regno Longobardo', Quaderni Ticinesi [di] Numismatica e Antichita Classiche v 1976, 331-376 at 363-3 67. I I As was normal in the pre-reform coinage: see Grierson, •Charlemagne', 506. 12 Die Urkunden der Karoliner I (ed. E. Miihlbacher), Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Hannover 1906: Dip!. 79 (774, February 19, Pavia; actum Papia civitate); Dip!. 80 (774, June 5, Pavia; actum Papiam civitatem); Dip!. 81 (774, July 16, Pavia; constructum prope Papiam civitatem in locum Waham . .. ; actum Papia civitate) etc. 13 See Bernareggi, n. 10 above, especially , Struttura economica' at 364.

The Ilanz hoard 14 I advanced this hypothesis in E. Bernareggi, 'La monetazione aurea di Carlomagno in Italia', Numismatica Ill-iii 1962, 1-5, and developed it in the works cited at n. ID above. 15 C. Simonett, 'Die fur Chur gepriigte Goldmunzen Karls der Grossen " Quaderni Ticinesi [di] Numismatica e Antichita C/assiche VII 1978,275-278, referring to my paper 'Tremissi' . 16 Bernareggi, 'Tremissi'. 17 'Caro/us gratia Dei Rex Francorum vir in/uster', according to Simonett used only between the death of Carlo man and 774. 18 Already noticed by P. Bordeaux, 'Essai d'interpretation du mot FLA VIA figurant sur les triens des rois Lombards Astaulf, Didier et Charlemagne', RIN XXI 1908, 97-112, though his interpretation is unaccepta ble. 19 See n. I I above. 20 It reveals incidentally just how unreasonable is the assertion m~de, apparently on the evidence of this exceptional coin, by A. Dopsch in his otherwise excellent essay Economia naturale ed economia monetaria nella storia universale, Florence 1949, 113, that 'following the fall of Desiderius the issue of gold did not cease but continued under the Carolingians, even in Germany, as the Ilanz hoard has shown'. 21 Reproduced in Bernareggi, 'Tremissi', 350, no. 77. 22 On the 'originality' of the mints of Tuscany, and particularly of Lucca, see Grierson, 'Charlemagne', 507, 514-515, and also Bernareggi, n. ID above. 23 P. Grierson, 'La trouvaille mon~taire d'I1anz', Gazette Numismatique Suisse IV 1953, 46-48 at 48. 24 P. Le Gentilhomme, 'Le monnayage et la circulation monetaire dans les royaumes barbares en occident (V-VIII siecle), nr', RJt5 1944/1945, 13-64 at 37. 25 Compare Bernareggi, 'Tremissi', nos. 4-43 with nos. 44-78. 26 These gold coins of Charlemagne lack, moreover, the curious terminations that one

27 28 29

30

3I

32

33 34 35

36

37 38

135

finds in the place names on the tremisses of Desiderius (Bernareggi, 'Tremissi', 358). These terminations appear either to be concerned with circumstances inappropriate to Charlemagne or to have been rendered redundant in the meantime. As in the tremisses of Desiderius (Bernareggi, 'Tremissi', 360). Grierson, 'Charlemagne', 506; 514-515. It is no longer disputed that the Ilanz hoard is later than this date, Grierson, n. 23 above, 47; 'Charlemagne' 504, 509, 511. P. Balog has kindly confirmed that the dirhem (Jecklin no. 116) is dated 173 AH (AD 789). In rare cases a stop, visible on other coins, has been effaced, although traces of it remain. The die identities recorded here are certain, although it is possible that there are identities which have not been noted owing to the worn state of the dies or to changes to the lettering that occurred during striking. Proposed, albeit with sparse documentation, by Bernareggi, n. 14 above, and accepted by Grierson, 'Charlemagne', 514. The principal mint could even have been Pavia, but Grierson (n. 23 above, 47) has shown that the Ilanz hoard suggests a temporary decline in the importance of the city which had been the capital of the Lombards and the final centre of resistance to the Frankish invasion. On the present evidence one can only share this view. The view is shared by all those who have written on the problem. Bernareggi, 'Tremissi', at nos. 47, 5 I, 60, 63, 65, 71. Such strict consistency of weight is not common to the deniers of Charlemagne (Grierson, 'Charlemagne', passim) and contrasts with the completely incoherent weights of the so-called 'solidi of Uzes' (Grierson, 'Charlemagne', 531). For both sides of the argument see Bernareggi, n. ID above, 'Struttura economica', 369-370. Au 19.25; Ar ID.50; Cu 8.90. Grierson, 'Charlemagne', 536.

10

The no vi denarii and forgery in the ninth century! JEAN LAFAURIE

Legislative texts governing the issue and circulation of coin during the first two centuries of Carolingian rule in Gaul and Italy are relatively numerous. A recurrent feature of them is the use of the expressions novi denarii or denarii de novae monetae. These occur in the text of the Frankfurt Synod of 794,2 in a capitulary of 819 addressed to the missi,3 in a capitulary of Louis 11 given at Mantua in 856,4 and in the edict promulgated at Pitres in 864.5 The question of new deniers thus comes up on four occasions, three times in Gaul and once in Italy. Although the term novus denarius is not used, a second instance from Italy is provided by a capitulary given at Mantua in 781; in a brilliant study by Philip Grierson 6 this text was correctly interpreted as referring to the inauguration of Carolingian coinage in Italy. It had previously been regarded as providing for the creation of Charlemagne's new heavy coin and Grierson's re-interpretation has led to a considerable advance in our understanding of Carolingian coinage. The novi denarii mentioned by the Frankfurt Synod of 794 7 were shown by Gariel,8 followed by Grierson, to refer to the heavy deniers of Charlemagne's reform, a move which led to the withdrawal from circulation of the Merovingian-type deniers that had been struck since the middle of the eighth century. The capitulary of8199 has either been regarded by students ofCarolingian coinage as not presenting any problems or has simply been ignored by them. The references to new coins in the Edict of Pitres 10 have been subject to much comment, but happily the find evidence has enabled me to clarify the true meaning of this text l l and I return to this below. Work on the problems raised by a letter of Lupus of Ferrieres of 849 12 has been less conclusive. The writer asks an Italian bishop to furnish him with Italian coins for a forthcoming visit to Italy, as he had been warned by travellers that French coin was not accepted there. Probably his request was for denarii or deniers struck at Rome in the names of Louis 11 and Pope Benedict Ill, but this is not certain. The capitulary given at Mantua in 85613 perhaps provides for the broad-flan deniers issued towards the end of the ninth century; their distinctive fabric enabled the Italian coins to be differentiated from those struck in France. But the scarcity of coins in the name of Louis as emperor leaves the matter in doubt unless it refers to the issues

137

J. LAFAURIE

traditionally attributed to Louis the Blind, emperor from 901 to 905. Philip Grierson, whose knowledge of Italian collections is considerable, is currently working on a study of north Italian coinage between 855 and 961 which it is hoped will provide a solution to this problem. The first text to link the circulation of novi denarii with measures against forgers is the capitulary given at Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) during the fifth year of Louis the Pious (818/19).14 Chapter XVIIllays down that good deniers, provided that they were pure silver and full weight, should not be refused de his qui denarios bonos accipere no/unt, quilibet homo liber denarium merum et bene pensantem recipere no/uerit, bannum nostrum id est IX solidos componat . .. Chapter XIX provides that whosoever produces forgeries should have his hand cut off and his accomplices, if free, pay a fine of 60 sous or, if serfs, receive 60 strokes of the lash. Publication of this ordinance de nova moneta et de fa/sa moneta l5 was the responsibility of the missi. This is the first time since 794 that the question of a new coinage arises. What is the new coinage to which a capitulary from the beginning of the reign of Louis the Pious could refer? The coin hoards seem to provide the answer. The Apremont (Cher) hoard of 1871,16 found at a place known as le Veuillin, consisted of a single denier of Charlemagne (as king) from the mint of Melle, a portrait denier of Louis the Pious struck at Arles (the type is that of Charlemagne's imperial deniers of 812 to 814), and 739 deniers of Louis the Pious with the reverse type of the name of the town of issue in horizontal lines, these last constituting the most recent coins in the hoard. The transition from one series to another suggests that the novi denarii mentioned in the capitulary of 819 refer to the issues represented in such large numbers in the ApremontVeuillin hoard. A hoard from Achlum l7 in Friesland (Netherlands), containing examples of every issue between the end of the eighth century and 845, includes not only deniers of Louis the Pious with reverse type of a horizontal legend, but examples of the subsequent series for both Louis the Pious and Charles the Bald which have as their reverse type a temple and the circular legend XPISTIANA RELIGIO. On the basis of this capitulary, together with earlier studies of the coinage, the post-reform Carolingian issues can be tabulated as follows: 794 Novi denarii of Charlemagne as king of the Franks (pI. 13, no. I) 812 Issue of deniers bearing the head of Charlemagne and the imperial title l8 (pI. 13, no. 2) 814 Issue of deniers bearing the head of Louis the Pious and the imperial title (pI. 13, no. 3) 819 Novi denarii of Louis the Pious as emperor, with reverse type of the name of the town of issue in horizontal lines (pI. 13, no. 4) A capitulary given at Attigny in 821/2 19 reveals how the coins to be replaced by the new deniers were to be withdrawn. Chapter XX sets a limit to the currency of the old coins: after Martinmass (I I November) only the issues introduced three years earlier in 819 were to be legal tender; anyone contravening the ordinance was to be liable to the same penalties as counterfeiters; the counts (comtes) and their agents were to be responsible for collecting the demonetised deniers; and missi were to be sent to every 'county' to ensure that these instructions were carried out. The composition of the

The' novi denarii' and forgery

139

Apremont-Veuillin hoard illustrates the success of this operation: the great bulk of the coins are no vi denarii and only two are deniers from before 819. Since the hoard was certainly buried after 822, the two pre-819 coins may have been added some time later, when the search for demonetised coins had been relaxed. Further, as part of a hidden hoard they were beyond the reach of the officials charged with seeking them out. The three years allowed for the replacement of earlier coins by the novi denarii of Louis the Pious was considerably reduced when a similar operation was authorised by the Edict of Pitres, of 25 June 864.20 The minting of the new coins was to begin on 1 July 864 and the change was to have immediate effect. The use of the old coins was forbidden and the demonetised deniers were to be confiscated after Martinmass the same year. In the meantime, however, a capitulary issued by Charles the Bald at Quierzy in July 861 21 ordered the arrest of any freeman, or woman, villein, or serf who at a market refused good coin (bonum denarium id est merum et bene pensantem) and provided for a punishment that varied according to age, physical conditions, and sex' because women are wont to haggle'. The penalty for a freeman was a fine equal to half the' bann'; for other classes the penalties ranged from a flogging to placing on the prisoner's forehead a coin that had been heated short of a temperature which could burn his veins. What is the significance of a capitulary which repeatedly refers to people's refusing in exchange for goods good coin of pure silver and full weight? A good coin is one that is legal tender as opposed to a bad coin, which is either a demonetised issue or a forgery. Unless the forger was incompetent and his coins obviously bad, it must have been very difficult for members of the general public to distinguish bad coin from good. But to help people to distinguish current coin from demonetised issues the former would have to have been marked in a way that was readily recognisable even to the illiterate. In fact, there are major and easily recognisable changes of type between the deniers issued during the period 794-819 and later issues. Similar changes must have been made in 861 to enable the missi to track down offenders. The Edict of Pitres of 86422 included a detailed description of the new coinage of pure silver deniers of good weight as, more summarily, had the capitulary of Frankfurt of 794. 23 In both documents earlier issues were regarded as being debased, if not forgeries, while good coin was held to be the issue described in the text. By referring to good coin these documents were, in effect, the instruments proclaiming the new coinage, that is the only coinage which would be tender after a prescribed date. In the case of the Edict of Pltres this' was Martinmass. The coins issued in accordance with the terms of the Edict of Pltres are well known (pI. 13, nos. II and 12). The many hoards that were abandoned by their owners when the country was under attack from the Northmen have both enriched collections and been the subject of numerous publications. They all show how rigorously the edict was applied. None of the hoards found within the confines of Charles the Bald's kingdom contained coins earlier than 864. Hoards, however, buried before 864 or from beyond the confines of the kingdom have produced deniers of Charles of different types. One class continued the types of the latest issues of Louis the Pious, but with the titles of the new king; another revived the type of place names in horizontal lines introduced by Louis by the capitulary of 819 and abandoned some time before the end of his reign (pI.

J. LAFA URIE

13, no. 7). It is quite possible that these classes of deniers were the ones demonetised in 864, but there are others and it is to the dating of these that I now turn. It is evident that the documents discussed above, which hitherto have been seen simply as legislation to control counterfeiting, can also be very helpful in establishing a chronological framework for the denier issues of Louis the Pious and Charles the Bald. These same texts, however, also reveal how fragmentary is the surviving record of this legislation. For example, the Edict of Pitres of 86424 contains a description of the new coinage, but the coins described are actually deniers issued by Charlemagne at the time of the great reform of 794 (pI. 13, no. I). These coins were struck for Charlemagne between 794 and 812 and again under Charles the Bald in Aquitaine at the mints of Toulouse, Agen, Dax, Bourges, Clermont, and Melle. The type actually adopted in 864 is close to the one described in the edict, but the royal titles are replaced by the legend GRATIA DEI REX; this legend is disposed round the monogram for Karolus, which is the only feature the new coins have in common with Charlemagne's deniers (pI. 13, no. 11). Written instructions must have been promulgated or at least have been sent to the counts (comtes) in charge of the ten mints established by the edict, but such a document has not survived. Either it was regarded as an internal administrative act that need not be filed in the archives, or the versions that have survived contain later interpolations, a possibility suggested by obvious anomalies elsewhere in the text of the edict. Whichever the case, there must have been a document in which the instructions were correctly given, even if we are now able only to observe its effects. The change of type authorised by the edict is easily explained. As in the case of the other legislation, it was a measure against debased and counterfeit coin. Each document presents the novi denarii as the panacea for forgeries. The remedy for the disease is standard. As we have seen from the dating of the deniers of Louis the Pious with the name of their place of issue in horizontal lines, this consists of changing the type. So, the Edict of Pitres describes the new coins, but either by a fundamental error or by one in drafting, the description given is of existing coins. Since it would therefore have been impossible to distinguish some of the earlier issues from the new coins, so preventing the complete withdrawal of older coin, it was necessary to effect an immediate change to the types authorised by the edict. We have already seen that the issue of deniers authorised in 819 circulated until 11 November 822 concurrently with coins of Charlemagne and earlier issues of Louis from the period 814 to 819. There are many hoards buried before 864 that consist mainly of deniers of Louis the Pious with the type of a temple surrounded 'by the legend XPISTIANA RELIGIO, of deniers of Charles the Bald with the same type and legend, of the issue of Charles with the name of the place of issue round the temple, and finally of his other issues on which either a city-gate replaces the temple or the place-name is disposed in horizontal lines. These last two types succeeded the earlier and were issued from the same towns. The capitularies should, therefore, provide a text authorising the issue with temple and place of issue and another effecting the later change to city-gate or place-name in horizontal lines. It would also be worthwhile seeing whether there was a document authorising the deniers of Louis the Pious with XPISTIANA RELIGIO.

The' novi denarii' and forgery

141

Among the legislative records that have survived is a capitulary given at Worms in 829.25 This more or less rehearses the terms of the capitulary of 819: refusal of coin that

is of pure silver and of full weight is forbidden. In one way or another the help of everyone in possession of benefices, the counts, the king's vassals, the bishops and priests, was invoked against those who refused good coin. These are the standard formulae and procedures for the launching of a new coinage. The inclusion of the bishops and priests among those required to encourage the circulation of the new coinage may be explained by the re-appearance of the legend XPISTIANA RELIGIO (pI. 13, no. 5). Without doubt the Edict of Worms authorised this important issue which succeeded the typologically very different one of 819. The creation of a uniform coinage, on which the name neither of the mint nor of the town of issue was given, presented problems. Since the third century all coins, whether imperial, regal, or local, had carried marks that enabled those familiar with them to identify the coins' place of minting. At first there was no easy way of distinguishing the various mints responsible for the XPISTIANA RELIGIO issue. Not long afterwards marks intended to provide the monetary authorities with an effective control of the coinage appeared on either the obverse or reverse of the coins in the quarters of the cross, to one side or other of the temple, or in the legend: dots, circles, a variety of other symbols, letters, and privy marks. The move does not, however, appear to have met with complete success, as shortly before the end of the reign of Louis the Pious in 839 or 840 the legend XPISTIANA RELIGIO was replaced by the name of the Duurstede mint. Under Lothar I this mint continued to strike the new type and the practice of naming the mint was extended to other places: the Palace, Cologne, Maastricht, Huy, Cambrai, Treves, Metz and Verdun. The name of the Bordeaux mint had already occurred on coins which employed Lothar's titulature for the period 840-843, that is before the Treaty of Verdun established the frontiers of the three successor kingdoms. This does not mean that the legend XPISTIANA RELIGIO had been abandoned at the beginning of Lothar's reign, but, as the surviving coins show, it was replaced gradually by the place-names. The same transformation is seen in Charles the Bald's kingdom, ifnot in the coin types, at least in the use of control marks. The legend XPISTIANA RELIGIO continued to be employed for some time, perhaps until late in the reign. A capitulary given at Attigny in June 85426 decreed that forgers should be hunted down and prosecuted, while the mints should be inspected. Could this measure have been connected with the inauguration of a new issue with different types? A transitional or limited measure seems likely. This is the only capitulary to provide for the intervention of the missi at mints. It is possible that this inspection, by bringing abuses to light, led to place-names replacing the legend XPISTIANA RELIGIO, as had already happened in Lothar's kingdom, while at the same time retaining the temple type. As we have seen, this is the first case of royal officers openly intervening in the operation of the mints, which formally were under the supervision of the counts. It perhaps suggests where we should look for the sources of co un terfei ts. But the changes in coin types do not stop here. Mints at Orleans and Chartres, which

J. LAFAURIE

had been striking the temple type, replaced it with the city-gate type originally introduced at the end of Charlemagne's reign (pI. 13, no. 9). The mints at Paris and Meaux also abandoned the temple type in favour of the place-name in horizontal lines (pI. 13, no. 10). These changes of types clearly indicate a desire to distinguish a recent issue from an earlier one. Was this measure extended to all mints? Very few of these coins have survived; this could be because they were issued shortly before another, more successful, change of type. In fact, a capitulary given at Quierzy in July 861 27 shows that, so far from being lax, the missi had been too rigorous in their investigation of the mints. Charles the Bald here reduced the penalties and modified the rule by which anyone using a dubious coin was automatically guilty of an offence. These changes of type can reasonably be supposed to be the result of inspections by the missi, results as varied as the intended penalties. Could 861 be the date of the change in the types of the deniers of Meaux, Paris, Orleans and Chartres? Their scarcity might suggest this, coming so soon before the major change in the coinage brought about by the Edict of Pitres of 864,28 though it is not absolutely certain. If this interpretation of the contemporary documents is correct, they are important not only for giving us a very gloomy picture of the currency in the early ninth century, but in providing a useful framework for dating the various issues. On this basis, it is possible to establish when particular Carolingian issues were minted, by dating with greater certainty successive changes of type and by a better understanding of the apparent differences between issues. This study does not pretend to deal with all the problems in the coinage of the eighth and ninth centuries, still less to solve them. It does, however, try to open up a new line of research, even ifits full development will derive in part from the discovery of new hoards. 29 Three facts in particular should be kept in mind. In most cases, the same documents provide for both measures against forgers and the issue of new coin. A second feature is the importance attached to markets in tracing counterfeits and the people passing them. The capitulary of Frankfurt of 79430 decreed that the new issue should be legal tender throughout the kingdom, in every city and in every market; and the Edict of Pitres of 86431 provides for an investigation of markets with a view to improving their supervision. The third element is that on two occasions the attempt was made to restrict coin production to a limited number of specified mints. Looked at closely these three elements can be seen to follow from each other: forgeries exist; their issue prejudices the king's interests; they must be sought out in every urban and commercial centre; the forgers must be sought out and punished; and the places where the forgeries are made must be located. Curiously enough, the capitularies throw at least some light on this last matter. The capitulary of Attigny 32 provides for the inspection of mints, but the missiwho are charged with the task are also made responsible for searching out forgers. The two questions appear to be closely connected. The full significance of the connection is revealed when the Attigny text is compared with the terms of the capitularies of Aachen of 803,33 Thionville of 805,34 and Nijmegen (?) of 808. 35 These order the disclosure of information about forgeries and concentrate minting at the Palace, with production elsewhere requiring special authorisation. If minting was

The' novi denarii' and forgery

143

now to be placed under the supervision of the chief administrators based at the Palace, it is not unreasonable to assume that counterfeits were being made at the other mints. This hypothesis makes best sense of the capitulary of 854 which linked the search for counterfeits with inspection of the mints.36 The Edict of Pit res of864,37 however, provides the final proof of it. Though three years earlier Charles the Bald had tried to restrain the zeal of his missi, once again the reason for new legislation was forgery: the demonetisation of old coins, the concentration of minting at ten mints, each designated by name and placed under the supervision of the region's count, his deputy (vicomte), local men of substance, and the moneyer. These texts remained an enigma until the chance identification of deniers struck from the same obverse dies (the royal monogram), but with different place-names on their reverses. This has shown conclusively that the names are those of the places of issue only and that the coins themselves were struck at a common mint. 38 Previously it had been thought that these provisions for the concentration of minting at particula.r towns had never applied. It is now clear that an attempt was made to enforce royal authority and that Charles the Bald restricted the operations of his counts by denying to most of them the right of coinage. Though the texts are silent on this point, it is clear that these high functionaries of the king, and perhaps the bishops too, were the people behind the counterfeits. The solutions were radical. All earlier coins were demonetised and a new type put into circulation. This is precisely how modern states behave. States that lack the necessary facilities have their coins or notes produced by a foreign mint or press. If there is widespread counterfeiting ofa note, another issue with a new design is ordered. These measures do not mean that all counterfeiting was the work of the counts. The king also acted against small-time forgers, for whom the penalty was an amputated hand or burning. It is, however, highly unlikely that their output was so great that the only solution was to replace the whole of the currency then in circulation throughout the vast territory that made up the empire of Louis the Pious or the kingdom of Charles the Bald, and to effect this exchange within a very limited period, which in the case of the 864 edict was just over four months. An examination of the surviving specimens, whether from collections or those contained in hoards from the Carolingian period, very rarely reveals' barbarous' coins in the numismatist's sense of the word, that is imitations easily recognisable as such and of indeterminate origin. All the texts describe the novi denarii as being of pure silver and of good weight, but whereas light-weight coins, whether worn or deliberately struck under-weight, can be easily picked out on the scales, coins of deficient alloy can be identified, for the most part, only by analysis, itself not an easy matter. The anonymous fourth-century AD author of the de rebus bellicis 39 even then thought that the only way to prevent moneyers from striking coin on their own account was to shut them up on an island where the impossibility of spending money would remove the temptation to engage in illicit coining. In the ninth century the fraud was probably perpetrated at a higher level; the counterfeit coinage was more likely to be of coins deficient in either weight or alloy than of coins whose profit passed into the personal coffers of the count rather than to the royal treasury. By ordering the coinage to be melted down and

144

1. LAFAURIE

reminted and particularly by limiting the number of mints, the king hoped to regain control over the coinage. In 864 Charles the Bald could not have foreseen the difficulties that would arise over his succession, nor yet the destruction and insecurity brought about by the growing number of Northmen raids and the consequent transformation of the role of the counts, as they usurped the sovereign rights which previously it had been their duty simply to administer. The difference between holding back the profits derived from minting coin and the outright appropriation of these profits by coining for oneself is a mere technicality of account and one quickly obscured. NOTES I

2

3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10

This study has been inspired by the work of Philip Grierson, in particular his 'Cronologia delle riforme monetarie di Carlo Magno', RIN LVI 1954,65-79 (reprinted in Dark Age numismatics as article xvii); and his 'Money and coinage under Charlemagne', Karl der Grosse I. Personlichkeit und Geschichte (ed. H. Beumann), Diisseldorf 1965, 501-536 (reprinted in DAN as article xviii). For the coinage in general see M. Prou, Catalogue des monnaiesfranraises de la Bibliotheque Nationale. Les monnaies carolingiennes, Paris 1896; for the hoards, E. Gariei, Les monnaies royales merovingiennes sous la race carolingienne I, Strasbourg 1883. The documents are cited in the edition of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Legum sectio 11: Capitularia regum francorum (hereafter Capitularia) I (ed. A. Boretius), Hanover 1883; 11 (ed. A. Boretius, V. Krause), Hanover 1897 (see also W. Jesse, Quellenbuch zur Munz- und Geldgeschichte des Mittelalters (hereafter Quellenbuch), Halle-Saale 1924). Capitularia I, 74, no. 28. 5 (Jesse, Quellenbuch, 10, no. 31). Capitularia 11, 15, no. 141. 12. Capitularia 11, 63, no. 202. 2 (Jesse, Quellenbuch, 12, no. 42), where dated to 832 at Pavia. Capitularia 11, 315, no. 273. II (Jesse, Quellenbuch, 12-14, no. 43). Grierson, n. I above, 'Cronologia delle riforme monetarie di Carlo Magno'. See n. 2 above. Gariei, n. I above, p. 8, n. 3. See n. 3 above. See n. 5 above.

II J. Lafaurie, 'L'article XII de I'edit de Pitres', BSFN XXIII 1968, 324-326. 12 La correspondance de Loup de Ferrieres 11, ed. L. Levillain, Paris 1935, no. 75. 13 See n. 4 above. 14 Capitularia I, 285, no. 139. 18-19. 15 See n. 3 above. 16 Gariel, n. I above, 60, iv. 17 Gariel, n. I above, 72, x (mistakenly reported as having been found at The Hague). 18 J. Lafaurie, 'Les monnaies imperiales de Charlemagne', Comptes-rendus de r Academie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 1978, 154-17 2. 19 Capitularia I, 306, no. 150. 20 (Jesse, Quellenbuch, 12, no. 41). 20 See n. 5 above. 21 Capitularia 11, 301-302, no. 271. 22 See n. 5 above. 23 See n. 2 above. 24 See n. 5 above. 25 Capitularia 11, 15, no. 192. 8. 26 Capitularia 11, 278, no. 261. 9. 27 See n. 21 above. 28 See n. 5 above. 29 A number of important problems which this study has revealed, or for which it is hoped it will provide a solution, are not treated here: the metrology of the deniers issued between 8 I 9 and 829, the chronology of the coinage issued in Aquitania in the name of Pepin 11, Charles the Bald, and Charles the Child, and the gold issues of 816-19 (?), as well as other minor problems, among them the many local variations in the coinage. 30 See n. 2 above. 31 See n. 5 above.

The' novi denarii' and forgery 32 See n. 26 above. 33 Capitularia I, 116, no. 40. 34 Capitularia I, 125, no. Quellenbuch, 10, no. 34). 35 Capitularia I, 140, no. 52. buch, I I, no. 35); no. 53·

28. 44.

18 (Jesse,

7 (Jesse, Quellen5

36 37 38 39

145

See n. 26 above. See n. 5 above. Lafaurie, n. I I above. Anonymous, de rebus bellicis iii 1-3; see E. A. Thompson, A Roman reformer and inventor, Oxford 1952.

KEY TO ILLUSTRATIONS

References to Prou, n.

I

above, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris.

Capitulary of Frankfurt of 794 (n. 2 above) and capitularies of Aachen of 803 (n. 33 above), Thionville of 805 (n. 34 above), and ?Nijmegen of 808 (n. 35 above): I Denier, Aachen, Charlemagne as king (794-812), Prou no. 799. 2 Denier [Mainz], Charlemagne as emperor (812-14), Prou no. 981. 3 Denier [Aachen], Louis the Pious (814-19), Prou no. 984. Capitularies of 819 (n. 3 above) and 822 (n. 19 above): 4 Denier, Paris, Louis the Pious (819-29), Prou no. 317. Capitulary of Worms of 829 (n. 25 above): 5 Denier, no mint name, Louis the Pious, Prou no. 993· 6 Denier, with privy mark (line of three dots on reverse), Louis the Pious. (Koninklijk Kabinet van Munten, Penningen en Gesneden Stenen, The Hague, Emmen hoard). 7 Denier, no mint name (temple type), Charles the Bald, Prou no. 1058. Capitulary of Attigny of 854 (n. 26 above): 8 Denier, Orleans (temple type), Charles the Bald (The Hague: Ide hoard no. 106). Capitulary of Quierzy of ?861 (n. 21 above): 9 Denier, Orleans (city-gate type), Charles the Bald, Prou no. 51 I. 10 Denier, Paris (mint name in horizontal lines), Charles the Bald (G. de M[anteyer] sale: Paris, Florange, 21 December 1931, Monnaies de ratelier de Paris I, no. 18). Edict of Pitres of 864 (n. 5 above). I I Denier, Maastricht (gratia dei rex), Prou no. 88. 12 Denier, Reims (gratia dei imp) 876--877 (Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris: Ablaincourt hoard).

1. LAFAU RIE

146

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

12

11

Plate 13

11

On the rejection of good coin in Carolingian Europe* ST ANISLA W SUCHODOLSKI

Ut nullus audeat denarium merum et bene pensantem reiectare

Scholars have been aware for quite some time of the repeated provisions in Carolingian capitularies against those who refuse to accept deniers (denarii) bearing the name of the ruler. This in itself would not merit particular attention, since people quite often show little confidence in the coinage of their own countryl (not infrequently for good reason), but for the fact that the refused coins were of good metal and were fuB weight. We know that the first time a king took such a step in defence of his own coin was in 794, i.e. shortly after Charlemagne's famous monetary reform, by which light deniers based on the Roman pound were replaced by heavy deniers struck to the new Carolingian pound. 2 At the synod of Frankfurt-am-Main, Charlemagne decreed as follows: De denariis autem certissime sciatis nostrum edictum, quod in omni loco, in omni civitate et in omni empturio similiter vadant isti novi denarii et accipiantur ab omnibus. Si autem nominis nostri nomisma habent et mero sunt argento, pleniter pensantes, si quis contradicit eos in ullo loco in aliquo negotio emption is vel venditionis: si ingenuus est homo, quindecim solid os componat ad opus regis ... 3

We learn from the Capitulare missorum, issued fifteen years later in 809, that to refuse good coin was again prohibited: De monetis statutum est ut nullus audeat denarium memm et bene pensantem reiectare. 4 But apparently this interdiction was not obeyed either, since after a lapse of ten years Louis the Pious in the Capitula legibus addenda increased by four times the penalty for the same offence: De his qui denarios bonos accipere nolunt. Quicumque liber homo denarium merum et bene pensantem recipere noluerit, bannum nostrum, id est sexaginta solidos, conponat. 5 Nonetheless, the situation does not seem to have improved and ten years later Louis the Pious once more repeated the previous interdiction in a capitulary issued at Worms in 829.6 It was re-issued by Lothar in the Capitulare missorum issued in 832 for Italy: Reiectoribus autem iuxta capitulare castigatio adhibenda: vel LX solidos conponat vel totidem ictus accipiat. 7 The offence must have been very common and the penalty of 720 deniers (60 solidi) rather difficult to collect, for in 147

148

S. SUCHODOLSKI

861 Charles the Bald reduced it by half and also modified the procedure (for example it was possible to provide security in lieu of payment).8 Three years later, in 864, in the well-known Edict of Pitres the former penalties were restored. 9 It is worth noting that at the same time several measures were taken against counterfeiters (in 803, 805, 819, 832, 854 and 864), and in three of the capitularies previously mentioned, those of 819, 832, 864, provisions concerning the two offences follow upon each other; for complicity in a forgery the penalty was the same as for refusing good deniers, i.e. 60 solidi (capitularies of 819 and 864). The circulation of large numbers of forged deniers, which the public was not always able to distinguish from the good ones, might have eroded confidence in all coins. Another reason for lack of trust in deniers may be attributed to the fact that they were struck al mar co, so that some of the coins were lighter and others heavier than the prescribed standard. The heavier deniers were readily received and their retention led in time to a decrease in the number of them in general circulation. Consequently a higher proportion of coins not meeting the description bene pensantes made up the circulating currency. We learn about refusals to accept these lighter specimens from a capitulary of Quierzy of 861 : De colonis autem et servis cujuslibet potestatis si in civitatibus, vel mercatis aliis deprehensus aliquis fuerit denarium reiecere, missus reipublicae provideat ut, si non invenerit ilium denarium merum et bene pensantem, ut cambiare ilium mercanti jubeat, si autem ilium denarium bonum invenerit, ... aut ictibus, ... aut minutis virgis ... castiget. ..

If forged deniers had been meant, the missus would no doubt have proceeded against the person who offered them instead of enjoining their exchange for good deniers.10 Yet another possible reason for refusing deniers is the fact that the population was unaccustomed to coinage in general, and in particular to coins having a face value higher than their intrinsic worthY This prompts the question, how was it possible at that time to endow coins with this element of higher value or premium? In the opinion of Adolphe Dieudonne and K. F. Morrison, it was accomplished through the use of two different pounds. The first corresponded to the weight of 240 deniers and was, therefore, equivalent by weight to the pound of account (20 sous of 12 deniers each weighing 1.7 g. = 408 g.). The second was called the mint pound from which 21 or 22 sous were struck; thus its weight would be 428 or 448 g. The difference in weight between these two units is said to have constituted the mint's gross profit, inclusive of the cost of minting. This attractive theory is based on a well-known passage in Pepin's capitulary, issued in 754 or 755 at Vernon: De moneta constituimus, ut amplius non habeat in libra pensante nisi XXII solidos, et de ipsis XXII solidis monetarius accipiat solidum I, et illos alios domino cuius sunt reddat. 12 It would appear from this text that Pepin reduced the number of deniers in the pound to the equivalent of 22 sous (264 specimens) and that the charge for having coins minted from one's own metal amounted to one sou. The value of monetary silver compared to non-monetary silver probably rose by as much. It does not follow from this, however, that the pound of account was equal to 21 or 20 sous. We find the first

Rejection of good coin in Carolingian Europe

149

mention of the 20 sous pound in the Capitulare episcoporum of c. 780 or even later, i.e. at a time when the deniers too were heavier and their ratio was 240 to the pound. It is hard to imagine that the pound of account was introduced independently of the coining pound or that a mint unit was adapted from a unit of account already in existence. The reverse would seem to be the case: initially there was parity between the coining pound and the pound of account, each of them comprising first 22 sous and later 20 sous, each of 12 deniers. A disparity emerged when the coinage was debased and it became necessary to payout more coins in order to obtain the equivalent value by weight. However, this situation obtained only in the ninth century. The existence of the 20-S0US pound of accoun t as early as the time of Pepin also seems unlikely because in tire light of the capitulary of Vemon we would have to assume that the ruler offered the person who had brought metal to be coined in the mint one sou per pound, which would eliminate the profit. For one sou would constitute the difference between the mint rate of 22 sous and the pound of account of 20 sous plus the one sou payment to the moneyer. This seems highly improbable, and thus it would be reasonable to assume that what we have here is the sale of metal for coins. The price of a pound of metal weighing 22 sous was 21 sous. The additional value of coin was therefore conferred by equating it with the value in silver. ** It is hard to calculate what was the amount of this premium. At first glance there does of not seem to be much difficulty, but the solution which appears obvious (I sou = the pound = c. 4.5%) is open to question. The coins, we must remember, were minted not from pure silver but from an alloy containing some 6 % copper (approximately 940.00 fineness)P We do not know whether this copper was added to a pound of pure silver or whether the basis for the calculation was the coining pound of silver/copper alloy. In the former case the denier would weigh 1.315 g. and the profit would amount to of the pound, i.e. c. 4.5%. In the latter case the weight of the denier would be lower (1.24 g.) and the profit would increase by an additional 6%, i.e. to some 10% in all. 14 It is not easy to decide in favour of either of these possibilities. Nor can the question be resolved decisively by metrological analysis of the surviving coins, as these are relatively scarce and unfortunately cannot be accurately dated. 15 On the whole lighter specimens are more numerous, which would argue in favour of the higher profit. Assuming this to be the case, the king's income would be explained. This would amount to the weight of copper in the alloy, i.e. some 6%. The capitulary does not say anything about the king's share of the profit, but it does not exclude such a possibility. We know, however, that sources of this kind often omitted questions which were obvious to contemporaries. The remainder of the premium would cover the costs of minting. These were relatively high and perhaps included not only technical costs but also the moneyers' profit. The level of profits defined their social position. In the time of Charles the Bald their income was even higher. It appears from the Edict of Pit res that the profits derived from the practice of adding copper to coining silver went to the moneyers. As the coins of this period are of 925.0
n

n

S. SUCHODOLSKI

England in the tenth and eleventh centuries, they may have paid the king certain fixed dues based on the amount coined. If the admixture was, in fact, added to the weight of the pound of silver, the owner of the silver would receive slightly more metal than he delivered to the mint. This is unlikely. Consequently, if the calculations given above are correct and are not the result of inaccuracies in estimating the fineness of the coins, the possibility that the copper was added to a full pound of silver should be excluded. At present, therefore, it appears more probable that the premium or credit value of Pepin's coinage amounted to some 10%. This figure does not seem excessive, and there is no mention of popular dissatisfaction. The interdiction against the refusal of good coin appears only 20 years later, in a capitulary issued at Frankfurt-am-Main. The same source also mentions new deniers, proof that a general recoinage must have been carried out somewhat earlier. From that time onwards references to successive recoinages alternate with the publication of penalties on those who refuse to accept good coin. What is more, both aspects of this question seem to be closely related. In 832 and 864, mention is made of an interdiction against refusing old coins before their validity expired, while in 794 the same injunction is repeated with regard to new coins. Other references to the refusal of new deniers also seem to be connected with recoinages. We know of recoinages carried out by Louis the Pious in 819 and 829. Less clear is the situation in 809. We can surmise, however, that the interdiction against refusing deniers found in the capitulary of Aachen (Aixla-Chapelle) is linked with the introduction by Charlemagne of a new type of denier, bearing his bust and imperial title (Philip Grierson dates this to 806).16 Even if the old issue was not called in, the appearance of a new issue was enough to cause uneasiness among the population and provoke fear of an impending demonetisation. One could well ask whether such a move, although planned, had not been carried out because of an unfavourable popular reaction. A lapse of three years (806-9) between introduction of the new coin type and the latest date for the planned demonetisation of older coin seems quite possible. A similar delay occurred between the years 819 and 823. What was the purpose of the reform carried out in 794? Its character was determined by the difference in exchange rate that was adopted. The real value between the coins was approximately 4:3 or 12 :9, as is attested by some contemporary sourcesY Were this ratio used in the exchange, there would be no need to force people to accept the denier. Thus it would seem that the rate must have been less favourable. We may assume that it was the same as the ratio between old modii and new ones, i.e. 3: 2 or 12: 8. At the same time, it was necessary to demonetise the denier that had been in circulation until then; they retained only their value as metal. As the old coins weighed c. 1.3 g. and the new ones c. 1.7 g., only 3.4 g. of silver would be given in exchange for 3.9 g., the premium thus rose to 13 %. If this is what actually happened, it would mean that the payment for a pound of silver was not 240 deniers, but some 30 deniers less. If people were opposed to such a high premium, they would try not to accept the new coins, concluding transactions by trading metal or by means of barter. But as they were forced to accept the new coins, these passed at their real value. Naturally, this was bound to result in a devaluation of money and a rise in prices. This seems to be borne out by several lists

Rejection of good coin in Carolingian Europe

ISI

of prices and the fixing of maximum prices in 794, 797, 806 and 864, as well as by an attempt to control transactions: Nullus homo praesumat aliter vendere aut emere vel mensurare nisi sicut domnus imperator mandatum habet ... De negotio super omnia praecipiendum est, ut nullus audeat in nocte negotiare in vasa aurea et argentea, mancipia, gemmas, caballos, animalia, excepto vivanda et fodro quod iter agentibus necessaria sunt sed in die coram omnibus et coram testibus unusquisque suum negotium exerceat (803-813).18 It should be explained at this point why the 13% premium imposed during the reform of c. 790 angered the population, while only a slightly smaller one during the reign of Pepin apparently did not arouse significant protest. It appears that the most objectionable aspect was the restricted duration of the coin's validity. As the time of demonetisation approached, fewer and fewer people were willing to be the last in the line of owners of deniers and to have to exchange them at a loss. Another reason was that the exchange itself represented yet another loss, since a charge covering the cost of minting and the profit had already been paid on the old coins that were now to be exchanged. The purpose of the exchange was not so much to change the method of determining the premium or to increase it, as to repeat the whole operation. It remains to consider the object of conducting recoinages and exchanges. It was not necessarily fiscal. Recoinages had to be carried out every time the silver content of the coinage was changed in order to prevent specimens with different real and nominal values circulating simultaneously. In fixing the rate of exchange, account might have been taken of forgeries, known not only from capitularies but also from finds. Thus, forgeries could in fact have played a role in encouraging the population to refuse coin in general. But recoinages must be regarded as the immediate cause of this phenomenon. After 864, when the practice was discontinued, we no longer hear of unwillingness to receive good coin. This unwillingness occurred also in England as late as the tenth and eleventh centuries, where - under the Carolingian influence, no doubt - a system of recoinages and exchanges was reinstituted. 19

NOTES

* The text of this paper was completed in May 1978. I

See, for example, Codex Theodosiani. Leges novellae . .. Valentiniani III: Novella XVI, • de pretio solidi et ne quis solidum integrum recuset'; Monumenta Germaniae Historica (hereafter MOH). Legum sectio I: Leges nationum germanicarum I. Leges visigothorum (ed. K. Zeumer), Hanover/Leipzig 1902, 309-31 I (W. Jesse, Quellenbuch zur Munz- und Geldgeschichte des Mittelalters (hereafter Quellenbuch), Halle-Saale 1924, 3, no. 9); MOH. Legum sectio I: Leges nationum germanicarum n-i, Leges bur-

2

gundionum (ed. L. R. de Salis), Hanover 1892,120--121, no. xxi 7. See two recent fundamental studies: P.

Grierson, 'Money and coinage under Charlemagne' (hereafter . Charlemagne '), Karl der Gross I. Personlichkeit und Geschichte (ed. H. Beumann), Diisseldorf 1965, 501-536 (reprinted in Dark Age numismatics as article xviii); J. Lafaurie,

. Numismatique. Des Carolingiens aux Capetiens', Cahiers de civilisation medievale xIII-ii 197 0 ,117- 137.

S. SUCHODOLSKI

3 MGH. Legum sectio 11: Capitularia regum francorum (hereafter Capitularia) I (ed. A. Boretius), Hanover 1883, 74, no. 28. 5 (Jesse, Quellenbuch, 10, no. 31). 4 Capitularia I, 152, no. 63. 7 (Jesse, Quellenbuch, I I, no. 36). 5 Capitularia 1,285, no 139. 18-19. 6 Capitularia 11, (ed. A. Boretius, V. Krause), Hanover 1890, 15-16, no. 192. 8. 7 Capitularia n, 63, no. 202. 2 (Jesse, Quellenbuch, 12, no. 42). 8 Capitularia 11, 301-302, no. 271. 9 Capitularia n, 310-320, no. 273 (Jesse, Quellenbuch, 12-14, no. 43). 10 M. Prou, Catalogue des monnaies franraises de la Bibliotheque Nationale. Les monnaies carolingiennes, Paris 1896, xxvii-xxix; A. Dopsch, 'Das Miinzwesen der Karolingerzeit vornehmlich in Deutschland', Zeitschrijt fur Munz- und Medaillenkunde II-iv 1913, 25-29. I I A. Dieudonne, 'Les conditions du denier parisis et du denier tournois sous les premiers Capetiens', Melanges numismatiques Ill, Paris 1923, 4-5; K. F. Morrison, 'Numismatics and Carolingian trade: a

critique of the evidence', Speculum XXXVIIIiii 1963,403-432; Grierson, 'Charlemagne', 535· 12 Capitularia I, 32, no. 13. 5 (Jesse, Quellenbuch, 9, no. 28). 13 On the basis of a single denier of Pepin and three pre-reform deniers of Charlemagne: D. M. Metcalf, J. M. Merrick, L. K. Ham·· blin, Studies in the composition of early medieval coins, Minerva Numismatic Hand·· book, Newcastle upon Tyne 1968, 38. 14 I take the Roman pound to be c. 327 g.: S. Suchodolski, 'Encore le poids de la livre: romaine', Actes de la Table Ronde, Paris 16-17 Septembre 1979, Numismatique et Statistique: Antiquite-Moyen-age, PACT, forthcoming. 15 J. Lafaurie, 'Numismatique: Des Merovingiens aux Carolingiens. Les monnaies de Pepin le Bref', Francia n 1974, 26-48 at 43. 16 Grierson, 'Charlemagne', 524ff. 17 Compare Grierson, 'Charlemagne', 524ff. 18 Capitularia I, 146, no. 59. 10; 142, no. 55. 2. 19 Compare H. B. A. Petersson, Anglo-Saxon currency. King Edgar's reform to the Norman conquest, Lund 1969, 265-267 and passim.

** The thesis of this contribution must be revised in the light of the new study by J. Lafaurie (Catalogue des deniers merovingiens de la trouvaille de Bais (ed. Maurice Prou, Etienne Bougenot, Paris 1908; revised, with commentary and reattributions, by Jean Lafaurie), Paris 198 I, xxv-xxxvii, especially the diagram on p. xxvi). Lafaurie shows that the 20-sous pound already existed in the first half of the eighth century. Acceptance of this revision does not, however, alter my main argument.

12 IElfred the Great's abandonment of the concept of periodic recoinage MICHAEL DOLLEY

One has only to look at the Dorking hoard (Dolley, SCBI VIII, 21) to be satisfied that towards the end of his reign .tE:thelwulf of Wessex (839-58), a monarch increasingly susceptible to Continental influences, standardised the type of the West Saxon penny so that henceforth all moneyers operating at anyone time produced coins identical except for their reverse legends. It is clear, too, that a beginning at least was made with the withdrawal from currency of earlier issues, though obviously such policies could not be imposed on those parts of England where .tE:thelwulfhad no jurisdiction. It is likely, too, that Danish incursions into Wessex at least as late as the 870S may further smudge the pattern where the evidence of the coin hoards as such is concerned . .tE:thelwulf's 'reform' penny (Table 13, fig. A) appears to have been current for the first few years of the next reign, during which coins were struck with precisely the same types but substituting the name of .tE:thelbearht (858-66). The second of .tE:thelwulf's surviving sons, he either controlled or had access to mints at Canterbury, London and Rochester, and so exercised a monopoly denied to his older brother .tE:thelbeald, inasmuch as the Viking attack of 842 had knocked out Southampton which alone lay within the latter's share of the temporarily partitioned kingdom. In due course, and probably after .tE:thelbeald's demise (860), .tE:thelbearht himself executed a second major recoinage, and if coins of the new type (fig. B) appear to be relatively rare today, it is because no major hoard would seem to have been concealed while they were still current. Their demonetisation must have been very effective, and more or less to have coincided with the accession of .tE:thelred I (866--71), whose own substantive type (fig. C) was continued at least a year or two, ifnot longer, into the reign of the fourth of the brothers, .tE:lfred (871---99). At Canterbury, we may note, Archbishop Ceolnoth (833-70) had followed .tE:thelwulf's original example, and when .tE:thelbearht changed the type he followed suit. It comes as no surprise to the numismatist, then, that the primate should have chimed in with coins of .tE:thelred's sole type - for our present purpose it is immaterial that the bust is now facing and now in profile - but at once spectacular and significant is the adhesion to the

153

154

MICHAEL DOLLEY

system at this juncture of Mercia where the type may even have originated, to judge from a singleton associated with the Dorking hoard. The coins of Burgred (852-74), all of this one type (C), are among the most common in the whole ninth-century penny series of southern England. For obvious reasons it will not be suggested at this stage that a relative chronology should be converted into an absolute one, but the quite remarkable series of coin hoards concealed under .tEthelred or in the first years of .tElfred's reign cannot continue to be ignored. The type common to the two West Saxon kings and to their Mercian brother-in-law (type C) dominates, where it is not exclusive to, a dozen finds from England proper concealed in the late 860s and early 870s. Testimony to the effectiveness of the two preceding renovationes monetae is the virtual absence of earlier West Saxon and Mercian pieces, and that this eschewal is not a reflection of the caprice of the individual hoarder must seem indicated by the presence in several of the finds of quite substantial parcels of East Anglian pence extending as far back as the 830s. An equally efficient demonetisation c. 875 is further demanded by the failure of the Burgred.tEthelred-.tElfred type to achieve anything more than infinitesimal representation in hoards from the last quarter of the ninth century and the first decades of the tenth. What must be stressed, however, is that it is not necessary for the argument to suppose that each coinage followed the last at precisely the same interval, and, again bearing in mind that the concept of periodic recoinage was in its infancy, it would seem very likely that demonetisation became progressively more complete with each new emission. The sophistication of the later tenth century need not be imposed on a governmental machine by definition rudimentary for all its openness to ideas from without - and we may note here that the inspiration for regular renovatio moneUe could be ultimately Byzantine. What the hoard evidence does indicate is an attempt on the part of .tEthelwulf and his sons to introduce a measure of uniformity to the West Saxon coinage. The process was a developing one. We have seen the first phase achieved towards the end of .tEthelwulf's reign, the second implemented soon after .tEthelbearht's accession, and the third more or less coincident with the accession of .tEthelred and extending several years perhaps into the reign of .tElfred. Presumably after Burgred's abdication - no coins of the new type bear his name - .tElfred executed a new coinage, and sharing in it (fig. D) are found Archbishop .tEthered of Canterbury (870-89) and Ceolwulfll of Mercia (874c. 880). In due course there is a further change of type, but the accident of discovery means that we have coins only of .tElfred (fig. E) and of Ceolwulf 11 with the coin of the archbishop still to be discovered. The .tElfred and Ceolwulf pieces are unique, and it is just possible that the true order of the issues is transposed, though the general argument is not affected. The overall picture is clear. The coinages of Wessex and of Mercia continue uniform and cyclic, and particularly impressive is the virtually complete calling in of the type of Burgred - something achieved, we may note, in the decade that saw the nadir of .tElfred's fortunes at Athelney. Apparently after the demise of Ceolwulf 11, .tElfred shares a further type (fig. F) with Archbishop .tEthered, though again the coins are of such exceptional rarity that it is not impossible that the ordering of the types will have to be revised, or even that a Ceolwulf

/Elfred's abandonment of periodic recoinage

155

coin of the issue will be found to exist. There is unfortunately a lacuna in the English hoards which for too long has gone unremarked, and a certain parallel with the situation that would obtain over most of the reign of lEthelred 11. National crises seem not always as productive of coin hoards left in the ground for future generations to discover as some numismatic writing might lead one to expect. In the later 880s, on the other hand, we begin to be on firmer ground again, and the remaining years of lElfred's reign exhibit experiment and innovation to a quite remarkable degree. One has only to instance the introduction of a round halfpenny and of an eleemosynary multiple-penny, the disappearance of the portrait as an essential of the obverse type, the opening of new mints at Winchester and Exeter (and perhaps Gloucester), the appearance of the occasional mint-signature, and the omission, where appropriate, of the name of the moneyer. The break with standard mint practice over the preceding thirty or so years is very noticeable, and more than one of the novelties, for example the round halfpenny, appears to be a borrowing from the Continent. The same is true of some of the epigraphy, most obviously an '0' formed by a fret with a wedge at each of the angles. The original intention may still have been to retain an element of recurrence, at least where the 'bread-and-butter' coins were concerned, and one might well cite in this connection the basic two-line type (fig. G) which lElfred shared with archbishops lEthered and Plegmund, as well as with Guthrum (' lEthelstan ') of East Anglia. Some of these coins, though not all, must belong as early as the later 880s, but the pattern of their occurrence in later hoards suggests very strongly that there was in the event no formal or effective demonetisation such as seems certain to have been the case with their predecessors. Essentially they prefigure the standard coinages of the tenth century before Eadgar's great reform of 973. Nor is it without interest that, with the single spectacular exception of the two-emperor obverse in the name of a Halfdene, the numerous imitative coins put out by the Danish settlements newly established to the east and north of Watling Street find their West Saxon prototypes after and not before the middle 880s. The phenomenon is one that must surely indicate that the demonetisation of lElfred's earlier issues had been at once efficient and effective, and also that it extended to areas north of the Thames where one might have imagined that West Sax on influence still was minimal. A dichotomy within lElfred's coinage begins to emerge. In the first part of his reign there is essential continuity from the arrangements which had obtained under his father and older brothers, while after c. 885 the impression given is one of experiment and of innovation. What calls for explanation, for all that the difficulty is one that seems not to have been recognised, is why abandonment of the useful and doubtless fiscally advantageous concept of periodic recoinage should have occurred so relatively late in lElfred's reign. The administrative collapse that might have seemed so plausible in the context ofthe military crisis of 878 becomes progressively more far-fetched when invoked in respect of a change of policy associated with the later 880s, when the tide not only had turned but already was running strongly in lElfred's favour, and it is to what seems at first sight a paradox that this note must now address itself. Two essential prerequisites for any successful recoinage are: (a) the will as well as the

MICHAEL DOLLEY

ability rigorously to exclude all alien issues, and (b) the existence of absolute and clearly visible criteria to distinguish not just the old from the new, but also what is intrusive from what is acceptable. The widespread striking of coin imitative of West Saxon issues at a number of centres newly established by the Danes on English soil introduced into an already delicate situation a new factor with quite revolutionary implications. Assuming that the West Saxon 'man-in-the-street' had received adequate explanation, he could be expected to understand why the royal ch angers would accept a Carolingian denarius or Kufic dirham only at a very considerable discount, critical here, of course, being the intrinsic value of the overtly foreign coin's precious metal. To impose on the same 'man-in-the-street' the obligation of distinguishing for himself the authentic products of JElfred's mints from often quite brilliant pastiches, identical in their types, legends, fabric and, very often, weight, emanating from ateliers in some cases only a few miles the wrong side ofWatling Street, would have been to ask the impossible. It is, after all, only relatively recently that specialist numismatists have begun to recognise what still very often are far from obvious criteria. On the other hand, to have left the decision whether a particular penny, if of good weight, was authentic or spurious to the possibly idiosyncratic decision of an individual changer would have been to invite recrimination and irrevocably to exacerbate instinctive mistrust of the system and of its institutions. It may be questioned, too, whether the JElfred whose treaty with Guthrum clearly envisaged developing commercial contacts between Englishman and Dane would have wished so positively to discourage trade across that border between the halves of a partitioned England for which 'Watling Street' is so convenient a synecdoche. From the West Saxon king's point of view each coming and going by merchant and drover represented a new and welcome erosion of any general acceptance of the concept of a frontier with all that term's connotations of stability and permanence. For JElfred the security of Wessex (and Mercia) was paramount, and the southern Danelaw the most obvious threat. Commerce offered the best prospect for an accommodation that would neutralise the military menace, and the apparently burgeoning West Saxon economy promised a royal share in its profits. Ever to be sought was the common ground, and to be eschewed everything that smacked of the divisive. To have continued, even had it been practicable, JEthelwulf's policy of periodic recoinage in respect ofthose territories where the royal will was capable of being enforced would have brought into being two sharply differentiated currencies. To the west and above all to the south of 'Watling Street', coins of one or at most two issues alone would be legal tender at any given time, while to the east and north of the same arbitrary line on the map a man would not have minutely to scrutinise each and every silver penny that came his way. Not to insist on periodic change of type in Wessex and in the West Mercian 'protectorate' was quietly to blur a line which the men who were forging what would become England had no wish that others either should see as sharp or well defined. After the later 880s, then, adherence to periodic renovatio moneta! even in Wessex would have presented formidable difficulties - how were the Danelaw imitations to be excluded? - while where 'England' was concerned it would have been increasingly divisive. Better by far it must have seemed to a sage king shrewdly advised to tolerate

/Elfred's abandonment of periodic recoinage

157

a discreet relaxation which would facilitate trade across 'Watling Street', a channel of communication with the English living under the new Danish ascendancy, and even encourage their masters to strike what we may term 'English-looking' coins. It cannot be a coincidence surely that it was in remote Northumbria and in East Anglia beyond the Fens, and not in the formerly Mercian East Midlands, that Continental rather than West Saxon models are found dominating the imitative coin series of the 890s. Equally intelligible on this hypothesis is the subtlety of modifications made to the new' standard' penny of two-line type made in lElfred's last years (e.g. BMC A-S, types xv, xvii, etc.), minor variants that must have had significance for contemporary officialdom but which cannot have been any more meaningful for the man in the market than for the compilers of modern numismatic listings aimed primarily at the collector. After the later 880s, too, the fiscal climate seems very different, and the profits accruing to the king from commerce under the protection of the new burhs in particular may be supposed to have been more than sufficient to make good any loss to the royal revenues resulting from the dismantling of lEthelwulf's relatively rudimentary version of renovatio moneta!. Viewed in this light lElfred's abandonment of periodic recoinage takes shape as a great man's characteristically imaginative response to changing circumstances. We may compare his forswearing the premature numismatic titulature REX ANGLORUM with which he had flirted in the days of crisis. A lesser king, one eye fixed on the royal coffers, doubtless would have persisted with inherited policies until the bitter end. lElfred was not an irredentist, but both his eyes were lifting to an English horizon while his feet remained firmly planted in West Saxon ground. Inspired commonsense is, after all, no bad description of the stuff of lElfred's greatness. It is probably no coincidence that Eadgar, the great-grandson who was finally to bring about English unity through a union of minds as well as hearts, publicly proclaimed the achievement by reintroducing renovatio moneta! within months of his second (Bath) coronation and the durbar on the Dee, for all that changed circumstances enabled him to give it an entirely new dimension. In modern parlance both men, lElfred just as much as Eadgar, 'had got their priorities right'. It is appropriate to end with the reflection that Eadgar's changers consigned to the crucible a coinage essentially composed of aniconic two-line pennies with a sprinkling of portrait pieces. This had been, we do well to remember, the basic structure of the English coinage for the last eighty years and more, an indication surely, ifnot strict proof, that lElfred's abandonment in the later 880s of the principle of regular renovatio moneta! had been a deliberate - and statesmanlike - act of royal policy. The numismatist for one finds it impossible to accept that the change was a meek surrender to circumstances which not only lay outside the king's control but were not even so much as understood.

MICHAEL DOLLEY

Table 13 Type

Issuer

iEthelwulf* Ceolnoth iEthelbearht

A

BMC A-S Brooke

North

Seaby

xvii 30

8 5 1

618 245 620

580 444 582

11

2

621 247

583

(I) 6 1 (I)

622-3 248-9 625-8 423-7

584 445 585 486--9A

Inscribed cross

iEthelbearht* Ceolnoth

B

Floriated cross

iEthelred I Ceolnoth iElfred Burgred*

C

42 & 60 140-402

Lunette

* Illustrated type The abbreviations used are: BMC A-S C. F. Keary, R. S. Poole, A catalogue of English coins in the British Museum. AngloSaxon series I, London 1887. H. A. Grueber, C. F. Keary, A catalogue of English coins in the British Museum. Anglo-Saxon series 11, London 1893 Brooke G. C. Brooke, English coins 3 , London 1950 J. J. North, English hammered coinage 2 I, London 1980 North B. A. Seaby Ltd, Standard catalogue of British coins I, Coins of England and the United Seaby Kingdom 16, London 1978

/Eljrecfs abandonment of periodic recoinage

159

Table 13 (cont.) Type

Issuer

.tEelfred .tEthered Ceolwulf 11*

D

North

Seaby

629-31 251 429

586 (446b) 491

632 428

587 490

3

633 250

588 446

xiv

6

66 89-105

(I) (I)

635-7 252 253 479

594 447 448-9 501

BMC A-S Brooke

v

5 2

403

(2)

Lozenge cross

.tElfred* Ceolwulf 11

E

IV

2 (I)

Two emperors

.tElfred .tEthered *

F

11

61

Quatrefoil

l.tElfred* '.tEthered JPlegmund ..tEthelstan

G

Two line

160

MICHAEL DOLLEY KEY TO ILLUSTRATIONS

Illustrations after Rogers Ruding, Annals of the coinage of Britain 3 , London 1840. A PI. xiv, no. 2 B PI. xv, no. 3 C PI. viii, no. 20 D PI. vii, no. 2 (there given to Ceolwulf I) E After the (unique) Montagu specimen, BMC A-S 11, p. 34 F [Appendix] pI. xxx, no. 5 G PI. xvi, no. 13

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND REFERENCES

Early drafts of the above were read by Mr Christopher Blunt, FBA, and by the author's former colleagues at the Queen's University of Belfast, Dr Alexander Grant and Dr ludith Green, and a number of their criticisms and suggestions incorporated in a further draft submitted to Professor Dorothy Whitelock, FBA, and to Dr Simon Keynes of Trinity College, Cambridge, who in turn made further suggestions for the note's improvement. In the same way, the final draft has benefited from more than one suggestion of Dr B. H. I. H. Stewart. For all this invaluable and kindly criticism the author is deeply grateful, but it goes without saying that the mistakes and shortcomings of what is printed are his alone.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

An outline of the coinage of this period can be found in M. Dolley, Anglo-Saxon pennies, London (British Museum) 1964, at 17-20, with a fuller technical discussion in C. S. S. Lyon, 'Historical problems of Anglo-Saxon coinage (2)', BN] XXXVII 1968,21-38. Studies of the principal reigns are: Dolley and K. Skaare, 'The coinage of iEthelwulf, king of the West Saxons, 839-58', in Anglo-Saxon coins. Studies presented to F. M. Stenton on the occasion of his 80th birthday, 17 May 1960, (hereafter Anglo-Saxon coins) ed. R. H. M. Dolley, London 1961, 63-76; H. E. Pagan, 'Coinage in the Age of Burgred', BN] XXXIV 1965, 11-27; and Dolley and C. E. Blunt, 'The chronology of the coins of iElfred the Great, 87 1-99', Anglo-Saxon coins, 77-95. For Southampton's claim to minting, see Dolley, 'The location of the pre-iElfredian mint(s) of Wessex', Proc. of the Hampshire Field Club and Archaeol. Soc. XXVII 1970, 57-61. The indictional framework of sixth-century Byzantine bronze coinage is worked out by W. Hahn in Moneta Imperii Byzantini I, Veroffentlichungen der Numismatischen Kommission I, Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Denkschriften CIX, Vienna 1973. Regrettably there is no reliable printed analysis of the contents of English hoards concealed between c. 855 and c. 870, but a list with references is given in R. H. M. Dolley, The Hiberno-Norse coins in the British Museum, Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles (SCBI) VIII, London 1966,48-49, while for hoards concealed between c. 870 and c. 900 see C. E. Blunt, R. H. M. Dolley, 'Hoard evidence for the coins of Alfred', BN] XXIX 1959, 22cr-247; R. H. M. Dolley, 'An unpublished hoard-provenance for a penny of Ceolwulf 11 of Mercia', BN] XXXII 1963, 88-90; Appendix (English hoards, 1968-1969) to President's Review, BN] XXXVIII 1969, at 225.

13 King or Queen? An eleventh-century pfennig of Duisburg PETER BERGHAUS

No issue among the eleventh-century pfennig series of Duisburg in the Lower Rhineland has been subject to such varied interpretations of its date and significance as that of the issue in the name of King Henry which has as its reverse type a crowned figure seated on a throne. The history of this coin in the numismatic literature of the past hundred years amply demonstrates that for a precise and objective interpretation of an issue, it is necessary to take account of all the surviving specimens. The essential starting-point for future research is that the description and analysis of issues should be based on die-studies, a method increasingly used in medieval numismatics. 1 This pfennig was first published by Heinrich Philipp Cappe in the first volume of his Die Miinzen der deutschen Kaiser und Konige des Mittelalters (Dresden, 1848) on page 105: 2

481.

