The Moneyer and the Mint in the reign of Edward the Confessor 1042-1066, Parts i and ii 9781407391311, 9781407391328, 9780860543541, 9781407317588

Citation preview

The Moneyer and the Mint in the reign of Edward the Con£essor

1042-1066

by Anthony Freeman Part i

BAR British Series 145(i) 1985

· B�A.R.

5, Centremead, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 0ES, England.

GENERAL EDITORS A.R Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D.R Walker, M.A.

BAR

145 (I), 1 985 :'The Moneyer and the Mint in the reign of Edward the

©

Anthony Freeman,

Confessor' Part I 1 985.

The author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9781407391311 (Volume I) paperback ISBN 9781407391328 (Volume II) paperback ISBN 9780860543541 (Volume set) paperback ISBN 9781407317588 (Volume set) e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860543541 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Contents Part

i

page

Acknowledgements Explanation of Abbreviations List o f tables

coin cyphers

and mint

profiles

vi xiii xiv

Chapter

1 :

I ntroduction to the material Boundaries of the s tudy S ources and i nterpretation Employment of the material

1 2 1 0 2 3

Chapter

2 :

The moneyer and the mint The number of moneyers Length o f o ffice among moneyers The " established" and the " single-type" moneyer

2 5 2 5 2 7 4 0

Movement o f moneyers between mints Overall number o f mints S ize a nd ranking of mints Mint s tructure G eographical provision o f mints N ew mints The mint authority

4 6 5 3 5 5 5 8 6 9 7 2 7 7

Chapter

3 :

The Mints : a survey and i nterpretation o f the c oin evidence I :The major mints York 8 2, Lincoln 1 06, S tamford 1 18, Winchester 1 26, London 1 41. I I: The London " satellites" and the area to the n orth and north-east o f London S outhwark 1 85, Hertford 1 94, Guildford 2 04, R eading 2 07, Aylesbury 2 11, Buckingham 2 12, N IPEPORTE 2 14, Horndon 2 17, Maldon 2 19, Colchester 2 22, Sudbury 2 26, I pswich 2 28, D YR 2 34, N orwich 2 38, Thetf ord 2 49, Bury S t.Edmunds 2 64. I II: The Eastern Midlands Cambridge 2 66, B edford 2 74, Huntingdon 2 81, N orthampton 2 89, Warwick 2 94, Leic ester 2 99, N ottingham 3 08, D erby 3 13, Tamworth 3 17, S tafford 3 21. Part

1 82

2 66

i i

IV:Severn Valley and Chester Chester 3 27, Shrewsbury 3 40, D roitwich 3 48, Worcester 3 53, P ershore 3 60, Winchcombe 3 62, Gloucester 3 65, H ereford 3 74, Berkeley 3 80, Bristol 3 82. V : West Wessex Bath 3 91, Exeter 3 93, Lydford 3 98, Barns taple 4 02, Watchet 4 04, Taunton 4 06, I lchester 4 10, P etherton 4 16, Langport 4 18, Milborne P ort 4 21, Bruton 4 21, Warminster 4 21, FRO 4 24, Shaftesbury 4 24,

i ii

8 2

3 25

3 87

page Dorchester 4 28, Bridport 4 33, Wareham 4 35. VI:Central and Eastern Wessex Malmesbury 4 38, Cricklade 4 44, Oxford 4 48, Wallingford 4 58, B edwyn 4 65, S alisbury 4 67, Wilton 4 75, Chichester 4 80, S teyning 4 83, Lewes 4 85, Hastings 4 93, R omney 5 01, Hythe 5 03, D over 5 06, Canterbury 5 11, Sandwich 5 18, R ochester 5 23. Appendices I I I I II I V V VI

The ranking of mints Number of moneyers and mints by type Number of moneyers by mints and type Number o f coins by mint and type Number of coins by mints List of moneyers

o f

5 27 5 29 5 31 5 35 5 40 5 43 5 57 5 65 5 82

Notes and R eferences Bibliography List

4 38

mints

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have pleasure i n recording the encouragement o f Dr.C.F.Slade of the University o f R eading whose i nspirati on l ed to this work. He was not alone i n his encouragement a nd i n particular I would l ike to record that of my wife and parents, f or whose endlessly patient support I am d eeply g rateful. B efore mentioning i ndividuals who have g iven e special assistance, I should record my debt to the scholarship of those who have gone before me, upon whose researches I have been heavily dependent. Many people have g iven with l iberality o f their time and knowledge and i n particular I would l ike t o express my g ratitude to Mr.C.E.Blunt,. Mr. M.Blackburn, D r. A.J. Campbell, Mr.J.D.Brand, Mr.J.J. North, Dr. M. Metcalf, Mr.I.Stewart, Mrs.Elsa Lindberger, Professor M . Dolley, Mrs. V.Smart, M s. F.Colman, Mr.H.Pagan, Mr.P.Finn, Mr. O. Burrows, Mr. R.Seaman, Mr. A.Byde, Mr.W.Lean, Mr.P.Arnot and Mr.R.Eaglen. The a ssistance of numerous museums and i nstitutions was i ndispensible and I wish to thank the staff who a ttended so kindly to my n eeds even when their collections contained no relevant material. My i ndebtedness i s particularly g reat to Miss M . Archibald of the British Museum, Mr. A.J. H. Gunstone o f the Lincolnshire Museums and Mr.T. H. McK.Clough of the Rutland County Museums, but there a re many o thers who have given me advice and i nformation and to whom I desire to record my thanks. I ncluded among these would be the patient and helpful s taff o f the Lewes P ublic Library. T o Mr. A.J.Franklin and his wife Lyndis I owe a special debt f or their kindness and immense labour i n typing the manuscript. Uckfield,

1 985.

Explanation

of

Cyphers.

I ndividual coins are i dentified by a cypher which brevity i s mnemonic ( and non-standard). A AJA AMA

f or

C 4 CA CAB CAN CAR CBA

S CBI 9 Ashmolean Museum Oxford ( Thompson 1 967) private or unpublished collection. A shmolean Museum Oxford: c oins not published i n S CBI 9 or S CBI 1 2 ( Metcalf 1 969) S CBI 3 0 American Collections ( Brady 1 982) S CBI 1 2 Ashmolean Museum Oxford ( Metcalf 1 969) Tamworth mint ( Danson 1 970) " Anglo-Saxon Coins" ( Dolley 1 961d) " Anglo-Saxon England" ( Clemoes 1 971) Bath mint ( Grinsell 1 973) B ird Collection: Glendining 2 0.xi.1974. Buckinghamshire County Museum Aylesbury. Hildebrand ( Hildebrand 1 881) S CBI 1 9a/19b ( Grinsell, Blunt and D olley 1 973) S CBI 1 9a City Museum Bristol ( Grinsell 1 973a) S CBI 1 9b City o f Gloucester Museum ( Blunt a nd D olley 1 973) Barbican House Museum Lewes. B olton Museum Blackburn Museum and Art Gallery. with number: coin published i n BMC. without number: coin i n the trays of the B ritish Museum not published i n BMC. the relevant British Museum Catalogue ( e.g. K eary and Grueber 1 887 and 1 893) s ee BMT-C see " BM-without number.. British Museum, not published i n BMC. ( Colman 1 981) s ee " BM-without number". Coin Cabinet o f the Bibliothbque Nationale P aris. British Numismatic J ournal Magyar Nemzeti Müzeum Budapest. B . R.Noble Sale: Glendining 1 1/12.xii.1975. Bristol mint ( Grinsell 1 962) Brighton Museum and Art Gallery. a find of coins a t Beddington Park, S utton, i n 1 978 ( South West London Archaeological Unit). C 1, C2, C3,C4- the relevant volumes o f SCBI C openhagen ( Galster 1 964,1966,1970,1972) s ee " C" Coins and Antiquities Ltd., sale l ist no.3. City of Aberdeen Art Gallery and Museums D epartment " Anglo-Saxon Coins f ound i n F inland" ( Nordman 1 921) Thetford mint ( Carson 1 949) Council for British Archaeology R esearch R eport

CCK CDM CEB CEM

no. Cliffe Castle Art Gallery a nd Museum, Keighley. Chichester D istrict Museum. private or unpublished collection. Colchester and E ssex Museum C olchester.

AMC AN ANT ASC ASE BA BC BCM BEH BG BG/B BG/G BH B L B LA BM BM BMC BM-C BMT BMT-C BMV BN BNJ BP BRN BRR BT BTT

vi

Edward the CH CH-N CJM

CLM CM CNS

CMA DC DDC DM-C DN DN-C DNH DRA DVH EA EHW EJH EKB EP

F C FEJ GC GM GN GR GS

GU HA HAA HAP HAP-1 HAZ HHK

Confessor

" Coin Hoards" ( Coin Hoards 1 975) private or unpublished collection C . J. Martin ( Coins) Ltd., catalogue o f coins for sale 1 -9(1973), 1 0-16(1974), 1 7-22(1975), 2 3-27 ( 1976), 2 8-33(1977), 3 4-38(1978), 3 9-44(1979), 4 4(sic)-51(1980), 5 2-57(1981), 5 8-63(1982), 6 4-69 ( 1983), 7 0-75(1984), 7 6-78(1985). S CBI 2 9 Merseyside County Museums ( Warhurst 1 982) S CSI 2 0 Commander Mack ( Mack 1 973) I .IV and XVI.I - the published fascicule s o f Corpus Nummorum Saeculorum I X-XI qui i n Suecia reperti sunt ( Malmer and Rasmusson 1 975) Carlisle Museum and Art Gallery. D olman Collection: S pencer and Sons sale 1 . vi.1978. D over Museum. J . Menadier " Deutsche Münzen" cited by Colman(1981) S tate Arts Collection D resden ( Blackburn and D olley 1 982 and Archibald 1 982) S taatliche Kunstsammlungen D resden ( Colman 1 981) P roceedings o f the D orset Natural History and Antiquarian Field Club. G . C. Drabble sale pt.1: Glendining 4 . vii.1939. " Münzfund von Vossberg" ( Dannenberg 1 884) S CBI 6 Edinburgh ( Stevenson 1 966) S CBI 2 6 East Anglia ( Clough 1 980) E . H. Wheeler sale: S otheby 1 2.3.1930. " The Moneyers o f the Norman Kings.... " ( Harris 1 983-) E . K. Burstal sale: S otheby, Wilkinson and Hodge 6 .xi. 1 912. S CBI 2 1 Yorkshire Collections ( Pin e 1 975) S CBI 1 Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge ( Grierson 1 958) S CBI 2 5 Finnish Collections ( Talvio 1 978) F . Elmore J ones sale: Glendining 1 2. v.1971. S CBI 2 Glasgow ( Robertson 1 961) G othic Coins L td., sales lists 1 974,1975. private or unpublished collection. Hunterian Museum Glasgow: coins not published i n S CBI 2 . G rantley sale: Glendining 2 2.iii.1944. G lendining and Co.Ltd. sale, designated by year a nd sale number e .g. GS74'3( followed by the l ot n umber) i s sale number 3 of 1 974 ( 13.iii.1974) Guildford Museum. s ee " BEH". H astings Museum and Art Gallery. Haagerup find ( Galster 1 946) H . A. Parsons sale: Glendining 1 1. v.1954. H . A. Parsons sale: Sotheby 2 8.x.1929. W . C. Hazlitt sale: S otheby, Wilkinson and Hodge 5 . vii.1909. " The Coins of the Sussex Mints" ( King 1 956)

vii

Edward the HM HMA HMH

HSH I NV J CS J EM

Confessor

Montagu sales: S otheby, Wilkinson a nd Hodge. HM-1: 1 8.xi.1895, HM-2: 1 1. v.1896, HM-5: 1 6.xi.1898. Hove Museum o f Art. c oins of the Wihmaz, Lodeinoy F ield I and Lodeinoy F ield 2 f inds recorded i n the registers of t he S tate Hermitage Museum Leningrad. ( Holst 1 954)

I nventory ( Thompson 1 956) I pswich mint ( Sadler 1 976) J .E. Moon sale: S otheby, Wilkinson and H odge 7 .v. 1 901. J JN " English Hammered Coinage" ( North 1 963) J JNR s ee SHM KHV Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna. LAL L . A.Lawrence sale: Glendining 1 4.iii.1951. LAT-MB Central Historical Museum o f the Latvian SSR ( LAT-MB 1 and 2 ) and R iga City Museum ( LAT-MB 3 and 4 )(courtesy o f Mr. M.Blackburn) LC R .C.Lockett sales pt.1: 6 . vi.1955, pt.4: 1 1.x.1956, pt.7: 4 .xi.1958, pt.10: 2 6.iv.1960.( Glendining) LCC S CBI 2 7 Lincolnshire Collections ( Gunstone 1 981) LD-C Historical Museum o f Lund U niversity ( Colman 1 981) LD-C /MB Historical Museum o f Lund U niversity ( Colman 1 981 and courtesy of Mr. M.Blackburn). LD-MB Historical Museum of Lund University ( courtesy o f Mr. M. Blackburn). LEB L .E.Bruun sale: pt.1: S otheby 1 8. v.1925. LL City of Liverpool Museums ( Merseyside County Museums) LM " The Lincoln mint" ( Mossop 1 970) LMH Maidla hoard ( Leimus 1 979) LU Leeds University Coin I ndex. LVL L . V.Larsen sale: Glendining 1 .xi.1972) S CBI 1 7 Midlands Museums ( Gunstone 1 971) MAI Maidstone Museums a nd Art Gallery. MBC Guildhall Museum R ochester. MCM The Manchester Museum. MDC " Mints, Dies and Currency" ( Carson 1 971) MFB " Vikingetids mOntfund f ra B ornholm" ( Galster 1 978) MHM Moyses Hall Museum Bury S t.Edmunds. ML Museum of London. ML-C Museum of London ( Colman 1 981) MM The Manx Museum D ouglas. MONT Montrose Museum Montrose. S CBI 1 6 Norweb Collection ( Blunt,Elmore J ones a nd Mack) NAM Nickle Arts Museum, University of Calgary. NC Numismatic Chronicle. NHM N ewarke Houses Museum Leicester. NMI National Museum o f I reland D ublin. NMW National Museum of Wales Cardiff. NPG ' National Portrait Gallery London.

Edward t he N UN OB O C O CM O S O SP PAC P CB

P CM P R

R B R BB R CB R H R M R MI R PM R R R S R SH R TH R TH-2 S AC S B

S BY

S C S CA

Confessor

J .J. Nunn sale: S otheby, Wilkinson a nd Hodge 2 7.xi. 1 896. p rivate o r unpublished c ollection o r material. material f rom the Leeds U niversity Coin I ndex ( mostly f rom N orway). O xfordshire C ounty Museums Woodstock. s ee " OC" " Oxford S ilver P ennies" ( Stainer 1 904) S otheby sale 8 . v.1928. P . W.P.Carlyon-Britton sales: S otheby, Wilkinson a nd H odge p t.1, 1 7.xi.1913, pt.2. 2 0.xi.1916, pt.3. 1 1. xi.1918. P aramount I nternational Coin L td. c oin l ist 4 ,1976. P itt-Rivers: u npublished c oins f rom the P itt-Rivers c ollection d esignated by plate number ( see Gunstone 1 977 p .xxi) p rivate or unpublished c ollection. R .P. V.Brettell sale ( Exeter): Glendining 2 8.x.1970. R .P. V.Brettell sale ( Barnstaple): G lendining 1 8.x. 1 975. R .Carlyon-Britton sale: S otheby 1 7.x.1921. R otherham hoard ( Allen 1 940) R eading Museum a nd Art Gallery. R oyal Mint. s ee " CM" R uskin Collection, University o f R eading. S CBI h a University o f R eading ( Blunt a nd D olley 1 969) E . W. Rashleigh sale: S otheby, Wilkinson a nd H odge 2 1. vi.1909. B .Roth sale p t.1:Sotheby 1 9.vii.1917. B . Roth sale p t.2:Sotheby 1 4.x.1918. S ussex Archaeological Collections. B . A.Seaby L td. Coin a nd Medal Bulletin 6 29-640 ( 1971),641-652(1972), 6 53-664(1973), 6 65-676(1974), 6 77-688(1975), 6 89-700(1976), 7 01-712(1977), 7 137 24(1978), 7 25-736(1979), 7 37-748(1980), 7 49-760 ( 1981), 7 61-772(1982), 7 73-784(1983), 7 85-796(1984) 7 97-805(1985) . S otheby ( Sotheby Parke and B ernet and C o.) c oin s ales:1-5(19.vii.1978), 6 -10(14.vi.1978), 1 1-12 ( 8. iii.1978), 1 3-16(8.ii.1978), 1 7-18(16.xii.1977), 1 9-20(28.ix.1977), 2 1-22(13.vii.1977), 2 3(27.iv. 1 977), 2 4(16.ii.1977), 2 5-29(28.i.1976), 3 0-33 ( 14. vii.1976), 3 4-35( May 1 976), 3 6-37(27.v.1975), 3 8-39(12.xi.1975), 4 0-41(20.iii.1974), 4 2-44(17. v ii.1974), 4 5-52(6.xii.1974), 5 3-54(30.iii.1973), 5 5-58(4. v.1973), 5 9-62(26.vii.1973), 6 3(28.ix.1973) , 6 4-68(26.vii.1972), 6 9-70(28.ix.1972). p rivate or u npublished c olection. S pink a nd S on: S pink Coin Auction 1 -2(1978), 3 -7 ( 1979), 8 -12(1980), 1 3-18(1981), 1 9-25(1982), 2 6-32 ( 1983), 3 4-40(1984), 4 2-45(1985).

i x

Edward the S CBI

Confessor

Sylloge o f Coins of the British I sles f ascicules 1 -30. S CC private or unpublished collection. S CMB s ee " SB" SE S CBI ( Gunstone) South of England ( courtesy o f Mr.M. Blackburn). SFH private or unpublished collection. SHM S tatens Historiska Museum S tockholm. SHM-C S tatens Historiska Museum S tockholm ( Colman 1 981) SKK K ohtla-Käva find ( Söerd 1 965) SMB-C S taatliche Museen zu Berlin GDR ( Colman 1 981) SMB- MBStaatliche Museen zu Berlin GDR ( Colman 1 981 a nd courtesy of Mr. M.Blackburn) SMB-MB S taatliche Museen zu B erlin GDR ( courtesy o f Mr.M. Blackburn) SMM S taatliche Münzsammlung Munich. SNC see " SP" SP S pink and Son Ltd.: S pink's Numismatic C ircular. The volume number i s g iven i n Arabic figures followed by the coin number. SPA s ee " SCA" SPM S tate Pushkin Museum Moscow. SS S CBI l ib Norman coins i n S tockholm ( Dolley, Elmore J ones and Lyon 1 969) S SC private or unpublished collection. SSWM Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum ( coins n ot published i n S CBI 2 4 ( Gunstone 1 977) ' SSX " The South Saxons" ( Brandon 1 978) SU Sudley Castle ,( Dolley and van der Meer(1958)). TAM s ee " ANT" TCL see " SHM" TCL/2 see " SHM" T -MB Historical I nstitute o f the Academy o f the E stonian SSR, Tallinn ( courtesy of Mr.M.Blackburn) TR W . Talbot-Ready sale: Sotheby, Wilkinson a nd Hodge 1 5.xi.1920. UM Ulster Museum B elfast. UPP Uppsala University ( Holm 1 917) VAN " Coins and Coinage i n Viking-age Norway" ( Skaare 1 976) VV V .C. Vecchi and Sons coin l ists 7 a nd 8 , F ebruary and April 1 973. s ee " WF" WB " Briggs Parcel" ( Burrows 1 978) WC S CBI 2 4 West Country Museums ( Gunstone 1 977) WCM Winchester City Museums WF Wallingford mint ( Freeman 1 971) WG S CBI 5 Chester ( Pin e 1 964) WGT Worthing Museum and Art Gallery. WS s ee " WS 1 ". WS 1 " Winchester S tudies I " ( Biddle 1 976) WTG . see " WGT".

Edward the WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS

1 -2: 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

WVS WVS

7 : 8 :

WVS WVS

9 : 1 0:

WVS

1 1:

WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS

1 2.1: 1 2.2: 1 2.3: 1 2.4: 1 2.5: 1 2.6: 1 3: 1 4: 1 5: 1 6: 1 7: 1 8: 1 9: 2 0: 2 1:

WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS

2 2: 2 3: 2 4: 2 5: 2 6:

WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS WVS

2 7: 2 8: 2 9: 3 0: 3 1: 3 2: 3 3: 3 7: 3 8:

WVS

3 9:

WVS

4 1:

Confesor

Kexäs find ( Rundquist 1 947) Torlaps find ( Rundquist 1 947) Harold S .Barefoot sale: S tacks October 1 981. unpublished coin. " Anglo-Saxon and Norman mint towns of England: an exhibition of Anglo-Saxon and Norman pennies" ( Spink and Son Ltd.) Bonhams sale 7 , 2 9.ii.1982. Numismatische Abteilung der Schweizerischen Kredit-anstalt Bern, coin l ist 3 7, December 1 981. Sotheby sale 1 8.iii.1982. " Early Norman Coins i n the Yorkshire Museum" ( Pin e 1 972). " The mythical Norman element i n the 1 882 Bishophill ( York) find o f Anglo-Saxon coins" ( Dolley ( 1971) Val l )jofssta ir find ( Eldjarn 1 948) Wellingore find ( Gunstone 1 980) Donington f ind ( Gunstone 1 980) SHM 1 1300.244 ( Gunstone 1 980) Meols ( Dolley 1 962) Garthorpe f ind ( Metcalf 1 980) Cawood find ( Metcalf 1 980) Jarrow find ( Metcalf 1 980) York Minster find ( Metcalf 1 980) York, Clementhorpe find ( Metcalf 1 980) Devizes Museum ( Robinson 1 982) " Det Äldsta Tensta" ( Ferenius 1 972) ( Beljakov a nd J anina 1 977 p .30) unpublished material or private collection. Lincolnshire Museums Archives ( Blunt and Gunst one 1 981) private c ollection. A . G. Malloy and Co. coin l ist no.6 ( 1972) Lloyd Bennett - undated coin l ist. Sotheby sale 1 7.ii.1983. "A note on the Anglo-Saxon mint a t Berkeley" ( Dolley 1 961e). Robinson ( 1983) Blackburn,Colyer and D olley ( 1983) V . G. Vecchi and Sons Coin Auction 1 0.x.1983. Lloyd Bennett - undated coin l ist 1 983. Sotheby sale 6 .xii.1983. Vecchi-Schwer Coin Auction 1 3. v.1983. unpublished find near Lewes, East Sussex, 1 984. Nagin g .Cina find ( Anderson 1 935) Verzeichnis der Münzsammlung des schleswigholsteinischen Museums vaterländischer Alterthümer i n K iel P t. 4 , K iel 1 887 ( courtesy o f Mr. M.Blackburn) " Die R eichelsche Münzsammlung i n S t.Petersburg" Pt.6,1843 ( courtesy of Mr. M.Blackburn) Victor England Ancient and Medieval Coins P ennsylvania U .S. A. Coin l ist S eptember 1 984.

xi

Edward the WVS

4 2:

Confessor Catalogue Exhibition

of the I nternational Art T reasures presented by the British Antique

Dealers' Association i n a ssociation w ith Confederation I nternationale des Negotiants en Oeuvres d ' Art. Bath 1 1. viii - 8 .ix.1973 ( courtesy of Mrs.E.P. Webb).

Mint

profiles

Mint profiles l isting the coin evidence by moneyer and type and i nterpreting moneyers' a ctivity in r epresenta tional f orm accompany the discussion of each m int ( Chapt er 3 ). Each moneyer's recorded output i n a type i s given a unique designation e .g. " Thetford 6 2". The f ollowing symbols and abbreviations are employed: moneyer

known

moneyer

unrecorded

> activity a t

an

f or

type. i n

the

earlier

or

type. later period.

commencement/retirement. •

possible or after

activity a t the type.

another mint

before,or

during,

mule mule H A 47 A4 79

5 7

Aes L ih ,

coin

cypher

pedigree Edward the

Confessor

l ight/heavy emission

N

gold.

*

refer

to

Arm and of

the

S ceptre Expanding

type. Cross

type.

footnote

current disposition o f coins: British I sles, I reland and North America. current disposition of coins: Continental E urope.

xii

ABBREVIATIONS Bibliographical text a nd in the ASC ASCoins ASE BAR BAR ( I.S.) BEH BM BMC BNJ CBA CNS d . d. E , Ex.C. F , F .B. FEJ H , H C Hocking

INV I nventory MDC NC NNÄ NNUM obv. PH Pyr. R , R SC.

SAC SCBI SCBI-Cop. S CBI-Index S CMB SF SHM SM SNC T , TQ w /a Winton Domesday I ,II. wnr Z fA

and o ther abbreviations bibliography.

employed

i n

the

Dolley ( 1961d). Dolley ( 1961d). Clemoes ( 1971). British Archaeological R eports, Oxford. British Archaeological R eports ( Internati onal S eries), Oxford. Hildebrand ( 1881). S ee BMC. BMC( A/S): K eary and Grueber ( 1887 and 1 893) . BMC(N/K): Brooke ( 1916). British Numismatic J ournal. Council for British Archaeology. Malmer and Rasmusson ( 1975). die duplicate. Expanding Cross type. Facing Bust type. F .Elmore J ones Sale, Glendining 1 2.v.1971. Hammer Cross type. Hocking ( 1906). coins o f British or North American disposi tion or provenance. Thompson ( 1956). Thompson ( 1956). Carson ( 1971). Numismatic Chronicle. Nordisk Numismatisk Ärsskrift. Nordisk Numismatisk Unions Medlemsblad. obverse. PACX, P ointed Helmet or Pyramids type. Pointed Helmet type. Pyramids type. Radiate/Small Cross type. reverse. Sovereign/Martlets or Small F lan type; coins of continental European disposition. Sussex Archaeological Collections. Sylloge of Coins of the British I sles. Galster ( 1966), Galster ( 1970) and Galster ( 1972). Smart ( 1981). S eaby's Coin and Medal Bulletin. Small F lan type. S tatens Historiska Museum, S tockholm. Sovereign/Martlets type. S pink's Numismatic Circular. Trefoil-Quadrilateral type. well a ttested. Biddle and K eene ( 1976). weight not a scertained. Z eitung fur Archäologie.

TABLES page 1 .

2 5. 2 6.

Mint signatures currently a ttributed to B edford f or the reign of Edward the Confessor. Mint signatures a ttributed to the B edwyn mint. Mint signatures a ttributed to the Berkeley mint. Mint signatures a t Bedford by type and moneyer. " Bedford" mint signatures a s d erived from T able 4 . " Bedford" mint signatures prior to Edward the Confessor's accession. The Bath mint from c oins of presumed Scandinavian or north European provenance. The Bath mint from coins of British provenance. The Bath mint from coins of B ritish and presumed British provenance. The Lincoln mint from coins of S candinavian and north European disposition o r provenance. The Lincoln mint f rom coins o f British dispositi on or provenance. Moneyer-for-type combinations a t Exeter. T enure of moneyers, by numbers o f moneyers for l ength o f tenure ( GRAPH). Employment of reverse dies among " established" moneyers a t Lincoln. Moneyers at Lincoln responsible for a ) o nethird and b ) one-half of the probable o utput o f the mint. Table not u sed. Opportunities for moneyer movement from W inche ster. P ossible i tineraries of moneyers i n the r eign o f Edward the Confessor ( MAP). The number of mints active i n each type. Contraction of the London mint i n Edward the Confessor's reign. D ies per moneyer per type a t Warwick. N ew, revived and closed mints o f Edward the Confessor's reign‘ N ew mints of Edward the Confessor. N ew a nd revived mints of Edward the Confessor ( MAP). Mint clusters ( MAP). " Arncetel" and " Earcil" a t Y ork i n the r eigns o f Edward the Confessor, Harold I I and William I . " Iocil", " Iucetel"/"Iugktel", " Iocetel" and " Iurelal a t York. An i nterpretation of Table 2 4. " Ulfcetel" at York i n the reigns of Edward the

2 7. 2 8; 2 9. 3 0.

Confessor, Harold I I and William I . " Iola" a t York. " Eltan" a t York. Godwine ON SE, S and ST i n the Small F lan " glfwine" and " ggelwine" a t Winchester

2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 A. 7 B. 7 C. 8A. 8 B. 9 . 1 0. 1 1. 1 2.

1 3. 1 4. 1 5. 1 6. 1 7. 1 8. 1 9. 2 0. 2 1. 2 2. 2 3. 2 4.

xiv

type. i n the

5 6 6 7 8 9 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 3 8 4 1

4 2

4 8 5 2 5 3 5 6 6 0 7 3 7 4 7 5 8 0 9 4 9 6 9 8 1 00 1 02 1 02 1 24

3 1. 3 2. 3 3. 3 4. 3 5.

36. 3 7. 3 8. 3 9. 40. 41. 42.

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 5 2. 5 3. 5 4. 55. 56. 57. 58. 5 9. 6 0. 6 1. 6 2. 6 3. 6 4. 6 5. 66.

r eigns of Edward the Confessor, Harold I I and William I . " Ethestan", " Estan Loc", " Loc" and n Alfstan" a t Winchester. " Elfstan" at Wilton. " Estan" and " Ethestan" a t Bristol. " Godwine Ceoca", " Godwine Widia", " Godwidia" and " Widia" forms a t Winchester. M inimum number of reverse dies employed per type by Elfwine a t Winchester during the reigns o f Edward the Confessor, Harold I I and William I . " Goltsige" and " Goltsine" a t London. " Egel-" and " Elf-" -weard forms at London. " Eadric" and " Eadwig" a t London. " Wulfwine" a t London. " Burgred/Brunred" a t S outhwark and London. The occurrence of " Wulsige" forms a t London i n E dward the Confessor's reign. " Elf-", " Egel-" and El-" with " -wine", " -wig" a nd " -wi" f orms a t London i n Edward the Confesso r' s reign. " Egelric" a t London i n Edward the Confessor's r eign. " Elfsige" and " Egelsige" a t London i n Edward the Confessor's reign. " Brunman" a t London and Southwark. " Godwine" and " Goldwine" a t London, Hertford a nd Hythe i n the reign o f Edward the Confessor. teorman " a t London i n Edward the Confessor's r eign. turinc" at London i n Edward the Confessor's reign. tudinc " at London i n Edward the Confessor's reign. R e-occurrence o f name-forms a t London. M ints and moneyers within 4 0 miles of London. M ints and moneyers to the north and north'east o f London. " Burred","Brunred" etc. a t S outhwark and London. S outhwark's moneyers i n the reign o f Edward the C onfessor. T he S outhwark mint i n William I 's reign. P ossible movement of moneyers between H ertford a nd adjacent mints. " Ewi" and " Ewiewii" a t H ertford and London. " Godman" a t Edward the Confessor's mints. n ot used. M inting provision to the north and north-east o f London ( MAP). " Daeiniht" a t Maldon. " Folcwine" a t Sudbury i n Edward the Confessor's r eign. T he activities of PVLSIE a t I pswich, DERNE and N orwich. " Norwich" moneyers a t Thetford. " Egelsige" a t Thetford. " Leofwine" a t Thetford i n the reign o f , Edward

XV

page 1 35 1 38 1 39 1 39 1 41

1 41 1 69 1 70 1 71 1 72 1 73 1 73

1 74 1 75 1 75 1 75 1 76 1 81 1 81 1 81 1 77 1 82 1 84 1 88 1 92 1 94 2 01 2 02 2 02

2 17 2 21 2 26 2 37 2 48 2 56

6 7. 6 8.

page 2 56 2 56 2 57

the Confessor. " Elfwine" a t Thetford. " Leofric" a t Thetford.

6 9.

" Godric", " Godwin and " Godwig" f orms at T hetford i n the reigns o f Edward the C onfessor and H arold

7 0.

" Godwine" a t Thetford i n the reigns of the Confessor, Harold I I and William I .

7 1.

P ossible relative moneyer o utput a t T hetford i n the reign o f Edward the Confessor. Moneyer prominence a t Thetford i n the reign o f Edward the Confessor measured by r ecorded reverse dies. Mints and moneyers i n the East Midlands. " Elf-" f orms a t Cambridge. " Wulfwi" and " Wulfwine" a t Cambridge. " Elfwine" a t eastern mints. " Wulfwig", " Wulfwi" and " Wulfwine" at eastern mints i n Edward the Confessor's reign.

7 2.

7 3. 7 4. 7 5. 7 6. 7 7.

E dward

2 57

7 8.

" Godwine" a t eastern mints f rom Edward f essor Expanding Cross type onwards

7 9.

" Leofric" a t London and eastern mints i n the reign o f Edward the Confessor. " Elfwine" a t N orthampton. " Lifinc" and " Luffinc" a t Warwick. " Egelric" a t Leicester. " Wulnoth" and " Wulfnoth" a t E ast Midlands mints i n the reign o f Edward the Confessor. ' " Forna" a t N ottingham. " Froma" a t D erby. " Derby" and " Dorchester" mint signatures of coins o f Blacaman i n the r eigns o f Edward the Confessor and Harold I I. Numbers o f mints a nd moneyers i n the S evern Valley and Chester a rea. " Elfs"/"Elfsige" and " Alcsi"/"Alcsige"/"Alhsi"/ " Alhsige" forms a t Chester. " Leofwine" a t Chester i n Edward the Confessor's reign. Mint signatures o f the moneyers " Godesbrand" a t Shrewsbury and Shaftesbury. " glfheh" and " Elfhelm" a t Shrewsbury. " Egelric" a t Shrewsbury. The P IC/PICNEH mint s ignatures o f coins of H ethewulf a nd Godric. " Elric" a t G loucester, Worcester, H ereford and Shrewsbury. " Elfwine" and " Egelwine" a t Worcester. " Elric" at G loucester i n the reign of E dward the Confessor. Mint c omplement i ncrease a t G loucester. " Ed-" and " Ead-" f orms a t H ereford. " Egelric" a t H ereford. " Egel-" and " Elf-""wine" forms a t Bristol. Numbers of mints and moneyers i n West Wessex.

8 0. 8 1. 8 2. 8 3. 8 4. 8 5. 8 6.

8 7. . 88. 8 9. 9 0. 9 1. 9 2. 9 3. 9 4. 9 5. 9 6. 9 7. 9 8. 9 9. 1 00. 1 01.

xvi

the

2 57

2 61

2 63 2 67 2 72 2 72 2 73 2 78

Con2 86 2 88 2 93 2 98 3 04 3 06 3 11 3 17

3 16 3 26 3 35 3 38 3 44 3 45 3 46 3 51 3 59 3 60 3 68 3 71 3 78 3 79 3 83 3 88

1 02. 1 03. 1 04. 1 05. 1 06. 1 07. 1 08. 1 09. 1 10. 1 11. 1 12. 1 13. 1 14. 1 15. 1 16. 1 17. 1 18. 1 19.

1 20. 1 21. 1 22. 1 23. 1 24. 1 25.

" Ngelmaer" a t Bath. " Ngelwine" a t I lchester. The Shaftesbury mint i n the reign o f E dward the Confessor. " Godwine" with D OR e tc. mint s ignatures p rior t o E dward the Confessor's a ccession. M int signatures and moneyer canon a t D orchester. M ints and moneyers i n c entral a nd eastern Wessex. " Eald-" f orms a t Malmesbury. " E ntwine" and " Ngelwine" a t Cricklade i n the r eign o f Edward the Confessor. " Nlf-" a nd " / Egel-" f orms a t Cricklade prior t o E dward the Confessor's a ccession. E ntwig, Ngelwig, Ngelwine a nd Ngelric a t Oxford f rom 1 042. " Ngelwig" a t Wallingford i n Edward the C onfesso r's reign. " Wulfwi" a t Oxford. " El-" f orms a t Wallingford, Cnut-Edward the C onfessor. " Leofstan" a t S alisbury prior t o 1 042. S alisbury i n the early y ears o f Edward the C onf essor's reign. G odric a t Salisbury a nd n eighbouring mints. " I nfwold" a t Wilton. " Single-type" a nd " two-type" moneyers a t L ewes i n the first half o f Edward the Confessor's r eign. H oard evidence f or the Hastings mint i n the r eign of Edward the Confessor. M oneyers at the S ussex mints i n Edward the C onf essor's reign. " Wulfwurd" a t D over i n the reigns o f E dward the Confessor a nd Harold I I. " Gyldewine" a t Canterbury. " Nlfred" a t Canterbury. " Leofwine" a t S andwich.

xvii

page 3 93 4 11 4 27 4 31 4 32 4 39 4 43 4 47 4 48 4 56 4 57 4 58 4 62 4 70 4 70 4 73 4 79

4 92 4 97 5 00 5 11 5 15 5 16 5 21

Chapter

I :

I ntroduction

t o

the material.

T he material c omprises s ilver pennies, the s ole denomination minted. The main r epresentational f eatures, changed a t f requent i ntervals, have g iven rise t o type descriptions t o which numismatists have a ccorded a variety of d esignations, the principal o nes o f which a re g iven i n the f ollowing c oncordance:

1 .

P ACX/Stewart(1975)13/Hilde b rand(1881) D/BMC i v/Brooke ( 1932)4.

2 .

R adiate-Small Cross/Stewart 1 4/Hildebrand A i BMC i /Brooke 2 .

3 .

T refoil-Quadrilateral/ S tewart 1 5/Hildebrand C /BMC i ii/ B rooke 1 .

4 .

S hort C ross - Small F lan/ S tewart 1 6/Hildebrand B / BMC i i/Brooke 3 .

l e s9)-'

' r ) , 5 .

E xpanding

C ross/Stewart

H ildebrand 5 .

7 .

1 7/

6 .

P ointed H elmet/Hildebrand F/ BMC vii/Stewart 1 8/ B rooke 6 .

8 .

Hammer C ross/Stewart 2 0/ H ildebrand G/ BMC xi/ B rooke 8 .

E / BMC v /Brooke

S overeign Eagles ( Martlets)/ S tewart 1 9/Hildebrand H / BMC ix/ B rooke 7 .

t : J «

9 .

2 7

F acing - Small C ross/Stewart 2 1/Hildebrand Ac/ BMC xiii/ B rooke 9 .

1 0 .

-

Pyramids/Stewart 2 2/ Hildebrand I / BMC xv/ Brooke 1 0.

SUBSTANTIVE COIN TYPES OF EDWARD THE CONFESSOR

1

Boundaries

o f

the

s tudy

Major advances i n type c lassification and s equence undertaken i n the 1 950's have opened the way to i ntensive r esearch i nto the c oinage o f l ate A nglo-Saxon E ngland[1]. A s equence o f c oin types which was then e stablished h as withstood challenge a lthough the e xact chronology awaits the outcome o f d ebate about the l ength o f type c ycles[2]. D ie s tudies based o n c orpora o f i ndividual m ints a re now available f or one major mint a nd a number o f minor mints[3] and a ttention has b een paid t o metrology[4] a nd t o hoard evidence[5]. Much numismatic material h as been published i n raw f orm[6] i n recognition of a n urgent n eed f or a n a ccessible " conspectus" o f the whole coin material. This a ttack upon primary sources i s paying a variety o f dividends, not l east o f which i s that numismatic evidence i s now actively s erving to a ssist the d elineation o f contemporary administrative, s ocial a nd economic patterns[7]. However, despite the concentration upon preparation for publication o f numismatic material i n raw f orm, pre-eminently S CBI and CNS, n o comprehensive repository o f r ecord i s yet c omplete. I an S tewart, i n his " Reflections on S ome Wessex Mints and their M oneyers", had to c onclude that " the s tudent more or less has t o c onstruct his own provisional c oLpus o f the material ( with which he wishes to work) f rom s cattered sources a s h e g oes" a nd what was true when S tewart wrote a decade ago i s i n e ssence s till t rue today[8]. No c omparative view o f the a ctivity o f moneyers or the organisation o f minting i s available a nd the s tudent müst t herefore d raw up his own data or l imit very rigorously t he a rea under discussion, or both. Much patient and careful work by s tudents o f i ndividual mints can fail t o yield a ll that i t i s capable o f, which authors faced with a l ack o f c omprehensive material r eadily admit[9]. I t i s not surprising that so l ittle has been done to c orrelate numismatic evidence a nd wider historical e vidence, a nd that those who have a ttempted i t have usually been historians rather than numismatists[10]. The c ollation o f c oin references which f orms t he c entral e lement o f the present s tudy i s a r esponse to this challenge. Extrapolated a s mint profiles, i t a ffords c omparative s tudies o f mints a nd moneyers. Any area o f s tudy must have b oundaries and i n this i nstance they a re chronological a nd numismatic rather than g eographical. R estriction o f the s tudy to a particular region o r a rea would have d estroyed the validity o f the work s ince a ny g eographical l imitation w ould have b een a rtificial: i f g eographical patterns were to b e revealed, knowledge o f them c ould only emerge a fter a ll mints had b een surveyed. Chronological l imitations i mpose themselves because o f the g reat volume o f material to .b e a nalysed i f the s tudy i s t o proceed unimpeded by g eographical c onstraints. A s a u nit o f s tudy a s pecific reign can be more productive t han a period o f ( say)

2

twenty-five years randomly chosen. Edward the C onfessor's reign has much t o c ommend i t. Overall i t i s one o f relative political s tability. Apparent i rregularities i n mint o utput would b e more l ikely, therefore, t o r eflect localised economic a nd political c onditions, i dentifiable a s s uch against s table conditions elsewhere, with no overall pattern and i nterpretation obscured by g eneral political upheaval. The type s equence has b een well worked out and i n i ts d etail i s c learer than f or Edward's predecessors. Coin evidence i s g ood a nd with hoard evidence c an b e well deployed b ecause the reign i ncludes the t ransition between payment a nd non-payment o f h ergeld amd b etween dependence upon c ontinental a nd i nsular hoards. Points o f reference outside this period, n ecessary b ecause the t rue nature o f a sample can o nly be d etected i f placed against i ts background, a re relatively easy t o e stablish: a working c orpus f or the reigns o f Harold I I and William I can b e constructed without undue labour because o f the paucity o f the material, while the v olume o f material available f or the reigns o f / E thelraed I I and Cnut ( though perhaps not f or Harold I a nd Harthacnut) i s so g reat that d espite the absence o f c omprehensive publication, recourse to BMC, BEH, CNS a nd SCBI i s adequate f or purposes o f reference. E ven with the period under s crutiny restricted to a quarter o f a c entury, n early 9 , 000 i ndividual coin references have b een recorded i n the compilation mint by m int of the moneyer-for-type l ists i n chapter three. When v iewed a s a primary source a coin can reveal i nformation about i ts weight, design, die-axis and metallic composition. F aced with what i n g lobal t erms i s a l arge body o f material, the s trategy adopted has b een that of i ntensive a ssault upon a narrow f ront, s electing f or analysis one characteristic, the design o f the c oin. Design embraces the obverse a nd reverse l egends and the device - o n the obverse side o f the c oin the bust or other representation o f the monarch a nd on the reverse a main feature which a lways i ncorporates a c ross. Of these f eatures the reverse l egend alone has b een s elected for s ystematic s tudy. This i s a n i nscription which was intended to c onvey two pieces o f i nformation, the name of t he moneyer a nd the name o f the town where the coin was s truck. S o g reat was the i mportance o f these s ecurity measures that they occupy some 6 0% o f the reverse. The other characteristics referred to have not b een totally discounted where they a ssist g eneral i dentification o f a particular c oin, d etermining i ts d erivation f rom a particular emission, or mint, or moneyer, but the c ompilation of the moneyer-for-type l ists does not i n g eneral require

notice

o f

these

o ther

characteristics.

F our c riteria require satisfaction i n a scribing a c oin to i ts due place i n a c oin r eference: 1 ) that i t i s genuine 2 ) that i t i s o f a particular emission 3 ) t hat i t i s c orrectly a ttributed t o i ts moneyer a nd

3

4 ) to i ts mint. I dentification o f a c oin i s b est undertaken by personal i nspection: the s tudent will always wish t o apply his own k nowledge o f s tyle, fabric etc. t o his c onsideration o f a n i ndividual c oin. F or t he present s tudy this has b een a chieved f or only a minority o f c oins, principally s pecimens i n the t rays of t he Briti sh Museum and Museum o f London, i n the cabinets of a small number o f provincial museums a nd museums outside the U nited K ingdom, a nd f or a handful o f c oins i n private c ollections. F or the g reat majority o f c oins, personal examination by the s tudent i s impracticable and h e must turn t o published c oins; pre-eminently hoard l istings, museum c atalogues, S CBI a nd the catalogues a nd sales l ists o f major d ealers a nd auction h ouses. I deally t he g eneral i dentification, a nd i n particular the t ranscripti ons a nd transliterations, will b e supported b y photog raphs; where n ot, the s tudent's r eliance upon the work o f o thers i s c ritical.[11]Indeed i t would be a ppropriate h ere t o honour the work o f a ll those numismatists who, by careful a ttribution o f t ens o f thousands o f coins, have l aid down the b edrock u pon which a ll further work has been based. The evidence f rom the r everse l egends suggests that more than 5 00 moneyers were a t work a t s ome time o r anothe r i n Edwafd the Confessor's r eign. I t i s uncommon f or l egends to b e blundered a nd extremely rare f or a ny element t o b e omitted. When l egends a re i ncomplete i t i s t he mint name that i s l acking b ecause, c oming last in t he l egend, i nsufficient s pace has b een l eft f or i t o r because i n the l ast resort responsibility l ay with the moneyer. P ersonal a nd mint names a re o ften f ound i n c ontracted f orm, s ometimes ambiguously s o, but a s a g eneral rule d ie cutters d o s eem t o have made a n a ttempt t o differentiate b etween s imilar, but different, place and personal names. The a reas o f difficulty with personal n ame-forms will b e f amiliar to s tudents o f the subject. A re EGEL a nd E LFf orms occurring i n personal names s ynonymous? D o c oins s truck i n the name o f E lf-PIG, -PINE and pi d enote the work o f one, two o r three moneyers? Although the g enerally a ccepted equation o f pi with PIG a nd the differentiation b etween EGELa nd E LFh ave b een f ollowed i n the process o f name-form n ormalisation undertaken i n c ompilation o f moneyer-for-type l istings, each case has b een examined o n i ts i ndividual merits a nd soluti ons t o these a re discussed a s they a rise . Thus the E LPINE f orm occurring a t N orthampton i n the PACX type has b een " normalised" a s " Elfwine" rather t han advanc ed a s evidence f or a s econd moneyer " Egelwine" ( table 8 0). Elsewhere the c onsistent run o f an o therwise i nherently ambiguous f orm can demand r epresentation a s a f orm i n i ts own right: thus I A /LET', o ften a c ontraction o f PVLFPIG or PVLFPINE, s tands a t Oxford i n i ts o wn right a s the sole f orm o f a moneyer's name over a p eriod o f s ome

3 0

y ears

( tab1e113).

4

A ttribution o f coins to mints must pass - through two s tages: aggregation to a discrete g rouping representative o f a mint, a nd a ttribution of that g rouping with an i dentifiable l ocation. Again, the s tudent i s h eavily dependent upon the work of successive g enerations o f numismatists and h istorians who have carried on this work. I n g eneral, the process o f aggregation i s uncontroversial except where the mint signature i s omitted or not s ufficiently f ormed a s to avoid ambiguity. The f ormer i s e xtremely rare ( e.g. WC 9 73 of Winchester 6 0), and the l atter relatively so, an example being the William I Bonnet penny held i n Dover Museum ( Accession no. DOVRM: 0 .4727) i dentifiable, from a beautiful drawing made by the a ssistant curator Mr.Ian Waters, a s a penny of and which extends our understanding of this moneyer's a ctivity when a ttributed to the Shrewsbury m int ( page 3 46 below). A more problematic case i s illustrated by coins of moneyers bearing ambiguous mint signatures such a s ON BED and ON BEDE. Are they n ecessarily t o be aggregated a s Bedford? I f all the mint s ignatures o f coins currently attributed to B edford f or the reign o f Edward the Confessor are l isted, without reference t o moneyer, type or f requency of occurrence, over half a re seen to be ambiguous when presence o f the l etter "F" i s taken a s the determinant of a true B edford mint signature ( Table 1 ).

ede p ra r ada s a rramon

BEDE BEDEFOR BEDEEO BEDEPOR BEDEF BEDEFORI BEDEFO signatures currently a ttributed to of Edward the Confessor. BE BED

TABLE 1 . Mint for t he reign

B edford

The a mbiguity l ies i n the possible confusion o f i dentity between mint signatures purporting to represent B edwyn, Berkeley and Bedford. I f such confusion were fact, AngloS .axon mint organisation would have been open to f raud on a wide scale a nd i f modern research were to have been influenced the received perception o f these mints might have t o undergo considerable revision. These alarming possibilities derive, however, from the date i n Table 1 i n i ts raw form. A different picture emerges i f the mint s ignatures o f c oins of all three mints a re i nvestigated t o uncover a ny a ttempt by die engravers to differentiate between the mints. Prior to the c reation of the B edwyn and B erkeley mints a mint signature o f, for example, BED or even BE would have sufficed to distinguish c oins s truck a t B edford f rom those s truck a t Bath, Bristol etc. One response to any n eed to differentiate between coins s truck a t B erkeley, Bedwyn and B edford would be detected by the additional care taken to cut an u nambiguous B edford mint signature f rom the point at which the two minor mints were e stablished: henceforth coins would be engraved BEDEF, BEDEFOR e tc. Alternatively another, and more economical form o f differentiation

5

might be anticipated: the dies cut for the t wo minor, and n ew, mints might be cut i n such a way as t o achieve unambiguous readings where those mints were c oncerned while a llowing dies i ntended f or u se a t Bedford to b e cut i n the traditional fashion, i t being implicit that any ambiguous readings would therefore be c onfined t o the older mint. Table 2 suggests that at B edwyn every die except one was engraved i n such a way as t o provide an unambiguous reading o f the mint s ignature a nd the same i s true o f the B erkeley c oins o f the moneyer Edgar ( Table 3 ). I f this were to be an established rule the c ontroversial PACX penny o f Ulfcytel ( C4-749), read a s +VLFCYTL 0 : BE( ) could well emanate from Berkeley a fter all. With t he Edward the

Confessor

T refoil/Quadrilateral Small F lan Expanding Cross( h) P ointed Helmet S overeign/Martlets Hammer C ross F acing Bust Pyramids William BMC

BEEDE BEDEPIN BEDEP BEDEPINDE BEDEPINDE BEDEPIN BEDEPIND BEDEPINDE BEDEPI BEDEPIN

( FEJ 9 7) ( LC 7 92) ( e. g. F EJ 98)* ( CH-N) ( CH-N) ( e. g. F EJ 99) ( e. g. BMC 28) ( e. g. WC 7 11) ( LC 8 50) ( LC 8 58)

BEDEPIND

( e. g.

I

I

BMC

2 )

• F .Elmore J ones ( 1971) p .124 records in a ddition a f ragmented reading ON 3ED.... from a broken coin, struck f rom a s econd pair of dies. TABLE

2 .

Mint

signatures

a ttributed

to

the

Bedwyn

mint.

exception of a number of coins i n private c ollections and i n s ome sale l ists and catalogues, all the " Bedford" mint signatures employed i n Edward the Confessor's reign have been gathered together i n Table 4 and l isted by moneyer a nd type. The mint signatures of the excepted PACX Trefoil/ Quadrilateral P ointed H elmet

+ + + +

VLFCYTL 0 : BE( ) EDGAR ON BEORC EDGAR ON BERCLE EDGAR ON BEORC

* D olley and Metcalf

( 1961)

i s

this

an

TABLE

electrotype

3 . Mint

of

signatures

p .167

n .

C 4-749 BM 3 1 BG/ G 1 93 C 4-748*

point

out

ex

t hat

HM H18

coin.

attributed to

6

the

Berkeley mint.

. . .JI M

3 E 0 ( 3 E D E C ) C 4 7 4 6 3 E D F O

R a d i a t e

H A 5 8 6

1) ( 4 7 4 5

M L P c 1 3 5 8 2

E v ) u i c t E D

k = , )

• ' ‹

E P C B G I 0 2 8 , 1 0 2 9 H 1 4 , L C 3 9

_

B e d f o r d b y t y p e

B E D F

T r e f o i l • ( 0

M i n t s i g n a t u r e s

P A C X

5 8 1 8 M 2 1

. t 1 2 0

21 .

C C

P -

—1

0

‘ e

( . 5

0

G --

L I)

c i

Z

c l

0

' 3 0 ' 6 .

A 8 6 3 r a s 6 1 2

L C 2 / 1 . L c -7 8 2 3 5 E 1 4 1 9 , 2 o B 6 2 1 .

-E v 4 — Iu t . . ) _Q t j u . 4 a -P mI+ v. )

u . G L i

a l

_ t

t o

o

C a

w wr

M I

u

C 2

W c i Z

u . 1 0

*0

c 7 . e t o c os a u _ L i , ' r t3 t e 1 . . . )

W C O

0 0 _

7

B E D S E 1 5 6 8

o z

G M

C . , . F E 3 9 6

r ) , D X ' , Ik " . r, , $ ) , r)I

i k , u

r CI0 0

C Z [ J D

s m H c p EF Q R 1 , V G T , P C B 1 5 3 , F u s 9 4 G S 8 3 1 0 1 6 8 S E 1 4 2 6 B E D E F O 5 E 1 4 2 3 . h t . 3 1 5

F . B u s t

P y r a m i d s

c o

W V S

L C 8 3 5 . A 9 0 8

WG i0 c z 0 u u . , c z

F E 3 9 2 . ß E D F O R I S E 1 3 4 5 , 1 3 . 4 6 1 3 4 S E 1 3 4 8 . G S 8 2 ' 1 9 . 1 \ A m 5 B 7 6 E 4 6 2

i 3 E D E P C B 1 8 0 1

e p

B E D F O 1S E 1 4 2 . 1 P C F E 3 9 3 , B M 2 4 C m 1 2 4 0 S P 9 1 ' 0 7 .

e 9 5 1 . 4 C : A M C 6 2

H . C r o s

U J ( A 0

r • .

C Eow Cu

v

Z

0

U

C a

Q

0 C

I , . )

1 . 0 , .

. . t

_ J Z

L i . — . 1

( )

( 1 )

1 )

>

. r = . -

. z .

41-

0 P —

1

1 -

M 2

L . 0 J Z •

w

L i e d D E F o R L C 8 2

S . M a r t l e t

Z E

0 u .

, R S 1 4 8 S E 1 2 0 3

P C B 1 2 4

s it i 2 o r C 2 9 0 B M 0

I. H e l m e t

I n 0 u. L i A

1 3 E D F O

E D F O R

F o

P c 8 S 9 . 5 › F E T

r

B E D

E x p . C r o s

m o m o m . .

Z 0 C -

c, v r c o u

J

a

4 L 1 C L I J Z

0 — 0

L u C O

0

P . 2

e

— 0 _ 0 z zc r )

0 w

L u A w

CO

CO

c h , r l 0

L i t . . J c l L i 0 : 1

•

E c a . » . :s s , . .

E, D I _ o ni — , , . .

0 _ ( , ) 0 t u c o

t r i

Z i ) i r n =. 1

0"

C >

. 4 1 . 4 :2

•

.( . .

C

Li

Z

c oins c onformed to the readings o btained f rom t he listed numismatic sources. Broken down by type and moneyer a pattern emerges which i s very different f rom t hat created by the crude tally o f the t en B edford signatures i n Table 1 and demonstrates that f rom an i dentifiable point i n Edward's reign a more fully expanded mint s ignature was provided which would have the e ffect o f distinguishing between coins s truck a t B edford a nd those s truck a t Berkeley ( Table 5 , extracted f rom Table 4 ). An i nteresting pattern i s revealed. Most o f the mint signatures engraved i n the earlier part o f the reign l ack the features which would render them unambiguous while three-quarters o f those engraved i n the latter part o f the reign possess the n ecessary f eatures ( 17 occurrences out o f 2 4). T otal reign

f or

Unambiguous 1 9

Total f or f irst f our types T otal f or s ix types

last

2

Ambiguous 1 7 1 0

1 7

Totals 3 6 1 2

7

2 4

Numbers of mint signatures are measured by the number o f discrete renderings per moneyer per type. Thus BED, f ound f or two moneyers i n the PACX type, c ontributes two occurrences towards the total tally. I t has n ot been possible to undertake a die s tudy and s o no finer distinction can be made f or the t ime being, even though, f or the sake of argument, all BEDEFO coins o f Godwine i n the Hammer Cross type may have been s truck f rom o ne reverse die while each BEDE coin o f Leofthegn may, again purely f or the sake of a rgument, have been s truck f rom a s eparate reverse die. TABLE 5 ."Bedford" mint signatures a s derived f rom Table 4 . The c ommencement of the Expanding Cross type was taken a s the divide l ine because i t i s f rom that type onwards that unambiguous signatures predominate, although the Expanding Cross type i tself i s the only one i n which ambiguous mint signatures are c ompletely absent. One would expect the differentiation b etween the mint signatures a t B edwyn, Berkeley and B edford, i f i t c ame about a t all, to have occurred a t the latest by the second type i n which confusion might have a risen ( i.e.in prepara tion f or the Small F lan type). That apparently i t was not recognised may suggest that a ttention to t he matter had to await a central re-appraisal o f minting a ffairs. Such a l ink between the B edford mint and central minting direction may have been provided through the p erson o f / E lman, a t B edford until the Expanding Cross type but c onceivably also a t London i n the Radiate/Small Cross type, a time when the creation o f new mooted, and i t i s his coins alone which

8

mints was being bear u nambiguous

mint s ignatures during the period prior to the Expanding Cross type. What eludes explanation i s why his colleagues' dies were not similarly differentiated. U ndifferentiated f orms persist a fter the Expanding Cross type: 7 o f the 2 4 occurrences are ambiguously rendered a s BED, BEDE e tc., but some, a t l east, coincide with notable c ircumstances: the appearance of the two s ingle-type moneyers G odric and Wulfwine ( Bedford 1 7 and 9 9), and the two occasions ( Bedford 8 7 and 9 0) when the personal name Wulfwig i s rendered i n full ( PVLFPIG rather than PVLFPI). Two o ther i nstances are accounted f or by the surviving output o f the moneyer Leofthegn i n the Hammer Cross and F acing Bust types but the Pyramids cut halfpenny ( A 1 063) a ttributed to him may well have borne a B EDEFO mint signature. I n g eneral, therefore, the expanded mint signature i s a f eature o f the work o f the e stablished moneyers a t Bedford i n the latter part o f the reign rather than a random f eature and could be represented a s a contemporary recognition of the need f or differentiation between the names o f the three mints o f B edwyn, Berkeley and B edford, and i t may well be that i t i s i n Edward's reign that for the f irst time unambiguous readings are i n the majority ( Table 6 ). Although the differentiation between o ther g roupings o f mint s igna tures ( e.g. Derby and D orchester, Leicester and Chester, Sudbury a nd Southwark, S tafford, S teyning and S tamford) has not been subjected to a test of the nature applied to B edwyn, B erkeley and B edford, i n broad terms aggregati on o f mint signatures achieves coherent and discrete g roupings i dentifiable a s minting places. I n turn these aggregations are u sually i dentifiable a s a known a nd modern l ocation, but perhaps some caution i s n ecessary e specially where the g roupings are f ew. Thus, the present l ocations o f BRENE, D YR/DERNT, N IPEPO and FRO continue to i ntrigue and complacency should be guarded against i n o ther i nstances such a s the equation o f PEDI/PEDE and P EDR with P etherton. Monarch

g thelraed

Unambiguous signatures I I

Cnut, Harold I and Harthacnut

mint

Ambiguous mint signatures

Totals

BEH BMC Total

8 1 9

BEH BMC Total

1 7 2 1 9

2 8

BEH BMC Total

9 1 1 0

BEH BMC Total

1 4 3 1 7

2 7

TABLE 6 . " Bedford" mint Confessor's accession.

signatures

9

prior

to

Edward

the

S ources

a nd

I nterpretation

The c oin references a rranged by moneyer a nd type f or each mint a nd the t enure profiles t o which t hey g ive rise a re the e ssential t ools f or a nalysis o f the material. The validity o f the a nalysis i s d ependent therefore u pon ( i) the survival, ( ii) the successful i dentification a nd a ttribution and ( iii) l ocation o f the current d isposition o f these c oins. A picture d erived f rom published random f inds a nd published hoards reflects the f actors g overning their d eposition. I f a nything, s tray f inds t end n ot t o b e r epr esentative o f the n earest mint [ 12]. H oarding i s a more d eliberate a ctivity than the a ccidental l oss which pres umably a ccounts f or s tray f inds. There may b e a t endency f or coins o f a particular weight t o b e h oarded, or, where the E nglish hoards a re c oncerned, f or the hoard t o b e particularly s trong i n c oins minted i n the a rea o f c oncealment, e specially i f the c oins were r ecently minted. I n t imes o f l imited tytpe validity with c ons equent cyclical o r f requent d emonetarisation a nd recoinage, hoards will r eflect the c oinage i n c irculation a t the t ime o f d eposit rather than the c oinage o f a n e xtended period o r o f a " type i mmobilise". I t may b e that h oarding o r o ther l oss occurred a t c ertain t imes o nly, the i ncidence o f d eposit varying a ccording t o political o r o ther c ircumstances and i n c onsequence a n a lready i rregular picture may b e c onfounded by minting i rregularities a risi ng out o f a t roubled t ime o f d eposit. F inds f rom a broad, e specially S candinavia, will possess their own characteri stics. Those f rom R ussia typically c ontain E nglish c oins minted over a period o f half a c entury [ 13]. All o f these f actors taken together c reatre e ither g eographical o r chronological i mbalance ( or b oth). A c essation, o r d ecl ine, i n the number o f Anglo-Saxon c oins c rossing the N orth S ea c oupled with, f or example, a n a bsence o f h oardi ng a t home, c ould c reate a picture o f mint o rganisation a nd output far different f rom that o btained f or a p eriod i n which those f actors were o perative. What c onfidence can we have, therefore, t hat the aggregations o f c oins c ollected mint by mint a re capable o f presenting an authoritative picture? The q uestion c an b e a pproached by means o f c omparison b etween the patte rn obtained f rom provenanced material a nd the pattern d erived f rom the t otal material ( provenanced a nd unprovenanced). Endorsement o f the pattern f or a particular mint c ould b e s ought by extending the c omparison t o o ther mints. H owever, t o f ocus u pon a particular mint the c rite ria d erived f rom a s tudy o f a ll mints i s t o a pply a s trongly impressionistic e lement a nd i s s ubject t o the same c ritical d efect a s c omparison b etween provenanced material and the t otality o f material a t a ny particular mint - that the t est o r " control" which i s b eing employed i s n o more than the sum, o r aggregate o f the various biase s e tc. f rom which i t i s c ompounded. E xamination o f part -

1 0

i cular cases, however, g ives some confidence. Table 7 ( A-C) takes the Bath mint a s an example, registering the provenances o f the " minimum" o f 5 7 coins o f that mint surviving for Edward the Confessor's reign - a " minimum" number being that number o f c oins each of which i s known to enjoy a s eparate existence; i n g eneral c oins f rom sales catalogues etc. without pedigree a re discounted. The Scandinavian material ( Table 7A) will sustain a very adequate picture o f the mint up to and i ncluding the Small Flan type when t ested against the composite picture o f the mint profile ( page392). The S candinavian material i s not, however, i ndispensible for this early period. Although a profile drawn from sources of British provenance ( Table 7 B) i s l ess c omplete, a profile derived f rom British provenances a nd sources presumed to be o f B ritish provenance ( Table 7 C) g ives a s g ood a picture o f the mint's character - though i n detail not an i dentical one - a s that obtained f rom the S candinavian sources. F or the p eriod a fter the Small Flan type the dependence upon the B ritish material, provenanced or unprovenanced, i s complete, for no S candinavian material i s currently recorded. The pattern received i s one of t enurial i ntegrity: o nly coins o f the Pyramids type, and o f Waedel i n the T refoil-Quadrilateral type and of Waedel and/or of Godric i n the l ight emission o f the Expanding Cross type have y et to be discovered. No coins o f G odric i n the Facing Bust type or o f Eorlewine i n the S overeign/Martlets type a re to be anticipated f rom the present pattern, although a note o f caution i s s ignalled by Willett's reference to coins o f Egelmaer i n the F acing Bust type for which no actual c oins have yet been traced. I n g eneral Bath can be cast i n the role o f a two-moneyer mint and hoard material, i nitially S candinavian and l atterly Engl ish, can create a representative picture f or the entire reign, a s can unprovenanced material h eld i n British cabi nets. Employing Mossop's data [ 14], Tables 8A • and 8B show that coins currently o f British disposition d ominate the r ecord for the Lincoln mint from the heavy i ssue of the E xpanding Cross type and that although S candinavian dispositions dominate prior to this ( except, f or whatever reason, in the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type), the B ritish dispositions are sufficiently numerous during that period too. An adequate, though not totally complete, picture of the Lincoln mint can be derived f rom " British" coins alone f or all o f Edward's reign. This would be i mpossible from S candinavian material for the period a fter the P ointed Helmet type. However, some very minor moneyers a ctive early i n the reign would pass unnoticed were i t not f or the

material I f

one

i n i s

S candinavia. impressed

by

the

neatness

o f

s tructure

of, f or example, the Lincoln o r Bath mints ( and, i ndeed, by that of over 7 0 o ther mints) what of those f ew mints, such a s Southwark, or Worcester i n the early years of the r eign, where the picture i s o f fragmented tenure, of frequent change i n moneyer complement, of numerous

1 1

single-type moneyers, and of f luctuations i n moneyer compl ement? Even i f there were a n e lement of truth i n the proposition that such patterns c ould be the product o f an i ncomplete evidence base,such f ragmentation i s so rare a s t o suggest that i t represents l ocal circumstances and i s a fair representation o f i ndividual mint management. Publication o f CNS i s s teadily improving the accessi bility o f r egisters o f the Swedish hoard material. Arrangement i s by complete hoards a nd no additions, o ther than r e-attribution a s a result of revisions of t ranscripti ons, will therefore b e n ecessary. To date four volumes have been published. S tudents will n evertheless s till have to c onsult i ndividual museums i n Sweden, a s Swedish cabinets c ould well i nclude material purchased overseas or a cquired a s unprovenanced purchases, gifts o r l oans. CNS i s by definition l imited by the g eographical c onfines o f present day Sweden and no c omparable register exists for o ther c ountries, but bibliographical l istings o f hoards do exist f or a number o f countries where Anglo-Saxon coins have been deposited and the relevant material from a number o f these hoards has been i ncorporated i nto the c oin references f or each mint. They i nclude hoards and f inds from Burge ( Dolley, Blunt and van der M eer), Haagerup ( Galster, 1 946), Maidla ( Leimus), Kohtla-Khäva ( Söerd), Wihmaz and Lodeinoy F ield finds ( HMH), Bornholm ( Galster, 1978), Kexäs and Torlaps ( Rundqvist), Valpjofsstaeir(Eldjarn), St.Olays Voll i S arpsborg ( Holst), Vossberg ( Dannenberg) and Nagin nina ( Anderson). I n c ontrast to records o f d epositions a re records of present disposition. The c oin references for each moneyer depend heavily upon material o f this nature. Coins are h eld by i nstitutions ( usually museums) or by i ndividuals a s c ollector's i tems. A c ollector of coins of the period under examination might be i nterested in a particular mint, or reign, or multiplicity o f types, but beyond that, " rarity" i s the criterion most u sually g overning the f ormation o f the c ollection, a nd f or many c ollectors " rarity" within the framework outlined a bove i s most commonly g overned by the choiceness o f the specimen - u sually i ts c ondition. Rarity o f type does a ttract attention i n i ts own right, a s do type varieties a s a rare form o f a substantive type, but i t i s g enerally rarity of c ondition rather than rarity o f type or mint or certainly moneyer which determined collectibility. The Radiate/Small Cross type o f Edward the Confessor i s a n example of a c oin type which i s not i n i tself regarded a s particularly handsome or a ttractive. Coins i n private c ollections are very difficult to trace, especially when Anglo-Saxon coins are a minor element i n a collection and are not the collector's main i nterest. To all o f this there a re, f ortuna tely, exceptions. One such i s the collector who has s et out t o collect " in depth" along a narrow f ront, for example a representative collection o f c oins o f a particular Anglo-Saxon mint, and whose c ollection then becomes accessible through the sale room. The R . P.V.Brettell 1 2

� w

TABLE 7(A)

p;tDEL

OSM/ER

GODRIC

EORLEplN£

/E"GELM/ER

Trefoi 1

H�, OC, 51-lM-C

HS, SMB-MB.

Smal I Flan

Exp.Cross P. Helmet

I

S. Martlets H.Cross F.Bust

The Bath mint from coins of presumed Scandinavian or North European provenance.

l>A::DE.L

.IEGELMJER

H8, C4-743

C4-742, 5HM'C(1

H1o, 1-\7

�10

Radiate

PACX Pyra11i ds

c ) 3

1 1 0

S t r u d w i c k

V )

o

r c 5 E K J ( 0

g iI n 0 z )

O H

rd

•

O

( Z S 0

0

0 4

f
1. H H C A

> 0

u 2

d t k

O

2

_ J L a 1 0

O ( . 5

0

l e S 2 ,

r . ) O • H H X U

T A B L E 7 ( B

E O R L E P I N E

• H • H C o

T h e B a t h m i n t f r o m c o i n s o f B r i t s h p r o v e n a n c e .

( 1 ) 4 C o

1 4

O R L E 1 3 I N E

/ E G L M i E R

M L ( 2 ) . W C 6 4 s

4 . 2 8 M

2

G 9 7 . A 3 A

( * s u p l e m n t e d

t f )

› t E f s .

▪ a ) c )

O

0 O O

_ i

z 0 o

0 w 4 2, -

1 5 n e c e s a r y b y

( 1 )

V I 1 7 )

. , . .

-g

1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 . , . . . .1 1 1 , i ,_ . l I l I l _1 1I 1 1 1 1 1 I1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 — r s i _I e C O L >,

i l l

( I 3

, _ _,

I

a .

1

1

( E )

1

—

F . B u s t

1

0 1 4

04

_

0 H

• H

I

( E )

0 0 4

( E )

( L I

0 . 4 0 4 4

I

S . M a r t l e t s

r 4

u

1

1

. c

P . H e l m e t

I i *

4 1

C I

C • 1

*

*

C O

c ,/

1 1

I

11

I

( i )

l

T r e f o i l I

( E ) I

l

n

3 e £

— — a ) ( 0 E c i l

N

H

* 4

I ' I 1 . z

_

4

*

*

i N

r ,

R a d i a t e

—

_

r e c o r d e d

*

3 1 C

*

4

• •

4

*

*

N

F ' A C X

f r o m c o i n s

. : t:

i 4

I

c ' ,1

—

L .

E x p . C r o s i

h .

n o r t h E u r o p e a n

4 1

n

0

=

,

0 Z -,

cc . z

+ J t D >

, _ _

Z

— C , c u : i z >— ( )L z i , 1Z E i :

2 " — . 2 o >
. • , = •A -,-
c z . 4L e

r c l -; a

Z

P y r a m i d s

, . ,

F . B u s t

* * c s 4 N

• : f.

M

1

I

i * r )

I

I I

e

1

* N L O _

*

1

* _

I g N

* i •

2 . * N

S . M a r t l e i l H . C r o s

4

E x p . C r o s L .

h .

I

I

o f B r i t s h d i s p o s i t o n o r p r o v e n a c e

E t r ) _ — c 4 a )

N

0 . * n e

n

i

1 1 1

1

N

1° \ p

i

1 , : . . 1

l

1 1

_

t i " )' )

e i

ll

* c o 0 0 _

' ‘ 7)

c s 4

l

—

**

*

* _

I

1

e 1 - A 111

_

I

I

* ,

11 1

e

1

1

I II

-

—

@

. e

( J )

I -I I

'I

I

I

,

I

*

* N

e

L

I —

Lo

' 7 ,:i

N

.

P A C X

—

—

T h e L i n c o l n m i n t f r o m c o i n s o f B r i t s h d i s p o s i t o n o r p r o v e n a c e .

R a d i a t e

N u l

.

— —

Z

4 1 2

E 4 Z —c L eu C E >

w

c l u

_ ,

z ` r z

-L i l u , _ 4 0 ( . 5 z

j r -

Q

c 2 E _ . ) 0 C C

1 — Z t s 2 2 d — a ,

2

p _ Z , « 1 _ ,

C r

T A B L E 8 ( B )

--1. 0 0 0 0 0(nu l i n c a , c a> > ,e - 77'g

t c

1 7

Page N o. a nd Table i n Brettell Catalogue

6 A

P eriod

N o. of No.of moneyer/type moneyer/type Covered combinations combinations not represented i n represented i n Brettell Brettell Catalogue Catalogue

gthelstan Edward the Martyr

1 0B

Ethelraed

1 7D

2 2F

I I

2

9

5 4

2 3

Cnut Harthacnut

3 1

3 1

Edward the Confessor and Harold I I

3 4

2 4G

William I Henry I

3 7

3 0J

" Tealby"

3 2K

1 180-1250

TABLE

9 .

Moneyer-for-type

9

1 4

2

8

2 1 combinations

5 a t

Exeter.

c ollection of Exeter c oins ( Glendining 2 8.10.1970) furni shes an i nsight i nto what s ome thirty years o f speciali sed collecting achieved. The tables published in the foreword to the sale catalogue record a possible 2 79 moneyer-for-type ( and sub-type) c ombinations k nown f or the 3 00 or more years during which moneyers s igned coins a t the Exeter mint. This f igure o f 2 79 can b e made u p to 2 80 with the addition of SB658-H3623, a c oin of the J ewel Cross type i n the name o f Cnut. Of these 2 80'combina tions, 1 81 were represented i n the • collection. The exact breakdown, derived f rom tables published i n the foreword to the catalogue [ 15], i s shown i n Table 9 ( above). A no ther private collection, that of F .ElmoreJones, c ollected over a period of more than thirty years and f ortunately recorded prior to dispersal, concentrated on " types f or mints", but, despite the h eavy emphasis upon E dward the Confessor, represented by 4 24 coins out o f the 1 ,016 o ffered f or sale i n 1 971, ( Glendining 1 2/13.5.1971), the c ollection achieved no more than a pproximately a 5 0% r epresentation o f " type f or mint" i n Edward's reign. This i s a c onsiderable achievement nevertheless, a nd private c ollections can make an important contribution to the c oin references f or i ndividual mints. Museums acquire c oins by purchase, loan or g ift. Gifts may or may not be random i .e. the donor may donate what he or she considers relates most closely t o the museum's known i nterests, or the d onor may simply donate

1 8

what h e has c ollected, while a museum may, o r may n ot, exercise discretion i n a ccepting a g ift. D iscretion i s most l ikely t o b e exercised where purchases a re c oncerned, f or n o purse i s unlimited, a nd purchases will r eflect, possibly over many y ears, changing tastes a ccording t o the p erceived s trengths a nd weaknesses o f the c ollection. T he degree t o which c oins of a particular mint o r p eriod a re represented i n museum c ollections i s d ependent u pon a number o f f ortuitous variables not the l east o f which i s the presence o r absence o f a museum i n the i mmedi ate v icinity o f what had b een a medieval mint. Who will s how c oncern f or r ecording the a ctivity o f, f or example, the Wallingford mint - or the S udbury mint - i f there i s no museum i n the vicinity? By c ontrast a national museum may a ttempt a systematic c ollection, but o n what basis - types, or mints f or types, or moneyers f or types? What w ill i t r egard a s a " duplicate" a nd therefore not c ollectable - a c oin that represents a n ew mint o r money e r for a type a lready r epresented when perhaps there a re o ther t ypes a s y et u nrepresented? I s a s econd c oin, o f a m oneyer f or a t ype a lready r epresented f or that moneyer, t o be c onsidered a s a duplicate i f i t i s f rom a d ifferent die - when there a re s till c oins t o a cquire o f moneyers u nrepresented f or the type? A systematic c ollection o f c oins o f the r eign o f Edward the Confessor would r un to a pproximately 2 ,100 s pecimens i f b rought t ogether solely o n a " moneyer-for-type" basis i gnoring a ll d ie duplication and die multiplicity. A f igure o f 2 ,038 s pecimens n ecessary t o c reate a systematic moneyerf or-type reign a ssemblage i s d erived f rom the .gross tally o f the a djusted t otals o f moneyers " likely" to have worked type-by-type i n Edward the Confessor's r eign ( see a ppendix I I). A n alternative f igure, o f 2 ,065 , d erived f rom the s ame a ppendix, would s uffice t o r epresent a ll recorded moneyer-for-type c ombinations i n Edward's r eign. C onsider h ow Many more s pecimens would b e r equired, o n s uch a basi s, t o a ssemble a representative c ollection o f A ngloS axon c oinage. Major i nstitutional c ollections, both n ational and r egional, can b e subjected t o the a nalysis a pplied to the E lmore J ones a nd B rettell c ollections. The 1 600 c oins o f Edward the Confessor l isted i n the B ritish Museum's c atalogue c ontain material representative o f all t he r eign's t ypes, but not mints, though the omissi ons a re confined t o s uch minor mints a s B arnstaple, a nd the passage o f time has u sually rectified this through a dditions to the B ritish Museum t rays. The B ritish Museum Catalogue shows that a t publication a bout 6 0% o f possible mint-for-type combinations was a chieved, a nd a bout 5 0% o f possible moneyer-for-type c ombinations. These percentages a re based u pon f igures d erived f rom appendix I I a nd f rom e ntries i n the B ritish Museum Catalogue o f A ngloS axon c oins. AppendixIIIshows 5 51 mint-for-type c ombina tions i n Edward the Confessor's r eign, a nd 2 ,065 r ecorde d -moneyer-for-type c ombinations. The BMC entries r ecord 3 40 m int-for-type c ombinations i .e. 6 2% o f a theoretical

1 9

maximum, and 9 88 moneyer-for-type c ombinations i .e. 4 8% o f what i s theoretically possible. BMC entries reflect a g reater concentration o f material f rom the second rather than the first half of the reign a nd BMC was a ble to r ecord only three mints ( London, Lincoln and York) for a ll ten types. The catalogue of coins i n the Systematic Collection a t S tockholm shows that a t the time of t he catalogue's compilation about 3 5% o f possible mint-for-type c ombinations was achieved f or the whole o f Edward's reign and of possible moneyer-for-type c ombinations, H ildebrand achieved nearly 3 0%: Hildebrand recorded 1 99 type-formint combinations f or Edward the Confessor's r eign, 1 62 f or the first half o f the reign and 3 7 for t he second half o f the reign. The figures a re derived f rom Hildebrand ( 1881) tables 1 and 2 pages 4 59-461 a nd achieve 3 6% o f currently known mint-for-type combinations. Hilde brand's listings o f coins record 5 35 moneyer-for-type c ombinations, which constitute 2 6 % of what a ppears t o be possible a c entury later. Of these 5 35 combinations, 4 78 occur i n the first five types o f the reign. I t must be said, o f course, that the coins published i n BMC ( A/S) and i n BEH are but a fraction o f what now l ies in t he respective museums' trays and details o f some hundreds o f such coins i n the trays o f the C oin a nd Medal Department o f the British Museum have been i ncorporated i nto this work where they represent a n ew type or v ariety f or a moneyer or where they a ssist i n e stablishing a correct canon of moneyers - by providing, f or example, a m ore exact rendering o f the moneyer's name or of the mint name. N evertheless, the catalogue remains i nvaluable a nd i ndeed i t would be appropriate to honour again the w ork of a ll those numismatists who, by careful a ttribution of t ens of thousands o f coins, have laid down the bed-rock u pon which all further work has been based. One example o f a small collection of Anglo-Saxon and Norman c oins f ormed a s a representative a ssemblage a nd built up with t hat purpose always i n mind, i s the collection brought together by S ir F rank Merry S tenton [ 16]. • As the authors of the i ntroduction to the S tenton fascicule of the S CBI s tress, " Stenton selected significant c oins rather than g reat rarities", and f ollowing the criteria o f types and mints ( but not types f or mints) S tenton built up a r epresentati ve teaching collection for the University o f Reading. Many provincial museums hold Anglo-Saxon c oins. The Museum's Year Book provides a directory of museums f or the United K ingdom but i s unclassified i n terms of narrow subject areas such a s numismatics. Except where museums' holdings have been published i n S CBI, approach must b e made, therefore, museum by museum either by personal v isit or by l etter o f enquiry, and coins f rom some 4 0 museums have been i ncorporated i n this way i nto the present s tudy. The contributory museums are i dentifiable, though n ot i n alphabetical order, from the cypher list on pages vi-xii . I n g eneral an enquiry to a museum about the c oins i n

i ts

custody will

result

i n

2 0

a l isting the

value

of

which

i s d ependent upon the expertise, i nterest and time available o f the person who compiled i t, and which will reflect successive policies governing acquisition. This i s an inevitable a nd entirely natural product o f s taffing and resource policy, but whatever the o ther qualities of the listing, one i s dependent upon correct identification in the first i nstance and upon unknown factors such a s the d egree o f normalisation employed i n transcribing the legend of the coin. I n every case the willingness o f the m useum i tself to a ssist was most apparent and a negative r eply was i n i ts way a s helpful a s a positive reply, and c ould i nvolve a curator i n a s much work. No claim i s made that data d erived i n this way i s systematic or comprehensive. T he Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman c oins of a further 80 o r more museums i n the United K ingdom are recorded in S CBI. The function o f S CBI i s to provide transcripti ons, pedigrees, weights, die axes and i llustrations o f the c oins c oncerned. F ew volumes contain much i nterpretative material except when the subject matter i s s elfcontained - when, f or example, i t concerns a particular mint o r mints. There has been some variation i n approach between fascicules. Some, such a s that f or the F itzwilliam M useum, presnt the entire collection within a specified range, while o thers, such a s the Midlands Museums' fascicule, c over the entire relevant holdings o f a number of m ints g rouped g eographically. Although some major collections and some g eographical areas remain unrepresented a s yet, S CBI c an supply many of the recorded money er for-type occurrences a t most mints, though i f Wallingford w ere taken a s an example f rom the present s tudy only 2 1 of the 3 8 moneyer-for-type combinations recorded for E dward's reign can be provided by S CBI a s published to 1 984: 4 5% have to be derived f rom o ther s ources, a figure which for certain moneyers i s very much higher. By . c ontrast Ian S tewart was able to observe that S CBI , as published to 1 970, and in c onjunction with BEH and BMC w ould, b etween them, furnish 1 00% o f such occurrences at E xeter f or S thelraed I I's reign and 8 8% of such occurrences a t Lincoln f or Edward the Confessor's reign [ 17], and a s publication progresses, i t will be possible to draw m ore heavily upon SCBI for mints such a s Wallingford. Inevitably the s trengths and weaknesses o f SCBI reflect policy of c overage a nd presentation a s well a s the s trengths a nd weaknesses o f i ndividual c ollections. A s source books the fascicules of S CBI a re quite i ndispensible, one o f the most f ruitful developments i n Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman numismatics since the l ate 1 950's. P ublic collections overseas have also been drawn upon f or this s tudy, f or thousands of coins minted i n Edward the Confessor's reign l ie abroad, mostly i n the cabinets o f countries bordering the Baltic. Holdings of . the National Museums i n Copenhagen and Helsinki, o f the H istorical Museum i n Lahti, o f a number of North American c ollections, and of Anglo-Norman coins i n the Royal 2 1

Coin Cabinet i n S tockholm have a lready been published i n S CBI. No catalogue i s yet published for t he AngloSaxon c oins o f the S tatens Historiska Museum in S tockholm ( in which the R oyal Swedish Coin Cabinet i s housed) other than H ildebrand's publication of the Systematic C ollecti on ( BE K A s with the British Museum's c ollection, the Systematic Collection has been added to, supplemented and some o f i ts specimens re-attributed [ 18] and a start i s being made on comprehensive publication not only o f material i n the S tatens Historiska Museum but a lso o f all Swedish hoard material. For the moment, h owever, the Swedish material has been drawn upon i n i ts p resently published f orms ( BEH, CNS I 1 -3 and XVI 1 , a nd Uppsala [ 19]), with the addition that the present s tudy has been able to benefit from an unpublished photographic record of coins of Edward the Confessor housed in S tockholm , and f rom unpublished work by D r. Colman on moneyer name f orms l isting coins o f the Confessor held i n Statens Historiska Museum [ 20]. R eferences to relevant holdings i n Lund University I nstitute of Archaeology, i n the Central Historical Museum of the Latvian S .S.R. i n R iga and i n Riga City Museum, i n the Historical I nstitute of the Academy o f the E stonian S .S. R. i n Tallinn, and i n the S taatliche Museen zu Berlin ( G. D. R.) have been made available through the k indness of an i ntermediary. Coins h eld i n O slo a nd Bergen have been drawn upon through the erstwhile Leeds University Coin I ndex. Through correspondence o r p ersonal visit material from the following o ther i nstitutions a broad has been drawn upon f or this work: National Museum of I reland, Dublin; the Coin Cabinet of th Biblioth ä .que Nationale, Paris; the Magyar Nemzeti Müzeum, B udapest; the S taatliche Münzsammlung, Munich; the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna; the S tate Pushkin Museum of F ine Arts, Moscow; the S tate Hermitage Museum, Leningrad; and the Nickle Arts Museum, University o f Calgary. Coins of the S tate Arts Collection, Dresden, . were published i n S NC [ 21]. I t i s true that these sources can contribute i ndividual coins, such a s London 3 14, Guildford 1 2 and N ottingham 7 2, which have the effect of extending or f illing o ut a moneyer's career or are i ndeed the s ole evidence f or a moneyer i n the reign, but i n the case o f these sources such dependence becomes minimal when i t i s observed that out o f approximately 2 ,000 moneyer-for-type combinations recorded f or Edward's reign, some 4 50 ( 22%) are c urrently derived f rom single coins [ 22]. A s teadily advancing method o f recording c oin evidence i f : the publication of corpora, a s die s tudies, o f i ndividual mints. Those most recently published a re models o f exhaustive research, i n l ocating c oins, d escribing them and i nterpreting them i n terms of a mint s tudy. O ne major mint, Lincoln, has been published i n this way a nd Winchester and York should follow. Another valuable source of material i s the record o f private c ollections which have passed through the sale room. There i s a l ong tradition of such sales, catalogued to a high s tandard

2 2

a nd i t has b een the Montagu, Carlyon-Britton, Lockett, E lmore J ones a nd Mack sales which have c ontributed most t o the c ompilation o f material f or this s tudy. B eyond t hat, h owever, sale catalogues have not been examined zystematicallyg o nly a f ew o f the g eneral run o f S othe by's a nd Christie's c oin catalogues have been c onsulted, though t he complete s eries o f S pink's Coin Auctions a nd o f Glendining's c atalogues f rom 1 973 onwards has b een d rawn u pon. Catalogues d o n ot a lways publish pedigrees, with c onsequent duplication o f r eferences i n the c omilati on o f m oneyer-for-type t ables, a nd i n g eneral s ome c irc umspection i s called f or i n the u se o f sale catalogues, particularly i n those i nstances i n which a catalogue prov ides t he sole reference f or a moneyer's a ctivity. S pink a nd S on Ltd., and B .A.Seaby L td. publish l ists o f c oins f or sale, catalogued t o a v ery h igh s tandard, though again s ome r eserve i s n ecessary when n o o ther material supports a moneyer's a ctivity i n a particular type. A case i n p oint w as the coin S B737-E15 o ffered f or sale early i n 1 980 a s a Sovereign/Martlets penny o f " Brynnic" a t London. A lthough a moneyer o f this name i s known a t London i n E dward t he Confessor's reign h is a ctivity was c onfined t o the mid-1040's. Examination revealed i t t o b e a c oin o f " Brunnic" a t Chester, perfectly normal f or i ts type but such misreadings a re v ery rare. Coins o f rarer mints a re n ot, however, a lways l isted, a s they can b e o ffered i mmediately to k nown c ollectors. C .J. Martin ( Coins) L td. a lso s upplies regular l ists and material f rom them, f rom 1 972 o nwards, has b een i ncorporated i nto this work. The s ame d ate applies t o S NC a nd S CMB. I ndividual c oins a re exhibited a t meetings o f numismatic s ocieties a nd published i n r eports o f their proceedi ngs, a nd the Numismatic Chronicle a nd the B ritish N umismatic J ournal, the j ournals r espectively o f the R oyal N umismatic S ociety a nd the British Numismatic S ociety, a re a v aluable source o f primary material; these j ournals a re the foundations f or a ll s econdary a nd i nterpretative work, t hough u seful material i s a lso t o b e f ound i n the t ransactions of a rchaeological a nd historical s ocieties. The present s tudy has b een f ortunate t o enjoy a ccess t o a small number o f private c ollections a s y et u npublished. Employment

of

the material

T he individual c oins, each i dentifiable by a cypher, a re b rought t ogether f or each mint a s moneyer-for-type c ombinations enabling a moneyer's entire r ecorded output i n a t ype to be d esignated by a u nique reference ( e.g. " Guildford 1 2"). The cyphers r egister the l ocation, o r publication, o r occurrence o f a c oin a nd where the a bsence o f a p ublished pedigree has f ailed t o l ink previous " occu rrences" a s one a nd the same c oin, the number o f c oin r eferences within a moneyer-for-type c ombination may exc eed t he number o f s urviving c oins. D iscretion i s n ece ssary, therefore, i n a ttempting a ny calculation o f a

2 3

" minimum"

number

o f

surviving

c oins.