~r. (fin sdr6ntt~ ~rut1~i1b,

Iinfl3 gc",cnbrt, b01" b(,llI~ fdben cin etern. Umfd}rift: + IIEI~rucrs HEX. fRf. !ltr cuf tintm ~b:-cnc ftt~rnN gdr6ntt St'6ni'1, iu btr ffitcf}tcn dnrn mdd)c;q.lfd f)..t!rrnb, bie ~infc ~um ecf}rour trb~btn. Umid}rifr: DIYSllYRG. m~9tbi1~tt ~olf. XIX. ffir. 310. A H. P. Cappe, Die Miinzen der deutschen Kaiser und Konige des Mittelalters

The drawing (plate xix, no. 310), which is of a specimen in the coin cabinet of the Staatliche M useen, Berlin, is reasonably accurate, though in the catalogue the description of the legend is wrongly given (~HEINRICVS REX for ~HEINRICHVS REX). In 1876 Hermann Dannenberg in the first volume of his standard work on early medieval 161

162

PETER BERGHAUS

Gennan coinage Die deutschen Miinzen der siichsischen und friinkischen Kaiserzeit (hereafter Die deutschen Miinzen) (Berlin, p. 147 and pI. xiv) pointed out that the issue appeared in two fonns or variants, though he overlooked in his description the star in front of the figure on the obverse, to which Cappe had drawn attention in both his text and his illustration (fig. B).

325;

+HEINRICHVS

REX Ullu:irti,:es ;..;"ekr~iiit(·S BrustLilJ rethts.

Rf. DIVSBVRG throllender Kaiser mit Htichsapfel und

:lUS-

gestreckter Lillktn. - ;'1. ~. 1,15 Gr. 326' Aehlllieh. abcr IIlit ],[irri;l'lH: :iltcr erselH'illenden Kopfe.K. ~1. 1.1:. Ur. CaP1H' l. Tal'. XIX, :~JII. B H. Dannenberg, Die deutschen Miinzen der siichsischen und friinkischen Kaiserzeit

In addition to coin no. 326, which was the specimen published by Cappe, no. 325 is now in the coin cabinet of the StaatIiche Museen, Berlin. Dannenberg ascribed the issue to Henry IV (1056-1106). In a later volume of his work (n, Berlin 1894,585) he returned to this pfennig and, with a mention of the existing literature, there identified the figure shown on the reverse as that of the queen. In his Die Duisburger Miinzen, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Duisburgs (Duisburg 1881, 76-77), F. Braumbach identified both variants in terms similar to those used by Dannenberg, whom he followed in ascribing the issue to Henry IV. Shortly before, in 1880, Paul Joseph in his 'Beitdige zur pfalzgraftichen und mainzischen Miinzkunde' (Mitteilungen des Historischen Vereins der Pfalz IX 1880, 1-47 at 16-18) had ascribed the issue to Henry V (II05-25), even suggesting Henry VI (II9O-7), though soon afterwards he moved away from the idea of a late date (see Dannenberg, Die deutschen Miinzen n, 585). In 1887, almost in passing, Dannenberg for the first time described the seated figure on the reverse 'als das Bild der sitzenden Konigin Bertha' (Verhandlungen der Numismatischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin 1887, 40 = Sitzung vom 3. Dezember). This interpretation was adopted in his' Der Hochzeitspfennig Herzog Heinrichs des Lowen' (Deutsche Miinzen I, Berlin 1891,86-221, especially at 103-104 = Berliner Miinzbliitter XI 1890, 1086-1087) by Julius Menadier, who entertained no doubts about the identification; for him the person portrayed was the queen. 'Vordem der allgemeinen Meinung folgend, daB diese Denare das Bild des koniglichen M iinzherrn zweifach triigen, hat Dannenberg jiingst die Weiblichkeit der sitzenden Figur richtig erkannt. Man darf si ch nicht verleiten lassen, dagegen den langen Strich unter der Nase geltend zu machen, welcher einem Schnurrbart weit ahnlicher sieht, als einem weiblichen M unde; entscheidend ist der fiir die Konigin charakteristische Schleier.' Nevertheless in 1894 A. Engel and R. Serrure in the second volume of their Traite de numismatique du moyen age (Paris,

King or Queen? 593) identified the seated figure as the king (' Le roi assis de face '). Perhaps the German articles, which had appeared only shortly before, were unknown to them. As late as 1891, in his Grundziige der Miinzkunde (Leipzig, 165 and plate vii, no. 50), Dannenberg himself had described the type as representing a seated emperor. In his survey of the portraits of medieval German rulers (Die deutschen Kaiser und Konige in Bildem ihrer Zeit I, Berlin 1928, 2 10-2 I I), Percy Ernst Schramm adopted Menadier's interpretation and identified the seated figure as Queen Bertha, 'Uberhaupt steht dieser Pfennig mit dem Bilde des Herrschers und der Herrscherin in der M iinzgeschichte, wenn auch nicht in der Geschichte der Herrscherbilder isoliert.' In 1935 Arthur Suhle adopted Menadier's suggestion in his description of the coin for his volume Die deutschen Miinzen des MUtelalters in the series of handbooks (Handbiicher) published by the Staatliche Museen of Berlin (p. 54): 'Einige Pfennige, die zur Feier der Hochzeit geschlagen sein konnen, zeigen auf der Riickseite das Bild einer Konigin, die Stiicke mit dem bartlosen Heinrich auf der Vorderseite meinen augenscheinlich Bertha von Susa, mit der er sich 1066 verheiratete und die 1087 starb, die mit dem bartigen Praxedis oder Adelheid, seine 2. Gemahlin, die er 1089 heiratete.' This interpretation of the coin was repeated word for word in later editions of the handbook published under the title Deutsche Miinz- und Geldgeschichte von den Anfangen bis zum 15. lahrhundert (Berlin 1955, p. 69; 2nd ed. 1964; 3rd ed. 1968). In 1955, in an article entitled' Haben wir im I I. lahrhundert Miinzbilder von Portratbedeutung?' (Blatter fiir Miinzfreunde und Miinzforschung LXXIX 1955, 207ff., especially at 284) Richard Gaettens rather casually took up Menadier's and Suhle's suggestion and dated the issue to 1077-80. His approach to the question of dating was coloured by an extraordinarily emotional view of the material (see the review by H. Wentzel in Hamburger Beitrage zur Numismatik XI 1957, 620-622); he based his dating not on a thorough study of the chronology of Henry IV's Duisburg series, but rather on the 'ungewohnlich ernsten Ausdruck des Gesichtes'. In contrast to Dannenberg, Menadier, and Suhle, the historical circumstances were simply left out of account by Gaettens. In a far less speculative approach, Das Miinzwesen im niederlothringischen und friesischen Raum vom 10. bis zum beginnenden 12. lahrhundert (= Numismatische Studien VI, Hamburg 1959, p. 98 and n. 594), Giinther Albrecht set the issue within a chronological sequence of the Duisburg series, though in his table of coinages no. 14, by placing the Duisburg issues with the imperial title before those with the royal ti tle, he certain Iy da ted the coins wi th the sea ted figure reverse too la te, c. 1080-85 at the earliest (see also below). However, Albrecht left open the question whether the seated figure represents the king or the queen in a veil. Two main varieties may be distinguished in the coin issue which forms the subject of this paper, the second of them showing additionally two minor variants. Eight specimens are known (pIs. 14-15).3

PETER BERGHAUS

A. Obverse type: beardless bust (Dannenberg no. 325) obv. ~HEINRICHVS REX within border rev. DIVSBVRG within two concentric of dots. circles of dots. Beardless bust to right, wearing arched crown Facing figure seated on backless throne, (the base frame set with rings; above, two wearing arched crown and draped in wideconcentric bands: the outer of dots, the inner sleeved costume; holding orb in right hand, left linear; arch terminated front and back with hand raised in gesture of blessing. small globe); at the neck, hanging from the crown, two pendants (pendilien); below the chin, traces of drapery with shoulder knot.

I.] [

JR LIS g. Berlin, Staatliche Museen 2. JR 1.08 g. .Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale 3. JR 1.05 g. Berlin, Staatliche Museen

DI - VS - BVR - G

DIV - S - BV - RG

B. Obverse type: bearded bust

(i) Without star obv. As before, but full-bearded bust. 4. JR 0.9 1 5 g. Frankfurt am Main, Historisches Museum (E. Lejeune Coli.) obv. As before, but crown lacks ornament of globes. 5. JR 1.18 g. Stockholm, Kungliga Myntkabinettet Inv. no. 1597; from the Sibbenarve hoard, Oja Parish, Gotland (deposited c. 1084).4

rev. DIV - S· - BVR - G As before.

rev. DIV - S - BVR - G As before.

(ii) With star

obv. As before, but before bust 8-pointed star; and crown lacks ornament of globes. 6. JR 1.17 g. Berlin, Staatliche Museen 7. JR 1.12 g. Berlin, Staatliche Museen 8. JR 1.19 g. Stockholm, Kungliga Myntkabinette Inv. no. 1597; from the Sibbenarve hoard, Oja Parish, Gotland (deposited c. 1084)

rev. DI - VS - BVR - G As before.

DI - VS - BV - RG

For a group of only eight specimens the number of dies is comparatively large. The three specimens of class A (beardless bust) were struck from one obverse and two reverse dies, and the five specimens of class B (bearded bust) from five obverse and five reverse dies, which taken together gives a total of six obverse and seven reverse dies for eight

King or Queen?

2

3

...

,

I

~'

..

,~

•••• ".

..... ~.... ~ ...."'....

,

;...

'~" \"~

;;,.. ' ".'I , ·;~i~~~~t '\ ~ ~,....

-'

! \ '" ,"t. . · , I,

,

. ~. "

,

t ~,~

","

\ '\.'t () . ~.:"'~'.".

' '''\\

.

'i "

\:

~. f )1,, ('

,,, ," , ..',, " ( f, --'\ "

:'

,,

,{

,

I

. \1.... \ ;.~ \ ~ ' \ ' 11)' ,.",

'

' •. ,' , . r. 11

~~,4:,:1 ,!~." \~ \.""\;' \~'I/', ,'\ ,, \.' 5

4

Plate 14

i

',., ~ J. .' I..: \

\

"

"

166

PETER BERGHAUS

6

7

8

Plate 15

coins. In all probability any new specimens that came to light would provide additional obverse and reverse dies. 5 There must therefore have been a far more extensive issue of these coins than the number of surviving specimens would at first sight suggest, and it can hardly be the case that they were an occasional issue or even a commemorative coinage celebrating an event such as a marriage or a visit by the ruler. 6 The comparatively large number of dies also provides evidence for the dating of the issue. It would appear that between I020 and 1050 contemporary issues circulating in inner Germany drifted to the Baltic lands in greater numbers than either before or after those dates. 7 Large numbers of north-west German coins from that period turn up in Baltic hoards; as a rule, they are struck from a small number of dies and are frequently die-linked. s In the second half of the eleventh century, soon after 1050, the number of die duplicates in hoards falls off markedly; coins from the time of Henry IV are seldom die-linked. The coins that form the subject of this paper bear the legend +HEINRICHVS REX, that is they were struck in the name of a King Henry. Henry III can be ruled out for the period when he was king (1039-46), both on grounds of style and on the evidence discussed above of the die-study taken with that of the finds. So, too, for the period when he was emperor (1046-56), for the title REX is appropriate only to a ruler who bears the title of king and not to one who has the title of emperor (IMP, RIP, IP). By elimination the only ruler among those who controlled the Duisburg mint for whom this

King or Queen? legend is appropriate is Henry IV (king, 1056-84), as indeed Dannenberg, Menadier, Schramm, Suhle, Gaettens, and Albrecht had claimed. It is very difficult to establish a convincing chronology for the Duisburg issues of Henry III and Henry IV; a comprehensive survey of the series is currently being prepared by the author. It would appear that many issues, especially under Henry IV, ran in parallel. The long life of several types is demonstrated by their appearance both on issues where Henry bears the title of king (to 1084) and on those where he is described as emperor (from 1084). The image of the ruler, hardly a portrait in the true sense, but a medieval topos, really plays no part in establishing the chronology of the issues. The beardless and bearded busts appear side by side, both equally with the royal and imperial titles. The chronology of the Duisburg series suggested here corrects the sequence of issues published by Albrecht:

Period Conrad 11, as emperor (1027-39) Henry Ill, as king (1039-46) Henry Ill, as emperor (1046-56) Henry IV, as king (I056-84)

Henry IV, as emperor (1084-1106)

Type

Dannenberg, Die deuischen Miinzen, nos. 311,312,313,314

building city name seated figure city name in 4 rings (possibly time of Henry V) city name in angles of star's rays church

315, 3 16 317, 1510 318,319,320,1516 321, 322 325,3 26 15 11 ,15 12 , 1515 323 324

327, 1514

The series has every appearance of having continued into the reign of Henry V (1106-25; emperor from 11 11). The only find evidence relating to the seated figure type (Dannenberg nos. 325, 326) is the hoard from Sibbenarve (6ja Parish, Gotland, Sweden) which is dated by Hatz to sometime after 1085.9 On the evidence of this hoard the issue can certainly be dated to before 1085, perhaps even as early as 1070. The title REX places it in the period before 1084, the year of Henry's coronation as emperor. A more precise dating within the period 1056-84 can be obtained, however tentatively, only by comparing the styles of the crowned heads on the obverse. Under Henry III (1039-56), the mints at Dortmund and Duisburg developed a completely new style in portraiture. In place of their earlier coin portraits for Henry 11 and Conrad 11, which were linear, abstract, and flat, they produced an image that for all its economy had a near sculptural quality. The drawing was much

168

PETER BERGHAUS

more confident; nose, eye, eyebrow, cheekbone, and mouth were all emphasised. The almost monumental effect that this produced has time and again misled numismatists into seeing in these portraits likenesses of photographic accuracy. A relative chronology for the royal portraits is provided by the shape of the crowns: a Double-arched crown: a crown with two arches; between them a flower (?). b Arched crown: a crown with a single arch made up of two concentric bands. c Gable crown: a crown with a triangular front.

a. double-arched crown

b. arched crown

c. gable crown

The first type of crown, the double-arched variety, which had already been employed at Dortmund on issues for Henry 11, both as king and as emperor,1° occurs at Duisburg predominantly with the legend REX, less often with the imperial title. l l It is almost invariably coupled with the beardless bust. The second crown, with a single arch, does not occur at Dortmund. It reached Duisburg during Henry IV's reign as king and is found with both beardless and bearded portraits.1 2 Since the beardless head, as well as the bearded version, is also employed with the imperial title on Henry IV's Duisburg coinage,13 this illustrates the general point made above about the flimsy basis of any attempt to date eleventh-century German coinage by means of fashions in beards. The third crown, the gable type, is known in this particular form only on those Duisburg issues that show the emperor's head as bearded. 14 In view of the clear use of the imperial title, it is impossible that this crown can have been used for the coinage before 1084. For the dating of the issue with the reverse type of a seated figure the gable crown (crown c) is irrelevant, since it appeared after 1084. The decisive evidence is the relative chronology of the two other types of crown; at Duisburg the double-arched variety (crown a) obviously preceded the crown with the single arch (crown b). Although both types of crown appeared for a time alongside one another, crown b continued to be used well into the period that followed Henry's coronation as emperor on 31 March 1084. Albeit tentatively, it is possible to date the double-arched crown to the period 1056-75, with occasional use up to 1084. The single-arched crown appears to have come into use later than crown a, perhaps c. 1070-80, and, as already noted, to have been employed extensively after 1084. With equal care, one might venture to date both varieties (beardless and bearded heads) of the seated figure issue to c. 1056-70. It still remains to explain the image of the seated figure on the reverse. Dannenberg, as subsequently Menadier, identified the figure as that of a queen. They based their interpretation mainly on two details: the figure wore a veil round the head and under the crown and it was dressed in a wide-sleeved garment. They were not greatly concerned

King or Queen? by the unmistakable moustache nor the orb, although otherwise the first representations of female rulers holding orbs are dated to the thirteenth century,15 It is impossible to deny the existence of the veil-like frame that surrounds the head of the figure shown on the reverse, since it appears more or less clearly on all six reverse dies, but this so-called 'veil' should be identified as an attempt to render the pendants hanging from the crown. 16 The wide sleeves of the dress are not conclusive proof that this is not a representation of a male ruler: similar sleeves are found in depictions of Lothar I, Charles the Bald, Conrad 11, Henry Ill, Henry IV and Henry VY Certainly the style of the costume is unusual for a male ruler. The drapery does not fall to form an elongated triangle, as in conventional representations, but it is clearly placed round the shoulders and is so arranged that a curved band of material is gathered across the stomach with two overlapping folds falling into the lap. This style of costume does indeed seem rather to suggest that a woman is portrayed. However, the orb cannot be overlooked, nor the curving moustache. While the latter cannot be detected on some worn specimens, it is clearly recognisable on at least three specimens, each from a different reverse die. However, an alternative explanation of the figure shown on the reverse might be to suggest that it portrays Henry III (1039-56), the deceased father of Henry IV. This issue would then fit into the pattern of those already known with joint representations of Henry III and Conrad 11, and of Henry IV with Henry lIps At all events the number of dies employed for the issue rules out the possibility of a purely commemorative coinage. NOTES

See P. Berghaus 'Zur Anwendung der stempelvergleichenden Methode bei deutschen M iinzen a us wikingerzeitlichen Schatzfunden', Nordisk Numismatisk Unions Medlemsblad 1967, 29-34. 2 Cappe's description follows the conventions of German heraldry. 3 Obverse die-links are shown bracketed on the left, [; reverse die-links are shown bracketed on the right, ]. 4 G. Hatz, Handel und Verkehr zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und Schweden in der spiiten Wikingerzeit, Stockholm 1974, find no. 342. 5 For likely estimates of die numbers, see C. S. S. Lyon, 'The estimation of the number of dies employed in coinage', NCirc LXXIIl 1965, 180--18 I. 6 A. Suhle, Die deutschen Miinzen des Miltelalters, Handbiicher der Staatlichen Museen, Berlin [1935], 54. 7 Based on the results of die studies for the mints of Dortmund, Duisburg, and Minden. A publication of this material is in preparation. I

8 See also P. Ilisch, 'Die Anf
170

PETER BERGHAUS

322 (Berlin, Brussels, Duisburg, Rome, Stockholm, with variants in Stockholm and Uppsala), no. 324; bearded: no. 1515. 14 Dannenberg, Die deutschen Munzen, no. 3 2 7.

15 J. Menadier, 'Der Hochzeitspfennig Herzog Heinrichs des Lowen', Deutsche Miinzen I, Berlin 189 I, 104. 16 For similar pendants on the coins ofCelles, see Dannenberg, Die deutschen Munzen, nos. 185, 186. 17 P. E. Schramm, Die deutschen Kaiser und

Henry III (1039-56) (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection) Konige in Bildern ihrer Zeit I, Berlin 1928, figs, 18a, 29a, 97a, 102, 112, 123a. 18 Dannenberg, Die deutschen Munzen, nos. 82 9,84 1, 1653-1640,2053,2054.

14 Personal names on Norman coins of the eleventh century: an hypothesis* F. DUMAS

Norman coins of the eleventh and twelfth centuries are so barbarous in appearance that numismatists and historians have paid little attention to them. A few years ago, however, J. Lafaurie,1 and then L. Musset,2 drew attention to the evidence they provide for Normandy's foreign relations. I propose to examine here the problems posed by the coinages which bear personal names; in particular, to consider whether these names are necessarily those of moneyers (monetarii), the usual explanation for names other than rulers on European medieval coins, or whether they might have some other significance. The deniers of Normandy of the eleventh and twelfth centuries differ from other contemporary French coins in certain well-defined respects: Obverse - the field is filled with non-representational devices based on a triangle 3 or a

cross. On the earliest group (A) the letters of the legend are clumsily engraved and are incoherently arranged;4 later (group B), these are replaced by geometric forms which give only the appearance of lettering (pseudo-Iegend);& finally (group C), they disappear altogether. 6 Reverse - in group A the cross occupying the field is encircled by the blundered name of Rouen, then (group B) by a pseudo-legend, and finally (group C), by th~ legend NORMANNIA.7

This development is accompanied by a degradation of the fabric. The flan ceases to be either regular or round, and its weight is reduced from 0.95 g. to 0.70 g.,s so that the later deniers have a characteristically degenerate appearance. Group A is dated to the first half of the eleventh century, group B to the middle of the eleventh century, and group C to the end of the eleventh and the first half of the twelfth century. 9 In addition to the three groups described above, there is a fourth (D), which resembles group C in its basic characteristics - the legend NORMANNIA around the cross on the reverse, and the irregular, mis-shapen flans - but which differs in its obverse type. The 17 1

F. DUMAS

B

Cl

D2

Dl

D3 Plate 16

geometric fonns are replaced by letters: the first four, five or six letters of personal names, arranged in two lines in the field, such as RA/DVL, STE/FAN, HE/NR, etc.1° This coinage was first noticed by scholars in r886, shortly after about thirty specimens, found at Ferrieres-sur-Risle in Nonnandy, were acquired by the Cabinet des MedaiIJes, Bibliotheque NationaleY Since then several have come to light in other hoards. At the end of the nineteenth century, these coins were the subject of studies by Chabouillet, Caron and Serrure. They established that the coins bore personal names and, by analogy with the English medieval series, supposed them to be those of moneyers.12 Caron considered that they were contemporary with Henry I of England (r ro0-35), because the same names are found on both English and Nonnan coins. 13 This interpretation, however, raises a number of problems, which, even if they cannot be resolved, at least deserve to be considered: when were these names placed on the coinage,

Personal names on Norman coins

173

for how long did the practice continue, for what purpose, and were they in fact the names of moneyers? An analysis of the hoards provides an answer to the first question. In several hoards these coins are found mixed with other coins; two such hoards were buried in the first half of the twelfth century, and a third after 1150.14 The earliest of them, in my opinion, is that from Ferrieres, which dates from the time of Phi lip I (1060-1108), but probably neither from the beginning nor from the very end of his reign. 1s We can reasonably assume, therefore, that this type appeared after the conquest of England, but in the second half of the eleventh century rather than at the beginning of the twelfth. 16 For how long did ~uch coins continue to be minted? The fact that they were in circulation beyond the middle of the twelfth century need not mean that they continued to be struck until that time. Norman coins, in fact, remained in circulation over a very long period. Certain coins of group A from the early eleventh century and quite a number of group B from the mid-eleventh century were both circulating at an equally late date. Indeed, coins of group B are rather more numerous in the later hoards than the coins of group D, those with personal names: 6% to 12 % for coins of group B as against 3 % to 11% for those of group D,17 coins of group C being the greater part of these hoards. Coins of group D may therefore have been struck either in smaller quantities or over a shorter period than the contemporary coinages of group C. If the former is correct, the coins of group D would have been struck by a mint with a relatively small output; if the latter, it would point to quite a large issue but relatively short duration. Let us consider the first of these two hypotheses. According to a text of 109118 there were two mints under William the Conqueror: Rouen and Bayeux. By then the name of Bayeux had disappeared from the coinage never to reappear, and that of Rouen appears only rarely; the usual legend is NORMANNIA or DVX NORM ANN. Were the personal names used to distinguish the mint of Bayeux from that of Rouen? This seems hardly plausible, bearing in mind that all but two names occur in the Ferrieres hoard, deposited before the end of the eleventh century. They can hardly represent successive administrators of the mint, since the period would have stretched well into the twelfth century. We must, therefore, look to the hypothesis of a considerable issue over a short period. What was the reason for such an issue? Why do these names appear on the coinages? Chabouillet, who raised this question, thought that they were the names of moneyers, that is those responsible for minting, officials who would later have been called mint masters. 19 Certainly, if the Norman moneyers were financially responsible for the issues, as they were in England and later in France, then it was important to be able to identify their products in case they were later found to be defective. The inclusion of their names made possible a control which would be particularly necessary after the appearance of monetagium, the triennial tax which the Normans consented to pay to the duke (from about 1097-1100) in return for his promise not to change the coinage. 2o This interpretation is not completely satisfactory: the comparison with England is not entirely convincing, for Norman coinage did not carry the name of the duke whereas English coinage carried that of the king. Furthermore, the personal names on the Norman

174

F.DUMAS

coinage occupy the whole field of the obverse, a dominant position that does not really correspond with what we know to be the function of the moneyer.21 The coinage of Normandy is so unusual that one cannot reject absolutely the idea that these men were moneyers,22 but it seems to me that we ought not to subscribe to the idea without questioning its validity, and, for my part, I would prefer a different explanation. At the time of their reconciliation in 1091, William the Conqueror's sons, William Rufus and Robert Curthose, re-introduced the Consuetudines et Justicie of their father's time. Amongst them there is one which concerns coinage: it laid down that it was forbidden to coin money, except at the mints of Rouen and Bayeux, and that those who did strike coins elsewhere or who made counterfeit coins would be at the duke's mercy. It is made clear that there remained much else to be said about justicia monete and the other justicie but only what was absolutely necessary had been mentioned. 23 Thus, it appears that after William -the Conqueror's death, mints had been opened in Normandy contrary to custom and that in 1091 it had become urgent to put matters right. In my opinion, the appearance of personal names on the coinage could be explained by the collapse of the ducal monetary prerogative that resulted from the troubles surrounding William's succession. The coins would have been minted in various places under the control of men whose names they bear. Rather than moneyers, these men would have been the duke's agents, probably the vicomtes who exercised an important judicial and financial authority. The vicomtes were the duke's principal officers. They guarded the castles, commanded the troops, dispensed justice and collected the revenues. There were about a dozen vicomtes as early as the beginning of the eleventh century. Certain tithes were levied on their revenues, which, according to J. Yver, is evidence of the role played by the vicomte in tax collection. 24 At the time of the Conquest, some of the greatest of the Norman magnates exercised this function and administered the duke's tax revenues. William the Conqueror sought to curb their power, which was sometimes reinforced by inheritance and marriage alliances, by increasing their number and reducing the scope of their authority. First the death of William, then Robert's weakness, and the conflict between the late king's three sons, caused a noticeable reduction in ducal power. Bids for independence and civil strife were doubtless accompanied by seizure of revenues, which were further increased by coining. Documentary evidence allows us to make a partial comparison between the names placed on the coins and those of the vicomtes. Our knowledge of the vicomtes is fragmentary. Indeed, it is in the hope that future studies will provide a fuller commentary on their historical importance in ducal Normandy at the end of the eleventh century that I present here my suggestion that the names on the coins are those of vicomtes who had arrogated to themselves the authority to issue coin. About thirty names are recorded for the eleventh century up to the time of the Conquest. 26 The following is a list of names from the time of William (names known also from the coinage are italicised): Aymeri, Eudes, Geoffroy, Gosselin, Hugh, Nee/, Rannoux, Ranulf, Raou/, Ralph, Richard, Robert, Roger. 26 During the years that followed the Conqueror's death, his sons Robert, William and Henry, sometimes as allies, sometimes as enemies, tried to establish their authority over Normandy, but ducal ordinances are rare. From this period come the

Personal names on Norman coins

175

names of the vicomtes Eudes, William, Landri and RannouY Under Henry I (1100-35), the names Anselme, Arnoul, Hugh, Ilbertus, Neel, Raoul, Roger and Rosselin appear.2B Although the lists of vicomtes are very incomplete, it does appear that the personal names placed on the coins are in part the same as those of the vicomtes, though the correspondence is not exact. Further, although it might be possible to add the names ofnobles such as Etienne, count of Aumale, and Henri, count ofEu,29 to the list of those signing coins, it must be admitted that the names of a number of powerful men, such as Rannoux, vicomte of Bassin, are certainly missing. This attempt at a working hypothesis is undertaken in the hope that current or future studies may succeed in giving a clearer idea of the interest which these names have for the history of the duchy of Normandy at the end of the eleventh century.

NOTES

J. Lafaurie, 'Le tresor monetaire du Puy', RNS XIV 1952, 5,}-169 at 93-95· 2 L. Musset, 'Les relations exterieures de la Normandie du IX e au Xle siecle d'apres quelques trouvailles monetaires recentes', Annales de Normandie IV 1954,31-38. 3 It recalls the fa9ade of the Carolingian temple which appears on the coinage of Richard I, the meaning of which had been lost by about 980. F. Dumas-Dubourg, Le trf!sor de Fecamp, Paris 1971, 21ff. 4 F. Poey d'Avant, Monnaies leodales de France I, Paris 1858, pI. iv, nos. 8-17; pI. v, no. 7. 5 Poey d' Avant, n. 4 above, pI. v, nos. 8-2 I; pI. vi, nos. 1-7, 10, 13-21. 6 Poeyd'Avant, n. 4 above, pI. iv, nos. 1'}-21; pI. v, nos. 1-6; pI. vi, nos. 8-12. 7 Sometimes Dux Normann, Poey d'Avant, n. 4 above, pI. v, nos. 2-3, or Rotomagnus, Poey d'Avant, n. 4 above, pI. iv, nos. 18, 19· 8 c. 980-985, wt. 1.20 g. (Fecamp hoard). c. II20, wt. 0.96 g. (Gaillefontaine hoard, Seine-Mari time) in the Musee Departmen tal des Antiquites, Rouen, J. Lafaurie, BSFN XII 1957, 164-165. 9 F. Dumas, 'Les monnaies normandes des x-xne siecles', BSFNxxxlII 1978, 389-394; F. Dumas, 'Les monnaies normandes (xe_ xn e siecles) avec un repertoire des trouvailles', RJV8 XXI 1979,84-140. 10 Ex/hil- Ex/su - Gau/fri - Gi/bon - Go/de - Go/ra - He/nr - Hu/go - lo/ver - Ni/gel I

- Ni/go - Ni/io - Ra/bo - Ra/dul- Ra/go - Ri/ni - Ro/ex - Ro/ge - Ro/lan - Ro/sa - Ste/fan - Widro. Gode, Gaufri and lover are probably varied forms of Godefredus. Nigo and Niio, which are no doubt identical, can perhaps be varied forms of Nigel. Compare also Gora and Rago. Exhil and Exsu defy identification. II M. Chabouillet, 'Discours', Bulletin de la Societe des Antiquaires de Normandie XIV 1886/1887,180-220; E. Caron, 'Trouvai1les de monnaies', Annuaire de la Societe Franc:aise de Numismatique X 1886, 138- I 39; E. Caron, 'Quelques mots de numismatique normande', Congres archeologique de France, 56e session, Evreux, 1889, Paris/ Caen 1890,337-344; E. Caron, 'Monnaies normandes avec noms de monetaires', RNJ VII 1889, 343-348. 12 Chabouillet and Caron interpreted certain names as those of two men: Ni(gel) / Go(fridus) or Ri(cardus) / Ni(gel). A. Dieudonne, Manuel de numismatique Iranc:aise IV, Paris 1936, 395, does not rule out totally this interpretation. Serrure, 'Les monetaires normands au Xl e siecle', Bulletin de Numismatique I 1891/1892, 1-3, considers that on every occasion the name is that of only one man. 13 In fact, five names are common out of twenty names of Continental origin: Geoffroy, Hugues, Neel, Raoul, Roger (J. J. North, English hammered coinage I, London 1963, 146-148). Chabouillet does

F. DUMAS

not differentiate between the end of the I Ith and the beginning of the 12th century. 14 (a) Montfort I'Amaury hoard (Yvelines), after 1120, A. de Dion, 'Description des monnaies trouvees it Montfort I'Amaury', Versailles 1886 (reprinted from Compterendu de la Commission des Antiquitl!s et des Arts de Seine-et-Oise VI 1886, 133-146). J. Hermerel, 'Tresor de Montfort I' Amaury', Annuaire de la Societe Franc:aise de Numismatique XIII 1889, 20--38; 93-118. G. Mary, in 'Chronique', RNJ VIII 1890, 493-494· (b) The Nus hoard (Italy, Vald'Aosta). This hoard is unpublished but is mentioned in the account of the Fecamp hoard (n. 3 above), under the name of the Susa hoard. Most of it is in the Cabinet des Medailles, Pairs (946 Norman deniers). A. Pautasso identified the find spot when he showed me the 50 coins from the hoard in his collection. Subsequently, he generously presented to the Cabinet des Medailles the types not represented in the major parcel of the hoard. The hoard also contained a certain number of deniers of Savoy of Count Amadeus III (1103-48), mint of Susa, of which twenty coins are in the Cabinet des Medailles. See A. Lade, 'Contribution it la numismatique des comtes de Savoie', Revue Suisse de Numismatique IV 1894, 100--182 at 104ff. (c) A hoard of unknown origin which once belonged to H. Buchenau of Munich comprising Norman coins and deniers from Provins ofThibaut IV and Henry I, I 152-8 I. Fifteen Norman deniers from the Buchenau collection are in the Nationalmuseet, Copenhagen (information supplied through the kindness of K. Bendixen). See V. Luneau, 'Quelques deniers normands inedits du XIe siecle. Nouvelle trouvaille', RN' xv 191 I, 86-96; A. Blanchet, 'Trouvailles' in the same volume, 463, no. 66. These coins also appear in other finds that contained only Norman coins: (d) One was discovered near Naples. See A. Sambon, 'Les deniers rouennais, monnaie courante du comte d'Aversa, pres de Naples aux XIe et XIIe siecles', Gazette Numismatique Franc:aise 11 1898, 325-330. The others are of uncertain provenance.

15

16

17

18 19

20

2I

(e) V. Luneau, 'Quelques deniers normands inedits du XIe siecle', RN' X 1906, 306-3 I 6. (f) Two hoards, or perhaps a single hoard, which appeared in Brussels. A parcel, or a hoard from this source is in the Bibliotheque Royale, Brussels, acquired in 1952. Part of another parcel or of another hoard was acquired by the Cabinet des Medailles, Paris, from a Belgian collector in 1962. (g) A hoard or part of a hoard, that may have belonged to a collector in the Marne was seen at Maison Platt in 1962. See n. I I above. According to Caron, this hoard, which is incompletely described, contained, in addition to Norman deniers with moneyers' names, some deniers with pseudo-legends, a coin with the name of Rouen, a denier of Conan 11 of Brittany (I062-66), a denier of Geoffroy 11 of Anjou (1040--60) and one royal denierofPhilip I for Dreux (I060-- I 108). The last was very worn, indicating that the hoard was not buried before the end of the 11th century. F. Caron, 'Monnaies normandes', RNJ VII 1889, 343-348. The same is true for the types with geometrical motifs and the inscription NORMANNIA (group C). One of these is inspired by the English pennies of William the Conqueror, of the PAX type, struck c. I086-7. A. Sambon (n. 14(d) above), 329, fig. 3. At Nus, 3% and 6.5%; in the Belgian hoard or hoards, I I % and 12%; in the Luneau hoard (n. 14 (c) above), 9% and 7%. For Ferrieres, Montfort and Luneau 1906, the number of coins is not known precisely enough to permit of a report. See n. 23 below. L. Musset has shown that certain moneyers in the I Ith century, Raoul, Eudes and Renouf, had reasonably assured fortunes'A-t-il existe en Normandie au XIe siecle une aristocratie d'argent?' Annales de Normandie 11 1959,285-299. E. Bridrey, 'Une page oubliee des coutumiers normands. Le chapitre de monneage', Bulletin de la Societe des Antiquaires de Normandie XLVIII 1940, 76-519. This recalls the position occupied by the names of the counts on the first Carolingian

Personal names on Norman coins

22

23

24

25

deniers. E. Gariel, Les monnaies royales de France sous la race carolingienne 11, Strasbourg 1884, pI. i, nos. 2-4; pI. v, no. 8; pI. vii, nos. 54-55,63; pI. ix, no. 113. J. Stiennon, •Le denier de Charlemagne au nom de Roland', Cahiers de civilisation medievale III 1960, 87--95. For the I Ith century, there are traces of three names, of which only that of Raoul is to be found on the coins (see n. 19 above). For the 12th century, L. Musset had drawn attention to the existence of a forger called Henri, who put forged coins into circulation at Bayeux; J. P. Migne, Patrologia Lat. CCI, 144. no. 123; ed. F. Barlow, London 1939, no. 114: a letter from the Bishop Arnulf of Lisieux to Bishop Simon of Meaux. C. Haskins, Norman Institutions, Harvard Historical Studies XXIV, Cambridge, Mass. 1918 (reprinted New York/London 1960), 277-284, Appendix D, art. 13. •Nulli licuit in Normannia monetam facere extra domos monetarias Rothomagi et Baiocarum et illam mediam argenti et ad justum pensum, scilicet VIII solidos in helmarc. Et si aliquis alibi fecit monetam vel ibi fecit monetam falsam de corpore suo fuit in misericordia domini Normanniae. Et si aliquis extra predictas domos fecit facere monetam vel in predictis domibus fecit facere falsam, terram suam et pecuniam forisfecit. Hic autem que superius dicta sunt scripta sunt quia magis necessaria sunt. Remanet autem multum extra hoc scriptum dejusticia monete et reliquis justiciis Normanniae.' J. Yver, •Les premieres institutions du duche de Normandie', I Normanni e la loro espansione in Europa nelf alto medioevo, SSAM XVI 1969, 299-366 at 326ff. See L. Mussel's index rerum to M. Fauroux,

26

27

28

29

...

177

Recueil des actes des ducs de Normandie de 911 a 1066, Caen 1961, 470. M. Musset informs me that M. J.-M. Bouvris is preparing a thesis on the Norman vicomtes of the I Ith century. It will contain a more complete list than the one used here. Aymeri (H. W. C. Davis, Regesta regum anglo-normannorum I. 1066-1100, Oxford 1913, no. I); Eudes (Davis nos. 132, 150, 199); Neel (Davis nos. 131, 199); Rannoux (Davis nos. 92,168,207,308); Raoul (Davis no. 150); Richard (Davis nos. 4, 76); Robert (Davis no. 92a); Roger (Davis nos. 92a, 172); Geoffroi (D. C. Douglas, William the Conqueror, London 1964,94 n. I); Gosselin (Douglas, 94 n. I); Hugues (Fauroux, n. 25 above, 194, for the period 1050--66). Eudes (Haskins, n. 23 above, 63); Guillaume (Haskins, 64 n. 201); Landri (Ordericus Vitalis, ed. M. Chibnall, Oxford 1969-80; reference here to ed. A. = le Prevost Ill, Paris 1845, 371); Rannoux (Haskins 27, no . 70 ,63). Anselme (J. H. Round, Calendar of documents preserved in France ... 1. AD 918-1206, London 1899, no. 168); Arnoul (Round no. 1208); Hugues (Haskins, n. 23 above, 97); I1bert (Gallia Christiana 2 (ed. P. Piolin) XI, Paris 1874, instrumenta col. 130D, 131 B); Ouen (Davis, n. 26 above, 11. 1100--1 135 (ed. C. Johnson, H. A. Cronne), Oxford 1956, no. 1222); Neel (Haskins, 103); Raoul (Davis 11, no. 1023); Roger (Haskins, 96, 104); Roscelin (Ordericus Vitalis, n. 27 above, xiii = le Prevost v, 45). Ordericus Vitalis, n. 27 above, viii = le Prevost Ill, 319,346; ix = le Prevost Ill, 475; xi = le Prevost IV, 199 (Etienne), 199; xii = le Prevost IV, 3 16, 473 (Henri). This paper was written in 1977.

KEY TO ILLUSTRATIONS

Plate 16 A Poey-d'Avant no. 122 var. (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). B As Poey-d'Avant no. 133 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). Cl After Poey-d'Avant, pI. v, no. 6. DI Ni/go. As Chabouillet, n. I I above, pI. i, nos. 3-4 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). D2 Ro/sa. As Chabouillet, pI. iii, no. 22 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). D3 Ste/fan. As Chabouillet, pI. iii, nos. 28-30 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection).

15 The Gornoslav hoard, the Emperor Frederick I, and the Monastery of Bachkovo M.F. HENDY

The Gornoslav hoard was found in the central Bulgarian village of that name, in 1961. The German Emperor Frederick I (Barbarossa) crossed central Bulgaria in the course of the Third Crusade, in 1189/90. The Monastery of Bachkovo, also in central Bulgaria, was founded by Gregory Pacourianus in 1083. It is the aim of this article, written to honour Philip Grierson, whose friendship, encouragement, and support the author has been able to rely upon for many years, to bring these three apparently disparate elements into a tight relationship. In particular, I shall seek to demonstrate the hoard to have been a sum of money, buried during and as a result of the crusade, but originally put aside by an individual, for the specific and regular purposes of the monastery. If successful in this aim, it may be considered as paralleling, and recalling, despite the great disparity in time and place, Grierson's own discovery that the Sutton Hoo Hoard represented some sort of' Charon's Obol' for each member of the potential crew of the ship which formed the basic feature of that remarkable royal burial.l It would also add to the extraordinarily small number of hoards - whether ancient, medieval, or modern - of which the specific and detailed origin and purpose is now known. The hoard was actually discovered 3 km south-east of the village (se/o) of Gornoslav, at a place called Palikhor (i.e. Greek Pa/aia Khora), where there are two medieval chapels, the one dedicated to St Theodore and the other to St Blaise. It was contained in a copper vase, incidentally implying some degree of deliberation in its burial, and the likelihood of completeness in its recovery.2 It comprised 786 gold hyperpyra nomismata (the standard, high-quality, and high-value, gold coin of the period):3 Emperor Number of pieces 239 (fig. I) Alexius I (1081 - 1118) John 11 (11 18-43) 274 (fig. 2) Manuel I (1143-80) 264 (fig. 3) Andronicus I (1183-5) 8 Isaac 11 (1185-95)

179

180

M. F. HENDY

2

3

Representative hyperpyra

IOH Byzantine pounds weight of gold, representing a considerable sum of money, and it was apparently buried at some date not too long after II85. As the largest single body of twelfth-century hyperpyra in existence, detailed examination of it pennitted the sequential and organisational structure of the gold coinage of the period to be established for the first time. 4 The emperor reached the Byzantine frontier, the River Sava, which he crossed on 28 June II89, arriving at the first Byzantine city, the semi-ruined (semidiruta) one of Pelegranum (Beograd), on 29 June. s He then crossed the River Morava on I July, and arrived at Brandiez (Branicevo) on 2 July, leaving it on I I July. His subsequent itinerary, along the traditional route down through the Balkan Peninsula, was as follows: 6 Rabnel (Ravenitsa/Cuprije) (?) Nisa (Nis) 27-30 July Straliz (Sofiya) 13-14 August 'Clusae' (Trajan's Gate/Momina Klisoura) } 20 August 'Circvviz' (Pazardzhik?) Phylippolis (Plovdiv) 24/26 August-5 November Blisimos (Belozem) 7-14 November Adrianopolis (Edirne) 22 November-I/2 March 1190 Rossa (Rus Koy /Ke~an) 18 March Brachol (Brachionion-Hexamilion/Evre~e) 21 March Calipolis (Gelibolu) 22-24 March Relations between Gennans and Byzantines were almost unifonnly hostile, and, particularly during its prolonged occupation of Philippopolis (24/26 August 1189-15 It thus amounted to

The Gornoslav hoard

181

January 1190), and of Adrianopolis (22 November 1189-1/2 March 1190), the German army indulged in an orgy of looting and destruction that was locally intensive and more widely extensive. 7 The monastery of the Theotokos Petritzonitissa, actually sited not at Petrich, but at nearby Bachkovo, was founded and extremely handsomely endowed by the sebastos and megas domestikos of the West, its life being regulated by means of a typikon, dated December 1083, which still survives in Greek and Georgian versions. 8 Its founder, as his name (Grigori Pakourian) indicates, was a member of an illustrious Georgian family which had a record of Byzantine service, and which had transferred from Anatolia to the Balkans because of Sel~uk invasion. 9 Two salient points emerging from the typikon are worth mentioning at this stage. According to the preamble, all monks in the monastery are to know the Georgian written and spoken language (ten lberiken ... graphen kai dialekton);lO according to Chapter I, the monastery is a Georgian one (i.e. is a mone ton lberon);ll according to Chapter 24, no Greek (Rhomaios) priest or monk is to be installed in the monastery.12 In other words, whether by implication or specification, membership of the monastery was confined to Georgians. According to Chapter 2, in which the gifts and offerings (doreai te kai anathemata) donated by the founder are enumerated and described, the estates involved were concentrated into three major geographical groups: in the theme of Phi lippo po lis (i.e. Macedonia); in the theme of Voleron; and in the theme of Thessalonica. Of these groups, the first was by far and away the most considerable in intensity and extent, and the third had been inherited from his brother, the magistros Apasius (Abasi)P Now, Gornoslav itself is situated some 12 km south-east of the town of Asenovgrad (Stenimachus), which is in turn situated some 17 km south-east of the city ofPlovdiv. It lies between the 600 and 700 m contour-lines, on the western slope and towards the base, of a small valley leading more or less southwards up into the Rhodope Mountains, and is one of several villages in the immediate vicinity. As such, it is only 9 km from the Monastery of Bachkovo, which lies on the 500 m contour-line, on the eastern slope of the next valley westwards, similarly leading up into the Rhodope. Village and monastery are physically separated by the 1483 m height of the mountain called Veliki Stara Bounar.14 Both are in a region which provided the most intensely concentrated group of all the monastic estates. Moreover, the three villages which immediately surround Gornoslav in the form of a more or less equilateral triangle, the sides of which do not exceed some 6 km each, that is Cherven, Topolovo, and the former Dobrostan (now Chaoushevo), are clearly to be identified with the khorion tOn Tzerbenon, Topolnitsa (khorion Gelloba), and the agros Dobrostanos, parts or all of which estates were included in the monastic endowment. 15 It therefore follows that the Gornoslav hoard was buried, not merely in a region in which the monastery was at least amongst the largest landowners, but on the land that almost certainly actually belonged to the monastery itself. (Map 2) The precise identity of the sites subjected to attack by the German army whilst in occupation of Philippopolis remains for the most part uncertain, although general

r82

M. F. HENDY

o

Land over 600m

- - - Roads - - - - Tracks or paths

Gorn~

o

5km

'========"

Voden

Asenova Krepost

N

/

/

I I I

I I

\

I

,,

'

GOrnosl:)i"

\ I

".

I

---

I ..

1483

I

I

,I

7- - . /

""",-: Dobrostan \

I I

,

/ I

,

I ,,

"

,,,' --

/ I

I I I

...

\ \ I

\ \

I

...

, ...

J

" I

I

,;----\ " I

"\

Map

.

1325

2

deductions can be made from the tenor of the texts, and particular identifications proposed, in several cases. It seems clear that two main expeditions were mounted : Frederick, duke of Swabia, and Berthold, duke of Dalmatia, led the greater part (maior pars) of the army against the very rich city (civita s opu/entissima) of Veroi . This is quite clearly Berrhoe (Stara Zagora), well to the north-east of Philippopolis, and the occasion of no problem of identification. The imperial marshal Henry of Kalden, the marshal of the bishop of Pa ssau, and , possibly, others, seem to have led the remainder against several more minor sites: Henry of Kalden was responsible for the capture of the very well-fortified and famous fortress (castel/um m un it issim urn ac famosum) of Scribention; the marshal of Passau for that of the city (civitas) of Brandoueus; and possibly others for that of the strong city (urbs firma) of Pernis. 16 With these names, all certainty disappears :

The Gornoslav hoard Scribention has long been identified with Sopot (now Vlasovgrad), well to the north of Plovdiv; and Brandoueus and Pernis with Voden and Petrich respectively, both in the valley of the Monastery of BachkovoY Two of these identifications at least, being based on nothing more than a vague resemblance of names, are almost certainly faulty. Scribention is also described as: 'a certain town not far from Philippopolis, situated on the steep of a mountain ... most strongly fortified as much by the natural position of the place as by its towered walls '.IS Because Sopot is well over 50 km distant from Plovdiv, and because the nearest mountains of any note are to the south of the latter, and certainly not to the north, Scribention cannot be identified with Sopot. More recently the textual requirement that Scribention be near Plovdiv, and be outstanding for its natural position and fortifications, has led to its identification with the well-known Asen's Fortress (Asenova Krepost).19 This is situated only some 20 km south-east of Plovdiv, some 2} km south of Asenovgrad, and at the entrance to the valley in which the Monastery of Bachkovo lies. This still represents. the more plausible identification, although there exists a minor embarrassment in the fortress also being a candidate for identification as the kastron Petritzos mentioned in several more or less contemporary sources, and which is itself known to have been also called Basilikis, and later Stenimakhos. 20 The three names (Scribention, Petritzos, Basilikis) may well be alternatives for the same site. Certainly, a further piece of textual evidence, to be mentioned below, suggests the identification of Scribention with Asen's Fortress to be essentially correct. 21 The identification of Brandoueus with Voden, actually Gorno Voden, in the foothills of the Rhodope, and some 3 km due west of Asenovgrad, has little for it, but nothing against it, and may well be correct. In any case, Voden seems very likely to represent the kastron UJn Bodinon of the typikon. 22 The identification of Pernis with Petrich cannot be correct if the equation Scribention = Petritzos = Basilikis is correct, and is in fact unlikely. Pernis of the Latin texts is surely identical with the fortress (phrourion) called Prousenos of the Greek one, where the governor of the theme of Philippopolis (Nicetas Choniates, the historian, himself) joined his forces to those of the protostrator Manuel Camytzes, in a futile attempt to resist the Germans. The latter had to cross a level plain (le ion pedion), obviously the Thracian Plain, to reach it, but it was itself amongst hills (bounoi) and on a ridge (lophos), and when the Byzantine forces were defeated they could flee from there to the region of Achrida, that is southwards, into the middle Rhodope. 23 Like Brandoueus, Pernis is therefore certainly to be sought in the foothills of the Rhodope. It is very likely the same as Prenezes of the typikon, possibly Branipole, but the site remains uncertain. 24 Whatever the uncertainties of particular identifications, it seems clear that Scribention, Brandoueus, and Pernis, are all to be sought in the foothills of, or not far into, the Rhodope, and all are likely to have been in the vicinity of Asenovgrad, perhaps even in the valley of the Monastery of Bachkovo. That Scribention, at least, was so situated is decisively confirmed by the Latin text, which remarks that above Scribention there was situated a cloister of monks and that Henry of Kalden afterwards led the abbot of that same monastery, who was ex Hibernia ortus, to the emperor.25 Now, although it is not impossible that there really was an abbot

M. F. HENDY

of Irish origin around, it is nevertheless improbable, and the correction from ex Hibernia ortus to ex (H)iberia ortus is now generally accepted. 26 The abbot was, in other words, a Georgian, and if he was that he can only have been the abbot of Bachkovo. It is true that Bachkovo is not' above' (supra) Asen's Fortress/Scribention in the immediately physical sense, but it is further up the same valley, and in that quite legitimate sense 'above' it, by some 4 km onlyY The Germans, then, took Bachkovo, and carried off its abbot. As it happens, the life of the monastery was regulated by a typikon that is so detailed as to permit a reconstruction both of its personnel and of its finances. There were to be an abbot (kathegoumenos) and a total of 50 monks (monazontoi): IS monks of the first rank (prote taxis), including the priest-monks (hierougountes presbyteroi), the various monastic officials - the skeuophylax kai dokheiarios, in charge of ecclesiastical valuables (keimelia), cash (logaria) from revenues (eisodoi), and expenditure (exodon), two agents (epitropoi) in charge of the monastic estates, and so on - and the more notable of the brethren (tOn adelphon enkritoi kai homotropoi); IS monks of the second rank (deutera taxis); and 20 monks of the third rank (trite taxis). These were all to be paid an annual salary (rhoga) according to the following scale and sums: 28 I

kathegoumenos

= 36 nomismata

IS monks (1st rank) @ 20 nomismata = 300 nomismata IS monks (2nd rank) @ IS nomismata = 225 nomismata 20 monks (3rd rank) @ 10 nomismata = 200 nomismata TOTAL = 761 nomismata

The cash of the salaries was to be paid in the histamenon trachy, the standard (but at this date increasingly debased) gold coin of the time, and the salaries themselves ought theoretically to have been paid in September, when all the revenues of whatever kind would just (takha) have been gathered in and collected. 29 The collection of monastic revenues would thus have followed imperial financial practice, using a financial year (the indictio) commencing on I September. However, so as to avoid the monks' having to travel far, and to remove themselves a great distance from the monastery (according to Chapter IS of the typikon, forbidden without the permission of the abbot),30 in order to purchase their items of clothing (endymata) and so on, the salaries were actually paid on the following Easter Sunday, when the annual fair (panegyris) took place, beside the monastery. In such a way, all needs (khreiai) could be satisfied locally, at the fair, and the necessity for travel avoided. 31 The payment of salaries, ostensibly for reasons of morality and convenience, thus took place again according to imperial practice, which utilised Holy Week for the purpose. 32 What this meant in effect was that payment was held over for some six months, and whatever the reasons for this, they were not economic ones. At much the same time as the annual payment of salaries took place, and actually on Maundy Thursday, the annual commemoration of the Pacourianus brothers' father, the arkhon ton arkhontOn Pacourianus, came round, and at this 24 nomismata were to be distributed to the poor (tois peneSi).33 Thus, there would have had to have been held back

The Gornoslav hoard from out of the monastic revenues, from September until the following Holy Week, 785 (761 +24) nomismata. The Gornoslav hoard comprised 786 nomismata. 34 The evidence therefore seems to dictate a reconstruction of events along the following lines. The Emperor Frederick I, having passed Trajan's Gate, and entered the lower Thracian Plain at Circvviz on 20 August I 189, arrived before Philippopolis on 24 August and entered it on 26 August, finding it deserted by its governor, garrison, and most of its population.3~ The emperor had received an unsatisfactory letter from the Emperor Isaac II on 25 August, hearing of the detention of his ambassadors at Constantinople on the same day.36 Open hostilities commenced almost immediately, with a skirmish with Byzantine forces in the neighbourhood. 37 Again, difficulties over the provisioning of the army also commenced almost immediately, and a series of expeditions, partly simply in search of provisions, and partly punitively in search of more valuable plunder, seem to have been mounted. 3s The revenues of the Monastery of Bachkovo for the financial year I September 1188-31 August 1189 will all have been collected and gathered by I September 1189. That this must have been the case is indicated by the fact that the first specific and regular expenditure of the year, the distribution (dianome) of 72 nomismata (i.e. I lb gold) to the poor (hoi en Khristo adelphoi) and of 24 nomismata again to the poor and to guests (xenoi), on the occasion of the commemoration of Apasius Pacourianus, took place on 20 September. 39 The revenues involved will have been delivered to the monastery by the two agents (epitropoi) in charge of the monastic estates (horioi), one in charge of those in the region of Philippopolis, the other of those in the region of Mosynopolis and its surrounding area (i.e. in Voleron-Thessalonica).40 That the epitropoi must have been present in early September is indicated by the fact that it was then (and at Easter) that the megas oikonomos or skeuophylax kai dokheiarios received their accounts and gave them quittance (apodeixis).41 The text of the typikon implies, and the composition of the hoard confirms, that although the various revenues involved will originally have been paid in various monetary denominations, they will subsequently have been changed into, and delivered and stored in, the standard one, the gold hyperpyron, only.42 It was clearly at this stage that the kathegoumenos extracted (exodiazeto) what was necessary for the needs of the church and of the monastery (eis tas tes ekklesias khreias kai tes mones) - obviously those specific and regular ones occurring over the course of the incoming financial year - and handed over (doto) the remainder which was not to be spent (to katalimpenomenon anexodiaston) - or at least not on specific and regularly occurring needs - to the dokheiarios, and on so having done received the latter's quittance. 43 It was at Easter, obviously after the kathegoumenos had fulfilled all these needs, that he rendered his accounts (logariazestho) in the presence of the oikonomos, the dokheiarios, and the brotherhood (adelphotes).44 From the remainder (controlled not by the kathegoumenos but by the dokheiarios), the monastery was to retain 10 lb (i.e. 720 nomismata) in cash, so that it could satisfy its (occasional) needs, and the final surplus funds (ta hyperperisseumata) were to be given over towards the purchase of a property (eis agoran ktematos)

186

M. F. HENDY

which was to remain under monastic ownership, an interesting and significant comment upon the nature of, and the limitations upon, contemporary investment. 45 What the kathegoumenos of the time will have extracted, early in September 1189, is calculable with some degree of certainty: the 96 (72+24) nomismata for the commemoration of Apasius Pacourianus on 20 September 1189;46 the 96 (72+24) nomismata for the commemoration of Gregory Pacourianus himself on an unfortunately unknown date (September-November 1189?) in 1189/90;47 the 6 nomismata for the commemoration of Gregory, the first kathegoumenos of the monastery, on the Feast of St Gregory the Theologian (i.e. Nazianzenus) on 25/30 January 1190;48 the 24 nomismata for the commemoration of the arkh15n tOn arkhontOn Pacourianus on Maundy Thursday (22 March) 1190;49 and the 761 nomismata for the payment of monastic salaries on Easter Sunday (25 March) 119050 - a total of 983 nomismata. Of this total he will have spent, by the late autumn 1189, the 96 nomismata for Apasius (20 September), and, possibly, the 96 nomismata for Gregory (September-November), leaving a possible 791 nomismata to be held over until January/March 1190. However, by the late autumn 1189, events were moving fast, as it happened, too fast. News of the approach of the Emperor Frederick must have preceded his actual arrival at Philippopolis on 24/26 August. The monastery, in a minor valley in the Rhodope, may well have hoped, and indeed even expected, to have escaped attention, for there can then have been no reason to suppose that the emperor intended a long stay at, or occupation of, the city, or a systematic plundering of its surrounding area. Indeed, the monastery, protected as it was by an imperial fortress, had no reason to suppose that imperial forces would not be successful in containing the Germans, and that even if they were not capable of so doing, that the fortress at the entrance to the valley would be attacked and would fall. All that may have happened is that the monastery took particularly good care to have its annual revenues in on time. In any case, the events of the monastic year moved on, and customary expenditure took place, until both an hiatus occurred in the events and expenditure, and the German situation became more and more acutely threatening. At this stage, it must be assumed, the kathegoumenos, keeping the 6 nomismata for January, and not needing the remaining 785 nomismata until the following Holy Week, and in pressing fear of the Germans, transferred them - or at least had them transferred - to a secret place on the monastic estates in a reasonably nearby but even more minor valley in the Rhodope. That place was the medieval equivalent of the modern Gornoslav. But at some subsequent stage, the fortress was attacked by, and did fall to, the Germans, and the monastery was also taken, and its kathegoumenos carried off to the German emperor. Precisely when this occurred remains uncertain. Leaving aside the evidence of the expenditure/hoard-content relationship as providing the basis of a circular argument only, it still seems likely to have occurred quite late on in the year. Certainly, the Greek text remarks that the events which included the Byzantine defeat at Prousenos - which itself seems identical with the Latin text's reference to the taking of Pernis by the Germans - occurred in November.51 Equally certainly, the Latin text records the bishop of Passau as raiding the fortress of Bacon (Batkoun), again in the

The Gornoslav hoard foothills of the Rhodope, but some 45 km due west of Phi lip po po lis, between Frederick's own departure from the city (5 November) and that of the garrison which he had left there (15 January 1190).52 According to the accepted version of the Latin text, on having the abbot brought to him, Frederick 'subsequently kept him in his presence on friendly terms, ~nd took care to treat him with unexpected honour'.53 The length of time involved is not specified, although some considerable time is clearly implied: quite conceivably the abbot was retained even after Frederick had crossed from the Balkans into Anatolia. What happened subsequently remains entirely unclear. Possibly the abbot, for whatever reason, never returned. He may well have feared charges of collaboration with the enemy, for Frederick had made considerable use of ethnic minorities, particularly the Armenians, and although he stipulated, in the eventual treaty, that Isaac should pardon all who had followed and served him, whether Greeks, Armenians, or Latins, compliance obviously could not be guaranteed. 54 Possibly the abbot did return, but found that his agent in the transfer of the remaining 785 nomismata had, for whatever reason, disappeared. In any event, the money was never recovered, and the hoard remained undisturbed until 1961. One minor question, which is implicit, remains as yet unanswered: why did the Gornoslav hoard actually contain one more hyperpyron than might have been expected that is, 786 not 785 hyperpyra? On the assumption that simple miscounting should be ruled out, the answer is in fact still devastatingly simple in practical terms. 55 The monastic salaries, delivered and stored as 761 gold hyperpyra, were, by the terms of the typikon, also paid out in that form. The distribution to the poor, delivered and stored as 24 hyperpyra, could, with very considerable luck (or management, or both) only, have been

4

5

Representative subordinate denominations

6

188

M. F. HENDY

paid out in that form - that is, only if the number of poor recipients were to have been exactly 24 or were to have been some such sub-multiple of that number as 12, 8, or 6, and so on. In effect, the gold hyperpyra would have had to have been changed down into subordinate denominations: whether electrum trachea (24 x 3 = 72) (fig. 4); or billon trachea (24 x 120 = 2,880) (fig. 5); copper tetartera (24 x 864 = 20,736). (fig. 6).56 As it happens, similar distributions, stipulated in the typikon of the metropolitan Monastery of the Pantokrator, founded and endowed by the Emperor John 11 in 1136, were paid out either in the form of a mixture of billon and copper, or in that of copper alone. 57 The distributions stipulated in the typikon of the Monastery of Bachkovo certainly are on a much more handsome scale, and the billon trachy only, and not the copper tetarteron as well, apparently circulated in Bulgaria, but the principle remains the same. 58 For the service of changing down from hyperpyra to other denominations, recourse would have been necessary to a banker - an argyroprates or trapezites - of which a number will doubtless have been attracted to the panegyris, and for this service a small fee will have been charged and paid. The scale of such fees at this particular period is uncertain, but i4 or 1 keration per nomisma would at an earlier one have been quite normal. 59 At such a scale, 1 nomisma would have been charged on 24. The Gornoslav hoard therefore consisted of 761 hyperpyra (for salaries) + 24 hyperpyra (for distribution) + 1 hyperpyron (for service), or a total of 786 hyperpyra. The Gornoslav hoard poses an amusing intellectual problem, and the supporting material provides an elegant solution, but this should not disguise the fact that the hoard thereby becomes one of the most important and significant - perhaps the single most important and significant - in the study of Byzantine numismatics and monetary history: that is, not only for the study of the internal sequence and the organisational structure of the gold coinage, but also for the study of the use of coinage, and the dynamics and nature of its circulation. With regard to the latter, it is of the greatest interest to know that the monastery still operated according to its founder's typikon (1083) in 1189/90, that it stored its monetary revenue in the form of the gold coinage, and that it invested its surplus revenue in the form of land. It follows, too, that the monastery had not lost out on the period of monetary debasement of c. 1071-92, and that the histamenon trachy had been succeeded by the hyperpyron in its accounts. The monastery must also have acted as a very considerable factor in the formation of the local circulating medium; it both extracted coin in the form of revenue from different regions such as Philippopolis and Voleron-Thessalonica, so probably accentuating the presence ofthe products of these regional mints,60 and injected coin into local circulation in the form of expenditure. Further, it tended to do this at particular times (20 September, 25/30 January, Maundy Thursday, Easter Sunday, and so on), through particular mechanisms (the commemoration of benefactors, the distribution to the poor, the payment of salaries, and so on), and at a particular place (the monastery itself, and the panegyris, effectively the same). Over the course of a century and more, this may well have had an appreciable effect, and would need to be taken into general account, if it could not be precisely assessed, in any monetary study of the area.