The mint profiles a ccompanying the c oin r eferences a re a pragmatic presentation i n d iagramatic form o f each moneyer's career a nd permit a n i mmediate visual a ppreciati on o f f eatures o f a mint's s tructure. The overall pattern o f mint s tructure h elps t o resolve the uncertainties c reated when n o c oins a ppear t o survive f rom a p articular emission or when o ne moneyer's c areer c eases i n a type i n which a nother moneyer's c areer c ommences. T his i s, however, n ot the place f or a d iscussion o f moneyer c omplement -for a fuller t reatment s ee p p.25 a nd 2 04. T he prof iles, therefore, a re a t once i mpressionistic a nd speculative. They a re a lso suggestive, i n that t hey imply a c ontinuity o f a ctivity within a type a nd a s uccession f rom one moneyer t o a nother which a re perhaps wide o f the mark. N evertheless, they d raw o ut e ssential f eatures o f moneyer t enure, enabling b road c omparisons t o b e made both within a nd b etween mints. Chapter 2 discusses t he i nterpretation o f this material i n t erms o f mint s tructure a nd moneyer a ctivity a nd Chapter 3 p resents the material mint by mint. Two a nd o ften three t ranspositions o f data h ave b een required t o a chieve the representation o f coin evidence i n these moneyer-for-type r eferences a nd f urther t ransposi tion has occurred t o c reate t he mint profiles. The potential f or i naccurate t ransposition i s therefore c onsidera ble a nd notification o f error would be g ratefully r ec eived.

2 4

Chapter

I I:

The

Moneyer

and

the

Mint.

M int s tructure i s the product of moneyer activity. Mints can be classified i n a number o f different ways according to the size o f moneyer complement and the i ntensity o f activity. The

n umber

of

moneyers.

A first s tep t owards consideration o f the s tructure of mints i s resolution of " the quite basic question o f how many individual moneyers existed,"[23] but i t must be s aid at the outset that no single s tatement can be made b ecause there are several questions to be a sked o f evidence which erpretation.

on

occasion

will

bear

more

than

one

i nt-

T here are four significant problems with the evidence, that of unresolved l ength o f tenure, of succession of o ne moneyer by another within a type, o f movement o f moneyers between mints, and of casual or i nexplicable absence. D espite the a ssistance which onomastics provides, t enure patterns based on discrete name-forms have to r emain unfinalised whenever an i rregular name-form might f urnish evidence o f a moneyer o therwise unsubstantiated, or when ambiguities surround the occurrence o f an o therwise clear name-form. Thus the i ntroduction o f Leofwig into the canon of moneyers a t Lincoln rests upon interpretation of the PACX penny LM l xvi.28 o f LEFPIIC, while a t Colchester i n the PAX type o f Harold I I a pv i ,Fpi form i nterrupts a l ong sequence o f PVLFPINE forms ( table 7 7) with sufficient i nsistence ( the employment of a t l east a second reverse die) to merit identification o f " Wulfwig" a s a p ossible Colchester moneyer. • " Overlap", the apparent succession within the emissi on o f a type of one moneyer by another, can present probl ems. Any cumulative total o f moneyers would be exaggera ted i f every moneyer active i n a type were counted b ecause i n those types i n which a moneyer did appear t o replace a predecessor i n mid-type, a " raw" total would r ecord t wo moneyers rather than one. Moneyers a ctive a t two o r more mints during the same type emission would similarly i nflate the global tally o f moneyers. Conversely, a n under-representation would be achieved where a moneyer's absence might be a ttributable to the absence of a c hance find rather than to c essation of a ctivity. At Bath, for example, three moneyers are recorded f or the H ammer Cross type: Osmaer, G odric ( for whom this i s the f inal type recorded) and Eorlewine ( for whom this i s the first type f or which coins a re recorded). Given the mint' s g eneral character a s a two-moneyer mint ( see p .11) a nd i ts imminent decline t o one-moneyer s tatus, i t s eems reasonable to project Bath a s a two-moneyer mint i n the Hammer Cross type despite the presence o f three moneyers. The g eneral character o f a mint can o ffer a

2 5

response to poor c oin evidence: to draw on t he example o f Bath again, the mint continues to be described a s a two-moneyer mint i n the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type even though Waedel i s unrecorded and only / Egelmaer i s currently known, because the " Waedel" name-form does n ot appear a t any o ther mint during Edward the Confessor's r eign a nd the fact o f his activity a t the Bath mint i n the p rec eding and succeeding types suggests that a c hance f ind i s awaited which will t estify to his presence a t the m int i n this type. Such treatment becomes i ncreasingly unsati sfactory a s the number o f consecutive type a bsences i nc reases and when a moneyer i s u nrecorded for more t han three c onsecutive types his " likely" presence i s discounted altogether. This i s an arbitrary " cut-off" point. A t i ts minimum, during type-emission cycles of two years' duration, this can represent an i nterruption o f s ix y ears. A t i ts maximum, during three-year emission cycles a nd a ssuming the cessation o f activity very early i n the l ast type for which the moneyer i s k nown and the r esumption o f a ctivity late i n the type i n which work i s resumed, a n absence of virtually fifteen years may b e denoted. Such variation ought to be unacceptable as a procedure f or d etermining continuity yet the formula i s effective i n practice a s a device to make s ense o f the f ragmented t enure pattern and f luctuation o f moneyer complement which would o therwise be the case. Absence i s also t o be a ccounted f or by t emporary activity a t another mint. A t Bristol, Godwine's i nactivity i n the S overeign/ Martlets type might be explained by the presence of the n ame-form, f or this type only, a t Gloucester. I n such c ircumstances Bristol's c omplement o f moneyers i n the S overeign/ Martlets type should not neccessarily be r egarded a s having dimini shed. The l imitations a ssociated with the evidence a re, however, neither so numerous nor so severe a s to i mpair i nterpretation significantly. What i t will r eveal i n t erms o f moneyer numbers depends upon the questions a sked o f i t. A single total o f moneyers f or a specific number o f years, such a s an entire reign, might point t o changes i n administration, productivity a nd i n l engths o f tenure, but broken down mint by mint and type by type w ould a fford a more e ffective i ndex. The most meaningful f igure would be one, adjusted for " absence" and " overlap" ( i.e. o ne which distinguished between sequential and s imultaneous working), and which a ssumed that a t some s tage i n the emission of a type a g iven number o f moneyers was a t work s imultaneously. I f necessary the measure could b e refined i n favour o f a particular class or type of money er. The Wilton mint i n the Hammer Cross type can s erve a s a n example. D espite the existence a t Wilton in t his type o f eight moneyers, the two " single-type" moneyers whom this tally i ncludes could well have functioned a s replacements f or Thurcil and Swetric, the two " established" moneyers who retire i n this type, and a ccordingly Wilton i s i nterpreted a s a six-moneyer mint • rather t han

2 6

as an eight-moneyer mint. Wilton may well have f unctioned even a t this l evel only f or the briefest period during the emission o f the type, a nd by the end o f the type's emission p erhaps no more t han three, o r p erhaps four, moneyers were a ctive. O f c ourse, the c oncept o f " simultaneous" a ctivity might b e q uite i nvalid; a ll that can be said i s that the d esirability o f c reating something which c an b e u sed a s a c ommon yard-stick a pplicable t o all mints o utweighs the provisos which s urround i ts c reation. F igures f or the numbers o f moneyers r ecorded type by type are g iven i n Appendix I I. N o s ingle, a uthoritative, s tatement has been a ttempted. Tallies a re g iven as " raw" f igures o f moneyers a ctually a t work, a nd a s the more s ensitive, and s ignificant, " adjusted" f igure, which takes a ccount o f succession i n mid-type, o f a bsence, and o f movement o f moneyers b etween mints a nd a ttempts a statement about t he minimum number o f moneyers " likely" to have been a ctive s imultaneously. D uring the f irst half o f Edward's r eign the number o f moneyers was h eld at about 2 10-220. A r eduction b ecomes n oticeable c .1053/6 and what i s a t o nce c lear i s that by 1 066 the number of moneyers a ctive i n E ngland h ad f allen by a lmost 2 5%. The n umber o f mints, meanwhile, r emained s teady, a t about 5 3. Length of

o ffice

among moneyers.

On the f ollowing pages a re l isted moneyers whose careers l ie entirely within the period 1 042-1066, o r whose careers extend outside that period but can b e easily reconstructed, either f rom published mints such a s Lincoln , Warwick, Watchet e tc., o r which e xtend i nto the p eriod 1 066-1087, r esearched a s a n adjunct t o the mint profiles for E dward the Confessor's r eign. 3 30 moneyers a re l isted. The uncertainties surrounding calculation o f the length of a moneyer's c areer c entre upon the u nresolved question of c ontinuity o f a ctivity throughout the emission of a type. A minimum l ength o f t enure a ssumes c ommencement o f career l ate i n the f irst type f or which the money er i s known a nd a r etirement early i n the l ast type f or which the moneyer i s known. A maximum l ength o f s ervice assumes commencement early i n the f irst type a nd r etirement a t the end o f the f inal type. I n most cases, u nless i t i s thought that the moneyer c ommenced o r r etired a t a known point i n the r elevant type, the moneyer's t enure i s c alculated f rom the mid-point o f the f irst type t o the mid-point o f the l ast type, which i n practice i s usually halfway b etween the minimum a nd maximum t enure. Although the a ctual l ength o f o ffice o f " single-type" moneyers might b e o f a ny duration within the emission of the type f or which they a re k nown, they have b een credited with no more than o ne y ear's a ctivity f or the purposes of the survey. I ndeed, i n practice, their a ctiv-

2 7

M IN. Bath

P ossible

duration o f

G odric E orlewine

o ffice

o f

MAX.

ESTIMATE

s elected moneyers.

1 052/3 1 059/62

- 1 059/62 - 1 062/5

6 1

1 0 6

9 4

1 042/4 1 042 1 050

- 1 053/6 - 1 044 - 1 051

9 1 1

1 4 2 1

1 2 1 1

4 3

4 0

B edford U lfcetel Swotric Wulmaer B edwyn

and Marlborough

Cild

1 046/8

- 1 086/9

1 046/8

- 1 053/6

5

1 0

1 042 1 046 1 052/3 1 052/3 1 065/6

-

1 1 9 6 8

2 2 1 3 J O 1 2

1 1 1 1 8 1 0

1 048/50

- 1 062/5

1 7

1 5

1 044/6 1 056/9 1 050/1 1 053/6 1 062/5 1 062 1 062

-

1 065/6 1 062/5 1 042/4 1 044/6 1 059/62 1 042/4 1 052/3 1 044 1 046 1 050 1 059

- 1 066 - 1 065/6 - 1 074/7 - 1 066/8 - 1 065/6 - 1 048/50 - 1 053/6 - 1 046 - 1048 - 1 051 - 1 062

3 8

B erkeley Edgar

7

B ristol glwig Smeawine G odwine g lfric C eorl Bury

1 044 1 048 1 062/5 1 059/62 1 074/7

S t.Edmunds

Morcere

1 2

Cambridge Edstan S aecolf glfwig Eadwerd G odlam Wibaern Eadwine

1 052/3 1 066 1 056/9 1 062/5 1 065/6 1 065 1 065

6 7 5 6 1 1 1

9 1 0 9 1 2 4 3 3

8 9 7 9 3 1 1

1 1 3 0 2 0 3 4 1 1 1 1 1

2 4 3 5 2 4 7 8 4 2 2 2 3

1 2 3 3 2 2 4 6 3 1 1 1 1

Canterbury glfwine S ired Manna Eadward glfwerd B runman Wulstan Wulf g aet Rudcarl Wulfred S tanherd

2 8

Canterbury l E lfric Ulric

M IN.

MAX.

E STIMATE

1 1

3 3

1 1

4 9 2 3 2 3 8 1 0 3 6 3 6 2 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5 6 2 9 2 9 1 3 1 5 9 1 0 4 3 2 8 1 8 2 2 2 3 3 3 3

5 3 2 6 2 6 1 0 1 2 6 8 3 9 2 6 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

( continued) 1 059 1 062

- 1 062 - 1 065

Chester Leofwine S nel Croc Fargrim Colbrand Sweartcol Duninc Leofnoth Bruninc Alcsi Thrond Colthegn Alfsi Alda / E lfgar Dunstan S prot Wirgal

9 97/1003 1 017/23 1 017/23 1 040/2 1 044/6 1 053/6 1 056/9 1 023/9 1 040/2 1 050/1 1 065/6 1 042 1 052 1 053 1 053 1 056 1 056

-

1 052/3 1 044/6 1 044/6 1 050/3 1 056/9 1 059/62 1 065/6 1 065/6 1 066/8 1 066/8 1 066 1 044 1 053 1 056 1 056 1 059 1 059

Chichester / E lf wine

1 046/8

- 1 066

1 8

2 0

2 0

1 046/8 1 042/4 1 044/6 1 044/6 1 053/6

-

1 068/71 1 062/5 1 053/6 1 053/6 1 068/71

2 0 1 8 7 7 1 2

2 5 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 8

2 2 2 0 9 9 1 5

1 044/6 1 052/3 1 062/5

- 1 077/80 - 1 062/5 - 1 071/4

3 1 9 6

3 6 1 5 1 2

3 3 1 1 7

1 062/5

- 1 066

Colchester Brihtric Brunhyse Leofward S tanmaer Goldman D erby F roma Leofwine Colbin D roitwich Godric

1

4

4

D roitwich/ Worcester/Hereford Hethewulf

1 059/62

- 1 077/80

1 5

2 1

1 8

1 4

1 1

I pswich/DYR/Norwich Wulsige

1 048/50

- 1 059/62

2 9

9

M IN.

MAX.

E STIMATE

Exeter, Barnstaple/Lydford/Exeter , Lifinc glfric glfwine D odda Eadmaer Eadwold G odewine Leofwine Leofwine Saewine S aewulf Wulfmaer Wulfwine

I I I

1 023/9 1 036/7 1 023/9 1 023/9 1 009/17 1 042 1 040 1 023/9 1 059/62 1 050/1 1 052 1 046/8 1 065/6

-

1 066/8 1 059/62 1 046/8 1 044/6 1 044/6 1 044 1 042/4 1 044/6 1 068/71 1 065/6 1 053 1 062/5 1 080/3

3 7 2 2 1 7 1 5 2 7 1 2 1 5 6 1 4 1 1 4 1 4

4 5 2 6 2 5 2 3 3 7 2 4 2 3 1 3 1 6 2 1 9 1 8

4 4 2 4 2 4 1 9 3 5 1 2 2 1 9 1 5 1 1 6 1 5

1 017/23 1 023/9 1 029/35 1 040/2 1 038/40 1 040 1 048/50 1 052/3 1 053/6 1 056/9 1 056/9 1 056/9 1 059/62

-

1 066 1 059/62 1 059/62 1 062/5 1 066 1 052/3 1 048/50 1 077/80 1 086/7 1 087/90 1 086/7 1 068/71 1 066

4 3 3 0 2 4 2 0 2 6 1 2 1 2 4 3 0 2 8 2 7 9 4

4 9 3 9 3 3 2 5 2 8 1 3 2 2 8 3 4 3 4 3 1 1 5 7

4 9 3 6 3 0 2 2 2 8 1 2 1 2 5 3 3 3 1 3 0 1 2 7

1 059/62 1 062/5 1 065/6

- 1 062/5 - 1 062/5 - 1 066

1 1 1

6 3 2

3 1 2

1 029/35 1 062/5 1 053/6 1 040/2 1 059/62 1 053/6

-

2 4 3 3 4 1 0 4 3

3 3 6 4 0 1 3 9 9

3 0 5 3 7 1 2 7 6

Gloucester G odric Leofnoth glric Wulfwerd glfsige Eawulf Wulwig Leofwine Wulfgaet S eolcwine S ilac Ordric Brihtnoth Guildford glfric G odwine Leofwold Hastings Brid Colswegen Dunninc Leofwine Theodred Wulfric H ereford Raedulf Wulfwine glfwig g thestan Eadwi

( excluding g lric 1 046/8 1 042/4 1 053/6 1 053/6 1 059/62

-

1 059/62 1 066/8 1 090/3 1 052/3 1 066/8 1 059/62 a nd Leofnoth 1 048/50 1 053/6 1 066 1 059/62 1 068/71

3 0

- s ee 1 9 1 0 3 6

Gloucester) 4 1 4 1 3 9 1 2

3 1 1 1 1 6 9

H ereford

MAX.

7 1

1 0 2

E STIMATE

( continued)

Eadric Edwig H ertford

M IN.

1 056/9 1 050/2

- 1 066 - 1 050/2

( no unambiguous mint).

evidence

i s

available

1 0 1 f rom this

Huntingdon Godwine

2 7

1 052/3

- 1 080/3

1 044/6 1 053/6 1 056/9

- 1 044/6 - 1 053/6 - 1 056/9

1 1 1

2 3 3

1 1 1

1 052/3 1 053/6

- 1 052/3 - 1 077/80 a t l east

1

2

1

2 1

2 7

2 4

-

1 6 1 8 1 0 1 6 1 7

2 1 4 1 1 1 3 2 0 2 1 0

1 8 3 1 0 1 3 1 9 1 1 0

9 1 9 1 2 7

1 3 2 2 2 3 1

1 2 2 1 1 3 0

1 2 1 1 2 7 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 4 1

3 2 4 2 3 3 2 1 6 2 2 7 4 4 3

2 2 3 1 3 0 1 1 5 1 1 6 2 4 3

Hythe glfwine Guthred Goldwine I lchester Osward ggelwine

I pswich Bruninc glfwine Lifinc Brihtric Liofwold Edwi Bruman

1 044/6 1 062/5 1 042/4 1 053/6 1 050/2 1 048/50 1 056/9

1 062/5 1 066 1 052/3 1 066 1 068/70 1 048/50 1 066

Leicester ggelric 1 053/6 - 1 065/6 Wulfric 1 044/6 - 1 065/6 Outhulf 1 065/6 - 1 065/6 ggelwine( Tamworth) 1 052/3 - 1 080/3 Lewes glfsi Eadwerd Eadwig Eadwine Godric Godwine Leofman Leofnoth Leofward Leofwine Oswold

1 050/2 1 035 1 048/50 1 023/9 1 046/8 1 050/2 1 048/50 1 046/8 1 059/62 1 048/50 1 044/6

-

1 052/3 1 056/9 1 048/50 1 056/9 1 046/8 1 066 1 048/50 1 046/8 1 066 1 050/2 1 087

3 1

M IN.

MAX.

ESTIMATE

1 7

3 9

1 8

1 059/62 1 068/71 1 066 1 052/3 1 062/5 1 068/71 1 053/6 1 059/62 1 059/62 1 056/9 1 062/5 1 066 1 044/6 1 056/9 1 046/8 1 068/71 1 065/6 1 044/6 1 053/6 1 062/5 1 066/8 1 048/50 1 042/4 1 042/4 1 042/4 1 042/4 1 042 1 042/4 1 042/4 1 044/6 1 046/8 1 071/4 1 062/5 1 065/6 1 042/4 1 044/6

2 6 3 2 2 2 3 9 2 2 4 1 1 5 3 3 9 1 2 7 6 4 1 8 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 4 5 1 3 7 1 5 3 9 1 1 1 9 1 1 5 7

3 5 9 2 4 3 0 1 3 6 3 3 6 6 6 2 4 8 2 3 7 1 1 8 2 3 1 6 2 3 6 9 6 1 4 5 3 2 1 1 5 4 6 4 7 2 4 2 1 5 2 2 8 1 0

3 0 6 2 2 2 7 1 2 5 2 9 3 5 5 6 4 4 1 3 2 8 6 2 1 1 5 1 9 4 6 5 1 0 4 9 1 7 1 1 3 5 4 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 7 9

1 052/3 1 053/6 1 044/6 1 048/50 1 048/50 1 048/50 1 048/50 1 048/50 1 048/50

6 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

9 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

L ewes ( continued) Wulfwine N orthman

1 059/62 1 035

- 1 059/62 - 1 042/4

L incoln T E lfnoth Aghmund U lf B rihtric O slac / E lmar C olgrim Thorcetel Wulfric I I O sferth G odric T E lfgaet L eofwine I Mana Thurgrim Outhgrim Autti S werting Outhbeorn Wulfbeorn G arfin L eofnoth S umerled S wafa Waelraefen E admund E dwine Wulfric I C illii G uthfurth Wineman G ife S weart L eofwine I I L eofwig H ildulf

1 017/23 1 062/5 1 042/4 1 023/9 1 052/3 1 056/6 1 023/9 1 056/9 1 056/9 9 97/1003 1 017/23 1 065/6 1 009/17 1 048/50 1 040/2 1 048/50 1 050/2 1 023/9 1 050/2 1 056/9 1 062/5 1 036/7 9 91/7 1 023/9 1 029/35 1 040/2 1 036/7 9 97/10031 042/4 1 042/4 1 046/8 1 059/62 1 062/5 1 065/6 1 036/7 1 036/7 -

L ondon E wi T E lfwig l E gelsige F E lfwold C inemaer Wurreb T E lfstan Thorr G oldan

1 044/6 1 044/6 1 044/6 1 048/50 1 048/50 1 048/50 1 048/50 1 048/50 1 048/50

3 2

M IN.

MAX.

E STIMATE

1 6 7 5 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 6 2 4

3 1 1 1 2 1 0 4 9 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 1 3 4 4 2 7 2 4 1 2 2 8

1 8 9 7 2 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 3 3 1 2 5 2 2 9 2 6

London ( continued) S ired ( and D eorman ggelwig Edred I L eofsige g lfgar Orlaf B run i nc Elfnoth g lffet B rixsie E aldulf G odere Wulf n oth Dunn i nc gdgar S ibwine G ods unu Wulfgar I I Wulsige I I Leofwig Wulf ward Swetman E stmund g lfsige

N IPEPORTE) 1 053/6 - 1 053/6 1 048/50 - 1 056/9 - 1 053/6 1 044/6 1 046/8 - 1 053/6 - 1 053/6 1 052/3 1 044/6 - 1 052/3 - 1 042/4 1 042/4 1 046/8 - 1 046/8 048/50 1 048/50 - 1 048/50 1 048/50 - 1 1 050/3 - 1 050/3 - 1 053/6 1 053/6 - 1 053/6 1 053/6 - 1 056/9 1 056/9 059/62 1 059/62 - 1 1 059/62 - 1 059/62 1 065/6 - 1 065/6 - 1 050/2 1 044/6 - 1 066 1 053/6 - 1 065/6 1 062/5 - 1 048/50 1 046/8 - 1 074/7 1 050/2 - 1 066/8 1 044/6 - 1 062/5 1 053/6 - 1 070/2 1 044/6

Lydford-Barnstaple-Exeter glfric

1 036/7

- 1 059/62

2 2

2 6

2 4

1 044/6 1 053/6 1 053/6

- 1 052/3 - 1 066 - 1 059/62

6 1 0 3

9 1 3 9

9 1 3 6

1 052/3 1 056/9

- 1 053/6 - 1 056/9

1 1

4 3

2 1

1 059/62

- 1 059/62

1

3

1

1 065/6 1 065/6

- 1 066 - 1 068/71

1

1

2

6

1 065/6

- 1 074/7

8

Maldon Daeiniht G odwine G odric Malmesbury Ealdwig Ealdwine N IPEPORTE Saewan N orthampton L eofstan Swetman N orwich Thurgrim

3 3

1 2

1 0

M IN.

MAX.

1 4

1 6

E S TIMATE

N orwich(continued) Thurstan Thurfurth

1 050/2 1 048/50

Eadwine Godefurth Cenelm G odman glfwine

1 059/62 1 062/5 1 052/3 1 053/6 1 059/62

P rice

1 062/5

- 1 066 - 1 059/62 ( at Thetford) - 1 086/7 - 1 066/8 - 1 052/3 - 1 053/6 - 1 066 ( at Thetford) - 1 062/5

1 042/4 1 048/50 1 048/50 1 053/6 1 062/5

1 4

9 4 4 1 1 1

6 1 3

4 1

7 3

- 1 048/50 - 1 048/50 1 048/50 - 1 074/7 - 1 062/5

4 1 1 1 8 1

8 2 2 2 4 3

2 1 1

1 044/6 1 042/4

- 1 083/6 - 1 066

3 7 2 2

4 2 2 4

40 2 3

1 044/6 1 056/9 1 059/62 1 056/9

-

1 0 7 2 4 2 7

1 5 1 0 2 8 3 1

1 2 8 26 29

1 8

2 0 2

20 1

1 2 2 7 5

1 7

1

N ottingham Leofsige S noter Alhmund F orna F orman

6 1

Oxford Here g od Brihtwold R ochester Edwine Lifwine Lifwine H orn Leofstan

1 056/9 1 066 1 086/7 1 086/7

Salisbury glfwold ( to Wilton) 1 046/8 - 1 066 Lufestan 1 044/6 - 1 044/6

1

Sandwich Leof wine G odric

1 042/4 1 062/5

- 1 059/62 - 1 065/6

1 5 1

2 0 4

1 8 3

1 044/6 1 048/50

- 1 059/62 - 1 053/6

1 3 3

1 8 8

1 5 6

1 050/2 1 059/62 1 059/62

- 1 086/7 - 1 065/6 - 1 059/62

3 4 3 1

3 7 7 3

3 7 5 1

Shaftesbury glfwerd Wydecoc Shrewsbury G odesbrand Wydeman glfgaet

3 4

M IN.

MAX.

E STIMATE

S tamford O swerd Leofwine Swarcolf Arfra Wulfwine Baldwine " Brinit" Arngrim " Farehir"

1 059/62 1 046/8 1 062/5 1 046/8 1 042/4 1 044/6 1 042/4 1 042/4 1 048/50

-

1 065/6 1 080/3 1 065/6 1 053/6 1 053/6 1 046/8 1 042/4 1 042/4 1 048/50

3 3 2 1 5 9 1 1 1 1

7 3 7 4 1 0 1 4 4 2 2 2

5 3 5 3 8 1 2 2 1 1 1

1 030/6 1 042/4 1 050/3 1 059/62

-

1 046/8 1 056/9 1 050/3 1 077/80

1 0 1 2 1 1 5

1 8 1 7 3 2 1

1 4 1 5 2 1 9

1 053/6

- 1 068/71

1 2

1 8

1 5

1 044/6 1 056/9

- 1 090/3 - 1 090/3

4 4 3 1

4 9 3 7

4 7 3 4

Legofrede / Elfric Blacere Atsere Leofric / Egelsige Sumerled E stmund

1 046/8 1 048/50 1 053/6 1 056/9 1 048/50 1 044/6 1 056/9 1 044/6

-

1 048/50 1 052/3 1 062/5 1 062/5 1 052/3 1 053/6 1 062/5 1 053/6

1 2 6 3 2 7 3 7

4 5 1 2 9 5 1 2 9 1 2

2 4 9 6 4 1 2 6 1 2

Godlef / E thel... Godwig Wulfric

1 044/6 1 046/8 1 065/6 1 044/6

-

1 062/5 1 046/8 1 065/6 1 044/6

1 6 1 1 1

2 1 2 1 2

1 9 1 1 1

1 048/50 1 053/6 1 046/8 1 044/6 1 066

-

1 059/62 1 066 1 056/9 1 056/9 1 086/7

9 1 0 8 1 0 2 0

1 4 1 3 1 3 1 5 2 1

1 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 2 1

1 036/7

- 1 074/7

3 7

4 1

4 0

S teyning F rithewine Wulfric Wulfgaet D ermon Sudbury F rithewine Tamworth Bruninc Colinc Thetford

Wallingford Brunwine Burewine Brihtwine Brihtric Sweartlinc Wareham Sideman

3 5

Wareham

M IN.

MAX.

1

1

E STIMATE

( continued)

Swetman * * see p .526. Warminster

1 066

- 1 066

Wulstan

1 036/7

- 1 048/50

1 1

1 4

1 2

1 018/24 1 044/6 1 053/6 1 056/9 1 062/5 1 065/6

-

1 8 1 3 2 8 9 1

2 6 2 9 3 1 1 5 1

2 2 1 6 2 8 1 2 1

1 017/23 1 080/3

- 1 053/6 - 1 093/6

3 0 1 0

3 9 1 6

3 5 1 3

1 052/3 1 062/5 1 056/9 1 065/6 1 056/9 1 059/62 1 059/62 1 062/5

-

1 0 4 9 2 6 3 3 3

1 0 3 6 1 5 1 1 1

1 048/50

- 1 086/7

3 6

3 9

3 8

1 052/3 1 053/6 1 052/3

- 1 066 1 080/3 - 1 080/3 ( at Wallingford) - 1 042/4 - 1 044/6 - 1 048/50 - 1 048/50

1 3 2 4

1 4 3 0

1 4 2 7_

2 7 1 1 1 1

3 1 2 2 2 2

2 8 11 1 1

-

1 6 2 1 1 1

2 0 2 7 2 3

1 8 2 4 1 1

Warwick Leofwig glfsi g stan Thurcil Wulfwine Theodric

1 042/4 1 044/6 1 059/62 1 087 1 074/7 1 065/6

Watchet G odcild S igoulf Wilton Thurecil Winus Haerred Caentwine Swetric Brixi glfword Leofwine

1 059/62 1 066 1 062/5 1 066 1 059/62 1 059/62 1 059/62 1 062/5

6 1 3 1 1 1 1 1

Winchcombe G oldwine Winchester S pracelinc Anderboda rrand

F rithemund 1 042/4 Leofwine R iclef 1 044/6 B run 1 048/50 Coll 1 048/50 Worcester Wicing Garulf G odwine glfwine

1 048/50 1 050/3 1 048/50 1 062/5

1 066/8 1 074/7 1 048/50 1 062/5

3 6

M IN.

MAX.

2 2 1 5 3 3 8 1 1 8 1 2 1 5 7 1 2 2 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 7 2 0 9 4 1 4 4 1 3 4 6 2 1 1 0 6 2 4 7 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

ESTIMATE

York Swartcol 1 044/6 I ola 1 042/4 1 062/5 Outhulf Thorr 1 046/8 1 042/4 Unolf 1 042/4 / E thelwine Leofnoth 1 046/8 1 046/8 Eltan Winterfugel 1 050/1 Outhgrim 1 056/9 Sneborn 1 056/9 Ulfcetel Theginc 1 056/9I oci1/Iocetel 1 042/4 Col 1 046/8 1 042/4 Saefugel Man 1 044/6 1 044/6 Slewine S treoll 1 044/6 1 044/6 Egana 1 044/6 Gunulf I orelel 1 046/8 1 048/50 Godwine 1 048/50 Lifinc 1 050/1 Arngrim Loa

1 068/71 1 059/62 1 068/71 1 086/7 1 044/6 1 044/6 1 056/9 1 048/50 1 053/6 1 074/7 1 066 1 059/62 1 066 1 052/3 1 048/50 1 044/6 1 044/6 1 044/6 1 044/6 1 044/6 1 046/8 1 048/50 1 048/50 1 050/1

2 5 1 7 6 4 0 2 2 1 1 2 4 1 8 1 0 3 2 3 6 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

i ty m ay have b een c onfined t o a matter o f aays or weeks. Moneyers whose career embraces more than o ne mint have been i ncluded where their entire career s pan c an b e e stablished with a ny c ertainty. The dates g iven i n the f ollowi ng p ages f or c ommencement a nd t ermination o f types a re those g enerally r eceived but they should n ot b e r egarded a s a bsolute. The sample i s uneven. One element o f distortion arises f rom u nder-representation ( arising f rom the paucity of published mints) o f moneyers r etiring early, o r c ommenci ng l ate, i n Edward's r eign. N ame-forms have b een omitted whenever apparent c ontinuity over a l ong period i s i nterrupted or when a very l engthy u nbroken type s equence makes i t d ifficult t o g auge the n umber o f moneyers r epresented by a s ingle name-form. The short t enures o f moneyers whose c areer i s c onfined t o a s ingle type enable a ll 1 00 such " single-type" moneyers t o b e i ncluded i n the s ample and i n consequence t hey a re over-represented by c omparison with t he " established" moneyers o f l onger s tanding. The tendency for the n umber o f t enures o f " established" moneyers t o group themselves t ogether i n p eaks o f 6 -, 9 -, 1 2-, and 1 5year i ntervals may b e a rtificial, a reflection of t he insensitivity o f a measurement i ncapable o f measurement finer than that a t i ntervals o f 2 o r 3 y ears' l ength. I n c onsequence i t might b e wise f or purposes o f discussion to a ggregate these totals i n g roups each r epresentative

3 7

1 00

2 0

i 9

i g • 1 8

C 1 7 z Z 1 6 w 1 5 1 4 u . 1 3 O 1 2 1 1 0

> N U M B E R

9 7 6 5 4 3 2 . 2 . 3 45 6 7 g 91 0 I1 2 1 31 41 51 6 17 1 81 92 012 2 32 425 2 62 72 82 9 3 03 1 3 13 3 3 43 53437383940 L ENGTH

L ength

o f

4 344

4 7

4 9

n 5 3

f l 5 6

O F ' TENURE ( I NY EARS)

t enure

( in

y ears)

-404 1 -45 4 6+ 1-35 36 61 1-25 2 6-30 3 51 7-20 2 01 11 21 31 41 1 2 3 45 6 7 8 9 1 9 4 4 2 0 1 4 2 2 8 6 6 3 9 9 81 01 3 9 81 41 2 891 1 00 1

N o

o f

TABLE

moneyers

1 0

f or

T enure o f l ength o f

l ength

o f

moneyers, t enure

3 8

t enure

by

numbers

o f

moneyers

for

o f three years i .e. t enures o f 2 ,3 a nd 4 y ears' duration, 5 , 6 and 7 years' duration a nd s o on. I n this way reference t o a " dozen" y ears might encompass a thirteenth y ear. A cknowledging the d istortions i nherent i n the s urvey, the " single-type" moneyer represents perhaps 1 /5 rather than 1 /3 of a ll moneyers, g iven that there were a l ittle o ver 5 00 moneyers a ctive i n the r eign. I n a ny one type i n the f irst d ecade o f the r eign they c onstitute no more than a bout 1 i n 1 6 o f moneyers per type - a nd a much l ower ratio t hereafter. N evertheless the i mpact o f these moneye rs i s impressively r evealed i n Table 1 0. O f the 2 30 " established" moneyers over half ( 132) have t erminated their c areer within a dozen ( or thirteen) y ears. 7 1 e njoy c areers spanning f ourteen t o thirty y ears a nd o nly 2 7 a re s till active a fter thirty y ears, but the distortions r eferred to earlier must suggest that such moneyers a re s ignificantly u nder-represented a s a n element o f the whole. U nless i nheritance o f personal names was widespread, there s eems n o reason t o doubt that a f ew moneyers, such a s C ild a t Bedwyn a nd O smund a t S outhwark a nd London did pursue c areers which' lasted many y ears. Albeit f rom very l imited evidence, d erived f rom Lincoln a nd Thetford, i t a ppears that c ertain moneyers were habitually more a ctive than o thers a nd that i t i s these moneyers who a chieved the l ongest t enure o f o ffice.[24] P erhaps f or moneyers who wished i t s o, moneying was a n i mportant a nd perhaps " tenured" or " established" position. T he distribution o f career l ength within the s pan 2 -12/13 years i s s pread r elatively evenly, suggesting that t here was n o f ixed t erm t o moneyer t enure. F or many moneyers minting i nterests were o f short duration, e ither b ecause such i nterests were a ssumed l ate i n l ife i n a n e ra when l ife expectancy was l ow, o r b ecause the mint was n ot central t o t heir i nterests. The s econdary nature o f the m int even t o moneyers whose careers l ast s ome y ears i s demonstrated by M rs.Nightingale's i nvestigations i nto L ondon m oneyers, which s uggests that a ctive c oining c ould c ease s ome years b efore a moneyer's d eath.[25] There a re a number o f pointers to the possibility that moneyers' t enure was safeguarded a nd that they c ould n ot easily be d eprived o f their s tatus. A t Exeter, f or example, none o f the f our moneyers responsible f or Harold I I's P AX type a nd BMC type I o f William I s urvive type I a nd a n ew complement c ommences work i n type I I. Y et the E xeter moneyers d id n ot sink without t race, f or two o f the f our appear t o r e-emerge a t Taunton. I s this b ecause William I wished t o penalise the c ity o f E xeter without i nfringing the rights o f the moneyers? I s i t possible t o think of the " Exeter" mint a s " in exile" f or a short t ime a t Taunton ( i.e. with Lifwine a nd Brihtric a t Taunton b efore S aeword a nd l E lfwine c ommence a t Exeter)? E lsewhere Langport's D unberd a nd / E gelwine may have s urvived the mint's e xtinction t o b e r eceived a t I lchester, while B riht-

3 9

ric may well have survived the c losure o f Crewkerne a nd P etherton. The methods adopted to reduce c omplement a t major mints - redeployment, a halt to r ecruitment, natural wastage - point to t enure a s an obstacle to b e surmounted, a s does the employment o f " single-type" moneyers. The sharing of moneyers b etween mints may a lso signify a device f or overcoming a superfluity o f moneyers, a s might the common employment o f a s ingle o bverse d ie by all three moneyers a t Warwick i n BMC type V o f William I .[26] However, a price might have been demanded f or s ecurity o f tenure, f or there i s n othing to s uggest that moneyers could expect to remain a t one mint throughout their careers. Whether all moneyers enjoyed i dentical s tatus i s s till unclear.. A s f ar a s movement between mints i s c oncerned, i t t ends to t ake place among identifi able g roups of mints, which might hint at d ifferences i n s tatus or privileges which numismatic evidence by i tself has not revealed. The

" established"

and

the

" single-type"

moneyer.

R econstruction o f moneyers' t enures to c reate mint profiles has produced a body o f data which suggests that there are, broadly speaking, two classes o f moneyer, the " established" and the " single-type" moneyer. " Establ ished" moneyers can be recognised by the c ontinuity of their activity type a fter type ( continuity o f activity within a type being a different question and o ne which i s not a rgued here), and by their d evotion to t he exclusive needs o f the mint a t which they a re currently working. The Canterbury mint ( p.511) provides a g ood e xample o f the employment of such moneyers. Occasional i ntermissions ( i.e. absence i n a particular type) a re relatively rare and when they do occur i t a ppears to arise e ither a s a mint characteristic, a s a t Oxford i n the light emission of the Expanding Cross type and a t Huntingdon' i n t he Pyramids type, or a s brief absence elsewhere ( e.g. Godwine's absence from Bristol i n the S overeign/ Martlets type), or a s a n occasional i solated g ap probably o ccasioned by no more than lack o f evidence ( e.g. Burewine's absence f rom Wallingford i n the S overeign/Martlets type). Moves o f a more permanent nature f rom one mint to a nother d o occur among " established" moneyers. A career c an embrace c ommencement a t one mint with the major part o f the career s erved a t the second mint ( as with Brand of Winchester and Wallingford), commencement a t o ne mint with eventual retirement to another mint ( e.g. Corf from L ondon t o R eading), or mid-career transfer to another mint ( e.g. Saewine f rom Leicester to Northampton). A few e stablished moneyers have g enuinely peripatetic careers s uch as t hat o f Wilgrip i n the east Midlands. An i nformal i nvestigation permitted by Mossop's corpus[27] and based upon the employment of r everse d ies a t Lincoln suggests fluctuations i n the l evels o f activity type by type within the activity o f i ndividual moneyers

4 0

a s well moneyer

as between moneyers. typically employs in

one a nd six reverse heavy employment o f number of moneyers. pect. He a quarter No.of

I n any

broad terms an i ndividual one type anything between

dies ( Table 1 1). Above this u sage dies i s restricted to a very small Godric i s outstanding i n this res-

consistently accounts of the mint's output,

f or between a fifth while for over half

and the

r everse

dies employed by a moneyer:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 0+

Type PACX RSC TQ

••

SF

••

•

ExC PH SF

6

• • ••

•• •

•

•. • • • ••

Py r . Total

o f 1 0 1 2 occasions: % of o ccasions . 87 1 5 .6 1 ( as % o f the sample): TABLE

1 1.

reign,

• •

• ••

at

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

6

2

3

9 .4

3 .1

. .

.

•

9

6

1 4 .0

l east

• .

•

9

9 .4 14J

Employment of reverse moneyers a t Lincoln.

until

• • •

•

•

•

HC FB

• ••

.

• •

•

• ••

the

dies

4 .7

among

1 1 .6

3 .1

6 .2

" established"

Sovereign/ Martlets

type,

a

third of the ten-moneyer mint's output i s i n the hands of two moneyers and three moneyers control half i ts output ( Table 1 2). As a g roup, " established" moneyers a re more active

than

for-type Bust the between period

" single-type"

occurrences seven most

them eight

moneyers.

During

4 4

moneyer-

set within the period PACX to active " established" moneyers

Facing employ

2 30 reverse dies, while during the same " single-type" moneyers employ a mere 1 2

reverse dies. in a similar

R . A. G.Carson direction: [ 28]

points the Thetford mint a concentration of dies,

and perhaps therefore output, i n the hands of a very small number of moneyers - though not, a s Table 7 2 suggests, always the same individuals. Here the " singletype" moneyers, representing nearly 2 0% of the moneyer total in Edward's reign, contribute a mere six of the 1 48

r ecorded

reverse

who

A t Lincoln a chieve the

dies

- under

5 %

of

the

i t appears to be the more l ongest tenure of o ffice,

total. active moneyers and some money-

ers enter this " active" group upon arrival a t the mint. I t i s possible that the " seniority" resulting from l engthy tenure can have an impact upon a moneyer's activity, though a low l evel o f activity i s no bar to l engthy service, a s Ulf and glfnoth testify a t Lincoln and Brunstan, Tidred and Godlef t estify a t Thetford. Ulf and glfnoth

4 1

Type

3 3%+ Moneyers' names

5 0%+ Moneyers' n ames

PACX

Godric,

Leofwine

Godric, L eofwine, O sferth, Waelraefen .

RSC

Godric,

Leofwine

Godric, L eofwine, O sferth.

TQ

Godric,

Leofwine

Godric, L eofwine, Colgrim.

SF

Godric,

Brihtric

Godric, B rihtric, Outhgrim.

Ex.C.

Godric,

Outhgrim

Godric, O uthgrim, Colgrim.

PH

Godric,

O sferth.

Godric, O sferth, Outhgrim.

SM

2 of glfnoth, Man a .

HC

3 of Ulf,

F B

Sample

i s

too

small

Pyr.

Sample

i s

too

small

TABLE

1 2.

Autti,

Wulfbeorn, O slac, Godric, Wulfric.

Moneyers a t third and b ) of the mint.

glfnoth,

Autti, Mana .

4 o f Wulfbeorn, O slac, Ulf, Godric, Wulfric

Lincoln responsible f or a ) o ne one half o f the probable output

are i nteresting i n this respect. From current survival records glfnoth i n Edward the Confessor's r eign n ever employed more than two reverse d ies i n a type, until the point a t which he, with Godric, became the moneyer with the g reatest l ength o f s ervice; Godric himself becomes much l ess active a t this juncture. Ulf's greatest a ctivi ty also coincides with the point a t which the mantle o f " seniority" falls to him, though the peak f alls a way again. However, unless some administrative c apacity can be adduced, the concept o f " seniority" may well b e without meaning. I t must also be emphasised that the i dentifica tion o f common characteristics among moneyers a t Lincoln and Thetford rests upon no more than a raw s core o f the number of reverse dies employed, without any modification or extension to propose a l ikely number of dies employed by the moneyers concerned. N evertheless, a hypothesis has b en proposed, and i t will b e i nteresting t o see what endorsement, i f any, i s received either as a result o f the application of s tatistical a nalysis, or a s a result o f the f orthcoming s tudies of the Winchester and Y ork mints.

4 2

T he " established" moneyers a re the " backbone " o f the mint a nd the stability which their presence confers upon a m int can be understood immediately the " single-type" moneyers have been removed f rom the mint profile. I n addi tion to l ength o f tenure the " single-type" moneyer i s characterised by the special circumstances which seem to surround his employment: l ow output, die i rregularities and t he reasons f or his employment. Although these characteristics have y et to be systematically s tudied, examples a re sufficiently numerous to draw a ttention to themselves. At London a nd Yorkthese .moneyers are found i n almost e very type, and are a prominent f eature a t Leicester in t he second half o f the reign. I n these circumstances they c onstitute almost an additional workshop or workshops , but t hey can also occur i n sudden concentrations - nine at L ondon i n Small Flan, six a t Lewes i n the TrefoilQuadrilateral, Small Flan and Expanding Cross types, and perhaps five a t York i n the Radiate/Small Cross type all f or reasons which cannot obviously be related to the structure o f the mint. Elsewhere, " single-type" moneyers do a ppear to reflect change i n mint complement, i n either number or personnel, or both. At Shrewsbury, Nlfgaet's presence accompanies expansion o f " establishment" complement, and a t Lewes, Wulfwine i s perhaps the harbinger o f contraction. At N orwich, the eight " single-type" moneyers tend t o emphasise the trends among the t en " established" moneyers - the latter's a rrivals and departures are all accompanied by the presence o f " single-type" moneyers as i s any sudden weakening or s trengthening of the " established" moneyer complement. However, a t Gloucester, and perhaps Exeter, sudden concentrations o f " single-type" moneyers may reflect crises a t the mint concerned. At Exeter in the heavy emission of the Expanding Cross type coins are recorded o f only one o f the five anticipated " establishment" moneyers, f or whom Ndsie, Eadwi and Saewulf may be substitutes and a t Gloucester i n the S overeign/Martlets type Godric, Leofstan, Ordric and Wulfric ( if n ot others) may well do duty a t a time of s evere disruption to the " establishment". The occurrences a t Gloucester illustrate a n important point. " Single-type" moneyers a re an i rregular form of personnel and their occurrence can c oincide with o ther i rregularities. At Gloucester the S overeign/ Martlets PCB 1 147 of + L• REENOD ON GL• EP and BG/G 9 7 o f NDVVI ON G LEPC 11-: may be a ssociated with the presence o f t he se " single-type " moneyers, perhaps representing the u se of dies i llicitly authorised within the m int to strike c oins of sufficient verisimilitude to regular Gloucester i ssues ( a pseudo-Nlric or Slfsig i n the c ase o f BG/G 9 7 and a pseudo-Leofnoth i n the case of P CB 1 147) until properly constituted coining could resume. Another i rregularity i n this type a t Gloucester i s L eofwine's practice o f over-striking on coins o f the preceding type[29] - a type for which Leofwine himself i s u nknown. Other die i rregularities by " single-type" moneyers i nclude the addition o f l etters or markings to the d ies ( e. g. BM 1 307 and FEJ 8 78 of Biorn at Wareham), 4 3

the employment by S ired a t N IPEPORTE of a mule ( Expanding Cross x Pointed Helmet) to s trike F EJ 5 84 and t he dependence o f Wulgar a t D YR upon an obverse die ( BM 2 02) employed by Edwi, himself a " single-type" moneyer, a t I pswich ( BM 4 38). Although " single-type" moneyers at a mint a re o ften discovered to be o ther mints' established m oneyers, requiring a distinction to be d rawn b etween " genuine" and " pseudo" " single-type" moneyers, the activities o f pseudo-"single-type" moneyers appear to exhibit t he same characteristics a s those o f g enuine " single-type" moneyers. I t might be added that such i rregularities s eem to suround the i nitial activities o f " established" moneyers transferred to n ew mints. D ifficulties remain i n understanding the e mployment o f " single-type" moneyers. Their employment i s clearly not always the preferred s olution, for the circumstances which apparently g ive rise to their presence do n ot always do so, or evoke a different set of responses ( e. g. a n i ncrease i n output among e stablished moneyers). Their appeal must l ie i n their versatility, a s a r esponse t o unspecified crises, and i n their expendability. That a mint employs a s equence o f " single-type" moneyers i n preference to the creation o f an e stablished moneyer s ugg ests that e stablished moneyers have a permanency of t enure which a mint might wish to avoid. I n this w ay fluctuations i n core c omplement can o ften be avoided, t he " single-type" moneyers representing expendable capacity i n the face o f uncertain demand. Less capable of definition a re t enure patterns i n which the occurrence of a name-form i s interrupted by an i nterval of several types' duration. This would denote the presence of two moneyers of the same name, o r be i ndi cative of poor evidence, but when this occurs a t a mint where continuity among o ther moneyers i s good, or when the names of the moneyers concerned are rare, o r when t he circumstances can be repeated a t o ther mints, t he indica tion must be that tenure o f a particular but i ndetermi nate nature i s being revealed. Let Lincoln s erve again to provide an example. O f the 2 4 e stablished moneyers a t work during t he period Radiate/Small Cross to Facing Bust, 1 8 work with n o i nterruption greater than an absence o f two c onsecutive types. The name-form of f ive moneyers, L eofwine, Eadric, Wulfric, Wulgar and / E lfwine appear i n two well-separated periods early and late in the reign u sually about a d ecade apart. I n the cases of Leofwine, Eadric, / E lfwine a nd Wulfric, the moneyers' first appearance i s a s e stablished moneyers and i n two cases ( Eadric a nd Wulfric) they w ould resume this s tatus on their re-appearance; i n the case of L eofwine and i E lfwine the re-appearance would be f or one t ype only. The other moneyer ( Wulgar) commences a s a " singletype" moneyer and would be considered a s an e stablished moneyer on return. However, i n the case of L eofwine a nd

4 4

Wulfric a return to service would create a period of a ssociation with the mint far too l engthy to be credible. Mossop's table of Lincoln moneyers[30] shows the moneyer Leofwine a t work c ontinuously f rom E thelraed I I's l ast Small Cross type to Edward the Confessor's Trefoil-Quadrilateral type, again i n the Facing Bust type and again in B MC types I II a nd IV of William I I. The = 1 " . )n u f the f irst bloc o f activity i s between 2 9 and 3 9 years, but w ould be between 4 5 and 5 6 years i f this were extended forward to the Edward's Facing Bust type - which i n i tself i s s ome 2 8 to 3 4 y ears before than name-form i s next encountered a t Lincoln. Leofwine should be excluded from the r anks o f moneyers under consideration and the nameform would therefore refer to two moneyers, an e stablished moneyer who retired i n the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type, and a " single-type" moneyer active i n the Facing Bust type. A Wulfric i s at Lincoln i ntermittently f rom E thelraed I I's Long Cross type to Edward the Confessor's Hammer Cross type, a period o f at l east 5 6 years, and therefore this moneyer, along with Leofwine, could also be excluded. A Wulfric would terminate i n the PACX type and another moneyer of the same name would s trike i n the S overeign/ Martlets and Hammer Cross types. F or the o ther moneyers the i nclusion o f a second term o f o ffice would mean for. Eadric a period o f a ssociation with the mint l asting some 30 y ears ( Harold I J ewel Cross - Harold I I PAX) , for Wul gar a n association of some 2 0 years f rom Trefoil-Quadrilateral to Pyramids and for Elfwine some fifteen or so years from Trefoil-Quadrilateral to Hammer Cross. A sixth moneyer, Outhgrim, a t Lincoln i n Edward's reign from the Small Flan type, b ears a name-form which occurs i n most types from Ethelraed I I's Long Cross type to William I 's Bonnet type, a period o f between 6 5 a nd 7 5 years, and one which i s presumably too l ong a career f or a single moneyer. I f two moneyers are a t work, a division could have occurred i n Cnut's reign or early i n that o f Edward the C onfessor, periods i n which no coins i n the name o f Outhgrim are known. As Cnut's reign, devoid i n i ts entirety o f coins o f Outhgrim, i s o f considerable duration i t w ould s eem possible that the Outhgrim of Harold I and Harthacnut was the same person a s the Outhgrim commencing in t he Small Flan type. Nevertheless, his absence from the f irst three types of Edward's reign s eems sufficiently definite, g iven the g enerally excellent record of continuity among established moneyers a t Lincoln, to regard him a s dormant during the types i n question. A distinct status would seem t o a ttach i tself, therefore, to Eadric, Wulgar and Elfwine, three of the five moneyers originally under consideration. They are moneyers who, on the record of p resent evidence, are i nactive during the middle years of t he reign. Their number, and that their i nactivity i s s imultaneous a nd coincides with an i nterruption to the s equence of " single-type" moneyers, point i n the direction of an alternative s tatus, to moneyers whose activities could be suspended, to be called upon a s necessary. A variant i s a pattern o f i ntermittent activity by one or

4 5

more moneyers a t a mint, a s a t D orchester, where on current evidence the D orchester moneyers Hwateman and B lacaman alternate i n such a way that neither are recorded in the same type. I n consequence, even when taking i nto account the activity o f a third moneyer, G odwine, the D orchester mint can be i nterpreted a s a single-moneyer mint i n that although the s ervices of more than one moneyer were a t i ts disposal they were never u tilised simultaneously. The evidence f or a Godwine a t Dorchester i s controversial ( pages 2 38,431) but i f he can be a ccepted, he t oo can b e fitted i nto a " reservoir" or " pool" from which moneyers could b e drawn. On present evidence Malmesbury can b e i nterpreted i n a similar fashion with Hunna a lternating with Brihtwine and Brihtwi with Ealdwig and Ealdwine( pages 4 41-444). Current evidence casts Elfwerd a t S haftesbury a s a moneyer held i n reserve during the career o f Wydecoc and then re-activated. Tamworth might be another mint a t which only one of the two " attached" moneyers was active a t any one time ( pages 3 19-320). The activities o f Wulnoth and Blacaman a t Derby, L eicester and N ottingham may represent extension of the concept o f the " reservoir" to a " pool" s erving all three mints, while Wulnoth's career suggests that the way i n which a moneyer f unctions can alter a s circumstances change ( Table 4 5 and p . 307 ) . The apparent " co-operation" among moneyers s uggests a highly developed sensitivity to minting requirements. Elevation of f ragmented t enures to a discrete status remains speculative until more work has been done, perhaps i n the form o f die s tudies. With the exception of Lincoln, the phenomenon i s usually noticed only a t mints where the evidence i s sparse. D iscovery or publication of even a single coin - a s evidence, f or example, that Colinc was active a t Tamworth i n the Facing B ust typemight i lluminate the shadowy activities o f these moneyers and g radually eliminate the s tatus these f ragmented tenure s imply. Movement

of

moneyers

between mints.

There was a time when numismatists alert t o the i dea that i ndividual moneyers might have been active a t more than one mint conceded the possibility only i n t he case of a very few moneyers accompanying an i tinerant k ing.[31] I n more recent years movement on a wider scale has been acknowledged a s a result of specific s tudies.[32] There i s no l iterary evidence to document movement o f moneyers between mints beyond what might be implied by the occurrence o f name-forms, titles etc. common to a n umber o f l iterary sources. The evidence from the coins i s n o better yet the picture of the moneyer advanced i n this chapter has already i n part depended upon a cceptance o f the view that movement i s widespread.

One

How i s method

i t i s

to be established that to plot the activity

4 6

movement t ook place? of all the moneyers

in a region. The danger of this approach i s that movement might be a ssumed whenever correlation o f name, time and place occurs, l eading, e specially where common name-forms are i nvolved, to an i ntricate pattern o f moneyer exchange between mints, to widespread " simultaneous" working o f individual moneyers a t several mints and, i n effect, to random, non-standard activity. Another method i s to examine e ach case on i ts merits. A g ood beginning can be made when uncommon name-forms are found a t adjacent mints in a coherent chronological pattern, a s with " Saewine" at L eicester and N orthampton or " Brand" a t Winchester and Wallingford. The rarer the name-form the easier i t i s t o detect possible movement. Mints with small complements are also u seful s tarting points. The pattern g rows firmer when i t i s repeated between the same pair o f mints, or when similar patterns occur between o ther mints, and f irmer s till when i t i s f ound to be confined to c ertain mints only. A study o f movement between Winchester and i ts neighbour Wallingford provides an example of the pitfalls and uncertainties which surround the question o f moneyer movement. During the period f rom Expanding Cross to the PAX type of Harold I I there appear to be four appointments to t he establishment o f the Wallingford mint: Brand i n Expanding Cross, Burewine i n P ointed Helmet, Brihtmaer in H ammer Cross and Sweartlinc i n the PAX type. " Brand" i s a name-form occurring i n the period 1 042-1087 only at W inchester and Wallingford, a t Winchester i n the heavy emission o f the Expanding Cross type and a t Wallingford from that emission onwards. Although the t emptation would be t o assume that the Brand o f Winchester had transferred to Wallingford, the circumstances could be dismissed a s coincidence had they not ben repeated. The " Brihtmaer" name-form occurs a t Winchester f or s everal types immediately prior to i ts appearance a t Wallingford ( and occurs earlier at London), and " Sweartlinc", the name o f the hext moneyer to be appointed a t Wallingford ( in the PAX type) i s a nother name-form o therwise f ound only a t Winchester. I t must b e said o f Sweartlinc, a s i llustration of t he " pitfalls" i n this exercise, that his presence at W inchester i s controversial, f or H .E.Pagan has advanced a f ormidable case for discounting him a s a Winchester moneyer, re-attributing to Wallingford all his " Winchester" c oins ( BM 1 18, 1 19 and 1 20 of Harold I I, BMC 1 519 o f Edward the Confessor, and A 1 089 ex LC 8 64).[33] What of B urewine? The name form i s unique to Wallingford and from current coin evidence h e i s the only moneyer during the p eriod under discussion to be appointed i n a type i n which no o ther moneyer retires. I t seems possible, therefore, that the moneyers which can be a ssociated with Winchester work a t both mints during the type i n which they transfer, and transfer i n mid-type, Brand to replace ggelwi . g , Brihtmaer to r eplace Brunwine and ( possibly) Sweartlinc to replace Burewine. Only Burewine cannot be l inked with Winchester and he commences i n different circumstanc-

4 7

e s. There was a fifth moneyer a ppointed to Wallingford during the period, Wulfwine, a contemporary o f Brand, but he i s a " single-type" moneyer and his i s a n ame-form sufficiently common to preclude a ny obvious relationship between Wallingford and o ther mints where i t occurs. The possibility of a relationship between Winchester a nd Wallingford i s endorsed by o ther factors. Wallingford had previously appeared to have l inks with Oxford, but these have now disappeared while Winchester too appears to l ose i ts traditional l inks, with, f or example, Chiche ster. Winchester, i t must be pointed out, was shedding moneyers during the middle years o f the reign. Were there " vacancies" a t o ther adjacent mints which Brand, B rihtmaer ( and Sweartlinc) could have f illed? The answer is i n the a ffirmative ( Table 1 4) yet they did not make such a move and there i s l ittle suggestion that anyone else did. The l ink between Winchester and Wallingford i s consistent. I t could also be noted that Winchester suppl ies Wallingford with a particular type o f moneyer. Both Brand ( and Sweartlinc) are Winchester's most junior money er and Brihtmaer i s Winchester's n ext most junior moneyer. Mints adjacent t o Winchester Chichester S teyning Guildford Wallingford Bedwyn Salisbury Wilton Shaftesbury Wareham " x" denotes "V" denotes TABLE

1 4

Expanding Cross x x x V x V V x x

Pointed Helmet v X x V x V x x X

Hammer Cross

PAX

x V V V x x V x V

x x x V v V x V V

" no vacancy" " vacancy"

Opportunities

for moneyer movement

from W inchester

I t i s i n this way that a picture of movement i s built up, to be further corroborated by i rregularities in d ie u sage on arrival ( e.g.Brihtric a t Exeter i n Harold n's reign) and o ther circumstances surrounding the m ove ( such a s the upheaval a t Gloucester i n the S overeign/Martlets type). Other patterns, linking B edford with H untingdon and Cambridge ( p. 272 ) , Norwich with Thetford ( p.246 ) , Exeter with Barnstaple and Lydford ( p. 401 ) , London with S outhwark and H ertford ( pp .190 and203), S teyning with Chichester ( p. 483 ) and Leicester a nd Nottingham a nd Derby with each other ( p.309) are so pronounced a s to g ive credi bility t o the entire phenomenon. Movement between mints can be broken down i nto a number o f patterns ( shown schematically on the opposite page). Brand's career i s a g ood example of " Ab(i)" a nd Elman's career a t Bedford and London i s a good example o f a move" B W : Godman's retirement a t H ertford s atisfies

4 8

" Bb(ii) " . " Aa " , and ' Bb ' ( especially"Bb(i) " ) are uncommon: once a moneyer has become a ssociated with a mint he r arely l eaves i t for l ong. The only significant variants are constant a sociation between c ertain mints, usually enabling a smaller mint to be successfully s erved in c onj unction with a larger mint ( e.g. Chichester and Steyning). However, those examples o f movement which can b e substantiated with any c onfidence suggest that " concurrent" working i s the exception rather than the rule: most moves emphasise sequential working and exclusive a ttention to the needs o f the mint o f the moment. a n ewly moneyer

recruited

A \\\\\

moves and

an e stablished moneyer

a . returns ( usually a fter a single type) and works

///// b .

( i) f or a / l ong remains period ( ii)

f or a short period ( and retires)

When and why do the moneyers move f rom mint to mint? The two questions are i nextricably l inked, f or the o ccasion of the move provides the nearest clue to purpose. A t Leicester and Chichester an i nflux o f moneyers f or elsewhere contributes to a permanent s trengthening of moneyer c omplement, and a t Wareham, Lewes and Nottingham to the mint's t emporary s trengthening: Elsewhere secondment o r transfer o f moneyers sustains an existing l evel o f moneyers and i s on a par with the origination o f new moneyers. Moneyers move i n response to a n apparent emergency, to Gloucester i n the S overeign/ Martlets type and t o Exeter i n Harold I I's reign. I t i s perhaps to be noted, however, that such a ssistance i s only o ne type of response where Gloucester i s concerned, and t hat the burden i s shared between mints. Movement of moneyers also c ontributes to the c ontraction o f mints on t he one hand ( at Winchester, for example), to the survival and/or re-opening o f a mint ( as with Barnstaple, Aylesbury, Bridport, Guildford, I lchester, Lydford, Shaftesbury and S tafford) and to the opening o f a mint ( as w ith D YR, Horndon, R eading and P etherton). A t t imes a move appears to be designed to maintain the activity of t he moneyer rather than the mint, a s perhaps with Brihtric a t Petherton ( and H eathewulf a t Worcester and Hereford i n William I 's reign). Occasionally, and i nexplicably, a n exchange of moneyers i s hinted a t, between Bedford and Cambridge i n Hammer Cross and Facing Bust

4 9

and perhaps Norwich and Thetford earlier in t he reign. I n the g eographical context i t appears that movement u sually takes place between a mint and the mint nearest i n the direction o f movement. A move i s u sually c ompleted within the emission o f two types. Movement also occurs a s an expression of a specific relationship between two or more mints: complete domina tion ( as with D orchester, Exeter and London o ver their immediate neighbours), obligation ( as with t he f low o f moneyers from Winchester to Wallingford and Norwich to Thetford), and i nter-dependence ( as with Bedford, Cambridge and Huntingdon and Leicester, Nottingham a nd D erby). R elationships a re not s tatic: London's r elationship with Southwark passes through three main phases over a n extended period: 1 ) total s ubordination t o London; 2 ) the i dentification o f one particular moneyer with the S outhwark mint and 3 ) i ndependence and a n end o f short t enures. A need to work mints apparently no _ L onger strictly n ecessary to the system can also i nvolve the movement o f moneyers, a s can the exercise i n south S omerset t o d etermine a central mint l ocation ( n. 4 13 ) . Movement might be a response to change e 3 where - C hichester, f or example, draws f rom S teyning a t a time when W inchester i s d eclining but i ts n eighbours a re expanding. Transfer o f moneyers was n ever the sole response t o problems a t mints. I t was merely one f orm o f response. Why i t should be a preferred form o f response i s unclear and the proposition that i t occurs a t all raises questions about the s tatus and function o f the moneyer, about c oin production and the function and administration o f a mint i n g eneral, and about the procedures a ssociated with die distribution. Movement i s apparently i n mid-emission as well a s b efore the beginning or a fter the end o f the type emission. This must be so where " simultaneous" working a t two mints i n the one type i s suspected and a t Wallingf ord the evidence f rom the second half of the reign i s i n favour of movement i n mid-type. Mints supplying moneyers may be presumed to suffer accordingly in that they a re deprived o f a moneyer's services a nd are put t o the t rouble of s ecuring the s ervices o f a n ew moneyer. There a re hints a t c ertain mints that the r eplacement i s drawn from a third mint and the questions t hat remain unanswered are why movement was n ecessary i n the f irst place a nd why, i f movement has implications i nvolving a third mint, transfer was not direct from the third to the f irst? Why,for example, should Tamworth's ggelwine replace Wulnoth a t Leicester when the l atter moves to N orthampton? Why did ggelwine not move to N orthampton?

o f

Caution has been exercised i n moneyer movement because, extensive

5 0

the identification though t he evidence

i s, i t remains c ircumstantial, and movement has only been p roposed after examination o f each i ndividual possibility. I t i s the f requent appearance o f patterns throughout t he reign and across the country which l ends c redibili ty t o the hypothesis of considerable moneyer movement but e xtensive though movement appears to be, i ts scale i s d ifficult to judge objectively. I n a number o f i nstances t he possibility arises o f extensive movement i nvolving n umerous mints by i ndividual moneyers but the idea has g enerally been put to one side because careers o f this n ature do not conform to the g eneral patterns so far r evealed. S o extensive i s the movement implied that s uch moneyers can be described a s " peripatetic". Two o f these careers are reconstructed below, but i t must b e stressed that they are quite c onjectural. I t will b e seen that they a re very different f rom that other type o f " peripatetic" career which i nvolves f requent movement but between a clearly d efined cluster o f mints ( e. g. o f l Elfric between Exeter, Lydford and Barnstaple). A very extensive i tinerary which f its the occurrence of the " Wulfred" name-form i n various types very neatly i s a s f ollows: p r eE x .C . LO NDON

7 4 1-4

In to

E .C .( 6 )

E . Ca l . LO N DON 745

CANTERBuRY 1 75

P .H e lmet

AyLES BU R y 1 8

LONDON 74 7

East Anglia Wulsige's i tinerary takes him D YR and may i nclude Norwich and London: R SC

TQ

L O NDON °NOON 7 62 763

I

S F

E . , ,C

5 11

PH

HC

14 NOR . w i SW 1c 1 DYR N0R w1c PS W ICH P ONDON I I PS W ICH I

7 64

8 4

8 5

8 6

1 6

7 7

p o . 5t 1 i•C re ss

H .C r os s

S .M a r t L et s

AYL .E 5 BU RY I G

7 8

l DY R

1 8

CA NTER B U RY Wm . 1

from

I pswich

F B

Pyr .

LON DON

L ON D O N

769

7 70

Other p ossible i tineraries would i nclude that o f Brihtric who may have served Crewkerne, P etherton, Taunton, Exeter and T aunton i n succession ( p.413), while a Wulnoth pursues an i ntensive career i n the east Midlands a t Leicester, Nottingham, S tamford and Northampton ( p.307) a s, a pparently d oes Wilgrip ( p.126 ) . A most curious f eature of eastern mints i n the Hammer Cross type i s the mysterious Passage of " Liofric" through Leicester, S tamford, Huntingdon a nd Norwich. Among these mints i t i s only a t S tamford that t he name-form occurs outside the Hammer Cross type, and t here i t i s uniformly rendered a s " LEO-" or " LEF-" except i n the Hammer Cross type , i n which the rarer " LIOF-" form a lso occurs. At the o ther mints the name-form i s e xclusively " LIOF-" which suggests that one moneyer i s responsible for a ll activity i n this name a t Leicester, Huntingdon and Norwich, the only question being whether this " Liofric" i s the same moneyer a s the " Leofric"/ " Liofric" active a t S tamford. As f ar a s can be a scertainobverse die a t each n ew ed, L iofric employed a fresh d id n o t s hare w i th o th er mint, which i t would s eem he i s , t h erefore , s ugg e sted moneyers ( p.287-9). Movement be a ctually demonstrated on a larger scale than can movements which are most with a ny c onfidence. Those acceptable are those which conform to clear patterns conjunction i n time and place of i dentical but preferably uncommon name-forms, a repeated movement between two

5 1

1 00km .

0

TABLE

P ossible P ossible

move move

1 5

P ossible reign of

( MAP)

between two mints. i nvolving three mints.

i tineraries of moneyers Edward the Confessor..

5 2

i n

the

or t hree mints, movement only t o the mint n earest i n the direction o f movement, a nd the c onfinement o f a career to those mints. Overall

number

o f mints.

T he 7 6 l ocations l isted i n A ppendix I II c onstitute the n umber o f minting places a ctive a t s ome t ime o r a nother i n Edward's r eign. A t no t ime d o a ll 7 6 mints f unction simultaneously. Appendix I I, extracting a s t otals f igures from A ppendix I II, r ecords type by type a wide f luctuation in t otals o f mints a ctually a t work, ranging f rom b etween 50 a nd 6 3. The f igure o f 5 0, r epresenting the Pyramids type, i s a rtificially l ow. I t i s mirrored by the 4 8 mints active i n Harold I I's r eign. B oth emissions were o f b rief duration a nd i f a measure i s t aken o f mints a ctive i n either or b oth the Pyramids a nd PAX types, a f igure o f 53 m ints a ctive i n 1 065-1066 i s r eached, a f igure which is t he most u sual tally o f mints a ctive i n a ny s ingle type i n Edward the C onfessor's r eign. By f ar the g reatest concentration o f a ctivity i n Edward's r eign i s a t a f igure of 5 3-57 mints per type a nd i f a rule o f thumb i s required 53 a dequately r epresents the n umber o f mints typically at w ork a t a ny o ne time i n the reign ( Table 1 6). The tally of mints a ctive i n every type throughout the r eign stands at a mere 3 5, though this c an b e b rought up t o 40 i f mints a ctive i n nine out o f the t en s ubstantive types of the reign a re i ncluded.

F B

P yram ids

SM

A 3 9r e3a te o f P y ram ids a r id

H a r o ld .

n .PAX.

E x C

S F

P AC )

TQ

HC

PH

RSC

; 5 0

5 1

5 2

5 3

5 4

5 5

5 6 M I NTS

TABLE

1 6

Mint

a ctivity

i n

5 7

5 8

5 9

6 0

6 1

6 2

6 3

ACT IVE

Edward the

C onfessor's

reign.

A figure o f 5 3 mints per type i n Edward's r eign c ompares closely with f igures available f or g thelraed I I's reign. A higher number o f mints a ppears t o have b een active for Cnut, but c omparison with the f ollowing f igures derived f rom N orth ( 1980) pp.123-128 a nd 1 33-139 shows that at this l evel o f i nterpretation there i s n othing untypical

a bout

Edward's

reign:

5 3

N thelraed F irst Hand CRUX Long Cross H elmet Last Small

I I

Cross

Cnut 5 4 5 7 6 3 5 2 6 4

Quatrefoil P ointed Helmet Short Cross

7 1 6 3 6 2

I t would be misleading to suggest that in Edward's reign a t any one time a quarter o f the mints ( i.e. 21 out o f 7 4) were i noperative. D istinction must be d rawn between those mints which a re unknown b ecause minting operati ons have not yet commenced ( e. g. B edwyn, Bury S t.Edmunds e tc.), or because operations appear t o have ceased either permanently or f or a very l ong period of time ( e. g. Sudbury, Watchet e tc.), and those mints a t which the minting privilege i s apparently exercised only i ntermittently ( e.g. Bridport or S tafford) or which are i nextricably u nknown i n a particular type ( as with H ertford in the Sovereign/Martlets type). S ome mints a ppear to fall i nto more than one category ( e.g. Aylesbury, Guildford). I n other words there exist i n a ny one type mints f or which no coins appear to have survived but which could reasonably b e expected to work, while i n c ertain types a ctivity at several o ther mints would be most unlikely. A truer picture o f mint numbers i s g ained f rom a tally of mints s triking together with those l ikely to have s truck, which a t about 6 3 mints throughout the reign until a decline t o 56 i n the F acing Bust and Pyramids types, suggests a considerabl e c onsistency o f " likely" mint operation. The reasons f or t emporary i nactivity can o ften b e surmised. Guildford and I lchester, for example, seem characteristically to have maintained a l ow level of activity early i n the reign; a number o f mints are u nrecorded i n the Pyramids type, probably because of t he short duration of the type. Taunton's i nactivity in the Radi ate/Small Cross type may be i nexplicable but i ts apparent i nactivity i n the Expanding Cross type might relate to a change i n moneyer, though h ere i t would t ake only the discovery o f a s ingle coin t o alter the picture. H ertford's i nactivity i n the S overeign/Martlets type no doubt awaits the discovery o f a c oin minted by Wilgrip, but i ts i nactivity i n the l ight emission o f the E xpanding Cross type might relate to a r eorganisation o f mint s tructure, though again the discovery o f a single coin minted by Wilgrip would alter the picture. Salisbury's i nactivity i n Expanding Cross, Pointed H elmet a nd Facing Bust a ccompanies changes i n moneyer and s tructure, a nd there i s a regional element i n the i nactivity o f Roche ster i n Small Flan and Rochester, Sandwich a nd Romney i n Expanding Cross - a nd, i ndeed, there i s a considerable weakening of the D over mint a t this period too. Although some t en per c ent o f " likely" mints might be i nactive i n a type, the cause i s rarely t otally i nexplicable the cause i s u sually either s tructural or reflects a n

5 4

i ntermittent production which appears to be i n the nature o f the mint, f or a ll or part o f the reign. I t i s well t o remember, however, that the " core" o f mints continually active ( in the sense o f type a fter type) i s no more than half the t otal known for the reign. S ize

and

ranking o f mints.

C ertain mints enjoy the s ervices of number of moneyers than do o ther mints be ranked accordingly. As has already

a far g reater and mints can been explained

( PP.25 - 2 7), " size" a s summarised i n Appendices I -III i s a n inexact s tatement, concealing the g reat variety i n s tructure between and i ndeed within mints, although i t does have the merit of allowing broad comparisons. I t might be added concept of the mint i sm ( p.77 ) .

i n a s

the context o f " size" that the such i s under i ncreasing c ritic-

Throughout Edward's reign half the mints a re " minor" mints of one or two moneyers. The actual percentage fluctuates between f orty-five percent and sixty percent. A number of such mints ( e.g.Cambridge and N orwich) are i n this category t emporarily; o thers are active only i ntermittently ( e.g.Berkeley, D YR etc.) and o thers are continuously of this type ( e.g. Bedwyn, Bristol etc.). I t i s l ess easy t o define the term " major" mint. F or the f irst five types o f the reign " major" mints are quite happily identifiable a s London, York, Winchester, Lincoln and S tamford, the five mints with t en or more moneyers. They f orm a distinct g roup, c ommanding the services of f orty percent o f the moneyers a ctive i n the types concerned. F rom Pointed Helmet onwards i t i s c lear that the major mints are declining i n size and c ommand the s ervices o f a smaller proportion of moneyers. During the first f ive types o f the reign half the moneyers were concentrated i n a mere s even or eight mints; by the Facing Bust type these are dispersed through s ome fifteen mints ( of f ive-moneyer " status" and above). The ranking o f mints shows s tability among the major mints during the f irst f ive or six types o f the reign and t estifies to the sustained preeminence o f London and York. These two mints occupy respectively f irst and s econd place throughout the reign. Winchester, Lincoln and Stamford, u sually i n that order, occupy the n ext three places during the period up to and i ncluding P ointed Helmet but from that point onwards Lincoln a sserts i ts supremacy over Winchester a nd S tamford. Lincoln's superiority i s due to the maintenance o f i ts moneyer c omplement a t i ts existing l evel i n c ontrast to the sharp contraction at S tamford and Winchester. I n the same way Chester maintains and eventually improves i ts position. These

orders

o f

ranking

5 5

disguise

dramatic

changes

i n the number o f moneyers a t l arger mints. London's c omplement falls by two-thirds, S tamford and Winchester by half and York by one third; only Lincoln remains unusually s table throughout the r eign, having experienced a s imilar decline ( by about half) shortly after Edward's a ccession - the o ther mints' c ontraction occurs f rom the Expanding Cross type onwards. These changes e rode the marked differentiation among the major mints t hems elves. At the beginning o f the r eign London i s clearly distinct f rom Winchester, Lincoln and S tamford, but f rom Expanding Cross onwards any distinction between Y ork ( and i nitially Winchester) i s blurred and by the e nd o f the reign London has c eased t o occupy any position o f g reat pre-eminence. London's d ecline, both r elatively and absolutely, i s the most s triking ( Table 1 7). N o.of

moneyers.

% o f moneyers nationally. Table

1 7

P 3 7

R 4 1

T 4 1

S 4 0

E 3 9

P 3 2

S 2 2

1 6

1 9

1 9

1 9

1 8

1 5

1 1

Contraction Confessor's

of the reign.

London mint

H 1 6

8 in

F 1 2

7

Edward

P 1 2

7 the

This ranking among major mints c oincides broadly with the outline, from different data, by Metcalf f or the reigns o f Cnut, Harthacnut a nd Harold I [ 34]. B oth during that period ( with the exception o f Cnut's Quatref oil type) and during the first six types o f Edward's reign, the same f ive major mints dominate, but with t wo significant differences: a fter London Metcalf's o rder i s u sually Lincoln, York, S tamford and Winchester, a nd a command of half the output i s reached sooner. Metcalf's ranking o f mints extended no further than the PACX t ype o f Edward the Confessor and when the ranking for t he remainder of Edward's reign i s published i t may w ell reveal a n i nversion o f the earlier Lincoln and Y ork r anki ng. I f i t does not, and unless Metcalf's data w ere baised i n favour o f particular mints, a difference i n organisation between the two mints i s suggested. L incoln's moneyers might have b een more productive t han their Y ork counterparts, or output a t York might h ave been more evenly distributed among i ts moneyers t han was the case a t Lincoln. Metcalf's ranking i s derived f rom the number o f dies l ikely to have been employed i n a type and i s heavily dependent upon S candinavian material i n g eneral and the corpus and die-study of t he Lincoln mint i n particular[35]. Lincoln's pre-eminence i n Metcalf's ranking might reflect the intensive s tudy to which Lincoln's output has b een subjected i n compari son with that published f or o ther mints. Another ranking o f mints, f or the entire l ate AngloSaxon period, has been a chieved by David Hill[36], employi ng data derived f rom moneyer numbers. To even out fluctuations a nd to g ive g reater s tatistical impact to s hort

5 6

reigns, Hill has aggregated moneyer totals f or i ndividual mints a s percentages of the total moneyer tally and employed m id-points o f his sampling period ( reigns or g roups of r eigns) to chart his results by means o f a g raph. He ranks Lincoln s econd to London throughout the period between / E thelraed I I's accession and the Norman Conquest. Hill's method o f sampling i gnores the unique circumstances prevailing a t each mint. A mint might, f or the sake of a rgument, employ two moneyers who are a t work throughout a n entire reign while another mint might employ two " single-type" moneyers i n each type, g iving, for a reign in which ten types were s truck, a total of twenty moneyers, a nd elevating that mint above the s tatus o f the first mint when i n fact both could properly be described as t wo-moneyer mints. Thus i n Edward the Confessor's reign H ertford or S outhwark, for example, would a ppear to rank a s more i mportant than Bath or Warwick when i n fact B ath and Warwick almost c ertainly had a s tronger mint s tructure. Appendix I II shows, however, that there i s n o doubt that i n Edward the Confessor's reign the York mint consistently surpasses Lincoln i n t erms of moneyers likely to have worked. T he constant d iscrepancy between Metcalf's findings and t hose o f Appendix I about c oncentration o f output among a handful o f mints i s more easily explained. F or Metcalf fifty percent of output i s produced by a s f ew as f ive or six mints; Appendix I ( derived f rom Appendix I II) s hows that until the Expanding Cross type i t i s seven o r eight mints which control f ifty percent o f the moneyers and thereafter this rises progressively until in the Facing Bust type the activities o f fifty percent of t he moneyers a re dispersed through no f ewer than fifteen mints. The difference i n concentration b etween dies a nd mints a nd moneyers and mints i s derived f rom the p robability that " established" moneyers a t large mints a re more active than their " established" colleagues at smaller mints. I t can be observed f rom the die-studies which have been published, all but one o f which i s of a " minor" mint, that moneyers a t minor mints employ f ewer dies p er type than those employed by moneyers a t Lincoln. Individual moneyers such a s Godric a t Lincoln are c redited with " continuous" output which i n each o f a s equence of types i s the equivalent o f the output o f up to f ifteen one-moneyer mints ( p. 41). T he ranking o f mints c reates an i ndex o f c omparability not available f rom o ther s ources, but one must be c areful not to claim too much on i ts behalf. Such an i ndex implies a n arithmetic ratio between mints which a die-study would refute. I t does not n ecessarily provide a ranking o f towns or regions a s c entres o f economic or a dministrative importance. All the i ndications fluctuating mint s izes, the opening and closing of mints, the c hanging patterns o f regional mint or moneyer densities - point to a system conforming to i ts own i nternal

5 7

n eeds, albeit on behalf o f national and l ocal i nterests. I t i s not even t rue that " mint s ize" creates a valid i ndex o f comparison between g roups of mints o r between various s tages o f a single mint's development. This i s particularly t rue where small mints are c oncerned. A one-moneyer mint cannot be measured a s l ess than a one-moneyer mint. Clearly some o ne-moneyer m ints ( e.g. Bury S t.Edmunds) enjoyed the exclusive services o f a moneyer while o thers ( e.g. Lydford) did not, yet b oth types o f mints must be placed i n the same " one-moneyer" category unless the s tructure o f each mint b e examined i ndividually and the mints ranked accordingly. S ome differentiation among one-moneyer mints could b e undertaken, to distinguish, f or example, between the mint with one moneyer who, apparently, will employ two s ets of dies per type when necessary ( as with Cild a t Bedwyn), and the mint with two moneyers a t work, each of whom habitually employs a single s et o f dies ( as a t Warwick) ( Table 1 8). Mint

s tructure.