The Gornoslav hoard NOTES

P. Grierson, 'The purpose of the Sutton Hoo coins', Antiquity XLIV 1970, 14-18 (reprinted in Dark Age numismatics as article ix). 2 Kh. Dzhambov, 'Novotkreto Sukrovishte ot Zlato Monete pre C. Gornoslav Plovdivsko', Arkheologiya III-iv 1961, 1-5. 3 M. F. Hendy, Coinage and money in the Byzantine Empire 1081-1261 (hereafter Coinage and money), Dumbarton Oaks Studies XII, Washington, D.C. 1969, 343-344· 4 Hendy, Coinage and money, 90-96, 107-I 08, 122-124, 181-182. 5 For the sources for, and the general course of, the Third Crusade see E. N. Johnson 'The Crusades of Frederick Barbarossa and Henry VI', A history of the Crusades 11. The later Crusades, [[89-13[[2 (ed. R. L. Wolff, H. W. Hazard), Madison 1969, 87-114. 6 'Ansbert', Historia de expeditione Friderici lmperatoris (hereafter Expeditione) (ed. A. Chroust), Scriptores rerum germanicarum 2 Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Beriin 1928, 26-70; Anonymous, Historia Peregrinorum (ed. A. Chroust) 131-152. For the minor sources see n. 5 above. 7 For Philippopolis see pp. 182-184, 185, 186-187 below. 8 For the Greek text see ' Typikon de Gregoire Pacourianos pour le Monastere de Petritzos (Backovo) en Bulgarie' (hereafter Typikon) (ed. L. Petit), Vizantiiskii Vremennik XI 1904, Supplement I, 1-63. For a summary, and extended commentary see P. Lemerie, 'Le Typikon de Gregoire Pakourianos decembre 1083' (hereafter Cinq etudes), in Lemerie, Cinq etudes sur le XI" siecle byzantin, Paris 1977, 113-191. 9 Lemerie, Cinq etudes, 158-175. 10 Typikon (ed. Petit), I. 11 Typikon (ed. Petit), 7. The phrase, or similar, is repeated elsewhere. 12 Typikon (ed. Petit), 44-45. 13 Typikon (ed. Petit), 10-14; Lemerie, Cinq etudes, 175-181. 14 British War Office, Bulgaria 1:250,000, Sheet B-12 (1943), Sheet B-13 (1944). 15 Lemerie, Cinq etudes, 176-177. I

16 'Ansbert', Expeditione (ed. Chroust), 44, 45· 17 E.g., recently, Johnson, n. 5 above, 102. 18 Anonymous, Historia peregrinorum, n. 6 above, 141: oppidum quoddam haud longe a Philippopoli in arduo montis situm . .. , tam naturali positione loci quam menibus turritis jirmissime communitum. 19 D. Tsonchev, S. Stoilov, 'La Forteresse d' Assen ' , Byzantinoslavica XXII 196 I, 20-54. 20 Tsonchev, Stoilov, n. 19 above, 22-23; Lemerie, Cinq etudes, 177. 21 See below, this page, and p. 184. 22 Lemerie, Cinq etudes, 176. 23 Nicetas Choniates, Historia (ed. J.-L. van Dieten), Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae XI, Beriin 1975, 402-403, 408-409; C. Asdracha, La region des Rhodopes aux XnFetXIV' siecles, Athens 1976, 10. 24 Typikon Chapter 2 = Petit, 10 (Prenezes); Lemerie, Cinq etudes, 176 (Hagia Barbara). 25 'Ansbert', Expeditione (ed. Chroust), 45: supra quod [sc. castellum Scribention] etiam claustrum monachorum erat situm ... abbatem praeterea monasterii eiusdem ex Hibernia ortum ad imperatorem adduxit [sc. Hainricus de Chalintin]. 26 E.g., recently, C. M. Brand, Byzantium confronts the West [[80-1204, Cambridge, Mass. 1968, 182. 27 Bulgaria 1:250,000, Sheet B-13; Tsonchev, Stoilov (n. 19 above), 21. 28 Typikon, Chapters 6, 9 = Petit, 21-23, 26. 29 Typikon, Chapter 6 = Petit, 26. 30 Typikon (ed. Petit), 32-35. 31 Typikon, Chapter 6 = Petit, 26-27. 32 M. F. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine monetary economy c. 300-1450, Cambridge (in progress). 33 Typikon, Chapter 21 = Petit, 43. 34 See p. 179 above. 35 'Ansbert', Expeditione (ed. Chroust), 38-39; Nicetas Choniates, Historia, n. 23 above,

40 3. 36 'Ansbert', Expeditione (ed. Chroust), 39. 37 'Ansbert', Expeditione (ed. Chroust), 44. This particular skirmish may, or may not, have been identical with Nicetas' skirmish at Prousenos (see p. 183 above). If it was, then

M. F. HENDY

Nicetas' chronology is thrown into doubt (see p. 186 below). 38 'Ansbert', Expeditione (ed. Chroust), 44-45; Nicetas Choniates, Historia (n. 23 above), 408. 39 Typikon, Chapter 21 = Petit, 41. 40 Typikon, Chapter 6 = Petit, 2 I. 41 Typikon, Chapter 26 = Petit, 46. 42 The typikon mentions nomismata, khrysiou nomismata, and histamena trachea only; the hoard was composed of hyperpyra entirely. 43 Typikon, Chapter 26 = Petit, 46. 44 Typikon, Chapter 26 = Petit, 46. 45 Typikon, Chapter 26 = Petit, 46. 46 See p. 185 above 47 Typikon, chapter 21 = Petit, 41-42, The precise date of the death and commemoration of Gregory himself is given neither in the typikon nor in relevant documents from the Athoni te mone ton Iberon (Lemerle, Cinq etudes, 171). The date of 25 January is that of the feast of his name-sake, and presumably patron, St Gregory the Theologian (below). Anna Comnena, Alexiad vi. 14.5 (ed. B. Leib), Paris 1937, 11, 83 briefly reports the fact and somewhat pathetic nature of his death; he was thrown from his horse against an oak, and presumably broke his neck, in battle with the 'Scyths' (i.e. Patzinaks), at Beliatova, probably Belovitsa just north-west of Philippopolis. The yeaI' was apparently 1086, the time of year the campaigning season (roughly April-November), but no further precision is reaIly possible, Anna (Alexiad vi.14.5; (ed. Leib) 11, 83) reports that, in a subsequent counter-campaign, the imperial commander, Taticius, encamped around Philippopolis at the edge of the river (i.e. the Maritsa), where it flowed past Blisnos. This gives the location of the Latin text's Blisimos (see p. 180 above). Both must be identical with modern Belozem, by the river, some 25 km due east of Plovdiv, for which see Bulgaria I :250,000, Sheet B-13 (n. 14 above). 48 Typikon, Chapter 30 = Petit, 50. 49 See p. 184 above. 50 See p. 184 above. 51 Nicetas Choniates, Historia, n. 23 above, 410. But see n. 37 above. 52 'Ansbert', Expeditione (ed. Chroust), 56.

For the Batkoun hoard of billon trachea, clearly buried on this occasion see Hendy, Coinage and money, 328. 53 'Ansbert', Expeditione (ed. Chroust), 45: quem [sc. abbatem] deinceps imperator familiariter penes se habuit et insperato honore studuit tractare. 54 'Ansbert ',Expeditione (ed. Chroust),65-66: Indulget etiam Constantinopolitanus imperator omnibus qui secuti sunt serenissimum imperatorem Romanorum (sic) et servierunt ei e Grecis, Armenis et Latinis. 55 Miscounting is, however, by no means impossible as an explanation: it is very difficult to count consistently and accurately the contents of a large heap of gold coins, the form in which the Gornoslav hoard was presented to me, when I first saw and studied it, in the Plovdiv Archaeological Museum, in 1965. However, the explanation below stiII seems more likely. 56 For the values of the electrum and billon trachea see Hendy, Coinage and money, 18-20, 2()--23. For that of the copper tetartiron see M. F. Hendy, Catalogue of the Byzantine coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection IV. 1081-1261. Washington, D.C. (in progress). 57 'Le typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantocrator' (ed. P. Gautier), Revue des Etudes Byzantines XXXII 1974, 39, 39-40, 41, 90, 105, 107. 58 Hendy, Coinage and money, 311: a (firsthand) impression, subsequently confirmed by private correspondence (20.6.78) with Mr Ivan Iordanov of Shoumen, who has even more recently studied monetary circulation in twelfth- and thirteenth-century Bulgaria. I hope to take this question up elsewhere. 59 Argyropratai and trapezitai: Hendy, n. 32 above. Fees: Hendy in the same study. 60 The products of the mints of Philippopolis and Thessalonica in the Gornoslav hoard represent over 23 %of the total for the reign of Alexius, although the figures are much less for those of John and Manuelprobably because of decreasing production rather than changes in revenue/expenditure and circulation.

The Gornoslav hoard

19 1

KEY TO ILLUSTRATIONS

(All Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge) Text figures 1 Alexius I, post-reform hyperpyron, Constantinople mint, as Hendy, Coinage and money, pI. iv, no. 3 (FM: general collection). 2 John 11, hyperpyron, Constantinople mint, as Hendy, Coinage and money, pI. ix, no. 3 (FM: Dewick gift). 3 Manuel I, hyperpyron, Constantinople mint, as Hendy, Coinage and money, pI. xii, no. II (FM: Trinity College loan). 4 Manuel I, electrum trachy, Constantinople mint, as Hendy, Coinage and money, pI. xiii, no. 7 (FM: Bunn gift). 5 Manuel I, billon trachy, Constantinople mint, generally as Hendy, Coinage and money, pI. xv, no. 5 var. (FM: Sherborn gift). 6 Manuel I, copper tetarteron, Constantinople mint, as Hendy, Coinage and money, pI. xvii, no. 12 (FM: Sherborn gift).

16 Coinages of Barcelona (1209 to 1222): the documentary evidence* T. N. BISSON

The early thirteenth century was an eventful time in the monetary history of Catalonia. After an extended period of stability, the quaternal silver (i.e. containing four pence in the shilling and so one-third fine) of Barcelona was debased by Pere I (Pedro II in Aragon) in 1209, then restored three years later, only to be altered again under Jaume (Jaime) I beginning in 1222. Moreover, these mutations followed, and in one case coincided with, levies of the money-tax (monetaticum; Cat.: monedatge), an imposition originally devised to compensate the ruler for maintaining his coinage stable. There is no lack of evidence that these events occasioned public concern in Catalonia. l

diner

ob a!

diner

PERE I

PERE I

JAUME I

(Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection)

The evidence is chiefly documentary. As for the coins, while the extant diners and obols have been satisfactorily classified, they are not very abundant nor do they correspond to all the coinages known from written sources. 2 Thus we lack specimens of Pere 1's doblench coinage, which can hardly have tempted hoarders and which must speedily have disappeared. What the texts have to say, often with enticing precision, is more interesting, but also more difficult to interpret. One problem has been that the early narrative evidence was so garbled in its transmission as to obscure the true chronology of coinages and monetary decrees. This problem has lately been solved by Professor

193

194

T. N. BISSON

Grierson. 3 But it remains difficult to reconcile the information on monetary values provided by certain other sources, the more so because the archival records of the period have been very incompletely explored from this point of view. Some new texts relating to these coinages have recently come to light, and it is my purpose in these pages to show what the documentary evidence now available seems to tell us about monetary practice and policy in early thirteenth-century Catalonia.

The most extended and circumstantial accounts of the recoinages under Pere I and his son are found in two late sources: the Chronicon Barcinonense (hereafter CB)4 and the Rubriques de Bruniquer. 5 The CB, which dates from the early fourteenth century, refers to coinages from 1200 to 1258 in a curious jumble of entries which may be classified as follows: (I) a first annal pertaining to the' coinage of Barcelona which was called bruna' which' was circulating in 1200 and lasted until 1209'; (2) four entries mentioning in chronological order the recoinages of 1209, 1213, 1222 and 1258; (3) three dated decrees relative to the value of coined silver in 1213 and (apparently) 1222-3. Now of these entries all but the first may be spoken of as 'hard information' based on prior records of the coinage and the notariate; at least one such record, an account of proceeds from the recoinage of 1222, survives today. The first entry, however, seems to be a contrivance from memory or imagination. Lacking concrete information on the old money prior to the recoinages which chiefly interested him, the annalist called it bruna so as to contrast it with the bossonaya struck in 1209, and assigned it an approximate date (1200), not of its issuance but when 'it was circulating'.6 Now this vague annal was surely the source (or was related to a source) of Bruniquer's assertion that 'en lany 1200,10 Rey Namfos principia, y scampa moneda apellada Bruna, evalia 10 march de argent en Barcelona 63 s[ous], edura la dita moneda nou anys'. But it should be observed that Bruniquer, who wrote late in the sixteenth century, was at once more vague and more precise than the CB: he mistakenly says that Alfons I (1162-96) was still reigning in 1200 and he asserts that silver was then valued at 63s. to the mark. What is more, Bruniquer alludes to two other coinages prior to that of 1209: one in 1137, when (he says) Ramon Berenguer IV struck a 'moneda menuda apellada mancussos' of which there were 57 to the mark of silver; the other in II85 when 'the count of Barcelona' issued' altre moneda menuda apellada Bussana', of which there were 5 I to the mark of silver. 7 The precision of these references, it now becomes clear, is spurious. While it is not inconceivable that Count Ramon Berenguer IV (II31-62) struck a new coinage in the year of his accession to the principate of Aragon, this can hardly have been a gold coinage (mancusos) valued at 57 to the mark of silver! As for the entry of 1185, which mentioned an unspecified' count of Barcelona', it confirms our impression from the entry for 1200 that Bruniquer was poorly informed about the count-king Alfons I. And in this case again the asserted equivalence is dubious: a coinage at 5 IS. to the mark of silver would, indeed, have been slightly weaker than the diners otherwise known to have circulated in this

Coinages of Barcelona

195

period, but it would have been stronger than the supposed mancusos of 1137, and much stronger than the bossonaya of the early thirteenth century.8 So it looks as if Bruniquer, like the CB, really knew very little about the coinages prior to those of 1209 to 1222. It was this new epoch of recoinages that concerned these chroniclers. The Rubriques become more detailed regarding monetary events starting in 1210, which are set forth in two classes of entries corresponding to those of the CB already mentioned: (I) the recoinages of 1213 and 1222 (Bruniquer omits the bossonaya coinage of 1209, and he adds a recoinage in 1214); (2) valuations of coinage relative to the mark of silver. But while the mentions of recoinage partly duplicate those of the CB, the valuations of Bruniquer are much more detailed than his predecessor's. From March 1210 to February 1212 Bruniquer lists prices of the mark for every two or three months, resulting in an index beginning at 55s. (March-May 1210), rising steadily to reach 69 by summer 1211, jumping to 90 in November 1211, then falling back to 84 for the period December 1211-February 1212, when this series concludes. A second series ofvaluations is appended to Bruniquer's mention of the new coinage of22 March 1213: 91s. in March, 108 in April, rising to 142 in October and reaching 180 in November 1213-February 1214 when, Bruniquer adds in a reference unique to his account, a new coinage was issued at 64S. to the mark. 9 It is tempting to reject Bruniquer's independent figures out of hand. Once again his chronology is confused, as he seems to make Pere I (who reigned from 1196 to September 1213) responsible for a new coinage in 1214. Not one of his valuations corresponds to those provided by the CB for 21 April 1213,2 August (1222) and 2 January (1223); and in the one case where he prices a new coinage in terms of the mark - the doblench of 1222 - he is quite wrong.!o Nevertheless, it is most unlikely that Bruniquer simply invented those valuations. The ones for 1210-1212 correspond at least approximately to some of those otherwise known for the coinage of these years, as we shall see. Moreover, the spiralling tendency of these prices plausibly describes the short-run situation of markets in which the more reliable older coins were being driven out of circulation. The real problem, then, is not so much the accuracy of Bruniquer's valuations as the monetary and commercial circumstances they illustrate. From what kinds of records, made for what purposes, do they derive?

11

These questions take us back to the contemporary sources for the recoinages of 1209-22. They are chiefly of two kinds: records of the mint and notarial instruments specifying payments in sales or repayments of loans. But it seems clear that there once existed documents of a third kind: decrees or conventions stipulating the value of coinage(s) in circulation. The CB alludes to three such decrees, all now lost, but presumably in the king's name.!1 And there survives the royal confirmation of a vicarial ordinance concerning the currency of doblench money late in 1222.12 Now it is probably not accidental that the first known decrees of this kind in Catalonia

T. N. BISSON

nearly coincided with the new coinages of altered intrinsic value beginning in 1213. There had been no such declaration, so far as we know, when the steeply reduced bossonaya was struck in 1209; this was a surreptitious mutation, which soon caused confusion on the exchanges as payers tried to settle obligations in the new coins without adjustment. In these circumstances, failing a royal remedy - and Pere I was in desperate financial straits at this time13 - the changers and notaries had to fend for themselves. It was surely they who prevailed on the king to sanction reasonable prices for the recoinage beginning in 12 I 3; and it was in earlier records of their informal agreements, I suspect, that Bruniquer's valuations had their origin. One of these agreements, or something akin to them, has survived in the archives of the cathedral chapter of Barcelona. 14 It is a memorandum of adjusted values in the newly debased coinage, evidently intended to serve as a guide for the settlement of obligations undertaken in 1211 and the early months of 1212. It may be interpreted tentatively as follows: Debts contracted before John the Baptist (24 June) 121 I are to be repaid at the rate of 60S. per mark (instead of 44s., the standard for the old quaternal money). Debts contracted between 24 June and Christmas 1211 are to be repaid at the rate of 3d. for every 2d. stipulated (or in other words, presumably, at 66s. to the mark). Debts contracted since Christmas 1211, however, may be repaid diner for diner,15 for these contracts are understood to be established in the new prevailing coinage. Quaternal diners and diners of Melgueil are equivalent, rated at 33s. to the mark (but this ratio is probably mistaken, having perhaps been derived by halving the ratio established above for the diners circulating after 24 June 1211).16 Fixed renders in morabetins - this item and the rest seem to belong early in 1212 - are worth I4S. in diners (or just twice their former value); renders in diners are likewise to be doubled. The two final entries related to obligations in morabetins and mazmudins, and in marks and biscanii in silver. These are to be settled in the gold or silver units stipulated in order to avoid the uncertainty of their exchange value in diners. With this text we come to solid ground. What it lacks in perspective it makes up in first-hand detail. Despite some obscurities or imperfections, it provides the earliest extant evidence that the new money circulating in 1211-12 was a doblench coinage: the values in customary renders long paid in quaternal diners have been doubled. Within its more limited period, moreover, the contemporary memorandum substantially confirms Bruniquer's valuations: Memorandum Date

1211,

before 24 June

Bruniquer Value 60S.

24 June-25 December [66s.] 1211-1212, after 25 December [88s.]

Date

121 I,

March-May June-October November 1211-1212, December-February

Value 66s. 69s. 90S . 84s.

Finally, when read together with Bruniquer, the memorandum supports the deduction drawn above from the later sources (although it does not, of course, prove it) that as late as 1212 the king had still made no public pronouncement relative to the debased

Coinages of Barcelona

197

billon. That is why the two records correspond only approximately, reflecting diversely timed local reactions to a common tendency in monetary exchange at Barcelona. That is why neither record explicitly arrives at 88s. to the mark for the new coinage: in the absence of official notice, who could yet be sure that the new coinage was precisely one-half of the old in intrinsic value? That public uncertainty persisted can be demonstrated in another way. Had the king declared his recoinage publicly there would surely have been some repercussion in the bullion clauses of not ariaI instruments, probably quite generally in Catalonia, but surely in those of Barcelona and its near vicinity. Now it is true that stipulations of evaluation or alternative currency had become remarkably inflexible, virtually formulaic, in Catalonian notarial practice toward 1200. But that is largely because the coinages had, in fact, remained tolerably steady since the I 180s; in these circumstances, few thought it necessary to verify actual rates of exchange, which probably varied little from the conventional 44s. to the markY The latter value continued to be stipulated in 1209, 1210 and 1211 when the debased coins passed into circulation. IS Nevertheless, there appear clear signs of uneasiness in the instruments of these years. In April 1209 (or perhaps more likely 1210: the date is effaced) the word quaternus makes its appearance to describe the silver of' good coinage of Barcelona ... current at Barcelona' in which a loan of 1,500s. is to be repaid,l9 In March 121 I (new style) King Pere was obliged to promise a major creditor repayment at the rate of 50S. to the mark' if. .. the coinage of Barcelona should be diminished in weight or alloy', a stipulation which, if conservative by comparison with the values then indicated by our other sources, suggests that the formulaic evaluation was losing its validity.20 Then, in the latter months of 1211 and in 1212, if my sample of charters is not misleading, the old evaluation of 44S. to the mark abruptly disappears,2I not to be seen again until the restoration of the quaternal money in 1213.22 This change is too marked to be altogether fortuitous. The monetary confusion of these months is apparent in the resort of royal financiers to valuations in the coinage of Melgueil. 23 Perhaps Bruniquer was not wildly astray when he recorded valuations for 1212 soaring from 91s. to as high as 180s. to the mark; the latter figure would have corresponded roughly to the obol of the new bossonaya, called senarius in a text of 1213. Meanwhile, the evaluation of the new diners at 88s. was slow to make its appearance. It first occurs, to my knowledge, in an instrument dated 20 August 1213, some months after the ,Public proclamations that attended the restoration of the quaternal money.24 Only then, perhaps, was it officially acknowledged, or unofficially recognised, that the bossonaya diners should circulate at just half the value of the quaternal coinage.

III

Some further information on the chronology and volume of the recoinages may be had from records of accounting for the king. On 30 November 1212 the Templars of Palau-solita, near Barcelona, acknowledged receipt of8,870s. from Pere the moneyer for their share of proceeds of coinages extending from 9 February 1209 (n. st.) to 25 November 1212. 25 On 4 July 1213 the same parties accounted for 26/. 19s. 7d. for the

T. N. BISSON

fortnight 9-23 June just past; and on IO September, for 147s. for the fortnight 18 August to I September. 26 The first of these records is the most illuminating, for it purports to summarise no fewer than nine accounts (albarana; these are now lost) during a long period of minting. Such a summary is most likely to have been required at the point when a given coinage could be thought complete and so be reviewed as a whole; so that it is tempting to conclude that the Templar account of November 1212 refers comprehensively to the new bossonaya coinage. This would have begun in February 1209 (n. st.) and, because the Templars' share was a tithe of the profits,27 would have amounted to some multiple of 88,700s. - perhaps, by analogy with evidence of the coinage Of1222, when the king's share varied between 16% and 30% of the coinage, to several hundred thousand sous (or several thousand marks). Such a chronology and volume seem consistent with the other evidence reviewed above: by 121 I at the latest the debased coins would have been circulating in sufficient quantity to cause disturbance, while debtors if not the mint itself substituted or exchanged the new doblench for quaternal diners. Far to the north the abbey of Sant Joan de les Abadesses had accum.ulated more than eleven marks in doblench and 261 marks in obols thereof (senariz), doubtless from renders by its tenants, by the spring of 1213.28 As for the accounts of summer 1213, these surely refer to the quaternal recoinage which, according to the CB, was proclaimed on 22 March 1213 (n. st.). In fact, the minting had commenced (or was anticipated) some days earlier, for an account by royal financiers on I7 March 1213 (n. st.) engages a sum of 8,000s. 'of diners of the good new money current at Barcelona'. 29 Presumably the initial issues were very abundant, especially if the mints had been closed since the preceding autumn; but the Templar accounts available only for June 1213 and after point to modest and variable output: the profits were 5,393s. IOd. for one fortnight, 1,470s. for a second. Yet another account for the Templars' tithe, badly mutilated but referring to an early winter fortnight probably in 1214 or 12 I 5, indicates revenues of something over 2, 750S. 30 Fragmentary though they are, these figures tend to confirm the evidence of charters that the restoration of quaternal money was rapidly and smoothly accomplished. The evaluation at 44s. to the mark, enjoined upon notaries on 21 April, was re-established in practice during the months following;31 hoarded diners came back into circulation. Thus restored, the quaternal coinage lasted until 1222, in February of which year (n. st.) Jaume I once again replaced it with a doblench coinage. This recoinage is documented by a remarkably detailed account, dated I February 1223 (n. st.), covering meltings and strikes from 22 August to 23 December 1222. 32 Professor Grierson has analysed the numismatic data of this text, so that I can limit myself here to two brief observations. First, it appears that a total of 2,059 unalloyed marks were minted during the four months in question, which suggests a considerably larger volume of new coin in 1222 than is known for the recoinage which began in 1209 and which seems not to have been attended by demonetisation. Second, the record of 1223 is not, strictly speaking, an account of the moneyers but rather of their auditors: Gaucelm the Templar and Colom, a canon of Barcelona. Like the analogous Templar records of the

Coinages of Barcelona

199

coinage of 1209-12, it alludes to accounts of the mint which are lost. That the text of 1222-3 is so much more detailed is explained by the fact that the auditors of that time were not simply accounting for a tithe but acting as superintendents of the young Jaume I's fiscal receipts and using the mint of Barcelona as a centre for disbursements. 33 The moneyers themselves were paymasters.34 On 28 December 1222 Jaume I confirmed the terms on which the vicar of Barcelona had ordained the replacement of quaternal money by doblench. The date of the vicar's ordinance is not given, but it can hardly have preceded the injunction of 2 August 1222 (if that was, indeed, its date) whereby silver, according to the CB, was priced at 75s. This means that the ~oyal confirmation was at least the fourth in a series of regulations pertaining to the recoinage decreed in February 1222. In it the king not only established the doblench at 88s. to the mark but also, in a startling clause, required that debts contracted before the recent recoinage be settled in the new diners at the rate of 18d. dobl. to 12d. quaternal. Because the evaluation of the old diners at 44s. was explicitly cited, this regulation was blatantly partial to debtors, among whom the king himself was easily the most conspicuous. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that administrators struggling to redeem the badly encumbered royal estate were manipulating the coinage to this end. 35 IV

What we learn by combining the documentary evidence may therefore be summarised as follows. There were three recoinages (or mutations of coinage) at Barcelona from 1209 to 1222: one beginning probably in February 1209 and lasting until late in 1212; a second beginning in the third week of March 1213 and continuing until 1222; and a third beginning in February 1222. It was Pere I in 1209, not his son Jaume as traditionally believed, who first instituted the doblench coinage. But the mistaken tradition arose from an important difference in historical policy, for whereas Jaume I re-introduced the doblench by public proclamation in 1222, his father had initiated his diminished coinage surreptitiously. No wonder that Pere's coinage was called bossonaya - billon, or coin of reduced or minimum value - for it only slowly became clear, and without help from the king, what its exchange value was. By 1212 the game was up. Whatever advantage the indebted king may have realised was dissipated in a soaring exchange rate and increasing unpopularity. The critical change of policy occurred early in 1213 when it was decided not merely to restore the quaternal coinage but also to sanction publicly its value in exchange. Both events, as it turned out, had their price. The restoration of the good old coinage seems to have been made the excuse for imposing the money-tax (monetaticum), the anticipated proceeds of which were assigned in two remarkable accounts of March and May 1213.36 Now there was some precedent in Catalonia for such an imposition on the occasion of a newly acceded sovereign's confirmation of the coinage, but such conditions were lacking in early 1213 and there is good reason to believe that the new tax was thought no less arbitrary than the bad coinage it presumably redeemed. 37

200

T. N. BISSON

As for the royal sanction of exchange rates, the issue here was more subtle and no less consequential. Until 1213, as far as we know, values in exchange had not been ordained but settled by market forces and convention. This practice, which worked well enough in times of monetary stability, was ill suited to the problems that arose after 1209. Unfortunately, we do not know in precisely what form the king (or other authorities?) directed the notaries to prescribe the quaternal coinage at 44s. to the mark on 21 April 1213. But at some time between then and 1222 a new sort of ordinance was devised which significantly strengthened the king's interest in monetary policy. If the king could impose a value on his coinage, he could choose to do so with a view to his own fiscal advantage instead of to market conditions. The' mutation of imposed value' was already a matter of concern around Barcelona in 1218, and the royal or~inance of 28 December 1222 proves that the fears were justified. 38 Those who felt threatened, moreover, were a more concentrated and more urban social element than the old territorial communities formerly identified with the principle 9f an indefinitely stabilised coinage. It is no accident that the recoinages of 1209-22 were documented and remembered chiefly as an episode in the history of Barcelona. The control of exchange rates became the main issue underlying these events.

APPENDIX DOCUMENT I [1212]

Memorandum of monetary values for the settlement of contractual and fixed obligations in recent months ACB, pergamins Diversorum c (d), sala 2, capsa 20, 2350 (I2I1). Original, parchment. 90 x 141 mm. No dorsal marks. De debitis que in pignoribus uel sine pignoribus debentur ante festum sancti Iohanis Babtiste quod I fuit celebratum in anno .:it. gc . ~i' persoluantur singule marche argenti pro I singulis .lx. solidis. De debitis que in pignoribus uel sine pignoribus deberentur a predicto festo sancti Iohanis Babtiste I usque ad proximum preteritum festum Nathalis Domini persoluantur tres pro duobus. I De debitis que in pignoribus uel sine pignoribus debeantur a predicto festo Nathalis Domini I persoluantur denarii pro denariis. I Argentum . cxl. solid< os). 1 I Malgurienses et moneta de quaterno ad . xxx<. )ii. I Mobetini censuales xiiii. solid< os). I Denarii censuales in duplum. Mobetini qui debeantur persoluantur in auro sed omnes mazmutini generaliter recipiantur I postquam fuerint auri fini et r[ecti] ponderis. I Marche et bisancii argenti qui debeantur persoll uantur in argento.2 1

2

This entry and the preceding seem clearly distinct; otherwise they would have been written on the same line. See n. 2 below. This final entry was squeezed into the space left to the right of the words •... denarii pro denariis I argentum .cxl.solid
Coinages of Barcelona

201

DOCUMENT 2 122[2], 28

December. Calatayud.

Jaume I, king of Aragon, count of Barcelona, and lord of Montpellier, confirms a statute by the vicar of Barcelona, requiring that contracts henceforth specify doblench diners at 88s. to the mark instead of quaternal at 44s.; that debts established in quaternal coinages before the recent recoinage be settled at the rate of 18d. dobl. to I2d. quat.; and that debts contracted in quaternal coinages since the recoinage be settled at 16d. dobl. to 12d. quat. The ordinance is imposed on all Catalonia under penalty. A. Original lost. B. Copy of s. xv CLivre des Monnaies '), Archives municipales de Perpignan, AA. 9, fol. 2 rv . 1 C. Copy of s. xv, ACA, Cancelleria, Registre 2, fol. 1 35 rv . 2 D. Copy of s. xv, ACA, Registre, 2, fol. 137rv.3

Indicated: Botet, Monedes catalanes IT, 38-39, from Cor D. Of the manuscript copies, B figures in a register of monetary documents made by Jaime Garcia, keeper of the king's archives, at the request of the syndics of Perpignan toward 1453-58. C and D are related to (and per-haps copied from) B, for all three copies mistake the date as 1221 (although C was corrected by Pere Miquel Carbonell, referring to Garcia), and C and D are associated with monetary texts likewise associated with B. The present text is based on B, with significant variants from C and D.

Iacobus, Dei gratia rex Aragonum,a comes Barchinone et dominus Montispessulani, fidelibus suis vicario et probis hominibus et toti populo Barchinone salutem et gratiam. Fidelitatis vestre nuper receptis litteris cognouimus euidenter quod super facto monete ad commodum terre nostre fecistis salubriter constitutum vt in cartis contractuum poneretur 'valente marcha argenti octuaginta et octo solid os de duplenco' vbi antiquitus ponebatur 'valente marcha argenti quadraginta et quatuor solidos barchinonenses de quaterno' et ne contractus fierent ad aurum vel argentum vel malguirenses sed ad istam monetam solummodo de duplenco. Et quodcumque debitum de priori moneta vel malguirensi debebatur priusquam hec videlicet cuderetur soluantur . xviii. b denarii de duplenco pro. . xii . C de quaterno. Et quodcumque deberi incepit ex eo tempore et citra soluantur . xvi. d de istis pro . xii. C de antiquis. Et campsores cambiant pro ut potuerint. Et qui debet aurum vel argentum soluat secundum quod continetur in instrumentis publicis creditorum. Nos igitur prudenciam et legalitatem vestram plurimum comendantes, licet quibusdam videatur quod in quibusdam de premissis capitulis aliqui contra iusticiam aggrauantur, constitucionem predictam sicut bona fide et ad vtilitatem terre noscimus esse factam auctoritate regia confirmamus et presenti priuilegio comunimus, statuentes sub pena corporum et vniuerse substancie subditorum quod hoc statutum obseruent fideliter si penam premissam voluerint euitare, mandantes firmiter baiulis, 1

2

3

Confirmacio del senyor rey en Jaume primer del statut e cot ordonat per 10 vaguer e prohomes de la ciutat de Barchinono sobre laforma dels pagamentsfahedors de moneda doblencha nouament instituhida ab la moneda vella de quoern (fol. IV, early gloss). Aquesta moneda quaterna comen,a de correr en temps del rey en Pere primer qui comen,a a regnar en fany de la incarnacio .mO . CO • xcvio. E dura fins en fany .mO . cc mo . xxio. en 10 qual temps regnaue 10 rey en Jaume primer fill del dit rey en Pere (fol. 2r, early marginal gloss; by Jaime Garcia?). Moneda doblench (early marginal gloss). Confirmatio statuti facti de moneta de duplenco et quod pro ea soluatur ac in contractibus inde fiat mentio (fol. 135r , contemporary rubric). Notations by Pere Miquel Carbonell, archivist of the Crown of Aragon under Ferdinand the Catholic, who corrects the mistaken year date. Confirmat dominus rex Iacobus constitucionemfactam de moneta de duplenco et quod in solucionibus darentur . xviii. denarii de hac moneta duplenca pro. xii. denariis de moneta quatterna (fol. 137r , contemporary rubric.) Notations by Pere Miquel Carbonell.

202

T. N. BISSON

vicariis et vniuersis iudicibus terre nostre vt eandem constitucionem faciant obseruari et secundum earn determinent questiones. Datum apud Calataiub . v~ kalendas ianuarii, anno Domini millesimo . ccffiO vicesimoprimo. e Sig [sign]f num Iacobi, Dei gratia regis Aragonum, comitis Barchinone et domini Montispessulani. Ego Dalmacius hoc scribi feci mandato domini regis pro Berengariog Barchinonensi [fol. 2V] episcopo, domini regis cancellario, cum litteris suprapositis in septima linea vbi dicitur 'cambiant', et hoc [sign] feci. aAragonuffi BC; Aragoii D. b .xviii. CD; decem octo B. C .xii. CD; duodecim B. d .xvi. CD; sexdecim B. e vicesimoprimo] corrected secundo C. f Sign om .B. • Berengario] R~ BC; prouidente D.

NOTES

* It is an unusual pleasure to dedicate this study to Philip Grierson, who has helped me during many years, and whose incisive new work on the present subject renders my contribution virtually an essay in collaboration. I also wish to thank Dr Anna M. Balaguer and Rev. Dr Josep Brucells i Reig for timely and expert cooperation. Abbreviations ACA: Arxiu de la Corona d'Arago ACB: Arxiu Capitular de Barcelona ADB: Arxiu Diocesa de Barcelona. The numismatic terms are conveniently collected in F. Mateu y Llopis, Glosario hisplmico de numismatica, Barcelona 1946. I

2

On these matters see generally Joaquim Botet y Sisa, Les monedes catalanes. Estudi y descriptio de les monedes carolingies, comtals, senyorials, reyals y locals propries de Catalunya (hereafter Monedes catalanes) I-Ill, Barcelona 1908, 1909, 191 I: 11, 23-39; Octavio Gil Farres, 'The billon dineros of Barcelona. Their origin, evolution and end', Seaby's Coin and Medal Bulletin 1957, 192-198, 290--294, 338-342; T. N. Bisson, Conservation of coinage: monetary exploitation and its restraint in France, Catalonia, and Aragon (c. A.D. 1000 - c. 1225) (hereafter Conservation), Oxford 1979, 74-119; and Philip Grierson, 'Notes sobre les primeres amonedacions reials a Barcelona: els termes "Bruneti", "Bossonaya" i el Chronicon Barcinonensi' (hereafter 'Bruneti ') [1°] Symposium Numismatico de Barcelona (27 y 28 de febrero 1979) 11, Barcelona 1979, 278-287. Aloiss Heiss, Descripcion general de las monedas hispano-christianas desde la invasion de los Arabes I-Ill, Madrid 1865, 1867, 1869: 11, 68, nos. 1-4; 69, nos. 1-2; Botet, Monedes catalanes I, Barcelona 1908,73-77,

3 4

5

6

nos. 22-46, and pp. 87-89; 11, 29-30, nos. 159-160; 35-36, nos. 161-162; Jaime Lluis y Navas Brusi, 'La moneda "nova" barcelonesa de Alfonso 1', Numario hispanico x 1961, 123-126; Grierson, 'Bruneti'. Cited in n. I. Of various editions the most reliable is the first, by Baluze, in Petrus de Marca, Marca hispanica... (hereafter Marca hispanica), Paris 1688, col. 755. On the genesis of the CB see Miquel ColI i Alentorn, 'La historiografia de Catalunya en el periode primitiu', Estudis Romimics III 1951/52, 154-173 especially at 167; and for the chronology of its monetary entries, Grierson, 'Bruneti'. [E. G. Bruniquer] Rubriques de Bruniquer. Cerimonial dels magnifics consellers y regiment de la ciutat de Barcelona I-V (hereafter Rubriques de Bruniquer), Barcelona 1912-16, IV, 129-130. Baluze, Marca hispanica, col. 755: 'Anno Domini MCC. currebat Barchinonae moneta quae dicebatur bruna, & duravit usque in anno M

cc

IX.'

7 Rubriques de Bruniquer IV, 129. 8 Moreover, there is good contemporary

Coinages of Barcelona evidence that a new coinage valued at 44s. to the mark began to circulate in II83 or II 84 (Bisson, Conservation, 87; in support of the point argued there and at 78 n. 2, see now M. Crusafont i Sabater, 'L'obol de Barcelona d' Alfons I, i llegenda "ANF REX" no existeix', Gaceta Numismatica no. 48 1978, 33-41). It was one of numerous parchments referring to this coinage in 1187 that an acquaintance of Guillem de Vallseca possessed in the fourteenth century, see JosefSalat, Tratado de las monedas labradas en el principado de Catalufia I, Barcelona 1818, IIO. Vallseca's often-quoted allusion to moneta uneta, which 'in anno domini II80 currebat. .. in Barcinone et cucurrit multo tempore et valebat marcha argenti quadraginta quatuor solidos' (Botet, Monedes catalanes IT, 23) is much improved by Professor Grierson's emendation to [br]uneta in Grierson, 'Bruneti', but remains poor authority for the date of the coinage at 44s. Was Vallseca thinking of the parchment of II87 mentioned above? See n. 17 below. For mancusos, see, however, Botet, Monedes catalanes I, 65-66. 9 Rubriques de Bruniquer IV, 129- I 30. 10 That is, at 44S. (instead of 88s.) to the mark. I accept Professor Grierson's revised dating of the entries for 2 August and 2 January. I I For example, the first of these reads' xi. Kal. Madii anno M cc XIII.fuit injunctum omnibus Notariis Barchinonae quod ponerent in cartis adxLIv.ff. marcham argenti', Baluze, Marca hispanica, col. 755. 12 Archives municipales de Perpignan, AA, 9, fol. 2rff. (see Appendix, Document 2 above). 13 T. N. Bisson, 'Las finanzas deljoven Jaime I (1213-1228)' (hereafter 'Jaime 1'), X Congreso de Historia de la Corona de Aragon, Zaragoza 1980, 161-208. 14 ACB, pergamins Diversorum C (d), capsa 20, 2350 (121 I). (see Appendix, Document I above). 15 Immediately following this entry, on its own line, are the words 'argentum. cx! solid
20 3

tely below, nor does it correspond to the evidence of the CB or Bruniquer. Possibly it refers to a temporary local price of silver and so is inconsistent with other entries; or else - incomplete (partly erased?) or mistaken - it refers to the value of obols in the new coinage (for which see text of 8 May 1213, ed. T. N. Bisson, 'Sur les origines du monedatge: quelques textes inedits' (hereafter' M onedatge ')), Annales du Midi LXXXV 1973, 102-104; discussed by Grierson, 'Bruneti'. 16 Or conceivably the error is simply a scribal slip: one cipher appears to be effaced, and the number 'xxxxiiij' may have been intended. 17 Botet, Monedes catalanes 11, 23-28. In a sample of some 1,300 documents from the years II84-1209 - about 800 from the chancery series in the ACA plus some 500 pieces, mostly from Barcelona and its environs, preserved in the archives of the chapters and diocese of Barcelona - the designation of 44S. to the mark is almost invariable. For a rare (possibly mistaken) exception see ACA, per gamins Pere I, 30 (43s., 31 July II97). 18 For example, ACB, Div. e (d), cap. 12,840 (15 I 1208); cap. II, 631 (I 11 1209); Div. A, 1201 (8 I 1209); Div. B, 604 (15 IX 1210); ACA, perg. Pere I, 352, 38 I, 382; ACB, Div. e, cap. 24, 3237 (4 VI 12II); cap. 24, 3263 (13 IV 121 I); AD B, pergamins Santa Anna, 250 (II IV I2II). ACA, perg. Pere I, 398, which gives 88s., was mis-dated 12II (as Botet suspected, Monedes catalanes 11, 34 n. 2); it should be placed c. 1231. 19 ACA, perg. Pere I, 320. 20 ACA, perg. Pere I, 384. 21 The sample consists of 58 instruments for the year 1212 drawn from the ACA, the ACB, and the ADB, of which at least fifteen (26%) involve sales, pledges or settlements. 22 ACA, perg. Jaume I, 2, 8, 12; ACB, Div. e (d), cap. 21, 2627 (27 VIII 1213); cap. 13, 1044 (6 VI 1214); cap. 14, 1258 (I I VI 1214); etc. 23 ACB, Div. e (d), cap. 9, 315 (17 III 1213); Bisson, 'Monedatge', 103. A systematic review would probably reveal increased use of gold coins during these years, among

20 4

24 25

26 27

28 29 30 31

32

33

T. N. BISSON

which may be noted the' macemutinas bonas in auro contra/aetas de tallio miralmuminini', ACB, Div. c (d), cap. 8, 132 (11 IX 1213); cap. 18,2023 (4 II 1215); see O. Gil Farres n. I above, 342, who places this coinage much later in the reign of Jaume I. ACB, Div. c (d), cap. 3, 3055 (20 VIII 1213). ACA, perg. Pere I, 436. Botet, Monedes catalanes 11, 33, mentions this text and the two cited in next note, but he mis-dates all three. ACA, perg. Pere I, 445, 455. Botet, Monedes catalanes 11,32; A. J. Forey, The Templars in the Corona de Arag6n, London 1973, 22. Bisson, 'M onedatge', 103. ACB, Div. c (d), cap. 9, 315 (17 III 1212). ACA, perg. Extrainventari, 3 199. Baluze, Marca hispanica, col. 755; ACB, Div. c (d), cap. 21, 2627 (27 VIII 1213); cap. 18, 1873 (4 XII 1213); cap. 24, 3174 (19 XII 121 3). ACA, perg. Jaume I, 207; ed. Botet, M onedes catalanes III, 240--243. As Grierson observes, 'Bruneti', 283, there has been some confusion about the date of this text and of the recoinage to which it refers. This and related matters are discussed in Bisson, 'Jaime I'.

34 Pere' the moneyer' had pro bably performed a similar function a decade before: see ACB, Div. A, 145 (26 XII 121 I); Div. c (d), cap. 23, 3013 (24 VI 1212); cap. 22, 2719 (4 I 1213). See also Div. c (d), cap. 12, 849 (17 VIII 1222) for payments in the mint. 35 Archives municipales de Perpignan, AA. 9, fol. 2rff. (see Appendix Document 2 above); Grierson, 'Bruneti " 283-284; Bisson, 'Jaime 1', 171-192. The chronology of the recoinage now seems clear: see, for example, ACA, perg. Jaume 1,138,141,164,191,209; but it should be pointed out that there is a discordant allusion to coinage at 88s. to the mark as early as 12 March 1220 (new style), Joaquim Miret Y Sans and MOlse Schwab, 'Documents sur les juifs catalans aux XIe, XIIe et XIIIe siecles', Revue des Etudes Juives LXVIII 1914, 81-82. I have been unable to verify the date of this text, cited as no. 952 in the Santa Anna collection. 36 ACB, Div. c (d), cap. 9, 315 (17 III 1212); Bisson,' Monedatge', 102-104. 37 See generally Bisson, Conservation, 50--64, 87-104, and especially 116--119. 38 Bisson, Conservation, 118-119·

17 Finds of English medieval coins in Schleswig-Holstein G. HATZ

The study of coin finds has been a recurrent theme of Phi lip Grierson's work: he has demonstrated their overall importance for numismatics, l put forward a system for their classification, 2 and warned of the ways in which they can be misinterpreted. 3 His interest in the problem is the justification of the following notes, which on the evidence of one small sample seek to trace the pattern to foreign finds of medieval English coins. Schleswig-Holstein, the most northerly Land of the German Federal Republic, is bounded by Denmark in the north, the North Sea in the west, the Elbe in the south, and Mecklenburg and the Baltic in the east. In the Middle Ages it did not form a single political unit. Schleswig, the northern half of the Land, was Danish, while Holstein in the south formed part of the German kingdom. For a short period at the beginning of the thirteenth century Danish control extended over the whole area, though in the later Middle Ages it was the counts ofHolstein who added Schleswig to their feudal territories. Well into the twelfth century the Wagrien district in eastern Holstein was in Slav hands and, in the west, Dithmarschen, before becoming a free peasants' republic, was subject to the archbishops of Bremen. Liibeck was made an imperial city in 1226 and Hamburg from the thirteenth century sought independence from the rulers of Holstein, both towns eventually playing a leading role in the Hanseatic League. 4 The following stu~y cuts across all these frontiers; its scope is the wider context of the whole Jutland penin~ula, which numismatically as in other respects has always served as western Europe's bridge to Scandinavia and the lands bordering the Baltic Sea. The basis for the discussion is a catalogue of all the known finds of medieval English coins made in Schleswig-Holstein. The material, which is listed in an appendix, falls into three distinct groups: a. the period of the' sceat' (8th century) b. the period of the penny (I oth- I I th centuries) c. the period of the sterling (13th-14th centuries)5

20 5

206

G. HATZ

a. 'Sceattas' (Map 3)

2

'Porcupine sce at '

Woden/monster'sceat'

The early Anglo-Saxon penny (tenned a 'sceat' by numismatists) was the counterpart of the Merovingian denarius or denier of continental Europe (figs. 1-2). It was introduced at the end of the seventh century and continued to be struck until the middle of the eighth. From Kent in S.E. England it quickly spread to the Continent, where in Friesland imitations were produced in considerable numbers. Until the end of the eighth century these imitations are so close to their prototype that it is not always possible to tell them apart; indeed, they are sometimes referred to in the modern literature as' Anglo-Frisian sceattas' or 'North Sea coins'.6 Accordingly, in the following discussion all 'sceattas', even those which are almost certainly Frisian, are treated as a single group. Only recently has it become possible to identify the role played by the' sceat' in the restricted currency of Schleswig-Holstein during the early Middle Ages. For a long time the evidence consisted of two singly-found coins, so that the significance of the' sceat' could be no more than guessed at. But now we have the Fohr hoard of 1977 and two recent Danish find-groups from Dankirke and Ribe on the northern edge of the region. The single finds are from a Saxon cemetery at Krinkberg (Find no. I) and from the south settlement at Haithabu (Find no. 2). Both coins are of the Woden/monster type, believed to be Frisian. The Goting-Kliff hoard from the island of Fohr (Find no. 3) consists of 73 coins, of which 44 are' sceattas' of' porcupine' type, which are also probably Frisian. Six other coins in the hoard are 'sceat' types which recent authorities have been consistent in attributing to England (two examples of BMC A-S type 27b; two examples of type 3a; one example of type 6; one example of type 37);7 the remaining coins are 'sceattas' or deniers of Frisian-Frankish origin. Comparison with the material from the two Jutland sites adds to the significance of the Fohr hoard. Since 1965 excavations at Dankirke, a settlement to the south of Ribe dating back to the Iron Age, have produced 38 Roman coins, for the most part issues of the second century AD, and 13 coins of the eighth century: three Frankish coins (a triens and two deniers), two English' sceattas' and eight coins attributed to Friesland (all' sceattas', including one' porcupine' type and five of the Woden/monster type).B In Ribe itself 32 'sceattas' turned up during the period 1973-75; five of the 'porcupine' type, 25 of the Woden/monster type, and two unidentifiable coins. 9 It is difficult to give precise dates for the deposit or loss of any of these coins, but possible dates of the most frequently found' sceattas' are the first quarter of the eighth century for the 'porcupine' type and the second quarter for the Woden/monster type, both Frisian issues.1°

Medieval English coins in Schleswig-Holstein

, ...

207

-----"'-- ...

!:::,. Single find

o •

Hoard find with single specimen only Hoard find with more than one specimen

Map 3

Trade with Friesland provides the background for the appearance of Anglo-Frisian coins in Schleswig-Holstein. The geographical position of Frisian settlements on the estuaries of the Rhine, Maas, and Schelde and along the southern coast of the North Sea favoured commerce, and the Frisians came to dominate trade between western Europe (France and England) and Scandinavia. In the west they had access to cloth, tin, bronze vessels, glass, pottery, salt and armour, and from the north-east furs, skins, wax and slaves. Trading took place along the coastal route which ran through the Zuider Zee to Jutland and on to southern Norway; another route crossed the Jutland peninsula and continued by way of the Baltic to the region of Malar and to Uppland (Helgo, Birka, Vendel)Y The Anglo-Saxon elements may also have been introduced by way of these routes. The centre for Frisian trade was Dorestad on the former confluence of the Lek and Rhine. 12 Though based on earlier contacts, trade got underway in the seventh

208

G. HATZ

century, reaching its height during the eighth and the first half of the ninth. Frisian commerce declined with the opening of Viking trade routes through eastern Europe, but during the eleventh century trade with the Baltic revived and continued on the periphery until the thirteenth century. Our knowledge of Frisian trade owes much to numismatic evidence. Frisian territory is clearly defined by finds of Frankish, Anglo-Saxon and native coins, and they are fairly common as far as East Friesland. 13 But there are also records of isolated finds made beyond the region's north-eastern boundary: a 'porcupine' from Maschen on the Lower Elbe;14 nine Frankish-Frisian trientes of the second half of the seventh century from Altenwalde between the mouths of the Elbe and Weser;15 a triens of Maastricht of the first half of the seventh century from Alkersum on the island of Fohr;16 a triens of P6rigueux from the first half of the seventh century found at Wenningstedt on the island of Sylt;17 a triens of Dronrijp in Friesland from the end of the seventh century found at Klappholttal on the island of Sylt ;18 and a Dorestad triens of the moneyer Madelinus from the second half of the seventh century found at Gadegard on the Limfjord;19 and the previously mentioned finds. The eighth-century Anglo-Saxon coins found in Norway may provide direct evidence for early Viking raids. 20 If one considers also that the first Norse coinage, which probably began at Haithabu in c. 825, is derived from a Carolingian prototype of Dorestad and from the Woden/monster 'sceattas', the importance of Friesland is quite clear.21 This development in the history of coinage documenting the evident influence of the south-west on north-eastern Europe is borne out by the finds of Anglo-Frisian 'sceattas' made in Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark. The concentration offinds on the west coast, at Ribe and on Fohr island, clearly indicates at the same time that from there the isthmus was crossed by way of the Ribe A and, a little to the south, by the Eider, Treene, and Schlei (on the evidence ofthe Haithabu find). It is worth noting that the most easterly find of a 'sceat' recorded to date is a single' porcupine' type from Helgo in Malar.22 b. Pennies (Map 4)

The few Schleswig-Holstein finds of coins from the 200 years or so that followed the 'sceat' period have produced no English issues. The only exception is the Dransau hoard (Find no. 4), deposited sometime after 91 I, which, in addition to a large number of oriental dirhams and several late Carolingian coins, contained in single (?) examples a penny of Edward the Elder (899-924/5) and a Viking penny of Cunnetti-type from Northumbria. 23 Together with a few finds from Denmark - including the two Jutland hoards of Over Randlev and Jyndevad - from Sweden, and from Pomerania, it marks the start of the immense stream of Anglo-Saxon coins into the Baltic region which began at the end of the tenth century during the later Viking period. 24 The monetary history of this period is characterised by the great wealth of coin finds from northern and eastern Europe. During the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries it was not only oriental dirhams that flowed into the area, but soon also pennies from most of the mints operating at that time in central and western Europe. This development is

Medieval English coins in Schleswig-Holstein

20 9

reflected in the coins lost or hoarded in Schleswig-Holstein. In less than 50 years from the close of the tenth century so many Anglo-Saxon pennies reached Schleswig-Holstein that to date over 2,50025 of them (together with 23 Irish pennies) have been identified in eight hoards (Find nos. 6,7,9, 10, I I, 12, 13 and 14) and three single finds (Find nos. 5,8 and IS). The majority, at least 1,830 of them, are issues ofCnut (1016-35); lEthelred 11 (978-1016) follows with a minimum of about 600 coins; while Harold I (I035; sole rule 1037-40) and Edward the Confessor (1042-60) are represented by only a few specimens.

4

3 JETHELRED II

CNUT

Typical issues of Anglo-Saxon pennies

The distribution of the finds is striking. They occur only in Schleswig, then under Danish rule, arid in the Slav district of eastern Holstein (Find nos. 6,7 and 14; and 9, IO, I I, 12 and 13). A further feature in the case of the three Schleswig hoards is that they are all from the N. Frisian islands. Central and western Holstein, which belonged to the German kingdom, have produced no such finds except for one coin with a doubtful Rendsburg provenance. 26 The finds from the N. Frisian islands and the hoards from the Wagrien district in eastern Holstein should probably be interpreted differently. Among the former group the List and Utersum hoards should be seen as evidence for direct imports from England, since they consist exclusively of English pennies, the overwhelming number of them showing little sign of wear and being issues of much the same date. From N. Friesland the English coins passed by way of Haithabu (two single finds) to the Baltic coast, where the currency in circulation was particularly heterogeneous, consisting not only of Anglo-Saxon coins, but of oriental, German, Scandinavian, Byzaritine, Bohemian and similar issues. 27 The hoard finds from eastern Holstein are typical in their composition of coin circulation in the Baltic basin. Only the Liibeck hoard deviates from this pattern by having a predominance of pennies. The other hoards show the mixture of coins that characterises the late Viking period. The Anglo-Saxon coins must have reached the area by way of the North Sea and the Jutland peninsula. At all events, the absence of a large number of finds from inland Germany argues against the coins arriving in Slav territories on the Baltic by way of the Rhine and a cross-country route. Only two finds from inland Germany contain more than one English penny, and both of them come from Klein-Roscharden in Oldenburg, itself an argument for the northern route. 28

210

G.HATZ

... ...

....

_----- .... \

j

6, Single find

o •

Hoard find with single specimen only Hoard find with more than one specimen

,,----

r

I

Map 4

Various reasons could be suggested for this concentration of finds in the Baltic region. The oriental coins may have reached the areas in which they were buried through trading and plundering by the Northmen;29 in the case of the German coins it would have been largely by trade. 30 The finds of Byzantine coins may provide evidence for payment to the Varangian guards,31 while those of English coins, aside from trade, should be ascribed mainly to rendering to the Vikings' tribute and tax for Danegeld and Heregeld, payments which on a large scale began in 991 and which continued until 1051.32 North-eastern Europe and so, too, Schleswig-Holstein are rich in finds of Anglo-Saxon coins from this period. They also had a lasting influence on the coinage of the three Scandinavian kingdoms.33 It was mainly by way of Denmark that English coin flowed north,34 since at the time ofCnut and of his sons (1016-42) the Danish kings also ruled England. Just as the marked homogeneity of the N. Frisian finds from List and Utersum provides

Medieval English coins in Schleswig-Holstein

211

evidence for direct contact with England in the form of Danegeld payments, the mixed character of the hoards from eastern Holstein is proof of later, indirect contacts. 35 c. Sterlings (Map 5) With the end of the influx of pennies there was once more an hiatus of almost 200 years before English coins again reached Schleswig-Holstein. These were the so-called sterlings first struck in II80 by Henry 11 and which continued to be issued in various forms for nearly 300 years, but enjoyed their main popularity in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. 36 Except for a single isolated piece in the large hoard of bracteates from Biinstorfburied sometime after 1216 (Find no. 16), sterlings first turn up in large numbers in a group of finds from the middle of the thirteenth century (Find nos. 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21). The latest hoard from Schleswig-Holstein to contain sterlings was deposited about 1340 (Find no. 23). To this group of finds belongs also the Meldorf hoard (Find no. 22), which in fact closed about 1410 at the earliest, but it consists of a very mixed group of coins which had been gilded and reworked as costume jewellery, so that one has to proceed from the date of individual coin series, which in the case of the sterlings means sometime after 1279. The finds are concentrated in the north of the Land, in Schleswig. This impression is reinforced by the many finds made in Denmark, which start at once with the twin finds at Ribe 37 from 1247 and gain particular prominence in the first half of the fourteenth century.3S On the other hand, there is hardly any find evidence for the circulation of sterlings in Holstein. For this period, however, we have at our disposal written evidence in the form of references to 'denarius anglicus', 'sterlingus', and 'solidus', 'marca' or 'libra sterlingorum', 39 which shows that even in the south of the Land English coins were generally familiar and in use. Whereas in the territory of Schleswig charters from tlie second half of the thirteenth century give the value of land sales, revenues, and endowments, etc., in sterlings,40 such references in Holstein were limited to the towns of Hamburg and Liibeck, where they occur from the mid-thirteenth century, indicating that the principal line of west--east trade had shifted to an axis between the two towns. It is also noticeable that sterlings were often cited in connection with external trade or business partnerships.41 This emerges particularly clearly from account-sheets dealing with trade between Hamburg and Flanders. 42 In the customs rolls of 1262 it is expressly stated that merchants from Brandenburg exported 'anglicos denarios' from Hamburg in order to buy cloth in Flanders. 43 An indication of familiarity with sterlings towards the end of the thirteenth century is the demand for 'new' coins, probably meaning the redesigned sterlings of Edward I first issued in 1279.44 They were also known as 'sterling coronati " possibly on account of the greater prominence given to the crown, but perhaps to distinguish the genuine English sterlings from the imitative Continental crockards and pollards. 45 But the expression of a sum in sterlings does not mean in every case that payment was actually made in sterlings; payment may occasionally have been made in other coins, tournois for example. 46 Thus both coin finds and written sources point to an influx of sterlings into

G.HATZ

212

t:::.

o

•

Single find Hoard find with single specimen only Hoard find with more than one specimen

Map 5

Schleswig-Holstein from· about 1250 and during at least the n~xt hundred years.47 Sterlings, whose name was originally an indication of qualitY,4B were struck from 1180 until the late fifteenth century in a variety of types. Here we are concerned with the Short Cross (I 180--1247; e.g. fig. 5), the Long Cross (1247-78; e.g. fig. 6), and the Edward penny (1279-1351; e.g. fig. 7).49 In addition to circulating in the English possessions in north-western France down to 1204,50 English sterlings, with their Scottish and Irish counterparts, acquired a high reputation on the Continent, where they swiftly gained a foothold as a trading currency and were imitated in many parts of western Europe (the Low Countries, N.E. France, the Rhineland) and especially in Westphalia, where the phenomenon had already reached its peak in about 1230--40, and to a lesser extent in the Upper Weser region. 51 The export of English sterlings may have started with the subsidies paid by King John in 1207 to the German king Otto IV and continued with

Medieval English coins in Schleswig-Holstein

5

6

Short Cross penny

Long Cross penny

21 3

7 Sterling

the expeditions of Richard, earl of Cornwall, to secure his German throne (1259-68); but the main reason for the export was the English wool trade. 52 The sterling also very quickly established itself as a major currency in early Hanseatic trade in the North Sea and in the Baltic, where its use extended not only to Mecklenburg but even further east. 53 This explains the sterling's role in Schleswig-Holstein, both in the trading links attested to in the documentary sources between the Hanseatic towns of Hamburg and Liibeck and western Europe, in particular with Flanders, and also in the currency of Danish Schleswig as evidenced by the finds and by the documents. In fact, both Hamburg and Liibeck possessed a local coinage, the Hohlpjennig, a light but respectable coin on the Liibeck standard, but for trading purposes the sterling was often preferred as having the value of three of these local pennies. This changed c. 1365 when the Hanseatic Witten was introduced, a commercial coin worth four local pennies; and that is not to speak of the gold coinage instituted by Liibeck in 1340.54 On the other hand, in Denmark the regular debasement of the coinage from the middle of the thirteenth century and the general abandonment of minting there in the fourteenth century 55 led to a vacuum which the invasion of sterlings helped to fill, as did the tournois and the Liibeck pjennigs and later the Wittens. 56 Further evidence for the importance of sterlings in filling the gap is provided by the more or less direct imitations of them made in Denmark, albeit much later in some cases. 57 The sterlings will have reached Schleswig-Holstein directly from England. In the case of Schleswig the import trade by way of Ribe was especially important. The town dominated commerce with England (the coin finds from there support this), and it was precisely during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that it experienced a period of prosperity through the export of horses and agricultural products and had a share in the already flourishing market in Scania for herring. 58 In the case of Holstein, the chief factor was the commercial link between England and Hamburg which had existed since

214

G. HATZ

the thirteenth century. 59 On the other hand, the growing importance of sterlings on the Continent, the appearance of imitation sterlings from western Europe in northern finds,60 and the commercial links of the Hanseatic towns with Westphalia and Flanders suggest that there may also have been a continental land route. Nobles, along with other English coins, are mentioned in written documents from the end of the fourteenth century, but the evidence of finds such as that from Morsum on the island of Sylt (Find no. 24), suggest that they merely touched the edge of Schleswig-Holstein on their way to the Baltic. In Denmark, however, it is clear both from the documentary evidence (customs duties in the Swedish Sound) and from the site finds that the noble played a more important role. 6I This survey cannot be more than an outline sketch, but it may indicate the value of English medieval coins as evidence for the importance of the southern part of the Jutland peninsula in linking western and north-eastern Europe, and, in particular, the alternating roles of trade (the 'sceattas' and sterlings) and tribute payments (the pennies).

TABLE OF FINDS

The coins are classified according to B. E. Hildebrand, Anglosachsiska munt i Svenska Kongliga Myntkabinettet, funna i Sveriges jord 2, Stockholm 1881; G. C. Brooke, English coins 3 , London 1950; J. J. North, English hammered coinage I, II, London 1963, 1975. The bibliography for the finds is only selective. I Krinkberg, Gemeinde (hereafter Gem.) Poschendorf, c. 72~8oo Kreis Steinburg. Single find. Frisian 'sceat' (W oden/monster type). P. La Baume, 'Ein miinzdatierter Grabfund der Merowingerzeit', Offax 1952,46-57. 2 Haithabu (Haddeby), Kreis Schleswig. c. 72~8oo Single find. Frisian 'sceat' (Woden/monster type). G. Hatz, 'Miinzfunde aus Haithabu 1962', Offa XXI/XXII 1964/1965, 74-79, especially 74. 3 Goting-Kliff, Gem. Nieblum, island of Fohr, mid-8th century Kreis Nordfriesland. Hoard, 73 specimens. Anglo-Saxon 'sceattas': 6 specimens; Frisian 'sceattas' (' porcupine' type): 44 specimens. A publication is in preparation by G. Porzig, G. Hatz for Hamburger Beitriige zur Numismatik. 4 Dransau, Kreis Pion. after 91 I Hoard, 109 + specimens, with silver bullion. Edward I of Wessex, 899-924/5: uncertain number of specimens; Northumbrian pennies of Cunnetti type, 0+ 1 specimen. E. Nobbe, 'Miinzfunde des 8.-10. Jahrhunderts aus Schleswig-Holstein', Nordelbingen II 1923, 277-289 at 279-280. R. Kiersnowski, Wczesnosredniowieczne skarby srebrne z Polabia

Medieval English coins in Schleswig-Holstein

5

6

7

8

9

10

(hereafter Polabia), Polskie Badania Archeologiczne XI, Wroclaw/Warszawa/Kracow 1964,31, no. 42. Rendsburg, Kreis Rendsburg-Eckernforde. Single find (?). England, .tEthelred 11, 978-1016 (Type C). G. Lehmann, Eylfertiges Bedencken uber einigen neulich gefundenen Rendesburgischen Navlis oder Danicis ... Gliickstadt/Leipzig 1709,41, fig. 26, I. List, island of Sylt, Kreis Nordfriesland. Hoard, 616+ 155 specimens, with silver bullion. England, .tEthelfed 11, 978-1016: 547 specimens (Type B, 4 specimens; Type C, 40 specimens; Type D, 503 specimens); Ireland, Sihtric Ill, 989-1029: 19 specimens. K. Kersten, P. La Baume, Vorgeschichte der nordfriesischen Inseln, Die vor- und friihgeschichtlichen Denkmiiler und Funde in Schleswig-Holstein IV, Neumiinster 1958, 462-476. Utersum, island of Fohr, Kreis Nordfriesland. Hoard, dispersed. 'A quantity of coins of the 11th century, all English.' K. 1. Clement, Lebens- und Leidensgeschichte der Friesen, Kiel 1845,95. H. lankuhn, 'Ein Burgentyp der spiiten Wikingerzeit in Nordfriesland und sein historischer Hintergrund', Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft fUr Schleswig-Holsteinische Geschichte LXXVIII 1954, 1-21 at 12ff. Haithabu (Haddeby), Kreis Schleswig. Single find. England, Cnut, 1016-35 (Type H). H. lankuhn, Die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu (1937-1939), Berlin-Dahlem 1943, 203, no. I. Malkendorf, Kreis Ostholstein. Hoard, incomplete record: 6 specimens. England, Cnut, 1016-1035: 2 specimens (Type G, Type H). H. Handelmann, 'Antiquarische Miscellen', Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft fur SchleswigHolsteinische Geschichte XII 1882, 373-400 at 384. Nobbe, Find no. 4 above, 282, no. 13. Kiersnowski, Polabia, 46-47, no. 11 I. Heiligenhafen, Kreis Ostholstein. Hoard, incomplete record: 3 specimens. England, .tEthelred 11, 978-1016: I specimen (Type D). H. Handelmann-Klander, Kieler Munzkatalog I-iii, Kiel 1866,20-21; I-iv, Kiel 1887, 12 no. I; Kiersnowski, Polabia, 39, no. 78.

after 991

after 997

end of 10th century

after 1029

after /029

after /030

21 5

216

II

G. HATZ

Ernsthausen, Kreis Ostholstein. Hoard, c. 5,500 specimens, with silver bullion, incomplete record. England, .tEthe1red 11, 978-I016; Cnut, IOI6--35; Harold 1,1037-40; altogether 14 specimens. H. Handelmann, Der Krinkberg bei Schenefeld und die holsteinischen Silberfunde, Kie1 1890, 24-25; Kiersnowski, Polabia, 32, no. 49. 12 Farve, Kreis Ostholstein. Hoard, c. 4,000 specimens, with silver bullion. England, .tEthe1red 11, 978- I 0 I 6: 3 + 7 specimens (Type A, I + 3 specimens; Type C, 0 + 2 specimens; Type D, 0+2 specimens; Type E, 2 specimens). Cnut, IOI6--35: I specimen (Type H); Harold I, 1037-40: 0+ I specimen (Type B); imitations: 3 + 5 specimens. J. Friedlander, K. Miillenhoff, Der Silberfund von Farve, Kie1 1850; Kiersnowski, Polabia, 33, no. 50. 13 Liibeck. Hoard, c. 2,800+ 50 specimens, with silver bullion. England, .tEthe1red 11, 978-1016: 43 specimens (Types A, C, D, E); Cnut, IOI6--35: 1,826 specimens (Types E, G, H); not identified: 15 specimens; imitations: 16+45 specimens; Ireland, Sihtric Ill, 989-I029: 4 specimens. H. Dannenberg, S. Cohn, 'Der Miinzfund von Liibeck', ZjN IV 1877, 50-124; Kiersnowski, Polabia, 44ff., no. 106; G. Galster, Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, National Museum Copenhagen 11, IlIA, I1IB, I1IC, IV (Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles VII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVIII), 11, London 1966, xii; Ill.A, London 1970, xviii-xix; IV, London 1972, xiii. 14 Westerland, island of Sylt, Kreis Nordfriesland. Hoard, 114+ 14 specimens, with silver bullion. England, Cnut, IOI6--35: 4 specimens (Type E, I specimen; Type G, 2 specimens; Type H, I specimen); Harold I, 1037-40: I specimen (Type B); imitations: 2 specimens. E. Nobbe, 'Miinzfund von Westerland auf Sylt', Berliner Miinzbliitter XXXIII 1912, 342-347. 15 Haithabu (Haddeby), Kreis Schleswig. Single find. England, Edward, 1042-66 (Type F). E. Nobbe, 'Miinzfunde vom Stadtplatz Haithabu 1905-3 I', Festschrift zur Hundertjahrfeier des Museums vorgeschichtlicher Altertiimer in Kiel, Neumiinster, no date, 131-135 at 134, no. II.

after 1037

after 1038

after 1038

after 1038

after 1053

Medieval English coins in Schleswig-Holstein 16 Bilnsdorf, Kreis Rendsburg-Eckernforde. Hoard, c. 4-5,000 bracteates, 150 pennies, recorded 551 +69 bracteates, 78 pennies. England, John, 1199-1216: I specimen (Short Cross, Type 5). G. Galster, 'Der Biinstorffer Brakteatenfund', Berliner Milnzbliitter XXXVIII 1917, 2ff.; XXXIX 1918, I 98ff. G. Galster, 'Biinstorf-fundet 1827', N ordisk Numismatisk Unions M edlemsblad 1955, 127- 133. 17 Schwabstedt, Kreis Nordfriesland. Single find. England, Henry Ill, 1216-72 (Long Cross, Type 3). H. Meyer, 'In Schwabstedt gefundene mittelalterliche Miinzen', Die Heimat LXXV 1968, 127-I28. 18 Rendsburg, Kreis Rendsburg-Eckernforde. Hoard, incomplete record. England, John, 1199-1216, or Henry Ill, 1216-72: uncertain number of specimens (Short Cross, Types 5-7); Henry Ill, 1216-72: uncertain number of specimens (Long Cross, Type 3); Ireland, Henry Ill: uncertain number of specimens. Lehmann, Find no. 5 above. G. Galster, 'M0ntfund i Danmark 1700-1737', Nordisk Numismatisk Arsskrift 1936, 53-88, at 59ff. 19 Grafschaft Rantzau ?, Holstein. Hoard, incomplete record. England, Henry Ill, 1216-72: uncertain number of specimens (Long Cross, Types 4-5). G. Galster, 'M0ntfund fra Rigsgrevskabet Rantzau 1698', Numismatisk Forenings Medlemsblad XIV 1936, 37 2-373. 20 Flensburg, Kreis Flensburg (before 1709). Hoard, 5 specimens. England, Henry Ill, 1216-72: 2 specimens (Long Cross). G. Galster, 'M0ntfund fra Flensborg, f0r 1709', Nordisk Numismatisk Unions Medlemsblad 1936, 65-67. (Probably part of Find no. 21.) 21 Flensburg, Kreis Flensburg (1892). Hoard, 8,000- IO,OOO specimens, incomplete record (825 specimens). England, John, 1199-1216: 4 specimens (Short Cross, Type 4, I specimen; Type 5, 3 specimens); Henry Ill, 1216-72: 6 specimens (Short Cross, Type 7, 5 specimens; Type 8, I specimen); 33 specimens (Long Cross, Type 2, 3 specimens; Type 3, 16 specimens; Type 4, I

after 1216

after 1248

mid-13th century

mid-13th century

after 1255

after 1255

217

218

22

23

24

G.HATZ

specimen; Type 5, 13 specimens); Ireland, John, 1199-1216: I specimen; Henry Ill, 1216-54: I specimen; Scotland, Alexander Ill, 1249-85: I specimen. E. Nobbe, 'Flensburger Miinzfund von 1892', Berliner Miinzbliitter XLVII 1927, 127-130, 143-147. Meldorf, Kreis Dithmarschen. Hoard, 14 specimens, with jewellery. England, Edward I, 1272-1307: I specimen (Edward type). H. Stieriing, Der Silberschmuck der Nordseekiiste hauptsiichlich in Schleswig-Holstein I, Neumiinster 1935, I 48ff. The hoard is known from a treasure of jewellery including gilded coins, buried c. 1410. The coins proved to be of a single date. The find is of little numismatic importance. Tornschau, Kreis Flensburg-Land. Hoard, 247 specimens. England, Henry 11, 1154-89: I specimen; Henry 111,1216-72: 12 specimens; Edward I-Ill, 1272-1377: 207 specimens; Scotland, Alexander Ill, 1249-85: 8 specimens. lahrbiicher fur die Landeskunde der Herzogthiimer Schleswig-Holstein und Lauenburg IV 1861, 114· Lindahl, n. 38 below, 43, no. 10. Morsum, island of Syit, Kreis Nordfriesland (no map). Hoard, 6 specimens. England, Edward Ill, 1327-77: 4 specimens; Richard 11, 1377-99: 2 specimens. Jacobsen, Morkholm, n. 61 below, 78, no. 11.

after 1279 (1410)

after 1340

after 1377

NOTES

I See especially P. Grierson, Numismatics, Oxford 1975, 124- 139. 2 P. Grierson, 'The interpretation of coin finds, I " Ne? v 1965, President's Address, i-xiii (reprinted in Late medieval numismatics as article xxi): 'The interpretation of coin finds, 2', NO VI 1966, President's Address, i-xv (reprinted in LMN as article xxii). 3 P. Grierson, 'Commerce in the Dark Ages: a critique of the evidence', THS5 IX 1959, 123-140 (reprinted in Dark age numismatics as article ii). 4 See Sonderjyllands Historie (ed. V. La Cour and others), I, Copenhagen 1930/1931; 11,

Copenhagen 1937/1939; O. Brandt, Geschichte Schleswig-Holsteins4, Kiel 1949. Of the standard Geschichte Schleswig-Holsteins (ed. O. Klose), the following are now available: H. Jankuhn, Die FriigeschichteIII, Neumiinster 1957, and W. Lammers, Das Hochmittelalter bis zur Schlacht von Bornhoved Iv-i/iii, Neumiinster 1964/1972. 5 Properiy speaking all three types of coin are pennies, but the conventional numismatic terms are followed here. 6 For a summary of recent important publications on the' sceat', see K. Bendixen, 'The first Merovingian coin-treasure from

Medieval English coins in Schleswig-Holstein Denmark' (hereafter 'Merovingian cointreasure'), Mediaeval Scandinavia VII 1974, 85-101 at 90 n. 18. 7 C. F. Keary, R. S. Poole, A catalogue of English coins in the British Museum, AngloSaxon series I, London 1887 (hereafter BMC A-S). 8 Bendixen, 'Merovingian coin-treasure', 85ff. 9 Information from Dr K. Bendixen, Den Kong!. Mont- og Medaillesamling, Copenhagen, who kindly placed at my disposal her manuscript account of the coins found at Ribe. 10 Bendixen, 'Merovingian coin-treasure', 10I. I I See especially H. Jankuhn, 'Der friinkischfriesische Handel zur Ostsee im friihen Mittelalter', Vierteljahrschrift fur Sozialund Wirtschaftsgeschichte XL 1953, 193243; D. Jellema, 'Frisian trade in the Dark Ages', Speculum xxx-i 1955, 15-36; Jankuhn (n. 4 above), 86ff., I 54ff.; P. Enemark, 'Friserhandel', Kulturhistoriskt Lexikonfor Nordisk J.:edeltid (hereafter KHL) IV 1959, 647-652; P. Enemark, 'Om problemer vedrorende friserhandelen " Jyske Samlinger v-ii 1960, 121-163; E. Bakka, 'Scandinavian trade relations with the continent and the British Isles in pre-Viking times', Antikvariskt Arkiv XL 197 I, Early Medieval Studies Ill, 37-51 at 48ff. 12 Omnibus volume: Dorestad Spiegel Historiael xIII-iv 1978, 193-340. 13 P. V. Hill, 'Anglo-Saxon and Frisian sceattas in the light of Frisian hoards and site-finds', JMP XLI 1954, 11-18; P. Berghaus, 'Die ost-friesischen Miinzfunde', Friesisches Jahrbuch 1958, 9-70 at 46ff.; H. E. van Gelder, J. S. Boersma, Munten in muntvondsten, Fibulareeks xxxv, Bussum 1967, I02ff. For a map of the western limits of 'sceat' finds, see W. Hess, 'Geldwirtschaft am Mittelrhein in karolingischer Zeit', Blatter fur deutsche Landesgeschichte XCVIII 1962, 26-63 at 35, map 2b. 14 G. Hatz, 'Fund eines Sceattas in Maschen, Krs. Harburg', Hamburger Beitrage zur Numismatik (hereafter HBN) XII/XIII 1958/ 1959, 249- 253. 15 P. Berghaus, 'Die merowingischen Trienten von Altenwalde', Die Kunde XII 1961,43-62.

21 9

16 G. Galster, 'Karolingiske monter fund ne i Danmark' (hereafter 'Karolingiske monter'), Nordisk Numismatisk Arsskrift (hereafter NNA) 1951, 28-40 at 28. 17 G. Hatz, 'Triens-Fund von Sylt', Lagom. Festschrift fur Peter Berghaus zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. T. Fischer, P. Ilisch), Miinster 1981, 87-96. 18 Galster, 'Karolingiske monter', 28ff. 19 Galster, 'Karolingiske monter', 28. 20 K. Skaare, 'Angelsaksiske mynter- i britisk mynthistorie og i norske vikingtidsfunn', Viking XXVI 1962, 81-122 at IOoff. 21 B. Malmer, Nordiska mynt fore ar fOOO, Acta Archaeologica Lundensia (series in 8vo) IV, Bonn/Lund 1966, 65ff.; 68ff.; 246ff.; for possible English influence, see p. 59. B. Malmer, 'Karolingische Originalmiinzen und nordische Nachpriigungen', HBN XXI 1967, 20~214. 22 Information from Mr K. Jonsson, Kungl. Myntkabinettet, Stockholm. 23 On the occurrence of these coins in the north, see also N. L. Rasmusson, 'Kring de viisterliindska mynten i Birka', Fran stenalder till rokoko. Studier tillagnade Dtto Rydbeck den 25 Augusti 1937, Lund 1937, 113-135 at 113-118. 24 See N. L. Rasmusson, 'Nordens tidigaste import av engelska mynt', Fornvannen XXIX 19J4, 366-37 2. 25 These are minimum numbers because the hoards are poorly described, with the totals frequently lacking and only individual coins described. 26 See G. Hatz, 'Die Anflinge des Miinzwesens in Holstein', Numismatische Studien V 1952, map 4. 27 For general surveys of the role of the penny in northern Europe, apart from the many detailed descriptions of particular finds, see G. Galster, Royal Collection of coins and medals, National Museum, Copenhagen, I, Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles IV, London 1964, 24ff. K. Skaare, Coins and coinage in Viking-Age Norway (hereafter Coins and coinage), Oslo/Bergen/Tromso 1976, 127ff.; B. E. Hildebrand, Anglosachsiska mynt i Svenska Kongl. Myntikabinettet funna i Sveriges jord, Stockholm 1846, xxviiiff. In course of publication is the

220

G. HATZ

Corpus Nummorum Saeculorum IX-XI qui in Sue cia reperti sunt I-II (ed. B. Malmer, N. L. Rasmusson), Stockholm 1975-1977. T. Talvio, The National Museum Helsinki, Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles xxv, London 1978, xxviiff. V. M. Potin, 'Topografija nachodok zapadnoevropejskich monet X-XIII vv. na territorii drevnej Rusi', Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaia IX, Numizmatika III, Leningrad 1967, 106-194. J. Slaski, S. TabaczyIiski, Wczesnosredniowieczne skarby srebrne Wielkopolski, Polskie Badania Archeologiczne (hereafter PBA) I, Warsaw, etc. 1959. T. and R. Kiersnowscy, Wczesnosredniowieczne skarby srebrne z Pomorza, PBA IV, 1959. R. Kiersnowski, Wczesnosredniowieczne skarby srebrne z Polabia, PBA XI, 1964. A. Gupieniec, T. and Wczesnosredniowieczne R. Kiersnowscy, skarby srebrne z Polski Srodkowej, Mazowsza i Podlasia, PBA X, 1965. M. Haisig, R. Kiersnowski, J. Reyman, Wczesnosredniowieczne skarby srebrne z M alopolski, SIQka, Warmii i Mazur, PBA XII, 1966. 28 P. Berghaus, 'Die Miinzen von KleinRoscharden', Oldenburger Jahrbuch LI 1951,196-206(2 and4 pennies of A<:thelred). Five further single specimens are recorded from hoards on the card index prepared by the Numismatische Kommission der Liinder of the German Federal Republic at Hamburg. 29 U. S. Linder Welin, B. Granberg, s.v. 'Arabiska mynt', KHL 11956,182-194. 30 G. Hatz, Handel und Verkehr zwischen dem Deutschen Reich und Schweden in der spiiten Wikingerzeit, Lund 1974, I43ff. 31 N. L. Rasmusson, H. Hoist, L. H. Rosenstock,s.v. 'Bysantinskamynt',KHLII 1957, 428-431. See also P. Grierson, 'Coinage and money in the Byzantine Empire 498-c. 1090', Moneta e scambi nelralto medioevo, SSAM VIII 1961, 411-453 at 450 n. 98. 32 H. Nielsen, s.v. 'Danegreld', KHL II 1957, 639-641. P. Enema,rk, s.v. 'Englandshandel (Danmark)" KHL III 1958, 668-674 at 668-669. 33 G. Galster, 'Fremmed indflydelse pa Danmarks m0ntvresen i middelalderen', Fra Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 1957, 15-24 at 18. Skaare, Coins and coinage (n. 27

above), 58ff. B. Malmer, 'OlofSkotkonungs mynt och andra Ethelred-imitationer', Antikvariskt arkiv XXVII 1965, Iff. 34 See for instance Galster, n. 27 above, 21f. 35 Jankuhn, n. 4 above, 122f., 182f. 36 See for instance G. C. Brooke, English coins3 , London 1950, 102ff:; C. H. V. Sutherland, English coinage 600-1900, London 1973, 60ff. 37 G. Galster, 'A find of English coins at Ribe, Denmark', NC4 XVI 1916, 378-398. B. H. I. H. Stewart, J. D. Brand, 'A second find of English sterlings from Ribe (1958)', NNA 1971, 38-59. 38 Summarised by P. Hauberg, 'Danmarks myntvresen og mynter i tidsrummet 1241-1377', Aarboger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1884, 217-374 at 272ff., nos. 12, 20, 40 (Halland), 41. F. Lindahl, 'M0ntfundet fra Ebbelnres pa M0n', NNA 1952, I I-54 (in particular 4Iff.). See also J. st. Jensen, 'M0ntfundet fra Kirial pa Djursland', NNA 1970, 37-168 at 42ff., I 45ff. For the later period, see, amongst other authors, G. Galster, 'M0ntfundet fra Aarhus 1908 og samtidige danske m0ntfund', NNA 1942, 99-138 at II5ff. For sterlings in Sweden transmitted through Schleswig-Holstein, see H. Hildebrand, Mynt fran Sveriges medeltid, 1887 (reprinted, Goteborg 1969), 898ff. B. Thordeman, 'Sveriges medeltidsmynt', Mont (ed. S. Aakjaer), Nordisk Kultur XXIX, Stockholm/ Oslo/Copenhagen 1936, 1--92 at 65ff., find nos. 8, 20, 33a, 37, 54, 58, 88. N. L. Rasmusson, 'Sterlingar och barrer som betalningsmedel pa Gotland under 12oo-talet', Gotliindskt Arkiv XII 1940, 29-44 at 41, no. 13, to which add R. H. M. Dolley, 'A little-known Swedish publication of an important find of thirteenth-century English pence', BNJxXVII 1952-54,359-361; L. O. Lagerqvist, R. H. M. Dolley, 'Myntfynden i Hornborga kyrkoruin i Viistergotland', Fornviinnen LIV 1959, II3-136 at I 33f. (survey of finds). For Norway see H. Hoist, 'Mynter og myntlignende metallpreg fra de Britiske 0yer i norske funn, nedlagt etter ar IIOO', NNA 1939, 103-124, and K. Skaare, 'Sterlingfunnet fra Havn0Y, R0d0Y, i Nordland, og andre norske funn av engelske

Medieval English coins in Schleswig-Holstein mynter fra samme tid', NNA 1959,7-29, at 24ff. 39 On the increase in city documents connected with trade during the 13th century, see E. v. Lehe, , Der hansische Kaufmann des 13 Jahrhunderts nach dem Beispiei von Liibeck und Hamburg', Zeitschrift des Vereins fur Hamburgische Geschichte XLIV 1958, 73--93 at 74ff. 40 For example Schleswig-Holstein-Lauenburgische Regesten und Urkunden (ed. P. Hasse), IT, rn, Hamburg/Leipzig 1888, 1896; Schleswig-Holsteinische Regesten und Urkunden (hereafter SHUB) (ed. V. Pauls), Kiei 1924, IT, nos. 756, 922; rn, nos. 41, 401 ; IV, nos. 52, 172, 270, 478, 534, 641, 810, 1009, 1176. The evidence for Denmark is given in O. MlIlrkholm, 'Kilder til Danmarks mlllntvresen i middelalderen 1', NNA 1955, 1-72 at 11, nos. 49, 50ff. (1251, excise in Skanor), the material in part identical with the preceding; B.F. Johansen, O. MlIlrkholm, 'Kilder 11', NNA 1960, 25-83 at 26, no. 349 (passim). 41 For example Hamburgisches Urkundenbuch (hereafter HUB) I (ed. J. M. Lappenberg), Hamburg 1842, nos. 665 (Schauenburg toll), 666 (the same), 774, 818 (an account of the losses suffered by the citizens of Hamburg resident in Flanders as a result of an Aardenburg merchant's being robbed of 120 'English marks' by servants of the count of Holstein), 892; HUB IT (ed. A. Hagedorn and others), Hamburg 1911-1939, nos. 196, 275,539; HUB IV (ed. J. Reetz), Hamburg 1967, nos. 307, 422, 423; E. v. Lehe, Das hamburgische Schuldbuch von 1288 (hereafter Schuldbuch), Veroffentlichungen aus dem Staatsarchiv der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg IV, Hamburg 1956, no. 2 passim, numerous entries to no. 1222; H. D. Loose, Hamburger Testamente 1351 bis 1400, Veroffentlichungen aus dem Staatsarchiv der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg XI, Hamburg 1970, no. 3. In the Chamber accounts sterlings appear only in the context of compensation paid to two town councillors for losses due to war (1362); K. Koppmann, Kiimmereirechnungen der Stadt Hamburg 1350-1400 I, 81. Lubeckisches Urkundenbuch I. Urkundenbuch der Stadt

221

Lubeck (hereafter LUB), Liibeck 1843, nos. 177,329,521,553,556,568,731; LUBIT-i, Liibeck 1858, nos. 64, 102, 103, 105, 119, 485,621,675,779 (invoice from Schleswig). See also W. Jesse, Der Wendische Munzverein, Quellen und Darstellungen zur Hansischen Geschichte 2 VI, Liibeck 1928,

n

42 Compiled by H. Reincke, 'Die Deutschlandfahrt der Flandrer wiihrend der hansischen Friihzeit', H ansische Geschichtsbliitter LXVII/LXVIII 1942/3, 51-164 at 96ff., nos. 2, 32, 49, 56, 60, 83, 84, 96, 101, 178. 43 HUB I, no. 666. Reincke, n. 42 above, 57. 44 For example Schuldbuch, nos. 2, 30, 34, 45, 131,223 etc. LUB I, no. 731; LUB 11, nos. 102, 103. For one certain payment with 'old' sterlings, Schuldbuch, no. 52. 45 LUB IT-i, no. 779 (1343). Probably referring to the Netherlandish imitative strikings of about 1310, see S. E. Rigold, 'The trail of the Esterlings', BNJxxVI, 1949-51,31-55 at 48. The coins known in Hamburg as 'crochardi' or 'crokere', Schuldbuch, nos. 707, 726, are certainly Continental copies, for which see P. Berghaus, 'Die Perioden des Sterlings in Westfalen, dem Rheinland und in den Niederlanden', HBN I 1947, 34-53 at 44ff., and Rigold, 'Trail', 47· N. J. Mayhew, D. R. Walker, 'Crockards and pollards: imitation and the problem of fineness in a silver coinage', Edwardian Monetary Affairs (ed. N. J. Mayhew), British Archaeological Reports XXXVI, 1977, 125-146. Dr Mayhew has kindly drawn my attention to the difference between the English sterling' coronati' and the mainland 'crockards' and' pollards' of the I 290S with their uncrowned heads. 46 See Schuldbuch, no. 298. 47 Hatz, n. 26 above, 81 passim. 48 P. Grierson, 'Sterling', Anglo-Saxon coins. Studies presented to F. M. Stenton on the occasion of his 80th birthday, 17 May 1960 (ed. R. H. M. Dolley); London 1961, 266-283 (reprinted in Late medieval numismatics as article vi). 49 See n. 36. The latest survey is by D. M. Metcalf, Ashmolean Museum 11, English coins 1066--1279, Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles XII, London 1969, xii ff. ; D. M. Metcalf,

222

50

5I

52 53

G. HATZ

'A survey of numismatic research into the pennies of the first three Edwards and their continental imitations', Edwardian monetary affairs (ed. N. J. Mayhew), British Archaeological Reports XXXVI 1977, 1-31. J. Yvon, 'Esterlins it la croix courte dans les tresors fran~ais de la fin du xn e et de la premiere moitie du xm e siecle', BNJxxXIX 1970, 24-60. J. Chautard,Imitations des monnaies au type esterlin Jrappees en Europe pendant le XIII" et le XIV" siecle, Nancy 1871. Berghaus, n. 45 above, 34ff., 47, map 3. P. Berghaus Wiihrungsgrenzen des westfiilischen Oberwesergebietes im Spiitmittelalter, Numismatische Studien I, Hamburg 1951, 6, 33ff. Rigold, n. 45 above, 32, map (on the earlier spread of' sceattas' and pennies). On the Irish imitations see R. H. M. Dolley, 'The earliest German imitations of AngloIrish coins', Dona Numismatica, Waiter Hiivernick zum 23. Januar 1965 dargebracht, Hamburg 1965, 213-218. On the monetary boundary east of the Weser, see W. Jesse, 'Der Miinzfund von Hildesheim', HBN 11 1948, 16--84 at 34. See how also N. J. Mayhew, 'The circulation and iffiitation of sterlings in the Low Countries', Coinage in the Low Countries (880--1500) (ed. N. J. Mayhew), British Archaeological Reports, International Series LIV, 1979, 54-68 (this was published after I had completed the text of this paper). Rigold, n. 45 above, 39ff. Jesse, n. 41 above, 77ff. N. L. Rasmusson, 'Sterling', KHL XVII 1972, 167-172. R. Sprandel, Das mittelalterliche Zahlungssystem nach hansisch-nordischen Quellen des 13.- I 5. Jahrhunderts, Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters X, Stuttgart 1975, 21f. and map 3. For the use of three pennies as an equivalent value in Scandinavia, see H. Bj0fkvik, 'Engelsk', KHL III 1958, 632-636. For Mecklenburg, in particular, see H. Dannenberg, 'Der SterlingFund von Ribnitz, ZjN xv 1887,302-324, with a summary of the documentary evidence at 32 I f.; E. Wunderlich, 'Der zweite Fund von Ribnitz', ZjNxv 1887,302-324, the Baltic, the obverse type of the Artiger of Dorpat from the mid-14th century copied

that of the sterling (Chautard, n. 51 above, 342, no. 508, and Sprandel, Zahlungssystem, 21, 167), while the reverse is copied on the contemporary Artiger of Reval (A. Molvygin, 'Uber die Miinz-und Geldgeschichte Esdands', N N A 1969.37-65 at 45, figs. 6--9). 54 On the introduction of the Witten see P. Berghaus, 'Phiinomene der deutschen Miinzgeschichte des 14./15. Jahrhunderts im Ostseegebiet', Kultur und Politik im Ostseeraum undim Norden 1350--1450, Acta Visbyensia IV 1973,81-115 at 87ff. For the spread ofthe Wit ten into Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark see maps at 113, 114. 55 See G. Galster, 'Danmarks mlllnter', Mont (ed. S. Aakjrer), Nordisk Kultur XXIX 1936, I 56ff. K. Bendixen, Denmark's money Copenhagen 1967, 38ff. 56 See Lindahl, n. 38 above, finds at 4Iff., documents at 49 n. 33. For Schleswig, see also LUB II-i, no. 779; SHUB IV, no. 641. 57 G. Glaster, 'Influence of the English coin types on the Danish in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries', NC4 XVI 1916, 260--270. Galster, n. 33 above, 22f. On the relatively early Norwegian imitations, see K. Skaare, Moneta Norwei, Oslo 1966, I If. The crowned heads on the later Swedish <Mugs of Albrecht von Mecklenburg (1364-89) are clearly imitated from sterlings, but only in their general character, not as direct copies. See B. Thordeman, 'Erik den helige i medeltidens bildkonst', Erik den Helige (ed. B. Thordeman), Stockholm 1954, 173-232 at 199. In general see Rasmusson, n. 53 above, qo--171. When compared with other portrait coins the or tugs of Visby (c. 1320/30), which were possibly themselves influenced by sterlings, may be seen to have influenced the Witten. See Lindahl, n. 38 above, 39-40. N. L. Rasmusson, 'Miinz- und Geldgeschichte des Ostseeraumes vom Ende des 10. bis zum Anfang des 14. Jahrhunderts', Die Zeit der Stadtgrundung im Ostseeraum (ed. S. Ekdahl), Acta Visbyensia I 1965, 135-151 at 145- 146. 58 A. E. Christensen, 'Denmarks handel i middelalderen " Handeloch SamJiirdsel (ed. J. Bnlmdsted, A. Schiick), Nordisk Kultur

Medieval English coins in Schleswig-Holstein XVI 1933, I08-127 at I 14-1 15. Enemark, n. 32 above, 671-672. Possibly there were also smaller harbours on the west coast of Schleswig-Holstein which could be used, see A. Jiirgens, 'Zur schleswig-holsteinischen Handelsgeschichte des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts', Abhandlungen zur Verkehrs- und Seegeschichte VIII 1914, 2-3· 59 See H. Liiders, Hamburgs Handel und Gewerbe am Ausgang des Mittelalters [Dissertation], Leipzig 19IO, 61-2. In the 14th century, besides the guild of merchants, trading with Flanders, a guild of merchants trading with England was created. See G. Brandes, 'Die geistlichen Briiderschaften in Hamburg wiihrend des Mittelalters', Zeitschrift des Vereins fur Hamburgische Geschichte xxxv 1934, 75-176 at 89-90. 60 Find no. 2I, Lindahl, n. 38 above, 32ff., 4Iff.; Find nos. I, 2,4,8,9, IO, II, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 28; Jensen, n. 38 above, 62ff. Of course the Continental imitations reached England and could have been re-exported. 61 See H. Nirrnheim, Das Hamburgische Pfund- und Werkzollbuch von 1399 und 1400, Veroffentlichungen aus dem Staatsarchiv der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg II, Hamburg 1930, nos. 6, I2; B. F. Johansen, O. Morkholm, n. 40 above, 57, no. 493, and passim. A. Jacobsen, O. Morkholm 'Danske Guldmontfund fra Middelalderen'. Aarboger for Nordisk Old-

223

kyndighed og Historie 1966, 7I-I01 at 73 and passim; N. L. Rasmusson, 'Nobel', KHL XII 1967, 325-327; Bendixen, n. 55 above, 53. It is possible that several nobles (or imitations) were found at Sprenge, Kreis Stormarn: H. Hingst, Vorgeschichte des Kreises Stormarn, Die vor- und friihgeschichtlichen Denkmiiler und Funde in Schleswig-Holstein v, Neumiinster 1959, 435; with the review in HBN XIV 1960, 658. Four (? rose) no bles may have been included in the Riisdorf hoard (a quarter of Heide, Kreis Dithmarschen) buried sometime after 1648: 20. Bericht der Schleswig-HolsteinLauenburgischen Gesellschaft for die Sammlung und Erhaltung vaterliindischer Altertumer 186I, 25-6. Since in both cases the account is very vague, neither find is included in the' Table of Finds'. It is uncertain whether the find, noted simply as of English coins, made on the moor' at Stelle' near Heide (Kreis Dithmarschen) was a medieval deposit: P. Hinrichs, Gross biiuerliche Geest- und Fettweidewirtschaften in Dithmarschen [Dissertation], Jena 19 I I, 3. The only recorded find of a modern English coin from Schleswig-Holstein is a shilling of 1700, E. N(obbe), 'Miinzfunde', Blatter fur Munzfreunde XLV 19 Io, 4433. * I should like to thank T. R. Volk for translating my original text into English.

224

G. HATZ

KEY TO ILLUSTRATIONS

(All Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge) Text figures 1 'Sceat', SCBI I, no. 283 (FM; Trinity College loan). 2 'Sceat', SCBI I, no. 261 (FM: Henderson bequest). 3 Penny, .tEthelred 11, London mint (Leofnoth), as SCBI I, no. 701 (FM: general collection). 4 Penny, Cnut, London mint,SCBI I, no. 790 (FM: Young gift). 5 Short Cross penny, John, London mint, North 1 179, no. 971 (FM: Henderson bequest). 6 Long Cross penny, Henry Ill, London mint, North 1 182, no. 992 (FM: Peterhouse loan). 7 Sterling, Edward I, London mint, North 11 22, no. IOI7 (FM: Henderson bequest).

18 Privy-marking and the trial of the pyx c.

E. BLUNT

Professor Grierson, in his series of presidential addresses to the Royal Numismatic Society, spoke round the theme of methodology; and in the first of them called attention to the surprising fact that even so distinguished a scholar as L. A. Lawrence, in his definitive study of the coinage of Edward III from 1351, had miscopied, it is true by only a matter of ten days or so, 'a date as cardinal in English numismatics as that of the indenture between Edward III and the masters of the mint for the introduction of the groat in 1351 '.1 It may not be inappropriate, therefore, in this presentation volume to one to whom numismatists owe so much, to review an aspect of this same study, namely privy-marking and the trial of the pyx. 'Secret' marks are a commonplace on later medieval coinage. In earlier times in England privy marks, seemingly part of the internal control system of the mint, are found on, for example, the York coinage of Athelstan (924-39) and, although something comparable continued into the reign of Edgar, their use broadly lapsed until the 1351 coinage of Edward Ill. In the France contemporary with Edward III privy marks were first put on the coins to identify their progressive debasement, 2 and in 1389 a pellet was introduced below one of the letters on one or both sides to denote the mint at which the coins had been produced. It was against this background that L. A. Lawrence and G. C. Brooke in the 1920S developed their ideas about the privy-marking of the English coinage in the fourteenth century and the use that could be made of such marks in establishing the ordering and dating of the issues from the time of Edward's introduction of the groat into general currency in 1 351. Brooke's conclusions are set out in his English coins, published in 1932,3 and may be summarised as follows: in the indentures of this period a clause is always inserted providing for the trial of the pyx. The master is instructed to place specimens of each day's production (the journey-weight) of coins in a pyx, which is to be sealed at the end of every three months and sent for trial. A privy mark of the master's choosing is to be placed on the coins and, to quote Brooke's words, 'as it is certain that every coin 225

226

C. E. BLUNT

bore a privy mark which was changed every three months', the arrangement of the coins issued by Edward III between 1351 and 1361 'has been evolved largely from the use and, be it noted, the survival of privy marks', though, Brooke says, it has not proved possible to restore in their order the forty privy marks used in those years'. Lawrence's views are recorded in the opening pages of his paper 'The coinage of Edward III from 1351', published six years earlier. 4 They follow much the same lines as Brooke's. The part particularly relevant to privy-marking reads as follows: 'This privy mark was clearly to be used at the trial of the pyx next following for identification of the officer's work. It follows that if we could now identify all the privy marks we should be able to classify our coins with exactitude.' W. J. W. Potter was, I believe, the first to call attention in print to certain fallacies in this reasoning. In his paper on the silver coinage of Edward III he remarked that he had 'failed to find any instructions in the indentures for privy marks to be made for identification at the pyx trials. The mintmaster was enjoined to place distinguishing marks on the coins produced under his direction" so that another time if need be he may know which are his work among other like moneys and which are not". ' There was nothing to suggest that this mark was to be changed at the periodical pyx trials. He then turns to the coins themselves and argues that they support his contention that the privy mark had not to be changed quarterly.5 In a slightly earlier paper, on the heavy groats of Henry VI, Potter discussed the same question in relation to that coinage; he argued convincingly that the marks that Whitton sought to associate with the quarterly trials of the pyx conflicted to an unacceptable degree, not only with the proportion of surviving coins, which in the three issues he was primarily discussing were unusually plentiful, but with such documentary evidence as we have on mint output and the supply of dies. 6 A point picked up as long ago as 1912 by H. Symonds 7 but seemingly overlooked by Lawrence and Brooke in the works just quoted,S is that it was only in the indenture of 1361 that the now familiar clause regarding privy-marking is first found. It does not appear in the indentures with Henry de Brisele and John de Cicestre of 1351,9 with William Potter of Ipswich of 1355,10 with Hugh de Wichyngham of 1356,11 or with Henry de Brisele of 1357. 12 In fact it does not actually appear in the enrolled text of the indenture with WaIter de Bardi of 5 March 1361,13 the clerk referring back, to save labour, to the fuller text of the indenture with Robert de Portyco of June 1361,14 which, though later in date, immediately precedes it on the roll. The master was there ordered' a son perile de deivene affaire un privee signe en toutz les monoies qil overa sibien dor come dargent'.15 Two things therefore emerge: we are not justified in claiming either that the indentures support a quarterly change of privy mark, or that a master's privy mark is prescribed at all before 1361. Edward Ill's issue in 1351 of the groat and half-groat started a complicated series of marks on the coins: broken cross initial mark, broken letters, pellets, annulets or saItires among the three pellets of the reverse, etc. (see fig. I). Prior to that there had been a remarkable uniformity of design and execution in the penny coinage; the varieties that

Privy-marking and the trial of the pyx

227

Examples of the varying, and at times broken, forms of the letter E, found on coins of Edward III (1356-60), which were among a number of 'secret' marks thought to be part of a quarterly privy mark system. (after NC' XII 1932, 105)

distinguished the various classes of coins of Edward I and 11 into which the Fox brothers divided them seem unlikely to have been designed as part of the control system of the mint.1 6 In 1351 all is changed and for the next ten years many marks are found. But with the coming of the 1361 indenture their number is considerably reduced. Lawrence records six varieties of groats for the period September 1361 to June 1369 which he divides into eleven sub-varieties. The first five main varieties are, he says, very uncommon; the sixth consisted of common coins. All the half-groats appear to be of the latest groupY The mint accounts show that the silver bullion purchased in the first year, 1361/2, amounted to £11,330 and for the last seven years totalled in all £8,960,18 which clearly demonstrates that those later varieties cannot reflect quarterly changes. In the reign of Richard 11 a variety of privy marks is found on the gold, but the silver is generally lacking in comparable marks. No attempt seems to have been made to identify quarterly privy marks in this reign, but on the light nobles of his successor, Henry IV, Brooke comments that' the four varieties of the position of the fleur-de-lis in their reverse design may very well mark the four quarters of the year April 1412 to March 1413' .19 This could, of course, fit the larger gold, but hardly fits the smaller gold or the silver. A detailed study by Brooke of the coinage of Henry V, stemming from a find of seventeen of his nobles at Horsted Keynes, elicited some curious information about privy marks. 20 The letters h, nand p are found to have been broken and later to have been repaired (fig. 2). Since this feature occurs on various denominations for which different sized letter punches were used, it is clearly deliberate. But Brooke runs into considerable

c. E.

228

BLUNT

A

B

2

Examples of the broken and repaired letter H on coins of Henry V. Line B shows in enlarged form the break and the varying repairs that were made to it. (after NC 5 x 1930, 52)

difficulties when he tries to connect these changes with quarterly pyx trials. They produce, he says, 'a confusion which seems to defy explanation', 21 and he emphasises' the very serious difficulty (facing the Master) in discovering some means of marking his coins four times a year without putting himself to the expense of having new dies cut every three months'.22 He finishes, however, 'I think it is reasonably safe to conclude that of the varieties that have been enumerated many represent the Master's privy marks; how many privy marks are represented by these thirty odd varieties it is impossible to say, but if allowance is made for a certain number that must have been overlooked, the varieties specified are very near the number required, namely 38, for the nine and a half years of the reign. '23 Ifit is accepted that there is no reason to believe that the master was required to change his privy mark at each pyx trial, most of Brooke's difficulties vanish. Some of the marks, clearly deliberate, must reflect control by the master of the internal running of the mint, perhaps indicating to which group of workmen certain dies had been issued so that, if irregularities on the coins were later found, they could be traced back to their source. Certainly an elaborate system was introduced with the new groat coinage of 1351 and it is particularly interesting to note that its period of greatest activity in Edward liI's reign is in the very years before the indentures prescribe the privy mark and that, once this is prescribed, the system becomes far less elaborate. That some reorganisation of the mint took place in 1361 is shown by another innovation introduced in the first indenture of that year: 'Also whereas heretofore the cutter of the irons has been appointed by the master and at his costs, he shall henceforth be appointed by the council.' This may well be reflected in the changed procedure for privy-marking. But, if many of the privy marks found on these coins are not the mark that the master was ordered to make under the terms of his indenture, is it possible to identify what the latter were? Potter has perspicaciously noted that the rare issue designated by Brooke

Privy-marking and the trial of the pyx

229

3

annulet EDWARD III

'A' and dated by him 1361-3, on which the larger silver has an annulet either side of the king's crown, fits neatly into the short mastership of Waiter de Bardi between 30 March and 20 June 1361, and that the mint accounts support such a dating for an issue of which few examples have survived (fig. 3).24 Consequently Potter sees in these unusual annulets de Bardi's privy mark as master and suggests that, on the coins issued between 1351 and the Treaty of Bretigny of 1360, three varying forms of the initial cross and its substitute on one issue, a crown, are likely to be the marks of respective masters.25 Certainly later there is every indication that the initial mark was the master's privy mark, notably on the coinage of Edward IV (figs. 4-6) onwards and, by the time of Elizabeth I, it is specifically designated as such. 26

4

5

6

cross

rose

crown

EDWARD IV

In conclusion I would emphasise that it is not suggested that Lawrence's use of these privy marks on the coinage of I 35 I -6 I as a means of arranging the series was, in principle, at fault; merely that his attempt to force each into a three-monthly period was mistaken and led him into problems, some of which he himself recognised. In seeking to apply the same principles to the coinage of Henry V, Brooke ran into even greater difficulties, as he explains. These largely melt away once it is recognised that the quarterly change is not required by the orders given to the master.

23 0

C. E. BLUNT NOTES

I P. Grierson, 'Numismatics and the historian', NC' IT 1962, President's Address, i-xvii at vii (reprinted in Late medieval numismatics as article xviii). 2 A. Enge!, R. Serrure, Traite de numismatique du moyen age Ill. Depuis rapparition du gros d'argentjusqu' a la creation du Thaler, Paris 1905, 966. 3 G. C. Brooke, English coinsfrom the seventh century to the present day, London 1932, 126-128. 4 L. A. Lawrence, 'The coinage ofEdward III from 1351. I', NC5 VI 1926, 417-469 at 4 18-4 19. 5 W. J. W. Potter, 'The silver coinage of ,Edward III from 1351. I', NC6 xx 1960, 137-181 at 176-179. 6 C. A. Whitton, 'The heavy coinage of Henry VI, part I', BNJ XXIII 1938/1940, 59-90; W. J. W. Potter, 'The heavy groats of Henry VI', BNJ XXVIII 1955/1957, 299-311 at 303-306. 7 H. Symonds, 'The mint-marks and denominations of the coinage of James I, as disclosed by the trials of the Pyx', BNJ IX 19 12 , 20 7- 233. 8 Brooke, however, had noted it in an important paper on the coinage of Henry V published two years before his English coins: 'Privy marks in the reign of Henry V' (hereafter 'Privy marks'), NC" X 1930, 44-87. 9 20 June 1351. Public Record Office, London (hereafter PRO) C54/189, m(embrane) 15d; Calendar of Close Rolls (hereafter CCR): 1349-1354, London 1906,379-381. 10 31 May 1355. PRO C54/193, m. 6d; CCR: 1354-1360, London 1908,235-238. 11 27 Jan 1356. PRO C54/194, m. 23d; CCR: 1354-1360, 29 6- 298 .

12 I Nov 1357. PRO C54/194, m. Id; CCR; 1354- 13 60 ,335. 13 5 Mar 1361. PRO C54/199, m. 9d; CCR: 1360-1364, London 1909, 296. 14 20 June 1361. PRO C54/199, m. IOd; CCR: 1360- 1 364, 293-295. 15 PRO C54/199, m. IOd. I am much indebted to Mr A. W. Mabbs, Keeper of Public Records, for most kindly verifying that the full text of these earlier indentures bore out the calendared versions in omitting any references to privy-marking and for supplying me with these references. 16 Brooke, however, takes the contrary view and remarks that 'there are on the early coins ofEdward I small points of difference, such as variety of letter-forms and other details, which would appear to serve some such purpose as [identifying issues at the trials of the pyx]': 'Privy marks', 46. 17 L. A. Lawrence, 'The coinage of Edward III from 1351. IV. 1362-1377 (Treaty and post-treaty periods)', NC5 XIII 1933, 15-79 at 19-20. 18 C. G. Crump, C. Johnson, 'Tables of bullion coined under Edward I, 11, and Ill', NC4 XIII 1913, 200--245 at 222-225. 19 Brooke, 'Privy marks', 48. The reference to the fleur-de-lis must be a slip of the pen for slipped trefoil. 20 Brooke, 'Privy marks', 44-87. 21 Brooke, 'Privy marks', 55. 22 Brooke, 'Privy marks', 62. 23 Brooke, 'Privy marks', 64-65. 24 W. J. W. Potter, 'The silver coinage of Edward III from 1351. IT & Ill', NC' IT 1962, 201-224 at 216-217. 25 Potter, n. 5 above, 173. 26 R. Ruding, Annals of the coinage of Britain and its dependencies 11, London 1840,454.

KEY TO ILL USTRA TIONS

(All Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge) Text figures 3 Half-groat, Waiter de Bardi for Edward III (FM: general collection). 4 Heavy groat, Edward IV (FM: Henderson bequest). 5 Heavy groat, Edward IV (FM: general collection). 6 Light groat, Edward IV (FM: Smart Collection).

19 Judicial documents relating to coin forgery (late fourteenth to early fifteenth centuries) PIERRE P. COCKSHA W

In their valuable editions of charters of the period 1380- I 436 in the registers of the French chancery, L. Douet-d'Arcq and A. Longnon made available a body of material, which, iflimited in quantity, is of great importance for the study both of popular attitudes and of the human and social problems of the late Middle Ages. I propose in this paper to use three of these charters to examine one particular aspect of the social and economic history of the period: the making of false coin at official mints by moneyers and other officers and workmen employed there, using the state's own equipment and official dies. 1 For counterfeiting seems to me a particularly fascinating area of study in that it raises a series of different problems, not only numismatic, but economic, social, and political as well. It is also a theme for which the evidence of contemporary documents is especially vivid. More often than not, however, these are lacking and we depend on the coins themselves for our information about forgery. It is hoped that these three examples may serve to illustrate the circumstances of forgery at other times. DOCUMENT 12

In a letter dated 13 November 1399, the French king Charles VI pardoned the master (comptable) and the wardens (gardes) of the Sainte-Menehould mint for illicit coining. 3 Charles, etc. We make known to all present and future that it has been represented to us on behalf of Perrinet de Maucroix, who is accountable for our mint of Sainte-Menehould, Jehan Goulart and Pierre de RaveneI, wardens of the same mint, young men of about 26 years of age, that at some time since the month of June last the Wardens made and gave to Perrinet two consignments of the gold coins now being struck in our mints, the first amounting to 17 or 18 gold marks and the second to between 10 and 12 marks; that these consignments of coins were not of the proper weight and fineness but were deficient in alloy by three-quarters of a carat per mark, or thereabouts. On these sums we ought to have received or, if we have not already done so, ought to receive the profit. The plaintiffs could not have had accurate knowledge of the fineness, because it is a very subtle matter and one which cannot be judged by eye, but only with a touchstone, and in this they have no expertise. And also that these coins were underweight by three-quarters of a piece per

23 1

PIERRE P. COCKSHA W

ecu a la couronne, mint of Villeneuve-Saint-Andre-les-Avignon, for

CHARLES VI

mark, which amounts to 16 sous tournois a mark, or thereabouts. They kept no record of this deficiency nor did they disclose it in their papers, as they ought. And in addition, at a later date the said petitioners coined at our mint about 32 marks of gold, of which they set aside for trial only 18 to 20 marks; the balance of the profit on the 32 marks of gold which we should have had together with the profit on the weight referred to above which, as has been said, they did not record in their accounts, all comes to 40 ecus, or thereabouts. And they agreed among themselves to give this profit to merchants from Lorraine and Germany with whom they were dealing by giving more for each mark of gold than they had been accustomed to give in order that the merchants should want to come to their mint. ... DOCUMENT rr 4

The second document is a letter of Henry VI of England, as king of France, given on 22 December 1422, by which the king reprieved a moneyer du serment de l' Empire accused of various financial irregularities at the mint about 1419-20.'

gros, mint of Paris, for

CHARLES VI

Henry, by the Grace of God King of France and of England. We make known to all present and future that we have received a humble petition from Jehannin Jodoin, an unmarried clerk of about 20 years of age, moneyer du serment de l'Empire, recounting how some two years or so ago Guillemin du Sauchoy, an ouvrier at the same mint du serment de ['Empire, had on three or four occasions given him up to between 22 and 24 francs of gros blanks for coining and that he had

Judicial documents on coin forgery

233

asked him to coin the blanks, telling him that it was from the 'brief' which the master in charge of the mint had instructed him to work and that the blanks were of the proper weight and fineness; Guillemin claimed that he himself was required at once to work some silver and that for that reason he asked the petitioner to coin the blanks for him, and that he would give him 2 sous for each franc coined. The petitioner, who suspected nothing amiss, had given Guil1emin an equal sum in already coined money and had coined at the Mint of Paris what Guillemin had given him and had afterwards given it to the Master in charge ... DOCUMENT IIl 6

In the third document, dated 26 December 1431, the same king granted a pardon to a workman at the Paris mint who, at the instigation of a fellow workman, had committed various offences at the mint in 1421.7

niquet, mint of Paris, for

CHARLES VI

Henry, by the Grace of God King of France and of England. We make known to all present and future that it has been represented to us by Michiel Harasse, an ouvrier at our mint of Paris, du serment de l' Empire, at present a prisoner in our Chastellet in Paris, married and with four small children, that about Christmas 142 I a man by the name of Martin Mingot, an ouvrier in the same mint, approached the petitioner on several occasions telling him that he was the person at the mint whom he most wanted to please. And it happened that on one of these occasions Mingot asked him if he would prepare five or six marks of metal in ingots, to which the petitioner said he would not and that he was afraid that it would be dangerous to do so. To this Mingot replied that it was not and that if there were any danger he would not ask it of him, and that he was doing so more for his benefit than for any other reason; and so with fine words he persuaded the petitioner to agree to the deed, trusting that Mingot would not wish to deceive him. In fact Mingot took him six marks of alloy in ingots, which the petitioner worked, flattened and made only into' black' blanks. Afterwards, he gave them to Mingot, and for his work the petitioner received six francs oflight-weight coin. And shortly after this time Mingot came again to the petitioner, accompanied by a man by the name of Perrin Dieu-le-Gart similarly an ouvrier in the same mint, who saw that the petitioner was a simple and ignorant young man and that at that time he was no more than eighteen years old, or thereabouts, spoke to him in these words or something like, that if he put his trust in them, he would profit from it and become rich. The petitioner then replied that he would always wish to do what he could to earn his livelihood honestly, whereupon Mingot and Dieu-le-Gart told him that it would be well to set up a furnace in one of their houses, to which the petitioner replied that this would not be done at his house; and Mingot told him that he greatly

234

PIERRE P. COCKSHA W

wished that it be done at his house. since there was no danger or risk, for otherwise they would not have asked it of him. And in this manner Mingot and Dieu-Ie-Gart managed to secure the petitioner's agreement, and immediately they went together to buy three vessels for smelting. They brought them to the home of Mingot and there made two firings, each making up about 30 marks of alloy; of these firings more than two thirds were lost, because they were not experienced at the job. From them the petitioner had for his part and share only some four marks, and the balance remained with Mingot and Dieu-Ie-Gart. The four marks received in this way by the petitioner were worked by him and made into 'black' blanks; and after this he gave them to a man by the name of lehan le Maistre, also a moneyer, for blanching and coining, and he received for his work, for each dozen gros, two gros in light-weight coin ...

In each of the three cases the same essentials appear: the weight and composition fixed for the coinage by ordinance were not respected; the right of coinage was exercised not by the sovereign, but by a private individual; and, notwithstanding the private character of the operation, the blanks were coined with official dies, the act was performed at the mint, and the work was undertaken by regular workmen, engravers, and moneyers.8 But if the means of production was the same in all three cases, the circumstances of each act of forgery and the reasons given for them are quite different. Rather than forgery, it would be right to describe what happened at Sainte-Menehould as a variation to the coinage authorised not by the sovereign, but by the mint officials themselves. This mint, opened on 16 August 1392, had been sited at Sainte-Menehould (dep. Marne) on the frontier with Lorraine in order more easily to tap supplies of gold and silver from Lorraine and Germany;9 but, contrary to French hopes, the eagerly expected supplies of metal did not arrive at the mint. In an attempt to attract supplies of precious metal, the officer responsible at the mint (probably the master of the mint) and the two wardens (the garde and contregarde) decided to increase on their own authority the price at which the mint would buy gold bullion. Those in charge at the Sainte-Menehould mint had little freedom of choice when it came to funding this clandestine operation, since the rate of seignorage would have to remain the same and the face value of the coins could not be altered. Their only option was to effect changes in the weight of their coins (at a rate of i of a piece in every mark or 0.9561 g.) and in their fineness (by i of a carat or 3%). For good measure they also omitted to set aside for trial the required number of coins from some 20 marks of metal. This enabled them to add the seignorage on that amount of metal to their other irregular profits. Some 60 marks of underweight coin were struck before the fraud was detected, whereupon those officers responsible for the operation were arrested and the director of mints changed the privy marks that identified coins of the Sainte-Menehould mint. lO But in this case, as those responsible themselves emphasised, the fraud was justified as having been for the public good, since the clear purpose of the whole operation had been 'for the better working of the mint by bringing in gold from the neighbouring lands'. In the second example to be discussed, if the man responsible for the fraud was unable to plead the common good, at least he was able to claim that in his innocence he had been terribly misled. At the request of an ouvrier (the specialist workman charged with preparing blanks, who claimed to be unable to undertake the work himself), a young

Judicial documents on coin forgery

235

moneyer had struck gros pieces to the value of 20 francs or about 400 coins. l l According to the ouvrier, these blanks came from his 'brief', that is the quantity of alloy assigned to him by the master of the mint and which the ouvrier had to make into blanks during the course of a day. In payment for his work the moneyer had received two sous for every franc coined. But a little later it was discovered that these gros pieces were neither of the weight nor of the fineness fixed by the coinage ordinances and the alloy had not been given to the workman by the master of the mint. The third text provides the only clear example of counterfeiting. An ouvrier of the Paris mint, Martin Mingot, managed to persuade Michel Harasse, a young ouvrier in the same establishment, to make the equivalent of six marks into blanks. The dishonest workman did not hide from the young man that his stock of metal had not been supplied by the master of the mint. That information, however, did not deter Michel Harasse from proceeding with the melting down of about 60 marks of metal and with the preparation of 4 marks worth of blanks, which were then supplied to a moneyer for striking, still black from heating. 12 The excuses offered by the accused for this fraud seem very slight: he was young, he had initially refused to undertake the work at his own house, and, finally, a good part of the molten metal had been lost' because they were not experienced at the job'. The conclusions suggested by these three cases seem to me self-evident. In the first place, they show how easy it was for workmen charged with the technical operations of the mint to make use of official dies to strike counterfeit coin. Secondly, it is clear that the moral sense or scruple of people working in the mints does not appear to have been very great. Finally, and most important, even if counterfeits made by ordinary artisans or by men working in pewter appear not to have deceived anyone, much more dangerous were those forgeries made by the mint's own craftsmen, who not only did not hesitate to use their technical knowledge, but actually employed official dies to carry out their fraudulent schemes. APPENDIX DOCUMENT I

Charles, etc. Savoir faisons a tous presens et avenir. A nous avoir este expose de la partie des amis charnelz de Perrinet de Maucroix, tenant le compte de nostre monnoie de Saincte Manehot, Jehan Goulart et Pierre de Ravenel, gardes de ladicte monnoie, jeunes hommes de XXVI ans ou environ: que comme depuis le moys de juing derrenier passe lesdictes gardes aient fait et delivre audit Perrinet deux delivrances des deniers d'or qui de present se font en noz dictes monnoies, l'une montant de XVII it XVIII mars d'or, l'autre montant de X a XII mars, desquelles delivrances les deniers n'estoient de tel poiz ne de telloy qu'ilz devoient estre, mais estoient es~hars de loy trois quars de quarac pour marc ou environ, dont nous devons avoir eu ou aurons le proffit se ja ne l'avons eu, duquelloy les dessusdiz supplians ne povoient avoir point la vraye cognoissance pour ce que c'est chose moult soubtille et que on ne peut jugier it veue d'ueil, se ce n'est it la touche, ou ilz n'ont point de cognoissance. Et aussi estoient les diz deniers foibles de po is III quars de denier pour marc, qui se monte XVI sous tournois pour marc ou environ. Lequel flebage ilz n'ont mie escript ne mis en leurs pappiers comme ilz devoient. Et en oultre a este ouvre en nostredicte

PIERRE P. COCKSHA W

monnoie par lesdiz supplians depuis ledit temps, environ XXXII mars d'or, dont ilz n'ont mie en boiste que de XVIII it XX mars, et le surplus du proffit desdiz XXXII mars d'or que nous devions avoir avecques le proffit du pois dessusdit qu'ilz n'escrivoient point en leurs pappiers, comme dit est, qui tout se puet monter XL escus ou environ. Et avoient accorde entre eulz donner yvellui proffit aus marchans de Lorraine et d'Alemaigne a eulz marchissans et d'ailleurs, en leur donnant pour marc d'or plus d'avantage qu'ilz n'avoient acoustume leur donner, pour ce qu'ilz-delaissoient de venir en ladicte monnoie ... DOCUMENT 11

Henry, par la grace de Dieu roy de France et d' Angleterre, savoir faisons a tous presens et avenir nous avoir receu humble supplicacion de Jehannin Jodoin, clerc non marie de l'aage de vint ans ou environ, monnoier du serement de l'Empire, con tenant comme, deux ans a ou environ, Guillemin du Sauchoy, ouvrier de ladicte monnoie du serement de l'Empire, lui eust baille a trois ou quatre foiz jusques a la somme de vint deux a XXIII frans de gros a monnoier, et lui eust prie qu'il les monnoiast, en lui affermant que c'estoit de brieves que le maistre particulier de la monnoie lui avoit bailIe a ouvrer et qu'ilz estoient de poix et loy telz qu'ilz devoient estre, mais il avoit a faire d'argent presentement, et pour ce lui eust prie qu'illes lui monoiast et li lui donroit 11 solz pour franc. Lequel suppliant, qui en ce ne cuidoit riens mesprendre, lui eust bailIe pareille somme toute monnoiee, et eust monnoie en la monnoie de Paris ce que ledit Guillemin lui avoit baillie, et les eust depuis bailIez audit maistre particulier ... DOCUMENT III

Henry, par la grace de Dieu roy de France et d'Angleterre, savoir faisons a to us presens et advenir, nous avoir este expose de la part de Michiel Harasse, ouvrier de nostre monnoie de Paris, du serement de l'Empire, a present prisonnier en nostre Chastellet de Paris, chargie de femme et de quatre petiz enfans, que environ Noel l'an mil CCCCXXI, un nomme Martin Mingot, ouvrier de ladicte monnoie, vint par pluseurs foiz par devers ledit exposant en lui disant que c'estoit l'omme de la monnoie qui il feroit plus voulentiers plaisir, et advint que a une desdictes fois ledit Mingot lui demanda se il vouloit ouvrer cinq ou six mares de lingoz d'aloy, dont ledit exposant lui dist que non, et que il se doubtoit qu'il n'y eust dangier. A quoy ledit Mingot respondit que non et que, se il y avoit dangier, il ne l'en requerroit pas, mais le faisoit plus le faire gangnier que pour autre chose, et telement l'induist par belles paroles que icelui exposant s'accorda ace faire, cuidant que ledit Mingot ne le voulsist point decevoir. Et de fait print ledit Mingot six mares de lingoz d'aloy, lesquelz il ouvra, aplati et mist en deniers noirs seulement, et apres ce les bailla audit Mingot, et en eut ledit exposant pour sa peine six francs de foible monnoie. Et peu apres de temps, vint derechiefledit Mingot audit exposant, acompaignie d'un nomme Perrin Dieu-Ie-Gart, pareillement ouvrier de ladicte monnoie, voyans icelui exposant estre simple homme jeune et ignorant, et n'avoit pour lors que XVIII ans d'aage ou environ, lui dirent ces paroles ou semblables, que, se illes vouloit croire, il auroit du bien et seroit riche. Et lors ledit exposant respondit que il vouldroit toujours bien faire pour gangnier sa vie honnestement, et adonc iceulx Mingot et Dieu-Ie-Gart lui dirent qu'il seroit bon de faire une fonte en l'un de leurs hostelz, a quoy ledit exposant respondit que ce ne seroit pas en son hostel, et ledit Mingot lui dist qu'il vouloit bien que ce feust ou sien, pour ce que en ce il n'y avoit nul dangier ne peril, car autrement ilz ne le vouldroient requerir. Et tant firent iceulx Mingot et Dieu-Ie-Gart que ledit exposant s'accorda it eulx, et incontinant alerent ensemble acheter trois poz a fondre, qui furent portez en l'ostel dudit Mingot, et en ce firent deux

Judicial documents on coin forgery

237

fontes, dont chacune fonte montoit environ trente marcs d'aloy, et d'iceles fontes fu respendu plus des deux pars, pour ce qu'ilz n'estoient pas a ce expers. Desqueles fontes ledit exposant n'ot pour sa part et porcion que quatre marcs ou environ, et le surplus demoura ausdiz Mingot et Dieu-le-Gart, lesquelz quatre mars ainsi receus par ledit exposant les ouvra et mist en deniers noirs; et apres ce les bailla a un nomme Jehan le Maistre, aussi monnoier, pour les blanchir et monnoier, et en retint pour sa peine, de chascune douzaine de gros, foible monnoie, deux gros ...