A majority o f mints retain the s ervices of more than one moneyer. Why should this be? Could not o ne moneyer control, and a ssume responsibility for, t he entire output o f the mint, responding t o demand by i ncreasing the number o f sets o f dies i n s imultaneous p roduction? I n all probability such a " master moneyer" would be c apable o f controlling a mint, but there i s no firm evidence that mints were organised hierarchically, and there a re a number of pointers to the suggestion that t hey w ere not. The question i s really one o f how a mint responds to i ncreased demand - to demands i n excess of t he product of a single s et o f dies. Output can be i ncreased i n three way: by ( i) a speeding up o f the s triking process; or ( ii) an extension of the s triking period; or ( iii) a multiplication o f the units of production. A t echnologi cal change would be n ecessary t o achieve s peedier, o r g reater, output f rom the s triking process ( i.e. a faster rate o f production or a g reater production r un from a g iven s et of dies). There i s no evidence that s uch t echnological change took place during this period. An extension o f the s triking period i ncreases output only i n the sense that a production run i s c ontinued f or l onger than might o therwise be the case - to n earer t he termina tion o f the emission o f the type: i t obtains greater output a t the cost o f g reater t ime. What w ill expand output immediately i s the parallel employment o f a further s et or s ets of dies. D oes a moneyer, t o serve his purpo se, operate s imultaneously a s econd s et of d ies? - o r i ndeed s everal s ets of dies? I t i s known that s ome i ndivi dual moneyers were consistently more a ctive t han their colleagues but i t i s also clear that o ther moneyers c ould dramatically i ncrease their output for a s ingle type. Thus a t Wilton i n the PAX modest output of / E lfwold

type o f Harold I I t he normally i s i nflated t o the p roduct o f

5 8

at

l east

a dozen

reverse

dies:

+ALPOLD ON PILTV +ALPOLD ON PILTVI

EHW 1 29 BM 9 8 F 9 79 ( not, apparently, a s recorded i n SCBI fascicule-"PILTV").

+gLFPOLD ON

BM 96 ( and G 1 215 which should perhaps be read P ITVI rather than PITVL a s recorded in SCBI fascicule). A 1 114 BM 9 5 BM 9 2 BM 9 4 BM 9 3 SP 7 9-2945

PITVI

+gLFPOLD ON PILTV +gLFPOLD ON PILTI +ELFPOLD ON PILTV Did

g lfwold

hands

of

7 46 2 7

+ALFPOLD ON PILTI +ALFPOLD ON PILTV +gLPOLD ON PILTVI

+gLFPOLD ON PITI +gLFPOLD ON PITV +gLFPOLD ON PILT

to sharply ently have

WC RH

operate

these

dies

simultaneously,

i n

response

i ncreased demand? I f he did, i t would apparbeen more convenient to multiply dies in the one

moneyer

there would be no need iplication of moneyers

than

to

multiply

moneyers

-

and

to multiply moneyers. Yet multtakes place, either a s i solated

and short-lived peaks, serviced by " single-type" moneyers as with London in the Small Flan type, or as continuous practice ( as at any multi-moneyer mint). In the latter instance a multiplication of moneyers occurs not merely in a ssociation with moneyers who employed a very high number of dies, but i n instances where each moneyer apparently employed only one or two dies i n a type. Why should a mint such a s Warwick consistently employ two moneyers each probably failing to exhaust the capacity of a single set o f dies during the emission of a type when elsewhere the product of at l east 1 5 sets of dies i s so obviously within the capacity of a single moneyer? ( Table 1 8). The a nswer might l ie i n the need to respond rapidly to increased demand, extending output capacity through the simultaneous operation of sets of dies which for purposes of accountability must be in the hands of separate moneyers, one moneyer never operating more than one set of dies s imultaneously. Thus dies per moneyer per type would be a horizontal measure of production over an extended period of time, and moneyers per type a vertical measure of simultaneous production. Therefore, when demand over a period of time exceeds the capacity of a set of dies a fresh die or set i s employed, and when demand i s insistent and urgent another moneyer or moneyers are r equired. When at Lewes the employment of numerous short-lived

moneyers

in

the

Trefoil-Quadrilateral

-

Exp-

anding Cross period occurs, there i s no apparent increase in employment of dies by the established moneyers. The presence of these additional moneyers must be indicative

5 9

o f a function the existing moneyers could not p erform whereas the i ncreased activity noted a t Wilton i n Harold I I's reign must be i ndicative o f different p ressures and o f different solutions to them. This pattern o f management i s further suggestive o f peaks and troughs o f coin demand ( not necessarily simultaneous a t a ll mints), and i ndeed a lso of i ntermittent minting , which c ould a ccount f or why moneyers such a s Taunton's B rihtric a re a pparently drafted f rom one mint to another - t o operate dies f or which no o ther moneyer was a vailable. We have a t last a very good reason f or c ounting m oneyers, i f we regard the tally of moneyers a t a mint a s a n indica tor o f the response to anticipated demand. I n this way i t i s possible to reconcile f luctuating l evels o f output with s tability ( or only g radual change) i n moneyer c omplement. [ 37] PACX RSC TQ SF ExC PH SM HC FB Pyr Warwick 4 • . . ■ 1 s e .

ca

imans . '

hn s e

ma

I I

l

2

Total dies per type. TABLE

1 8

3

4

2

2

Dies per moneyer Ebsworth ( 1966)).

6

per

i mm

2

type

2

a t

I

i n eo f

2

a n

o in

4

j am

*

t

1

Warwick

3

( after

The tenure patterns i n Chapter 3 a ccompanying the discussion o f each mint show that s tructure takes a variety o f forms. Even i f we cannot do more than observe the difference, a mint served exclusively by moneyers drawn f rom another mint must suggest an organisation different from that prevailing a t a mint s erved only by " established" moneyers with g reat continuity o f tenure. There a re mints, large and small, which enjoy t he exclusive s ervices o f their moneyers. The " independence" o f such mints can be monitored according to whether this i s f or the entire duration of the moneyer's c areer, o r for a s ignificant continuous period, or intermittently. A much reduced s tatus i s suggested i f a moneyer o r moneyers a re " shared" with another mint ( i.e. a moneyer habitually s erves two or more mints type a fter type). Stucture can alter - a mint can expand, or c ontract, or even i f maintaining the same overall s trength of c omplement can s trengthen or weaken a ccording to whether, at two extremes, i t enjoys l engthy t enures and exclusive service o f i ts moneyers, or the f ragmented t enure o f a series o f " single-type" moneyers. S ome mints are always active, some a re active i ntermittently, s ome are opened o r revived during the reign and some are closed, temporarily o r permanently. Classification i s probably also possible i n t erms o f function - a s a n " exchange" at a point o f entry i nto the kingdom, a s a survival o f privilege, civic, episcopal or o therwise, a s a focal point within the minti ng system or a s a c entre of g eneral economic a ctivity -

6 0

but the

this i n detailed present work.

t erms

l ies

outside

the

scope

of

S trength and i ndependence i n mint s tructure resides i n a mint's ability to enjoy the services of i ts moneyers over a l engthy period of time. Such mints vary f rom small e stablishments such a s Bedwyn or Bath to major mints such a s Canterbury or Chester. Their s tructure a ppears e ssentially the same whatever their size or l ocati on. They originate a ll or most of their moneyers and enjoy the exclusive service of their moneyers a t l east while they a re a t the mint. Tenures a re l engthy, u sually without fragmentation, and continuity between moneyers i s g ood. Although some u se may be made of " single-type" moneyers, they a re e ssentially i rrelevant to the g eneral s tructure of the mint. Size of moneyer c omplement i s u sually steady, a t l east f or a significant period of t ime, and minting i s u sually continuous to the extent that the mint i s a ctive in each type. Bath provides a n excellent example of a mint with a s trong, i f simple a nd uniform s tructure. I ts moneyers devote their careers t o the mint, they succeed each o ther i n ordered successi on, t enure i s c ontinuous ( i.e. there i s no i ntermittent working by any o f the moneyers) and there i s s tability i n size of complement. D ependence upon e stablished moneyers i s complete - there are no " single-type" moneyers. Overall the s tructure o f the mint i s unchanged throughout the reign. When moneyers a re frequently drawn from o ther mints, e specially on a t emporary basis, or are similarly provided t o o ther mints, a s appears to be the case with Bedford, the mint enjoys a weaker s tructure. Although Bedford would b e described a s a three-moneyer mint, the apparent f ragmentation of t enure early i n the reign, and the frequent movement o f moneyers between B edford and o ther mints suggests that on numerous occasions there are n ever More • than two moneyers available to s ervice the mint. Moneyer movement between mints has a s trong impact upon mint structure and e specially so whenever i t conforms to any clear and c oncise pattern. Such movement i s most prominent between Barnstaple, Lydford and Exeter, between Winchester and Wallingford, Thetford and Norwich, between Cambridge, Huntingdon and B edford and between London and S outhwark and London and Hertford. Subordinate s tatus must be i ndicated, though i t i s not always clear which mint dominates. Leicester, D erby and Nottingham appear to draw, i f only for the early part o f the reign, a t l east i n part upon a " reservoir" of moneyers, a practice which, i f i n truth i t exists and i s not merely the reflection of poor evidence, exerts a major i nfluence upon the mints o f Tamworth, Dorchester and Malmesbury.

6 1

S ome mints enjoy a spasmodic existence, dependent upon o ther, stronger mints. O f these S tafford a nd Southwark a re the most notable examples. S tafford's condition i s piteous. R evived i n the Expanding Cross type, s ubs equent activity i s i ntermittent a nd the moneyers known with any c ertainty are probably d rawn i n mid-type f rom o ther mints. Except i n s trictly l ocal terms, they c ould have been equally effective had they remained a t their home mint. The same i s true o f S outhwark, where every moneyer bears the name o f a c ontemporary London moneyer, and the typical pattern i s f or a London moneyer to c oin briefly a t Southwark i n mid-career. Southwark i s thus s erved by a succession of apparent " single-type" or shortl ived moneyers. Some s trengthening o f the mint occurs under O smund, the first moneyer t o coin a t S outhwark f or successive types, but even h e i s known a t London during the same types. A very s imilar pattern exists a t Hertford until the mould i s broken i n the Expanding Cross type with the arrival o f Wilgrip. Lydford a nd Barnstaple are s tructurally l ittle s tronger, being totally dependent upon the moneyer glfric whose main i nterest has probably come to l ie with Exeter - but a t l east, through him, they do enjoy continuity of personnel, unlike H ertford and Southwark i n the earlier years of the reign. Aylesbury and Buckingham l ead s imilar " half -lives". Aylesbury, revived early i n the reign, may have d one no more than draw upon the s ervices o f Buckingham's money er Leofwine, which would have required the temporary c essation of all activities a t his home mint, and b oth mints enjoy only a vestigial revival later i n the reign. Guildford, dormant for much o f the early years o f Edward's reign, enjoys only slightly enhanced s tatus, coming to depend u pon a succession of " single-type" or short-lived moneyers, though i t probably enjoys their exclusive a ttention, and Berkeley, a new c reation, enjoys a similar s tructure. These diverse patterns are the more remarkable i n that c ontradictory policies are b eing implemented i n different areas. [ 38] As will be s een ( pp.401 -2) minting i s c oncentrated upon Exeter a t the expense of most n eighbouring centres, yet elsewhere, B ridport f rees i tself f rom D orchester, Droitwich i s planted within a f ew miles o f Worcester and there i s a distinct strengthening o f mint facilities i n an arc to the north and north-east o f London. New mints, such a s D roitwich, are being opened l ong a fter others, such a s R eading, have expired. I t i s difficult to decide why a particular fate befalls a particular mint. Aylesbury and Buckingham both a ppear candidates for closure, and both succumb, despite their bids f or continued existence, Aylesbury with i ts own moneyer, Buckingham with a moneyer f rom another mint, y et S tafford and Guildford survive a nd S teyning detaches i tself f rom Chichester. Even Barnstaple outlives Lydford, though only by sharing i ts moneyer with Exeter, a solution which probably lasts no l onger than the moneyer's career.

6 2

T here can i n f act hardly be a mint which does not experience change i n structure during Edward the Confessors r eign, so fluid i s the situation. The commonest change i s i n size o f moneyer complement, either a s expansion or a s c ontraction, and i t can happen several times to a mint during the course of the reign. Bristol provides a good example of decline ( five-moneyer s tatus to two-moneyer s tatus), s tability ( two-moneyer s tatus), increase i n complement ( from two- to three-moneyer s tatus), s tability ( three-moneyer s tatus), and decline ( to two-moneyer s tatus). Across England the pattern i s for the f ive l argest mints to contract and f or a variety of s maller mints t o expand slightly. The most dramatic mani festation o f change of size occurs a t the major mints, London, York, Lincoln, Winchester and S tamford, which shed b etween one third and two-thirds of their e stablishment. As has already been noted ( p.56 ) the decline i s at i ts most dramatic a t London where a complement set early in the reign a t around the thirty-six moneyer mark has s hrunk to twelve by 1 066. This contraction occurs simultaneously for the most part, i n the middle o f the reign, except a t Lincoln, where i t i s accomplished within a c ouple o f years o f Edward's accession. Among smaller mints, both expansion and contraction can take place, and t he degree o f change might be considerable relative to t he previous s tature o f the mint. Typical o f adjustment among smaller mints might be the growth of Chichester o r Northampton, or among medium-sized mints the g rowth of S hrewsbury, H ereford, Worcester and Gloucester. I t i s t he contraction occurring a t the major mints which accounts for the overall decline i n the number of moneyers which occurs from the middle of Edward the Confessor's reign. I n very many c ases change i n moneyer size i s . accompanied by o ther changes i n s tructure. Even Bath, the epitome of s tability, undergoes i n the Pyramids type a t ransformation, d egenerating i nto a one-moneyer mint active only i ntermittently during William I 's reign. Salisbury, a conventional threeor two-moneyer mint until the Small F lan type, suffers eclipse to the gain of a djacent Wilton, and i ts recovery, i n the S overeign/ Martlets type, i s probably a response to l ocal privilege rather than to any minting need. I t re-emerges a s a one-moneyer mint, s erviced by moneyers o f s econdary s tatus, e ither drawn f rom another mint or o f short duration at S alisbury. Such diminished s tatus, however, represents a s trengthening o f mint s tructure f or S tafford and Guildford - and S tafford makes an i nteresting c omparison with Sudbury. O n Sudbury's revival the mint enjoys the continuous and exclusive services of i ts moneyer, a s tability and s trength of s tructure far removed f rom S tafford's reliance upon a s uccession of o ther mints' superfluous moneyers. Expansion a t Chichester brings dependence upon a S teyning moneyer. D erby's contraction i nto a

6 3

more settled career a s a two-moneyer mint in t he second half of the reign i s accompanied by f reedom f rom associ ation with Nottingham and Leicester. For N ottingham this change i n s tructure i s much more extreme. N ottingham during the first five types o f Edward's reign shares with i ts neighbours the occasional s ervices o f B lacaman and Wulnoth and can call a s i ts own only Leofsige a nd his successor Haldene ( and the two " single-type" moneyers Alhmund and Snoter). As such N ottingham i s, o f course, l ittle more than a one-moneyer mint - but f rom t he Pointed H elmet type Nottingham becomes a true o ne-moneyer mint, enjoying the exclusive and continuous s ervice o f Forna, engaged a fter a restructuring which saw a complete break i n c ontinuity between the Expanding Cross and Pointed Helmet types. On the surface Leicester appears u naffected by these changes until i t i s realised that from the Expanding Cross type the mint begins to l ook south instead of north, s evering i ts a ssociation with D erby and N ottingham and i nstead f ostering the Northampton mint. L eicester's modest i ncrease i n complement i n the l ater years of Edward's reign i s a most i nteresting exercise, taking the f orm o f a succession of " single-type" moneyers rather than the creation of a new e stablished post. T he minor mints of the west provide numerous examples of s tructural change, a s do those i nstructive mints, Hertford a nd Southwark, both of which gain i n s tature through greater independence or continuity o f activity during the s econd half of Edward's reign. The apparent exceptions to t he variety and f lexibility which s eem the hallmarks of t he system are those f ew mints which exhibit l ittle or n o change i n size. They fall i nto two g roups - B edwyn, D roitwich, Romney, Bury S t.Edmunds and perhaps Wareham a nd Bath, which are all minor mints, and Chester, Canterbury a nd Oxford among the larger mints. Expansion o f moneyer complement can be achieved by the s traightforward device o f adding to the moneyer Complement. I t can be done g radually, a s at C ambridge, where the complement i s i ncreased type after type by the addition of new moneyers to the existing c omplement until, over a period of four types' emission c omplement has been quadrupled and stability a ttained. I n each case the n ew moneyers are originated a t the mint and n ot drawn f rom elsewhere. O ther mints, such as O xford a nd Norwich, i ncrease complement i n a similar fashion. A t Hastings and Northampton modest overall increases i n complement are achieved by continuity i n one moneyer and replacement o f another accompanied by the arrival o f a third moneyer. Hastings, l ike Cambridge, o riginates i ts own moneyers to achieve i ts expansion, while Northampton appears to draw i ts new moneyers f rom n eighbouring mints, Wulnoth f rom Leicester a nd perhaps Leofric f rom Warwick, and turns to Leicester again f or Saewine, L eofric's successor. Heavy though d ependence upon L eicester might b e, i t i s a t l east shared with another mint a t the time of g reatest burden. This might not b e s o coin-

6 4

c idental as i t might appear, a s concern to spread such burdens i s a pparent i n o ther i nstances, yet there must have b een some reason why ggelric and ggelwine, the new moneyers at Leicester, should not have commenced their careers a t Northampton i n the first place. Chichester too experiences g rowth, and perhaps more dramatically i n that i ts complement i s enlarged f rom one to three moneyers. A lthough i t has been proposed that both i ts new moneyers are drawn f rom neighbouring mints ( Wulfric f rom S teyning and Godwine from Lewes or Winchester)[39] i t s eems m ore probable that only Wulfric i s drawn f rom a n adjacent mint and that Godwine i s originated a t the mint ( see b elow, pp.498-501). Unlike Northampton, Chichester a t f irst enjoys the exclusive services o f only one o f the n ew moneyers, f or Wulfric retains his i nterests a t S teyning for some y ears until f inally drawn totally i nto Chichester's sphere and replaced a t S teyning by D iorman. E vents a t Lewes and Wilton i llustrate two very different s olutions to what might have been similar problems, though i t i s difficult to a scertain what was perceived to be the problem b ecause the evidence f or i ts existence i s derived solely f rom the s olution. At both mints there i s a s udden, and short-lived, i ncrease i n moneyer complement, s pread over the Trefoil-Quadrilateral, Small Flan and E xpanding Cross types a t Lewes and the S overeign/ Martlets, Hammer Cross and perhaps Facing Bust types a t Wilton. I t i s a ssumed that both mints faced a sharp i ncrease in demand. Lewes employed for the most part a succession of " single-type" moneyers while Wilton employed for the most part " established" moneyers. Does this i ndicate that a t Lewes what was perceived a s a t emporary d emand lasted l onger than was anticipated, and that a t Wilton what was forseen a s a sustained i ncreased l evel o f demand f ell away rapidly? This experience might be r eflected i n the very different response to demand adopted at Wilton i n Harold I I's reign ( pp.58-9 above). The q uestion remains unanswered, but the response well i llustrates very different methods of obtaining an i ncrease i n moneyer c omplement. I n both cases the i ncreases disguise a modest but lasting i ncrease i n moneyer c omplement. Both Lewes a nd Wilton a t the times i n question are t hree-moneyer mints which become four-moneyer mints and t he real nature of the phenomenon might be that mints sometimes g enerate a n i ncreased number of moneyers f rom which there i s a s peedy retreat to a l ower l evel but one which i s higher than the original l evel o f provision. At b oth mints t emporary ( i.e. " single-type") moneyers constitute much o f this sharp peak; even Cambridge employs a " single-type" moneyer i n the Expanding Cross type ( the t ype i n which the mint's prolonged period o f expansion c omes to an end), a s i f the l evel of l ong-term demand had b een sensed but a temporary peak remained to be satisfied. At Warwick the a ppearance o f the " single-type" Theodric i n the Pyramids type i s perhaps a prelude t o expansion to three-moneyer s tatus. The " Lewes" solution

6 5

will 1 .

repay closer " established"

scrutiny. moneyers who are

I ts

" single-type"

a re:

A )

o riginated ( Osmund and

B )

d rawn f rom elsewhere ( Leofwine , from Chichester)

a )

unique to t he mint ( Leofnoth, Godric, Leofman a nd glfsi)

b )

shared with o ther mints ( Dirinc with H astings a nd E adwig with London)

//

and

2 .

n ew moneyers

moneyers who are

at t he Godwine)

mint

I n the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type ( at the beginning o f the c risis) only method lA and 2 a a re adopted t o augment the mint, suggestive o f anticipation o f permanent expansion a s well a s short-term growth, whereas i n the Small F lan type methods 1 B and 2b predominate though 2a i s also employed. The dependence u pon o ther mints suggests a demand even more sudden and i ntense than that e xperienced i n the preceding type and the whole episode i llustrates an apparent concern to spread the burden a s widely a s possible: a variety of solutions are adopted and ( as a t N orthampton) no one neighbouring mint willing to supply moneyers i s required to shoulder an unequal burden. I f a mint i ncreases i ts complement type-by-type i t c an u sually originate i ts own; i f i t n eeds to i ncrease i ts complement suddenly i t often has to call upon n eighbouri ng mints for a ssistance - though there a re, a s a t Wilton, many exceptions to this. Contraction of moneyer complement a t all but major mints i s often no more than the non-replacement o f a n e stablished moneyer, a s a t Wallingford or Bristol, though the process i s o ften a ttended by the presence o f a " single-type" moneyer or moneyers a s a t Lewes. G iven that s everal s tructural models exist, a variety o f possibi lities i s open to mints. Thus Shaftesbury, i n confining moneying activities to Godric, could i nstead have achieved single-moneyer s tatus by dispensing with Godric and r etaining the " associate" moneyers glfwerd a nd Wydecoc, a fter the " Tamworth" model. S o too with N ottingham. I n the f irst half of the reign i t enjoys the exclusive s ervices of two moneyers i n succession ( Leofsige a nd Haldene) and of two moneyers a ssociated with Leicester and D erby and who serve Nottingham only intermittently. Between the Expanding Cross a nd Pointed H elmet t ypes a complete break i n continuity occurs and when activity i s resumed a t Nottingham i t i s a s a one-moneyer m int, under a n ew moneyer, and except b riefly, devoid o f moneyer contact with i ts f ormer a ssociates. The changes a ssume the proportions o f a reform when i t i s remembered t hat l ocally Leicester undergoes change a t the s ame t ime,

6 6

a s

do

s o many

other

mints.

S everal mints experience short-term decline f rom which they recover, though i n the process some must come close t o extinction. Norwich sufferes i n this way i n the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type, a fter which the mint has to be virtually rebuilt. Wilton too comes close to extinction i n Small Flan type and no minting a t all i s possible a t S teyning during a part o f the Pointed H elmet and Sovereign/ Martlets types, perhaps because o f Chichester's demands for Wulfric's services. Salisbury's dramatic decline and re-structuring been described and a ccounted for.

has

already

I t i s at the major mints that the greatest contracti ons o f moneyer complement occur. Winchester, with an e stablishment of about 1 2 early i n the reign and 6 by the end, provides a n instructive example o f how the contraction i s achieved. Contraction begins at some point during or at the end of the Expanding Cross type and i s completed during type" moneyers are type, a structural

the Hammer Cross type. No " singleappointed a fter the Expanding Cross difference which i s s trongly marked

a t Winchester because of the noticeable presence of this class o f moneyer during the first f ive types of the reign. The services of what on present evidence are l ess active moneyers are the n ext to be dispensed with, during the Pointed Helmet and Sovereign/ Martlets types. " Natural wastage", for which at a mint of this size a rate o f perhaps one or two established moneyers per type would be appropriate, could well account for a majority of the retirements which take place among e stablished moneyers and the net l oss i s reduced by the fact that there i s no absolute ban upon recruitment of " established" moneyers. I n the Expanding Cross type glfwine, Leofwine, Edwine and g stan i n a sociation with Loc are l ost. None i s so obviously " junior" a s to suggest the operation Of a " first in/last out" policy and all three may have been naturally retired. I f redundancy were to have operated the non-established moneyers would surely have been the

prime

target,

and

i f

the

process

of

contraction

comm-

ences with their dismissal, the implementation of this reform i s not earlier than the Pointed Helmet type, though the absence of further " single-type" moneyers might suggest that the decision had been taken earlier. And i f, in the Pointed Helmet type, Godwine Widia, Godwine Ceoca and G odman were the victims of " policy" , Ladmaer, the establishment moneyer terminating i n this type, may well have r etired naturally. Of the three moneyers departing in the Sovereign/ Martlets type, g thestan may well have been due for an i nfrequent icy. bury, ed i n second

retirement and glfstan, a s apparently moneyer, may have been the subject of pol-

Godric may have been able to find a home i n Salisa policy of redeployment which was certainly f ollowthe Hammer Cross moneyer i n a very

type when few years

6 7

Brihtmaer became the to transfer f rom Win-

chester to Wallingford. Why B rihtmaer? L eofwold a nd S pracelinc were his junior and Anderboda his contemporary. He was a pparently a s prolific as S pracelinc, though perhaps l ess prolific than Anderboda o r Leofwold. P erhaps his departure reflects a c ombination o f considera tions. No new e stablished moneyers were to b e appointed until William I 's BMC type I I, and though that date would no doubt not be fixed a t the time of the Hammer C ross type, perhaps i t was i ntended that Winchester should shed one more moneyer to bring the complement down t o six. To ensure c ontinuity o f moneyers i n the future, perhaps i t was decided that the most junior moneyers should remain. I t may also be that either p roductivity was i ncreased, or i ts surviving moneyers were more prolifi c than o thers. Until a die-study i s published the answer cannot be known but preliminary work i n the c ase of / E lfwine shows him to employ no more than one or two " minimum" reverse dies i n the earlier types o f the reign, and except i n the Facing Bust type, never t o have employed f ewer than f our f rom Pointed Helmet onwards. A " minimum" number o f dies employed can be determined f rom the number o f non-identical reverse l egends recorded. Such a measure i s l east unsatisfactory when i t 's results conform t o a g eneral pattern. A mixture of devices had b een employed t o achieve the halving of moneyer c omplement a t Winchester, of which natural retirement, redundancy and re-deployment a re the main elements. Non-appointment, and the policy of " last i n/first out", which are prominent at L ondon, a re not measures upon which the Winchester mint places much dependence. The burden falls heavily upon non-established moneyers with the result that the s tructure o f the mint from the Hammer Cross type onwards i s very different from the f irst half of the reign. The elimination of moneyers such a s / E lfstan and Widia signals the collapse of a " two-tier" s tructure o f " single-type" and " established" moneyers a t the mint. The s treamlining of the Winchester and L ondon mints took place simultaneously. A t Lincoln r estructuring took place earlier and was accomplished " overnight" by a combination o f natural wastage and redundancy. At York the process takes place s lightly earlier than a t London and Winchester, but apart f rom the absence o f redeployment i s broadly similar. G enerally speaking s tructural change takes l onger t o achieve at l arger mints than

a t

smaller mints.

This mixture o f measures can be discerned elsewhere where contraction takes place o n any appreciable s cale. At Oxford a combination o f non-recruitment, r etirement, possible redeployment and redundancy among the most j unior of moneyers prevails i n a possible a ttempt t o preserve some spread o f age, s eniority and experience.

6 8

Movement

of

moneyers

between

mints

does

not

have

to r epresent dominance of one over the other. Movement i s o ften between mints of apparently equal s tatus, such as H ereford and Gloucester, or Nottingham and D erby. There are cases i n which one mint clearly dominates another, a s has already been seen i n the cases o f Exeter and London and their satelites, and Chichester and S teyning. But there are also i nstances of continued one-way transfer between pairs o f mints i n which i t i s not immediately clear upon which o f the two the burden l ies. F our such pairs are Winchester and Wallingford, Norwich and Thetford, Leicester a nd Northampton and I pswich and DYR. Winchester's relationship with Wallingford has been described above ( pp. 4 7 )• I pswich supplies D YR twice, with an obverse die in the Small Flan type and a moneyer in the Pointed H elmet type, but which mint dominates I pswich because i t supplies or DYR b ecause i ts demands are satisfied? Leicester supplies Northampton with two moneyers. Again the same question can be a sked. Norwich supplies Thetford on a regular basis, a t the possible expense of some disruption a t Norwich, because moneyers have to be replaced. They appear to come to Thetford when Thetford needs them ( i.e. a t times o f ( moderate) expansion), rather than when Norwich might choose to dispatch them, and Norwich soon " learns" to s end only i ts most " junior" moneyers. I n this way i t would seem that Thetford, a l arger mint, enjoys the advantage over Norwich, despite the implantation i nto Thetford o f a Norwich " colony". Does this, by analogy, , mean that the flow of moneyers f rom Winchester to Wallingford i s a burden which the Winchester mint must sustain? There are also mints which appear to s tand i n no discernible physical relationship with their neighbours. Such mints vary i n size, s tructure, g eographical l ocation and d istance from neighbouring mints, and i nclude Bath, Droitwich, Bury S t.Edmunds, Berkeley, Sudbury and Canterbury a s random examples, while o ther mints, such a s York, Chester and Lincoln are almost free o f such contacts with Exeter, Northampton and I pswich, have no or, a s n a particular direction. contact with their neighbours i however, s tressed the absence o f " physical" conHaving, ( i.e. a s a movement of dies or moneyers) i t must nect i on that several of the mints mentioned a re drawn be s aid into what can only be described a s a regional or " area" policy and which i s now discussed a t g reater l ength. Geographical provision

of

mints.

At first sight Edward the Confessor's mints are numerous and i n most areas evenly distributed, except f or the P eak District, the Weald a nd the extreme points of the k ingdom i n the west and north, which a re all areas devoid of coin outlets, while c entral S omerset and southwest Wiltshire appear l avishly provided. This i s the generally

received

picture

and

6 9

has

f ound

expression

i n

D olley and Metcalf's a ssertion that the establishment o f a close network o f mints was systematic and d esigned to facilitate redemption of demonetised coin. The maps which D olley and Metcalf published have s erved t o i llustrate the proposition dramatically and have found their imitators.[40] Such maps are c omposite maps c overing a period of nearly a century. They do not i llustrate mint density a t a particular t ime and their t endency must be, therefore, to imply fuller density of p rovision than was ever the case a t any one time. I n particular, i n Edward the Confessor's reign, such maps disguise the c ircumstances prevailing i n three distinct r egions: D evon, S omerset and West Wiltshire, an arc to . the north and north-east o f London, and the g eneral area within a radius of some fifty miles o f London. Changes i n the l ocation and d ensity of mints a nd moneyers are discernible i n distinct areas or regions. Within the area west o f a l ine b etween Portland and the Bristol Avon minting i s concentrated upon Exeter, I lchester and Shaftesbury to the u tter exclusion of the numerous small mints o f the immediate a rea, a nd with Taunton apparently falling i nto a position subordinate to Exeter. D orchester and Wareham continue untouched by these processes. Only the extinction o f Aylesbury and Buckingham provides any comparable " thinning-out" of mint provision. Along the K ent and Sussex coasts, i n the south-west Midlands and i n the east Midlands the provision of mints i s largely s tatic. Any i ncrease i n moneyer provision and mint densi ty i n the south-east of England i s only temporary a nd a t the end of Edward's reign the t ract of territory lying within the arc o f mints to the west of London a t 5 0 - 60 miles' distance has i n fact benefitted f rom no more than the revival o f Guildford, for the new foundations a ll fail and i ndeed are j oined by Aylesbury and Buckingham. Their failure, coupled with the i nsignificant contribution that the Guildford mint must have made to coin distribUtion, must mean that a vast hinterland to the n orth-west and south-east o f London, s tretching f rom an OxfordNorthampton axis to the Sussex and K ent coasts, was devoid o f minting facilities. I t must s eem, therefore, that there was no uniform a ttempt to bring mint f acilities within a day's return journey o f every man.[41] Only i n two a reas o f England, along the middle S evern a nd to the n orth-east of London, i s the provision of mints i ncreased. I t i s not, however, the business of the present s tudy to i nquire whether the d ecline o f York, Lincoln and S tamford i s i ndicative o f, f or example, changing economic patterns i n North S ea trade. Even i f such change were taking place, perhaps i n c onjunction with growth i n cross-Channel commerce, the c ontraction of the London and Winchester mints coupled with the i ncreased vigour o f the East Anglian mints and moneyers suggests that the collapse of York, Lincoln and S tamford i s as much a r eflection of minting practice a s a r eflection o f economic patterns. As for London i tself, by the end of the reign

7 0

it h as lost i ts absolute pre-eminence, i ts moneyer complement having shrunk to something not materially d ifferent from that of York or Lincoln. I t has been overhauled by p airs of mints such a s Oxford and Wallingford c ombined, which for a time exert a powerful i nfluence i n the south Midlands during Winchester's collapse, while East Anglia has c ome to equal London/Southwark by the S overeign/Martlets type and subsequently to overtake i t i n t erms o f . moneyer complement. The discussions of each mint, which follow in Chapter 3 , are g rouped g eographically a ccording to t hese regional patterns. A s a g eneral, though not universal rule, moneyer complement i s a more flexible vehicle f or change than mint l ocation and f luctuation i n mint number i s g enerally preceded by change i n the size and nature o f moneyer c omplement. The changed s tatus of Lydford and Barnstaple prior to their demise provides a g ood example. They had ceased to enjoy the exclusive services of their moneyers and t herefore their c losure does not deprive the Exeter area o f any significant moneyer provision - i ndeed glfric, the moneyer common to all three mints, i s replaced a t Exeter whereas the two peripheral mints are extinguished. Further east, beyond Shaftesbury, an underlying decline, caused by the collapse o f the Winchester and Salisbury mints, i s disguised by the t emporary expansion a t Wilton, and f urther north, i n the S evern valley a growth i n the number of moneyers precedes a g rowth i n the number of mints. Although small mints ( one-and two-moneyer mints) are f ound throughout England, their distribution i s uneven, n one o ther than S tafford, Tamworth and f or a time Nottingham, being f ound north of a l ine f rom Worcester to t he Wash. Within this z one their greatest prevalence is w est of a l ine Worcester to the S olent. Although some . one-moneyer mints ( such a s Watchet, Wareham, Bedwyn and Bury S t. Edmunds) exhibit g reat s tability of s tructure, many o ne-moneyer mints have an ephemeral existence, enjoying o nly a brief l ife or c oining only i ntermittently. The major mints c onstitute the f lanks of the " minted" zones ( Gloucester-Worcester-Hereford-Shrewsbury-ChesterYork-Lincoln-Stamford-Thetford-Norwich) or are to be f ound on o r adjacent to the south coast ( Winchester, Canterbury a nd London), a nd a s such might act as points o f entry to t he kingdom. Only Oxford l ies away f rom these areas. As h as already been observed, i t i s among the f ive major mints that g reat contraction of moneyer complement occurs and t his contraction accounts for the decline i n overall moneyer numbers recorded i n Appendix I I. I dentification of g eographic variation i n mint provision demands justification for the implied physical boundaries of these geographic c lusters. This c ould be f ound i n the a ssociation between mints i n t erms o f moneyer movement and upon variations i n the l ocal provis-

7 1

i on o f mint i xoportion of

and moneyer density national provision.

when S even

expressed a s a such a reas h ave

emerged; the London " satellites" and the t erritory to the n orth and north-east o f London; Kent a nd Sussex; c entral Wessex; west Wessex; the S evern Valley a nd Chester; York; and the east Midlands. No claim i s being made that : the mints within such groupings r epresent a n administrative unit, nor i ndeed that every mint i n an a rea enjoys a common relationship, but i t w ould s eem that i n g eneral i n substantial areas o f what was o nce Mercia mints are distributed one per c ounty a nd usually a s multi-moneyer e stablishments while elsewhere t he allowance i s more g enerous, single-moneyer mints.

though

with

more

numerous

N ew Mints. The creation o f new mints i s perhaps another reflecti on of the flexibility which characterises t he distribution o f mints and moneyers. Thirteen o r, i f S TES i s i ncluded, fourteen such mints are opened i n Edward 's reign ( Table 1 9). For many of them the surviving c oin evidence i s very poor and i t must be said at t he outset that the discovery o f only a handful of c oins could _ transform our understanding o f these mints. A ll except D roitwich are " one-moneyer" mints and only B erkeley , Bury S t.Edmunds, Bedwyn and D roitwich appear capable o f s tanding apart and originating their moneyers a nd operating with any degree of continuity over a n extended period. Sandwich's s tanding i s ambiguous b ecause i ts moneyer Lifwine may have been shared with C anterbury. By contrast, Hythe, D YR, N IPEPORTE, P ershore, P etherton, R eading and Horndon s erve a s examples o f mints usually drawing moneyers and , on occasion, dies, f rom o ther mints, and g enerally experiencing little i ndependence or i ntensity or continuity of activity. Their e xistence i s g enerally of short duration. Although many of these mints did not flourish simulta neously, their c reation falls i nto two distinct chronol ogical periods: eight were o pened during t he early years of the reign and the remaining f ive were created during the period Pointed Helmet to Hammer C ross. A ll but R eading and P etherton take root among t he early g roup and i t i s not until the f inal years of t he reign that i t becomes clear that the majority of t hese n ew plantations have failed: only Sandwich, Bedwyn, B ury S t.Edmunds, Droitwich and Hythe g o forward i nto Harold I I's or William I 's reigns ( Table 2 0). The opening ( and i ndeed the closure) of n ew mints i s parallelled by the re-opening of dormant m ints s uch a s I lchester and Sudbury and by the closure, either on a temporary or permanent basis, of e stablished mints ( e.g. Buckingham, Lydford and Watchet) and o f some o f the revived mints ( e. g. Aylesbury, Langport and Warminster) .

7 2

NEW

REVIVED

CLOSURE ( TEMPORARY)

Aylesbury

X

Barnstaple

X

X

X

X

Bedwyn

X

Berkeley

X

BRENE

X

Bridport

( PERMANENT) X

Bruton Buckingham Bury

St. Edmunds

X

Droitwich

X

DYR

X

FRO Guildford

X

Horndon

X

Hythe

X

X

Ilchester

X

Langport

X

Lydford NIPEPORTE

X

Pershore

X

Petherton

X

Reading

X

Sandwich

X

S tafford ( STES)

X

X X

Sudbury

X

Warminster

X X

Watchet

Table

19

New, revived fessor's

and

closed mints

reign.

7 3

of

Edward

the

Con-

F . B u s t P y r a m i d s

0

o

o

c v

n

• — i

, i

c \ 1

c 9

0

0

, 1

0

" — I

c \ i

S . M a r t l e

1 9 H . C r o s

o

1 -

E x p . C r o s P .

a ) i

C D

_ _ R 3

w n f o r t y p e . e . m o n e y e r / m i n t a c t i v e e a r l i e r / l a t e r .

C o n f e s o r .

E c n

I

c v 1

0

R a d i a t e T r e f o i l

0

X

C I ) P

0 Q 0 _

C y 1

• r i

0

• D • • •

a ) • ( r . 1

. 0 u • r i

V

C

c t i c i )

C > 1

3 V ( L ) i n

> , a )

, 1

. 0

C

. u 1 > • H

( f )

a ) , . > , 4 4 a ) Z a 1 g c l

4 ) . r i o F . 4 q

r z > A A

c . ) . 0 A ) > , Z

6 1 ) C

H

H

4 -3 r H

Z C D

a )

e C J

a ) C 4

W

O

w P . 4

7 4

• •

C 0

4 )

g i 0

74 T 3

a ,

4

10

C z 1

Z

E

( f )

H

Z

0

c u

Z

M

Z

t n 4 . )

( f )

a ) , C

A4

C

•

E a ) Q

Z

z

.

• r i V

E Q ) ( / )

O Z O

0 ° o s

? OD

( D"

N ew mints

( which

fail

to

N ew mints

( which

coin

regularly until

of N ew mints

Edward the

( which survive but

c oin

only

take

root). a fter

the

death

Confessor's

death

Confessor). Edward the

i ntermittently).

R evived mints. L ocation

MAP

( Table

uncertain.