NOTES I

2

3

4

5

6

L. Douet-d'Arcq, Choix de pieces inedites relatives au regne de Charles VI 1-11, Paris (Societe de l'histoire de France) 1863-1864; A. Longnon, Paris pendant la domination anglaise (I420-1436). Documents extraits des registres de la chancellerie de France, Paris 1878. M. Francois in 'Note sur les lettres de remission transcrites dans les registres du Tresor des chartes', Bibliotheque de rEcole des Chartes cm 1942,3 I 7-324, has listed the few publications in which charters taken from these registers have been published or analysed. Unfortunately, for the period under study in this paper not il1 the registers yet have good analytical indices. For the coinage, see J. Lafaurie, Les monnaies des rois de France: Hugues Capet a Louis XII, Paris/Bale 1951. Archives Nationales, Paris: JJ 172, no. 497; Douet-d'Arcq, n. I above, 160-161. See Appendix, Document I (for al1 three documents I have col1ated the published text with the original). Presumably ecus a la couronne; compare Lafaurie, n. I above, 73, no. 378a (4th issue, 29 July 1394). The irregular coins have not been identified, but for the types in general see Fig. I: ecu a la couronne of the mint of Villeneuve-Saint-Andre-les-A vignon (Grierson Col1ection, Fitzwilliam Museum). Archives Nationales, Paris: JJ 172, no. 189; Longnon, n. I above, 67-69. See Appendix, Document 11. Presumably gros for Charles VI; compare Lafaurie, n. I above, 81, no. 402a (3rd issue, 7 March 1419). The irregular coins have not been identified, but for the types see Fig. 2; gros of the mint of Paris (Grierson Col1ection, Fitzwilliam Museum). Archives Nationales, Paris: JJ 175, no. 32;

7

8

9

10

I I

Longnon, n. I above, 329-33 I. See Appendix, Document Ill. Presumably either niquets (doubles tournois) or deniers tournois for Charles VI; compare Lafaurie, n. I above, 84, nos. 417 and 418 (issues of I I August 142I). The irregular coins have not been identified, but for the types of the niquet see Fig. 3: niquet of the mint of Paris (Grierson Col1ection, Fitzwilliam Museum). A final point they have in common is the youth of al1 those employed at the mint. The comptable and the gardes at the SainteMenehould mint were about 26: XXVI ans ou environ; a moneyer of about 20 (vingt ans ou environ) was prosecuted for offences that had taken place some two years earlier: deux ans . .. ou environ; and another employee was about 18: XVIII ans d'age ou environ. For the history ofthis mint see F. de Saulcy, 'Notice sur les ateliers monetaires de Chalons-sur-Marne et de Sainte-Menehould " Revue de Champagne et de Brie VI 1879, 321-331 and 401-41 I. This was not, however, the first occasion on which there had been difficulties at the Sainte-Menehould mint. Already in September 1395, scarcely three years after its inauguration, the director-general of mints had ordered that the gold and silver bullion stored at Sainte-Menehould should be taken to Troyes for coining and then distributed to the moneychangers who had deposited the bullion at Sainte-Menehould and who had not yet received their payment. In 1412 the Sainte-Menehould mint was transferred to Chalons. For both events see de Saulcy, n. 9 above. A number of details relating to the operation of the mints are worth noting.

PIERRE P. COCKSHA W

First, the difficulty in charging the master and gardes of the Sainte-Menehould mint with debasement when it was by such a small amount that it could be detected only by using a touchstone, and all three employees were unfamiliar with the technique. Second, that the division of work at the heart of the mint's operations seems to have been less clear cut than A. Dieudonne supposed in A. Blanchet, A. Dieudonne, Manuel de numismatique jran(:aise 11, Paris 1916, 14. According to Dieudonne, the moneyers were responsible for striking coins and the ouvriers for preparing the flans. The second document, however, implies that an ouvrier could be charged by the mint master with coining the flans he had prepared from his 'brief'. Dieudonne's division seemed to have operated in the case of Harasse, who

12

*

is said to have prepared flans, here deniers noirs, from the metal cast by Mingot and Dieu-le-Gart; the flans were then consigned to a moneyer, lehan le Maistre, for blanching and coining. An even more extraordinary charter is quoted by Longnon, n. I above, 329 at n. I. Here a confession by an ouvrier charged with forgery implicates almost the entire staff of the Paris mint; everyone conspired to produce the counterfeits: workmen employed in the foundry, ouvriers, and moneyers. I hope shortly to publish this astonishing document which so singularly illuminates the social history of the early years of the fifteenth century. Dr P. Spufford kindly read the translation of my text. He does not necessarily agree with my comments on mint organisation.

20

Mint organisation in the Burgundian Netherlands in the fifteenth century PETER SPUFFORD

In his concise handbook of Numismatics Philip Grierson has devoted a chapter to the making of coin.l In it he gave a masterly survey of coinage methods from classical antiquity to the present day. In this essay I would like to exemplify some aspects of the making of coin in the later Middle Ages by a case study of the organisation of the mints of the fifteenth-century Netherlands. I have taken my information from the period after the unification of the coinages of the Low Countries by Philip the Good in October 1433. 2 The fifteenth century was not a period of rapid change and development in mint administration. The major medieval innovations in mint organisation had already taken place: in the thirteenth century Italians had developed individual mints to a 'factory' scale, and in the fourteenth century the French had evolved a system for the general administration of groups of mints. 3 This study is therefore concerned with the portrayal of a mature and fully evolved system of mint organisation. Only minor modifications in structure were made during the two-thirds of a century under discussion. The stability in the forms of mint management lasted much longer than this period, for the organisation described here for these mints in the fifteenth century bears a marked resemblance to that described by other authors for the late fourteenth century for the mint of Flanders, and for the late sixteenth century for the mint of Antwerp.4 Any study of mint operations must be very largely based on mint accounts. In the past only the receipt sides of such accounts have generally been exploited, since these give the weights, finenesses and quantities of each denomination of coin minted, and the gross seignorage due to the prince. However, the expenditure sides, which have been relatively neglected, give valuable information on the costs and methods of running the mints, as well as the net profits, if any, remaining for the prince. It must be remembered that these accounts are not strictly 'mint accounts' as they do not directly describe the whole running of the mints by the mint masters, but are rather' seignorage accounts' which only deal with that part of the organisation of minting which involved any outlay on the part of the prince. Similar studies can be made for other mints from which accounts survive for any period after the introduction of the new italianate 'factory' mints in the

239

PETER SPUFFORD

'long thirteenth century', since many mints throughout western Europe shared a very similar form of organisation. 5 Naturally there were local variations not only in nomenclature, but also in the detail of organisation. For example, even in the Low Countries, in the mint at Tournai (an enclave within the Burgundian territories), there were two wardens, whereas in the Burgundian Netherlands there was only one warden in each mint. 6 The greater part of the Low Countries were united under Burgundian rule in the 1430S, and in 1433 the duke, Philip the Good, introduced a common coinage for his territories with the issue of identical coins from the mints of four of his principalities, those of Flanders, Brabant, Holland and Hainault. 7 The original intention was that identical coins should also be issued in a fifth principality, Namur, but the mint was closed instead and the principality served with coin from Philip's other mints. When Philip acquired Luxemburg, he half-heartedly introduced the minting of his common silver coinage into that principality.8 When his son Charles acquired Gelderland, he extended the minting of both the common silver and the common gold coinages into that territory much more thoroughly.9 Extremely similar coins were struck in the non-Burgundian territories in the Low Countries, notably the ecclesiastical principalities of Utrecht and Liege, but their mints were not controlled by the same administration. In this essay I cover the operations of the mints of Flanders, Brabant, Holland, Hainault and Gelderland. lo Typical coins of the Burgundian Netherlands at this period are illustrated on plates 17 and 18.

CRAFTSMEN

'Ouvriers' and' monnayeurs'

At the basis of the pyramid-like structure of the mint administration were the craftsmen who actually produced the coinage. In each principality they formed corporations of franc-monnayeurs which had extensive privileges, normally renewed by each duke within a few years of his accession. l l The principal privileges enjoyed by the franc-monnayeurs were exemption from taxation and from military service. The exact terms of exemption varied slightly from principality to principality. According to the chartered privileges of the'monnayeurs et ouvriers' of Flanders, they were' quietes et paisibles de prijeers, de tailles, de chevauches, et de armures ... et de tout service de ost se ce n'est par raison de fief'. In addition they were only justiciable before their own provost and the masters of the mints, except for cases of rape, murder and arson.l2 How this worked out in practice may be seen by the certification by the city fathers of Malines that, when lions were minted there (i.e. 1454-6 and 1459-62), the moneyers had been exempt from the assize of wine and beer.l3 The corporation of franc-monnayeurs was hereditary, and, as a consequence, there could be an increasing number of people who were so privileged. The Namurconfirmation of privileges by Charles the Rash to a large number of named people, reci tes the previous charters of privileges, and thus incidentally reveals the extent of their growth in numbers, whilst the Luxemburg confirmation of privileges by Philip the Good shows a diminution

Mint organisation in the Netherlands in numbers.l4 It is difficult to determine when the original groups of hereditary moneyers were formed. The fifteenth-century charters of privileges recite sequences of earlier charters of privileges stretching back to the last decade of the thirteenth century: to 1291 in Brabant, 1298 in Luxemburg, and the same year in Flanders. However, even the charter granted by Gui de Dampierre in Flanders in 1298 itself implied that a growing group of hereditary mint workers had already been in existence for a few generations. By 1298 there were 55 privileged men bearing only 35 family namesY Moneyers were a privileged class not only in the Low Countries, but throughout western Europe. Most belonged either to the' serment de France' or to the' serment de I'Empire'. The line of division ran through the Low Countries, but there seems to have been some attempt to create a 'serment de Brabant' and later a 'serment de Bourgogne' to which all Netherlands moneyers might belong, thus withdrawing them from outside affiliations. When the mints were not working, the franc-monnayeurs carried on trade, and it was then that their privilege of exemption from taxation, particularly from import and export dues and from tolls, was so valuable to them, and so excited the envy of their commercial rivals and markedly irritated the local civic authorities, much of whose revenue was made up from such dues. From time to time these claims of exemption became good cause for litigation. Even when the mints were in operation the whole corps of moneyers was not called upon to perform their duties, so that those not called upon were able to continue their commercial activities. It is not clear what method of selection was used in determining those who were to be called upon - whether by lot or rotation is not known. If, however, a franc-monnayeur was called upon to perform his duties the disadvantages of his heredi tary calling at once became apparen t. He had immediately to abandon any business in which he was engaged and come to the mint at his own expense. I6 If the mint moved from one town to another, from Bruges to Ghent for example, or from Louvain to Antwerp, he too had to move with it, leaving wife and family behind. Working in the mint cannot have been a pleasant occupation, for merely living next door proved so unpleasant for Pierre Pippe that he felt compelled to rent a house in a different part of Bruges and successfully petitioned for compensation for his disturbance. I7 Compared with commercial profits the pay for mint workers must have seemed very bad. It was fixed in proportion to the amount minted, and, apart from the .uneven production of the mint, wages seem to have been very irregularly paid by the mint masters, by whom they were employed. Since they were not employed by the dukes their wages do not appear in the seignorage accounts. The working personnel of the mint were divided into two sections, the ouvriers and the monnayeurs. The former refined or alloyed the bullion to specification, whilst the latter struck the coins. The ouvriers passed on the prepared alloy to the monnayeurs in the form of blanks, flattened discs of metal of exactly the required weight, ready for striking. The pay for the ouvriers was determined by the weight of correctly alloyed blanks prepared and the pay of the monnayeurs by the number of pieces struck. The traditional pay, when gold was being minted, seems to have been one gold piece shared among the ouvriers

PETER SPUFFORD

for fifteen marks weight of correct alloy prepared, and one gold piece for the monnayeurs for fifteen hundred gold pieces struck. In Flanders in the 1390S they were also fed. IS There is no evidence whether or not they still were in the fifteenth century; one can only presume that they were. Since there is no Burgundian source which describes the work of the ouvriers we have to rely on descriptions from other fifteenth-century mints. The regulations for the Sicilian mint in 1466 give a great deal of technical detail which is normally lacking, for the whole of this activity was the concern of the mint master rather than the state. 19 These regulations make it very clear that, in order to produce coins at a rate of up to a million a month, a late medieval mint had to be organised as an efficient factory, with an extremely marked division oflabour along a veritable production line. Only the conveyor belt seems to have been lacking. The Sicilian regulations begin by describing the work oftheJonditore who produced rough sheets of metal of the correct alloy. The Burgundian mint accounts refer to the smeltere or Jondeur and his assistants, when they received a courtoisie from the seignorage on the occasion of the assay of specimens of their work. 20 From theJonditore the sheets of metal passed to the tagliatore who cut out rough blanks from it with gigantic shears. These rough blanks were passed on to the preposito degli operai, the supervisor of workmen who reheated the rough blanks and then hammered them to a suitable flatness to receive the impression of the coining dies. In Sicily the term operai seems to have been limited to the group who carried out this specific stage in the work, whilst in the Netherlands ouvriers covered all the workmen who carried out the whole range of processes up to the actual striking. In Sicily the flattened blanks then passed to the preposito degli affilatori whose men made the blanks as nearly circular as possible, and at the same time ensured that they were of the correct weight. In London such men were known as sizers.21 In Sicily the flattened, rounded and weighed blanks were passed to the imbianchitore for the final process before striking. This was to clean the blanks, which were still' black'. In the mint of Holland there was only a single man who did this, known as the colorisuer.22 He did his work with dilute nitric acid,23 and the accounts of the receiver-general of Holland reveal the purchase of saltpetre for the mint for this purpose. 24 With so many functions to perform it is hardly surprising that the ouvriers greatly outnumbered the monnayeurs. They had done so ever since the introduction of the 'factory' mint in the thirteenth century. During the direct exploitation of the Flanders mint for Phi lip the Bold in 1392-3, the ouvriers, as a group, had been paid at least two and a halftimes as much as the monnayeurs, as a group, for their share in the production of every category of coin. 25 In 1298 the Luxemburg mint-privilege had been granted to 88 ouvriers and 22 monnayeurs. In Namur there had been 80 ouvriers and 20 monnayeurs.26 Since both groups were hereditary the number of potential ouvriers available for employment in the fifteenth century must, conveniently, have still outnumbered the potential monnayeurs, probably still in roughly the original proportions of four to one. However, we do not know how many more ouvriers than monnayeurs were actually needed to operate any of the fifteenth-century mints in the Low Countries. The numbers of monnayeurs employed, when we accidentally have evidence for them, were surprisingly

Mint organisation in the Netherlands

243

Late fifteenth-century wall paintings on the west wall of the moneyers' chapel in the church of St Barbara at Kutmi Hora in Bohemia: above, ouvriers flattening blanks; below, a monnayeur striking.

small. On one of the two occasions on which we have such evidence, at the Ghent mint in the autumn of 1466 and the spring of 1467, nine were named, in addition to the prevosl under whom they workedY According to the document which gives us this information, they were engaged in striking courles at the time, and the largest number of courles apparently struck in one day by one man was 9,504.28 Since this seems an impossibly

244

PETER SPUFFORD

large amount for a single individual, one is compelled to speculate whether named moneyers had anonymous assistants. In this case the names given must be read as those offoremen of small teams of moneyers rather than those of solitary individual craftsmen. On the other occasion, also at the Ghent mint, on which there is evidence for the number of men striking coins, they were rather more numerous. Perhaps on this occasion the actual number of men striking is being given. In February 1434, during the winter of 1433-34 which saw the vast inaugural issues of gold 'riders' and silver patards,29 the engraver complained that the number of moneyers had been increased by fifteen 'foreigners' from Tournai and Hainault, so that he had to make dies for 33 moneyers in all. By implication eighteen' Flemish' moneyers were normally working at the Ghent mint at this date. Shortly afterwards he wrote again, complaining that, by then, there were 36 'foreign' moneyers needing his dies. 30

PRINCIPAL MINT OFFICERS

Above the craftsmen there were the officers of the individual mints. The complement of a mint consisted normally of one or more mint masters, a warden, sometimes a con tregarde , an assayer and an engraver. The mint masters

The mint master was a contractor, who took the mint at farm for a specified period of time, normally three years, but sometimes one, two, or even five years from the first delivery of coin. The contract might be extended or cut short. It might be cut short by a number of factors. The death of the duke, for example, annulled all appointments. The introduction of a monetary ordinance involving a new weight or fineness of coin automatically invalidated any seignorage arrangements, and hence terminated the farm. The master's contract usually also provided for the possibility of his resignation, having given six months notice, if the supply of bullion ceased, or became so small as to make it uneconomic to continue minting.31 When supplies of bullion were inadequate the duke generally quite simply allowed a mint to close, quite often for many years together, particularly in the 1440s, 1450S and 1460s, during the second of the great bullion famines to afflict later medieval Europe. There are no accounts from any 'Burgundian' mint between 1433 and 1500 which suggest that there was any revival of the expedients adopted in the 1390S, during the first of the great bullion famines. In 1392-3, for example, the mint of Flanders was run directly for Phi lip the Bold, without a master. 32 When the mastership of a mint became vacant, the office was usually put up for public auction' a la chandelle esteinte' in the relevant Chambre des Comptes. Notice of the auction was usually sent to local officials, such as the bailli of Douai or the governor of Lille, suggesting that they inform any local businessmen who might be interested in taking up the farm.33 Notice could also be sent directly to individuals, already known to be interested, mostly goldsmiths and moneychangers, informing them of the day of the auction. 34 The auction was conducted by the general masters of the mints usually

Mint organisation in the Netherlands

245

in the presence of some of the masters of the relevant Chambre des Comptes and of the Warden, and sometimes the other officers, of the mint concerned. Bidding was in terms of seignorage per mark of fine gold and of argent-Ie-roi minted. 35 Sometimes written tenders for the office were made instead,36 and occasionally arrangements went wrong and someone had to be persuaded to take up the farm.37 The livelihood of the master depended on his making the maximum profit from the difference between the price he paid for uncoined bullion, and the value of the coin produced from it, allowing for the seignorage to be paid to the duke. The master therefore had a vested interest in keeping minting costs to a minimum, but he had also continual temptations to pay less than the official price for bullion, and to make more than the official number of coins from it. He was therefore required, on entering office, to take a complex oath to perform his duties honestly,3S and furthermore had to enter into two bonds for the proper exercise of his office. He had to give security for good behaviour towards the duke. This consisted of the deposit of a considerable sum of caution money in the Chambre des Comptes, which would be forfeit in the case of the production of coin of poor weight or quality, or in the case of non-payment of seignorage. 39 He had also to give security for good behaviour towards the merchants. This consisted of the delivery of a considerable amount of bullion as soon as he took up residence in the mint, to be coined at once, to provide a reserve of coin in the mint to meet any claims that he might have defrauded merchants by under-payment for their bullion. The necessity for the deposit of large capital sums often meant that it was not possible for a single individual to take up the farm of a mint. Consequently either two mint masters took up the farm of a mint together, or else one master took up the farm, with the aid of a number of sleeping partners who had merely helped him to provide the necessary capital. Some of the mint masters were wealthy men, like Hans Cobbe and Pieter van Walem, the masters of the Malines mint, who in 1488 lent Maximilian 6909 li. of 40 gr. to pay the van Myerle brothers for several years' delivery of wine to the court, when the revenues of Brabant were inadequate to make such a payment!40 Since the running of the mint was their private concern, we do not normally have any of the papers of the mint masters themselves. However, the occasional document has for one reason or another found its way into the ducal archives. An interesting, and indeed probably unique, example of the sort of papers kept by the mint masters, which no longer generally survive, is provided by a list of men who brought gold day. by day to the comptoir of the mint at Bruges for minting over a period of five weeks in 1454 from 14 February until Easter. Against each man's name is recorded the weight of gold and its fineness, and its consequent value per mark, together with the total sum due to him from the mint masters.u This document gives an extraordinarily vivid impression of the business of an active fifteenth-century mint. On most days, from three to seven people turned up with gold bullion to be minted, and occasionally eight, nine or even ten persons. They brought quantities of gold ranging from a few ounces up to the two loo-mark deliveries by Jacques de Kienrue, which were worth over 6,000 pounds each. It gives us a rare glimpse of the private customers for whom the mint worked, and a lively picture of the mint as a business concern. Most of the surviving documents make the mints look

PETER SPUFFORD

like departments of state, which from the duke's point of view they were, but for the masters they were businesses to be managed for profit. The expertise of the master was as an entrepreneur, an organiser of men and money, a financier and an industrialist. The state provided the premises and the equipment, an hereditary corporation contributed the skilled workmen, but it was left to the masters to take the risks and to provide the working capital and the management ability to run the mints at a profit. They moved in with their staff, the most shadowy figures of all,42 and at the end of their term moved on to other business. The mint masters and their staffs might move on, but there remained a permanent establishment of officials who had a continuous oversight over the mint. The warden and the contregarde were the key officers responsible for the protection of the interests respectively of the dt:ke and of the merchants. Both were normally drawn from among the ranks of the prosperous and well established. The wardens

The wardens were in many ways the senior officers of the mints, rather than the masters, and the latter could do very little without their warden's agreement. The wardenship had the advantage of being an appointment which was normally only terminated by death, either of the duke or of the warden. There was consequently a tendency for the office to remain in one man's hands for a very long time. 43 The wardens had a general supervision of the fabric and fittings of the mints,44 as well as a particular concern to monitor the production of the mints in the interest of the duke. To do this they had to keep accurate records of the amounts minted and to ensure that a fair sample of the coinage was put aside for assay purposes. The former was achieved by keeping 'wardens' books' in which a daily note was made of the quantities of prepared metal supplied by the ouvriers to the monnayeurs.45 The latter was achieved by keeping a number of sealed boxes into which some stipulated proportion of the production, for example every four or five hundredth gold piece, was inserted. For silver a certain number were put in for every ten marks weight of coin struck. 46 These boxes, either when full, or at the end of the master's farm, or after a regular period (a year or sometimes four months), were sealed up and later sent to the Chambre des ComptesY When they were opened there, the contents were assayed publicly. After the assay the boxes were resealed and waited in the Chambre des Comptes until the master came to have his accounts audited. The contents were the property of the master. 48 The receipt side of the seignorage accounts was based primarily on the' wardens' books' and the' wardens' boxes'. The one revealed the quantity minted, and hence the seignorage. The other revealed the quality minted, and hence the amount payable to the duke for remedes, that is if the fineness, or the weight, was below the tolerances permitted by the mint ordinances. It was thus that the wardens protected ducal interests. They also had a duty to ensure that all potential bullion reached the ducal mints, and therefore had to oversee the activities of the moneychangers. From time to time they went on tour receiving the oaths of the moneychangers in their principality, who had to swear to deliver their bullion to the mint

Mint organisation in the Netherlands

247

and not to send it elsewhere. The warden of the Brabant mint sometimes also attended the international trade fairs at Antwerp to ensure that bullion which had been brought to the fair was duly minted. 49 They had also to help cope with counterfeiters. When the mint was working at full stretch the warden was very busy indeed and was tied to the mint. Henry de le Kienrue did not even feel he could leave the Bruges mint in April 1468 to answer a summons to the Chambre des Comptes at Lille 50 When a warden died suddenly when the mint was busy, as Henry de le Kienrue did in September 1472, it caused great consternation, and a replacement was appointed incredibly quickly, within eight days. 51 When the mint was less active the duties of a warden did not monopolise his time, and wardens were thus able to remain active in commerce, or in some other branch of ducal service. It was even possible for a warden to spend considerable periods away from the mint, leaving his routine tasks to be performed by a deputy.52 A warden was normally assisted by a confidential clerk, whom he presumably paid out of his own salary. Certainly wardens' clerks were not paid out of the seignorage, and consequently references to them in surviving mint documents are very rare and accidental in nature. One clerk, for example, appears because he claimed for delivering the warden's books and boxes to the Chambre des Comptes. 53 Besides a clerk, who had to be someone in whom the warden could repose considerable trust, the warden also had a man working under him called variously le varlet de la monnaie or den cnapen vand' munte. His was a menial job and included cleaning out the mint. 54 The wardens' responsibilities were regarded as onerous and in return they received substantial salaries, usually 30 li. groat per annum, paid partially by the mint master out of his profits, and partially by the duke out of the seignorage. Of the wardens' 30 li. groat, the dukes normally paid a third, although in times of retrenchment, as in 1437, or again in 1495, the ducal share was temporarily cut back. In Gelderland, when the dukes of Burgundy minted there from 1474, the duke paid half the salary, but it was a smaller salary, only 100 Rhinegulden, each reckoned at 40 groats, i.e. 16 li. 13s. 4d. groat. In addition the wardens also received a further sum of 40 li. groat each year from the mint masters for 'expenses',55 making a total emolument of 70 li. groat each year. This compares very favourably with the emoluments of the other mint officers. By comparison the daily wages of master craftsmen in the building trades in Antwerp in summer were stable at twelve braban~on groats, for most of the century. Allowing for 200 to 250 working days a year, this made an annual income of seven or eight Flemish pounds groat for a highly skilled workman in fairly full employment in the city with the highest wages in the Low Countries. 56 The warden of a mint received ten times as much; although he had, presumably, to pay his clerk, and any other staff, out of his own pocket. In addition wardens from time to time received handsome bonuses in the form of gold enseignes, specially struck piedforts, or sometimes ordinary gold in lieu, which were customarily given to them on the occasion of the adoption of a new standard for the coinage. 57 There was no pay when the mint was idle, although the warden was a permanent official. In compensation there was a considerable degree of prestige attached to the post, besides the enjoyment of a considerable house within the mint premises, the upkeep of which was partially paid for,58 together with the use of the mint's garden. 59 There is evidence

PETER SPUFFORD

that, in Flanders in the 1390s, the warden and other mint officers also received food and clothing at the expense of the master. 60 There is no means of telling whether or not they continued to do so in the fifteenth century as well. One can only presume that they did. The 'contregardes'

The office of contregarde on the other hand was not nearly so well established and permanent as that of the warden. The contregarde was not only a ducal official, but also a prominent merchant looking after the interests of his fellow merchants. Conditions varied from mint to mint, and from one year to the next, so that frequently there was no contregarde despite the stress laid at meetings of assemblies of estates on the importance of every mint always having a contregarde. His principal duty was to ensure that the master paid the full and correct sum to those who brought bullion to the mint and to prevent any merchant from being defrauded. To do this he was supposed to enter in a register every consignment of gold and silver brought to the mint, to keep the compte aux marchans, and to note down the amounts of gold and silver delivered to the ouvriers. 61 Contregardes were paid by their fellow merchants at a rate per mark weight of bullion delivered to the mint,62 but some also received payments from other sources, such as municipal funds,63 as well as from the master's profits and the ducal seignorage. 64 None of them appears to have enjoyed a house in the mint, and their office was always liable gradually to fall into desuetude, until suddenly revived, or, as in 1495, to be abolished, equally suddenly, as an economy measure. JUNIOR MINT OFFICERS

The two junior officers of the mints, the assayer and the engraver, were both permanent officials and enjoyed houses and gardens within the mint. Their work seems to have been very much a full-time occupation. The assayers

The assayers had a great deal to do in determining the alloy of every parcel of bullion brought to the mint that was not readily checkable on the table of empirances, the official finenesses attributed to foreign coin that might be melted down for reminting. They had also continuously to supervise the work of the fondeurs and the other ouvriers in refining and alloying the metal to the correct specifications. Besides this there were special assays to be made from time to time. The general masters or the Chambres des Comptes or even the local civic authorities might require to know the fineness, and hence the value, of any new pieces issued by neighbouring princes which might begin to circulate in the Burgundian Netherlands and consequently did not appear in the existing tables of empirances. At the opening of the boxes of one mint, the assayer of another mint was frequently called upon to conduct the assay.65 Occasionally the bishop of Liege, or of Utrecht, would call for the aid of a 'Burgundian' assayer in his mint. In addition it is

Mint organisation in the Netherlands

249

probable that assayers also undertook work privately for local goldsmiths. It is certain that local goldsmiths assisted with the work of assaying. 66 It was altogether a job that demanded considerable skill and discretion. It was obviously a position open to corruption, although what particular act of corruption lay behind the dramatic flight of lehan van der Vel de in February 1481 is not clear. He had been assayer of the Antwerp mint for some three years when he suddenly fled, not only from Antwerp, but completely out of Burgundian territory. His flight caused great consternation, and Clais Steemair, his predecessor, and by then Assayer General of all the mints, came back to act as assayer in the Antwerp mint on and off during the next three months to keep things going until a successor could be found. 67 It is hard to establish the rates of pay of the assayers. In Holland the mint instruction of 1454 specifically states that the two previous assayers had been entirely paid by the mint masters.68 The absence of payments in the seignorage accounts of the Flanders and Brabant mints implies that there too the assayers were entirely paid by the mint masters. However, from 1454 the duke normally seems to have paid half the assayers' salaries and the mint masters the other half. The rates of pay in the different mints never seem to have been standardised, but the Flanders mint in general paid its assayers most and that of Gelderland least. 69 In addition the assayers customarily received a courtoisie when the boxes of their own mint were opened and the contents assayed, as well as fees for the extra assays that they carried out from time to time. 70 The engravers

The engravers' work divided itself into two parts. Firstly there was the making of puncheons or punches, which were to be used for making the dies. It was generally only necessary to prepare a whole range of new puncheons when new types were adopted. Secondly there was the sinking of the dies themselves.71 The extent of the die sinking was, of course, determined by the quantities of coins issued, which were sometimes very large. Dies do not seem to have lasted very long, and new dies were consequently often required in large numbers. In eighteen months, at the Bruges mint in 1468 and 1469, lacotin du Biez claimed to have made upwards of 2,000 dies, for striking under five and half million coins.72 At this rate each set of dies struck an average of fewer than 8,250 coins.73 For a period of three months in the autumn of 1492 the engraver of the Bruges mint, lehan Pollet, supplied no less than 32 dozen pairs of dies for the temporary mint at Ghent. 74 Sometimes the task of engraving dies during a period of heavy minting was too much for one man, and outside assistance was required. At the Malines mint in 1485 five and half million coins were minted in a period of only just over eight months. Hubrechts Bouwens could not cope with the speed with which fresh dies were required and the work had to be shared. 75 On another occasion one engraver had to supply dies for two mints, which placed a considerable burden on him, and resulted in delays in minting. On I March 1454 Philip the Good himself sent an angry letter to the general masters of his mints at Lille asking why lehan Blancpain, the die engraver of the Valenciennes mint, had not yet sent any dies to the Bruges mint to enable it to begin

PETER SPUFFORD

minting, and ordering them to do something about it. 76 The personal intervention of the duke had' instant' results. Within two days Jehan Blancpain sent seven sets of dies to Bruges. Two further batches of dies were soon sent after them, arriving at the Bruges mint in the next six weeks. This incident interestingly confirms that a set of dies consisted of one pile, or lower die, and two trussels, or upper dies, which always wore out faster. The last batch of dies carried from Valenciennes to Bruges in mid-April consisted of eight piles and sixteen trussels for striking lions, and a similar number for striking lion eels, which were pieces of two thirds of a lion, and a fortnight earlier 7 piles and 14 trussels had been sent for striking lions. Later on assistance was found for Blancpain in his double task, but the general masters insisted on seeing the dies made by this additional engraver, presumably to inspect them before they were used. 77 The creation of a new coinage involved a great deal of preparatory work for an engraver. In 1464 Jehan van Orshagen, then engraver of the Brabant mint, was ordered by Philip the Good to prepare patterns for the new florins of St Andrew, and for double and single patards. His widow later claimed that he had spent a total of six months out of the following two years in the engraving of trial pieces before the issue began in 1466. Her claim seems to have been a fair statement of the facts for she was given an ex gratia payment equivalent to six months of a mint engraver's salary.78 A few years later three men each produced dies for pattern deniers de la thoison for Charles the Rash, but only a mark of gold was struck with these dies and none of them was adopted for any regular issue. 79 After the work of designing and preparing patterns came the work of making the puncheons for the dies for the regular issues. In 1488 Janne van Nymegen was called upon, with great haste, to make the puncheons and the first sets of dies, not only for his own mint of Malines, but also for the mints of Holland and Gelderland for the new half-noble and the accompanying silver coinage. 8o The engraver had additional work to do in preparing dies for the enormous numbers of reckoning-counters used up by the Chambres des Comptes. 81 Between 1466 and 1474 the Chambre des Comptes at Brussels used no less than 2,400 copper reckoning-counters and 8,500 ones made of latten. In the same period the Chambre des Comptes at Lille used 4,500 copper ones. By the end of the century they no longer counted them, but delivered them by weight. The Chambre des Comptes at Lille received 115 marks weight of copper counters between 1493 and 1496. As well as these vast quantities of functional reckoning-counters for ordinary use, the mint delivered, in alternate years, special sets of silver reckoning-counters for the personal use of the masters and auditors of the Chambres des Comptes, and occasional extra sets of silver counters for such people as the secretaries of the duke, the maistres d'ostel of the duke, the receiver-general of all his finances, and the president and receiver-general of Flanders. Although the engravers were partially and sometimes wholly paid by the masters, they were nevertheless ducal servants, like the wardens and assayers. At the beginning of the issue of 'riders' the masters of the Ghent mint tried to trade on the fact that they were then supposed to pay the engraver's salary by making their own appointment. They sold the job to the warden's clerk, who was apparently competent to undertake the job, for

Mint organisation in the Netherlands he engraved dies for striking jettons on a number of occasions. The official nominee, Testart du Bies, wrote a grovelling complaint to the general masters of the ducal mints pointing out that the master did not have the right of appointment, as well as casting doubts on the clerk's abilities as a die engraver.82 He was confirmed in office, and was soon to be complaining of over-work. 83 If the engraver was under anyone's authority within the mint it was the warden's. In 1471 when lehan van Orshagen, who had by then been engraver in the Brabant mint for fifteen years, proved' negligent' and' rebellious', it was the warden who, with the backing of the gens des comptes, sacked him for insubordination. Presumably his defiance and disobedience had been to the orders of the warden. It sounds a thoroughly unhappy case, for he then left Louvain where the mint then was, went to Malines, got into more trouble and died soon after. 84 In the Brabant and Gelderland mints the salaries of the engravers were the same as those of the assayers, paid half and half by the duke and by the mint master.8S In the Flanders mint the engraver was paid rather more than the assayer. 86 From 1454 onwards the duke paid the whole salary when the mint was not working, but, when it was working, only half of it, the other half coming, as in Brabant and Gelderland, from the mint master. They also received additional fees for extra dies. lehan Blancpain was paid 4S. groat for each pair of dies that were rushed from Valenciennes to Bruges to permit the mint there to open in 1454. 87 Testart du Bies eventually received a gift of 20 gold' riders' from the duke in 1437 as recompense for the extra work involved in cutting extra dies for the greatly inflated workforce of moneyers employed at the Ghent mint during the vast inaugural issues of patards in the busy winter of 1433-4. 88 There was also extra pay for preparing puncheons for new issues. Hubrechte Bouwens was paid 3 li. groat for the puncheons for the new double, single and half stuivers which were to be minted at Malines in 1485.89 There was again extra pay for dies for reckoning-counters. The normal rate of payment for a set of dies for reckoning-counters for the Chambres des Comptes was 20S. groat, or 12.li.parisis. This was a fairly regular bonus, since in most years either copper or silver counters were required, and frequently both.

THE ORIGINS OF MINT OFFICIALS

The officers as a whole have been described as though all the mints of the Burgundian Netherlands were identical. To a very large extent this was true. In part this was a consequence of the common background shared by the principalities before they were finally united in Philip the Good's reign, and in part a consequence of the standardisation of institutions that arose from the sharing of a common personnel between the principalities. The officials moved freely from one mint to another with little trace of local particularism. 90 Officers were recruited from any part of the Netherlands, including Tournai, whose citizens seem to have played a considerable part in the monetary life of the Burgundian lands.91 The mobility of the mint officers extended beyond the confines of the Netherlands. Etienne Boursier, for example, held the masterships of the mints at Auxerre, Auxonne and Dijon before coming north to take over the mint at Bruges in 1454. 92 Besides a mobility from mint to mint, the officers frequently showed a mobility

PETER SPUFFORD

from office to office: assayers became masters,93 contregardes became assayers or masters,94 and masters became contregardes or wardens. 95 From this it might be concluded that the mint officers formed an interchangeable community, the members of which flitted from mint to mint and from post to post, until they ended up, according to temperament, in a comfortable wardenship or a profitable mastership. It ought to be said that others were permanent fixtures, serving in the same capacity for decades and, at the end, dying in office. Mint officers formed a community bound together not only by professional interest, but also by blood. There was frequent nepotism in the mints. Men were pleased to place their sons, their sons-in-law or their nephews in the way of advancement in the mints. 96 The mints after all provided one of the many paths by which the bourgeois might rise, for the mints were connected both with commerce and with the administration. Recruitment for the mints was normally from among the most prosperous men of the great cities. Mint officers were often merely described as 'merchant', but frequently their occupation was clearly specified, most commonly as 'goldsmith',97 or 'moneychanger'.98 The moneychangers, as well as their primitive function of exchanging gold coin for silver, silver coin for gold and even foreign coin for local coin, were at this time performing some of the functions of local, giro, banking, although their banking activities were suppressed towards the end of the century. They were an extremely important group within the commercial community.99 Many of these men held civic office.lOo From the mints it was possible to move on to other posts in the ducal administration, such as bailli, receiver-general or maftre des comptes. 101 By sinking the fruits of business and of office in land, it was an easy transformation into lesser nobility, the equivalent of English landed gentry.102 In the political structure of the Burgundian Netherlands all these things mattered. Power ostensibly remained in the hands of the central administration and the great cities, but, as the fifteenth century progressed, the influence and prestige of the nobility increased. To be well placed in the ducal service was an end in itself, but it was also important to have a share in the control of one of the great cities, and to be a landed nobleman. Best of all, perhaps, was to combine all three. NOTES I

2

Philip Grierson, Numismatics, London 1975,94- 12 3. For some other aspects of money in the Low Countries in the same period see my doctoral thesis, written from 1956 onwards under the supervision of Philip Grierson, and later published as Monetary problems and policies in the Burgundian Netherlands 1433-96, Leiden 1970. I intend shortly to write elsewhere on the general mint officers who stood above the particular officers of the individual mints and had jurisdiction over monetary affairs in all the ducal dominions in the Low Countries.

3 J. Bailhache, 'Chambre et Cour des Monnaies (XIVe, XVe et XVle siecles). Apen;u historique', RN4 XXXVII 1934, 63-99, 175-197; XXXVIII 1935,67-89; XXXIX 1936, 157- 179, 327-345. 4 Pierre Cockshaw, 'Le fonctionnement des ateliers monetaires sous Philippe le Hardi' (hereafter 'Philippe le Hardi '), BeEN VII 1970, 24-37, and L. Smolderen, 'Jacques Jonghelinck, Waradin de la Monnaie d'Anvers de 1572 it 1606', RBNS cxv 1969, 83-247, particularly 89-101. I must thank Dr Cockshaw for a copy of his important article, and for drawing my attention to

Mint organisation in the Netherlands M. Smolderen's, neither of which I had seen when preparing this essay. S Examples of fifteenth-century mints already described are provided by Carmello Traselli, 'La Zecca', Note per la storia dei banchi in Sicilia nel XV secolo I, Palermo 19S9, "7-133, and the two relevant chapters of John Craig, The Mint. A history of the London Mint (hereafter The Mint), Cambridge 19S3. 6 Account of the Tournai Mint, '491-2. 7 At anyone time there was only one mint in each of these principalities. During this period the mint of Flanders was sometimes at Ghent, and sometimes at Bruges; that of Brabant at Brussels, Malines, Louvain or Antwerp; that of Holland at Dordrecht or The Hague; and that of Hainault at Valenciennes. 8 I have not dealt with Luxemburg, which has been most recently and thoroughly treated by Raymond Weiller, La circulation monetaire et les trouvailles numismatiques du moyen age et des temps contemporains au pays de Luxembourg, Luxemburg 1977. 9 The mint of Gelderland was normally at Nijmegen or Arnhem, but later at Zaltbommel and eventually in exile at Malines. 10 The mint accounts and other related documents on which this essay is based are in the Archives Departementales du Nord at Lille (in future footnotes to be abbreviated as Arch. Nord); the Archives Departementales of the Cote d'Or at Dijon; the Algemeen Rijksarchief in The Hague (to be abbreviated A.R. The Rekeningen of the Rekenkamer of Holland there are to be abbreviated Rek.Rek.); and the Archives Generales du Royaume in Brussels (abbreviated A.G.R.), where I have used three collections, those of the Chambre des Comptes (abbreviated Ch.C.), the Acquits de Lille and the Manuscripts Divers. The sums of money involved were mostly expressed in these documents in pounds, shillings and pence groat of Flanders (abbreviated li. s. d. gr.). The standard money of Flanders was based on the groot or groat, initially a coin of the same size as the gros tournois, but by the fifteenth century greatly debased and reduced in

253

weight. The Flemish groat was subdivided into 3 esterlins or 24 mites. However, some sums were expressed in Flemish money parisis. Originally this had been a money of account based on the denier parisis which circulated in Flanders, but by the fifteenth century it was linked to the money groat of Flanders in the relationship 12 li. parisis = I li. gr. Others were expressed in pounds of 40 Flemish groats; infrancs of 32 groats, and in Rhinegulden or florins of the Rhine, which as accounting units, were identical to the pounds of 40 groats. 6 Rh. = I li. gr. I have normally reduced sums in other moneys of account into Flemish money groat. For further details of accounting systems in use in the fifteenth century see my Monetary problems and policies in the Burgundian Netherlands, n. 2 above, Chapter I and Appendix I, 13-28 and 166-169. I I I have noticed such confirmations of privileges for the moneyers of Flanders, of Brabant, of Namur, of Holland and of Luxemburg. In Flanders, for example, there were such post-accession confirmations by Phi lip the Good in 1419, by Charles the Rash in 1471 and by Philip the Handsome in IS03. In addition the provost of the 'werclieden en muntenars' of Flanders petitioned for an additional confirmation of privileges and liberties in I4S4, when minting was resumed after a lapse of some years, and this was granted by Charles, then Count of Charolais, on his father's behalf. L. Gilliodts van Severen, Inventaire des Archives de la Ville de Bruges l VI, Bruges 1878,22; Norbert J. de Meyer, 'Vne charte de IS02 (IS03 n.st.) concern ant les privileges des monnayers de Flandre' (hereafter' Vne chartede I S02 '), RBNS CVIII 1962, 209-223; Arch.Nord, B. 19960/19291 and B. 1607 fos. 102V-103 v. 12 Norbert J. de Meyer, 'Vne charte de IS02'. 13 Certified 18 January 1473. Gilliodts van Severen, n. 11 above, SO-SI. '4 Arch.Nord, B. 643/IS8S0. I S According to the charter granted to their descendants in February 1S03. De Meyer, 'Vne charte de I S02'. 16 De Meyer, 'Vne charte de IS02', 218.

254

PETER SPUFFORD

17 Pierre Pippe, furrier to successive dukes, obtained 40 li. parisis each year from the Bruges mint seignorage on these grounds from Christmas 1474 to St John's Day 1482. A.G.R., Chambre des Comptes, 18110--18116 and 18197. 18 P. Cockshaw, 'Philippe le Hardi', 29. 19 Traselli, n. 5 above, particularly 121, is based on this document. 20 On the only occasion when the number of assistants so rewarded was specified, in the Flanders mint in 1493, there were only two, A.G.R., Ch.C., 18120, but this does not mean to say that there may not have been many more assistants employed in the mint who did not come to the assay. 21 Craig, The Mint, 44. 22 Marjoke de Roos, Sij Ontbooden te Coomen Rekenen. Munt en Muntpersoneel in Holland in de vijftiende eeuw (duplicated), Groningen 1978,25. I am indebted to Marjoke de Roos, who is still working on this subject, for her generous permission to quote from this privately circulated paper. The work of the colorisuer was described in the instructions given in 1487 to the warden of the Dordrecht mint. He was to see that the blanks for striking gold 'wel gesoden ende gecoloryt sijn als behoort ende oick de selver penningen ten zij dat zij wel gesoden ende geblanchiert sijn ende wel schoon gemaict in manieren, want als die voirs(chreven) penningen zoe schoon sijn sullen sy schoon togen '. Quoted by Marjoke de Roos, 97. In the London mint such men were known as blanchers, see Craig, The Mint, 44. 23 Grierson, n. I above, 106-107. 24 Marjoke de Roos, n. 22 above, 25. 25 P. Cockshaw, 'Philippe le Hardi', 28. 26 Cockshaw, 'Philippe le Hardi', 35. 27 A.G.R., Acquits de Lille, 937 2. 28 48 marks weight of courtes. Courtes, valued at two mites of Flanders, were small pieces of black money, only 10 grains fine and struck at 198 to the mark. Such poor coins were struck with less care and attention, and therefore presumably more rapidly, than more valuable denominations. The' normal' day's quantity of courtes put down against each moneyer's name was 16 marks, i.e. 3,168 courtes. However, two men were

29

30 31

32 33

34

35

36

habitually put down to strike smaller quantities than the others. If such Stakhanovite quantities really were struck by single individuals, might one suppose that these two were apprentices or superannuated. In this mint just over four and a quarter million patards, double groats, were struck in less than five months at this time, besides smaller quantities of five other denominations. Arch.Nord, B. 640/ 156092; 156695 and 6. This was no empty clause. Jehan de Brebant, for example, gave up the Brussels mint in 1437 for lack of bullion, and deserted the Ghent mint in 1440 when the supply of bullion dried up there as well. A.G.R., Ch.C., 17989 and Arch.Nord, B. 19959/19262. On the latter occasion his co-master Jean des Pres fled to Boulogne. P. Cockshaw, 'Philippe le Hardi "25,28-29. Arch. Nord, B. 641/15724 contains the responses of the mayor of Louvain, the lieutenant of Brussels, and similar officials in Amiens, Malines, and Bruges, giving details of how they had publicised the farming of all four Burgundian mints in the Low Countries in February 1439. Arch. Nord, B. 19975/19400 lists 21 men in eleven different towns in Flanders, Brabant, Hainault and Tournai, who were informed of the farm of the Valenciennes mint in July 144 I. For example on 26 April 1487 Anthonis de Louckere opened the bidding with an offer of 22 groats per mark weight of gold minted and 12 groats per mark of silver; Bernard Warnebeke raised this by 2 groats per mark of gold and a half groat per mark of silver; Pieter van Merende then pu t in a higher bid; Bernard Warnebeke put in yet a higher bid, and finally Ambroise Diergarde won the farm of the Bruges mint for the next three years with an offer of 27 groats per mark of gold and 13 groats 18 mites per mark of silver. Arch. Nord, B. 161 I fo. 84v. For example Jehan de Brebant, merchant and citizen of Tournai, and Arnoul de Coulougne, put in a written tender for the Valenciennes mint on 8 May 1441 (Arch. Nord, B. 639/156252). On 22 June the Duke gave a provisional acceptance, ordering the

Mint organisation in the Netherlands

37

38

39

40 41 42

gens des comptes and general masters of his mints to give them the farm unless a higher bid turned up. On 29 July they were given the farm for three years (Arch. Nord, B. 1606 fo. 31). Similar written offers and acceptances for the mints of Ghent and of Amiens and St Quentin were also registered at the same time (Arch. Nord, B. 1606 fos. 30 and 32V). For example in the summer of 1434 messengers had to be,sent to Louvain to ask if Andre Thomas would take on the Brabant mint, as those to whom it had been farmed were raising difficulties. Further messengers were then sent to Ghent to ask two other men if they would take it, and in the end two entirely different men were commissioned (A.G.R., Ch.C., 17986). The registers of the Chambres des Comptes are full of references to such oaths being sworn before the president and other members of the Chambres, not only by the masters, but also by the other officers of the ducal mints. Each Chambre des Comptes presumably had a ready reference book such as that surviving from the Chambre in Dijon which contained, amongst other useful items, the texts of the oaths to be sworn by the ducal mint officials (A.G.R., Mss Divers 385B; the oath of the master of an individual mint is fo. 1 If). For example Mathieu de Thilly put down 1,000 escus of 48 groats (i.e. 200 li. groat) in April 1494 before taking over the Flanders mint again. Five years earlier Ambroise Diergarde's commission as master of the Flanders mint was withheld from him until he had paid 300 li. groat caution money (Arch. Nord, B. 33 fos. 204 and 158). A.G.R., Ch.C., 18242. Arch. Nord, B. 19969/19375. A man who comes a little out of the shadows was the young Ambroize Diergarde who was on the staff of Ypolite Terrax in 1474 when he was master of the Bruges mint, and went on with him when he became master of the Antwerp mint later in the year. He was still with him in 1479 after he had given up the Antwerp mastership (A.G.R., Ch.C., 18109 and 17880). In 1481 Diergarde was partner with de Louckere in running the

43

44

45

46

47

48

255

Dordrecht mint, and in 1487 went back to the Bruges mint as master himself. This is far more than we know of other employees of other masters. It is far more usual to have a single reference, like that in 1435 to Barthelkin, an employee of the masters of the Brabant mint, and then silence. Dirck Tielmanszoon Oom, for exampl~, was warden of the Holland mint for 33 years from 1434 to 1467; Henry de Merende of the Brabant mint for 19 years from 1458 to 1477; and Henri de la Kienrue and Rene Hazart of the Flanders and Hainault mints respectively for at least seventeen years each. After Rene Hazart died in 1460 a complete inventory of the contents of the mint was made when his heirs handed over the care of the mint to his successor (Arch. Nord, B. 19975/ 1940 3). A certain number of these remarkable books survive among the documentation of the Lille Chambre des Comptes, although they were normally disposed of once the masters' accounts were fully audited (A.G.R., Acquits de Lille, 937 2 and 1512; Arch. Nord, B. 19975/19402 and B. 19960/19313). As well as recording the daily quantities delivered to the moneyers, they also record the number of pieces put in the boxes each day, and the amount mis-struck or otherwise wasted and returned to the melting pot. This was known as scissel, chisailles, or sisailles. For example at the Bruges mint in 1454, one double groat was put in the box for every ten marks of them struck, eight gigots for every ten marks of them, and twelve courtes for every ten marks of them (Arch. Nord, B. 19959/ 19 280). The sealed boxes sometimes remained inthe mint for some time after minting ceased before being transferred to the Chambre des Comptes. For example they were still in the Antwerp mint in 1477 when it was attacked by a mob (A.G.R., Ch.C., 17880). For example in 1455 the warden of the Bruges mint carried the boxes to the Chambre des Comptes at Lille on 26 March, the very day that minting ceased, and they were opened on 1 April. One mark weight of gold lions, one mark of lionceaux, and. all

PETER SPUFFORD

55petits lions were taken from the boxes and melted down for assaying, whilst the remainder were sealed up again for return to the master when he rendered his accounts (Arch. Nord, B. 31 fo. 148v). 49 For example, Thierry de Stavere, warden of the Brussels mint, went to Bergen-op-Zoom in April 1436 to take the oaths of the moneychangers there. At the beginning of June he was in Antwerp to receive the oaths of the changers there, and in September he was back in Antwerp for the fair (A.G.R., Ch.C., 17987). 50 'Il mest impossible car on forge journellement en la monnaie sans cesser' (Arch. Nord, B. 17705). 51 A.G.R., Ch.C., 18109. 52 Josse van Merende thus acted as warden of the Brabant mint in the spring of 1468 and again in the autumn of 1476 during the absence of his father Henry (A.G.R., Ch.C., 18069 and 17880). Dirc Oom, the warden of the Holland mint, frequently had deputies, one Jacob Bolle in 1446, his nephew Thielman Oom in 1454-5, and his son Jan in 1466-7. 53 Johannes Hebbelin, clerk to Jehan Utenhove at the Ghent mint in 1439 (A.G.R., Acquits de Lille, 937 2). The Holland version of the 1454 mint ordinance stipulated that either the warden 'ou son clerc sermente' was obliged to be present in the mint when customers brought in bullion (quoted by Marjoke de Roos, n. 22 above, 23). We know the names of a very few such clerks, such as Johannes Hebbelin, or Jehan Nyeman, clerk to Thierry de Stavere at the Brussels mint in J435 (A.G.R., Ch.C., 17986). 54 They quite often feature near the end of mint accounts as recipients of small' courtoisies' from the duke. 55 When by the J454 ordinances the duke took all the remedes, it was agreed that the seignorage should meet part of these 'expenses'. At the next account of the Bruges mint a half of these expenses, 20 fi. gr., was met by the duke, and at the Malines mint 30 li. gr. However in the following mint accounts the duke only paid 10 li. gr. of the wardens' 'expenses', until the shrinking

56

57

58

59

60 6J

62

scale of minting meant that there was too little seignorage to pay them at all. After minting was resumed in 1466 there was no further mention of the duke paying any part of the wardens' expenses (A.G.R., Ch.C., 18103,18104,18105,18195 and Acquits de Lille, 1512). Stable at this rate from circa 1441/3 to circa 1496. Herman van der Wee. The growth of the Antwerp market and the European economy I, The Hague 1963,459-460. Henry de le Kienrue, for example, received nine florins, worth I fi. I IS. 6d. groat, in 1468 as an enseigne, being an ounce of gold. This in itself was over two months wages for a skilled workman (A.G.R., Ch.C., 18106). For these enseignes see the sequence of articles by Marcel Hoc, 'L'enseigne d'or de la Chambre des Comptes de Flandre', RBNS LXXXVII 1935, 13-27; 'Enseignes et droit d'enseigne', RBNS LXXXIX 1937, 25-38; 'Jetons de la Chambre des Comptes it Malines', RBNS XCI 1939, 27-37. For example, Jehan Utenhove, the warden of the Ghent mint, had four of his windows glazed with 32 panes of glass in 1443 at the expense of the mint master, who tried to reclaim the expense from the duke (A.G.R., Acquits de Lille, 937 2). The use of the mint garden is vividly illustrated by Gillet Hazart, son of the warden of the Valenciennes mint, who in 1458 held rowdy parties in the mint garden and took all the fruit, to the great annoyance of Jehan du Poncheau, who had been given a house in the mint precincts while the mint was idle. The latter changed the locks on the entrances to the garden and so prevented the Hazarts using it at all. A lawsuit naturally ensued (Arch. Nord, B. 32 fols. 24v and 25). P. Cockshaw, 'Philippe le Hardi', 29. From the 1438 ordinance for general masters (Arch. Nord, B. 1605 fos. 237v-238v). In 1438 the rate was fixed at 6 mites per mark of gold and 2 mites per mark of silver. This did not amount to much. On the 720 marks of gold and 7,183 marks of silver minted at the Ghent mint in fifteen months in 1439-40 it only came to 3 li. 6s. groat.

Mint organisation in the Netherlands 63 At some date the Four Members of Flanders ordered that Jacob Coolbrant, the contregarde of the Flanders mint, was to receive 25 li. groat a year as long as minting continued. In 1469-70 he was paid this sum by the city of Bruges. Gilliodts van Severen, n. I I above, 22. 64 In 1438 the prescribed rate of payment out of the seignorage was only 4 li. groat a year. At the Antwerp mint from 1475 to 1482 the total salary of successive contregardes was 10 li. groat annually, 6li. of which was paid out of the seignorage and 4li. by the master. In 1482 the total was raised to 15li. and the ducal share increased to 10 li. From 1489 to 1495 the contregarde at the Bruges mint was also paid 10 /i. groat each year out of the seignorage. At the Gelderland mint in 1474-6 and 1481-2 his total salary was only fifty Rhinegulden 8 li. 6s. 8d. groat), paid half by the master and half from the seignorage. 65 For example Gillet Hazart, the assayer of the Valenciennes mint, carried out the assay of the boxes of the Flanders mint at Lille in March 1455 (A.G.R., Acquits de Lille, 93 13). 66 For example Pierre le Roy and Guillaume Mulot, Bruges goldsmiths, carried out the assay of the boxes of the Flanders mint in 1484 (Arch. Nord, B. 33 fo. 97 and A.G.R., Ch.C., 18197). 67 A.G.R., Ch.C., 17881. 68 A.R. Rek.Rek. I fo. 46v, quoted by Marjoke de Roos, n. 22 above, 24. 69 In the Flanders mint from 1454 the duke paid assayers a total of 150 li. parisis (I2li. 10S. groat) each year between salary and 'expenses', whilst the master paid a similar amount, making a total regular income of25 li. groat in all. In Brabant the peculiar circumstances of 1454-5 were most marked. In these years the ducal seignorage was charged at the annual rate of 100 francs of 32 groats (13 li. 6s. 8d. gr.), but in the following account the ducal payment was halved. It is not clear how much the mint master paid. When minting was resumed in 1466 the auditors had to look back as far as 1430 to find out what should be the 'normal' payment to an assayer. It was 40 Florentine

257

florins a year, surely already an archaic form of reckoning in Brabant in 1430. In 1466 at 421 groats to the florin this worked out at the improbable sum of 7li. 2S. 2gr. 2est.! The assayer, Clais Steemair, expected the mint master to make him a similar payment. In Gelderland the pay was slightly lower still, 80 Rhinegulden, of 40 groats each, paid half and half by master and duke, making a total of 13 li. 6s. 8d. groat. 70 For example Gillet Hazart was paid 4 ecus of 48 groats when he assayed the boxes of the Flanders mint (n. 65 above), and a pound groat was paid to the assayer who assayed the casks of contraband bullion being carried out of Brabant in cartloads, which were seized after a dramatic pursuit in May 1435 (A.G.R., Ch.C., 17986). 71 For details of the processes involved see Philip Grierson, Numismatics, 103. 72 A.G.R., Ch.C., 18106. 73 This is reckoning three dies, a pile and two trussels, to a set (see below, p. 250). If the entry means that he made 2,000 sets of dies, then each struck less than 2,750 coins before wearing out. 74 A.G.R., Ch.C., 18120. 75 A.G.R., Ch.C., 18242. Bernaerde van Modixen, goldsmith, was paid for 21 days work 'hulpende Hubrechte Bouwens int tgheen des hij totten werke van d'munten haestelic te doen hadde'; and anonymous extra help was paid for a considerably longer period' om to stoffen die munt van ysen dwelech hem allen niet moegelic en was te doen sond' hulpe te hebben overmids der grooter menichten van wereke dagelics comen ind' munten'. 76 Arch. Nord, B. 644/15912. 77 A.G.R., Acquits de Lille, 9313. For a general description of die-making, and of the various proportions of piles to trussels, see Phi lip Grierson, n. I above, 101-105. 78 A.G.R. Ch.C., 18071. 79 1469-7 1 Bruges mint account (A.G.R., Ch.C., 18107). The three men concerned were not only Jacotin du Biez, the official engraver of the Flanders mint since 1455, but also two outsiders; Pierre le Roy, a Bruges goldsmith, and Tilman van Wissen, an engraver from Cologne.

PETER SPUFFORD

80 A.G.R., Ch.C., 18242. 8 I As with coin dies, a set of jetton dies also consisted of a pile with two trussels. In 1454-59 piles and 18 trussels were delivered to the Bruges mint for striking jettons (A.G.R., Acquits de Lille, 9313). 82 Arch. Nord, B. 640/15609. 83 See p. 244 above. 84 A.G.R., Ch.C., 18071 and 18072. 85 See n. 69 above. 86 Up to 1476 the engraver was paid a total of 100 francs of 32 groats (i.e. 13 li. 6s. 8d. groat or 160 li. parisis) each year. In February 1476 the ducal payment increased from 80 li. parisis a year to 120 li. parisis (10 li. groat). It is not clear if this represented an increase in salary to the engraver or merely an increase in the ducal share of that salary. In 1482-3 the engraver was paid by the duke at the rate of 240 li. parisis (20 li. groat) and this certainly represents an increase in the total salary of the engraver. By 1493 the ducal share in the engraver's salary was down to 12li. IOS. groat (150 li. parisis), and in the retrenchment of May 1495 it was cut back again to 10 li. gr. (120 li. parisis). 87 See p. 250 above. 88 Arch. Nord, B. 1961 fo. 49V, and see p. 244

above. 89 A.G.R., Ch.C., 18242. 90 For example the new master of the mint at Valenciennes in 1437, Daniel Thieulaine,

had previously been master in Ghent, as had his successor in 1439, Simon de Saint Genois. In 1434 Testart du Biez moved from being engraver at the Brabant mint to the Ghent mint. Forty years later Jacotin du Biez moved in the opposite direction, from being engraver in Bruges to being contregarde in Antwerp. He moved there at the same time as the master Ypol Terrax and Marcellis de Millon. The next contregarde at Antwerp, Pieter van Walem, moved to Bruges as master. 91 For example Jean du Bar, Jean de Brebant, and Jean Bracque, all of Tournai, together or separately, held the masters hips of the Valenciennes, Brussels, and Ghent mints between 1433 and 1440. Brebant had earlier held the masterships at St Quentin, Amiens

92

93 94

95

96

and Zevenberge, and later that at Luxemburg. Many of the mint personnel came from the mint towns, Ghent, Bruges, Malines, Antwerp, Dordrecht, but others came from Hesdin, like Marc le Bungeteur; Amiens, like Colaert de May; Audenarde, like George de Cabotre; and Lille, like Daniel Thieulaine. Also from Dijon was Jehan Humbelot, who became warden at the Bruges mint in 1479. From Paris came Thomas Orlant, and probably also Jehan Blancpain, the engraver at Valenciennes. In 1486 Mahieu de Thilly, assayer of the Flanders mint, became master. In 1481 Janne,van Crickengijs, contregarde of the Antwerp mint, became assayer; and in 1485 the former contregarde of the Antwerp mint, Pieter van Walem, became master of the Bruges mint. In 1481 Hans Gluckwijs, master of the Antwerp mint, became contregarde, and sometime before 1455 Henry de Kienrue, formerly master, became warden of the Bruges mint. In 1480 Colaert le Bungeteur succeeded his father as master of the Bruges mint, he was in turn succeeded by his uncle Mahieu de Thilly, who had become assayer whilst his brother-in-law Marc le Bungeteur was master. Gillet Hazart became assayer of the Valenciennes mint whilst his father Rene was Warden. Clement de Merende and his son Victor became joint masters of the Brabant mint whilst Henry de Merende was Warden. The most complex family group in the mints was that beginning with Jan Nemery, master of the Holland mint from 1406 to 1432. Latterly his co-master was Godschalk Oom, whose brother Dirck married Maria Nemery and became warden of the Holland mint. Godschalk Oom's daughter Catherine married Aernoud Musch, who was in turn master of the Flanders, Holland and Brabant mints. Aernoud was succeeded as master of the Brabant mint by his brother Humbert. Meanwhile Dirck Oom had grown old and his son Jan and his nephew Thielman Oom had deputised for him as warden in the Holland mint. Thielman's son, another

Mint organisation in the Netherlands

97

98

99

100

Godschalk Oom, became assayer of the Holland mint in 1483. Besides these the mints saw two Coolbrands, three de Hellemes, three Cobbes, two Thieulaines and van Walems, three Humbelots, and two de Scrapers and Steemairs. Like Jean Humbelot and Pierre le Roy, both Bruges goldsmiths, who became warden and assayer respectively of the mint of Flanders, in 1479 and 1489. Simon de Saint Genois and Daniel Thieulaine were moneychangers from Lille, H umbert M usch a money-changer of Malines, Marc le Bungueteur, Colaert de May, and Jan Roelands were moneychangers in Bruges, and Andry Thomas held the exchange at Sluys. Raymond de Roover, Money, banking and credit in mediaeval Bruges, Cambridge, Mass. 1948; part 3 'The money changers' and J. Marechal, Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van het bankwezen te Brugge, Bruges 1955· Nicolas le Bungueteur was echevin of Bruges; Loys Steemair echevin of Ghent; and Godschalk Oom schepan ofDordrecht, for example.

259

101 Many of the wardens were ducal councillors, for example Dirck Oom, warden of the Dordrecht mint; Henry de Merende, warden of the Brabant mint; and Henry de Kienrue and Jehan Humbelot, wardens of the Flanders mint. Simon de Saint Genois and Daniel Thieulaine went on to be receivers of aids in the castellanies of Lille, Douai and Orchies; Godschalk Oom became receiver-general of South Holland and Guillaume du Jardin receiver-general of Hainault; Jan van Crickengijs and Peter van Walem became respectively clerk and master in the Chambre des Comptes in Brussels; but Arnold de Goy, after being master of the Hainault and Brabant mints, had the most considerable career, as bailli of Douai, maitre d' hotel to Philip the Good and grand bailli of Ghent. 102 Arnold de Goy, not surprisingly, became a chevalier, and seigneur of Aubry; Barthelemy Thomas was given a seigneurie; Daniel Thieulaine was ennobled; and the Ooms acquired the seigneuries of Wijngarden. Papendrecht, Oost-Ysselmorde, and several others.

KEY TO ILLUSTRATIONS

(All Fitzwilliam Museum, Grierson Collection, except no.

11)

Details of the dates of minting of these pieces, and the quantities struck will be found in Peter Spufford, Monetary Problems and Policies in the Burgundian Netherlands /433-/496, Leiden 1970. Philip the Good, gold lion, Malines mint (from 1454), p. 240. Philip the Good, gold 'rider', Ghent mint (from 1433), p. 244. Philip the Good, silver patard or double groat, Ghent mint (from 1433), pp. 244 and 251. Philip the Good, billon courte or double mite, Ghent mint (from 1434), p. 243 and n. 28. Philip the Good, gold lioncel or i lion, Bruges mint (from 1454), p. 250. Philip the Good, gold florin of St Andrew, Ghent mint (from 1466), p. 250. Philip the Good, silver double patard, Louvain mint (from 1466), p. 250. Philip the Handsome, gold half-noble, Malines mint (1488), p. 250. Phi lip the Handsome, silver double stuiver, Malines mint (1485), p. 251. Philip the Handsome, silver stuiver or patard, Malines mint (1485), p. 251. 11 Phi lip the Handsome, silver half-stuiver, Malines mint (1485), p. 251. (Author'S collection). Some aspect of the manufacture of each of these coins is referred to on the page indicated. I

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

260

PETER SPUFFORD

2

3

4

6

5

7

Plate 17

Mint organisation in the Netherlands

26r

8

9

10

Plate 18

11

21 Coinage in Andrew Halyburton's Ledger MARION M. ARCHIBALD

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger is the account book of a Scottish commission merchant based at Middelburg in the Netherlands which records transactions made between 1492 and 1504. It was edited by Cosmo Innes as long ago as 1867 1 but, although well known to Scottish historians as a source of information about trade in native commodities and imported luxuries, its numismatic potential has remained unexploited. The reason for this has been the difficulty encountered in identifying the many different and often strangely-named coin denominations present, but the pUblication of Professor Grierson's work on the Coinage in the Cely Papers2 has now provided the key to their solution. The present essay, thus made possible by one of his own papers, is offered as a tribute to Professor Grierson, whose work has opened up new avenues of approach to previously intractable problems in everyone of the series covered by his wide numismatic interests. The accounts in Halyburton's ledger are usually cast in Flemish money, but he notes sums in English money in three late entries: in 1500 (pp. 225 and 226) and 1501 (p. 227). Scottish money naturally appears more frequently, on fourteen occasions between March 1495 (p. I I) and 1502 (p. 268). In the first of these entries he records £42 Scots the quhilk cam in Flemis money ire syluuer £17-3-0, but this equation is unduly favourable to the Scottish currency and cannot be used to convert the other sums in Scottish currency into the Flemish money of the rest of the accounts. 3 Francs appear from time to time as a money of account, for example in 1497 (p. 152) and in October 1498 (p. 148) and, as in the Cely Papers, are always tariffed at 3S. 4d. Marks are also used occasionally, for example in October 1498 (p. 148). The entries referring to nobles and ducats of account are discussed in the List of Coins (Appendix I, p. 267). An instance of the survival of local moneys of account after the Flemish system became general in the Burgundian Netherlands is noted in June 1498 (p. 157), when Halyburton records a sum in Busch mony, i.e. in the Brabanyon money of account in use in Bois-le-Duc, capital of North Brabant. 4 Small sums, purchases at fairs and the price of cloth per ell are usually recorded in sturis, i.e. in stuivers (reckoned at 2d. each), for instance the 34 sturis to the crown mentioned on 7 December 1493 (p. 5).

MARION M. ARCHIBALD

Although particular coins are occasionally priced at different rates in entries of the same date, suggesting that account is being taken of individual variations in condition and weight, this is the exception and prices are, for the most part, consistent at anyone period. Several times, however, Halyburton records amounts paid at the exchange in order to get' good money' offull weight for example in 1499 (pp. 60 and 224). Although there are a few earlier references tofalowerdmony, e.g. in 1495 (p. 52), most of such entries are from the later accounts from 1498 onwards and are clearly connected with the end of the period of disorders and the return to a more stable currency instituted by the monetary ordinance of 14 May 1496 as modified by those of 1499 and 1500. In 1499 (p. 230) he pays out ~5 in cryit many for which he had to pay 1 od. in the pound in the exchange. In October of the same year (p. 221) he pays the Bishop of Aberdeen £20 and notes that ilk pond cost in the chans to mak many falowerd, 6d, for my Lord wald tak na many other than the crya. In contrast to the period covered by the Cely Papers, which was one of high inflation with the values of all coins rising fairly sharply from the mid- 1470S to 1482, Halyburton's accounts show a more stable pattern from 1492 to 1504. Overall, the prices in Halyburton are below the Cely Papers' maximum. In most cases prices remain about the same throughout the period of the accounts, only the noble and the Utrecht gulden at opposite ends of the value table showing an increase, although too much should not be made of this, since only one late figure is available for each coin. In fact in those «ases where the largest number of prices are quoted, for the crowns and the ducats, the prices fall. Both coins show a decline in value from about the middle of 1496, probably connected with the reform of the coinage brought about by the ordinance of 14 May in the same year. No changes in the prices of the crowns are discernible thereafter, but the ducat continues its decline in Halyburton's accounts, so that while the official rate in 1499 is 6s. 3d., he is quoting no more than 5s. 8d. The short-fall here is particularly marked, but it will be noted from the official rates on the 1499 placard 5 given in Appendix 2 that Halyburton's rates for gold coins are nearly always lower and by a wider margin than the Cely prices ever diverged from the official contemporary rates. In addition to providing evidence about the coins which were actually current, as opposed to those which were officially permitted, and about the going rates of exchange for the coins available in the market place, as opposed to the official cryit rates for good money, accounts such as Halyburton's provide information about the proportions of the different types of coin present in circulation which cannot be obtained from the simple lists in placards and changers' books. This evidence is particularly important for the pattern of gold currency at the end of the fifteenth century, a period from which there are so few hoards. For gold coins Dr Spufford was able to cite only four hoards of statistically usable size deposited between 1454 and 1496.6 To supplement this evidence, he drew attention to 'hoards which were never buried', for example the lists of coins which are recorded as having passed through the hands of the Celys and their correspondents and of which he lists one in detail. 7 The nineteen similar lists which appear in Halyburton's accounts are a significant addition to the available evidence and they

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger are set out in Appendix 3, Paper Hoards. Hoards nos. 6 and 7 and also nos. 10 and I I are likely to represent basically the same two parcels of coins, so that the effective number of different groups is reduced to seventeen. It is at once noticeable how large a proportion of the contents of these hoards are coins which had been in circulation for many years. The really large issues of Philipsgulden did not begin until Philip the Handsome's eighth issue from 1499 to 1506, too late to affect the majority of Halyburton's accounts and indeed not a single example is included. Apart from a solitary schuitken, all the Burgundian coins are from issues struck before 1482. Although the difficulties of identification make it impossible to quote precise figures, a considerable proportion of the French coins were 'old ecus' struck before 1475. No doubt the Rhenish gulden and the ducats included a higher proportion of recent issues, but there is no way of differentiating them in these accounts. The evidence of such paper hoards is particularly useful because, unlike most coin hoards, it is possible to say precisely when they were withdrawn from circulation and to know something about the circumstances of their acquisition and the background of their owners. Although Halyburton was based at Middelburg near Flushing on the island of Walcheren at the mouth of the Scheldt, he did a great deal of business with other merchants from Bruges, Berry and Antwerp. Less frequently he had contacts with The Hague and Paris, and while most of his banking was handled by Cornellis Altanitis, he did make use of the Frescobaldi from time to time. The fact that he was a Scot had little effect upon the coins which passed through his hands, since his purchases for his clients at home were generally offset against their exports of native commodities. An exception is the payment of sixty unicorns made by the Archbishop of St Andrews in 1493, and the money largely in English coin which the Dean of St Andrews left with him in 1500 perhaps reflects the presence of English coin in Scotland at this period. Although Halyburton exported mixed parcels of coins back to Scotland, on one occasion he seems to have deliberately selected as many English coins as he had available even although he had to include a few foreign coins (see Appendix 3, Paper Hoards no. 5). The accounts therefore provide evidence not only about currency in the Netherlands but about currency and the source of bullion in Scotland. It is also noticeable how radically different the contents of these potential hoards are. Coins of the Burgundian Netherlands are predominant in no. 9 but they are heavily outnumbered by French ecus, Rhenish gulden and ducats in no. 10. Ducats, although frequently mentioned in the accounts, are underrepresented in these paper hoards and do not feature at all in no. 9. This lack of uniformity illustrates the danger of basing generalisations about the over-all proportions of each class of coin present in currency on the evidence of a very small number of hoards which may not be representative. If the contents of all these paper hoards are taken together 8 the representation of the main categories of gold coins is as follows (%): German gulden, 6.2; French ecus, 37.3; Burgundian issues, 32.3; other Netherlandish issues, 6.6; Ducats, 13.9; English issues 3·7·

266

MARION M. ARCHIBALD

These figures may be compared with the proportions published by Or Spufford on the basis of the four available hoards: Burgundian issues nearly half, Gennan gulden over a third and English and French issues taken together about a sixth. 9 The most notable discrepancy is the very heavy representation of French ecus at the expense of the German g ... den and, to a lesser extent, of the Burgundian issues. A lower representation of Burgundian coins than had been found in the coin hoards was also noted in the group of coins from the Cely Papers quoted by Or Spufford. 1o Perhaps the second half of the fifteenth century should not be regarded as one currency period, but should be divided into two major sections; the first during which 'riders' and 'lions' were still current in large numbers to supplement the massive contemporary issues of Andrewsgulden, thus making local Burgundian issues a high proportion of the gold in circulation, and a second when gold production had declined to a very low level after 1482 and the proportion of foreign coin increased. The situation was changed again aft~r the striking of Philipsgulden really got under way during the eighth issue of Phi lip the Handsome from 1499 to 1506. This new transfusion oflocal coin came too late to influence the Halyburton figures since most of his accounts deal with the period before 1499. The picture of the currency medium presented by these paper hoards is nevertheless very different from that provided by the four available hoards. While these coin hoards are unrepresentative of the currency, at least that part of it being handled by international merchants, this does not necessarily mean that they are unrepresentative of hoards as such. It would be quite understandable if hoarders, who had the opportunity to be selective, chose to discriminate against baser German gulden and foreign coins in general in favour of the local issues of their own rulers. Even the paper hoards need not necessarily reflect the precise proportions of coin available, since the merchants no doubt also discriminated in favour of cryit money whose circulation had official blessing, at the expense of the very base gulden which were technically proscribed. The figures for light gulden including Arnoldusgulden for example may therefore be taken as a minimum for those available from circulation. It is also possible that the differences between the coin hoards and the paper hoards to some extent reflect differences between the coin current in international transactions and that used at a local level. Indeed it should be borne in mind that the paper hoards themselves constitute only one cla'ss of Halyburton's transactions and that they include many rather small-scale deals. Many of his larger deals are transacted in crowns or ducats, often, it is true, in money of account, but sometimes certainly in cash. This has the effect of reducing still further the role played by local Burgundian issues. The currency available to a particular merchant was influenced by his personal circumstances and the orientation of his business connections, however, and need not have conformed to any general pattern. Currency in the later fifteenth century in the Netherlands was not a standardised entity and it should come as no surprise to find that the restricted glimpses of its various manifestations do not present a uniform picture.

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger APPENDIX I: LIST OF COINS WORKS OF REFERENCE QUOTED IN THE LIST OF COINS

Brooke Chestret Chijs

CNI Deschamps van Gelder van Gelder, Hoc Gnecchi Heiss Lafaurie Noss Pohl Stewart de Witte

G. C. Brooke, English coins3 , London 1950. J. de Chestret de Haneffe, Numismatique de la principaute de Liege, Brussels 18 48 . P. O. van der Chijs, De munten der Nederlanden van de vroegste tijden tot aan de Pacifica tie van Gend I-VII, Haarlem 1815-1866. The volumes particularly referred to here are 11, Gelderland, 1852; VI, Holland, 1858; VII, Utrecht, 1859. Corpus nummorum Italicorum, Rome/Milan: v, Milano, 1914; vlI-i, Venezia, 1915; XII, Toscana, 1930; xv-i, Roma, 1934. L. Deschamps de Pas, . Essai sur l'histoire monetaire des comtes de Flandre de la maison de Bourgogne', RJV2 VI 1861, 106-139, 211-237,458-478. H. Enno van Gelder, 'De Utrechte munten ten tijde van Bisschop David van Bourgondie', JMP Lvm/LIx 1971/1972, 10-50. H. Enno van Gelder, M. Hoc, Les monnaies des Pays-Bas bourguignons et espagnols, 1434-1713, Amsterdam 1960. F. and E. Gnecchi, Le monete di Milano, Milan 1884. A. Heiss, Descripcion general, de las monedas Hispano-Cristianas desde la invasion de las Arabes I-Ill, Madrid 1865, 1867, 1869. J. Lafaurie, Les monnaies des rois de France I. Hughes Capet a Louis XII, Paris/Biile 1951. A. Noss, Miinzen und Medaillen von Coin 11. Die Miinzender ErzbischoJe von Coin, 1306-1547, Cologne 1913. A. Pohl, Ungarische Goldgulden des Mittelalters, 1325-1540, Graz 1974. I. Stewart, The Scottish coinage 2 , London 1967. A. de Witte, Histoire monhaire des comtes de Louvain, ducs de Brabant I-Ill, Antwerp 1894-1899.

GOLD COINS

(Hary nobyl(l) nobil(l)) Brooke, pI. xxvii, 2 and 4 Grierson 'Cely Papers', 394-395 c. 24 carats fine noble: 108 gr. (= 7.00 g.) !noble: 54 gr. (= 3'50 g.) inoble:27 gr. (= 1.75 g). NOBLE

Unlike the Cely Papers, where the unqualified term nobyll may be used to indicate any of the English gold denominations, or even the Burgundian noble, Halyburton's accounts are always quite explicit where actual coins are concerned in distinguishing among nobles, ryals, angels and their various sub-multiples. All the English nobles struck from the time of the reduction in the standard weight to 108 grains in 1412 until 1461 read HENRIC, a contraction of HENRICUS, for the three successive English kings of the name, Henry IV, V and VI. From 1461, until superseded by the ryal in 1465, the nobles were struck in the name of Edward IV, but in such negligible numbers that they may be discounted as a significant element in the currency. In the same way it is legitimate by the end of the fifteenth century, even on the Continent, to dismiss all but stray survivors of the 120 grain (= 7.78 g.) nobles struck between 1351 and 1412. The nobles still in circulation in Halyburton's time could therefore be described with justice as Hary nobyllis and they are found as ingelsche nobele henric' in the placard of 1499. (The Scottish merchant never uses the Cely Papers' term of olde nobyll.) The overwhelming majority of these nobles must have

268

MAR ION M. ARCHIBALD

2

noble

3

half-noble

quarter-noble

HENRY V

HENRY VI

HENRY VI

4

noble HENRY VI

been coins from the large issues of the later years of Henry V (fig. 2) and, especially, of the first, (Annulet) issue of Henry VI, struck at London (fig. I) and Calais (fig. 4) at least sixty-five years before Halyburton's surviving accounts were opened. Nobles are mentioned on ten occasions and total 52 coins. Officially tariffed at 8s. 4d. sterling in England at this period, they are valued in the accounts in Flemish currency at I2S. in 1493 (p. 31) and in April 1494 (p. 62), rising to I2S. 6d. in both entries in May and September 1499 (p. 3). They are once again priced at I2S. in April 1500 (p. 243). These figures compare with the highest price in the Cely Papers of I2S. 4d. in December 1485. The half-noble (fig. 2) does not occur alone in the accounts and only once in conjunction with the noble as q Hary nobyll in 1495 (p. 96). No price is given.

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger Quarter-nobles (fig. 3) occur as singletons on two separate occasions: in the form of nobyll and a quarter in 1495 (pp. 36 and 52 describing the same coins, see Paper and 7) where no values are given and, in August 1499 (p. 195), where the coin is fardon of a Hary nobyll and priced at 3S. 4d. Although it is from a late entry, this high when compared with the maximum recorded figure of 12S. 6d. for the Hary

Hary Hoards nos. 6 described as a I

figure is rather nobyll itself in the same year, especially since smaller denominations generally circulate in more worn condition than the contemporary larger ones. A quarter-ryal (q. v.) appears in the accounts at 3s. 4!d. so there is perhaps an error in this entry, either Hary for ros or 3S. 4S. for 3s. lid. Another, perhaps less likely, possibility is that the coin was an old pre- 1412 quarter-noble of reasonably full weight whose value pro-rata with the lighter coins would then indeed have been 3s. 4d. In addition to these entries where it is certain that actual coins changed hands, nobles of account are mentioned on thirteen occasions, e.g. April 1494 (p. 19) and May 1496 (p. 68), all of them in connection with the proceeds of the sale of skins. From the total sale-prices given it is possible to calculate that in every case the noble concerned is a unit valued at 6s., i.e. the current equivalent value in Flemish currency of the half-noble. This is to be contrasted with the noble of account in the Cely Papers which Professor Grierson has shown to have been a unit of 6s. 8d. sterling and thus identifiable with the contemporary angel. Nobles of account are also mentioned on four occasions in specifying the rates for loans: 6 nobles for the pound groat in 1495 (pp. 41), and in 1499 (pp. 43 and 45) and 7 nobles for the pound groat in February 1499 (p. 256). The contexts of these entries do not enable the unit-value of this noble to be calculated.

RYAL

(ros/rois/roys nobyll/nobil(l»

Brooke, pI. xxxiii, 16 c. 24 carats fine ryal: 120 gr. (= 7.78 g.)

! ryal:

Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 400 1 ryal: 30 gr. (I.99 g.)

60 gr. (= 3.89 g.)

The ryal was introduced in 1465 at a value of IOS. sterling. Very large quantities were struck immediately afterwards for Edward IV and production continued at a high level until the end of his first reign in 1470 (fig. 5). Thereafter the need in England for a gold coin of the old noble value of 6s. 8d. reasserted itself and the angel and half-angel (see below), also introduced in 1465, were the only gold coins in production from the Restoration of Henry VI until after 1485. Although the ryal was to maintain an exiguous existence thereafter until the early seventeenth century, no commercially significant issues were struck after 1470 and it virtually disappeared from English currency. The ryal was, however, more successful on the Continent where it had become the traditional coin for the payment of certain ship-tolls. When, by the middle of the sixteenth century, the dwindling stocks of Edward IV ryals were no longer enough to supply the demand, large numbers of local imitations were produced to augment the remnants of the official English issues still in circulation. This was, however, in the future in Halyburton's time and the ryals which he included in his accounts were the coins of Edward IV struck between 1465 and 1470. Ryals appear in twelve entries on ten different occasions and total 29 coins. Only once, in December 1497 (p. 186), is a price given, I4s. This same price is also found on one occasion for the rose noble of account in which Halyburton calculates his service-charge for handling the sale of sacks of wool in November 1495 (p. 108). Two entries in October 1493 (p. 100) and April 1494 (p. 63) each mention one half-ryal (half a ros nobyll) (fig. 6) and in the later account the value is given as 6s. 9d. The quarter-ryal (fig. 7) appears only once, in 1494 (p. 51), when it is described as afardon of a ros nobyll and priced at 3s. 4!d. These prices for the sub-multiples would give a unit-price for

MARION M. ARCHIBALD

5

ryal

6

7

half-ryal

q uarter-ryal

EDWARD IV

the ryal of 13s. 6d. and this probably reflects an increase in price between April 1494 and November 1495, rather than the mere taking into account of any greater wear on the smaller coins, for, as has been noted in the introduction, this did not appear to have been a normal factor in Halyburton's calculations. ANGEL (angel!, angyll) Brooke, pI. xxxiii, 19 and pI. xxxvi, 4 c. 24 carats fine angel: 80 gr. (= 5.18 g).

! angel

Grierson, 'Cely Papers' 383-384 (angelot): 40 gr. (= 2.59 g.)

The angel was introduced in 1465 at a value of 6s. 8d. sterling but during the heyday of the ryal before 1470 very few indeed were produced. Thereafter it remained unchallenged as the English commercial gold coin until the middle of the sixteenth century. The coins in Halyburton's accounts could therefore have been from any of the common issues from Edward IV's second reign onwards (fig. 8) and must have included some of the recent issues of angels in the name of Henry VII (fig. 10). Angels are mentioned on six different occasions and total 22 coins. Only once, in April 1494 (p. 62), is a price, 9S., given. The half-angel (fig. 9) is described in two entries as a half angl! and as half an angel! in February 1495 (pp. 36 and 51 which describe the same group of coins, see Paper Hoards nos. 6 and 7). Two more coins designated in each case a demy(e) occur in 1495 (pp. 36 and 52 as above) and in 1503 (p. 268). In the former they follow immediately after the angel in the listing of the various gold coins so that these must also be half-angels and not halves of any other denominations, far less the early fifteenth-century Scottish coin of that name. No prices for the half-angel are given. The Cely Papers' term ayngyl!ete is not used nor is the confusion between the terms angel and noble

27 1

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger

8

9

angel

half-angel EDWARD IV

10

angel HENRY VII

found there evident in Halyburton. The angell mentioned in April 1500 (p. 243) and valued at 6d. must have been an English groat (see below). (ovnycorn, ownicorn) Stewart, pI. ix, 121 ?2 1-22! carats fine 58.89 gr. (= 3.82 g.)

UNICORN

The unicorn, so-called after its obverse type, was first struck for lames III of Scots (1460-88) after 1484 and production continued under lames IV (1488-1513) (fig. 1 I) and into the early years of lames V (1513-42). Halyburton received 60 unicorns from the Archbishop ofSt Andrews in August 1493 (p. 4) whioh

II

unicorn JAMES IV

27 2

MARION M. ARCHlBALD

he records as amounting to £54. Although he does not explicitly say so, this sum is clearly expressed in Scottish money at 18s. to the unicorn, the official Scottish rate at this period, rather than in Flemish money as in the great majority of the entries in his accounts. It is unfortunate that no adequate conversion equation is quoted anywhere in the accounts whereby the value of the unicorn in Flemish money could be calculated, for it would then have been possible to work out the fineness of the metal from which it was struck, a matter which at the moment is unresolved (see below n. 3). SCOTTISH CROWN (Scottis croun) Stewart, pI. vii,89 and 138 22 carats fine 54 gr. (= 3.50 g.)

Although introduced by Robert III (1390-1406), the Scottish crowns current at the close of the fifteenth century would have been those of the issues of James II from 1451 (figs. 12 and 13) and of early James Ill. Derived from the French ecu, the Scottish crown bore the crowned lion arms of Scotland and hence obtained its names, the crown or 'lion'. The reverse type was a figure of St Andrew.

12 crown

crown

JAMES 11

JAMES II

Halyburton does not record the receipt of any Scottish crowns by this name, although they may well have been included in sums of money received from Scotland. They do, however, feature twice as money of account in relation to the rates to be paid in Scotland for loans, in February and October 1499 (pp. 105 and 242). BURGUNDIAN NOBLE ((nobyf) of Burgon, Flemis/Flemys nobyl) Deschamps, pI. xx, 38 and 42 (examples of type) c. 23 carats fine noble: 6.75-6.77 g. (6.56-6.73 g. fine gold)

Grierson, 'CelyPapers', 395

The Burgundian gold noble was struck in Flanders for the dukes of Burgundy, Philip the Bold (1384-1405), John the Fearless (1405-19) and Philip the Good (1419-67), and the coins in Halyburton's hands were most probably those of the latter struck between 1425 and 1433 (fig. 14). Imitating the English type with the ruler in a ship, they were both bas~r and lighter tha'n their prototypes. Professor Grierson lists the slight variations in weight and fineness which distinguish the several issues. The entry 2 of Burgon follows that mentioning 2 Hary nobylis, and clearly nobylis is to be understood before of Burgon, noted in November 1495 (p. 52) without price. Flemish nobles are

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger

273

14 noble the GOOD

PHILlP

listed three times, in October 1493 (p. 101), 1494 (p. 51) and 1495 (p. 197). Only in 1494 is the coin priced, at I IS. 8d., thus accurately reflecting its inferiority to its prototype the Hary nobyl tariffed a t I 2S. (Philip) de Witte no. 465 (Brabant) c. 12 carats fine (1.8 g. fine gold)

PHILIPPUS

Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 395-396

The Ph ilippus , ecu, schild, chaise d'or or clinkart was derived from the French ecu a la chaise showing the ruler enthroned and was struck by Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy (1419-67), in his territories in the Netherlands before the reform of the coinage in 1433 (fig. 15). Professor Grierson has discussed the changes in the standard of this denomination and its Low Countries imitation and has suggested that the coins so named in the Cely Papers were from the base issues struck just before the reform.

15 clinkart the GOOD

PHILlP

The si Philips mentioned in 1493 (p. 31) are the only coins of this denomination mentioned in the accounts. They are priced at 3s. 4d. each which, like the Cely Papers' rate of 2S. 8d. to 3s. 4d. is just above half the con temporary 'rider' prices. There occurs in a list of coins in 1495 (p. 96), where neither individual prices nor a total are given, a coin which is called a Philips schelp. This reading is clearly corrupt and it would seem

274

MARION M. ARCHIBALD

preferable to amend the denomination element to read scheld rather than sche1p and to identify it with the Philippus/schild/ chaised'or rather than with the earlier coin with a ship, the noble of Philip the Good, which is always called the Burgundian noble.

(Flemis/Flemys ridar/rydar, rydar) van Gelder and Hoc, no. I 23 carats 4 gL fine 3.63 g. (3.50 g. fine gold) BURGUNDIAN RIDER

Grierson, 'Celv Papers', 199-400

The Burgundian 'rider' was struck by Philip the Good for Burgundy and for his territories in the Netherlands between 1433 and 1454 as an exact equivalent of the ducat (fig. 16). It was produced in very large quantities.

16

'rider' pHlLIP the GOOD

These coins are usually designated Flemis rydaris in Halyburton's accounts and as such they occur three times, in 1494 (p. 62) and 1495 (pp. 36 and 51, probably the same coins, see Appendix 3 below, Paper Hoards nos. 6 and 7) and on 28 April 1496 (p. 122). In the 1496 entry 51 aId crounis and ii rydaris are priced together at £14 12S. 6d. The aId crounis can be identified as the French ecus la couronne and may be confidently reckoned at their usual figure of Ss. 6d. to give a value for the 'riders' of 6s. each. The values in the Cely Papers range from SS. 4d. to 6s. 4d.

a

(few, lyon) van Gelder and Hoc, nos. 3' and 4 23 carats fine lion: 4.25 g. (4.07 g. fine gold)

BURGUNDIAN LION

Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 391

5lion:

1.67 g.

The lion d'or or leeuw was struck by Philip the Good between 1454 and 1460 for Burgundy and for his various territories in the Netherlands in very large quantities (fig. 17). 'Lions' are mentioned fifteen times on fourteen different occasions between 1493 (p. 3 I) and 1503 (p. 268) and total I 13 coins. On six occasions they are individually priced or can be priced by calculation at 7S. each, e.g. in 1494 (p. 51) and 1498 (p. 140). Once only they are listed at 7S. 6d. in December 1495 (p. 9) among a group of coins which are often priced in a similar way, at the upper end of their range. It is perhaps significant that Halyburton totals this group not under his usual simple rubric of som but adds as the mony had cors then, thus, unusually, taking account where necessary on this occasion of the differences in the going rates from the current list-prices. The values given in the Cely Papers range from 6s. to 7S. 6d. Despite their uniquely different spelling here, the 23 lyonis mentioned, unpriced, in October 1498 (p. 143) are also Burgundian

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger

17

275

18

'lions' the GOOD

PHIUP

'lions', not the less valuable Scottish coins sometimes also known as 'lions' (see above, Scottish crown). Their calculated value of about 7S. Id. makes this certain. The two-thirds 'lions', called twa partis of a few, are noted in 1495 (p. 96) but without price (fig. 18). (schoutkyn) van Gelder and Hoc, no. 75 c. 23 carats fine 3.5 g. (3.24 g. fine gold)

SCHUITKEN

The schuilken or half-noble was introduced in 1488 during the minority of Philip the Handsome (1482-1506) and was struck for the Burgundian territories in the Netherlands (fig. 19). The type was an up-dated version of the earlier noble showing the ruler in a ship which was the source of the name, meaning' little ship'. The full noble, although also struck, was rare and the half-noble was the currency denomination.

19 schuilken the HANDSOME

PHIUP

A shoulkyn is mentioned only once, in 1503 (p. 268) in a list of coins for which no individual prices are given. On analogy with the 'lion' above, however, it would probably have been priced at about 5s. 9d. CLINKART

see

(Kfynkar)

BAVARUS GULDEN

below.

MARION M. ARCHIBALD

(AndresjAndris guldinjguldyn(n)) van Gelder and Hoc, nos. 7, 21, 37 and 50 19 carats fine florin: 3-40 g. (2.69 g. fine gold)

AN DREW GULDEN

Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 383

The florin de Bourgogne or Andrew gulden was introduced in 1466 and was so called after the inscription and figure of St Andrew on the obverse (fig. 20). It was struck by successive rulers of Burgundy from Philip the Good (1419-67) to Philip the Handsome (148~-:-1506) for their possessions in the Netherlands, and it was of the same weight, fineness and patron-saint type as the Rhenish gulden current when it was introduced (see below, Rhenish gulden).

Andrew gulden the BOLD

CHARLES

Andrew gulden totalling 395! pieces are mentioned on fourteen different occasions, the largest number, 288, being recorded in June 1494 (p. 51). Other Andrew gulden may have been included in the many groups of gulden of unspecified type. The presence of the half denomination is demonstrated in November 1493 (p. 31) when 6! Andris are noted. The prices range from 4s. 8d. in 1493 (p. 31) and 1498 (p. 165) through 4S. 9d. in 1499 (p. 223) to the maximum of 4S. lod. noted in 1494 (p. IOI) and 1495 (p. 9). Six dobyll ferrisyns, along with six Andrew gulden are together priced at £1 IOs. 3d. in 1496 (p. I03). With the vuurijzer at the then standard rate of 4d., this would provide another figure for the Andrew gulden of 4S. 8!d. in 1496. These rates compare with a range of 4s. to Ss. 4d. in the Cely Papers. (Rynisjryns guidinjguldyn) Noss, pI. xxvi, 473d (example of class) 19 carats fine 3-41 g. (2.70 g. fine gold)

RHENISH GULDEN

Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 399

The Rhenish gulden were a series of uniform issues struck under successive monetary conventions by the Rhineland Electors: the Archbishops of Cologne, Mainz and Trier and the Elector Palatine. Professor Grierson has pointed out that the coins circulating in the Netherlands at the end of the century were predominantly those of the archbishops of Cologne, Dietrich II of Mars (1414-63), Rupert of the Palatinate (1463-80) and Herman IV of Hesse (r480-1508) (figs. 21-23). Rhenish gulden are included on eight occasions and the coins, excluding one group where the number is not given, total 115 examples. It is probable, however, that a large number of gulden of unspecified type priced at 4S. 6d. were also Rhenish gulden. The prices range from 4s. 3d. in November 1496 (p. 123) to 4S. 6d. in I493 (p. 3I) and 1499 (p. 134). This compares with prices of 3s. IOd. to 4s. 4d. in the Cely Papers.

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger

21

22

D1ETRICH II

RUPERT

277

23

gulden HERMAN IV

(byaris guldyn, Byris gudlin) Chijs, Holland, pI. ix, 1 (example of type) Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 384-385 and 389-390

BA V AR US GULDEN

The name Bavarus gulden was originally used to describe the coins with five shields, including that of Bavaria, which were struck for John of Bavaria, Count of Holland (1421-5), in imitation of the first of the five-shield types to include the shield of Bavaria issued by Frederick of Saarwerden, archbishop of Cologne (1371-1414). These Bavarus gulden (fig. 24) were of poorer metal than their prototype and the term was subsequently applied to even baser issues of gulden with five-shield reverses struck elsewhere in the Low Countries.

24

gulden FRIEDRICH OF BLANKENHEIM

Bavarus gulden are noted twice in February 1495 (pp. 36 and 51) and in the published text appear as 50 Byaris guldyns of the quhilk ther vas 10 Klynkaris and fyfte Byris guldyns and Georgis. Although the two lists in which they feature differ in detail, the contents are largely the same and so must represent basically the same parcel of coins (see Appendix 3, Paper Hoards, nos. 6 and 7). The mysterious Georgis may thus be equated with the Klynkaris and so it would appear that the former must be a misreading of a contracted form of Guillelmus and that the coins may be identified as the clink arts or chaises d'or of William VI of Bavaria, Count of Holland (1404-17), which appear in the Cely Papers as Gylhelmus or Quellhmus (Chijs, Holland, pI. v, 4). The

MARION M. ARCHIBALD

Guillelmus was 18 carats fine and its weight has been assessed at 3.71 g. In the Cely Papers, however, it was priced at the same rate as, or slightly below, the Andrew gulden which was theoretically a less valuable coin. Professor Grierson has pointed out that its actual issue weight may not have been so high and that wear after long years in circulation may have caused some over-compensation for debasement as well. No price is given for the 50 coins in either version of the list, bu t if all the other coins present are totalled at their 'normal' prices and the result subtracted from the given sum for the whole parcel, the clinkarts can be estimated at about 405. 6d. and the Bavarus gulden at about 2S. 9d. These prices would compare reasonably with those in the Cely Papers, 405. to 5S. and 2S. 6d. to 3s. respectively, the somewhat lower price than the maximums obtaining at the close of the Cely Papers in 1485 being explained by a further decade in circulation for these well-worn coins. Halyburton's rates are, however, generally found to be below the Cely Papers maximums. CLEMMERGULDEN

(clamaris)

Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 384 and 386 The clemmergulden (fig. 25) were so named because they show the shield of Guelders/ Jlilich on which two lions rampant facing one another appear to be 'climbing' the line between them. The two clamaris mentioned in 1493 (p. 3 I) are priced at 3s. 4d., which may be compared with the Cely Papers figure of 405. 3d. The particularly low Halyburton valuation makes it unlikely that they were the clemmergulden of Reinald IV of Guelders (1402-23) which were of comparable fineness to the gulden of the Rhineland Electors (here valued at 405. 6d.), even after allowing for a loss of weight by wear and clipping by the end of the century. It is perhaps more likely that the coins in Halyburton's hands were from among the groups of baser coins, stil.i with the same shield, struck for Reinald's successor, Arnold (1423-73), but nonetheless of higher value than the latter's very poor-metal Arnoldusgulden (see below, Light gulden).

25 clemmergulden ARNOLD

(Gentis guld(en)/gudlyn) van Gelder and Hoc, nos. 142, 144 and 155 19 carats fine c. 3.4 g. (c. 2.69 g. fine gold)

GHENT GULDEN

Thefiorin St Jean or St John's gulden was struck by the city of Ghent from 1488 to 1492 during the insurrection of the Flemish cities against the Regent Maximilian (fig. 26). They were named after their obverse type which shows the figure of St John the Baptist. A single example appears in two nearly identical lists in February 1495 (pp. 36 and 52) which must represent basically the same parcel of coins (see Appendix 3, Paper Hoards, nos. 6 and 7).

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger

279

26 gulden

No price is given but on analogy with the Andrew gulden with which they were metrologically comparable, they must have been worth about 4S. 8d. to Halyburton. LIGHT GULDEN

(lyt/lycht guldin)

Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 384 Light gulden are mentioned on three occasions, in 1493 (p. 31) and 1495 (pp. 96 and 102). In the earliest of these entries the price is listed as 2S. 4d. This compares with the Cely Papers' price range of 2S. 2d. to 2S. 4d. for the Arnoldus gulden struck by Arnold, duke of Guelders (1423-73). These particular coins were 10 carats fine and weighed c. 3. I g. (Chijs, Gelderland, pI. x, 3). It is probable, however, that the light gulden in Halyburton's accounts were deliberately not identified individually as they were likely to have been mixed bags of base and light gulden from various different sources, including such things as the postlates (see below) and Utrecht gulden (see below), in one case called lycht guldan outrech. GULDEN

(goldin, guldyn, etc.)

The term gulden without qualification is often used in the accounts, but it is certain that some of the entries refer to prices in gulden paid in another denomination, e.g. 130 g(uldins) of g(old) in feirisyris in October 1493 (p. 100). In some cases it is not clear whether the gulden of account(the pound of 40 groats) is involved, but there seem to be twenty instances, including one large group

27 Philipsgulden PIDLIP

the

HANDSOME

of 289 gulden in 1494 (p. 51), where actual coins are intended and the total amounts to 1,018~ pieces. The prices, using both categories, range from a uniquely low 4s. 5d. in 1496 (p. 103), through the median figure of 4s. 6d. between 1494 (p. 51) and 1499 (p. 61), with 4s. 8d. recorded in 1493 (p. 101), 1495 (p. 102) and 1496 (p. 97). As different rates apply in the same year and it is clear that Halyburton did not apparently need to concern himself very often with differences in individual condition, it is possible that he was taking account of the different kinds of gulden which passed through his hands, even although he did not note them down by name in his accounts.

280

MARION M. ARCHIBALD

The 4s. 8d. coins, for example, may have been Andrew gulden (see above) which were normally tariffed at this rate. It is also possible that a few of the gulden may have been the lighter and baser Philipsgulden (fig. 27), struck from 1496 for Philip the Handsome and showing the standing figure of his name-saint in the place of St Andrew on the earlier coin, although the really large issues of the Philipsgulden did not begin until the 8th Issue (from 1499 to 1506), rather too late for the majority of the Halyburton accounts. Most of the gulden, however, were probably various sorts of the common Rhenish gulden (see above), and Imperial gulden, whose median prices in these accounts is also 4s. 6d. UTRECHT GULDEN (OutrechjOutrechtjOutrikisjOwthrechtjUttrechtguldanjguldinjguldynj gudlyn) van Ge\der, pI. ii, 5 Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 390---391 18-16 carats fine 3-40 g.-3.35 g. (2.55 g.-2.23 g. fine gold)

These gulden were struck by David of Burgundy, bishop of Utrecht (1456-96), in imitation of the Rhenish gulden (see above), showing and naming the city's patron, St Martin (fig. 28). They were struck between 1464 and 1483 on a declining standard. A late issue ordered in 1494 shows a figure of Christ and contained 2.26 g. fine gold (fig. 29).

29

28 SI Marteins gulden

Davidsgulden DA VID

of BURGUNDY

A total of 154 Utrecht gulden are mentioned on ten occasions from 1493 (p. 31) to 1500 (p. 249), including an example in 1494 (p. 36) described as a lychl guldan outrech. The prices range from 4S. in 1493 (p. 31) and 1494 (p. 51) rising to 4s. 2d. in 1498 (pp. 158 and 212) and 4s. 3d . in 1500 (p. 249). Like the Cely Papers, where the range is 3S. 8d. to 4S. 6d., Halyburton's accounts are careful to distinguish between these gulden and the same bishop's slightly less valuable coins known in these and other sources as Davidsgulden (see next entry). It should be noted, however, that all the gulden of Bishop David were technically Davidsgulden and in some sources the finer coins are called' Davidsgulden' and the less valuable issues called' Davids with harp' or 'harps', e.g. a Utrecht valuation of 1492 (Chijs, Utrechl, 365-366). The last two issues of Utrecht gulden containing 2.23 g. fine gold were in fact less valuable than the earlier group of' Davids with harp', i.e. the Davidharpen of 1457 which had 2.26 g. fine gold, but no doubt the former got by because it was difficult to distinguish them from the finer coins of the same type.

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger

281

DA VIDSGULDEN (Davit's guldin) van GeJder, pI. ii, 1 and pI. v, 29 Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 387 16 carats fine 3-40 g. (2.26 g. fine gold) and 3.25 g. (2.16 g. fine gold)

These coins were also struck by David of Burgundy, bishop of Utrecht. The Davidschild or Davidsharp shows the shield of arms of the bishop supported by King David of Israel holding his harp (fig. 30); it was struck in 1457. The later and baser issue of Davidsgulden ordered in 1492 shows an enthroned figure of King David, again holding his harp (fig. 3 I).

31 Davidsgulden

30

Davidsharp DA VID

of

BURGUNDY

In an entry for 1495 (p. 96) the editor of the published text has read 10 Danits guldins. It is likely that a 'v' has been misread as an 'n' since' Davit' is a normal Scottish phonetic rendering of David. Unfortunately, no price is given to compare with the Cely Papers' price of 4s. (aid posstyllat) Chestret, no. 306 Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 397-399 12 carats fine c. 3.0 g. (c. 1.5 g. fine gold) Professor Grierson drew attention to the terms vieux postulat and postulat Lambert in monetary proclamations of 1461 and 1490 and identified them with the postlates issued by Rudolf of Diepholt, bishop of Utrecht (1426-55), with the type of St Martin (fig. 32) and those of John of Heinsberg, bishop of Liege (1419-55), with the type of St Lambert (fig. 33), produced from 1453 and promptly banned by Philip the Good in 1454 on account of their very poor-quality metal. They continued to circulate despite this ban as they fulfilled a useful monetary function in providing an equivalent in value to the half-ducat which was not produced in large enough quantities to supply the demand for the smaller denomination. The term aid posstyllat occurs twice in Halyburton's accounts, in October 1493 (p. 100) and in 1494 (p. 51), and a total of six coins are included. In the 1494 entry the price is given as 2S. 6d. which may be compared with the slightly lower price of the even baser light (Arnoldus) gulden (see above) at 2S. 4d., a relationship also found in the Cely Papers. OLD POSTLA TE

33

32

postlate RUDOLF of DIEPHOLT

JOHN

postlate of HEINSBERG

MARION M. ARCHIBALD HORN POSTLATE (Horn postillat/postyllat, postillat of Horn) Chestret, nos. 385-387 10 carats fine or less

Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 398

These postlates belong to a series of even baser postlates (fig. 34) struck for a later bishop of Liege, John of Horn (1484-1505), which were likewise theoretically banned from circulating in the territories of the duke of Burgundy.

34 postlate JOHN of HORN They occur three times in Halyburton'S accounts, in 1493 (p. 100) and in 1495 (pp. 36 and 51 which represent the same coins, see Appendix 3, Paper Hoards nos. 6 and 7)· There is a total of seven coins involved and no prices are given. (salut) Lafaurie, nos. 447a and 448a c. 24 carats fine salut: 3.5 g.

SALUT

Grierson, 'Ce\y Papers', 400--401

5salut:

2·33 g.

The salut d'or was struck at French mints for Henry VI of England ,as king of France from 1423 to 1429, the bulk of the huge output being concentrated, as in the case of his nobles, in the earlier part of the period.

35 salut

36

5 salut HENRY VI

Saluts (fig. 35) are mentioned on two occasions in 1495 (pp. 41, 52 and 197, the two latter being the same group of coins, see Appendix 3, Paper Hoards nos. 10 and I I) and once in 1499, on 10 July (p. 220). In the 1499 entry they are priced at 5s. I Id. each, and in the first of the 1495 entries 34 ducatis and salutis are lumped together and listed at 6s. At a price of 6s, it must have been the Hungarian ducat that was involved and reflects the almost exact equivalence of the two

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger denominations in both weight and fineness. Elsewhere in the accounts the price of the ducat without territorial qualification - generally denoting the Italian ducat - is at all periods only 5s. 8d. In Halyburton's accounts, therefore, the salut is priced at 4d. above the ducat and equal to the Hungarian ducat, whereas in the Cely Papers Professor Grierson has shown that the salut is consistently priced at 2d. less than the ducat. The total number of saluts mentioned, excluding of necessity the mixed group, is twenty-one. The i salut (fig. 36) called, as in the Cely Papers, two part is of a salut occurs three times, in 1495 (p. 36, 52 and 96) but never with a price. (Frans ryall) Lafaurie, no. 459 24 carats fine c. 3.80 g.

ROYAL D'OR

The royal d'or was instituted by Charles VII of France (1422-61) in 1429 and the various issues between then and 1431 differed insufficiently in weight to affect the value in general currency terms more than half a century later. The obverse shows a standing figure of the king holding two sceptres (fig. 37).

37 royal d'or CHARLES VII

The 6 Frans Ryallis mentioned in December 1500 (p. 253) is the only occurrence of the denomination in the accounts and no price is given. If the salut containing 3.5 g. of fine gold was worth 6s. Flemish, then the royal d'or would have been tariffed at 6s. 6d. (aid croun, aid Frans croun, croun of the Kyngis) Lafaurie, nos. 510 (example) and 51 I (half ecu) Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 386-3 87 23 carats fine 3.45 g. (3. I g. fine gold)

OLD CROWN

38 edu

a la couronne

CHARLES VII

39 demi ecu

a la couronne

LOUIS XI

MARION M. ARCHIBALD

(new croun, croun of the son(e)) Lafaurie, no. S29 (example) 23 carats fine 3·S g. (3.37 g. fine gold) NEW CROWN

Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 386-387

The old crowns of the accounts are the French ecus ala couronne instituted by Charles VII ('422-61) in '436 (fig. 38), and the new crowns are the ecus au solei! issued from 147S onwards by Louis XI ('461-83) (fig. 40) and by his successors, Charles VIII (1483-99) and Louis XII (I499-ISIS).

40 ecu au solei! LOUIS XI

French ecus are mentioned on a total of 92 occasions: old crowns by name, 38 times and new crowns by one or other of their names, 2S times. Unidentified French crowns and simply crowns occur 21 and 8 times respectively. The values quoted for the two latter groups indicate that on most occasions it is the old crowns that are concerned, but the coins priced at 6s. in '498 (p. 216) and at Ss. lId. in IS02 (p. 23S) must be new crowns. The prices for both crowns show a decline during the decade covered by the accounts. The old crowns start in August 1493 at Ss. 8d. (p. 4), rise in December to Ss. I od. (p. 101) but are again priced at Ss. 8d. in May 1494 (p. 7). In November 149S (p. S2) they are at Ss. 6d., at Ss. Iod. in December 149S (p. 9) and in February '496 (p. 92) but are Ss. 7d. in April of the same year (p. I22). After one price of Ss. Iod. once again in 1497 (p. 152) the rate is thereafter consistently Ss. 6d. in many entries until the close of the accounts, e.g. February '498 (p. 152),29 June '498 (p. 143),28 November '499 (p. 14S) and April I SOO (p. 243). The same trend is noted in the case of the new crowns for which the 6s. rate is normal from '493 (p. 101) through November 149S (p. 41) to May 1496 (p. 97), and it then declines to just above Ss. 7d., by calculation, in August 1497 (p. 124) to stabilise from then to the end of the accounts at Ss. 8d., e.g. in September '497 (p. ISI), '498 (p. 173) and 1499 (pp. 174 and 208). The crown of the sun in I S03 (p. 268) is not priced, but as noted above, a French crown in I S02 (p. 23S) quoted at Ss. I Id. is probably a new crown. Another, exceptional, high figure for such a late date is the 6s. quoted for another French crown in 1498 (p. 216). Although, therefore, the clear pattern of declining rates noted for the ducat (see below) is not repeated here, the two denominations share a similar decrease in value around the middle of 1496. Half a Frans croun or half an old crown (fig. 39) is recorded in 149S (p. 36) but no price is given; halves also appear in totals in '499 (p. 232) and I SOO (p. 243).

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger (ducat) eN! Toscana, pI. xviii, 9 Milano, pI. viii, 9 Roma, pI. xv, 17 and 22 Venezia, pI. vi, 20

DUCAT

Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 387-388

The term ducat occurs 143 times in the accounts and is the most frequently named denomination. The entries fall into two major groups. The first comprises local transactions where it is certain that actual coins were passed. Ducats without any further qualification are, for example, mentioned in five different groups of gold coins where Hungary ducats (see below) are also included and so clearly constitute a distinct group of coins, in 1494 (p. 62), 1495 (pp. 36 and SI-52, the same parcel of coins, see Appendix 3, Paper Hoards nos. 6 and 7, and also SI and 52) and 1503 (p. 268). In

42

41 florin Florence

43 ducato di camera Rome

ducat Milan

44 ducato papale Rome

45 ducat Venice

very numerous entries throughout the accounts the standard rate for the ducat is Ss. 8d., e.g. on 6 May 1499 (p. 185). These ducats are the Italian issues from Florence especially (fig. 41) and also from Milan (fig. 42), Rome, Venice (fig. 45) and other city states, many of which were theoretically as good as the Hungarian ducat but which were not in practice found to measure up to its standard. The existence of coins struck to a slightly lower weight standard, such as the papal ducato di camera (fig. 43) which weighed a theoretical 3-42 g. against the contemporary ducato papale (fig. 44) at

286

MARION M. ARCHIBALD

3.50 g., no doubt helped to ensure a discount on the group as a whole. This relationship is also found in the Cely Papers, where Hungarian ducats enjoy a premium of 2d. over other ducats and also, for example, in the placard of Philip the Handsome published in 1499, where the Hungarian ducats are officially tariffed at 6s. 6d. and Italian ducats at 6s. 3d. The Scottish merchant evidently distrusted Italian ducats even more and usually marked them down 4d. on their Hungarian con temporaries. Among the coins described simply as ducats there are a few priced above the usual figure of SS. 8d., e.g. on 10 December 1495 (p. 33), by calculation, at 6s. and again in 1495 (p. 41), where they are grouped together with saluts and priced at 6s. in an account where Hungary ducats appear at 6s. 2d. These more highly priced ducats may just have been groups of ducats about whose full weight and fineness Halyburton was satisfied or may have included some unidentified Hungarian, or indeed Spanish, pieces. A half-ducat of the 5s. 8d. group occurs in 1497 (p. 72) priced at 2S. lod. The second major group of entries mentioning ducats without territorial qualification are units of account and generally appear in transactions involving the transference of money by bills of exchange through the banks. This was an important area of Halybutton's business and he was often, for example, transferring large sums to Rome on behalf of his ecclesiastical clients such as the archbishops of St Andrews, or more modest amounts at the behest of his fellow-countrymen seeking dispensations for marriages within the forbidden degrees. It is interesting to note that the rate for these ducatis of chans, as they are called, is falling during the decade covered by the accounts. The decline takes the form of three distinct steps and although there is considerable overlap in the rates each time, there are plenty of examples in all but the last phase to make the pattern clear. From 1493 (p. 10) to about the middle of '496 (e.g. in May, p. 13) the rate is generally 6s. lod.; from then until about the end of '498 (e.g. on 10 December, p. 140) the rate is 6s. 8d. and from then until the end of 1500 (e.g. in December, p. 254) the rate is 6s. 7d. After that date there are only two entries but significantly they are down again to 6s. 3d. in 1503 (p. 263) and 6s. 6d. in 1504 (p. 27 I).

46 ducat

47 ducat

SIGISMUND

MATTHIAS CORVINUS

48 ducat

49 ducat

MATTHIAS CORVINUS

LADISLAUS II

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger HUNGARIAN DUCAT

Pohl, nos. KI and K6 24 carats fine 3.53 g.

(OngrisjOungrisjVngaris ducat, Ongris guldyn) Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 387-388

The Hungarian ducats current in the Netherlands at the close of the fifteenth century were those of the common issues of the Emperor Sigismund as king of Hungary (1386-1437) (fig. 46) and of Matthias Corvinus (1458-90) (figs. 47-48), and also from the recent issues of Ladislaus II (1490-1516) (fig. 49). Until 1470 the types were the shield of the ruler on the obverse and a standing figure of St Ladislaus on the reverse, but thereafter a seated figure of the Virgin and Child replaced the shield on the obverse. Hungary ducats are mentioned on twelve different occasions and total 114 coins. They are usually priced at 6s. each, e.g. in 1493 (p. 31), 1494 (pp. 51 and 63) and 1499, by calculation (p. 144). The 62d. recorded in 1495 (p. 41) is perhaps to be amended to 6s. 2d. rather than taken at the inexplicably low figure at so late a date of Ss. 2d. The rate for the Hungarian ducat in the Cely Papers varies from Ss. to 6s. 4d. (dubyll ducat) eN! Milano, pI. viii, 8 or Heiss, pI. xx, 64 c. 24 carats fine 7.0 g.

DOUBLE DUCAT

The dubyll ducat is mentioned only once, in 1503 (p. 268) where no price is quoted.This coin could have been one of the double ducats with profile portrait heads (fig. 50) struck for several of the princes of North Italy including Galeazzo Maria Sforza, duke of Milan (1466-76), some of whose silver coins reached Halyburton and some of whose gold coins were included in the Cource1les hoardY On the other hand, the coin could easily have been a double excelente or double ducat ofFerdinand and Isabella of Spain (1479-1504), struck under the terms of the Pragmatic of Medina del Campo from 1497 and bearing on the obverse the profile busts ofthe king and queen face-to-face

51

50

double ducat GiAN GALEAZZO MARIA SFORZA

double excelente and ISABELLA

FERDINAND

(fig. sI). An example of this double ducat was included in a different hoard also from the Netherlands, that from Hainaup2 buried later in the century, c. 15 I 5-20. No price is given in Halyburton but on analogy with their equivalent, the English noble, it should have been tariffed at about 12S.

288

MARION M. ARCHIBALD

(Spanis ryall) Heiss, pI. ix I, 3 and 4 (now attrib. Henry IV), and pI. xiii, 4 c. 24 carats fine 4·5 g.

SPANISH RYAL

The Spanish ryals still in circulation at the close of the fifteenth century were those which had been struck for Henry IV of Castile (1454-74) after the reform of the coinage which followed the Ordinance of Segovia in 1471. The enrique nuevos or castellanos show a castle on the obverse and a crowned lion on the reverse.

enrique nuevo HENRY IV

The denomination is mentioned only once in the accounts, in an undated entry which was probably from 1497 (p. 146) where 8 Spanis ryallis are priced at 8s. each. This price is quite consistent with the rates at which the other fine gold coins are tariffed in the accounts, e.g. the noble containing 7.0 g. of fine gold priced at 12S.

SIL VER COINS

(Angyllis/ Englis/ Ingil(l) is grot(t)is) Brooke, pI. xxxiv, 7 and pI. xxxvii, 4 Grierson, 'Cely Papers', 389 925/1000 fine groat: 48 gr. (= 3.II g.) ! groat: 24 gr. (= I.56 g.) ENG LISH G ROA TS

Hoards show that the reduction in weight of the English silver groat of 4d. sterling to 48 gr. in 1464 caused the disappearance from currency in England of all but a few stray survivors of the worn earlier, heavier, groats dating back to Edward III which had, until then, still been present in circulation in appreciable quantities. Any coins reaching the Low Countries from England at the end of the fifteenth century were likely to have consisted for the most part of the common Light Coinage groats of Edward IV (fig. 53) and the new closed-crown, facing groats being struck in great numbers for Henry VII (fig. 54). English groats are mentioned eight times between April 1494 (p. 63) and April 1500 (p. 243). This latest entry lists an angell but as its value is given as 6d. Flemish it should be understood as an English (groat) and not an angel. Apart from this occasion an individual price, again 6d., is noted only once, in 1494 (p. 63), as most of the entries refer to bulk parcels where individual prices are not given. The presence of totals including an odd half-groat in two of these bulk parcels in April 1494 (p. 63) and December 1497 (p. 186) shows that the lower denomination (fig. 55) was also present but there is no indication of how great a proportion of the totals they represent. To obtain some

28 9

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger

53 groat EDWARD IV

55 half-groat

groat HENRY VII

idea of the volume of English silver coins that went through Halyburton's accounts, the presence of the half-groats may be ignored for the moment, and the totals converted into numbers of groats on the basis of a price of 6d. each; this gives a total of 232 groats in addition to the two odd halves. While in England the changes of 1464 brought about the effective demise of the earlier groats, on the Continent it is possible that these coins were still acceptable because of their fine metal, despite wear and clipping. Halyburton mentions aId Ingllis grottis in 1497 (p. 136) and aId engllis in 1494 (p. 32), all of which are likely to have been these pre-1464 issues in more or less battered condition, but still comparable in fineness and probably even in weight to the new, unworn, light coins. Unfortunately Halyburton gives no prices for these old groats so it is not possible to see whether they were tariffed at the same 6d. rate as the new ones or were, possibly unfairly on metal content at least, priced at a discount. (jeirisyr,jerrisy) Double briquet van Gelder and Hoc, nos. 34, 39, 52 and 97 1474-87 798/1000 fine 3.06 g. 1492-6 798/1000 fine 2.91 g. VUURIJZER

(greffon) Double griffon van Gelder and Hoc, no. 68 1487 930/1000 fine 3.30 g. 1488 861/1000 fine 3.60 g.

GRIFFON

The Burgundian silver patard known as the double briquet or double vuurijzer was introduced in

MARION M. ARCHIBALD

56 double briquet

57 briquet CHARU.s the

58 half-briquet BOLD

60

59 'double griffon'

'griffon' PHILlP

the

HANDSOME

1474 by Charles the Bold (1467-77) and was continued by his successors. The double briquet had two lions on the obverse (fig. 56), the briquet, a single lion with shield (fig. 57), and the half-briquet, a lion's head or a single lion (fig. 58). A different type of patard, known as the 'double griffon' because these creatures replaced the lions of the earlier issue (fig. 59), was introduced in the name of Philip the Handsome in '487 and struck at a heavier weight and in finer metal. The issue of double briquets and their sub-multiples was revived in 1492 at a slightly lower weight than their earlier prototypes. Six double ferrisyis are listed along with six Andrew gulden (see above) in '496 (p. 103). The accounts also include fairly large sums of money infeirisyris, in 1493 (p. 100) amounting to 130 gulden and in an undated account which was probably entered in 1497 (p. '46) amounting to £16. It is probable that these sums were not all in the one denomination but most of the coins were likely to have been the more common double vuurijzers. A sum of 9S. in halfferrisyris occurs once, in October 1499 (p. 106). In 1494 (p. 5 I) an entry reads iii greffons, hall, half and quatiris and are priced at £9 14S. od. Since there were only 'double griffons' and 'griffons' (figs. 59-60) and no

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger

61 double patard CHARLES the BOLD 'half-griffons', this entry must refer to a mixed bag of these patards including briquets as well as 'griffons', or possibly some of the lower gros denominations. There is one mention of aid grollis worth a total of 39s. in 1495 (p. 41). This was the usual term used to describe the double patards of Charles the Bold (fig. 61) issued from 1467 to 1474 and struck in better metal than the vuurijzers and tariffed at 5d, each in the Cely Papers. Since however the group of coins to which this entry belongs was destined for Scotland where English coin might have been more welcome, the old groats were perhaps English, cf. aid !ngllis grollis in 1497 (p. 136) discussed above at p. 289. The more general term' plack' for all larger-size billon coins is used once in 1498 (p. 237) when plakis worth 18s. rod. are recorded. No individual prices for any of these denominations are given in Halyburton's accounts. TESTOON (hed of Myllain) TeSlOon CN! Milano, pI. viii, 12 C$ecchi, pI. xiv, 1 962/roOO fine 9.78 g. The weight and fineness vary very slightly from issue to issue.

t testoon (grosso

of 5 soldi) CN! Milano, p. viii, 16 Gnecchi, pI. xiv, 5 650/rooo fine 2.80 g.

The Sforza dynasty were pioneers in the revival of portraits on coins and their gold ducats and silver testoni show a profile head and shoulders of the duke on the obverse (fig. 62). Hoards such as Courcelles 13 and Hainault14 show that Milanese coins were current in the Netherlands and include testoons of Galeazzo Maria (1466-76), who introduced the testoon in 1474, and his son Giovanni Galeazzo Maria (1476-81). The coins of his brother Ludovico (1494-1500) are not present in those particular hoards but were also potentially current in Halyburton's time.

63

62

quarter-testoon

testoon GALEAZZO MARIA SFORZA

MAR ION M. ARCHIBALD

In December 1495 (p. 9) 6i hedis of Mullain are mentioned and priced at 20d. and 4d. The reference to hedis clearly identifies these coins as testoons of Milan which show a head and shoulders portrait rather than the rare reals d'or of Maximilian struck at Malines in 1487-8 which show a three-quarter length crowned and armed figure of the Emperor. The identification is reinforced by the mention of a sub-multiple which was struck for the testoon but not for the real. The low price of 4d., however, identifies, the smaller denomination in Halyburton's hands not as a half-testoon but as a quarter-testoon which for Galeazzo Maria also bore a head (fig. 63). This coin was indeed approximately half the size of a testoon, although thinner, its base metal accounting for its lower than pro-rata value on weight alone. The Milan quarter-testoon appears with the testoon (and its half) in the Ordinance of 1499 (van Ge1der, n. 5 above) where the testoon is valued at 18d. The Mylleyn grotes mentioned in the Cely Papers in 1488 which are there valued at 2S. (although exchanged advantageously later at 2S. Id.) are also, in my opinion, to be identified with the more valuable testoons of Milan and to be distinguished from the less valuable reals d'argent, priced in the 1499 Ordinance at 12d., which appear in the Ce1y Papers, unfortunately without price, as the new grottys of Mechlyn (see Grierson, 'Ce1y Papers', 392-393).

APPENDIX 2: VALUATION OF GOLD COINS,

1493-1503

n.d.

1494

1493

1495

1496

1497

?1497

Placard

149 8

1499

12S.

6s·9 d . 3s ·4!d. 12S. I

1499

1500

1501

15

I4s. 2d.

14s .

12s.6d. 3s ·4d .

12s.6d.

12S.

12s. 9s ·5d .

IS. 8d. 9s . 8s.

7S.

at

6s.

7S. 6s. 6s.

6s·4d . 6s. Id. 6s.

5S. I od.

5s. I od. 5s. 8d. 45· 8d.

5s. 8d.

45. I od.

7s.6d. 6S.2d. 6s. 6s. 5s. IOd. 6s. 6s. 5s. IOd. 5s. 6d. 45. IOd.

6s. 6s.

7s·4d . 6s.6d. 6s.6d.

7S.

7S. 6s.

5s. 8d. 5s ·4d .

5s. 8d.

6s. 5s. 8d. 5s. IOd. 5s .7d . 45· 8!d.

5s. 8d. 5s .7d . 5s. IOd. 5s. 6d.

5s. 8d.

5s. 8d.

6s. 5s. 8d. 5s.6d. 45· 8d.

5s. 8d.

6s·3 d .

5s. I Id. 5s. 8d.

6s·3 d . 6s. Id.

5s. 6d.

5s.

45· 9d .

45. I od.

lId.

5s. 8d.

6s·3 d .

5s . 5s. 6d.

45· 8d.

n

45· 3d .

45· 6d. 3s ·4d .

45·

45·

3s·4d . 2s.6d.

us) gulden

2s·4 d .

45· 6d.