2 1)

R evived and C onfessor.

new mints

7 5

o f

Edward the

The g eneral s tability i n the overall number o f mints a t work i n any one type masks l ocalised fluctuations which express the vitality o f the policies d etermining mint l ocation. The new mints were the main t arget o f the policy o f closure: although a revived Aylesbury was to enjoy some years of respite o nly to join t he ranks o f Warminster and Langport, the revival of which was of n o more than a s ingle type's duration, on t he whole the r evived mints fared well, with Guildford, I lchester and S udbury taking permanent root and even Stafford a nd Bridport enjoy a f itful rejuvenation. To associate t he revival of existing mint l ocations with the creation o f n ew mints i s to point to g eographical patterns a nd patterns o f policy. F our g eographical areas can be propo sed: to the north and north-east o f London t o the west and n orth-west o f London; the S evern Valley; the K ent coast. The designations must b e advanced c autiously. The S evern Valley " cluster" of B erkeley, Pershore a nd D roitwich i s i n fact never more than a single outlet, since probably none of these mints was active s imultaneously. The circumstances and n eeds prevailing in each area may be different: P etherton's brief appearance a nd Warminster's flickering activity are perhaps part o f a process o f rationalisation i n pursuit o f concentration upon one c entre b etween Taunton and Shaftesbury where the cluster o f n ew and revived mints i s apparently a contribution towards contraction rather than growth. The failure o f a mint i n o ne l ocation i s clearly no bar to the creation of mints elsewhere. A g ood halfdozen closures west, north and east of Exeter relate to the implementation o f centralising policies. T he creation o f Berkeley, P ershore a nd D roitwich resemble the search f or a s econdary site i n the Severn Valley. A policy o f s trengthening mint facilities a round a nd to the north-east of London a ccounts for the creation o f f ive n ew mints and the revival of a further three. The g eographical proximity o f Bury S t.Edmunds t o Thetford, of D roitwich and P ershore to Worcester and o f Sandwich and Hythe to Canterbury and Dover suggest the s atisfaction o f economic or particularist d emands peculiar to t he c entre i n question. That e stimates o f business to b e c ontracted were over-optimistic i s perhaps i llustrated by the poor performance o f Hythe i n contrast to i ts relatively near neighbour Sandwich. " New" mints should not, therefore, be c onsidered without taking i nto account the revival and c losure o f o ther mints, or changes a t mints not subject to s uch dramatic change. Thus, R eading i s opened at a time when Aylesbury i s being revived, Wallingford i s in s ome disorder a nd Guildford moribund; a fter R eading c eases a s a minting place Guildford and Wallingford prosper. R eadi ng 's f leeting existence may b e due to a r e-appraisal o f mint facilities i n a g reat a rc to the n orth-west, west and south o f London which, when complete, deprived

7 6

a vast b elt o f territory f rom Northampton to the English Channel of virtually all mint facilities. I t may b e that t he failure o f Reading prompted a f resh examination o f the area further westwards, a tract o f western B erkshire a nd central Wiltshire, with i ts c entre, Savernake F orest, over twenty miles' distant f rom the nearest mint. H ere, a t Bedwyn, i n the same T refoil-Quadrilateral type which s aw the failure of R eading, was e stablished one o f the f ew successful new mints o f Edward's reign. I n B edwyn may perhaps be seen the faint ghost o f the R eading mint. The

mint

authority.

A uthority i n the management o f mints must have b een exercised on a t l east two l evels, the one l ocal, the o ther n ational. The i nternal s tructure of a mint i s a matter of i ncreasing controversy. Biddle and K eene have argued that a town's mint might have consisted o f i ndividual workshops. Brand has taken the argument further by r egarding the term " mint" a s misleading and counterprodu ctive, wishing to replace i t by reference to " minting places" or to l ocations i n towns where minting was carried on.[42] However, even i f a town's " mint" consisted o f autonomous workshops, a mechanism must have existed to ensure competence, audit and number and continuity o f personnel. The present s tudy has not yet yielded how, and on whose behalf, the authority c onducted i tself. There i s no absolute c ertainty that all mints were royal. R esponsibility to civic, ecclesiastical, abbatial or noble a uthority must also be possibilities, but the unif ormity with which the coinage was produced and the evidence o f moneyer movement suggest an equality o f s tatus among most mints. The exceptions a re f ew, but they may be there - perhaps some privileges accorded to the church or resulting from the differing j urisdictional a ffiliati ons s uggested by the totally different characteristics O f mints located physically close to each o ther ( e.g. Winchcombe and Gloucester). The a ttempted t ermination o f coining a t Salisbury suggests that i n a possible conf lict o f interest with a c entral or superior administrati on, a l ocal i nterest could a t times successfully challenge t he i nternal preferences o f the minting system. These e lements could have been i n f requent c onflict, but above a ll the moneyer could expect to preserve his i ntere st, t hough n ot necessarily a t the l ocation o f his choice. A t the end of the day, minting i s where moneyers are rather than vice versa. I n one sense the c entral minting authority i s c ons picuous by i ts absence. No l iterary source d escribes i ts w ork yet in the uniformity with which the coinage was produced i ts impact was everywhere to be s een. The fineness, weight, d esign and emission f requency o f each type h ad to be decided upon. D ies had to be engraved and d istributed and o ther i nformation circulated. Mints a re o pened, closed, revived or reorganised a ccording, 7 7

one must a ssume, to some c entrally evoked p olicy. The g reat care taken i n the cutting o f mint names a nd moneyersignatures, the contraction i n c omplement o f the g reat mints, and the rationalisation o f mint facilities over wide regional areas a re all hallmarks o f central directi on. N o c entral authority could expect t o k eep d ayto-day c ontrol over a n i ndividual mint and the management o f the coinage i n l ate Anglo-Saxon E ngland points to e fficient decentralisation o f a national system. A f inal pointer to the existence o f this national a uthority i s the a pparent re-organisation o ccurring in t he middle o f Edward's reign. That the coinage took on a substantially different physical f orm i n the early 1 050's i s well k nown[43], but these changes i n weight and i n portraiture are but two among many which occur, o r have their i nception, i n the period o f the Small Flan, Expanding Cross a nd Pointed Helmet types. Other changes are in the s tructure o f i ndividual mints, i n d ensity o f mint provision, a nd possibly i n the duration o f type validity. The m ost pronounced change i n mint s tructure i s the c ontraction o f moneyer complement a t London, York, Winchester a nd S tamford. Lincoln, the fifth o f these great mints, h ad undergone a similar, i f more i ntense, contraction a t the b eginning of the reign. Some minor mints, of which Chichester and Northampton a re prominent examples, experi ence an i ncrease i n complement a t this time. Change i n s ize of moneyer c omplement i s but one f orm of the widespread restructuring o f mints which i s taking place. Output, once i rregular, becomes regular - this i s a common f orm o f re-organisation, a t, for example Lewes, Wallingf ord a nd the border mints. I t o ften takes the form o f abandonment o f a " reservoir" upon which some mints ( e.g. D over, D orchester a nd Nottingham) seem to h ave d rawn and l eads to g reater i ndependence f rom neighbouring mints . ( e.g. H ertford, S outhwark and B ridport). L ess use i s made o f " single-type" moneyers - Winchester provides a dramatic example o f this along with other features o f " reform". This point i n the reign i s a lso one a t which relationships between mints are changed. Wallingf ord i s for a time drawn i nto Winchester's o rbit, while Nottingham, D erby a nd Leicester g o their separate ways. Concentration of a ctivity upon I lchester completes t he process of rationalisation east o f Exeter while the p roc ess west o f Exeter i s taken one s tep further with t he c losure of Lydford. These pointers t o administrative change may be s ummarised a s follows: 1 . Changed and s tabilised weight s tandard. 2 . Changed conventions i n portraiture of the K ing. 3 . C ontraction o f moneyer complement at f our of the • f ive major mints. 4 . R estructuring o f a number

o f

5 .

some

I ncrease

i n

complement

o f

7 8

smaller mints. minor mints

6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 1 0.

Abandonment of " associate" mints. G reater " independence" of bours.

s tatus c ertain

among

moneyers

mints

f rom

and

neigh-

I nternal " strenghtening" o f c ertain mints. S tronger ties between c ertain mints. G reater reliance on " established" moneyers.

O ne i s puzzled by the dramatic d ecline i n moneyer complement a t the g reat mints. Although there i s some evidence from Lincoln that productivity among surviving moneyers might i ncrease, such i ncrease was short-lived. I s one to a ssume a dramatic turn-down i n the fortunes of York, S tamford, Winchester a nd London ( and o f Lincoln early i n the reign) a s c entres o f commerce? Certainly there i s no l iterary evidence o f a major decline i n economic a ctivity, and even i f overseas trading patterns had s hifted f rom S candinavia i n favour o f F rance and the Low Countries, London would have retained i ts commercial i mportance. Although new mints a re created i n what might b e regarded a s London's hinterland, o thers a re extinguished and none o f those that survive are o f g reat consequence. Although Winchester i s i n d ecline o ther mints a long the south coast are prospering and their number i s being i ncreased, and broadly speaking the same i s true of eastern England. Nor i s there evidence of contemporary technological i nnovation which could enable coin t o be s truck faster, perhaps i n consequence dispensing with a number o f moneyers.

A n administrative change might account for an enormous loss o f moneyers a t the major mints while l esser mints remain i ntact. F requent re-coinage[44] must have entailed retention o f moneyers on a c onsiderable scale. I f the currency of a given type were extended, so that a t any one moment several types were current, the burden of re-coinage would be considerably reduced - and even obviated i n the short t erm. The s tructure o f c ontemporary hoards might reflect this. Hoards d eposited l ate i n Edward the Confessor's reign are multi-type to a far greater extent than earlier i n the reign or i n preceding reigns[45]. A multiplicity o f moneyers would s till be required, however, to ensure that peaks o f demand c ould be met, which might explain why smaller mints do not, as a g roup, experience contraction a fter the manner of the major mints, and a multitude o f mints was s till required, presumably, to ensure rapid i njection o f n ew coin i nto the economic system. The i ncrease i n size of some smaller mints might represent a l ocalised s trengthening t o i ntensify this process. The one reform not undertaken was that which would overcome the n eed to have s everal moneyers available simultaneously. The ten points thus enumerated suggest major admini strative change planned during the early years of Edward's reign and implemented f rom c .1050 onwards.

7 9

•y

s

7

0

c

•

1 00k .

Possible move Possible move

Table

2 2.

by a moneyer between two mints. by a moneyer i nvolving three mints.

A possible

" area"

relationship

8 0

between

mints.

The reduction i n moneyer complement a t Lincoln i n the PACX L ype and the rationalisation i n Somerset may have constituted trials which, i n the event, were successful and were implemented g enerally f rom the Small Flan or Expanding Cross types onwards. The abolition of Heregeld payments and the probable extension o f type emission periods f rom also merit i nclusion a s

two years to three years[46] pointers to reform but consid-

eration has been excluded of the present work.

a s

8 1

they

l ie

outside

the

scope

Chapter

I II:

The Mints - a survey of the coin evidence.

and

interpretation

Each mint i s examined i n terms o f name-form evidence which i s i nterpreted i n terms o f moneyer tenure, c omplement and possible relationship with o ther mints. The latter expresses i tself through movement o f moneyers and dies and through the common experience o f trends or o f subjection to policy a ffecting a wider g eographical area or related to the category o f the mint. The d iscussi on o f i ndividual mints i s ordered a ccordingly. York, Lincoln, S tamford, Winchester and London, i n that order by the i ndex o f c ontact with n eighbouring mints, a nd distinctive because o f the g reat size o f their moneyer c omplement and the measures taken to reduce i t ( pages 5 5-57 and 6 6 - 68 above), are considered f irst. A ll o ther mints a re c onsidered i n g eographical clusters, the boundaries o f which are described above ( pages 6 9-72). Accompanying each mint are f igures f or the " likely" number o f moneyers and f or the " minimum" number o f coins r ecorded f or each type and a ccording to their current d isposition ( "I" f or c oins i n the British I sles a nd North America and " S" for north Europe a nd S candinavia). I :

The

f ive major mints.

York The coin material i s extensive. The n earest t o a c orpus o f the York mint that has yet been p ublished i s that part o f Elizabeth Pin e's contribution to SCBI i n which she l ists the coins f rom Northumbrian mints c .895 - 1 279 i n the Yorkshire Museum i n York and the City Museum and University Collection a t Leeds. This work c ontains a l isting o f Edward the Confessor's moneyers which, i n c onjunction with Mrs.Smart's notes o n York moneyers' names a ppended to S CBI-Merseyside C ounty Museums, constitutes an authoritative representation o f the canon o f York moneyers and eases the task o f a scribing to these " substantive" name-forms the numerous s ubordinate renderings which occur a t the York mint. The " -cetel" and " -cil" deuterothemes pose the most numerous problems. S ometimes rendered " -cytel" and " c el", they occur a t York i n c onjunction with " Ann-", " Ern-", " Ear-", " Io-" and " Ulf-" protothemes. I f the " -cetel" and " -cil" themes c ould be demonstrated to b e synonymous i n the case o f one moneyer ( e.g."Arn-""-cetel"/ " -cil") then the same would ( e.g. " Ulf-" and " Io-").

presumably

be

true

f or

others

Tables 2 3, 2 4 a nd 2 6 show that both " -cil" a nd " -cetel" f orms occur with each o f the substantive " Am -", " Io-" and " Ulf-" protothemes, and with " Am -" a nd " Ulf-" i n such a way a s to suggest synonymity. Although philol ogically discrete[47] neither the " -cil" nor the " -cetel"

8 2

deuterotheme can sustain a satisfactory career s tructure ( i.e. a s " Arncil" a nd " Arncetel"). Smart endorses synonymity[48] but Pin e i s unable to, citing both " Ulfcetel" and " Ulfcil" a s d iscrete name-forms i n the Expanding Cross type[49]. There i s also disagreement over the protothemes with which these elements a re compounded. Pin e has " Earcil" a s a substantive form, discrete from Arncetel[50] while Smart treats i t a s a subordinate form as d oes von F eilitzen[51]. Table 2 3, which was derived from over 1 30 coins of Edward the Confessor, Harold I I and W illiam I , shows that the main " Ar-", " Am -" a nd " Ern-" protothemes c ombine a t random with the two deuterothemes and i t can b e concluded that they represent e ssays at a single name-form. " Earcil" i s i ncluded i n Table 2 3 b ecause o f the deuterotheme " -cil" and the apparent close identity between " Ear-" and " Ar-" or " Ern-", but i t may represent an a ttempt a t a double vowel sound prototheme rather than the single vowel sound which characteri ses a ll o ther renderings o f the " Arncetel" prototheme. " Earcil" i s unknown elsehwhere a s a moneyer's name during the p eriod 1 042-1087 and i s not recognised by S earle, von F eilitzen or Smart a s a discrete name-form, yet the deliberation with which the reproduction of what was presumably a different vowel sound was a ttempted - by the e ngraving and employment o f a t l east two reverse dies - suggests that the coins of " Earcil" c ould represent the w ork o f an o therwise unknown moneyer. At the very least two reverse d ies are i nvolved: +EARCIL ON EOFERP: e .g. BM 4 08, 4 09, G 1 177*, F EJ 1 014*, EP 6 34-9* ( * b rief examination o f SCSI and FEJ plates suggests that these c oins were all s truck from a single reverse die). +EARCIL ON EOFERPIC e .g. BM, BM 4 10, F 967*, R S 1 82*, G 1 178-9*, EP 6 40-2* ( * b rief examination of S CBI plates suggests that these coins were all s truck f rom a single reverse die. I n other cases the readings o f these reverse l egends have been obtained by t ranscription rather than by examination of photographs or casts o f the coins themselves).[52] However, the similarity with " Arcil" forms and the g eneral a bsence a t York of " single-type" moneyers i n the period f rom the Pointed Helmet type onwards, suggests that the balance o f probabilities l ies with determination of " Earcil" a s a s ubordinate form o f " Arncetel". Tables 2 4 and 2 5 demonstrate the occurrence of the " Iocetel" s eries. " Iurelel" i s i ncluded a s a possible subordinate form i n case i t can be a ssociated with " Iorel" which i n turn might be a ssociated with " Iokel", presumably a rendering o f " Iocetel". I t i s clear f rom Table 2 4 t hat " Iocil" a nd " Iocitel" f orms fall i nto a clear chronological sequence, the former preceding the l atter. Even i f there i s philological i dentity between " -cil" and " -cetel", the absence o f full " Io-cetel" forms prior to t he Sovereign/Martlets type suggests a response to

8 3

a-

0

If

> --

8 4

,

I

i v r i -K £ -T E L

S T I V O L

{ D O R I O V D B E R N

D

I P T E R F Y G E L

I i

I I

I1

H . C r o s

)

1 1 ,

F . B u s t

A z N c i g m

S T \ I . B o s z t \ I

O v O G R I M

D O R

S I D A R 7 C O L

O y D V L F

I O C E T L

S C v t . A

_

u .

C Z T E L

4

X

, E L T A N i

>

k e , p , A m v t . r i h o w i m » . . . m . . . . . . I

, L E 0 F N o p

U u . J

S> R I C O L

E c n

i t D E L I D I N E .

Z J U :

V N O L F

Il

Ce h u l

S 1 ) ,E G E N

. 1

e

I — u) U

I O L A

t il

, 2. 9 " 1

S . M a r t l e t s

S' ,

1 '

<


g. . . . :

0

, I .

, 10,1

i

1 ( 41.

S . M a r t l e t s

_

t A

'

4

I o r y , a a t Z

0 1r e )c o l

o -

I

Z J u

I I I

I

h

2 -

7 . t .

o I ,

c o ( I c . 7

I I

= . .

0 r n a . u . i

E x p . C r o s

P . H e l m e t

I . T, C 7,

CC O

a . w

•

R i o :

L . 1 _ _ _ _

_

2

4

- i n I , • , d

c . . 4 _

•c o-4c o h

4 _ 4 .

,-

0, - -1 c i L A U . c 0 . . c . „ j _ 2 c • 1 4 L) L a a G o ` J . t s i c v oz ,r « j e 0 . 7) . •o s 'u • Z g % 0 c s 4 P j" ,o b i -I Z r - " : u . ./ ) e l c o = 0 c v r l •0 1 , i 52 2 0 - -c 3 , , t , •z ( 4 '-

( I)

v , •i . i

— • .-

Z

a _

_ . ,

5 : . :

> ,' — > < ;

N

e

( 1 )

c o0

L

t -

, N _

_

t _ 7 , t ) c • 4 ( N I U . 2 p • • •

R a d i a t e

. » . . . «

n i

0sD

0

z _ . -

t

, 0 , r,

2 L i 0. .z

c V

1

-86. -1 --

„ 4- 1 . n o, r .

d r _ c r,, , ) a ,, c , r ) , i, 7 1 , -

.t ,. •i , . , , i . : 1 c . , ) , -, c s ••

f

c ,

I

7 i ;

4

0 4-

u

)

_ ,

f r i4 T

U

Z Z a - Z U U c 7 1 C O

i e n 1°

8 L a .

I

t n > 3

I-

u .‹-

I "•: h - ,• , t ). . , i / • . C : Y, 0 - c , • , c v ( n r - c v 4- a s •u c l . . L a "1 0 _ J L J 1 1

I4 . ' c f . , ) ,g , ' r n rr " -• ‘ . -t z a02

O
. -

A

0 •0

t f ,

N

g = C

•g

.• c r )

Z h

. r , 1 . :T .

gc o

E dward t he C onfessor : YoRK ,

s o se r ,1

g

—

. r j


x

X h 2

Z . C a i x ) I 4 r, ;

t i Z . ' > 4

•

r -

r n

x

d

t S 2 i I n

a . =

. ) 0 L A . 1 2 o e

2 c 1 0

J 0

5 _

0

J . J 0,

< 1 )

‘ f l

U

2

_ , •

( ., .

et ›-

9 1

A

E dward t he C onfessor :YoRK d > i, Z 0. . ) . . . ' •• • 2 . I I a t i a -( •c t, i n V

g* -1 7 r io • e

•0 , „ • N . ), 1 .. £• ti 4 (. 4r • 1 N . , a "` 1 ) - w . 0 -0 •N o -

c o

G .e n N

m

. ,w oE f e ckp c,. , , s o.. . , ,? , ,

. * r . :, :n j i, . 0 r ,f .-. N

c

N o

N

2

X r s • I

•0 c i

o-,0h GO

. 0 ,u i

• \ fro 3 u UL I -r

.

o c i D

b .

0i ,

•

U

• •

. -

LL Z .

it

-•

--

rn ( 1) rel i ll

, ; , La s •i n, ! _ › . -pe ; > - ' ' z i c r 8 r -1 • 4 1t - r 1 . _,

,

c aP r - OA -v ' M't 0 A6 c i ll h 14 . -

Ni

.a _

a z

0 " 4

. 4 .

•, . , , ;

s r()

,

( 7 4 5

, . -S

l

s c. , r 1 2,

7I . L i. _ •

x s t M I. ' t A

•o t i C 0 \

0 9

E r -r _ .

_ S . M a r t l e t s

.—

. 4 -- 7 1

L r ) Z . )

•01 ' .f 1

=

e

H e l m e t

L .

C °

0

-

r -0

0

e

E x p . C r o s _ _

•_

_ , 0 0 u r • • v o

-

c "i nz

. 4. • -A , ' o e= r -

r n

• I .q)

4 .. r ) co

N ' ( -4 4

. _ 1

•r -

1 -

0 .

e i l r . 1 • z rc n •. ,4=

4

t e 1^ z n t r , 4 . .I •

e

e r e a .

N o X o

c f )

c, i

- d

. 0

r - r n L r il '

" i : e t i

r :

c . " do 1 - I N . 4 . 1 -

. 0

L c )

. i ,D

0. . i

r n- .fq 4 _b d.

d a d o I o

0

SD

•

! . 1 . 2 N I, .g ( 4 '

4

u )

i ef i . t

•

s t =t s • 20 3.

E

0

i n

h 2

Z a ;C ° -

S

t n i

'

•

L o o' ( J l i r • I

C T ,r `

f iV .

c • J

( 4 ') C r '

o p r

T r e f o i l

e i

u r • -• !

j

,a ,

- 0 3 C • 4

' -Z.

• •0, 2

— —. . a -/ i •

s-

C L M 7 1 2 C A S . 9 m 1 5 . K N V . H 1 6 4 . 0 e E P 2 3 8 .

C N S 6 . 1 0 4 9 .

C l _ f r 1 " 7 1 6 7 1 . E P

$ 6 4 . H 1 6 2 . N A M

S i 3 6 5 , 1 3 6 7 1

,5 1 M C M .

B M 2 5 7 . C 4 8 6 3 ,

R a d i a t e

3 9 2

. 4 0 2 .

4 0 3

L i l . )

•

e l s O

X C) CC

: 4

C L

i

0 4

N O s l o o , -

4 2 %

Z . 0

1 1S UW

C 4 8 6 , 9 6 7 . 1 4 6 4 1 6 9 , 1 7 0 .

. . . .

C O

c e i-1 4 -
•U 1

• . t

L I r - c . 02 4

1 •, -c 7 ,4 -0 35-

, c,i '

•,- s i

` . 0 .1,o D

0

t i l( . 4 )

2 a z •Z b L d 'i H z " 1 . "( 7 3 r - C c ° • O 1 i n < i l I" J . r n ` ,tn.1 e f i1 -sxL K .r .r i . - 1 . , •r i `D o 0 I u- c r. 0C D 2 r ' ) O D ir f ) , . , L t . ;- 0 r -•,r,c o i f ) L n , ' . 0 C 7 , E. q ) N 4 . t ! I I . • , c , - -0 _ L -0 3."' a . I L - 1 . . r- 0 c,- • r „ ,;2 0 w-0 0 v o p t") 1

C r , •I . ) 0 0s r )L

. : . : 5, , i' "- e •- y i

. 4

. 7 ; . Zin -, . 40 DIA0 3 • • N ' 1 * . 0 7• 0 2

.g )c, , . . . _ ,

C N

. ) - r nV I

•° '

` 4 3 . 0 0 0N c a 2< 0 1

, f -g 0x• 0 < N tI.,c p .a . " z

F C

4

L . )

Y C Y

CZ

0

c : C 0

> . -

_

_ I

e t

I l i

t . 7

I L a

C Z >

c a

c z

9 2

‘ . ) U _ I

>

Z -

J

J

L A .

e •

u t

_ . , D . • &

e >

1 4

) 0

z >

a G I i Z

E dward t he C onfessor

Y

O R

K

r 1 3

( 0 L > a _

t -

a .

V ) z

CO

. U. _


x

t .

C 4

.

N

7 -

r • '

0\

, . G. .

u l

I

I0

>

>

X

P . H e l m e t

e t r i si e 1c i >„ I x>

t o

1 , n , N -

S I N

I X X X 1 — . . „

e l

N 5 -I •

+a )

_

Z . I

I7 , '

( f )

-

ir 71

> 7 : XC a

¼ 9

> < op

J

r . ,

E x p . C r o s

1 . 1

x

L I )

•

( C I

•

0

L n ( O E

I

t

_ = x

z X

_ tn . -r u y

7 . . .

—1

_/

. 1

J

x

c r )

. :

y

x

X

. 0r •

i

x x oa _ . , c o .

0,

c m ( I )

1 : >

L X v 1 t — 3 1

x

5 5 2 1 5 3 0

< 4 C I )

7 2

2

R a d i a t e

i xc o Ya . _

I n ' o c

o r n c sc s l

r A

9 3

2 9 , 3 0 , 3 1 ,

La

N _ . . , , 0 i i .- e lC - C 4 > < > c x 0 , ) , '

r 1

(N

Z

t

. . ,

s W -

LÄ

2

u . ,

_ z l i -




0 u

4 > u

. _ l , ' • i

Z ,


( V I 1 i .

1

2 _9 e 1

I 7 2 A

2 6

!

!

I 7 4 A

T L .

D Y 1 1 5 2 6 .

72

)

X X u. i •

. 1 T C L I

x v ) 1 ,b

-_

-, s C 6

0 0

L x v t , 2 , 3 .

i i c. 4

, u ;

r i

,

t r, _

D , . 0 ,4 —

1 6 3

CO

> H . C r o s

N 0 '

,. 1 )-‘

i n '

) 7 X ;

1 10

V 3 r i,

e :

I

X x

E dward t he C onfessor.u w-( x _ K

P y r a m i d s

0 r • N

i n

. e I

0 N r ()

f n

* X

I ls

, - e ,el

F . B u s t

1 0 ' X— 0

Je i t , ' N i : I:

-8 , 9 ,

t o , i t , t 2

,

t _ x v i l

> x

N

0 e l

_ I

i1

>

C o>

X

i nX

P . H e l m e t

S . M a r t l e t s

c o

1 3 . W C 9 6 5 . m c m .

H . C r o s

C 9 N

3 1 8

a l

I J

E x p . C r o s

*

C C D

f ; 1a n t i o s t o

c r , N c r ; , 1

— C O E (r )

X x _ J

? )

. . J

21, 2 , 2 3 , 2 4 ,

1 0

>
c s )

> X

L v 2 . 5 z _ J

0

( . , z -

_ +

T -M .1 5 , 1 6 , 1 7 , ) 8 .

_ 0

v t i 4 , 5 .

2 4 1

I1/ 49

x

. . J C . )

-8 l ' 2 4 8

—

, c e

1g x,

3 t 1

R a d i a t e

, . -u i

C D C L

i : ' , Z0 c z> 7 ` , p , , L i0 _ i,

,

c s ,

C1 ' S X v 1 . 1 G S 8 3 ' 8 1 3 7

r .•

0

. . , , s -, • ‘ . 1

N

x T c

, t1 . •

'- G

2 S , 2 ( . > .

L X 1 N 4 . O s .


D .• .

I D c , 00 ‹

0 —,

P y r a m i d s

c e )

W INCH 'ESTER

,N

c r 0 & a . Z c s /

4• • N

•

* q l

c . 10 0

1

o N

•

F . B u s t H . C r o s

P .

'

6 3

-

r

c

A

— 0

N L n

0, . 0 N

.

—

•

. 4 .

-

'

( 1 )

,

-

,-t r , ;. ., . 0., .1 , 4-4-

—

Z

c o

X '

2

t o( )W I

ci , s , S • 44 ., r iT_ -0 2 A " e •0, . ( S) ' J .N ( pw i z 3 g e ,) - c o i n o •0 ; 1 l l 0 l e«1 . .0 , d. o nc ot i ) ; : . r ' l o« 4 ' t • 0 —'I , . 1 _ . , 0* - . r gI Qu

c .a . •

.

c r \ _

0

L t . ri c a U

/ N1

c o -z

Z _ .

, . A; ec ox X . L r ' c o • -

o

2c a t

. . 1 • c n . / . . :

0 ,

•j

4 r iAL . —.

r ,--- •

0

A.

'

t O 0

0 34 3N C r, c • I

• Z " " 0

° I ti a . r .

L . )

—

C ` l , .

x i G O

c v -

X I

i s,

z h U 1 , ,

( 1 .

I I f l i 0-

. - 0 . h d • r_ N t i l

I •X r , 3 co Z ) -

S . M a r t l e t S

N

•Cf “ ' ")

.

T in - u A 0:x u ;i c f ) .I _ . •t h a '7 4 ;L i )V ; g i l • n c Q N 1 . -v l 3x . 0 c ,09 , . 4.. , ,Z _Qh.-t r q . , N i . 0

c r, L acc l u i • r1 C n e _i • • u» . / 1 I A i l

0

,

0

0 t, trn

4 : . s o

I

u . i •— 0

u

,

e _ 00,r 7 .1 .11 ; 7 , • 0r n 00 io E ` 4 ' l s r 7 i ±g 434Z iw 1 r s N e h , N = NiZ . ?N 0 , n- e n -. . , r .. .6 r t 3 00 °z . r ` ' 4 C , l . 5 < PA a 0 CL 1 . ä . r r 0 V ) LA r ) e I Cr

r A

P . H e l m e t

-'

-

1

. -

L A

*

. . . .

‘ ,)

_

N

R : 1

L . .:

2 . 4 5 t . S U M C

•0 r - r rr

N

. i .

' G3

r f

e , , l 4.

r . .

z

V)

c n e l l

. . A - h•

,-,

2

4 - 1 ` 1. c 0 U U

I. 4 . 2 • 3 ' 4 * 4;

2

4 d •t -

Is '

o. nrN I = 10 0 .

Q °

00

E

4 3 t 4 1 3 9 6 , 1 3 9 7

E x p . C r o s l C ( 0

W n r

( . 1

g . T H

6 0

t nEX •.t • I t . 'U " A m in -). i .r . cr q v l 1 t r " ,3 u r e )t e _ I -r Z 0_ . P • •• 2 •I " -i r _ I

BM 1 3 ' 4 e

a. r n

T r e f o i l

. . . .

E dward t he C onfessor

4

1 ; 1

r i . -4 r- 4 D owr Uc 'e n N • I •r e ' T , .i .L i ) _ T -0 - Zg U 4 . % g

,F o r

4 -

,- -j

• . . v

r n

c v

C r

-I -

x tZr z ud : , mu o ' -- 4 77 , =

=i e L l .

x

0
CO r t )

t n • c. c r, — . ) o r, ,• 1 , , ,

C .) • C t .

X w

— Z

cO

' t C O

h , . ,

t •

C O cr , • • — •t ‘ r ) ' • *z i- L ° 1 ' U 0 rc • , i-

r - 3 < I uc ou c nv )u )3

I r` ' 3

C 9

1 . _ — _ 0 E ( 1 ) , ' L

T r e f o i l

f r ) , D N

_

7 -

9 : > < x h 2 a a

, o •

• 4 0

C O 1 ( 0 .—

c • I

0-)

"V

• 0

4°

a :

L . ) = s i

X 0

o i w I U ) L J

s •0 —

C O

— C O

I c r, d , ( Ja

C 4 1 2 6 7 . H 7 9

C 4

3 3 7 9 8 -

e 2 7 3

a _

-H c o o , _ _ _ ,

z
c ( 2

o


N

6F E Z 5 2 0 . 0 P 6 . 4 6 . L > A T i c

*

5 9 2 . S C A C4 1 0 4 5

a ) + -

H4 4 b , 4 7

9 _ . . .

M 7 4 9 .

L . 1 .-

PC B 3 7 9 .

2 7 2

r-

C A 1 0 4 9 , 5 o 4 5 0 . C 4 1 0 4 7 ,

2 7 1

u )

4 9

A7 6 4 , 4 5 , 4 B

E x p . C r o s

Et e i

E P 1 0 7 3 . 0 B M -

8 1 2 e . 1 M 1 2 . 4 S 8 6 4 1 1 2 3 7 9 .

W C " 7 3 9 . G 1 3 . F E . 3 G S 8 1 7 S O .

68 4 89 .

1 0 5 , i o 5 6 . A 1 0 2 5 .

3 5g 7 1 . .92 t r t 2 _

3 5 0

C .

. 5 4 .

P y r a m i d s

P C B 6 3 , 1 6 ' 8

1 3 m 1 0 B M 1 0 5 4 S B Y 6 .

S.

F . B u s t

C-C

E dward t he C onfessor .LON DON

, 3, •, C O : : I A ,

0 -c o XL n c 0( 1 )

c,

l S ) N

4

/

• o s. 4 .

t

Ed w a r d

th e

C o n f e s s o r:

L ON D O N

c o

N

cr . °

*

4 -

r n N t

r -

Z 0

0 Z

0 _ J

< ( .5

C : u J

Q

a l c : 2 ,

—1

_ 1

L . 1

U 1 Z

r a C ) J


D

_ 1 < U i

C e

2

h0 u l

0

z Z

L i L . 7 _

H

( f )

0 L I . ,

1 4 9

f -

Ui

>

C L U i

L u

. P . 1 . J

a 0

L . 7

Z >

z


5 P 9 2

— _I

Ch m e

r • -•

S I

C M ( 2 5 4

0

r -

k J„ i s

e

1 5 8 . L C 8 4 5 F .

,

8

r 0 3

t r ‘

0 1

0, £

S P 7 3 1 4 3 4 . E M

ca

L i e a U s e _ ( ‚ lt r )

H 5 0 8 . P C 3 6 2 b ,

,0

F 9 2 7 . 8 1 • 1 0 4 1 , 1 0 4

c ' ' ' •c 7'‘ i 0 ' 4 ( . 4 1 D 4. . . - , -

. . 3

C O

. W B

D, •- 0 z

. ,

CD

1 6 2 . C H 2 Z .

0 L 1 C T

4 9 8

0 2

E A 1 2 3 8 . L D C . • S I A M C ( 2 ) .

s _

G S 7 3

30 o 0

u )

-7 4 3 9

2c zzz( 2 , • :

g: .-_ , , ,z

C O Z 0 C I )

Z 0

0 c c

i l i

0

,c a

0

Z

Z < C ) J

0

0

0

0

U i L D

U i z

1 . / J 2

0

-

rz_

_ i _ -j 0

1 50

P J 0

_ I

0

D u . i

c e 0

c . i

0

r )

— c y

C D

0

Z u -

1 . i

0 w

I

E dward t he C onfessor . L .c ,NooN N • s l )

' I

L A

I

a cD OP , . 1 3

a,

F . B u s t

o

VI

1 0 7 5

( 1 ,

.

E P

7

1

P y r a m i d s

, J )

N.

03 4

C O N

Ch

h

e

' -

r

1

_ i

a . L n

> _ J X

5

c e )

. ,

e •

c öu

, _,

i n

r f )

U s , t

W • r • -• 0 N L I 1 2

0 — c e

>

,I : i

• 0

, „ •4

U . '

0 j r 5

>

5 8 7 4 5 E 4 3 2 .

i_ A m t 5 a l

N

P c ß 5 3 ,

e 4 c o 0 9 . M 3 %

P O E 1 7 i 8 . 6 M 1 0 5 I 3 M 1 0 6 , 1 0 7 , 1 Z 1 % , 1 0 9

g m .

7 2

BM

1 0 2

7 . 5 7

3 8 7 4 E 3 6 8

B t • i j X I p . 7 8 ,

. L c 8 4 5

A 9 5 7 . G 1 2 . 8 1 3 m 1 0 4 5 , 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 4 7 . M L C t . 1 2 5 6 . P C . A 3 i 9 0 5 d

H . C r o s

6 4 1 9

7 Z

5. W B

7 .

1 3 0 .

L

c 2 . 2 6

P c B 1 8 9 ? G R i 2 a 7 ? G 1 5 1 . 1 , 2 . 1 6 . B M

C j M 1 0 1 4 3 1

B m 1 0 6 4 . B M .

H A P 2 0 3 f

1 0 6 1 , 1 0 6 2 , 1 0 6 3

C M 1 3 2 S B r -

B M 1 0 7 2 S c .

P c 8 1 E 9 .

R 5 1 7 6 , A i o 2 8 . 6 m . ,

s . c 4 1 4 ,

j 0 6 0 . P C B 1 6 9 . 93 E 3 4 0 .

ML . S c A 6 4 4 B M 1 0 7 3 . B M .

P y r a m i d s

S c A 6 4 3 . F E 7 5 4 3 P c » 1 8 3 5 8 7 i 3 E . 1 4 M 4 6 1

7 6 9

7 2 9

1 0 5 9

r 1 M 5 1 3 7

BM

6 7 9

k

F . B u s t

6 8 0 I

7 3 0

h

B M 4 2 . S c A 6 3 6 . C A 1 2 3 , 1 2 , 4 . I A 5 % 0 , 5 8 1 , 9 1 2 , 5 8 3

7 6 4

7 2 6

. D v )

H 5 8 S . G 1 0 3 4 L . 0 c .

9 4 6 5 . 4 1 C ( 2 ) . 1 5 6 9

G 1 0 4 1 , 3 m 9 4 5 ,

7 4 5

B 1 2 1 2 7

1 2 . G S 8 0 . 4 1 6 2

B M 9 2 , B M S c A 1 -

6 7

S . M a r t l e t s

/ c )

I r 8 4 $ . ^ 8

! S P 9 0 4 S 0 5 . S E .

7 5 4 -

10 , C m 1 6

E 3 9 , 3 4 0 .

1 0 3 . B M 8 4 1 .

7 4 17 3 . W 8 3 .

c v )

0, 4 1 [ S F 8 0 3 6 1 . P c 5 1 t A 3 E 8 o t

B M

H 5 3 . A M C 5 8 0 .

B M O . g m .

F E D " 5 3 4 , H 5 4 ,

P c 6 1 3 8 . 5 c 2 0 8 ,

P . H e l m e t

,

. _ ' .

19 9S is 9S

c Z 0 . ( i )

J ü


t . n

. . 3

z

< Z

Arm

and

Sceptre

Harthacnut Edward

the

Confessor

+BRVNRED

ON

+BRVHRED

ON

C3-3720 SVD

H 183

+BVRED ON SVDG +BVRRED OHH SVDG

H 707(cf. ASC p . 1 82 ) HAP 1 90 exPCB 1 105

+BVRRED

BM

ONN

SVDE

ex

F EJ

769

PACX +BVRED ON SVDGE BNJ XXXVIp. 192 ? +BVRNR.. BM 1588 +BRVHRED ONN SVDG SPM Radiate/Small

Cross +BVRED ONN SVDG +BVRED ONN SV.. +BVRGRED ON SVD: +BVRRED ON SVDGO

Radiate/Small

+BVRED

. .

+BVRED

. .

BNJ XXXVIp.192 no. 6 C4-1202 C4-1203 CM 1 130 ex GR 1 188

( mint signature not provided) SHM-C ( mint signature not provided) SHM-C s ub " type 5 "

Cross +BVRRED

ON LVND

FEJ

5 19."L"

was originally cut Southwark?) +BVRRED ON LVND PCB 1 106 Small

no.4

as

of LVND " S"(for

Flan +BVRHREI

ON ex

LVN C4-1041, GS CM 1 156, LC 8 01,

7 7'9-100 HMH, FEJ

5 26, F 8 41 ( cut halfpenny . .. RHEI identified as d ie duplicate of BM 7 93), BM 7 93 At l east two reverse dies were employed i n the s triki ng of these coins. Expanding

Cross ( 1) ( h)

TABLE a t the

5 3.

" Burred","Brunred"

Southwark Confessor

ON ON

LVND LVND

etc.

at

RS 1 47 SP87 p .336 9 21. Southwark

no.3, BM

and

London

( Harthacnut Arm and Sceptre a nd Edward PACX). " Brunred" and " Burred"/"Burgred"

are regarded by though i t would " Burgred" posed to

+BVRED +BVRED

Smart a s philologically discrete forms, require only the " VR" of the " Burred"/

prototheme to have been accidentally transproduce the " Brunred" form. I f that had

happened the ensuing BRVNRED form, intended a s woüld have been very close to the BVRHREI the Small Flan type at London to " Burred"/"Burgred"[106]. Of

1 88

which Smart the various

BVRNRED, form of

normalises i nterpret-

ations possible „ the deliberation with which BRVNRED i s c onsistently achieved i n two s eparate i ssues, and the p hilological a ssociation o f BVRHREI with " Burred"/ " Burgredu i n preference to " Brunred", suggests that two m oneyers are a t work, a Brunred a t S outhwark until the P ACX type and a Burred/Burgred a t S outhwark and London until the Expanding Cross type. PACX: moneyers are well a ttested. Radiate/Small Cross: Burred, Wulfwine and glfric are well a ttested. No pvLFpi or pvLpi f orms a re encountered among the f our c oins a ttributed to " Wulfwine". C 41 206 o f R IC a t S outhwark i s a ttributed to glfric, there b eing no o ther moneyer a t the mint bearing a nameform e lement " -n c" to whom the c oin might be a ttributed. Trefoil-Quadrilateral: Leofwine i s well a ttested. Small F lan: glfwine and Leofwine: well a ttested. I ncluded i n the two coins recorded o f glfwine i s BMC 4 82 o f +ELFPI I \E ON GV re-attributed f rom Guildford[107]. Expanding Cross - Hammer Cross: moneyers a re well a ttested. Facing Bust: Godric and O smund a re well a ttested. There are i n addition i n the City hoard one coin o f "Brihtric" and two of Swetman a ttributed to this mint in t his type[108]. Although Facing Bust coins have yet t o be published of either name-form a t S outhwark, it w ould b e reasonable to expect c oins i n the name o f Swetman, a moneyer a t S outhwark i n the Pointed Helmet and H ammer Cross types, and o therwise a t the London mint. No " Brihtric" i s known a t London, and any a ttribution t o Southwark on the basis o f the City hoard record would b e unwise. Pyramids: there i s i n the trays o f the British Museum a c oin of O smund f rom the City hoard with two tickets, one g iving London a nd the o ther S outhwark a s mint a ttribution. The mint on the original, City hoard ticket, is t ranscribed L \A -4 1" 09 ; expanded a s LVNDEI this would be a n acceptable London mint signature. What seems to h ave happened i s that b etween the final E I o f the mint name a nd the i nitial c ross o f the l egend part o f an a dditional l etter has been i nserted with the i ntent of a ltering the mint signature by converting the final " I" i nto " P". A s can b e s een, this modification o f the f inal " I" appears to be superimposed upon the transverse bar o f the i nitial c ross: I t must appear that the die s tarted to be altered f rom " London" t o " Southwark" perhaps O smund, regularly at b oth mints, may have had cause very suddenly t o s trike at t he Southwark mint i n this type - what has yet t o be a scertained i s whether the c oin by which h e may b e known i n this type a t London ( HM 2 -156d) i s i n fact either the same c oin or f rom the same reverse die. While Osmund was probably active i n this type a t both mints, there i s evidence to support a presence a t o nly one m int, but which mint i t i s cannot be determined. In N ovember 1 982 S pink offered f or sale a further Pyramids

1 89

penny of O smund a t " London" ( SP90-8156 o f OSMVND ON LVNDEI ex Argyll) which i s v ery probably s truck f rom the same altered reverse die. Apart from O smund's doubtful presence i n t he Pyramids type, coin evidence i s l argely uncontroversial. What will have been observed i s that there i s a constant f luctuation of the number o f moneyers r ecorded f rom type to type, that with the exception o f Osmund no moneyer works for more than two consecutive types and t hat, rather than making i ntermittent appearances throughout the reign, each moneyer i s confined to a s ingle p eriod o f a ctivity. The s tructure revealed by the c oin evidence has been taken almost c ompletely a t face value a s i ndicati ve o f the mint's s pecial s tatus: the a ctual n umber o f moneyers rather than a calculated " likely" n umber has g enerally been taken a s the basis of the c alculation o f the moneyer complement. The only modification required might be that i n the Small F lan type glfwine might be Leofwine's successor, and Swetman's presence might be presumed i n the S overeign/Martlets type. At this juncture i t i s appropriate to s ay something about the moneyers. At other mints some, i ndeed most, moneyers will have a period o f activity extending over s everal types and representing a period of s ervice which, typically, can extend f rom anything between ten o r so y ears to thirty or even more. Most o f Southwark' s m oneyers work a t the mint for one o r two types o nly. A gain, a t o ther mints, i t i s common f or some moneyers' n ames to parallel those o f moneyers a t n eighbouring m ints. I n some cases a common i dentity, and therefore movement between mints, i s suspected, i n o ther cases not. In this i nstance, the names of eleven of the twelve Southwark moneyers are f ound a t London i n a sensible c hronological s equence with the appearance o f the name-form at S outhwark. Even with glfric, a name-form unknown at L ondon a fter the re-attribution o f the Small F lan penny of + gLFRIC ONN LVD ( H 4 07) to Lydford ( see b elow, p .399 ) and the normalisation to " ggelric" o f the " glric" f orms o f e .g. +ALRIC ON LVNDE of BM 8 70 i n the Trefoil-Quadrila teral type, c oins of Cnut a nd Harold I s uch a s C32 004 and C 4-292 a ttest to the presence o f an g lfric a t London who may very well have t erminated his c areer a t S outhwark i n Edward the Confessor's r eign. Only Brunred appears t o have served the S outhwark m int exclusively. A very close relationship would appear to e xist between the London and the S outhwark mints. What i s i ts nature? D oes London recruit from Southwark o r are London moneyers " retired" to S outhwark? C an some f orm o f " rotation" be d etected among London moneyers, d eployed to s erve t emporarily a t S outhwark or does a ny moneyer appear , mint?

to An

acquire regular analysis o f the

responsibility for characteristics of

1 90

t he t he

Southwark Southwark

moneyers suggests that a typical " tour o f duty" i s f or a m oneyer with s everal years' experience to i nterrupt his c areer a t London very briefly to share i n the work of t he Southwark mint for one or two types. The " secondment" occurs i n mid-career and the moneyer then returns to h is accustomed place across the Thames. The i nterruption i s minimal to his s ervice a t London because i n most cases the moneyer i s known a t London for the type, o r types, for which h e i s known a t S outhwark ( Table 5 4). Exceptions are £1fric and Godman, whose s ervice i s completed a t the Southwark mint, and O smund, the one moneyer to c oin i n type a fter type a t S outhwark, dividing his time b etween Southwark and London. His arrival marks a r e-organisation o f minting a t S outhwark - and therefore of t he Southwark mint's relationship with London. T he S outhwark mint appears to pass through three phases in Edward's reign. At the very beginning o f Edward's reign none of the four moneyers i s currently at w ork at London. This may well represent a c ontinuation o f an a rrangement characteristic o f the period prior to E dward's accession, but i nsufficient ordered data exists to e stablish whether this i s the case. The period Radiate/Small Cross or Trefoil-Quadrilateral to early Pointed Helmet s ees a s tyle of management which i s markedly d ifferent, i n which a moneyer ( Leofwine f ollowed by L iofred) appears to work for two successive types, without abandoning his commitments to the London mint. The a ppearance of / E lfwine i n the Small F lan type could suggest that some " attached" moneyers may have had a status subordinate to others, or that a s econd moneyer replaced the first when he returned to London. During this s econd s tage the S outhwark mint appears a t i ts weakest. The paucity o f evidence, must, however, be emphasised and a s more coins are published, any difference in m anagement o f the mint between the first half a nd the s econd half o f the reign may become l ess apparent. In t he Pointed H elmet type O smund's appearance signals a s ignificant change. The continuity he provides suggests that t he " out" mint a t S outhwark was now to be the responsibility of one moneyer, albeit a moneyer working simultaneously f rom London; the presence of additional moneyers for s horter terms - Swetman, G odric and G odman - implies a c ontinuation o f the " subordinate" s tatus d escribed above, and i s an i ndication that although i n this phase of d evelopment the S outhwark mint has gained a degree of i ndependence, i ts domination by London i s s till very considerable. Why the mantle o f responsibility should fall u pon O smund i s quite unclear. A t a time o f enforced contraction a t London there would presumably have b een a number o f London moneyers capable o f taking over the Southwark mint, yet the task i s g iven to a " newcomer" and p ossible " outsider". Only Godman s eems to have come t o Southwark a s a result of London's c ontraction. After the Conquest, Southwark's s tatus i s enhanced. As T able 5 5 shows, O smund's regular contribution to

1 91

I

0

>

I

C' "

S P I T

•

I 1

1

I

'1 1 1 I

I

a

I

I I

•

• ,

I

I I

I

I

I

>1 1 1 1 >

1

I

I I

5

f 9

I

I

I

>

I

>

I

I

I

I I I

I

I

1

I

C D > H

O ' C I

P

0

4

U

4 C d g i O O g i C f d

O

U )

S 1

r d

=

•

H

u l , -

a ) 1 1 1 H

\_ _ ____ _, - .1

o e 0 3

, e4 4 )

H

. -

3

• O

R e t i r n g a t S o u t h w a r k

R e t u r n i g t o L o n d o n

C o m i n g t o S o u t h w a r k f r o m L o n d o n

A p a r e n t l y r e c r u i t e d a t

C I ) 4

O

H

0

C n

H u )

=

( D >

r d ( 0 0

H r d i 0

0

< 4

. 1 n . 1

e . Ia ) ( 1 ) > I

> ot r ) g l

a )

0

. i

! 1

g i 0 >

r i 0 U L g i

0

C D

0

4 H

r c i

L r )

0

r d

g i c d

i.C

t f )

, 1 I i n

.

4 )

. H u )

H

e C D

E

0

4

« 3

0

g i

0 Z l i g i C C d 0 ( 1 )

U ) , 0 H H Q ! ›, 4 a ) KJ

— 44 . 1

4 . )

0

• . -1H

r o4

0 H

4 )

> c n u ) c o , 1 , 1 g l • 1 f a )

( 1 )

C O

O

P 4 )

•

ec s g i g i

r oe , -

r d

4

S -

o ( i )

0

Q4 C d 0 4 0 r dH H P c ) . ,

—

r d

, - 1

, C

H

, u )H u )u )

u ) u ) ( I )

H • -. . H . . . .

CI

. r 1 . 3

. u )

>

c o

C D

‚ 4 .) t 3)t y ) 0

. ,

.• a )

H —E

0 : 1

a )

I

.-

› ,

H

• P

( C I 0 0 f -i. —I

r i l

r d o o

S o

4 )

C d

0 r d

P

L

S o u t h w a r k

4 ) Ks

g i

G ) H 0

0

g l

a )

r d H E

G c i ) U )

0

H

H g i c o C D

I

I

I I I

› ,

I

C o n f e s o r .

•

I I

S o u t h w a r k ' s

M A N

1 0 5 M V

e -•

I I

I I

Notes

to

Table

5 4

Moneyer Origin: Every S outhwark moneyer except B runred and O smund appears to have had a previous career at L ondon. O smund's London career commences i n the same type a s a t S outhwark, and he may be the O smund previously known a t Lewes. Most o f these moneyers commenced work b efore Edward the Confessor's a ccession and the absence o f comprehensibly ordered data f or that period precludes any categorical s tatement, especially about the origins of those moneyers a t Southwark early i n Edward's reign. F or the l ater moneyers, for whom a clear run a t London prior to their attachment to S outhwark can more easily b e detected, i t may be a ssumed that they originated at London. Overall career o f the moneyers: Again, absence o f data prior to 1 042 makes i t difficult to b e c ertain that those moneyers a t S outhwark early i n Edward's reign were not a lso close to the beginning o f their London career. R eference to BMC, BEH and S CBI Cop. 3 and 4 will show, however, that i n all probability, such moneyers were already well e stablished at L ondon. Because s o many of London's moneyers in E dward's reign commenced their careers prior to 1042 i t makes i t difficult to e stablish " seniority"; what i s clear i s that i t was quite untypical f or a recently-appointed moneyer to be a ttached t o S outhwark. I ndeed, o f S outhwark's moneyers i n Edward's reign only Swetman and O smund a ppear to have c ommenced their careers a s moneyers ( be i t a t London, S outhwark or e lsewhere) i n Edward's reign and a t the t ime o f Swetman's transfer there were some twenty-five moneyers of g reater " seniority" a t London. O smund, a s we have s een, commenced a t both mints i n the same type; Godric, however, was among the four most " senior" moneyers a t London. " Simultaneous working": I n s trict t erms there i s probably no such thing. I t i s, however, desirable to e stablish whether London moneyers a t S outhwark devote their entire a ttention to the mint during the p eriod of their a ttachment, and to a c ertain extent, e specially when they c oin only f or a single type a t S outhwark, this can be e stablished by their presence or absence a t London i n that type. G enerally their working i s simultaneous. Links with other mints: I t i s u seful to d etermine whether some moneyers can have a greater propensity for movement between mints than o thers. I t proved difficult to determine this i n the case o f London moneyers a t S outhwark because f ew London moneyers can b e Reading,

satisfactorily l inked Horndon, S outhwark and

1 93

with mints H ertford.

o ther

than

the output o f the S outhwark mint c eased i n 1 066. Although the name-form re-appears i n BMC types I I, VII a nd VIII of William I , and occurs until a t l east BMC type I I of William I I, i t i s, o f course, pure speculation t hat the n ame-form denotes one moneyer and n ot two; i f one moneyer of this name i s a t work he would have had a career o f some forty-five t o fifty years. D uring the i ntervening period the mint i s worked by a moneyer Leofwine, a name-form which d oes not occur at L ondon i n William I 's reign and so a new developmental s tage may b e recognised, by which the S outhwark mint renders i tself quite i ndependent o f i ts n eighbour. I

I I

I II

IV

V

VI

V II

V III

Leof wine G odrec gldoulf Lifward O smund TABLE

5 5.

x

The

S outhwark mint

i n William

I 's

r eign.

S outhwark i s a remarkable mint. I ts apparent d ependence upon London, emphasised at both t he beginning and the end o f the reign by the re-cutting of d ies, ( Radiate/Small Cross: F EJ 5 19 o f Burred, a nd Pyramids: BM o f O smund) s eems s o immutable during a t least the f irst half o f Edward's reign that one must a sk whether i t enjoyed an i ndependent physical existence a t a ll, y et g radually i t emerges a s a n i ndependent mint i n i ts own right. H ertford P " likely" no. o f moneyers. % o f all moneyers. N o.of coins(1) N o.of c oins(S) Total With

4

R 4

T

S

S

H

4

4

1

1

2

F

P

2

1

1 .7

1 .8

1 .8

1 .9

0 .5

0 .5

1 .0

1 .1

0 .6

2 1 2 1 4

7 1 0 1 7

6 3 9

2 2 4

2 0 2

2 0 2

9 0 9

7 0 7

1 0 1

some

sixty-five

s pecimens

recorded,

c oins

o f the H ertford mint a re not common, a nd a c onfused picture i s created f or G odwine a nd Saemaer, whose c areers a t the mint suffer f rom ambiguous f ragmentation. The career o f a third, Wilgrip, possesses o ther u ncertainties: most moneyers make only a brief appearance at the mint a nd each i s considered i n turn: g lfwine. Known i n Trefoil-Quadrilateral only, f rom and BM 5 32 BM ( uncatalogued) + I NE ON HE( nder + gLFPINE ON HERTF. The f ormer i s a cut halfpenny u Museum trays. No a n " glfwine" header i n the B ritish Hertford prior to " glfwine" appears to be known a t this date[109]. B lacere. A Thetford moneyer who on a ssigned erroneously to H ertford[110].

1 94

occasion

has

been

Deorsige. All except FEJ 3 65/C4-888 and H 2 20/C4889 a re ambiguous in terms of mint or moneyer signature. In the PACX type, the Montagu specimen ( ON BFOR) i s presumably correctly re-attributed to Hertford but a g enuine Bedford provenance and transfer to Hertford should not be ruled out. as a Hertford moneyer by an at the mint prior to Edward

Deorsige i s substantiated apparently l engthy career the Confessor's accession

( e. g. BEH ( Harold I ) 2 90 +DEORSIE +DEORSIG 0 HERT and H 2 92 +DEOSII ON form, significantly, i s also found the same period. The whole picture may b e summarised a s follows: Type Coin Ambiguous H 2 21: AMC 5 59

fragment: no

mint

ON HEOR, H 2 91 HEOR). The nameat London during i n Edward's reign Unambiguous(?)

signature

and

H 2 22:fragments: mint and money er signature are both i ncomplete. HM2-135a; ON BFOR - originally att-

PACX

ributed SHM-C OC:

Cross

C4-889: H 2 20: BM 5 31:

MM:

Bedford.

i nsufficient able.

FEJ 365: C4-888: Radiate/ Small

to

and data

avail-

0 I EO 0 I E0

ON to i n ON

ON

HEO

ON

HEO

IEON; the attribution Hertford i s queried BMC. I EON

Ewi. PACX and Radiate/Small Cross. I n Radiate/SmallCross the f orm EPIIEIPII i s found ( H 2 27 and 2 28); all o thers read EPI or EPII. No " Eawig" or " Edwine" forms occur at H ertford in Edward the Confessor's reign. Godwine The name-form occurs early and late i n the reign Radiate/Small Cross: +GODPINE ON HEOR ( C4893; the mint reading i s Quadrilateral: +GODPINE

difficult ON HIR

to a scertain); ( BM 5 34, SP

Trefoil 8 1-9897)

and + GODPINE ON HEOR ( H 2 31); there i s also a coin of GOLDPINE ON HEOR ( BM 5 35) which could be representative of a separate moneyer " Goldwine"; Small Flan: +GODPINE ON EOI ( H 1 26 - originally a ttributed to York but reattributed to Hertford by van der Meer[111]); Hammer Cross: BMC ix/xi mule of " Godwine" which may read +GODPINE ON HIRTFOR ( the reading could, however, apply to the Facing Bust coin of this moneyer listed i n Willett's record of the hoard)[112], and BMC xi +GODPINE ON HEORT ( PCB though Willett Bust:

6 25, described does not record

+GODPIN.. H.. RTF

( BM).

impeccable, consistently than GODPI or GODPIG. Godman. Well attested in the

a s of such a The

rendered two

1 95

types

the " City reading);

name-form as for

i tself

GODPINE which

find", Facing i s

rather

he i s known .

9

0 I -

w

z

S.

1 96

C . M A C S

•

S A

M 5 3

F £ . ) 3 6 5 . C 4 3 8 , 8 9 . H M O .

CO

1 4 t 1 2 1 3 5 1 s m r A -

1 4 2 1 , 2 2 . 0 C

1 I

X

N

Z

_

G R 1 3 0 . S e i

1 2

•

. . . . . . . » . 1

N

C 4 3 9 0 , 8 9 1 , 2 9 2 1 I 1 2 9 , 2 3 0 .

G O D M A N I

•

N N

3 2 _

M .

i / E .

w e 0

i • • c . L 1

) I M C -cS

B M 5 3 . o c

B M 5 3 2 . B M

pG O L T e l t e .

) 1 W T R E D

.

3

3

•

e l t \ l E

a ) L . t -

> i •

•

— . 0

4 -

lMa l w i l

d

I

•

m .

L I F N C "

D E O D R . 1 3 7

II I I M I E M I I I I I I M 1 1 1

. 1 i r

_ ( 0 E C E )

' T I T R E D

a ) 1 . ( 0

i f E . M / E R

. -

e

.

m a R

e

( 0

,

C . )


G oldwine. + GOLDPINE

K nown a t ON HEOR.

H ertford

f rom

o ne

c oin

BM

5 35

L ifinc. There i s now i n the British Museum t rays a Small F lan coin o f + LIFICE ON EOR, originally BM 2 60 + LIFICE ON EOF and a ttributed to Y ork. I f this i s a H ertford penny i t might b e l inked with t he TrefoilQuadrilateral London penny P CB 1 114 catalogued a s + L'ICNICE ON LVa nd l isted a s a c oin o f " ' Lifinc'?" ( see above, p .162). Leofthegn. The only evidence f or a moneyer of this name a t Hertford i s the Sovereign/Martlets p enny G 1 102. Ambiguous though this coin i s there i s n o sound c ase f or a ssociating i t with H ertford, d espite t he proximity o f B edford, where a " Leofthegn" i s well-attested ( see above, pp.166-7 and below, p .399). Saemaer. K nown i ntermittently a t H ertford a nd n owhere else. Examination o f S overeign/Martlets pennies of all mints a t which a " -maer" deuterotheme i s f ound shows that i n the case o f C 4-893a, the sole c oin associated i n this type with " Saemaer" a t H ertford, dittography o f ONN confused the s econd " N" with the f irst l etter o f a mint signature. T ransliterated o riginally a s WER ON ME ( C4-1130) and corrected a s C 4-893a to M I ER ON HE the coin actually reads .I I VE R O M IN l ig .. and i s a die duplicate o f WC 7 02 +PVLM I ER ONN EXE: and must therefore be re-attributed t o the E xeter mint, i n the process removing not only the evidence f or S aemaer a t H ertford i n this type but also the sole coin which supports activity a t the Hertford mint i n this type[113]. Theodred. Only the Small F lan penny C4-894 of D EODRED sustains his presence with a ny c ertainty. A n umber o f o ther coins, the name-forms o f which may have b een pronounced similarly, exist i n the same c hronological f ramework and have been g rouped under the s ame heading, thus avoiding a considerable multiplication o f moneyers: Type -P ACX

Small

F lan

c oin

name-form

H 2 33 H 2 32

T IIDRED T IDRED

BM 1 562 C 4-894

PIDRED D EODRED

On the o ther hand T IDRED exists a s a regular n ame-form at Thetford i nto Edward the Confessor's reign, and P IDRED has existed i n the past a s a name-form in i ts own r ight; on balance the T IDRED f orms c ould be equated w ith D EODRED, g iving a moneyer active i n the PACX and Small F lan types, with PIDRED a moneyer i n his own r ight i n the Small F lan type. Wihtred. A " single-type" moneyer i n the Small F lan type known from BM 1 562. " Wihtred" a s a n i ndependent moneyer name-form a t Hertford gains c redence from i ts possible a ssociation with the Trefoil-Quadrilateral VMITRED ( H 5 57) and VHITRED ( BM 8 89) forms a t London, to which consideration has been g iven that t hey s hould be subsumed i nto the " Brihtric" name-form . ( see a bove,

1 98

p . 1 60 and 1 61 ) . There would now appear to be three i nstances of i rregular name-form occurrence a t both London and Hertford, i n " Ewi", " Lifinc" and " Wihtred", a pattern o f sufficient s trength to suggest that movement takes place and that " Wihtred" and " Ewi" a re nameforms i n their own right. Wilgrip. K nown i n each type except S overeign/Martlets from E xpanding Cross onwards. Wulfric. K nown f rom a single Facing Bust penny G 1 146 of + PVLFRIC ON HERTR. O f the twelve moneyers thus i dentified a s H ertford moneyers i n the reign o f Edward the Confessor f ive present particular problems. " Goldwine" has been a ccorded an i ndependent existence even though the name-form could be an aberrant rendering o f " Godwine", because at L ondon and Winchcombe, and a t D over i n the PAXS type o f William I , the " Goldwine" name-form s eems quite distinct from"Godwine". The " Deorsige" s eries i s derived from the Radiate penny H 2 20 though i t i s supported by g ood mint signatures prior to Edward's accession. The e vidence for " Lifinc" i s very poor and the presence of T IDRED and PIDRED forms makes the extent o f " Theodred's" career uncertain. F requent appearances by short-lived moneyers, the r e-appearance a fter an i nterval o f " Godwine" and " Saemaer" name-forms, and doubts about c oin a ttribution, combine to make a ny pattern o f mint s tructure difficult to c reate. Moneyer complement i s b est determined i n terms of number o f moneyers who go f orward f rom one type t o the next, thus: from P ACX to RSC: 2 D eorsige and Ewi R SC to TQ : 2 Godwine and Godman T Q to SF : 1 G odwine S F to ExC: 0 E xC to PH : 1 Wilgrip P H to HC*: 1 Wilgrip H C to FB : 2 Wilgrip a nd Godwine F B to Pyr: 1 Wilgrip *No c oins are known o f the S overeign/ Martlets type. In t his way a complement of two or one e stablished moneyers can be d etermined, but the activities o f " associate" and " single-type" moneyers i ncrease the l ikely complement i n c ertain periods with the result that Hertford can be r epresnted a s a three-or possibly fourmoneyer mint until the end of the Small Flan type and a one- or two-moneyer mint thereafter. On two occasions there i s a complete break i n continuity. N o moneyer from the early part o f the reign g oes f orward f rom the S mall F lan type and when activity resumes, i n the heavy emission o f the Expanding Cross type, i t i s under an e ntirely new moneyer, Wilgrip; no moneyer g oes forward from t he Pyramids type and when the mint r esumes i n BMC t ype I i t i s under a new moneyer, Saeman.

1 99

Two o f the e stablished moneyers, G odwine a nd Saemaer, appear to possess " associate" s tatus in that t heir name-forms occur on two occasions s eparated b y an appreci able i nterval o f time. The " Saemaer" n ame-form i s unique to Hertford i n Edward the Confessor's r eign and so i t i s a ssumed that the " Saemaer" of t he Radiate type and the " Saemaer" o f the Hammer Cross type are one and the same person; i f this i s t rue o f " Saemaer" i t might also be true of " Godwine", encountered i n the Radiate, Trefoil and Small F lan types and a gain i n the Hammer Cross and Facing Bust types. A c lear break i s apparent i n the middle o f the reign a nd whether the two periods o f working a re by two m en or t hree or f our, neither Godwine nor S aemaer have b een regarded a s a ctive during this i ntervening period. S ome moneyers, such a s D eorsige and W ilgrip, and possibly Godwine, Saemaer and Godman, are a ssociated with the mint over quite l engthy periods o f time but only Saemaer and possibly Wilgrip and Godwine d evote their services exclusively to the mint. All o ther moneyers, be they " established" or " apparently" " singletype" moneyers, can be l inked with o ther mints; the " single-type" moneyers are only " apparently" of this s tatus because they too can b e l inked with o ther mints a nd i n other types. As many a s t en o f Hertford's moneyers b ear n ames which occur a t n eighbouring mints a t or about the t ime o f the name-form's occurrence a t H ertford. E ach moneyer i s examined i n turn and the picture i s s ummarised i n Table 5 6. T E lfwine. The name i s found during the e arlier part o f the reign a t Cambridge ( Expanding Cross), Colchester ( in the T refoil-Quadrilateral type), Southwark ( Small F lan), Huntingdon ( Trefoil-Quadrilateral Expanding Cross), and throughout the reign a t London a nd N orthampton. The g reater proximity o f London/Southwark makes this l ink the more l ikely. Ewi. EPI forms are unique t o Hertford a nd London. A n ormalisation to " Eadwig" o r " Eawig" or " Edwi" has been adopted by various authorities but while n o " Eadwig" or " Eawig" i s found a t H ertford ( though EADPIG i s k nown a t London i n the Small Flan type) the consistency with which E I e tc. f orms occur a t H ertford and L ondon ( Table 5 7) suggest a coherent pattern i ndicative o f the work o f a separate moneyer. G odman. The occurrence of the name-form a t E dward the Confessor's mints i s shown i n Table 5 8. T here are c ertain common patterns of o currence. T he chronol ogical pattern across the country i s that the n amef orm occurs i n two periods, one early i n the r eign, the o ther i n the middle o f the reign. T hree centres o f l ocation are also identifiable: ( 1) London/Southwark and Hertford ( 2) N orwich and ( 3) Winchester ( and Wareham?) .

2 00

G o d w i n e

uPwpoD

auTmpToD C ,.

( • + + +

euTmpo9 1

puTg v i

2 01 +

T A B L E 5 6 . P o s i b l e m o v e m e n t o f m o n e y r s b e t w e n H e r t f o r d a n d a d j a c e n t m i n t s .

I -

T h e o d r e d W i h t r e d W u l f r i c

C f )

E n t e r s a n d r e m a i n s

. 0 U • H

G o d m a n

+ +

[ g l f w i n e E w i

" E s t a b l i s h e d " a t H e r t f o r d

+

auTmpTo9

" E s t a b l i s h e d " e l s e w h e r

+

+

+ +

W u l f r i c

' C o l 1 c h e s t e r l

+ +

W i l g r i p

T h e t f o r d

+

L i f n c S a e m a e r T h e o d r e d

W i n t I i n g d o n i 0 4 +

TmH

D e o r s i g e

C a m b r i d g e 0 f 0 5

/ E l f w i n e

B e d f o r d ]

V

N o r t h a m p t o n

E n t e r s a n d e p a r t s

S o u t h ! w a r k S t a m f o r d

C . +

+

+

+

P 4 F H

> I

. 0

r c i

u p

( .

+

+ +

+

+

Type

coin H 2 23

EPI

PACX

H 2 24 H 2 25 H 2 26

EPII EPII EPII

Radiate/ Small Cross

H 2 27 H 2 28

EPIIEIPII EPIIEIPII

T refoilQuadrilateral

H 4 87 H 4 88

E PI E PIEPII

Expanding Cross( heavy)

F 8 70 BM 9 25

E PI E PII

TABLE

5 7.

" Ewi"

and

H ertford

" Ewiewii"

a t

London

Hertford

[ BM

7 51-FDII?]

and London

A t London and Winchester the g eographical a nd chronol ogical patterns are l inked i n that coins o f Godman are k nown f rom both the earlier and the later periods. I t s eems reasonable to l ink the occurrence o f Godman a t H ertford with that a t London/Southwark, even i f the overall pattern seems i nexplicable. pre.EC Trans. A/S PACX R SC TQ PH SM HC TABLE

LondonSouthwarkHertforal lorwich lWinchester lWareham ? Y es Yes 1 31 1 31 4 72 3 2 3 3 4 76

5 6

1 36

5 7 1 8? 5 8.

" Godman"

a t

Edward the

Confessor's

mints.

G odwine. Table 5 6 demonstrates how widespread the name-form i s i n southern E ngland and no coherent pattern o f a ffiliation emerges. Goldwine. " Goldwine", i f i t b e a name-form separate f rom " Godwine", i s encountered a t London, Hertford, Hythe and Winchcombe i n Edward's reign. I t has b een t entatively concluded that the name-form i s discrete and that London and Hertford share a common moneyer o f this name. A s, i nitially, he i s active at London i n the Radiate/Small Cross type, he must have c ome f rom London to Hertford. Lifinc. No impeccable " Lifinc" f orm exists a t Hertford and the moneyer's presence i s derived f rom BM 2 60. The possibility of a l ink with London i s provided through the c oin PCB 1 114 with which i t shares a similar moneyersignature. Theodred. The name-form occurs a t Buckingham, Hastings ( and possibly Hythe), London a nd Thetford and there i s s ome chronological p attern between the occurrence o f the name-forms a t London a nd H ertford.

2 02

Wihtred. I f a s eparate existence o f this moneyer i s conceded, the a ssociation between the PIDRED f orm a t Hertford i n the Small F lan type and VMITRED etc. i n the T refoil-Quadrilateral type a t London suggests movement between the two mints - unusually, a one-way t ransfer from L ondon to Hertford. Wilgrip. i n t he

The name-form occurs a t a number o f mints east Midlands and a t H ertford but i n such a

pattern that although a common identity i s possible the p robability i s that Wilgrip a t Hertford works exclusively a t the mint. The " Wilgrip" a t London i n the Small Flan type would provide an a ttractive example of t ransfer f rom London to H ertford were i t not f or the p robability that the single coin which s tands a s evidence o f the a ctivities o f a " Wilgrip" a t London i s n ow a ttributed t o Lincoln ( see above, p .107). Wulfric. A moneyer o f this name was a ctive a t London in most types up t o and i ncluding the S overeign/ Martlets type. D eorsige. This moneyer i s not connected i n Edward's reign with any o ther mint but may well have commenced his c areer a t London under g thelraed to H ertford early i n Cnut's reign[114].

I I

before

moving

S etting a side glfwine and Godwine because o f the frequency with which these names occur throughout England, Table 5 6 d emonstrates the prominence o f London among mints with which Hertford's moneyers are l ikely to have b een a ssociated. I t i s the f requency with which the pattern i s r epeated, e specially among the three " irregular" name-form renderings o f " Lifinc", " Wihtred" and " Ewi", that endorses the conclusion that movement takes place, while the pattern o f minting by so many of t hese moneyers - that they u sually make a brief visit to H ertford ( i.e. glfwine, Lifinc, G oldman and Godman), or " retire" to H ertford ( i.e. Wihtred and Wulfric) i llustrates an apparent dependence upon London. One m oneyer, Ewi, appears to originate a t Hertford, but t his i s outside the normal pattern. G odwine a nd Wilgrip come closer than most to working continuously from t ype t o type a nd this poses problems f or i dentifica tion of their a ctivities elsewhere s ince i t would, in e ffect, demand a d egree o f simultaneous working between mints which cannot be supported f rom o ther evidence and has therefore been discounted. The fact that m ost moneyers appear to come f rom London i s n ot to i mply a degree o f subordination akin to that experi enced by S outhwark. At any one time there are one or u sually two e stablished moneyers a t work a t H ertford i t i s merely that the mint i s s trengthened by the appearance o f additional moneyers detailed f rom London. I n another context, D olley observed that i n g thelraed I I's reign there was a tendency f or Hertford moneyers to strike a t London i n the same types f or which they were known

a t

Hertford[115].

2 03

Mint s tructure appears t o undergo a number o f changes. I n the first phase ( to the end o f the S mall F lan type) the mint i s maintained by a t l east two e stabl ished moneyers a t any one time a nd may, with t he services o f additional moneyers drafted i n f rom L ondon, have been i ntended to have had three, i f not four, moneyers. There i s then an abrupt re-organisation which when completed places the mint l argely i n the hands o f a s ingle moneyer, Wilgrip. This s econd phase commences f rom the point a t which c oins o f Wilgrip are k nown ( Expanding Cross, heavy emission)and the mint i s strengthened slightly i n the Hammer Cross and Facing B ust t ypes, apparently by drawing upon a " reserve" o f Hertford e stabl ishment ( Saemaer and G odwine) and only t hen turning once more to London. I n this way the mint's " independence" appears g reater i n the s econd half o f the r eign than i n the first. Guildford R " Likely" no. o f moneyers. % o f all moneyers. N o.of coins(I) N o.of coins(S) ( Total)

T

S

E

P

S

H

F

P yr

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0 .5 0 1 1

0 .5 4 0 4

0 .5 3 0 3

0 .5 6 0 6

0 .5 5 0 5

0 .6 4 0 4

0 .6 1 0 1

Very f ew coins survive. The sole evidence f or the mint's activity i n Edward's reign prior to t he Expanding Cross type i s currently derived f rom a single Radiate/ Small Cross penny o f +BLACAMAN ON GYL, though Blacaman's subsequent career i s well a ttested. The Small Flan p enny o f + ELFPINE ON GV ( BM 4 82) has been re-attributed to S outhwark[116]. glfric i s well supported i n two t ypes but G odwine i s known a t the mint only f rom a s ingle F acing Bust penny P CB 6 35 +GODPINE ON G ILDE: while Leofwold i s k nown i n Edward's reign solely f rom the P yramids p enny ( in the British Museum) + LEOFPOLD ON G ILDEFO. One s ingle penny o f + LEOFPOLD ON G ILDI ( BM 3 1) testifies t o his presence i n Harold I I's reign a nd c oncludes his work a t the mint. The c oin evidence depicts G uildford as a one-moneyer mint certainly until the S overeign/Martlets type and f rom the Pyramids type but the proliferation o f moneyers i n the Hammer Cross and Facing Bust types makes c alcula tion of the number o f moneyers i n these types more d iffi cult. During this part o f the reign Guildford c an be represented i n the ways shown i n the diagram b elow. A t the two extremes the mint either remains a one-moneyer mint ( A) or becomes a two-moneyer mint f or two types ( B); i n the models C and D there would b e an i ncrease to two-moneyer s tatus f or one type only ( Hammer C ross or F acing Bust respectively). Alternatively, the mint

2 04

S M

A

HC

B LAcAr tAN

1

FB

LE0F P O LD

AL IF R‘C

1

P YR

1

1

LEoFboLD

BLACA MA H

L FR iC

1

2

2

1

e s LAcA.A. Lt O F

R

1

2

1

1

i tt

BLACAN IA N

LE OF •OL D

1

1

1

could be represented a s a one-moneyer mint throughout. Subsequently the mint a ppears to be i n decline: a fter Harold I I's r eign activity i s not known again until BMC type IV o f William I , when i t resumes under a n ew moneyer. At a ll times during the period 1 042-1087 i n which the moneyer complement can be unequivocally s tated, Guildford i s a o ne-moneyer mint and ought perhaps t o be r egarded a s a o ne-moneyer mint throughout the l atter part o f Edward's reign, the rapid succession o f moneyers perhaps heralding the mint's d emise, a s a t Buckingham ( see below, p . 2 14). The mint i s very probably s elf-contained i n t erms of i ts moneyers. I t s eems unlikely that Blacaman can be l inked with any o ther mint the name i s rare, met with only a t D erby, D orchester, Guildford, Leicester and N ottingham, and i ndeed the occurrences a t D erby, Leicester and Nottingham probably represent an i tinerary of o ne man. glfric i s a common name but not met with a t a ny mint nearer than Canterbury during this part o f the r eign. The rendering o f the name a t Guildford i s very r egular ( and distinct, therefore, f rom " ggelric" a t London): Hammer Cross gLFRIC rev .die a . BM 4 89, 4 90, SCA 6 -414 b . LC 2 822 ex P CB Facing Bust The the

d istinction point that

gLFRIC rev.die

a . BM 4 92 b . BM 4 93 between reverse dies, which underlines the rendering of the moneyer's name i s

very r egular, i s made possible by notes very kindly made available by Mr.O.Burrows. glfric's successors, G odwine and L eofwold, might have a slightly better claim t o b e a ssociated with o ther mints. A " Godwine" i s known i n the l atter part o f Edward's reign a t every mint surroundi ng G uildford - L ewes, Chichester, Winchester, Oxford and London ( though n ot S outhwark), and he c ould, conceivably, be derived f rom any one o f these. However G odwine

2 05

E dward t he C onfessor : G u ILD F0RD r

P y r a m i d s

0 e

II I

r n 0,

C N 1

4 EE O a c o

c o

4

f )

c n

2 1

0 st 0 1 . 4 1 o , ' cs C O 4

r . 0

1 8

I

F .

4E L E O P p O L D

z c o

I

c ' l 4 c » c 4
x t o z u

c r

\

.

X C D < a _

e 4 0 Li c z

u _

Z d

z

L . 1

z

. . : 0 C A

_ . J

2 06

C I 4 0 C L 1 5 I A

at L ondon c eases work i n the Hammer Cross type ( or Facing Bust type i f account i s taken o f the uncorroborated record of t he Chancton hoard) and could conceivably retire to Guildford; and a t Winchester G odwine i s a pparently absent for t he one type, Facing Bust, i n which a G odwine i s known at Guildford. Leofwold, G odwine's successor, bears a n ame asociated with six mints during this period: Lincoln: Pyramids. I pswich: Expanding Cross - Facing Bust Norwich: William I BMC I I Winchester: Sovereign/Martlets - William I I BMC I Guildford: Pyramids and Harold I I PAX Lewes: Pyramids " Leofwold" a s a Lincoln moneyer i s doubtful, the s ole attribution occurring i n the l isting o f the c oins i n the Chancton hoard, Mossop does not record the coin i n his d ie-study o f the Lincoln mint, and a transfer o f moneyers f rom Lincoln to Guildford s eems quite i mprobable. The t ransfer o f Liofwold to Guildford while i n t ransit from I pswich to Norwich s eems equally unlikely. A " Leofwold" i s recorded a t Lewes f or Pyramids i n the Chancton listing but the c oin has not been published. " Leofwold" i s m entioned a s a Lewes moneyer i n the l ist o f Edward's moneyers i n BMC I I page 3 32 but the coins l isted i n the catalogue i tself do not i nclude any examples. This " Leofwold" would f it well i nto the Lewes mint, a place having been vacated by Bruinc. There was a c oin o f " Leofwold" i n t he Montagu Sale ( pt.I l ot 8 52a) but i t i s unrecorded elsewhere. At Winchester " Liofwold" i s k nown f or every type f rom c .1059 - c .1090. I t i s possible to do no more than speculate that during the one type i n which the Winchester moneyer G odwine does not apparently coin a t Winchester a moneyer of t he same name coins a t Guildford and that therefore the two mints a re connected. I t may be that Guildford has fallen i nto a relationship to Winchester similar to t hat existing between Winchester a nd Wallingford. All t hat can be said i s that the mint, a fter a period of v irtual eclipse, has a chieved some recovery o f s tatus. R eading P " Likely" no. o f moneyers. % o f all moneyers. N o.of coins(I) N o.of coins(S) ( Total)

R

T

1

1

0 .5 1 1 2

0 .5 0 I 1

S

E

P

S

H

F

Pyr

The picture o f the R eading mint owes much t o the work of D olley and van d er Meer[117]. D olley disposed of f our o f five c oins purporting to c ome f rom R eading, recognising only the Trefoil-Quadrilateral H 6 35 o f + EORFF ON R EADIN a s a true R eading penny and Miss van der M eer

2 07

E dward t he C onfessor :R EAD ING

4 — C O • u _

( 1

S . M a r t I e t s

0

f 0

u . U .

B R 1 1 7 R 1 C

R E A D I N G

0 0

2 08

identified a further coin, o f the preceding type, i n the M annegärda hoard, of + CORFF ONN WEADII ( SHM I nv. 1 1300). I n dismissing o ther coins D olley consigned to P etherton the moneyey Brihtric who ( through H 6 34 ON P EDI) had previously been a ssociated with the R eading mint. I n doing s o, D olley did not thereby i ntroduce to P etherton a moneyer o therwise unsubstantiated, though H 6 34 does constitute the sole evidence for a Brihtric at P etherton i n the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type. A Brihtric i s, however, brought back i nto a ssociation with the Reading mint i f the recently published Radiate/Small Cross penny WVS 5 -1 of +BRIHTRIC ON R EDN, s truck f rom a d ie apparently a ltered from ON PELIN ( an impeccable Wallingford mint signature), gains acceptance a s a product of t he Reading mint. However, when ON PEDI i s i n c onsequence scrutinized a fresh a s the mint signature o f H 6 34, ON REDI cannot be made to emerge a s a c redible alternative and any wholesale re-attribution o f " Petherton" c oins to the R eading mint should be resisted[118]. A s Miss van der Meer pointed out Corff probably worked a t London, where the name-form i s f ound f or Harold I , H arthacnut and the PACX type o f Edward the Confessor, the c oincidences o f time and l ocation suggesting that the L ondon moneyer moved to R eading. As i t i s extremely unusual for a n ew, and short-lived, mint to have twomoneyer s tatus, Brihtric can be cast a s Corff's predecessor rather than colleague. Given that the " Brihtric" name-form ocurs a t n eighbouring Wallingford f rom the Radiate/Small Cross type onwards, i t might be, that i n anticipation of Corff's arrival, Brihtric opened the new mint by resorting to the expedient o f altering a reverse die used, or i ntended for u se, a t Wallingford. The two i nterpretation o f the R eading mint are shown as s chemes A and B in the mint profile. Why Corff should be c hosen to move to R eading cannot be determined unless, " perhaps, he can be subjected to the same scrutiny a s that applied by Pamela Nightingale to the " Deorman" nameform a t London[119]. The c reation o f a new mint a t R eading has no discernible effect upon the major mints of Winchester and London, between which R eading i s equidistant, but i ts c reation might have had s ome impact upon, or have been related to, the disturbed s tate o f Wallingford a nd Aylesbury and the contemporary quiescenece o f Guildford. The creati on a nd f ailure o f R eading must be a comment upon the need for a mint a t that l ocation i n the Thames Valley, but to observe that when R eading c eases a s a minting place Guildford a nd Wallingford prosper would c onfuse possible coincidence with cause or effect. I t might even be that failure a t R eading prompted a f resh l ook a t t he area further west, where, i n the same TrefoilQuadrilateral type which saw the demise o f R eading, there was e stablished a t Bedwyn one o f the few successful new mints of Edward the Confessor's reign.