45· 8d. 45· 3d .

45· 2d. 2S. lId. 2s·5 d .

ix I above, List of Coins, for a discussion of the different rates for the ducat. iven are those individually quoted by Halyburton or those which can be calculated by simple division of a group total by the n ces based on the estimates discussed in Appendix I, List of Coins, are excluded.

294

MARION M. ARCHIBALD

APPENDIX

3:

PAPER HOARDS

The groups of coins in Andrew Halyburton's accounts which include three or more denominations are listed below in chronological order. The page reference in the printed text is given in each case after the date. The place where the transaction took place is noted where possible and the original order and spelling of the lists is preserved. The individual values for the different groups of coins and the totals for each parcel of coins are quoted, where they were given by Halyburton, in Flemish money. October 1493 (p. 100) Received in Antwerp from James Comyng 15 Ryns g(uldynis) of g(old) 5 Andris 2 ducatis see no. 2 below 2 October 1493 (p. 100) Received in Middelburg from James Comyng Il ros no billis 4 Andres 2 Owngris 4 ducatis 3 crounis 130 g(uldynis) of g(old) in feirisyris 2 Lewis I postillat Horn laId postyllat sum, with no. I, £40 9s. od. 3 November 1493 (p. 31) Received - presumptively in Middelburg - from John of Twedy (an Edinburgh burgess) at the onset of his final illness 29i Frans crounis (Ss. 8d.) 12 Ongris ducatis (6s.) I Hary nobyl (I2s.) 4 Lewis (7s.) 6l Andris (4S. 8d.) IO Ryns guldins (4S. 6d.) 2 clamaris (3S. 4d.) 3 Outrikis (4s.) si Philips (3s. 4d.) 3 lyt guldins (2S. 4d.) sum £19 18s. 6d. 4 1494 (p. 51) Left - presumptively for Jon Patirssone in whose account the entry appears - in a box in a kyst in Alexander Bonkyll's house in Middelburg 120 aId crounis (Ss. 8d.) 200 new crownis (Ss. lod.) 288 Andris Guldynis (4s. 8d.) 289 othir guldynis (4s. 6d.) Flemys nobyll (lIS. 8d.) 33 Ongris guldynis (6s.)

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger

295

9 4

Leweys (7s.) Bartis crounis (5s. 6d.) Outrecht Guldyn (4s.) 5 aId posstyllatis (2S. 6d.) 3 greffons, hall, half, and quatiris (total, £9 I4s. od.) fardyn of a ros nobyll (3s. 4ld.) sum £250 13s. 4d. 5

6

7

1494 (pp. 62-63) Sent by ship to Georgh of Towris - presumptively in Scotland 12 angellis (9s.) 3 Hary nobyllys (12S.) 2 Flemys rydaris (6s.) 6 Ongris ducatis (6s.) I half a ros nobyll 6s. 9d. 2l angllis grotis 6d. sum £10 os. od. February 1495 (p. 36) Received from John of Carkatill on behalf of John Patirssone in Bruges. Although this list differs in detail from no. 7, the two are substantially the same-the totals are identical-and must represent basically the same parcel of coins. The difference in numbers of Flemish 'riders' and ecus, indicated by asterisks in nos. 6 and 7, may only be an illusion arising from mistranscription. 50 byaris guldynis of the quhilk ther vas 10 klynkaris 31 ducatis (?I) half Angll' 6 Hornis postillatis I half a Frans croun* 5 Flemis rydaris* Owngris ducat I ros nobill I! Hary nobyll 2 Angellis I demye 5 Frans crounis* I lycht guldan outrech Gentis guld. I i salut sum £23 2S. 8d. February 1495 (pp. 51-52). The contents of John of Carkatill's purse handed over to his cousin Andrew Halyburton at Bruges when he made his testament just before his death. (List on loose page interleaved in ledger. See note to no. 6 above.) 31 ducatis 50 Byris gudlins and Georgis 6 Hornis postyllatis I half an angell

MARION M. ARCHIBALD

half a testoun* Flemis ridaris* Vngaris ducat ros nobil 11 Hary nobil 2 angellis demy 2 Frans crounis* gudlyn Vttrecht gudlyn Gentis gudlyn sum £23 2S. 8d. I ! salut 14 August 1495 (p. 102) Received - presumptively for James Comyng in whose account the entry appears - in Middelburg for Wyllykyn of Antwerp 7 ros nobyllis 4 Lewys new croun angyll 2 Ongris 3 aid crounis 2 Iyst g(uldynis) in silver 3s. 4d. 1495 (p. 96) Received from John Cant (who had been present in Bruges on the occasion of no. 7) in Middelburg 55 Andres I ~ aid crounis 12 new crounis I ! salut 10 Flemis rydaris I ! Lew 10 Danits guldins 10 Ryns guldins Philips schelp I ros nobyll I} Hary nobyll Lew 3 Iycht guld(ins) 2

8

9

10 November 1495 (p. 52) Received from John Paterson in Middelburg. Although this list differs in detail from no. I I the two are substantially the same and must represent basically the same parcel of coins. If the sums 'in silver' are disregarded, the totals of nos. 10 and I I are the same, like the previous pair of hoards, nos 6 and 7. The other differences, perhaps only in transcription, are asterisked in both lists.

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger 66 114

56 IQ

2

15 17 I

2 2 2

I

in

297

ducatis* Frans crounis Ryns guldynis Andres guldynis owthrecht guldynis* Owngris ducatis Lewis ros nobyll* Hary nobylis (nobylis) of Burgon angellis rydar salut silver 13s. 9d.

sum £82 7s. lid. November 1495 (p. 197) Left by John Patersone with Halyburton when he left the Netherlands. See note to no. IQ above. 114 Frans cronis 56 Ryns guldyns IQ Andris I I Outrechtis* 15 Ongris 17 Lewis 11 ros nobyll* 2 Hary nobill 2 Flemis nobyllis I angell I rydar. I salut in silver 9S. 4d. sum £82 Ss. 6d. 12 December 1495 (p. 41) Money sent to Scotland by Halyburton to Robert Rynd of St Andrews 34 ducatis and Salutis (6s.) 6 Ongris Ss. 2d. in aid grotis 39S. sum £14 os. od. 13 December 1495 (p. 9) Received in Bery by Halyburton for Jon of Pennycuk 8 Lewis 7s. 6d. 9 new crounys 6s. 25 aid crounis Ss. I od. 6 Andris 4s. I od. 6t hedis of Myllain (2od. and 4d.) sum £15 os. od. 11

MARION M. ARCHIBALD

14 December 1497 (p. IS6) Sent with Dauy Rattraye in a purse to Andro Elphynston, presumptively in Scotland 24 ducatis (5s. Sd.) I ros nobyll (4S.) 53! Inglis grottis other gold (25s.) sum £10 IS. IOd. 15 No date, but possibly in 1497 (p. 146) Received by (Wyff) Rychye from Martin Olet in Zeeland when he delivered wool. 150 goldyn guldin (4S. 6d.) S Spanis ryallis (Ss.) Ongris ducat (6s.) I half croun de Vach (2S. Sd.) 62 new crounis of the (son) (5s. Sd.) I I aid crounis } 3 Ongris ducatis (total £3 6s. 6d.) S5 Bartis cronis (5s. 4d.) in feirisiris £16 in othir mony I Sd.

sum £97 I 3s. 4d. 16 October 149S (p. 143) Received from a servant from Master Alexander Symson. 23 Iyonis 7 Hary nobyllis 3 ros nobillis I aid croun

sum £15 os. od. 17 April 1500 (p. 243) Sent by ship - presumptively to Scotland - to John of Cullan 13! aid crounis (5s. 6d.) I ducat (5s. Sd.) 3 Hary nobillis (12S.) angell (6d.)

sum £6 IS. Sd. IS December 1500 (p. 253) Left with Halyburton by Wyllyem Crawfurd, Dean of St Andrews, when he passed through Middleburg on his way to Rome 30 Hary nobyllis 4 roys nobyllis 2 angyllis 6 Frans Ryallis 19 1503 (p. 26S) Left with Halyburton by James Homyll, his brother-in-law, when he went into England 2 rois nobyll I dubyll ducat 6 syngyl ducatis 2 goldin guldins

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger

299

schoutkyn cron with the son Lews 3 Ongrs ducatis demye NOTES

Cosmo Innes, Ledger ofAndrew Halyburton, Conservator of the Privileges of the Scotch Nation in the Netherlands, 1492-1503, together with the Book of Customs and valuation of merchandises in Scotland 1612 (Her Majesty's General Register House) Edinburgh 1867. References in this paper quote the page numbers in the published text on which I have relied. Halyburton's dating is in Old Style and has been converted to New Style as required. I am very grateful to Dr Peter Spufford who kindly read my paper in typescript and made many detailed and valuable suggestions. I also wish to thank Mr lan Stewart, Dr Marta Campo and Dr Anna M. Balaguer for their lJ.elp. The errors which remain are attributable to me alone. 2 P. Grierson, 'Coinage in the Cely Papers' (hereafter' Cely Papers '), Miscellanea mediaevalia in memoriam Jan Frederik Niermeyer, Groningen 1967,379-407 (reprinted in LMN as article xv). 3 If this equation is applied to the' unicorns' quoted at 18s. Scots, it would give a figure in Flemish money of 7S. 4d., which would be rather high for a coin weighing 3.82 g. against the 7S. for the Burgundian 'lion' weighing 4.25 g. and, by any reckoning, of finer metal. 4 The various monies of account in use in the Burgundian Netherlands in the later fifteen th century are discussed by P. Spufford, Monetary problems and policies in the Burgundian Netherlands 1433-1496 (hereafter Burgundian Netherlands), Leiden 1970, 13-28. Coinage and monies of account are also listed by John H. Munro, 'Money and coinage of the age of Erasmus', The correspondence of Erasmus I (trans. R. A. B. I

Mynors, D. F. S. Thomson, annot. Wallace K. Ferguson), The collected works of Erasmus, Toronto/Buffalo 1974, 312-341.

5 This and other late 15th-century tariffs are discussed by H. Enno van Ge1der, 'Les plus anciens tarifs monetaires illustres des PaysBas', Centennial Publication of the American Numismatic Society (ed. Harald Ingholt), New York 1958, 239-272. The 1499 placard is illustrated in John Porteous, Coins in history, London 1969, 162-163. 6 Spufford, Burgundian Netherlands, 62. 7 Spufford, Burgundian Netherlands, 67. Details of some, but not yet all, of the groups of coins which came into the possession of the Celys are given in the recent edition of the Cely Papers: Alison Hanham, The Cely letters 1472-1488, Early English Text Society, Oxford 1975. 8 These figures are obtained by simple addition and must remain approximate because of the problem of mixed groups of coins for which only a total figure is given in the accounts. While such figures do not take account of the total values of the coins concerned. Dr Spufford's experience shows that simple addition does not result in seriously different proportions from assessments based on values to which the present evidence does not readily lend itself. 9 Spufford, Burgundian Netherlands, 62-63. 10 Spufford, Burgundian Netherlands, 67-68. 11 A. Blanchet, 'Trouvaille', RN4 XIII 1909, 130-- 135 at 133-134. 12 M.H(oc), V. T(ourneur), 'Trouvaille faite dans le nord du Hainaut', RBN LXXVI 1923, 100--105. 13 Blanchet n. 11 above. 14 Hoc, Tourneur, n. 12 above.

300

MARION M. ARCHIBALD KEY TO ILLUSTRATIONS

All the coins illustrated have been selected from Philip Grierson's collection deposited at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, with the exception of the following: 1,3,9, 11, 13, and 35: Fitzwilliam Museum: Smart Collection; 2, 4, 7, and 10: Fitzwilliam Museum: Henderson bequest; 5 and 8: Fitzwilliam Museum: Treasury purchase; 6, 40, and 48: Fitzwilliam Museum: general collection; 19 and 50: Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson gift; 36: Fitzwilliam Museum: Leverton Harris Fund; 12 and 15: British Museum; 29: J. Schulman sale, Amsterdam, 19 January 1931, lot 1827; 33: Chestret, pI. xvii, no. 306. I

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IQ

I I

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

England, Henry VI, 1st reign (1422-61), noble, London, Annulet issue, 1422-7. England, Henry V (1413-22), half-noble, London, Class C. England, Henry VI, 1st reign (1422-61), quarter-noble, Annulet issue, 1422-7. England, Henry VI, 1st reign (1422-61), noble, Calais, Annulet issue 1422-7. England, Edward IV, 1st reign (1461-7°), ryal, London, i.m. crown, 1466-7. England, Edward IV, 1st reign (1461-7°), half-ryal, London, i.m. crown, 1466-7. England, Edward IV, 1st reign (1461-7°), quarter-ryal, London, i.m. crown, 1466-7. England, Edward IV, 2nd reign (1471-83), angel, London, i.m. annulet, 1473. England, Edward IV, 2nd reign (1471-83), half-angel, London, i.m. cinquefoil, 1480-3. England, Henry 11 (1485-15°9), angel, London, Class 11. Scotland, James III (1460-88), unicorn, Edinburgh, type 11. Scotland, James 11 (1437-60), crown, Edinburgh, 2nd issue, type I. Scotland, James 11 (1437-60), crown, Edinburgh, 2nd issue, type 11. Flanders, Philip the Good (1419-67), noble. Brabant, Philip the Good (1419-67), clinkart. Hainault, Philip the Good (1419-67), 'rider'. Holland, Phi lip the Good (1419-67), 'lion'. Holland, Philip the Good (1419-67), i 'lion'. Holland, Philip the Handsome (1482-15°6), schuitken, 1488. Flanders, Charles the Bold (1467-77), Andrew gulden. Cologne, Dietricht 11 of Mors (1414-63), gulden, Konigsdorf, 142I. Cologne, Rupert of the Palatinate (1463-80), gulden, Riel, 1465. Cologne, Hermann IV of Hesse (1480-15°8), gulden, Bonn, 148I. Utrecht, Frederick of Blankenheim (1394-1423), gulden. Guelders, Arnold (1423-73), clemmergulden. Ghent, period of the insurrection of the Flemish cities (1488-92), gulden. Brabant, Philip the Handsome (1482-15°6), Philipsgulden, Antwerp, 1496-15°0. Utrecht, David of Burgundy (1456-96), St Marteins gulden, 1483. Utrecht, David of Burgundy (I 556-g6), Davidsgulden. Utrecht, David of Burgundy (1456-g6), Davidsharp. Utrecht, David of Burgundy, (1456-g6), Davidsgulden, 1492. Utrecht, Rufolf of Diepholt (1426-55), postlate, 1426-3I. Liege, John of Heinsberg (1419-55), postlate. Liege, John of Horn (1484-1505), postlate. France, Henry VI of England as King of France (1422-53), salut, Rouen, 1446-g. France, Henry VI of England as King of France (1422-53), i salut, Rouen.

Andrew Halyburton's Ledger 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

France, Charles VII (1422-61), royal d'or, Chinon, 1st issue, 1429. France, Charles VII (1422-61), ecu a la couronne, Lyon, 2nd issue, 1445. France, Louis XI (1461-83), demi ecu a la couronne, Bordeaux, 1461-75. France, Louis XI (1461-83), ecu au solei!, 1475. Florence, Antonio Martelli (1463), florin. Milan, Galeazzo Maria Sforza (1466-76), ducat. Rome, Sixtus IV (1471.,..84), ducato di camera. Rome, Sixtus IV (1471-84), ducato papale. Venice, Giovanni Mocenigo (1478-85), ducat. Hungary, Sigismund (1386-1437), ducat. Hungary, Matthias Corvinus (1458---90), ducat. Hungary, Matthias Corvinus (1458---90), ducat. Hungary, Ladislaus 11 (1490--1516), ducat. Milan, Giovanni Galeazzo Maria Sforza (1476---94), double ducat. Spain, Ferdinand and Isabella (1479-1516), double excelente, Segovia. Castile, Henry IV (1454-74), enrique nuevo, Seville. England, Edward IV, 1st reign (1461-70), groat, London, 1464. England, Henry VII (1485-1509), groat, London, Class 11. England, Henry VII (1485-1509), half-groat, London. Flanders, Charles the Bold (1467-77), double briquet, 1474. Brabant, Charles the Bold (1467-77), briquet, Antwerp, 1476. Brabant, Charles the Bold (1467-77), half-briquet,Antwerp, 1476. Brabant, Philip the Handsome (1482-1506), 'double griffon', Malines, 1487. Brabant, Philip the Handsome (1482-1506), 'griffon', Malines, 1487-8. Flanders, Charles the Bold (1467-77), double patard, 1467-74. Milan, Galeazzo Maria Sforza (1466-76), testoon, after 1474. Milan, Galeazzo Maria Sforza (1466-76), quarter-testoon.

301

22 Imitation in later medieval coinage: the influence of Scottish types abroad IAN STEWART

The fragmentation of minting in the feudal age, which reached its extreme in thirteenthand fourteenth-century Europe, was accompanied, not surprisingly, by a bewildering variety in the design of the coins themselves. Underlying this diversity, however, are many groups of related types, borrowed or adapted by one issuer from another for various reasons. Normally the motive for imitation was commercial, as with the great international coinages of the later Middle Ages. Sometimes, at least partly, it was political, especially in the case of smaller issuers overshadowed by more powerful neighbours or superiors. Occasionally the inspiration may have been accidental, when a foreign coin came casually to notice and its design took the fancy of a moneyer or his ruler. Consideration of how, when and why such imitation came about is one of the pervasive themes of medieval numismatics. Nearly twenty years ago Professor Grierson raised these questions in my mind by showing me in the catalogue of the Thomsen Collection in Copenhagen an illustration of what is to all appearances a copper penny of James III of Scotland except that it reads Karolus instead of Iacobus. 1 Since that day I have been gathering information about the foreign connections of Scottish coinage, with particular regard to the copying of Scottish types abroad. In the following pages I now present this evidence, followed by an assessment of its implications, and with some general observations on the nature of imitation in medieval coinage by way of introduction. 2 I

The major commercial coin types are easily recognised and have mostly received due attention - the gold florin in Western Europe and the Venetian ducat in the Levant, or in silver the sterling, the gros tournois, the gigliato and so on in their respective areas. 3 More minor patterns of imitation have been less thoroughly explored; yet they often illuminate (or even disclose) shifts in external associations, in the boundaries of influence or in the direction of trade. For this purpose interest attaches less to the coinages of the great powers, which were relatively stable, than to those of lesser rulers who found

303

IAN STEW ART

themselves at the juncture of events in times of change. This would normally be a simple consequence of geography, as in the Low Countries and adjacent areas of the Continent. 4 But in the case of Scotland it was not, for Scotland lay on the perimeter of medieval Christendom, cut off by sea from every state except a dominant, unreliable and often predatory England. Thus, as sole landward neighbour to a power with rivals and enemies abroad, Scotland was forced to develop her own relationships with the Continent in such directions as opportunity offered, while at the same time often following English patterns of foreign trade. Although distant and of modest resources, her involvement in European affairs, strategic, cultural and dynastic, was therefore on a different scale from that of, say, Norway or Portugal. Much of this is reflected in her coin types of which some were original but many were influenced by the English or borrowed from abroad. Both source and context of such inward imitation - for example, of English groats, French crowns or Flemish 'riders' - are generally self-evident but Scottish types, or features of them, were also copied in their turn and it is on this less obvious aspect that I wish to comment more particularly. Before proceeding further, however, it would be well to consider the various kinds of coin that may be described as imitations. Any classification of this kind, being based on modern concepts of which a medieval moneyer would not have been conscious, is bound to be somewhat artificial, and the categories themselves cannot be watertight. But some definition is needed before we can attempt to analyse the wide range of factors which led to the production of imitations. I therefore propose to refer to imitations in three main groups, copies, adaptations and derivatives; and although this choice of terms may seem to be arbitrary, I shall use them in a technical sense in the discussion which follows. By copies I mean coins which reproduce their prototype as accurately as the skill of their die-engraver permitted. By adaptations I mean coins which preserve the basic design of the prototype but vary it in some deliberate way, usually in order to identify the different ruler or mint that issued it. By derivatives I mean coins which, while differing materially from their model, nevertheless show clear signs of its influence. Within each of these groups some further sub-division is convenient. Furthermore, the process of imitation may go through more than one stage, giving rise to adaptations of derivatives and so on. The straight copies vary according to the fidelity of reproduction. If, we divide them into three grades, grade I would include accurate replicas made by I professional moneyers; grade 11, the more extensive series of tolerable standard but recognisably imitative style, often with accidental errors of detail; and grade Ill, those of illiterate and unskilled work which, though not intentionally departing from the original design, are in practice of entirely different aspect. Grade I copies are capable of deceiving the modern numismatist (many probably remain undetected), but among those that have been identified by die-linking, provenance or tiny discrepancies of detail are, for example, the best Scandinavian imitations of English pennies of lEthelred and Cnut, the Continental sterlings of the Edwardian period and the gold ryals of the Low Countries copied from those of Edward IV.5 Many of these copies were of good weight and quality and their purpose seems to have been sometimes to augment the local supply of the originals,

The influence of Scottish types abroad sometimes to penetrate the currency on equal terms and so compete for business with domestic mints in the country of origin. Grade 11 copies might have succeeded in the first of these aims, but generally not in the second. Often they were of deficient quality and it is not always easy to establish except on find evidence whether they were foreign imitations or native forgeries. Grade III copies would have been too obvious to circulate domestically, and could only have been acceptable to supplement a coinage of international standing towards or beyond the limits of its natural circulation, lik ~ the Frisian copies of the solidi of Louis the Pious. 6 Such coins are more a feature of the earlier'Middle Ages than the later, disappearing gradually from the scene as the production and use of coined money became more commonplace and widespread. What I have called adaptations are characteristic of European coinage in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and these again are of considerable variety. At the head of the series come those coins which, as to type, would be grade I copies ifit were not for some minor point of difference, such as a discreet issuer's mark. 7 Some of these even retain the inscriptions of the original, but there is also an extensive class of adaptations which differ from their prototypes only in their inscriptions, and are otherwise accurate (i.e. grade I) copies. Often such coins are straightforward and explicit, like the gros tournois of Brabant and Holland, for instance, and these might be called signed copies. On others, however, the issuer's name or other parts of the inscription were ingeniously disguised so as to resemble the original. 8 Then there are various differences of type that are rather more evident, like a chaplet of rosettes replacing the crown (commonly on early sterlings of Flanders and Hainault), or an eagle instead of a group of pellets in one quarter of the reverse cross (Aachen), which would serve to identify the source of the coins at a glance more readily than their inscriptions in an illiterate age. 9 The most obvious imitations of this kind, while preserving the main type of the originals, depart from them in appearance rather more substantially; an example would be the mitred head of the archbishop of Cologne, which gives his sterlings, otherwise of basic English design, a distinctly episcopal flavour. Io An extension of the process of adaptation leads to what I have termed the derivatives, which constitute in effect a different category. Three kinds may be mentioned as typical. In the first, the adjustments to the design are so material as to create a separate but related type, such as the rosenkreuzsterlinge of Munster on which the head of Henry III is replaced by St Paul with a halo, and rosettes replace the groups of pellets in the quarters of the English Short Cross reverseY In the second, the original design is preserved (often accurately) on one side of the coin only, the other type being quite independent, perhaps even imitated from a different model. Finally there are cases of more distant derivation where only individual features remain to echo the ultimate prototype. 11

In origin Scottish coinage was an offshoot of the English during the Step hen civil war; but except in this initial phase, when they mixed freely in the currency of England, Scottish pennies seem generally not to have strayed far afield during the twelfth century.

306

IAN STEW ART

The only direct imitation they met was in Ireland, where an early type of William I (1165-1214) was copied for Prince John, probably in the I 180s, with an uncrowned head and without the sceptre, but otherwise so accurately that one of the little Irish pennies was once thought to be a Scottish halfpenny (figs. 1 and 2).12 There are also a few foreign coins which more or less resemble some of the basic English or Scottish coin types of the period, without our being able to judge whether the similarity was deliberate or fortuitous. An example is a denier of Bishop Godfried of Utrecht (II56-78) which, apart from mitre and crozier for crown and sceptre, is remarkably like a Scottish type of David I of the I 140s, with its cross and pellets-in-annulets reverse, and could be an adaptation of itP In contrast with the insularity of English coinage in the twelfth century, the penny, or sterling, enjoyed substantial influence in northern Europe in the thirteenth century and the first half of the fourteenth. Minted in huge quantities, largely from silver obtained by the export of wool, the sterling maintained standards of weight and fineness that ensured its popularity on the Continent where much of the coinage was debased and only locally acceptable. There were three main periods of the sterling coinage, each marked by a distinctive design. On the first, the reverse type was a short voided cross with a small cross of pellets in each quarter. This Short Cross type was replaced in 1247 by the Long Cross coinage, on which the voided cross, now with groups of three pellets in the quarters, was extended to the edge of the coin as a deterrent to clipping. Finally, in a reform of the coinage under Edward I in 1279, the long voided cross was changed to a single cross, and this Edwardian type continued to be used for English silver coins until the end of the Middle Ages. In each of the three periods there was an equivalent coinage in Ireland and Scotland, where the types were related to the English but differentiated in ways which made them immediately recognisable, the Irish by having the king's head set in a triangle, the Scottish by having a profile head instead of a facing one and stars or mullets instead of pellets in the quarters of the reverse cross. These Irish and Scottish sterlings mixed freely with the English, both within the British Isles and abroad, and although they were relatively few in relation to the English their distinctive types attracted attention at a number of the mints where imitative sterlings were produced.l 4 In the Short Cross period sterling imitation was virtually confined to Westphalia, but during the Long Cross coinage (1247-79) the focus shifted north-west to the Netherlands, while in the Edwardian period it spread southwards, down to Luxemburg and Lorraine, with a concentration in what is now Belgium. Examples of the Scottish profile and stars are to be found alongside English and Irish types amongst the sterling imitations of each of these three periods and regions. But imitation of thirteenth-century coins from the British Isles also took place beyond the sterling currency area, where the types were known and copied but no attempt was made to keep to the English standard. In one such case, that of Holland, until the end of the century, the Scottish type alone is found but in Norway it occurs with English types and in Denmark with both English and Irish. From the Short Cross period there is only one very rare group of Continental sterlings

The influence of Scottish types abroad of Scottish type, from an insignificant mint at the Benedictine abbey of Helmarshausen, situated on the Weser, east of Paderborn, at the southern edge of the Westphalian sterling area. The king's head is replaced by one of St Peter, whose key takes the place of the sceptre. Although the head is shown only three-quarters left, and not in full profile, there can be no doubt that the type is based on a Scottish coin, since the short cross on the reverse has stars in the quarters and hooked ends in the Scottish manner (figs. 3 and 4). Coins of this type are known of three abbots named Conrad, Godefrid (otherwise historically unknown) and John, and appear all to belong to the 1220S or 1230s, which was the period when German imitation of the English Short Cross type was at its height. 15 Among the Westphalian sterlings of the earlier Long Cross period are some which copy the basic type of the Scottish recoinage in the early 1250s, with a left-facing crowned bust and sceptre. Most of these are of Swalenberg and have Svalenbrch Ci(vitas) on the reverse, either with a similar inscription on the obverse or with the name of Count Widekind (1249-64). Others were struck by Count Henry of Sternberg (1249-82), with his name on the obverse and that of his mint town, Bosingfeld, on the reverse. 16 These coins of Swalenberg and Sternberg were represented in the Brussels hoard, which is thought to have been buried in the early or middle 1260s, but their date of issue is likely to have been closer to that of their prototype, which belongs to the early 1250S (figs. 7-10). There are two other German coins whose obverses but not reverses were based on Scottish Long Cross sterlings. The first copies the original almost exactly (fig. 1 I), even reproducing the name of Alexander III (1249-86). Its reverse, however, has the cross moline (ankerkreuz) of Pyrmont in a shield, with the name of its mint town of Liigde, the only concession to sterling influence being-that the ankerkreuz is voided. 17 The second, being the only Continental coin in the 1958 Coventry find (which consisted of 228 sterlings buried not earlier than 1268), may itself have been struck in the 1260s. 18 Its reverse is of the English Long Cross type, with an inscription copied from a coin by Henry of London, but the obverse has a profile crowned head, with beneath it a shield containing a cinquefoil. The head faces to the right, which could either be a casual change of direction or a reflection of one of the comparable Scottish types of the mid-1250s or later (figs. 12 and 13). The inscription, Widekindus Rex, places it amongst a small group of Widekind sterlings, otherwise of English type, which read Rex instead of Comes and so cannot have been issued by the count of Swalenberg, although his coins presumably prompted the use of the name. Their source is indicated by the five-petalled rose of Lippe, which is boldly shown on the obverse of the Coventry coin but on others of the group often occurs at the end of the reverse inscription. Some of the Rex group of Widekind sterlings carry the name of the Lippish mint of Blomberg, but those with pseudo-English inscriptions have been attributed to Enger, also in Lippe, where the fabled Saxon hero Widukind was buried. 19 None of the professional sterling imitators of the later Long Cross period in the Low Countries adopted the Scottish type. A single illiterate piece of barbarous style, from the Brussels hoard (fig. 15), is the only copy that I have seen to match the extensive series

308

IAN STEW ART

of sterlings of English and Irish types produced in the Flemish area. 20 In the Edwardian period also direct copies of the Alexandrian type appear to be almost entirely lacking. Among more than two thousand pennies of Alexander III that I have examined I have found only one from dies made with anomalous punches that suggest Continental manufacture. It is of excellent workmanship and would have passed for genuine as readily as the deliberately deceptive English type imitations produced in much greater numbers at Yves (porcien), Alost (Flanders) and elsewhere. There are also a few Alexandrian copies of inferior grade, some of which (e.g. one oflight weight in the Broughton hoard)21 may be native forgeries (figs. 17-19). The signed copies, or self-confessed imitations, of the Scottish Single Cross type are also few. The closest is one of Duke Ferri IV of Lorraine (1312-28) (fig. 20).22 A few of the sterlings struck at Alost for Robert de B6thune, Count of Flanders (1305-22), with the English reverse type, have a profile portrait, though without the sceptre. 23 One variety has a fleured crown but another (fig. 27) has a rose-chaplet reminiscent of those used by Robert's predecessor, Gui de Dampierre (1251-1305), and by the counts of Hainault on their pre-1300 imitations of Edwardian type. Although a counterfeit sterling of very rough quality, obviously unofficial and presumably foreign, occurs with an obverse based on the English penny and a Scottish type reverse (fig. 28), the Alexandrian reverse was imitated on its own, without a profile obverse, in only one orthodox series, that of the Archbishops of Cologne. 24 Henry of Wirnenberg (1306-32) and Walran of Jiilich (1332-49) both used the mullet reverse on sterlings struck at their mint of Bonn, coupled with a facing, mitred head on the obverse, framed in Henry's case in an Irish triangle (fig. 29). The combination of mitred head and Scottish reverse had earlier been used by Archbishop Siegfried of Cologne (1275---97) at Siegen (fig. 14).25 Norwegian coinage in the late thirteenth century was much debased, but under Erik Magnusson (I28D--99) coins with a portrait in the Edwardian manner were produced of sterling size. During Erik's reign his younger brother, later Hakon V, ruled part of the kingdom as duke (from c. 1285) and issued a coinage of 'pennies', halves and quarters in his own name at Os10.26 The duke's coins have a profile portrait (facing right except on the quarter) with a ducal band or chaplet of roses, instead of the royal crown, and on the reverse an ornamental cross with small rosettes in the quarters (fig. 23). Even though the treatment and detail are very different, the combination of a profile head with rosettes that somewhat resemble small mullets suggests the influence of the Scottish type. This is confirmed by coins of halfpenny size struck later by Hakon as king (1299-1319), on which the head, now crowned and in profile to the left, resembles that on coins of Alexander III and John Balliol (figs. 24-25). Further south, the sterling types had left their mark on the design ofthe Danish coinage of Jutland from the earlier part of the thirteenth centuryY The Danish pennings in question, increasingly debased with copper as time passed, were also roughly executed and of poor style, and thus quite unlike the sterlings themselves in appearance. But some of the types are recognisably based on the Irish triangle pennies of John as well as on the successive English reverses of the Short Cross, Long Cross and Edwardian issues, so that varieties on which stars or mullets occur in place of the English pellets may

The influence of Scottish types abroad confidently be regarded as derivative from the equivalent phases of the Scottish sterling coinage (fig. 16). In Holland and adjacent areas of north-west Europe debasement in the twelfth century had reduced the weight rather than the fineness of the coinage. The typical pennies of Holland in the sterling period (generally, but perhaps incorrectly, known as Kopfchen or Kopken, from the head on them) were thus much smaller and lighter than English pennies. Those of Count Floris V of Holland (1256-96), struck at Dordrecht and Medemblick, are close to the type of Alexander Ill's later coinage, with a long single cross on the reverse (fig. 21). The head is, of course, uncrowned and the mullets in the angles of the cross resemble small rosettes, but the general aspect of the type is unmistakably Scottish. The Single Cross Kopfchen became popular enough as currency beyond Holland to find imitators of their own, so that the design was disseminated further afield, towards the Rhineland. 28 An earlier unnamed issue, presumably of Floris V or the last years of his father, William 11 (1235-56), was of similar type but with a long voided cross, like a miniature version of the Scottish coinage of 1250-80 (figs. 5-6). Although double or quadruple sterlings were issued by a few north European mints in the second quarter of the fourteenth century,29 the groat of fourpence which became the standard silver coin in England from 1351, and in Scotland from 1358, was of too high a value to suit the monetary systems of the Continent. Whereas the Edwardian sterling had been the principal international coin type of north-west Europe in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, imitations of the Edwardian groat (except for a few copies which may be domestic forgeries) are completely lacking. Instead, by the middle of the fourteenth century the French gros tournois was already well established as the leading silver coin of greater size, and except in England either the gros tournois itself or its northern variants, the gros au lion and the botdraeger of the Low Countries, dominated the scene. It is thus the more curious that the sole foreign imitation of the groat coinage in the third quarter of the century should have been based on the Scottish half-groat of David 11 with its traditional profile and mullets by way of differentiation from the English type (figs. 30-1). This piece was struck for Arnold of Oreye (1331-65), lord of Rummen (just north of St Trond), a prodigal imitator of any and every coin type that came to hand. A precise and skilful copy, with dissembling inscriptions, it came to light in a dealer's box of Scottish coins and would certainly have deceived its medieval users as readily as the modern numismatist. 30 Much further removed from the original Scottish groat type, but apparently derivative from it, was a design used by the dukes of Luxemburg, consisting of mullets in the quarters of a plain cross. Although these mullets have six points against the Scottish five, both have small incuse flowers inset in their centres (fig. 32-33). This distinctive form, unnoticed elsewhere in late medieval coinage, indicates a relationship between the two, which is confirmed by their date. The Scottish groat appeared in 1358, while the indented mullets first occur on coins of Luxemburg in the joint names of Duke Wenceslas I and Archbishop Bohemund of Trier, which presumably arose out of an alliance worked out between the two in 1358-9.31 The mullet type persisted at Luxemburg into the fifteenth century, by which time the Scottish groat had been remodelled on the English, and the

310

IAN STEW ART

origin of the design had probably been forgotten. There is also a group of issues from mints in north-west Europe with stars in the quarters of the cross; this group apparently originated with the municipal silver coinage of Metz (fig. 36) where the bishop passed over his minting rights to the civic authorities in 1376.32 At that date mullet groats were still being struck in Scotland, and the Metz reverse could (although it need not) be a derivative of the traditional Scottish design. There is one close imitation of the new gros of Luxemburg (figs. 34-35) from the county of Limburg (now Hohenlimburg, south of Dortmund).33 Otherwise most of the issuers who followed suit with star on mullet types in the fifteenth century and beyond - from the town of Groningen in the 1430s, to John ofPyrmont who was lord of Reckheim in Limburg in 1504-12 - seem merely to have been producing adaptations of the Metz reverse, without memory of any ultimate original. 34 There is, however, one series of special interest struck by two members of the Cirksena family, Edzard (1436-41) and Ulrich (1441-64) who held the office of capitalis in Norderland and Emden in Emsigerland (Ostfriesland).35 The Cirksena arms, consisting of a harpy with four stars, provide an heraldic reason for the choice of type (fig. 37). In the fifteenth century there was little cause for Scottish coins, now detached from the sterling standard and no longer so acceptable abroad, to find imitators overseas. The design of coinage was now becoming more standardised, with emphasis on fewer basic types. Since several of these were widely used, it is often difficult to determine the direction of type-influence or whether indeed any conscious borrowing took place at all. A case in point is the crowned shield over a plain cross, a common enough late medieval type, which occurs on the Scottish gold rider of the later 1470S and early 1480s and the earliest Danish gold coin, the gulden of Hans I (1481-1513).36 The two reverses are very similar in aspect and, since James III and Hans were brothers-in-law, the similarity may not have been accidental. But they need be no more than two independent armorial types each expressed in the idiom of the time. Such is probably the case with the use of a plain crown as the obverse type for petty coinage of the period: it occurs, for example, on one of the early issues of James Ill's black farthings, probably struck in the 1460s, on the earliest of the base Irish coins (of 1460-2), on the French maille tournois struck by Louis XI from 1467 and on coins of Denmark and' Sweden from the beginning of the century.37 Another Irish type, however, is more closely related to the Scottish. The base issue of 1463-5 has on the reverse a cross with the badges of Edward IV, suns and roses, in alternate quarters. The resemblance of the suns to stars and of the roses to mullets suggests at least a general evocation of the immemorial tradition of Scottish reverses,38 even if the type is not directly related to a very similar one on another issue of Scottish farthings of the period (figs. 38-39). The final item in this survey is the Karolus penny. Except for the king's name, it is a close copy of a copper coin of James III (figs. 41-42). If taken at face value as an official coin of a king Charles in the second half of the fifteenth century, its only possible authors appear to be Charles VIII of Sweden, who was in rebellion against Christian I of Denmark and ruled intermittently in Sweden between 1448 and 1470, and Charles VIII of France (1483--98). Unfortunately the period of issue of the Scottish copper pennies is not precisely known. If, as is now thought, they constitute part of the' blak cunyhe'

The influence of Scottish types abroad

311

that contributed to the political crisis of 1482,39 it must be doubtful whether their origin can be taken back into the 1460s. Except on this count, a Swedish attribution for the Karolus penny appears more attractive than a French. Scottish involvement with Scandinavia was extensive at this period, with protracted negotiations over Orkney and Shetland in connection with the betrothal of Christian's daughter Margaret to James Ill. Sweden, although yet to become the principal source of mined copper in north-west Europe, already had its own supplies. France, on the other hand, had one of the few major and centralised national coinages of the time, which is known and documented in detail; it includes extensive issues of base billon and there seems to be little room for an unrecorded French coinage in copper. More particularly, the lettering of the Karolus penny is of different form, and coarser than the sophisticated French epigraphy of the time. The possibility remains that the name Karolus was used to obscure its origin, rather than to identify it, and so avoid the charge of forgery or of issuing a base metal coinage; although this might have been done unofficially, regular mints have sometimes resorted to such practices. 40 Either way, the coin seems likely to have been produced in one of the lands skirting the North Sea where intercourse with Scotland was frequent at this period; copper coins did not usually travel as gold or silver, but Scottish pennies of this type are sometimes found in the Netherlands,41 and the presence of the unique Karolus specimen in a Danish collection could point to a Scandinavian find-spot. III

Taken singly, most of these examples of the use of Scottish types abroad are not particularly informative. Yet few as they are (though more perhaps than might have been supposed), they offer in sum a case history of the diffusion and impact of one of medieval Europe's minor national coinages. It may therefore be constructive to test the generalities of imitative practice, described in section I, against the pattern of this evidence. The first consideration is geography. The likeliest area for imitation is normally the nearest, even if for Scotland this meant, apart from England, lands beyond the sea. English coinage, deriving from a greater power and a major economy, was on the giving and not the receiving end of the process of imitation. But Ireland, separated by only 15 or 20 miles from parts of the Scottish coast, was neither rich nor powerful; indeed it was even more peripheral and retarded in the European context than was Scotland. It was therefore a natural taker of Scottish coin if English was not available, as the evidence of finds and imitations shows. That Ireland often received Scottish coins direct is demonstrated by hoards, particularly those from Ulster. 42 There are Irish finds of Short and Long Cross coins in which the Scottish percentage is significantly higher than that in English hoards, while in the early groat period several Irish hoards consist mainly, even entirely of Scottish coins, especially after the Scottish weight standard began to fall below the English. Although Scottish influence can be seen in two cases (figs. 2 and 38), at other times Irish imitation took the form of counterfeiting. In Ulster, light-weight reproductions of groats of David 11 and Robert 11 were apparently made with impressions taken from originals in silver foi1. 43 Another series of plated forgeries occurs

3 12

IAN STEWART

in the mid-fifteenth century, when Irish currency was in a poor state and included clipped English groats and half-groats with the outer inscriptions cut away. Copies of such coins - perhaps the mysterious O'Reilly's money condemned by Acts of Parliament in 1447 and 1456 - seem to have been produced locally.44 Against this background may be mentioned a curious piece, of coppery appearance, the obverse of which somewhat resembles a clipped English groat, and the reverse a Scottish billon penny (fig. 40). Since such a hybrid would hardly have been produced in Scotland or acceptable in England, an Irish origin seems most likely. Direct export of Scottish coins eastwards is at most stages difficult to demonstrate, but some must have reached the arc of lands to the east of the North Sea from Norway to the Low Countries by natural dispersal. In the twelfth century Scottish coins had not penetrated the English currency on any scale, and so isolated finds in Scandinavia, such as pennies of David I (1124-53) and his son, Prince Henry (d. 1152), would have found their own way there. Later on, finds of copper coins of James III in Holland show how a needed monetary innovation, in the form of an extensive token coinage for small change, could find a welcome overseas where other links existed. 45 No doubt such movements also took place in the sterling period, but in the continental hinterland most of the available Scottish coins would have arrived as part of the English coin stock. 46 This is also true of Jutland, where derivatives of all the coin types of the British Isles appear in the thirteenth century. Although availability of the prototype was of course a precondition for imitation, it was not of itself a sufficient cause. Commercial expediency was the normal motive. But there is only the one case where this must have been the sole reason for copying a Scottish type (the Karolus penny), since no other country in northern Europe at the time was producing an established copper coinage as a model - indeed on no other occasion did Scotland originate a sufficiently useful kind of coin to give rise to imitation. While commercial acceptability was also a factor in the imitations of the sterling period, those based on the English type would have carried more authority. This probably explains why imitations of Scottish sterlings are so much rarer in relation to their equivalents of English type than are the originals. In hoards of the later Short Cross period counterfeit 'English' sterlings are regularly present in small numbers, but I have not found a single comparable one of Scottish type. Probably at this stage relatively few Scottish coins had reached Germany, and the sterling itself was still something of a novelty abroad. The more important mints therefore presumably preferred the English type, although both copies and adaptations were produced of the Irish penny of JohnY In contrast with the rarity of straight copies of Scottish Long and Single Cross sterlings, the English and Irish type equivalents were struck in considerable quantities in the 1250S and 1260s, and even more extensively at the end of the century and beyond. This natural concentration on the English type, with some attention to its Irish variant, is equally evident in the case of the signed copies and derivatives. In the Short and Long Cross periods foreign sterlings of Scottish type are without exception confined to minor mints whose output was of no monetary importance. In the Single Cross period there is a different pattern, without minor issuers, but with Scottish types being used as an occasional variant at more prolific

The influence of Scottish types abroad

31 3

mints. Although, therefore, these imitative issues belong within the general sterling framework, that is the limit of commercial influence on their design, and their preference for the Scottish type over the English must be explained on other grounds. In some cases we can identify such other influences at work in details of type or inscription which seemed appropriate to an imitator. The best examples are the Long Cross sterlings of Swalenberg and Sternberg. The counts of Sternberg were a cadet line of the house of Swalenberg, which explains their common type. The main device in the arms of both was a star (stern), which is presumably why the Scottish reverse with stars was chosen in preference to the English. That this was not accidental is shown by the introduction of stars into the obverse design: the sterlings in the name of Wide kind have a star after his name; those with the name of Swalenberg on both sides have the sceptre headed by a star instead ofa cross; and those of Sternberg have stars replacing the fleurs of the crown as well as on the sceptre. The relevance of these stars is emphasised by the use of a different reverse design by the lord of Pyrmont, even though, as belonging to another junior branch of the house of Swalenberg, he followed the family fashion of using an obverse with a Scottish profile. That medieval moneyers were customarily alert to the significance of such details is confirmed by the armorial allusion in the star and mullet types of the Cirksenas two centuries later. There is no obvious motive for the use of the Scottish type at Helmarshausen. Possibly it was no more than a desire for a distinctive appearance by a tiny mint more interested in advertising its identity than in securing a wide circulation. An isolated occurrence of the Scottish design within an extensive coinage based on more important types, like those of Lorraine and Rummen, is harder to explain. Ferri's sterlings of English type are plentiful but his Alexandrian copy is extremely rare, perhaps unique. So is Arnold's half-groat, but beside sterlings of English and Irish type he also struck goldfranes-a-eheval and moutons, silver botdraegers, gros au lion, blanes and sterlings copied from those of neighbouring Flanders and Brabant, and billon deniers copied from the French. Among these well-established and locally familiar types it is surprising to find a geographical and economic outlier. Perhaps Arnold had enrolled some Scottish mercenaries for his war with the bishop of Liege in 1361-5 and liked to make payment in the national currency of the recipients. Perhaps in Ferri's Scottish type we can see a practised die-sinker trying his hand at a different design, as a challenge to technical skill. Such ideas are purely speculative, but they may serve as examples of the sort of capricious way in which these isolated imitations might have come about. A moneyer's professional whim might also lie behind the profile head sterlings of Flanders. Most of the coins of Robert de Bethune were based on English sterlings or Continental gros, so that his Scottish type, though not quite so rare as theirs, stands out exceptionally in the same way as Ferri's and Arnold's. But here we can point to a possible explanation, for Count Robert had a namesake and contemporary in Robert Bruce (1306-29), and there were close relations between Flanders and Scotland at this period. 48 The most remarkable aspect of this relationship is that the Flemish coin of the type seems to have been struck before the Scottish. 49 The Scots must have recruited a professional die-sinker from the Continent for Bruce's tiny coinage, which is of unusually high quality

IAN STEW ART

and came after a long gap in minting. There may have been a connection between the coins of the two Roberts in view of the use on both of triple-colon stops (not otherwise found on Scottish sterlings). This would imply a most unusual sequence - first, the borrowing abroad of the general type of the Scottish coinage of the previous generation; and second, the restoration of the type to Scotland in a form influenced by the foreign imitation. It is also notable that, while the English type sterlings of Alost normally read R Comes Flandrie, those of Scottish type read Rob Comes Fland. This adjustment would have helped to suggest the appearance of a coin in the name of the Scottish king (even though there were as yet no originals to imitate). Such devices were much favoured by imitative moneyers of the period, who used remarkable ingenuity in their efforts to mislead the eye at a casual glance. Robert de Bethune did not, however, include a sceptre as Ferri had done, so that his Scottish obverse (quite apart from the variety with a chaplet replacing the crown) does not rank as one of the more dangerous imitations: indeed, it may be wondered whether such a piece was not conceived more as a display of imitative virtuosity than as a serious essay in deception. Its deviation from the prototype is to be contrasted with Arnold's half-groat which, as well as being a typologically exact copy, uses Domin(us) on the obverse to evoke the David of the original and on the reverse a different form of the same word, Dns, to reproduce the start of the Scottish motto, Dns Protector Meus. Another dissembling inscription is found on Ferri's sterlings, which read LOH TOH REN GIE, instead of Lotorengie, in order to simulate LON DON on the English originals. Except for those who sought to make their copies so close to the originals as to deceive, most imitators quickly disregarded the source and detail of the types they borrowed. Hybrids and incongruities abound in the combination and treatment of borrowed types. The closest copy of the obverse of the Scottish Long Cross type is that from Pyrmont, even with Alexander's name, yet it is paired with a reverse which makes no attempt to resemble a sterling. Against this, the' London' reading mixed with Scottish mullets on the best imitation of the Alexandrian Single Cross type (Lorraine) is one of the milder anomalies of the period. At Helmarshausen the non-facing portrait previously used in the Short Cross period was reproduced by Adolph (1307-14) but now with an Edwardian reverse;50 while at Alost, where the Scottish type had not previously appeared, no attempt was made to provide a matching mullet reverse for the profile modelled on that of Robert Bruce. So at Siegen the voided cross reverse could be used when obsolete and at Cologne the Irish triangle was coupled with Scottish mullets, since none of these was more than a recognisable design suited to a distinctive coinage. Unofficial imitators likewise combined' English', 'Irish' and occasionally' Scottish' dies indiscriminately. 51 In addition to the Continental imitations on the sterling standard, which sought directly to borrow the status of English coin, the use of sterling types for the baser and lighter coinages of Scandinavia and Holland may be seen in part as an attempt to appropriate some of the popularity of the sterling to themselves. In the history of coinage it is not uncommon to find that the more familiar and established coin types of a major state were reproduced or adapted in surrounding regions without much regard for the weight, the fineness, or even the metal of the originals. Imitations of the Macedonian

The influence of Scottish types abroad gold stater by the Celtic tribes and of Byzantine types in the Islamic Levant, in Hungary. even in Venice, are cases in point. Of such a kind was the use of sterling types on the debased issues of Jutland. English pennies were well known there, as the Ribe hoards of Short Cross sterlings demonstrate, and even if local issuers could not match them they knew what good coins looked like and in borrowing their types were hoping to borrow at least some reflection of their acceptability. In Jutland the imitation of Irish and Scottish types as well as English can be seen as no more than a variation on the sterling theme, reflecting the small admixture of Irish and Scottish coins in the sterling currency as a whole. In the case of Norway, however, there are no Irish types and the Scottish is unusually prominent. Some extra factor thus appears to have been working here, and it may be found in the dynastic and political associations of Scotland and Norway in the late thirteenth century. In 1281 Alexander Ill's daughter married Erik 11 of Norway (1280-99), leaving him on her death in 1283 with an infant daughter who was to become Queen Margaret of Scotland (1286-90); Erik's second wife was the sister of Robert Bruce. There were contacts at many other levels between the two countries at this time. 52 If Duke Hakon was seeking a distinctive type to differentiate his coins from the king's, there was therefore every reason to look to Scotland for a prototype. The Scottish type Kopfchen appeared in Holland long before the great Edwardian age of imitation and continued to play an important part even after Floris V, for monetary reasons, had added an English type sterling to his coinage. Not until the fourteenth century, under his successors John 11 (1299-1304) and William III (1304-37), did the Kopfchen take a subordinate place to imitations of the many other types of coin familiar in the region. As with Norway, this attachment to the Scottish type is apparently to be explained not on monetary grounds but by personal relationship. Count Floris III (II57-90) had married Ada, sister of William the Lion; one of their younger sons, another Floris (d. 1210), became William's chancellor and bishop of Glasgow, though he seems seldom to have been in Scotland. 53 Even if Floris V did not anticipate until near the end of his life that, as Ada's great-great-grandson, he would become one of the stronger competitors for the vacant throne of Scotland in 1291-2, it causes no surprise to find the link between the counts of Holland and one of Europe's relatively few royal houses reflected in the design of their coinage. The derivative Scottish design of the Kopfchen achieved quite a vogue among the lordships to the north-west of the sterling area where the silver coins were of smaller size than the English penny. Kopfchen of similar type (some of them still with rosettes in the quarters of the reverse cross, others with the quarters plain) were being struck by . several imitators before the end of the thirteenth century. Their issue, which was at its peak in the first quarter of the fourteenth century, continued at some mints into the 1330s. Some of the Kopfchen are extremely rare, either because they were produced on a tiny scale from small mints such as Randerath (fig. 22) or because they constituted only a minor part of an extensive coinage of other kinds (e.g. in Brabant). Others are more common, like those of Heinsberg and Jiilich. The list of issuers includes Adam of Bergh (1331-54), Walran of Blankenberg (1302-7), John I of Brabant (1268-94), Dietrich VII of Cleves (1275-1305) at Kalkar and Wesel, Henry III of Cuinre (d. 1304 x 17),

IAN STEW ART

Reinald 11 of Guelders (1326-43), Gottfried 11 of Heinsberg (1303-31), Dietrich III (1331--61) Lord of Heinsberg (mint of Gangelt) and Count of Looz (mint of Hasselt), William of Horn (1264-1300) (mint of Wessem), Gerhard of Jiilich (1297-1328), Reinald I of Koevorden (I284-1315), Arnold VIII of Looz (1274-1327), Arnold 11 of Randerath (1290-1331) and Arnold of Stein (1299).54 Presumably none of these was conscious of the Scottish origins of the design; they merely adopted the best-known type applicable to the particular denomination, just as they did in copying the leonini of Brabant, Kolnerpfennige and so on. Only with the Kopfchen can a substantial secondary stage of imitation based on an ultimate Scottish original be clearly identified, although an isolated case is to be seen in the Luxemburg type at Limburg. The sterlings of Swalenberg and Sternberg (and perhaps Pyrmont) are in a different class - a tiny, local group resulting apparently from a sort of private monetary convention within the family. Perhaps the star reverses of the fifteenth century mostly proceed from the gras of Metz and so from the Scottish groat, but in this case the association is neither so cohesive nor so certain. Typological confusion in European coinage of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was inevitable. The areas of circulation of one basic coin type and the next were constantly shifting and overlapping, without clearly defined boundaries between them. In their choice of design, a host of more or less independent min ts grouped and re grouped themselves according to the advent of one type and the eclipse of another, borrowing, adapting, mixing, until new types or variants emerged alongside or in succession to others, and were quickly assimilated in their turn into the general repertoire of designs of late medieval coinage. It is therefore often impossible to unravel with precision the tangled threads of development or to follow the lines of progress in the diffusion of individual types. Imitation could follow very rapidly on the availability of a new design: witness the appearance of indented mullets at Edinburgh and Luxemburg in the same year. The replication of minor details of this kind was perhaps sometimes due to the moneyers themselves who, like masons and other craftsmen, moved about extensively in the later Middle Ages, wherever work was available. With improved communication on many planes in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, it becomes more difficult to distinguish the borrowing of particular ideas from general conformity with more universal fashion. As the nations of modern Europe began to take their shape, economic and political power became more concentrated and, except in Germany, most of the local feudatories who had previously exercised independent minting rights now ceased to do so. This consolidation of the coinage was complemented by a reduction in the great variety of types that had served to identify its innumerable parts. Nevertheless Scotland continued to exert some influence on the design of European coinage. Occasionally there may be more than a coincidental similarity of treatment as, for example, in the coin portraits of Frederick of Bohemia (1619-20), the Winter King, and those of his father-in-law, James VI and I. Mostly, however, the interaction of Renaissance coin design was less direct than it had been in the Middle Ages, with analogy of style and format more than of type or detail. 55 James Ill, renowned for artistic tastes, had given a lead to the rulers of northern Europe in using realistic portraiture on his

The influence of Scottish types abroad coinage. 56 A century later the potential of coins for use as propaganda was exploited in Scotland in a way that had not been seen since the Roman Empire but was to become commonplace in the religious wars of the seventeenth century.57 In such ways did one of the smallest and remotest states of Europe continue to contribute to the mainstream so long as it maintained a separate identity and an independent coinage. NOTES

Catalogue de la collection de monnaies de feu Christian Jiirgensen Thomsen n-i, Copenhagen 1873, 212, no. 2555 (plate iii). 2 A study of this kind could be annotated almost without limit. Beyond the essential references, I have cited more general literature only by way of example or where it particularly illustrates the theme. 3 A. Enge1, R. Serrure, Traite de numismatique du moyen age (hereafter Traite) I-Ill, Paris 1891-1905, includes a final chapter (q27ff.) on international coins and local imitations; for maps of fourteenth-century European imitation, see J. Porteous, Coins in history, London 1969, 246--248. The standard work on sterlings is J. Chautard, Imitations des monnaies au type esterlin frappees en Europe pendant le XIIle et le XIV siecles (hereafter Imitations), Nancy 1872. Among several shorter studies may be mentioned H. E. Ives, Foreign imitations of the English noble, Numismatic Notes and Monographs XCIII, New York 1941; H. E. Ives, P. Grierson, The Venetian gold ducat and its imitations, Numismatic Notes and Monographs cxxv, New York 1954; and P. Grierson, 'Le Gil/at ou Carlin de NaplesProvence: le rayonnement de son type monetaire', Centenaire de la Societe Fran(:aise de Numismatique; catalogue de l'exposition a l'HOtel de la Monnaie, Paris 1965, 43-5 6. 4 J. Porteous, Aangemunt en nagemunt, Amsterdam 1968, is a good general survey of the imitative types of this area. 5 The techniques of identification are well demonstrated in C. S. S. Lyon, G. van der Meer, R. H. M. Dolley, 'Some Scandinavian coins in the names of Aethe1raed, Cnut and Harthacnut attributed by Hildebrand to English mints', BNJ xxx 1960--1961, 235-251;N. J. Mayhew, 'GaucherdeChatI

illon and the imitation of sterlings in the name of Edward of England', RBNS CXXI 1975, 109-II6; and J. D. A. Thompson, 'Continental imitations of the rose noble of Edward IV', BNJ xxv 1945-1948, 183208. 6 P. Grierson, 'The gold solidus of Louis the Pious and its imitations', JMPxxxvlII 1951, 1-41, is a classic study of a series in which imitations greatly outnumber the originals. 7 E.g. the rosette of Lippe instead of the central cross of the crown on Short Cross sterlings (B. H. I. H. Stewart, J. D. Brand, 'A second find of English sterlings from Ribe (1958)', NNA 1971,43). 8 See, for example, Chautard, Imitations, I 15. 9 Chautard, Imitations, pI. ii, nos. 5,7,8; and pI. iv, nos. 1-9; pI. xxii, nos. 4-8. 10 Chautard, Imitations, pI. xxiv, nos. 3-4 and pI. xxxvi, no. I. II Chautard, Imitations, pI. xxiv, nos. 1,2, 13, and pI. xxv, no. 7. 12 I. Stewart, 'Some unpublished Scottish coins', N0 xv 1955,11-20 at 19; pI. iv, nos. 19-2 1. 13 H. E. van Ge1der, De Nederlandse munten, Antwerp 1968, 25, fig. 14; E. Burns, The coinage of Scotland I-Ill, Edinburgh 1887, figs. 27-28. (The nearest comparable coin in I. Stewart, The Scottish coinage 2 (hereafter Scottish coinage), London 1967, is fig. 7, but this is of a variety with crescents instead of annulets on the reverse). 14 The most important modern surveys of the Continental sterling coinages are S. E. Rigold, 'The trail of the Easterlings', BNJ XXVI 1949-1951, 31-55, and P. Berghaus, 'Die Perioden des Sterlings in Westfalen, dem Rheinland und in den Niederlanden', Hamburger Beitriige zur Numismatik I 1947, 34-53. 15 Chautard, Imitations, pI. xxvi, nos. 3-5.

3 18

IAN STEW ART

Following I. Weingiirtner, Die Gold- und Silber-Munzen des Bisthums Paderborn, Miinster 1882, 178-183, Chautard attributes his no. 5 to Abbot John 11 (1273-1303) but, ifthe defective inscription has been correctly read, it must belong to John I (d. 1237) and to the Short Cross period - compare no. 8 15 (pi. c, no. 17) in Berghaus, 'Das Munzwesen', Kunst und Kultur in Weserraum 800-1600, Corvey 1966, 314-322. 16 Chautard, Imitations, pi. xxv, no. 9 (with name of Swalenberg both sides, misattributed to Bremen), pi. xxvi, no. 8 (Widekind) and 9 (Bosingfeld); there are reverse die-links between the first two ofthese series. See also H. Grote, Munzstudien v, 81,90--95 (Swalenberg), and 85-89 (Pyrmont); and P. Weweler, 'Lippische Sterlinge', Festschrift zur Feier des 25jiihrigen Bestehens des Vereins d. Munzforscher und Munzfreunde for Westfalen und Nachbargebiete (ed. K. Kennepohl), Miinster 1938,41-53. 17 Chautard, Imitations, pi. xxvi, no. I I; Hans Krusy, 'Die Miinzen von Pyrmont-Liigde', Deutsche Munzbliitter 1940, 1-8 (pi. cci), no. 12. Mr Rigold (see n. 14 above, 41) told me that he erroneously supposed this piece, which is of the Long Cross period, to lie behind the mention by Berghaus (n. 14 above, 38) of a Short Cross type of Pyrmont; but there were coins of the English Short Cross type of pyrmont in the Friesoythe (Oldenburger Jahrbuch, 1937, 140) and Aegean hoards. 18 R. H. M. Dolley, 'The 1958 Coventry treasure trove of Long Cross pence of Henry Ill', NC6 xvm 1958, 109-122 at 118, no. 228; pi. viii no. 7. 19 P. Berghaus, 'Beitriige zur Westfalischen Miinzkunde', Hamburger Beitriiger zur Numismatik XIV 1960,469-496 at 472-479, '2. Westfiilische Widekindsmiinzen'. 20 M. Dolley, W. A. Seaby, 'The anomalous long cross coins in the Anglo-Irish portion of the Brussels hoard', Mints, dies and currency (ed. R. A. G. Carson), London 197 1, 29 1-3 17. 21 J. J. North, 'The Broughton hoard', BNJ xxxv 1966, 120-127; compare Burns, n. 13 above, fig. 208. 22 Chautard, Imitations, pi. xvi, no. 2 for

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

English type; J. A[llan], 'A new sterling of Lorraine', NC5 xv 1935, 208. Chautard, Imitations, pi. iii, no. 5; and Burns, n. 13 above, fig. 226b (crown). This type was itself subject to imitation (NC 1981, pi. xxxv, no. 6). Chautard, Imitations, pi. xxiv, nos. 3-4 and xxxv, no. I. A possible late echo of this reverse, with two mullets replaced by cinquefoils, is to be found on a municipal coin of Utrecht (Chautard, Imitations, pi. xxxi, no. 12; Engel, Serrure, Traite, 1146-1147)· W. Hiivernick, Die Munzen von Koln vom Beginn der Priigung bis 1304, Cologne 1935, 273: nos. 1087-1088 are a sterling and half-sterling of Siegen, and no. 1089 has Henricus on the reverse. If the identification of this as Count Henry I of Nassau (1289-1343) is correct, the type must have been struck towards 1290, when the voided cross had been replaced by the single cross for a decade. See H. J. Liickger, Die Munzen von Koln, Nachtriige und Berichtigungen zu Band I des Kolner Munzwerks, Munich 1939, 442. The specimen illustrated here (pi. 19 fig. 14) is from the Gaettens collection (Munzen der Hohenstaufenzeit IT, Leu sale, 8-9 March 1960, lot 1217). B. Ahlstrom, B. F. Brekke, B. Hemmingsson, The coinage ofNorway (Norges Mynter), Stockholm 1976, 24-25, figs. 32/1-3 (duke) and 36 (king). G. Galster, 'Influence of the English cointypes on the Danish in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries', NC4 XVI 1916, 260-270 and pi. ix (no. 15, Short Cross; no. 21, Long Cross; and no. 25, Single Cross). P. Grierson, Monnaies du moyen age (hereafter Monnaies), Fribourg 1976, figs. 347-350. See A. T. Puister, 'Ein nieuwe Datering van de Denarii van de Graven uit het Hollandsche Luis', JMP XLIV 1957, 17-27, for chronology; see n. 54 below for detailed references to the imitative Kopfchen. E.g. Chautard, Imitations, pi. vi, no. 7; the groat of Cologne, though of English aspect, was on the tournois standard (Grierson, Monnaies, fig. 496). I. Stewart, 'Un demi-gros au type ecossais

The influence of Scottish types abroad d'Arnould d'Oreye', BCEN n-iii 1965, 43-47 (compare I. Stewart, 'A foreign copy of a halfgroat of David 11 of Scotland', BNJ xxxv 1966, 195); Engel, Serrure, Traite, 1107; E. M. Besly, 'Fourteenth-century sterlings from Yves and Rummen', NC 1981 , 17 2- 175. 31 R. Weiller, Les monnaies luxembourgeoises, Numismatica Lovaniensia 11, Louvain 1977, 68, nos. 132-137; pI. 20 fig. 33 below is Weiller no. 132. 32 Engel, Serrure, Traite, 1056-1057, figs. 1626-1627; Chautard, Imitations, pI. xxiii, no. 9. 33 P. Berghaus, J. Spiegel, 'Die Miinzen der Grafen von Limburg', Die Geschichte der Grafen und Herren von Limburg und Limburg-Styrum und ihrer Besitzungen, 1200-1500 (ed. A. L. Hulschof and others) n-iv, Assen/Miinster 1968, 270-352 at 322, no. 39. 34 Groningen from 1437: P. O. van der Chijs, De munten der Nederlanden v, De munten van Friesland, Groningen en Drenthe, Haarlem 1855, pI. x, nos. 44-46, 49 etc.; pI. vi, no. 5, Albert, duke of Saxony, as Governor of Friesland (1499-1502); Cologne from 1469: A. Noss, Munzen und Medaillen von Coin 11. Die Munzen der Erzbischofe von Coin 130 6-1547, Cologne 1913, 237, nos. 443-457; Abbey of Essen (mint at castle of Borbeck): Engel, Serrure, Traite, 1198, fig. 1798; Reckheim, Engel, Serrure, Traite 1111, fig. 1723 (compare J. de Mey, Les monnaies de Reckheim 2 , Brussels 1976, nos. 67-69 and 71). This is not intended to be a complete list. 35 [p.] Tergast, Die Munzen Ostfrieslands, Emden 1883,76, 132, 137-139 (figs. 57, 81, 84-88). 36 Stewart, Scottish coinage, fig. 120; Grierson, Monnaies, fig. 556. 37 Stewart, Scottish coinage, fig. I 13; A. Dowle, P. Finn, The guide book to the coinage of Ireland, London 1969, nos. 98-99 (compare nos. 101-102); A. Dieudonne, Catalogue des monnaies capetiennes 11. Catalogue des monnaies fran.;aises de la Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris 1932, pI. xxx, no. 1693; Grierson, Monnaies, fig. 471, Denmark (Eric of Pomerania, 1396-1439).

319

38 Dowle, Finn, n. 37 above, no. 100; Stewart, Scottish coinage, fig. 101. 39 J. E. L. Murray, 'The black money of James Ill', Coinage in medieval Scotland (1100-1600) (ed. D. M. Metcalf), British Archaeological Reports XLV, Oxford 1977, I I 5- I 30. The latest discussion of the Crux Pellit pennies is in Department of Coins and Medals, New Acquisitions no. I (1976-77), British Museum Occasional Paper no. 25, 1981,54, no. 128. The attempt to revive an attribution to kings of Naples in the late fourteenth century is incompatible both with the date and with the focus of circulation in Scotland in the second half of the fifteenth century; and it overlooks the fact that the Karolus specimen is copied from the normal coins reading Iacobus. 40 E.g., during the English debasement of the 1540s, the name of Henry VIII was retained after the accession of Edward VI; compare the coinage of the Catholic League at Toulouse after the assassination of Henry III in 1589 (Porteous, n. 3 above, 183). 41 Information kindly supplied by Dr H. Enno van Gelder, Koninklijk Kabinet van Munten, Penningenen Gesneden Stenen, The Hague. 42 M. Dolley, 'Irish hoards with thirteenthand fourteenth-century Scottish coins', Seaby's Coin and Medal Bulletin no. 617 1970,4- 10. 43 D. F. Alien, 'An Irish find of forged Scottish coins', BNJ XXVI, 1949/1951, 90-91. 44 M. Dolley, W. A. Seaby, '''Le money del Oraylly" (O'Reilly's money)', BNJ XXXVI 1967, 114-11 7. 45 For a comparable movement at a later period see A. Mikolajczyk, 'Scottish copper coins of the seventeenth century found in Poland and in the neighbouring Soviet Republics', Ne XIV, 1974, 148-157. 46 Authentic Scottish sterlings have sometimes been mistaken for local imitations in Germany. The coin described in Numismatische Anzeiger 1869, 28, is presumably a Roxburgh Short Cross penny in the name of William I (posthumous) reading PERIS ADAM ON RO. Weweler, n. 16 above, no. 61, attributed to Swalenberg, is a Scottish

320

IAN STEW ART

Long Cross penny of Alexander Ill, of the Berwick mint (reading WAL TER BER WIK). 47 M. Dolley, 'The earliest German imitations of Anglo-Irish coins', Dona Numismatica, Waiter Hiivernick zum 23. Januar 1965 dargebracht (ed. P. Berghaus, G. Hatz), Hamburg 1965, 213-218; and a coin from the Norrby hoard, N. L. Rasmusson, 'Sterlingar och barrer som betalningsmedel pa Gotland under I 200-talet', Gotliindskt Arkiv XII 1940, 2~44 (fig. I, no. 7). An adaptation of the reverse type was used by Bishop Conrad of Osnabruck (1227-38), Engel, Serrure, Traite, fig. 1137. 48 Count Robert's daughter Margaret had been married to Alexander (d. I284), son of Alexander Ill; and the trading connection was strong enough to offend the English in Bruce's reign. 49 I am indebted to Nicholas Mayhew for reminding me that there was a crowned profile sterling of Alost in the Whittonstall hoard, buried c. 131 I. For the date of Bruce's coinage see B. H. I. H. Stewart, 'Some Edwardian hoards from Scotland', Ne XIII 1973, 134-143 at 135. 50 Chautard, Imitations, pI. xxvi, no. 6. 51 See n. 20 above and pI. 20, fig. 28 below. 52 B. Crawford, 'Weland ofStiklaw: a Scottish royal servant at the Norwegian court', Historisk Tidsskrift IV 1973, 32~339. 53 The Acts of William I King of Scots II65-1214 (ed. G. W. S. Barrow), Edinburgh 1971, 30; G. G. Simpson, 'The claim of Florence, Count of Holland, to the Scottish throne, 1291-2', Scottish Historical Review XXXVI 1957,111-124. 54 The list given by J. Menadier (' Die Miinzen der Jiilicher Dynastengeschlechter', ZjN xxx 1913,423-529 at 431), may be extended (although why he attributed a specimen, 464, no. 3, to Reinhard I of Walkenburg, 1305- I 322, is not clear). The references are: Bergh ('s- Heerenberg): RBNS 1873, 285; Blankenberg: Menadier 431, no. 2; Heinsberg: Menadier 432-433 and 438, nos. 3-9

and 22 (this coin is the same as P. O. van de Chijs, De munten der Nederlanden I, De munten der leenen van de voorma/ige hertogdommen Braband en Limburg, Haarlem 1862, pI. xxii, no. 5, not no. 7, as Menadier says); Cleves: A. Noss, Die Munzen, Grafen und Herzoge von Cleve, Munich 1931, nos. 1-4; Jiilich: A. Noss, Die Munzen von Ju/ich, Mors und Alpen, Munich 1927, nos. 2, 4, 7 and 10; Koevorden: van der Chijs, n. 34 above, pI. xxi, nos. 1-5; Brabant: P. O. van der Chijs, De munten der Nederlanden VI, De munten der voorma/ige graafschappen Holland en Zeeland, Haarlem 1858, suppl. pI. xxxvi, no. 8; Horn: P. O. van der Chijs, De munten der Nederlanden I, De munten der leenen van de voorma/ige hertogdommen Braband en Limburg, Haarlem 1862, pI. xii, no. I; Looz: van der Chijs, leenen van Braband, pI. xxi, nos. 22-25; Stein: van der Chijs Leenen van Braband, pI. xv, no. I; Cuinre: P. O. van der Chijs, De munten der Nederlanden IV, De munten der voorma/ige heeren en steden van Overijssel, Haarlem 1854, pI. i, nos. 8-9, pI. xx, no. I; Gelders: P. O. van der Chijs, De munten der Nederlanden 11, De munten der voorma/ige graven en hertogen van Ge/derland, Haarlem 1852, pI. ii, no. 14 - pI. iii, no. 21; Randerath: P. Grierson, 'Ein unediertes "Kopfchen" von Arnold 11. von Randerath (1290-1331)', Hamburger Beitriige zur Numismatik II-ii 1948, 68-69. 55 Cr. I. Stewart, 'Parallels between German and Scottish coins in the sixteenth century', N Circ May 1981, 160. 56 I. Stewart, 'Some Scottish ceremonial coins', Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland XCVIII 1964-1966, 254275 at 262-264. 57 I. Stewart, 'Coinage and propaganda: an interpretation of the coin-types of James VI', From the Stone Age to the Forty-Five: essays presented to R. B. K. Stevenson (ed. D. V. Clarke, A. C. Grieve), Edinburgh 1982, 452-464.

The influence of Scottish types abroad

321

KEY TO ILLUSTRATIONS

I wish to express my thanks to all those who have allowed me to reproduce coins in their collections, many of which have previously either not been illustrated at all or not by photograph. I am most grateful to Miss M. Archibald, Prof. P. Berghaus, Herr B. Kluge, Dr Jorgen Steen Jensen and M. R. Weiller for providing photographs. I am also much indebted to Prof. Berghaus and Dr Enno van Gelder for various references. Note: nos. 5,7-10, 12 and 15 are from the Brussels hoard, no. 17 from the Middridge hoard and no. 19 from the Broughton hoard. Plate 19 I Scotland, William I (1165-1214), 1st coinage, Roxburgh sterling, moneyer Folpold: reads (WILLEL)MVS REX and (F) OLPOD ROC (.. ). (author's collection). 2 Ireland, Price John as Lord of Ireland (1I80s?), penny Irish, without mint name, moneyer Roger: reads IOhANNES and ROGER (British Museum). 3 Scotland, William I, 3rd (Short Cross) coinage, sterling without mint name: reads LE REI WILAM and hVE WALTER (author's collection). 4 Helmarshausen, abbot Conrad: reads COnRADVS A and HELWARDEShV (Munich). 5 Scotland, Alexander III (1249-86), 1st (Long Cross) coinage, type 11 sterling of Glasgow, moneyer Waiter: reads ALEXANDER REX and WA LT ERO NGL (author's collection). 6 Holland, Count Floris V (1256--95), penny of early issue: reads COMES hOLLA'DIE and hO LLAn DIE (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). 7 Scotland, Alexander Ill, 1st coinage, type III sterling of Roxburgh, moneyer Michel: rev. reads MI Ch EL OR (author's collection). 8 Swalenberg, Count Widekind (1249-64), sterling: reads WIDEKINDVS C'* and SVA LEN BRC HCI (author's collection). 9 Swalenberg (Widekind), with name of county both sides: obv. reads SVALENBRCHCI, rev. as no. 8 (author's collection). 10 Sternberg, Count Henry (1249-82), sterling of Bosingfeld : reads hENRICVS COME' and BOS INC VEL DEI (author's collection). 11 Pyrmont, sterling of Liigde: reads ALEXANDER REX and LVDHE CIVITA (Berlin). 12 Scotland, Alexander Ill, 1st coinage, type VI sterling of Kinghorn: rev. reads WIL AM. OH KIN (author's collection). 13 Lippe, Widekind sterling of Enger (?): reads hEN RIO NLV NDE (British Museum). 14 Uncertain mint, Archbishop Siegfried of Cologne (1275-97) jointly with 'Henry': reads SIFRID ARChl and hE NR IC VS (Westfiilisches Landesmuseum, Miinster). 15 Low Countries (?), barbarous copy of Scottish Long Cross sterling, with meaningless inscriptions (author's collection). 16 Denmark, Jutland penny with reverse copied from Scottish Long Cross type (Copenhagen). 17 Scotland, Alexander Ill, 2nd (Single cross) coinage (c. 1280+), sterling without mint name (author's collection). 18 Continental imitation of Alexandrian sterling, as no. 17 (author's wllection). 19 Counterfeit copy of Alexandrian sterling (cf. no. 17), of rough workmanship (author's collection). 20 Lorraine, Duke Ferri IV (1312-28), sterling: reads FERRICVS DEI GRAS and LON TON REN GIE (author's collection).

322 Plate

IAN STEWART 20

21 Holland, Count Floris V, Dordrecht penny of Single Cross type: F COMES hOLLANDIE and MOn ETA DOR D . Cl (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). 22 Randerath, Arnold 11 (1290--1331), copy of Holland penny, cf. no. 21: reads ARnOLDV(S) DE RAn and MOn ETA InR ODE (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). 23 Norway, Duke Hakon (c. 1285-1299), penny of Oslo reads hAQVln DVX nORWEGIE and MOnETA DE ASLOIA (Oslo). 24 Norway, King Hakon V (1299-1319), halfpenny: reads hAQVINVS REX and CR VX XP I (Oslo). 25 Scotland, John (1292-6), halfpenny: reads IOhANNES DEI GRA and REX SCO TOR VM (author's collection). 26 Scotland, Robert I (1306--29), sterling: reads ROBERTVS DEI GRA and SCO TOR VMR EX (author's collection). 27 Flanders, Count Robert de Bethune (1305-22), sterling of Alost: reads ROB COMES FLAND and MOn ETA ALO STEn (author's collection). 28 Counterfeit sterling: obv. of English type (facing head), with unintelligible inscription; rev. of Scottish type with mullets and REX ICO IO( ) VM (blundered copy of SCO TOR VM) (author's collection). 29 Cologne, Archbishop Henry ofWirnenburg (1306--32), sterling ofBonn: reads hEmA RChlE PS: CO and MOn ETA BVn EnS (British Museum). 30 Scotland, David 11 (1329-71), half-groat of Edinburgh: reads DAVID DEI GRA REX SCOTORV and (rev. outer) DnS PROT ECTOR MEVS (author's collection). 31 Rummen, Lord Arnold of Oreye (1331-64), double sterling or half-groat: reads (DO)Mln ERnVOLDVX R( ) on obv., and on rev. DnS ERnV LD( ) ( ) and MOn ETA RV(M) (In ?)OR (author's collection). 32 Scotland, David 11, Edinburgh groat (author's collection). 33 Luxemburg, Duke Wenceslas I (1353-83) with Archbishop Bohemund of Trier, gros of 1358-9 (Musee d'Histoire et d'Art, Luxemburg). 34 Luxemburg, Duke Wenceslas 11 (restored 1411-12), new gros (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). 35 Limburg, Count William I (1401-57), gros imitating Luxemburg (Count Limburg-Styrum). Plate 21

36 37 38 39 40

Metz, municipal gros, after 1376 (Fitzwilliam Museum: Grierson Collection). Ostfriesland, Ulrich Cirksena (1453-66), gros of Emden. Ireland, Edward IV (1461-83), Patrick farthing of 1463-5 (author's collection). Scotland, James III (1460--88), copper farthing: rev. reads MO PA VP ER (author's collection). Ireland(?), 15th-century copper forgery: the obverse is based on a clipped English groat, the reverse on a Scottish billon penny, reading VILL AED InB VRG (author'S collection). 41 Scotland, James III copper penny: reads IACOBVS DEI GRA REX and CRVX PELLIT OE CRI (omne crimen) (author's collection). 42 Uncertain, copper penny of 'Charles': reads KAROLVS DEI GRA RX and CRVX PELLIT OE CRI (Copenhagen).

The influence of Scottish types abroad

32 3

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

<)

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Plate 19

IAN STEWA RT

25

24

22

21

23

29

28

27

26

31

30

32

34

33 Plate

20

35

The influence of Scottish types abroad

36

38

325

37

40

39 Plate

21

41

42

23

Barter in fifteenth-century Genoa CARLO M. CIPOLLA

So imposing has been the work by Philip Grierson on coins and coinages that one might overlook the fact that he is the author of a very remarkable studyl demonstrating the prevalence in Dark Age Europe offorms of unilateral transfer, such as gift and robbery, which in those primitive and troubled societies substituted for exchanges. It is perhaps a paradox that it is this most eminent historian of money who has brought to the attention of his fellow historians the relevance of alternative practices favouring the elimination of money. The article was not, however, the expression of an isolated idea. Those who have some familiarity with Philip Grierson's work know of his persistent interest in all forms of primitive exchange (that is, exchange without using money as a means of payment), as well as in all forms of primitive money (that is, means of exchange other than coins, paper money, or deposits). Thus it may not be irrelevant in a collection of essays in honour of Philip Grierson to comment upon a curious notarial document drawn up in Genoa on the 25th day of August 1481.2 The document records the solemn agreement reached between the members of the College of Physicians of Genoa on the one part and the Chancellors of the Commune of Genoa on the other. According to its terms the Physicians engaged themselves to treat any of the Chancellors and any member of their families in the event of illness, except in the case of plague, until they had made a complete recovery' without charging any reward, or fee, or payment'. The Chancellors were assured of the right to choose their doctor. In return the Chancellors engaged to transcribe and to record without fee all 'papers, letters, deliberations, instruments, and documents' that the Physicians might obtain from the town's administration or that were produced within the College itself, provided that the work was done within the premises of the Palazzo del Commune. The reasons given in the document itself for the agreement are vague: 'to ensure love between the two professions and to ensure that each party enjoys the reward of virtues'! The phrase obviously served as a screen to cover the real reasons for the agreement, but what were these reasons?

CARLO M. CIPOLLA

Cases of doctors exchanging their services for amounts of grain or other goods fixed on a monthly or yearly rate were not exceptional in fifteenth-century Italy. In such cases the doctors stabilised their real incomes while the potential patients paid an insurance premium in kind against the accidents of health. The case of the Genoese agreement, however, is obviously of a totally different kind. Considering the unsatisfactory conditions of health of the time _and the wide discrepancy between a medical fee and the cost of transcribing an official document, the doctors could hardly believe that they would extract from the Chancellors services comparable in worth with the services that they promised. Moreover, the Chancellors carefully limited their free services to work in the Palazzo del Commune. The deal looks incredibly unfair to the Physicians. Why did they subscribe to it? The Chancellors of the Commune constituted the principal body of the local bureaucracy and since time immemorial bureaucrats have always been infuriatingly slow in providing citizens with the official documents they need. In all likelihood the agreement of 1481 was a bribe from the Genoese Physicians to the local bureaucrats, that is by offering free medical services they induced the Chancellors to provide them with copies of the official documents they needed, and to do so not only without charge, as the agreement specifies, but also promptly, as the agreement tactfully does not mention. The Chancellors were happy to be bribed in a way that was respectful of legal forms. Whatever were the reasons for the agreement, it 'saved' on the use of coin as means of payment in certain transactions. Clearly there was no shortage of coins in late fifteenth-century Genoa. Thus the agreement shows once more how forms of barter could be resorted to not because of disruption of the monetary market but because of particular mental attitudes and special social conditions. NOTES I

P. Grierson, 'Commerce in the Dark Ages: a critique of the evidence', THS5 IX 1959, 123-140 (reprinted in Dark Age numismatics as article ii).

2

Archivio di Stato, Genova: Archivio Segreto, Diversorum, 3061.

Index Note: Italic entries indicate major discussion of a topic. Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle), capitularies, 138, 142, 150 account, monies of, 253 n. 10, 263 and n. 4, 266; pound, 148; local, 263 accounting systems, 253 n. 10; of Andrew Halyburton, 263 iElfred the Great, king of Wessex, abandonment of periodic recoinage, 153-60 iEthelbearht, king of Wessex, 153, 154 iEthelred I, king of Wessex, 153, 154,304 iEthelred 11, 209 iEthelwulf, king of Wessex, 153, 154,156 iEthered, archbishop of Canterbury, 154, 155 Africa, 98-100 Agen, mint of, 140 Aistulf, Lombard king, 129 Albrecht, Giinther, 163, 167 Alexander Ill, king of Scotland: sterlings imitated, 307, 308, 309, 319 n. 46; sterlings, 321 pI. 19 nos. 5, 7, 12, 17 Alexander the Great, 13, 16 n. I alloy, 5 in mint production, 235, 241-2, 248 of Carolingian gold coins, 133; deniers, 143, 149 of Merovingian silver coins, II3-24 Alost, mint of, 308, 314, 320 n. 49 Altanitis, Cornelius, 265 Alyattes, king of Lydia, 6 Amadeus Ill, count of Savoy, 176 n. 14 Anastasius, emperor, 105 n. 20 angel, 269, 270-1, 293; half-angel, 269, 270 Anglo-Saxon coinage, 9 n. 26; iElfred the Great and recoinages, 153-7; finds in Schleswig-Holstein, 205, 206-11; see also' sceattas' Ansedert/Austrebert, Patrician of Provence, 114 Antioch, mint of, 38 n. 9, 76, 80

antoninianus, 66, 70-3 passim, 97, 103 nn. 4, 5 Antoninus Pius, emperor, 107 pI. 10 no. 14 Antony, Mark, 24, 30, 31 and Cleopatra, Cyrenaican bronze coins, 26-7, 39 n. 17; halved, 30; chronology, 32; denominations, 34 denarii of Scarpus for, 32 Fleet Praefect coinage, 30, 33 Antwerp, 239, 247, 249, 253 n. 7, 255 n. 47, 26 5 Apollonia (Cyrenaica), 30, 37 n. 1,38 n. 15, 54 Aquileia, mint of, 78-82 passim Aquitaine, 140 Aradus,I3 Arcadius, emperor, 76-80 passim, 90 figs. II, 12 Aries, mint of, 75-83 passim, 138 Arnhem, mint of, 253 n. 9 Arnold, duke of Guelders, 278, 279 Arnold 11, of Randerath, 322 pI. 20 no. 22 Arnold of Oreye, lord of Rummen, 309, 313, 314, 322 pI. 20 no. 31 as, 50, 54, 55, 97 confused with dupondius, 105 n. 14 'countermarked " 98-9, 103 n. I halved, 36-7 of Cyrenaica, 27-37 passim semuncial, 33, 34, 36; uncial, 33, 36 ; sextantal, 36 assay, 242, 246; see also pyx, trial of the assayers, mint officials, 244, 248-9, 252 Athelstan, king of Wessex and Mercia, York coinage, 225 Athens, 7, II, 13,53,57 Attigny, capitularies of, 138, 141, 142 Augustus, 31, 33, 34, 39 n. 17; on Seato's coins, 27-8, 30, 32; halved coins of, 36, 37; Capricorn type of, 52 aurei, 3 I, 39 n. 29

Aurelian, emperor, 72, 73 Aurelius, Marcus, 16, 107 pI. Iono.I5 Austrebert, see Ansedert Bachkovo, monastery of, 179-88 passim Balliol, John, 308 banker/ing, 188, 252, 286 Barcelona, recoinages of, 193-202 Bardi, Waiter de, mint master, 226,229 barter, 150, 325-6 Basel, re-used obverse die, 16 Basiliscus, emperor, 105 n. 20 Bayeux, 177 n. 22; mint of, 173, 174 Belgium, 304; late fourth-century Roman bronze finds from, 75-94 passim Benedict Ill, pope, 137 Berenikeion, 57 Bergamo, 132 Berry, 265 Bertha, queen, 162-3 bigati,53 billon, 188, 197, 199,291, 3II bisaneii, 196 blanchers, 254 n. 22 blanes, 3II blanks, in production, 241-2, 234-5; see also flan Blomberg, mint of, 307 Bohemund, archbishop of Trier, 30 9 Bonn, mint of, 308 Bordeaux, mint of, 141 Bosingfeld, mint of, 306 bossonaya, 194-9 passim botdraeger, 309, 313 Bourges, 115; mint of, 140 'Bourgogne, serment de', 241 Brabant, 31 I; mint organisation in, 240-52 passim; 'serment de' 241 bracteates, 2 II Braumbach, F., 162 'brief', of an ouvrier, 235 briquet, 289-91 bronze coinage (aes), 5-6,66; Cyrenaican, 23-46;

33 0 bronze coinage (cont.) Tiberian, 29; of Nemausus, 31; of Augustus, 33; local Gallic, of Octavian, 33; Mamertine, 39 n. 20; Belgian finds, 75-83; re-use of Roman imperial, 95- I I I ; of Flavians, 97, 100; see also names of denominations and of coins Brooke, G. c., 225-7 Bruce, Robert, see Robert I Bruges, 265; mint of, 245, 249, 250, 253 n. 7, 255 n. 46 bruna, 194 . Bruniquer, Rubriques de, 194-7 Brussels, 250; mint of, 253 n. 7; hoard, 307 Brutus, 51-2 Bulgaria, 179, 188 bullion, 8, 227, 234, 241, 244, 245, 246-7, 248, 265 burial, coins to accompany a, 50-I Busch mony, local money of account, 263 Byzantine coins, xi, 209, 210, 315; re-use of, 97, 103 n. 5; bronzes, 106 n. 24; and the Gornoslav hoard, 179-88; minor denominations, 187-8 Cambrai, mint of, 141 Canterbury, mint of, 153 Capito, 39 n. 29 coins, 27, 31, 37; denominations and types, 28-9, 34; dating, 33 Capitula legibus addenda, capitulary of 819, 140, 147 Capitulare missorum: of 809, 147; of 829, 147 Cappe, Heinrich Philipp, 161, 162 Carolingian coins, 208; Ilanz hoard of gold, 127-34; introduced into Italy, 137; no vi denarii and forgery, 137-44; rejection of good coin, 139, 141, 147-51 Caron, E., 172 Carthage, mint of, 40 n. 29, 98, 99, 106 n. 24 Catalonia, 193-202 caution money (mint master's), 245 Celles, 170 n. 16 Cely Papers, coin and exchange rate comparison with Halyburton, 263---92 passim Ceolnoth, archbishop of Canterbury, 153

Index Ceolwulf 11, king of Mercia, 154 Chabouillet, M., 172-3, 175 n. I I chaise d' or, 273, 277 Chillons, 237 n. 10 Chambres des Comptes, and Burgundian mint organisation, 244-50 Charlemagne, 137, 138, 140; gold coins of (Ilanz hoard), 127-32; deniers, 145 pI. 13 nos. 1,2; rejection of good coin, 147, 150 Charles VI, king of France, 231, 237 n. 7 Charles VII, 283-4 Charles VIII, ecus au solei!, 284; Karolus penny, 309-31 I Charles VIII (Karl Knutsson), king of Sweden, Karolus penny, 309-1 I Charles the Bald, 138-43 passim, 148; denier, 145 pI. 13 nos. 7-10 Charles the Bold/Rash, duke of Burgundy, 240, 250, 253 n. I I, 290, 291 Chartres, mint of, 141, 142 chemical analysis, I 13 and n. 4, 133 Chronicon Barcinonense, 194 circulating medium, 66, 83, 97, 188, 264-6 circulation of coin, 134, 166, 173, 305; early, 5-6, 8; Roman bronze in northern Gaul, 75, 83; ancient, in later periods, 97; in Carolingian Italy, 131; Gornoslav hoard evidence of, 188; medieval English, in SchleswigHolstein, 205-14; evidence from Halyburton's Ledger of, 263-6 Cirksena, Edzard and Ulrich, 3 10 ,3 13 cistophoros, 53 citharephoroi, 53 Citium, mint of, 13, 14-15 Civitas Biturigum, 114-15 Claudius, emperor, 107 pI. 10no·17 Claudius 11, 70- I Cleopatra, Antony and, 3 I Cyrenaican bronze coins, 26-7, 39 n. 17; halved, 30; chronology, 32; denominations, 34 daughter, 27 Clermont, mint of, 140 clinkart, 273, 277-8 Clovius, 39 n. 29 Cnut, 209, 304

Cobbe, Hans, mint master, 245 coin finds, 2, 6, 27, 98-9, 311, 312 analysis of Belgian finds of Roman bronze, 75-83; of finds in Schleswig-Holstein of English medieval coins, 205-14; list, 214-18 from Coventry, 305; Dankirke, 206; Horsted Keynes, 227; Massafra, 106 n. 24; Ribe, 206, 211, 315; Velleia, 100 coin inscriptions/legends, 70, 161, 167 early Greek, 2, 6 function of, on ancient coin, 51 of Carolingian gold coins, 127-32; deniers, 138, 141 of countermarked Roman coins, 102 Table 10 of Roman coins of Cyrenaica, 24-32 passim on imitative coins, 305, 309, 314 coins clipped, 133, 312 defacement of, 56 names on, 6; of moneyers, officials, 28; of Carolingian towns of issue, 138, but common mint, 132-3, 143; mint names, 141; Norman personal names, 171-5 output of, 65, 242 re-use of, 95-1 I I coin types and coin names, 53 and re-used Roman coins, 106 n. 26 as indication of denomination,

33-6 changed to defeat forgery, 139-43 earliest Greek, 2-7 passim, 9 n. 17 functions of ancient, 5, 7, 51, 56 imitations of medieval Scottish, 303-17 of the Roman coinage of Cyrenaica, 24-36 passim public opinion and Roman imperial, 47-59 statistical analysis of, 66-7; stylistic (German), 167---9 West'Saxon, 153-5 see also portraits on coins Cologne: mint of, 71, 141,314; archbishops of, 276 coloriseur, mint worker, 242 and n. 22

Index Commodus, emperor, 107 pI. 10 nos. 9, 13 comtes, Carolingian, 138-44 passim, 176 n. 21 Conan 11 of Brittany, 176 n. 15 Conrad 11, emperor, 167, 169 Conrad, abbot of Helmarshausen, 307, 321 pI. 19 no. 4 Constans n, emperor, 97 Constantine, emperor, 52 Constantinople, 76 Consuetudines et Justicie, 174 , contregardes', mint officials, 248,252 control marks/letters, 24, 141; see also privy marks Cook, R. M., 6 Copia, 34, 40 n. 30 copper, 114, 149, 311 copper coin, 8, 188,312 Corinth,56 Cornuficius, Q., 39 n. 29 Corvinus, Matthias, king of Hungary, 287 Cosconius, P., 39 n. 29 counterfeiting, see forgery countermarking, 6; for re-use of obsolete coin, 95-100, 103 n. 5 courtes, 243 Crassus, 34; mints of, 25; coins of, 30- I, 36 Crawford, M. H., 32, 33 Crete and Cyrenaica, 23, 27, 30, 31 coins of Lollius, 24-5, 30; of Crassus, 25, 31 crockards, 2 I I and 11. 45 crocodile, 31,40 n. 40 Croesus, 7; temple of, 1-4; coins of, 2,4 crowns, on eleventh-century pfennigs, 168 crowns, in Andrew Halyburton's Ledger, 264, 266, 293; Scottish, 272; old and new, 283-4 Crux pellit pennies, 309 n. 39 cryit mony, 264, 266 Cyprus, 13, 16 Cyrenaica, Roman coinage in, 23-37 Cyrene: mint of, 24-37 passim; Antony's donation to Cleopatra, 27 Cyzicus,4 Dampierre, Gui de, count of Flanders, 241, 308 Danes, Danelaw, 153; commerce

and imitative coinage of, 155-7; Danegeld, 210-1 I Dannenberg, Hermann, 161-3, 167,168 daric, 53, 57 dates on coins, 11-12, 13, 30,65 dating techniques, 129, 131, 140, 142; in determination of coin origins, 1-4; die studies and relative chronology, I I; and the chronology of the Roman coinage of Cyrenaica, 30-3; evidence from hoards, 65, 67; study of dies and types, 166-9; use of pri vy marks, 225--9 David I, king of Scotland, 312 David 11, half-groat, 309, 322 pI. 20 no. 30; groat, 311, 322 pI. 20 no. 32 David of Burgundy, bishop of Utrecht, 280, 281 Davidschild/ Davidsharp, 28 I Dax, mint of, 140 debasement, 114, 149, 188, 213, 225, 237 n. I I, 306,309; debased coins, 139, 140, 193, 196, 253 n. 10 dedications, coins as, 132 Demareteion, 57 Demeter Sanctuary, at Cyrene, 37 n. I, 27, 30 demonetisation, 138-40, 143, 150-1, 153-5, 198 demy(e), 270 denarii, 3 I, 32, 39 n. 29, 53, 55, 66,67, 103 n. 5, 137, 156; see also deniers, diners deniers, 134 n. 9, 135 n. 35, 176 n. 21, 306, 313; Merovingian, 113-24; novi denarii, 137-44, 147; demonetised, 138-40, 143; rejection in Carolingian Europe, 147-51; Charlemagne's reform, 147; eleventh- and twelth-century Norman, 171-5; deniers tournois, 237 n. 7; deniers de la thoison, 250; denier parisis, 253 n. 10; see also diners Denmark, 208, 210, 21 I, 214; minting abandoned in, 213; imitation sterlings of, 213, 306,308-10,321 pI. 19 no. 16 denominations: of early coins, 5-6; weight misleading as a guide to, 29; of the Roman coinage of Cyrenaica, 33-7 Desiderius, Lombard king, 129, 131, 132, 135 nn. 26,27

33 1 devaluation, Carolingian, 150-1 dicken, 16 Diergarde, Ambroize, mint employee, 255 n. 42 dies, 13, 16 composition of a set, 250, 258 n. 81 determination of size, length of issue, 2, 4, 164--6; date, 166 die-axis, 133 die-linkage, identities, 2, 6, 11, 76, 132-3, 143, 166 die position, control letters, 24 die-wear, I I life of obverse dies, 11-16, made by the engraver, 249-51 movable, 133 Roman production of, 59 Dietrich 11, count of Mors, 276 Dieudonne, Adolphe, 148 Dijon, 255 n. 38 dikastikon, 7 diners, 193--9 passim Dio Cassius, on coins, 51-2, 55, 65 Dioc1etian, emperor, 71 dirhem/dirham, 135 n. 29, 156, 208 doblench, 193--9 passim Domitian, emperor, 50,97, 103 n.5, 10 7 pI. 9 nos. 5, 8 Dordrecht, mint of, 253 n. 7, 254 n. 22, 309 Dorestad/Duurstede, 141, 207, 208 Dortmund, mint of, 167, 168, 169 n. 7 'doubles', tetrarchic nummi, 53 drachma, 12, 53 ducats, in Andrew Halyburton's Ledger, 263--6 passim, 274, 282-3, 285-6, 293; Hungarian, 282-3, 285--6, 287; Italian, di camera, papale, 285-6; double, 287 Duisburg, mint of, 169 n. 7; 'King Henry' pfennig, 161---9; new portrait style, 167 dupondius, 27-37 passim, 97, 99; confusion with the as, 105 n.14 Duurstede, see Dorestad Eadgar/Edgar, 155, 157,225 East Anglia, 157; pence of, 154 ecus, 265-6, 272, 273, 274; a la couronne, au soleil, 284; la chaise, 273 Edward I, king of England, 211, 226, 230 n. 16, 306; Edward penny, 212

a

33 2 Edward 11, 225 Edward Ill, 225, 226, 228, 288 Edward IV, 229, 267, 288, 304; ryals imitated, 269, 304; Patrick farthing, 310 Edward the Confessor, king of England, 209 Edward the Elder, king of Wessex,208 Egypt, 3 I ; coinage of, 23 and n. I ekklesiastikon, 7 Elector Palatine, 276 electrum coinage, early Greek, 2,

4-8 emergency money, 100 empirances, table of, 248 Engel, A., 162-3 Enger,305 England, coins of, 172, 173, 263, 265; medieval, found in Schleswig-Holstein, 205-18; imitated, 304, 306-15 passim; see also Anglo-Saxon coins; named coins; pyx, trial of the engravers, mint workers, 59, 244, 248, 249-51; engraving, cold,97 enseignes, 247 Ephesus, I -7 passim Erik Magnusson, king of Norway, 308 esterlins, 253 n. 10; see also sterlings exchange rates: of old deniers, 150; during the recoinages of Pere I and Jaume, 196-200 passim; in Andrew Halyburton's Ledger, 264, 268-93 passim Exeter, mint of, 155 farthings, 310 Ferri IV, duke of Lorraine, 308, 3 13,3 14 Ferrieres, Lupus of, 137 fineness, 114, 129, 131, 133, 149-50, 235, 244, 246, 248 flan, 24, 28-9, 36, 39 n. 24, 133, 171; dumps, 4, 9 n. 17 Flanders 211-14,272,313; mint organisation in, 239-52 passim; Flemish money 253 n. 10, 263, 268, 272, 28 3 Flavius Victor, emperor, 78, 79, 94 fig. 9 florins, 250, 253 n. 10, 303; St John, 278 Floris V, count of Holland, 309,

Index 315,321 pI. 19 no. 6, 322 pI. 20 no. 21 follis, 97-100 fonditore /fondeur / smeltere, mint worker, 242 forgery/counterfeiting, 70, 103 n. 3, 174, 177 n. 22, 31 I; Carolingian, 137-44, 148, 151; in medieval French mints, 231-7 France, 137,212,239,311 coins of, 137, 171,265,311; see also named coins franc-monnayeurs, 24(}--4 francs, 253 n. 10, 263; francs-a-cheval, 3 I 3 Frankfurt, Synod and capitulary of 794, 137, 139, 142, 147, 150 Franks, 131,206,208 Frederick I (Barbarossa), German emperor, and the Gornoslav hoard, 179-87 Friesland, 303; 'sceattas', 114, 206; trade, 207-8 Gaettens, Richard, 163, 167 Gariel, E., 137 Gaul, 29, 36, 73. 137; finds of late fourth-century Roman bronze in, 75-94; Merovingian deniers in, 113-24 Gelderland, mint organisation in, 24(}--52 passim Genoa, barter in, 327-8 Geoffrey 11 of Anjou, 15 Germanic coinages, 9 n. 26 Germany, 36, 37, 166, 209, 312, 3 16 coins of, 166, 209; imitative sterlings, 307 Ghent, mint of, 243-4, 253 n. 7, 27 8 gifts, coins as, 7-8, 50 Gjerstad, E., I Gloucester: hoard, 72; mint of, 155 Godfrid, abbot of Helmarshausen, 307 Godfried, bishop of Utrecht, 306 gold coinage, xi; earliest, 4-5, 7; Visigothic, 103 n. 5; Carolingian, 127-35; Byzantine, 179-91; minting of bullion, 234, 245; in Andrew Halyburton's Ledger, 263-88; see also names of denominations and of coins goldsmith, 244, 249, 252 graffiti, on coins, 50, 103 n. 5

Grant, M., 31, 32 Gratian, emperor, 83 n. 2; Belgian finds of coins of, 75-8,94 figs. 1,3,4, 5a Greek coinage, 11-12; origins of, 1-8; Hellenistic die life, 11-21; types of, 53, 56-7; see also Cyrenaica Grierson, Philip, 9 n. 26, 65, 98, 131, 132, 137-8, 150, 179, 194, 198, 205, 239, 272, 273, 327; an appreciation of, xi-xvi; bibliography, xvii-xxvii; Grierson Collection, xiii, 99 'griffon', ;289-91 groat, 226-8 Flemish groot, 253 n. 10 imitations, 307, 31(}--1 I in Andrew Halyburton's Ledger, 269, 271; English, 288-9; old groats, 291 gros, 232, 313; au lion, 309, 313; tournois, 21 I, 213, 237 n. 7, 305,309, 3 10 Guillelmus,277-8 gulden, 310 in Andrew Halyburton's Ledger, 264, 265, 266, 293; Philipsgulden, 265, 266, 280; Andrew gulden, 266, 276, 280; Rhenish, 276; Bavarus, 277-8; clemmergulden, 278; Ghent,278-9; Light/ Arnoldusgulden, 279, 281; unspecified, 279-80; of account, 279; Imperial, 280; Utrecht, 280; Davidsgulden, 280, 281; Davidharpen, 280, 281 Rhinegulden, 253 n. 10 Guthrum (' .tEthelstan '), of East Anglia, 155, 156 Hadrian, emperor, 16, 56, 103 n. 5, 107 pI. 9 no. 6, 108 pI. II no. 22 Hague, The, mint of, 253 n. 7 Hainault, 308; mint organisation in, 240-52 passim; hoard, 2 87 Haithabu (Haddeby) 206, 208, 209 Hakon V, king of Norway, 308, 322 pI. 20 no. 24; Duke Hakon penny, 322 pI. 20 no. 23 Halfdene, 155 halved coins, 27, 34 at Cyrene, 30 Mamertine, 39 n. 20 Roman, 36; in Cyrenaica, 36-7

Index Halyburton, Andrew, Ledger of, 26]-6; coins in, 266-93; 'paper hoard' list, 293-9 Hamburg, 205, 2II, 213 Hans I, of Denmark, gulden, 310 Hanseatic League, 205, 213, 214 Harold I, king of England, 209 'harps' (coins), 280 Helmarshausen, mint of, 313,314 coins of the abbots Conrad, Godfrid, John, 307; of Conrad, 321 pI. 19 no. 4 Henry of Wirnenburg, archbishop of Cologne, 322 pI. 20 no. 29 Henry, count of Sternberg, 307 Henry II, German emperor, 167, 168 Henry Ill, 166, 167, 169 Henry IV, 162, 163, 166-7, 168, 169 and n. 9 Henry V, 162, 167 Henry VI, 162 Henry I, 176 n. 14 (c) Henry Il, king of England, 2II Henry IV, 267; privy marks, 227 Henry V, 267-8; privy marks, 227, 229 Henry VI, 267-8; groats of, 226; reprieve of mint workers, 232-5; salut d'or of, 282 Henry VII, 270, 288-<) Henry IV, king of Spain, 288 Heregeld, 210 Herman IV of Hesse, archbishop of Cologne, 276 histamenon traehy, 184, 188 Historia Augusta, 48, 51 hoards, 2-5, 97, 105 n. 20, II3, 138-40, 154-5, 160, 173, 179, 3II comparison with 'paper hoards', 264-6 find and hoard evidence compared, 75-83 passim from Achlum, 138; Apremont-Veuillon (Cher), 138-9; Batkoun, 190 n. 52; Broughton, 308; Brussels, 307; Biinstorf, 2II, 217; Castro dei Volsci, 106 n. 24; Cimiez (Nice), 114; Cource1les, 287; Dorking, 153, 154; Dransau, 208, 214; Fecamp, 175 n. 8; Ferrieres-sur-Risle, 172-3, 176 n. 17; Gaillefontaine, 175 n. 8; Gloucester, 72; Gomoslav, 179-88; Goting-Kliff, 206, 214; Hainault, 287; Hemptinne, 75-82 passim;

Hollingbourne, 7 I; Hanz, 127-34; Jyndevad, 208; Lierre (Antwerp), 80, 83 n. 9; List, 209, 210, 215; Liibeck, 209; Luneau, 176 nn. 14, 17; Meldorf, 2II, 218; Montfort I'Amaury, 176 nn. 14, 17; Norrby, 320 n. 47; Nus, 176 nn. 14, 17; Osmery I and Il, 103 n. 4; Oudenburg, 75, 83 n. 9; Over Randlev, 208; Paphos, 13; Reka-Devnia, 67; Riisdorf, 223 n. 61; Savonnieres, 114; Sibbenarve, 167; Susa, 176 n. 14; Sutton Hoo, 179; Utersum, 209, 210, 215; Whittonstall, 320 n. 49 of English medieval coins in Schleswig-Holstein: list, 214-18 of fifteenth-century gold coins, 2 64 reasons for hoarding, 73 techniques of analysis and their uses, 65-73 HohlpJennig, 213 Holland: mint organisation in, 240-52 passim; imitative sterlings of, 306, 309, 314,

31 5

Hungary, ducats of, 282-3, 285-6, 287 Huy, mint of, 141 hybrids, 70, 71, 312, 314 hyperpyra, 179-80, 185, 187, 188 imbianehitore, mint worker, 242 imitative coinages, 78, 131, 143 27 2,273, 277, 303-5; Roman coinage of Cyrenaica, 27-37 passim; of the west Saxon penny, 155-7; of the' sceat', 206; of sterlings, 211-14, 304, 306-15 passim; of ryals, 269; of medieval Scottish coins, 307-/7 inflation, 82, 264 Innes, Cosmo, 263 inscriptions, see coin inscriptions 'interlace' coins, II4 Ireland, coins of, 209, 212, 306, 311- 12 'Isoprobe', II3 Italy, 36, 76, 80, 83,131,137; countermarked coins from Africa in, 98-100; mints of, 239 James Il, king of Scotland, 272

333 James Ill, 271, 272,310, 316; farthing, 322 pI. 20 no. 39; penny, 322 pI. 20 no. 41 James IV, 271 James V, 271 Jaume (Jaime) I, king of Aragon, 193, 198, 199 Jecklin, F., 127, 133 John, abbot of He1marshausen,

30 7

John, king of England, 212; Irish penny of, 306, 312 John, king of Scotland, 322 pI. 20 no. 25 John of Bavaria, count of Holland, 277 John the Fearless, duke of Burgundy, 272 John of Heinsberg, bishop of Liege, 281 John of Horn, bishop of Liege, 282 Joseph, Paul, 162 journey-weight, 225 Jiilich, Walran of, 308 Justinian, emperor, 105 n. 20, 99 Jutland peninsula: English medieval coin finds in, 205-18; imitative coins in, 3 12 ,3 15 Karolus penny, 310-1 I, 312, 322 pI. 20 no. 42 KopJehen/Kopken, 309,315-16 Kroiseioi, 57 Ladislaus Il, king of Hungary, 28 7 Lafaurie, J., II3, II4, 171 latten, 250 Lawrence, L. A., 225 Liege, 240 Lille, 249, 255 n. 45 Limburg, 310, 316 'lion', 250 in Andrew Halyburton's Ledger, 266, 293; Scottish, 272; Burgundian, 274-5 lion eels, 250 Lippe, Widekind sterlings, 307, 321 pI. 19 no. 13 Lollius, 28, 30, 33, 34, 37; types of, 24-5; denominations of,

36 Lombards, 129-33 London, mint of, 153 Longnon, A., 231 Lorraine, 306, 313,314 Lothar I, emperor, 141, 147 Louis I, the Pious, emperor; 150, 303; novi denarii and forgery, 138-44; deniers, 145

334 Louis I (cont.) pI. 13 nos. 3,4, 5, 6; rejection of good coin, 147 Louis 11, 137 Louis Ill, the Blind, 138 Louis XI, king of France, 284, 3 10 Louis XII, 284 Louvain, mint of, 253 Lubeck, 205, 211, 213; hoard, 209 Lucca, mint of, 131, 135 n. 22 Lucullion, 57 Lugde, mint of, 307 Luxemburg, 240,241,242, 253 n. 11, 306, 309-10 Lydia, 4, 5, 6 Lyon, mint of, 72, 78-83 passim Maastricht, mint of, 114, 141, 208 Magnus Maximus, emperor: coins of, in Belgian finds, 76, 78, 79, 88 figs. 6, 7, 8; coinage reform of, 82-3 Mainz, 276 Malines, mint of, 240, 245, 249, 251,253 nn. 7,9,292 Mamaea, Julia, 67-70 mancusi, 194, 195 Mantua, capitularies of, 132, 137 Marius, Gallic emperor, 71 marks, 194-200 passim, 263 Marseilles, mint of, I 14 Maussoleia, 57 Maximian I, emperor, 104 n. 6 mazmudins, 196 Meaux, mint of, 141, 142 medallions, Roman, 16, 59 Medemblick, mint of, 309 Melgueil, 196, 197 Melle, mint of, 138, 140 Menadier, Julius, 162-3, 167, 168 Mercia, 154, 155, 15 6 Merovingian coinage, silver alloy of, Jl3-24 metrology, see weights of coins Metz, mint of, 141, 310; municipal gros, 322 pI. 20 no. 36 Middelburg, 263, 265 Milan, mint of, 72, 129, 132, 285, 292 military issues, Roman, 32, 33 Minden, mint of, 169 nn. 7, 8 minimi, 106 n. 24 minting, 4, I I, 59, 2 I 3, 303; by pri vate individuals, 6; right of, 143; costs and profits of, 148-50, 198, 234, 245-6 ; possible collapse of Norman ducal monopoly in, 173-5;

Index the production process, 237 n. 11,241-2 mint marks, 78, 141; signatures, 11 and n. 2, 71, 155 mint masters, 173, 234, 244-6, 252; and the trial of the pyx, 225---9 passim; see also moneyers mint pound, 148---9 mint production rate and die-use, 13-16; attribution, 26, 71-2; names on coins, 132, 141; accounts, 198---9, 239-40; workers, 237 nn. 8, 11, 240-4; officials, 244-52 mints, 4, 5, 6, 25, 75-83, 113, 114, 140,225, 3 16; Carolingian common mint, 132, 143; counterfeiting in and control of, Carolingian, 141-4; under lElfred the Great, 155; Norman, 173; counterfeiting in, medieval France, 231-7; organisation of, in the Burgundian Netherlands, 235r52 missi, 137-42, 147, 148 mites, 253 n. 10, 254 n. 28 module, 26, 31, 37 n. 1,98, 105 n. 12, 131, 133 monetagium, Norman tax, 173 monetaticum/monedatge, 193, 199 moneychangers 244, 246-7, 252 moneyers/monetarii, 28, 72, 143, 149, 155, 197---9,237 n. 11, 311,314; Norman, 17 1-4, 176 n. I I ; and forgery in medieval France, 231-5; in the Burgundian Netherlands, 240-4, 255 n. 45; see also mints, mint masters monnayeurs, 240-4 monometallism, xi, 127 morabetins, 196 Morgantina, 39 n. 20 Morrison, K. F., 148 moutons,3 13 Muller, L., 27, 33 Musset, L., 171 Mytilene,4 Namur, 240, 242, 253 n. I I Naples, kings of, 319 n. 39 Nemausus, 31 Nemfidius, I 14 Nero, 51, 52, 56, 108 pI. 11 no. 26 Nerva, denarius adjusted to later use, 103 n. 5 Netherlands, 212, 304, 306

Netherlands, Burgundian, 263 coins, pis. 17, 18 currency, in Andrew Halyburton's Ledger, 263-6; noble, 272-3; 'rider' and 'lion', 274-5; schuitken, 275; Andrew gulden, 276; vuurijzer, griffon, 289---91 fifteenth-century mint organisation, 235r52 Nijmegen: capitulary of 808, 142; mint of, 253 n. 9 Nijmegen, Janne van, die maker, 25 0 niquets/doubles tournois, 237 n. 7 nitric acid, 242 nobles, 214, 250 in Andrew Halyburton's Ledger, 263, 264, 293; English, 267-9; half-noble, 268; quarter-noble, 269; nobles of account, 269; Burgundian, 272-3 nomismata, 184-8 passim Norman coinage, inscribed personal names examined, 17 1-5 Norse coinage, 208 Northmen, 139. 144, 210 'North Sea coins', 206 Northumbria, 157,208 novi denarii, see deniers Norway, 207, 208; imitation sterlings from, 222 n. 57, 306 , 308, 3 I 3 nummi, 53, 98, 99 obols, 5, 193, 197, 198, 203 n. 15 103 n. 5, Octavian, see Augustus officina, 67, 70, 72; marking, 67,

71 O'Reilly's money, 312 Orleans, mint of, 141, 142 ortugs, 222 n. 57 Osnabruck, Bishop Conrad of, 32 0 n. 47 Ostrogoths, 99, 105 n. 20, 106 n.24 Otto IV, German king, 212 ouvriers, mint-workers, 234-5, 237 n. I I, 248; in the Bungundian Netherlands, 24 1- 2 Pacourianus, Gregory, founder of the monastery of Bachkovo, 179-86 passim Palace, mint, 141, 142 Palau-soliti, Templars of, accounts, 197-8 Palikanus, 29 n. 29

Index Palikanus (cont.) coins of, 27, 31, 37; denominations and types, 28-9, 34; dating, 33 'paper hoards', 264-6; of Andrew Halyburton, list, 294-9 Paris, mint of, 114, 141, 142, 233,238 n. 12 patards, 244, 250, 289-91 Pavia/Papia/Ticinum, 72, 129, 13 1, 135 n. 32 payments in coin, early, 4-8 passim pennies finds of later Anglo-Saxon pennies in Schleswig-Holstein, 205,

208-JI Karolus penny, 3l0-JI West Saxon, 153-60; 'reform' penny, 153; half-penny, mUltiple penny, 155; Danish imitations, 156--7 see also p/ennig, 'sceattas', sterlings pennings, 308 Pepin, king of the Franks, 113, 148, 150, 151, 152 n. 13 Pere I (PedrQ 11), king of Aragon, 193-200 passim Pere 'the moneyer', 197, 204 n. 34 Perl, G., 30, 31 p/ennig, 213; 'King Henry', 161-9 Phanes, 2, 4, 6, 10 n. 30 Philip I, emperor, 16, 67 Philip I, king of France, 176 n.15 Philip the Bold, duke of Burgundy, 242, 244, 272 Philip the Good, 259 pI. 17 nos. 1-7,281; common coinage of, 240; mint management under, 249, 253 n. I I; coins of, in Halyburton's Ledger, 272-4 Philip the Handsome, 259 pI. 18 nos. 8-11, 265, 266, 275, 280,290 Philippeioi, 57 Philippopolis: campaign of Frederick I (Barbarossa), 180-7 passim; mint of, 190 n.60 Philippus, 273-4, 293 Philistideion, 57 pied/orts, 247 piles (lower dies), 250, 258 n. 81 Pitres, edict of 864, 149; provisions relating to

recoinage in, 137, 139, 140, 143,148 'plack', 291 Plegmund, archbishop of Canterbury, 155 pollards, 211 Pompey, Sextus, 33, 36, 40 n. 30, 54 'porcupines', 114,206,208 portraits on coins, 55, 71, 95, 96, 157, 167-8,291,314-15 postlates, 279, 293; old, 281 ; Horn, 282 pound, 253 n. 10; Carolingian and Roman, 147, 152 n. 14; account, coining and mint pounds, 148-9 preposito degli operai, degli affilatori, mint workers, 242 presents, coins as, 7-8, 50 prices, 150- I privy marks, 141, 234; and the trial of the pyx, 225-9 passim; issuer's mark, 305 Probus, 72, 73 propaganda, 315; role of Roman imperial types examined, 47-59 Provins, 176 n. 14 (c) Ptolemaic coins, 26, 30 Ptolemaic mints in Cyprus, 13-16 Ptolemaic monetary system in Cyrenaica, 23 puncheons/punches, 249 Pyrmont, imitative coins of, 307, 313,314, 316, 321 pI. 19 no. II pyx, trial of the, and privy marking, 225-9 quadrans, 28, 31, 34, 36, 54 quadrigati, 53 Quierzy, capitulary of 861, 139, 142, 148 quinarii, 32

'radiati', 97, 104 n. 6 Ramon Berenguer IV, count, 194 Randerath, mint of, 3 I 5 Ravenna, mint of, 99 rebus bellicis (de), 49, 52, 143 reckoning counters/jettons, 250-1 recoinages: Carolingian, 137-44, 150-I; concept abandoned by A:llfred the Great, 153-60; at Barcelona, 193-2 00 Rhaetia, 131 Rhineland, 36, 37, 161, 212

335 Rhineland Electors, gulden, 276, 278 Ribe, 206, 21 I, 213, 315 Richard I, king of England, 175 n·3 Richard 11, 227 Richard, earl of Cornwall, 213 'rider', 244, 266, 274, 293, 310 Robert I, Bruce, king of Scotland, 313; groat imitated, 3 I I ; sterling, 322 pI. 20 no. 26 Robert Ill, 272 Robert de Bethune, count of Flanders"308, 313-14, 322 pI. 20 no. 27 Robert Curthose, duke of Normandy, 174 Robinson, E. S. G., 1,24-37 passim Rochester, mint of, 153 Rome, coinage of: of Cyrenaica, 23-37; military issues, 32; propaganda function examined, 47-59; imperial involvement in type choice, 49, 59; imperial portraits, 55-6; die production, 59; disrespect lese majeste, 62 n. 58; in third-century hoards, 65-73; Belgian finds of fourth-century bronze, 75-94; re-use of imperial bronzes, 95-1 JI; in continued circulation, 103 n. 5 Rome, mint of, 28,67,70,71,72, 137, 285; coins of, in Belgian finds, 78-83 passim rosenkreuzsterlinge, 305 rose noble, see ryal Rouen, mint of, 173, 174 royal d'or, 283 Rudolf of Diepholt, bishop of Utrecht, 281 Rufus, A. Pupius, 39 n. 29 coin types of, 26--7; halves, 30, 37; chronology, 31-2; denominations, 34-6 Rupert of the Palatinate, 276 ryal, 293, 304 in Andrew Halyburton's Ledger; English rose noble, 269-70; half, quarter, of account, 269; Spanish, 288 Saarwerden, Frederick of, archbishop of Cologne, 277 Sainte-Menehould, mint of, 231, 234, 237 n. 10 Salamis, mint of, 13 salut d'or, 282-3, 293

Index Scandinavia, 312, 314 Scato, 39 n. 29; coins of, 31, 36; denominations and types, 27-8, 34; halves, 30, 37 'sceattas', early Anglo-Saxon pennies, 113-14, 214 finds in Schleswig-Holstein, 206-8 imitations, 206; Anglo-Frisian / North Sea coins, 206 schild,273 Schleswig-Holstein, English medieval coins from, 205-[4; table of finds, 214-18 Schramm, Percy Ernst, 163, 169 schuitken, 265, 275 scissel/sisailles, coin rejected in manufacture, 255 n. 45 Scotland, coins of, 212 in Andrew Halyburton's Ledger, 263-6; unicorn, 271; crown, 272 medieval imitations of, 303-17 seals, 6-7 seignorage, 234, 239, 242-7 passim semis, 28, 29, 31, 34, 36 , 37 senarius, 197, 198 serment de France / de l' Empire, de Brabant / de Bourgogne, 241 Serrure, R., 162-3, 172 sestertius, 32, 33, 97, 98; 'countermarked' coins, 103 n. I; value relationship with the dupondius, 105 n. 14 Severus Alexander, emperor, 66, 67, 70,97, 108 pI. I I no. 21 Sforza, family, 287, 291-2 ship-tolls, 269 Sicily, 36; mint of, 242 Siegen, 308, 314 Siegfried, archbishop of Cologne, 308, 321 pI. 19 no. 14 Sigismund, emperor, and king of Hungary, ducat, 287 siliqua, 98, 99 silver coinage: early, 4, 7, 8; Hellenistic, 11-21; Roman Cyrenaica, 32; antoniniani, 65-74; Merovingian, II3-25; Carolingian, 137-46 , 147-5 2 ; Anglo-Saxon, 153-60; of Barcelona, 193-204; English medieval, 205-23; in Andrew Halyburton's Ledger, 288-92; imitation of Scottish, 303-25 Simonett, C., 131 sisailles, see scissel

Siscia, mint of, 72, 77-81 passim sizers, mint workers, 242 solidus, 98, 99, 211, 305; 'of Uzes', 135 n. 35 sous, 148-9 Southampton, 153 Spain, coins of: recoinages of Barcelona, [93-202; double ducat, 287; ryal, 288 spectrometer, II 3, II 4 staters, 4, 5, 10 pI. I, 313; earliest literary mention of, 4, 9 n. 18; of 'Phocaea', 10 n. 28 Steemair, Clais, Assayer General, 249 stephanephoros, 53 'sterlingi coronati', 2 II sterlings double or quadruple, 309 English: finds in Schleswig-Holstein, 2[[-[4; imitations, 211-14 passim, 304, 306-15 passim Irish, 209, 212, 306 Long Cross, Short Cross, 2 I 2, 306 Scottish, 212; imitations, 303-17 passim see also pennies, Widekind sterlings Sternberg, 307, 313, 316, 321 pI. 19 no. 10 striking of coin, al marco, 148 stuivers/ sturis, 263 Suhle, Arthur, 163, 167 surface depletion, enrichment, II3, II4 Susa, 176 n. 14 Swalenberg, 307, 313, 316, 321 pI. 19 nos. 8,9 Sweden, 208, 213, 310, 31 I Symonds, H., 226 Syracuse, 57, 103 n. 5 tagliatore, mint worker, 242 taxes, 6, 173, 174, 193, 210; exemption of franc-monnayeurs from, 24
Thibaut IV, count of Champagne and Brie, king of Navarre, 176 n. 14 (c) Thionville, capitulary of 805, 142 Thompson, Margaret, 11-16 passim Tiberius, emperor, 23, 36,99, 100; coins from Cyrenaica of, 2~30, 3 1, 33, 34, 37 Ticinum, see Pavia Titus, emperor, 98, 104 n. 9, 107 pI. 9 no. 3, pI. 10 no. 10, 108 pI. II no. 27 token coinage, 66, 3 I 2; emergency money, 100 touchstone, 237 n. II Toulouse, 140, 319 n. 40 Tournai, mint of, 240, 251 trachy, 188 trade/commerce, 241; and early coinage, 5-8; and Carolingian gold coins, 134; markets, 142; .tElfred's monetary policy and Danelaw, 156-7; Schleswig-Holstein coin evidence for, 207-14 passim; currency of international, 266 tremisses, 135 nn. 26, 27 tribute, 210, 214 triens, 54, 208 Trier, mint of, 71, 78-83 passim, 141,276 tripondius, 33 trussels, upper dies, 250, 258 n. 81 Tuscany, 129, 131 types, see coin types typikon: of the monastery of Bachkovo, 18 I, 184, 188; of the monastery of the Pantokrator, 188 unicorn, 271-2 Utrecht, 240, 280, 318 n. 24 Uzes, solidi of, 135 n. 35 Valenciennes, mint of, 249, 253 n. 7 Valens, emperor, 75, 83 n. 2 Valentinian 11, 83 n. 2; Belgian finds of coins of, 76-9 passim, 92 fig. 14 Vallseca, Guillem de, 202 n. 8 value of coins, 5,6, 66, 148-51, 156; marks of current value, 97; see also exchange rates varlet de la monnaie, mint worker, 247 Venice, 285

Index Verdun, mint of, 141 Vemon, capitulary of 754 or 755, 148--9 Vespasian, emperor, 51, 59; 'countermarked' coins of, 98,99, 100, 107 pI. 9 nos. I, 2,4, 7, pI. 10 nos. 11, 12, 16, 18, 108 pI. 11 nos. 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 28 vicomtes, and names on Norman coins, 174-5 victoriati, 53 Vienna, 34, 40 n. 30 Vikings, 208, 210; penny, 208 vuurijzer, 289--90 Walem, Pieter van, mint master, 245 Wardens, mint officials, 244, 246-8,252; 'warden's books', 246 and n. 45; 'warden's boxes', 246 and nn. 46--8

weights of coins, 5, 7, 138-43, 171, 231-2, 234, 242, 244, 264, 304, 309, 3 11 , 314 of ancient bronze coins, 98 of Carolingian gold coins, 129-33 and Table 12; weight systems, 134 n. 9; of deniers, 148--9 of Merovingian silver deniers, 114 and Table 11 of the Roman coinage of Cyrenaica, 25, 28-32, 33-7 Wenceslas I, duke of Luxemburg: coin design of, 309; gros of, 322 pI. 20 no. 33 Wentzel, H., 163 Westphalia, 212, 214; imitative sterlings of, 306--7 Widekind, count of Swalenberg, 307 Widekind, sterlings, 307, 313, 321 pI. 19 no. 13

337 William 11, count of Holland, 30 9 William I, the Conqueror, king of England, 173-4, 176 n. 16 William 11, Rufus, 174 William I, king of Scotland, 306 319 n. 46; sterlings of, 321 pI. 19 nos. I, 3 William VI of Bavaria, count of Holland,277 Winchester, mint of, 155 Wimenberg, Henry of, 308 Witten, 213 Worms, capitulary of 829, 141, 147 X-ray fluorescence spectrometry, 113, 115 Zaltbomme1, mint of, 253 n. 9 Zeno, 105 n. 20