2 09

E dward t he C onfessor

A ' s (LESBU

0

C o

I

0

•

N I 0 C ` 4

L c ) •

r H C D r — I

5

S . M a r t l e t s

>

r 1

• N

C

d c • 4 c. 4 L E O F 1 D t N E .

z

r -

( ‘ ' ) • N

r ; " h o . ) . 4I t j

e t

H C . f ) • ( 1 ) •

L . 1 z

a

U . 0

C 1 U . — I

L a

>

A Y L E S B U R , (

t 1

. J

•0

H

0 U ( f )1 4 0 0 W • • > 1 0 0 Z Z

0

Aylesbury The mint signature i s distinctive. Both gGELand forms of mint name are found, apparently without

gL-

any chronological pattern. The slight that all published specimens Radiate/ Small Cross. H 2 a H 2 b

• LEOFPINE • LEOFPINE

C4-740 C4-741

• LEOFPINE ON gEL • LEOFPINE ON gEL

FEJ

• LEOFPINE

6 3

ON ON

coin evidence can be l isted:

i s

so

gEL gEL

ON

AEE.

FEJ 6 2 • LEOFPINE ON gGEL: Trefoil-Quadrilateral. BCM ex FEJ 6 4 LEOFDNE ON gGLC BMC 4 30 . .LEOFPINE ON GIF.... Reattribution cited by Mitchell in Elmore J ones Sales Catalogue. Pointed Helmet. BMC I Hammer Cross.

+ PVL... RED

FEJ BM

+ PVLFRERD + PVLFRERD

6 5

There in

ex

LC

i s

8 41

i n

addition

Thompson's

record

a of

ON ON ON

Facing the

EGELE gEL gGL Bust

penny

Chancton

of

Wulfred

hoard,

though

no coin has apparently come to light, and the Small Flan penny H 1 has been re-attributed to Maldon[120]. The paucity of coin evidence could reflect l ocal conditions or the insufficiency of hoard evidence and only the outlines of the arrangements at Aylesbury can be discerned: a single moneyer coining i n the early part of the reign and another coining by himself in the later part. That this picture has some reliability might be endorsed by the fact that six of the eleven coins recorded for the reign are of the Radiate/Small Cross struck from at least four reverse dies. Aylesbury was North's listing of

active under two moneyers

Crux type and five of a century later

in i s

type

and

are

gthelraed I I and Cnut. at work i n gthelraed's

Cnut's Quatrefoil type a quarter suggestive of a mint called i nto

being solely to s trike a t speed a quantity of coin, perhaps the product of the taxable wealth of a locality [ 121]. In Edward's reign i ts role changes, functioning over a longer period but l ess intensively, though the minimum of four reverse dies employed in the Radiate/Small Cross type i s an echo of the mint's earlier character. Two moneyers are known, Leofwine in the Radiate and Trefoil-Quadrilateral types and Helmet and Hammer Cross types.

Wulfred in the Pointed The relative permanency

of the mint during this period suggests a strengthening of Aylesbury a s a minting place, and to that extent i ts revival in effect creates a new mint. However what i t gains in permanency i t loses i n i ndependence, at

l east

in

the

first

half

of

Edward's

2 11

reign,

for

i t

must

be possible that i ts moneyer L eofwine has e ither c ome f rom another mint or was dividing his a ttention between two mints. A Leofwine worked a t Wallingford u ntil the Radiate/Small Cross type and might possibly have transferred; the name-form i s also found, possibly until the Expanding Cross type, a t Northampton. A Leofwine i s also known a t Buckingham during this period and a possible career could well have been: Harold I Fleur-de-lis Buckingham Harthacnut Arm and Sceptre Buckingham(probably) Edward PACX Buckingham Radiate/Small Cross Buckingham Aylesbury Trefoil-Quadrilateral Buckingham Aylesbury Expanding Cross Buckingham A comparison o f published photographs failed t o reveal any obverse die l inkage i n the Radiate/Small Cross type between the Leofwine a t Aylesbury and the moneyers of that name a t Wallingford, Buckingham or N orthampton. A s D olley et.al. noted, i t i s not only " Leofwine" a s a name-form which Aylesbury a nd Buckingham share, f or i n Cnut's Quatrefoil type an " lfward" worked a t b oth mints[122], and i t could also be pointed out that Wallingford's " Eadwerd" i s active i n the same type a s t he moneyer of the same name a t Aylesbury. While Wallingford a s well a s Buckingham may have supplied Aylesbury with moneyers, the g reater proximity o f Buckingham and t he l ow l evel of Leofwine's actvity there suggests that perhaps on balance he divides his a ttention between the two mints. Wulfwerd, the name o f Leofwine's successor a t Aylesbury, cannot be l inked with any o f the n eighbouri ng mints, which could suggest a g rowing i ndependence of the Aylesbury mint - i f s o, i t was to b e shortl ived, because, a s a t Buckingham, minting privileges a t Aylesbury are extinguished i n the Hammer C ross type. The demise o f both mints l eaves a substantial t ract o f t erritory without minting facilities. Buckingham T o the coin evidence published i n 1 966 by D ailey , Elliot and Elmore J ones could perhaps b e added a Radiate/ Small Cross penny of Leofwine h eld i n the Lunds Universi tets Historiska Museum. F rom photographs the c oin appears to share the same obverse die a s the o ther recorded coin of this moneyer, housed i n S tockholm. The reverse o f the Lund penny can b e read + LEOFPINE CAA... WC F rom the eleven surviving coins o f Edward the Confessor's reign, Buckingham appears to have b een a single-moneyer mint, first under Leofwine, known f or each of the first five types except Small F lan, and then under Theodred and g stan. Leofwine's output was minimal. He appears never to have employed more than one set of dies, which suggests that he had spare capacity to contribute to the r ejuvenation of the Aylesbury mint ( see above, p . 211). Comparison of the published photographs of the Radiate/Small Cross pennies of t he

2 12

E dward t he C onfessor : BU CK ING -HAM

t r i 0

LÖ

.

4 Q

4

C : )

L C ) .

r I

IP .

S . M a r t l e t s

CD

LÖ

E x p . C r o s

. r 4

( 1 3

0 — ( I )

+ -

•

B U C K I N G A M

0

a .

2 13

O E D R E D

2

c

r1

Buckingham and Aylesbury mints does not show evidence o f any transfer of obverse dies between the two mints. Thereafter the Buckingham mint, i n contrast t o Aylesbury, appears to enter upon a rapid decline, f unctioning only i n the Sovereign/Martlets and Hammer C ross types, and with a separate moneyer on each occasion. The " Theodric" name-form i s o therwise known only a t Hastings or London and Hertford, where i t seems remote in t ime and l ocation to Buckinham's Theodred, and s o, shortl ived though Theodred's t enure may have been, the mint does a t l east enjoy the exclusive services of i ts moneyer. This cannot be said of Theodred's successor / E stan, destined, from current coin evidence, to b e the l ast moneyer at Buckingham. I t i s quite possible that he came to Buckingham f rom Warwick, where a n / E stan was a regular moneyer i n the P ointed Helmet a nd Hammer Cross types. At Buckingham, a ll four of / E stan's extant coins are struck from the same pair o f dies but a b rief survey of available photographs of the o bverse d ies employed by / E stan a t Warwick and / E stan a t Buckingham does not reveal a die-link. / E stan subsequently disappears f rom history, a s does the Buckingham mint; the mint signature ON BRVCCE o f a Bristol c oin o f Harold I I ( G 1 228) was altered, probably i n the eighteenth century, to ON BVCIN i n order to profit from the rarity of c oins o f the Buckingham mint[123]. Buckinham's closure, preceded by a reduction i n the mint's s tatus which i s i n contrast to the temporary revival o f Aylesbury, occurs simultaneously with that of i ts n eighbour to the south. The s trengthening of the mints peripheral to this area - e specially Wallingford and N orthampton and the creation o f a mint a t N ewport Pagnell, i f s uch be the l ocation o f N IPEPORTE, may all b e part o f a process o f mint reorganisation over a wide area i n the south M idlands. NIPEPORTE The following coins can b e g iven with s ome certainty to a mint of NIPEPORTE: Expanding Cross x Pointed Helmet mule AMC ex FEJ 5 84 ex LC 8 20 + SIRED ON N IPEPORT P ointed Helmet BM 1 087 + SIRED ON N IPEPORTEBM 1 088 + SIREDD ON N IPEPO: Hammer Cross NMW* + S/ EPAN ON N IPEP BM ex City* + S/ EPAN ON N IPEP * two Hammer Cross pennies of S / EPAN ON N IPEP exist but the exact pedigrees have yet to be determined. D olley, concurring with Carlyon-Britton's location of N IPEPORTE a t Newport Pagnell, distinguished between F Ethelraed I I's mint of N IPAN a nd Edward the Confessor's N IPEPORTE and drew a ttention t o Elmore Jones' observation o f s tylistic a ffinities between the NIPEPORTE s eries

2 14

E dward t he G Dnfessor zN ivEpo s t . TE

2 15

and c oins o f Aylesbury and Buckingham. Wherever i ts l ocation, N IPEPORTE may be regarded a s a n ew c reation o f Edward the Confessor's reign[124]. S ired, NIPEPORTE's f irst moneyer, shares a nameform with a moneyer a t London coining solely i n the Pointed Helmet type. The direction of movement, i f movement there were, cannot be d etermined with certainty, but the pattern a t R eading and Horndon, the two o ther newly e stablished mints with which London i s a ssociated, i s f or the moneyer to be drawn from London. I t may be presumed, therefore, that N IPEPORTE was f ounded f rom London. Unlike R eading and Horndon, i ts l ife i s l onger and unlike Horndon i t enjoys the s ervices o f two moneyers during i ts l ifetime. The employment of an obsolete die i n the Pointed H elmet type i s a n abnormality which i s not unexpected where " singletype" moneyers or i rregular working such as the s etting up o f a mint or movement o f moneyers are concerned. I f N IPEPORTE i s to be i dentified with N ewport Pagnell, fifteen miles from Northampton, a nd twelve from B edford, and fourteen miles from Buckingham a nd eighteen from Aylesbury, N IPEPORTE may well have been brought i nto existence to play a role in the changing pattern of mints which occurs i n the south Midlands, changes which i n addition to the extinction o f Aylesbury and Buckingham see a marked s trengthening o f the Northampton mint. The forces a t work which produced these changes may have seen i n Newport Pagnell a substitute f or Aylesbury and Buckingham, though why this should have been necessary i s unclear. I n terms o f d ensity of minting outlets Newport Pagnell i s unattractive a s a choice of site. I t i s c lose to an expanding mint ( Northampton) and i n any case does not survive the closure of Aylesbury and Buckingham. There i s n o parallel f or the creation of a new and ephemeral mint S o c lose to o ther mints which a re about to close. However i t i s not unknown for moneyers t o travel a distance such a s the fifty miles which s eparate London a nd N ewport Pagnell and i t must be observed that there are i n London's case relatively few mints within fifty-sixty miles' distance - but a shorter distance i s more n ormal where o ther pairs of mints a re concerned. The f orty miles travelled by Corff from London to R eading would b e a typical movement. A l ocation o f NIPEPORTE a t N ewport i n E ssex would be a ttractive on the grounds that i t i s slightly further away f rom adjacent mints ( Cambridge s eventeen miles and Hertford twenty), o ccupying an area hitherto without minting facilities but adjacent to t erritory which i s being " in-filled" by the revitalised, revived, or newly created mints o f Horndon, S udbury, Maldon, Bury S t.Edmunds and DERNE. Unlike N ewport Pagnell, N ewport did not enjoy borough s tatus, but n either, i t would appear, did a community such a s Aylesbury. Of

the

moneyers'

name-forms

2 16

occurring

a t

N IPEPORTE,

W MTI MOON ()

C . AMBR IDGE .

°

BURY S T . E D MUNDS

W UTFORD

LONDON

, G ) M ints declining i n size or vitality. ( ) Mints generally s table i n terms o f size @ Mints increasing i n size or vitality. ( ) Revived mints. oNew foundation. TABLE

6 0

Minting provision London.

to

the

or vitality.

north and north-east

o f

" Saewan" i s exclusive to the mint and " Sired" occurs only a t NIPEPORTE, London and Canterbury. At the l atter mint he i s known f or the Facing Bust and Pyramids types but n o " Newport" i s to be found nearby and " Newton", a place-name occurring three or f our times i n modern Kent, i s f rom the evidence g iven by Ekwall an unlikely transformation of the Anglo-Saxon N IPEPORTE. Horndon I f there were a mint a t Horndon, possibly part of a policy o f i ncreasing

2 17

i ts existence i s s triking capacity

E dward t he C onfessor : 40zNooN

•

2 0

0

( f ) • i

( L ) = > 1 H > t ( 1 ) H

U 2

W

>

A

O

, 1 0 . 4 4 4 = 0 o w

2 18

c — •• H ( . n 0 g l U › , 4 4 • 0 0 2 Z

. . . - n i 4 ' 0 E -4

between London and the belt of mints some fifty to sixty miles distant, a policy achieved either by i ncreasing the n umber o f outlet points ( i.e. mints) or by i ncreasing the n umber o f moneyers a t existing mints. At the time that London i s shedding so many of i ts moneyers the area to the north and north-east i s being maintained or s trengthened a s a minting area ( Map, Table 6 0). The f our mints a t Bury S t.Edmunds, Sudbury, Maldon and Horndon constitute both a s trengthening o f overall minting capaci ty a nd a dispersal of that capacity i n an area i n which i t would surely have been a s c onvenient - and i ndeed simpler - to have i ncreased capacity a t existing centres a t London, Colchester, I pswich, Thetford, Cambridge and H ertford. I n the case of Horndon activity a t the new mint coincides with a doubling o f s triking capacity ( from one to two moneyers) a t nearby Maldon i n the Pointed Helmet, Sovereign/Martlets and Hammer Cross types. Horndon's moneyer, D udinc, was probably a t London until the E xpanding Cross type and his appearance a t Horndon may b e yet a nother reflection not only o f the arrangements by which the complement of moneyers a t London was reduced but a lso of a process by which some new mints were establ ished - by moneyers f rom the London mint. To sustain this argument, there i s, i t must be remembered, only one c oin extant o f the Horndon mint, the S overeign/ Martlets penny BM 5 54 o f +DVDINC ON HORNIDVNE. Mint signatures a re very frequently rendered i n an abbreviated form; i n this i nstance i t i s almost a s i f the mint signature were demanding attention. I f, a s seems possible, the c oin passed through the hands o f Mr.John White, BM 5 54 might merit re-examination i n the l ight of Miss Marion Archibald's warning about the S t. Mary Hill hoard i n which the coin was discovered[125]. Maldon P " Likely" no. of moneyers. % o f a ll moneyers. No.of coins(I) No.of coins(S) ( Total)

R

T

S

E

P

S

H

F

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

0 .5

0 .5

0 .5

0 .9

1 .0

1 .0

0 .6

1 2 3

2 1 3

1 0 1

5 2 7

2 0 2

5 0 5

6 0 6

P

I n Edward the Confessor's reign the elements which distinguish between a' "Maldon" and a " Malmesbury" mint signature a ppear t o be that: A i ) "A" or " EA" a s the vowel form o f the prototheme i s indicative of a Malmesbury mint-signature a nd i i) " E" or " g" o f a Maldon prototheme. i ) the vowel " A"/"EA" i s followed a t Malmesbury by the c onsonants LM and i i) at Maldon the vowel sound " E"/"g" i s f ollowed by the c onsonants LD. Coins bearing what might can b e attributed on the

be ambiguous mint-signatures basis of f irmer ' attributions

2 19

E dward t he C onfessor :

m e mm om b .

M AL D 0t4

• —

s 0 _

7 C O LL .

S . M a r t i e t s

o 0

4 -

10

§

. . „ f 0

i z n 2 20

; 2 .

0 0

, ; . . o

0

for o ther coins o f the same moneyer. Thus BM 1 074, a c oin of Daeiniht with the mint-signature MgL i s a ttributable to Maldon not only because of the " g" vowel but b ecause other coins o f this moneyer such a s the coin LC 8 17 with the mint-signature MgLDVNE, are unquestionably of Maldon. Coins of Godric reading MEL ( e.g. BM 1 077) can be a ssociated with coins o f MgLDV ( e.g. RS 1 65) bearing this name-form. Yet i ntervocal LD could also be representatiuve of Malmesbury for i n 1 015 the full name-form of the town i s rendered " Mealdelmes byrig" in t he Anglo-Saxon Chronicle[126] and the P ointed Helmet penny of + EAL -DPI ON MEA• L •D ( BM 1 083) would appear to r eflect this. Accordingly the vowel form o f the prototheme i s the s ole distinguishing f eature o f contracted m int-signatures. Moneyer name-forms present no i nsurmountable problems. The Sovereign/Martlets penny BM 1 079 o f + SPETRIC ON M EL, which appears to have been engraved and s truck clearly and which a t 1 6.8.1979 was housed i n the Maldon trays of the British Museum, has been re-attributed to W ilton ( where a " Swetric" name-form i s well a ttested) by D olley on the basis that the mint-signature has been altered and should b e read ON PILT or ONN 1 7 IL[127]. A number o f moneyer signatures, each i ndividual rendering o f which differs f rom the o thers, has been grouped together under the DgINIHT name-form ( Table 6 1). The mint s ignatures a ssociate them with a single mint and they occupy a coherent chronological sequence. The name-form may represent a l ocal u sage comprehended with difficulty by c entral die cutters. R adiate/Small Cross

S mall

DgII ON MgLDV WEIN ON MgLDV WEIN

C 4-1128 PCB 1 107 SHM-C

DgININT ON MgL

BM

Flan 1 074,

H 1

P CB 5 99, WB 4 9

LC

Expanding Cross DggI DEGI TABLE

6 1

ON MgLDVNE ON MgLDVNE

" Daeiniht"

at

8 17

Maldon.

The extent o f moneyer t enure i s unambiguous except in t he case of Daeiniht, whose t enure might be extended into the Pointed Helmet and S overeign/Martlets types by three coins i n the City hoard of the moneyer D EEI attributed to this mint. No coins o f these types have since come to l ight, and until they do, Maldon can be represented a s a one-moneyer mint i n the first half of t he reign which experiences uity between the Expanding

2 21

a complete Cross and

break i n continP oihted Helmet

types a s a prelude to a brief period of expansion ( Pointed Helmet-Hammer Cross) a s a two-moneyer mint under Godwine and G odric. This enhanced s tatus i s a feature of t he period among smaller mints to the north-east o f London, but the mint appears f ree f rom overt influence f rom i ts n eighbours except on just o ne occasion, i n the Hammer Cross type, i n which Colchester may have d rawn u pon Maldon's personnel. There i s a Godwine a t C olchester i n that type only, and unless h e i s the Godwine at C ambridge who i s unknown i n the Hammer Cross t ype i t i s probable that Maldon has responded to some s hort-lived but urgent need a t the larger mint. From t he F acing Bust type Maldon reverts to i ts f ormer one-moneyer status, maintained until a t l east the PAXS type o f William I . Colchester A ttribution of coins to mint and moneyer presents a f ew minor problems. I n addition to the well-attested range o f coins o f the moneyer Brunhyse ( PACX-Facing Bust), two o ther coins c ould b elong to the s eries s truck by this moneyer. One i s the Hammer Cross penny reading + BRVNNPIGE ON COLECE i n the " Briggs Parcel" o f the C ity hoard. Oliver Burrows, the author of the paper on t his . parcel, commenting upon what i s presumably a unique rendering of the name-form, suggested that b ecause the original compiler of the catalogue knew that there was a moneyer a t Colchester bearing the name " Brunhyse" and had suggested " Brunhyse" a s the moneyer r esponsible for this coin, the fact that h e gave BRVNNPIGE ON COLECE a s a clear reading implies that the l egend was not blundered and that a moneyer o f that name may have b een responsible. I f that were so, the c oin WB 1 07 would c onstitute the sole evidence for such a moneyer. Brunhyse i s o therwise well-attested i n this type, f rom e .g. PCB 6 23. Another coin, i n the British Museum trays, r eads B RVINI MSE and the curious rendering of the l etter " H" might account for the transliteration of the " Briggs Parcel" c oin, e specially i f i t were badly preserved, worn, mis-struck or blundered. On balance i t has been concluded t hat the coin WB 1 07 should be a ttributed to Brunhyse. Another problematical rendering of the name i s that presented by the Facing Bust coin BMC 6 59 reading +BRVNNVSEL* 0 LE, re-attributed to Colchester. " Brunnusel" i s unique a s the f orm of a moneyer's name a t any mint during the reign. I f i t constitutes evidence that the m ore regular f orm " Brunhyse" gave die engravers difficulty, we may be h elped to overcome any reluctance to accept BRVNNPIGE a s a rendering o f the " Brunhyse" name-form. The " Brunhyse" name-form i s f ound i n this type i n i ts m ore traditi onal f orm i n the coin CEM[128].

the ers the

The high rate o f continuity from type t o type a mong Colchester moneyers enables the complement of moneyto be calculated a t five f or the central part o f reign ( Trefoil-Quadrilateral—Hammer Cross). The c lear-

2 22

e st i ndication o f this comes from the Small Flan type, f or which all five " likely" moneyers concerned are active, a nd s uch i s the clarity of moneyer t enure a t Colchester that the mint can be described a s a five-moneyer mint during the Pointed Helmet type, i n which s even moneyers a re k nown, the two n ewcomers i n this type merely replacing i n mid-issue two e stablished moneyers. The picture n eed n ot be altered by the fact that the n ewcomer Goldman i s r epresented i n the Pointed Helmet type by a reference i n the City hoard f or which no coins are a s yet published. PACX and Radiate/Small Cross see a rapid i ncrease i n moneyer complement a t the beginning of the reign; a slight contraction takes place a t the end. F our moneyers a re l ikely for the Facing Bust type and f our or three until BMC type I I o f William I . There i s then a sudden d ecrease, apparently to one moneyer i n the third and f ourth types of William I ; thereafter there i s a g radual revival. I n Edward the Confessor's reign Colchester emerges as a mint with remarkable s tability i n moneyer complement both i n numbers and i n personnel. There appear to be only two single-type moneyers a t work in this reign, Elfwine i n the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type and Godwine i n Hammer Cross; / E lfwine i s probably not the glfwine previously known a t Colchester, who probably did not survive the 1 020's. Their appearance coincides with change: Elfwine's presence immediately precedes the elevation of the moneyer complement to i ts plateau of f ive moneyers and Godwine's presence c oincides with the c ommencement of the mint's decline. I t i s difficult to determine whether any o f Colche ster's moneyers a re to be f ound elsewhere. Elfwine i s a possible candidate, there being a moneyer o f the same name a t H ertford i n the same T refoil-Quadrilateral type only, a t Huntingdon from Trefoil-Quadrilateral to E xpanding Cross, and a t Cambridge i n Expanding Cross a nd P ointed Helmet. There seems no reason to suppose any Huntingdon-Cambridge-Colchester l ink ( though Huntingdon-Cambridge i s a different matter), nor to advance a Colchester-Hertford l ink. Equally conjectural would b e a l ink between the DEORMAN ( Pointed Helmet) and D IORMAN ( Hammer Cross) o f C olchester and the DEORMAN and D IREMAN ( etc.) of London i n the Small Flan and Sovereign/Martlets types or the DERMON a t S teyning f rom Hammer Cross type onwards. Equally conjectural too i s any l ink between the G odwine of Colchester and Godwine o f Cambridge, B edford, Huntingdon and Hertford; i f he i s to be a ssociated with any mint i t i s far more l ikely that h e i s drawn f rom neighbouring Maldon. The " Brihtric" name-form f ound a t I pswich a nd Cambridge does not f it any pattern a pplicable a t Colchester unless he divided his time over a l ong period o f t ime between I pswich and Colchester. The o ccurrence o f the p \ ILF ) 9I form i n Harold I I's PAX type i s i nteresting i n that i t provides an exception to the otherwise universal PVLFPINE f orm a t a , time when

2 23

E dward t he C onfessor :C OL C

H E ST E R . I 0 1 • r I

‘ z r .

0 1 • N

r I ri N

P y r a m i d s

r e )

o rn ‘ 1

F . B u s t

m . 1

• • • • • .0 1

o r

v o u.)

•

F 1 0 r I

H . C r o s

N

, . 1 r I

.

.

L r ) L . r )

•

L C ' ) , 1 / 4. 1 0

C I • N

N r I C O r I ri

•

G O L D M A N

> V L F I 2 I N E

N

l t )

-

D E O R M A N

. r e ) u-)

N

•

c h o

0 1

• z 14 I f )

•

N

C I 0

S T A N M / E R

b V L F I ) N E

L E . O F 1 D A Z I )

N

T r e f o i l S m a l E l a m E x p . C r o s P . H e l m e t S . M a r t l e t s

.

m I C )

N

•

N

N

0 1

. c o

X 0

C L

d

I f ) 1 / 4 1 : ' , I , . 1 N

c n N


1 H › , ( 1 ) H

I U

( r s •

H

0

u

• H

4 4 4

= . -

u ) I I u ) ,- I — — r o • , 1 4 ) 0 0 0 P i

.

O ) • > I 0

0 o \ (8 ( 1 ) Z

•

2 24

E dward t he C onfessor :C OL C H E C R . O L C T E

S TE R

0

0 L I )

c o

D E O R M A N 0

( 7, • -

L i i

w

c ou $

. M a r t I e t s

P c o

1 1 4 . 5

L I

( v) .0 co — U

r--

0

e l

1 3 )

( g )

N

-C .

7

P c e 1 7 8 5 . G S 1 3 4 ' 4 3 8 .

C Q

C D + f 0

h . M L . L C 1 7 4

* -2 G .

a _

C M 1 2 0 9 . P C B 1 3 . L C 2 . 3 ) N r 1 w .

G S « 7 8 1 6 6 2 7 . C E M .

( 4 7 9 2 , 7 9 3 . B M I S H M

—

I n \ O

( 5 . ) L u

u _

C Z

i i

V )

Z < /

o _ J O

L _

L u 7

; a , 0 0

o r d

< _ O ,

u . , 0

i

E

z < c

L a i

1 —

_ J

Ln

Z _ 7 1 , u _ _ J >

-, .

1 . 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 . 11 11 1 . 1 1 1SZ . Vre,

PVLFPI i s absent from Cambridge. I f there i s a ny movement by Colchester's moneyers t o or f rom o ther mints i t i s only o ccasional and i s confined to the single-type moneyers. Colchester appears largely self-contained. The even t enor o f events i s quite uninterrupted by changes a t n eighbouring mints. There i s no i ncrease in s ize to c ompensate for the rapid d ecline o f London, and no reflection o f the rise and fall o f Maldon or, more particularly, Sudbury. There may be s ome relationship detectable where I pswich i s concerned; both i ncrease and d ecrease their complement a t the same time i n Edward's reign, but i n William's reign the l ife of the Ipswich mint

i s

much stronger

than

that

o f

i ts

southern n eighbour.

Sudbury Michael Dolley's paper " A note on the mints o f Sudbury and S outhwark a t the end o f the reign o f / E thelraed I I" e stablished, a t l east for the late 1 0th and early 1 1th c enturies, criteria to resolve the confusion between Sudbury and Southwark mint s ignatures[129]. Setting a side s tylistic points relevant to a period in which dies were cut a t several centres, the same criteria would appear to be applicable t o the mid-and late 1 1th c entury. I n Edward the Confessor's reign a series o f coins sharing SVDB- mint signatures can be grouped around a moneyer F olcwine ( Table 6 2). To these may be a dded by a ssociation other SVD-forms i n the name o f Folcwine, a name-form unknown a t the London mint. SVD-forms, found i n a ssociation with SVDG-forms, and employed by moneyers with l inks with London and who n ever employ the SVDB-forms, are g rouped together to form a Southwark corpus. P ointed Helmet FOLPINE ON SVDI FEJ 804 S overeign/Martlets FOLCPINE ON SVDRV HM2-154b FOCPINE ( sic) ON aNDRV RTH 2 -97 FOLCPINE ON 0VPBVG Hammer Cross BM 1 242 FOLCPINE ON SVDBVI RTH 86e F acing Bust FOLIPINE ON SVDB e .g.FEJ 8 05 N ote:

TABLE

The coin GS 8 3'10-55 cannot be taken as the basis f or extension of F olcwine's career back t o the Small Flan type; the coin i s a ttributable to S tamford. 6 2

" Folcwine" reign.

a t

Sudbury

i n

Edward the

C onfessor's

S udbury a ppears to have lain dormant for s ome twentyf ive y ears i n the second quarter o f the eleventh century. N o c oins are known between the Pointed Helmet type o f Cnut and the Pointed Helmet type of Edward[130]. U pon i ts revival the mint obtained the exclusive services o f the moneyer F olcwine who exercised monopoly to s trike i n each type up to

2 26

a well-maintained and i ncluding the

E dward t he C onfessor : s uceugY

2 27

F acing Bust type and resuming briefly in BMC o f William I . No coins o f any o ther moneyer a re f or the i ntervening period.

type I I recorded

Output was exiguous. The mint profile on page 2 27 records perhaps ten surviving specimens f or Sudbury i n Edward the Confessor's reign, half o f which are drawn f rom one type, and i t may be that the output of o ne s et o f dies was never exceeded i n any one type. Y et we may say that Sudbury experiences a stronger revival under Edward the Confessor than a mere tally of n ine or t en coins might suggest. I t enjoyed a totally independent existence until i ts t emporary eclipse during the middle years o f William I 's reign. T he revival o f minting operations a t Sudbury does not appear to have adversely a ffected the activity of I pswich a nd Colchester, Sudbury's n eighbours to the east a nd southeast, or o f Bury S t.Edmunds to the north. Instead, despite the hint o f l ocal pressures which proximity to e stablished mints suggests, Sudbury seems to be contributing to the policy o f " strengthening" and " in-filling" which i s a f eature of mint provision to the north-east o f London i n Edward's reign. Sudbury i s one o f those m int revivals and creations o f the reign which take r oot a nd employ the exclusive s ervices o f i ts moneyer i e r ver an extended period o f time. Unanswered questions a re why a dormant mint should be revived when I pswich a nd Colchester are close a t hand and whether revival i s a reflection o f central or l ocal i nitiative. A c ase can b e made f or the satisfaction o f both impulses. T emporary closure o f the mint i n William I 's reign may s tem f rom factors common to the disarray manifest a t the n eighbouring Colchester mint during the period BMC I II-VII, a disruption which i s not found a t Ipswich or Thetford. When the mint re-opened, apparently i n BMC type VI, i ts s tatus had apparently changed. I t i s f ound a ssociated with, i f not i ntegrated i nto, the l ocal minting system, though i t recovers i ts i ndependence. The n ew moneyer i s Wulfric, probably drawn f rom Ipswich and also known a t Colchester, pursuing a n i tinerary . as f ollows: BMC I V BMC VI BMC VIII William I I

I pswich Sudbury Sudbury Sudbury

Colchester

S udbury, therefore, may not have originated its n ew moneyer, nor, to begin with, enjoyed his exclusive s ervi ces, but control o f Wulfric a ppears to have b een g ained i n William

I I's

reign.

I pswich A number o f moneyers are k nown for particular t ypes f rom either l imited or doubtful evidence. This i s c ited below a s a preliminary to exploration of the i nterpret-

2 28

ations to which the mint s tructure i s susceptible. PACX Lifinc: well attested; Leofstan i s recorded from a coin in the Museum of London. T o the material a ttesting to L ifinc might be added BM 1 563 of + LIFINC ON SPES. Radiate/Small Cross Lifinc, Leofstan and Bruninc: well attested. C 4-1201 of + BRIHTRIC ON STES b ears a mint signature which cannot easily be reconciled with regular Ipswich mint signatures. Trefoil-Quadrilateral Lifinc: well a ttested. Wulsige i s r ecorded by S eaby but no coin has come t o l ight. There i s n o reference to such a moneyer i n the major hoard containing c oins o f this type - the Walbrook hoard and S eaby pointed out that, having s een only a small proportion o f the coins he l ists, he could not vouch for t he accuracy o f his l istings. F or the moment Wulsige has n ot been i ncluded a s a moneyer i n this type[131]. Small Flan Bruninc, Edwi and Wulsige: well a ttested. Among the coins o f Edwi i s BMC 1 04 + EDPI ON C ICESI, re-attributed f rom Chichester to I pswich by D olley e t al. Seaby also has a Leofwine a t I pswich i n this type but again no coin has c ome to l ight and Sadler, i n a discussion o f the moneyer Liofwold a t the I pswich mint, makes no m ention o f i t. Lifinc i s known i n this type from a single coin SB 6 96-E91[132]. Expanding C ross B runinc and Wulsige a re well a ttested. Lifinc i s recorded from BM 4 40 and the weight o f the one r ecorded coin o f Liofwold i s recorded a s 1 .05 g ., which places i t i n the l ight emission o f the type. Pointed Helmet B runinc, Liofwold and Wulsige: well attested. The City hoard c ontains a coin o f G odwine and a nother o f Brihtric. No o ther reference to a G odwine at I pswich has come to l ight and f or the moment, i n the a bsence of o ther evidence, no moneyer o f this name has b een i ncluded i n the canon o f I pswich moneyers. No coin has c ome to l ight of a moneyer Brihtric i n this type but a moneyer of this name i s known i n subsequent types ( albeit from l ess than totally satisfactory evidence). Brihtric could, t entatively, be i ncluded a s a moneyer a t I pswich i n this type. A Leofwine has also been c redited to I pswich i n this type but S adler has shown that coins o f " Leofwine" i n this type are i n fact of " Liotwold"[133]. Sovereign/ Martlets Brihtric i s recorded f rom a coin in t he British Museum trays ( uncatalogued), B ruman f rom EA 1 317 and Liofwold f rom GR 1 208i. Bruninc i s recorded for t his type by Thompson i n his publication o f the Walbrook hoard[134] which should i n fact b e a ccorded to t he Hammer Cross type. F rom current evidence, I pswich 's involvement i n the production o f this type i s very l imited. Hammer Cross Bruman, Bruninc and Liofwold: well a ttested. Brihtric i s known f rom two coins i n the City hoard. Facing Bust Entwine, Brihtric and Bruninc: well a ttested. G 1 147 a c oin in t his

of . ... NE ON G IPSII s eems of Entwine. Overleaf a re type to " Bruman":

2 29

most probably to be the coins a ttributed

A _ L f P I N E

•

r I r I N

r e )

e n

r I

0 L I O F P O L

1 3 R 1 4 7

' • 41

•

0 1

U) 0

4 / 1 1 : )

• m t . L I O F P O L D

r I

LL

• z r

01

(f l

NL Ö

1 4 g . 7

-N

C1

0

0 1 0

"" ' "-- 1

3 0 . 2 30

( \ I

N

m

r I r e ) r I r I

( f l NL Ö

M

C 4 8 7 0 . S P M

6 1 B M 1 5 6 3 1 4 % 2 4 , 2 5 , S S 2 1 7 8 . C . C 4 7 3 . 8 1 1 8 3 . 5 6 9 6 E 9 1 P C S 5 9 1 . W B 9 . C 4 8 I S N 1 1 1 8 , 1 8 2 .

M L

5 1

B M 4 3 6 . 1 1 8 0 .

5 2

, 7 1 , 2 7 2 F 9 4 0 6 . L C 7 9 3 8 t 1 4 0

6 1

6 3

4 C 5

E A f *

1 0 4 K

B e 1 0 4 , H A P 1 5 3 a G R . 1 g . B M 4 3 8 .

_ 4 4

. )4 0 1

E dward t he C onfessor : tpsw icH

.

2 31

BM-C BM-C EA 1 338 BM 4 45, EA

+BRVMAN + BRVMON + BRMAN ON G IP 1 337, A1021 + BRVM ON G IPPES " Brum" + BRVM

WB 1 56 BM-C I n previous types no " Brum" f orms occur, only f ull renderi ngs o f the moneyer's name: S overeign/Martlets: EA 1 317 + BRVNMAN ON GIPS Hammer Cross: LC 8 45 + BRVMMAN ON GIPES BM 4 41 + BRVMAN ON GIPESPI P CB 1 156 + BRVMAN ON GIPESPI Coins o f " Brum", " Bruman" etc.for l ater types a re: Pyramids: EA 1 342 + BRVNM ON GIPPE F EJ 4 18 " +BRVN(? I ON) G IPPE" Harold I I PAX: BM 3 3 + BRVMMON ON GIPE The re-appearance o f BRVMMON i n the PAX t ype and the occurrence of " NM" i n the Pyramids penny EA 1 342 s uggest that a " Bruman" continues t o c oin a fter the F acing Bust type. No further " Brum" forms re-appear d espite the possible occurrence o f a " Brun" form in t he Pyramids type f rom FEJ 4 18. This coin i s possibly s truck f rom the same reverse die a s EA 1 342, though die i dentification has s o far only been possible by c omparison of the respective fascicule and catalogue plates and i s not yet absolute. The F EJ catalogue s upplied the r eading c ited above and tentatively g ave the c oin to Bruninc, a moneyer o therwise last known i n the Facing Bust type. I t w ould s eem, however, that the balance o f probabilities g ives the coin FEJ 4 18 to Bruman i n preference t o Bruninc, and that overall the " Brum" s eries o f the F acing Bust type b elong to Bruman rather than B runinc. One o ther F acing Bust coin requires notice, a penny o f a n otherwise unknown Edwi ( PCM 2 -25). N o coin has b een examined to verify the presence o f such a moneyer and h e i s u nknown f rom any o ther source. This Edwi has not, therefore, b een i ncluded i n the canon o f I pswich's moneyers. Pyramids / E lfwine: well a ttested. The evidence for Bruman i s derived f rom EA 1 342 and F EJ 4 18 ( see a bove). . The a ttribution of FEJ 4 18 to B ruman thus deprives I pswich o f Bruninc i n this type. Sadler does list B runinc for this type, citing a s disposition " a private c ollection". A s S adler was aware o f the Elmore J ones sale, and c hose not to cite FEJ 4 18 a s his s ource, his r eference may be t o a coin g enuinely s truck by a moneyer Bruninc, but until this c oin i s published, B runinc i s t o be d eleted f rom the canon o f I pswich moneyers for this t ype. S adler also suggests that I pswich might have produced c oins o f the transitional Pyramids type but n o such c oins a ppear i n S tewart and Blunt's recent corpus o f this type[135]. Sadler publishes a " Leofwold" i n this t ype, c iting Thompson's I nventory 2 55 a s provenance, b ut a transposition occurred i n some o f the t ype headings f or this hoard and what Thompson l isted a s " BMC( A) type xv" i s i n fact type xiii.

2 32

D etermination o f moneyer c omplement i s based upon the H ammer Cross - Facing Bust transition and upon the divide between the l ight and heavy i ssues of the Expanding Cross type. The f our Hammer Cross moneyers all g o forward into F acing Bust a nd i n all probability were the sole moneyers a ctive i n the preceding S overeign/Martlets type. l Elfwine, the new moneyer i n the Facing Bust type, probably represents a successor to one of the three moneyers retiring i n that type, rather than a f ifth moneyer. I n the Sovereign/Martlets, Hammer Cross a nd Facing Bust types I pswich i s a four-moneyer mint. I n the E xpanding Cross type correct a ttribution of c oins of L iofwold and Lifinc to the l ight or heavy emission establishes that these two moneyers work side by s ide rather than a s perhaps successors to each o ther. The critical c oins a re OC, ( the single recorded specimen of t he newcomer Liofwold), and BM 4 40, ( the sole published specimen o f Lifinc, who retires i n this type). Their respective weights are published a s 1 .05 g . ( 16.3 g r.) and 2 7.0 g r., thus i dentifying the simultaneous working of t he two moneyers. I pswich i s therefore s f our-moneyer mint f rom the b eginning o f the Expanding Cross type, an a rrangement suggestive o f simultaneous working between Wulsie and Brihtric i n the Pointed Helmet type. Attribution of F EJ 4 18 i n the Pyramids type to B runinc i n preference to Bruman would slow the pace o f decline at t he end of the reign but i n fact the reduction i s sharp, from four-moneyer s tatus i n the Facing Bust type to t wo in the Pyramids, PAX and BMC I types of the period c .1065-1068. Thereafter f our-moneyer s tatus i s regained. The e vidence for the very early part o f Edward's reign suggests that until the Small Flan type I pswich was a t wo-moneyer mint, though a Wulsie i n the TrefoilQuadrilateral type would bring three-moneyer s tatus forward by a t l east one type. This i n turn might prompt a r e-examination o f the mint a s a three-moneyer mint in t he Radiate/Small Cross type, with Bruninc a s Leofstan 's colleague rather than successor a s depicted i n the mint profile. T he moneyers i n I pswich a re ' all " established" with the e xception of Edwi. His appearance i n the Small F lan type may b e a ssociated with the expansion o f moneyer complement which c ommences i n this type and continues in t he next type. Edwi's career i s a potent symbol o f an i ncrease i n activity which occurs g enerally to the north and north-east o f London, not only because o f the c ontribution made by his appearance a t I pswich but because i t i s the obverse die employed by Edwi which Wulgar employs during his shadowy existence a t D YR, one o f the new minting outlets c reated i n the a rea. I pswich's initial l ink with D YR s ems to have b een s erviced less expensively than i n the P ointed H elmet type, when Ipswich l oses the services o f Wulsie to the new mint, a l oss made good either immediately by Brihtric o r, more probably, by Bruman i n the S overeign/Martlets type.

2 33

Wulsie's transfer i s with any certainty.

the only move which can be stated There are few instances even of

parallel occurrence of area of likely movement

name-form and i n all cases the i s to the north and w est rather

than the south, but no clear pattern emerges. Ipswich i s a self-contained mint, securing and retaining the exclusive services of i ts moneyers and responding o nly to the broadest, regional, patterns of change. " DYR"

or

" DERNT"

or

" DERNE

A number of coins survive from the reign of Edward the Confessor bearing the mint signature D YR ( or D IR), DERNE and DERNT and have been gathered together a s representing the output of one mint i n East Anglia, the precise location of which remains unknown: Small Flan SB 6 53 - H 3 435 +PVLGAR 0 DYR BM

4 38

+PVLGAR 0 DYR

FEJ 2 47 BM 2 00 BM 2 01

+PVLGAR 0 DYR +PVLGAR 0 DYR +PVLGAR 0 DYR

BM 2 02 +PVLGAR 0 DYR LC 7 98 ex PCB +PVLGAR 0 DYR Pointed Helmet GR 1 203 ( BNJ XXXI p .66 no.1) Hammer Cross BM ex FEJ 2 48 ( BNJ XXXI p .67 no.3) WC 969 FEJ 2 49 ex LC 8 49 These coins have

+PVLSIE ON

DERNE

+PVLFSIE ON +PVLFSIE ON

( BNJ XXXI p . 66 no.2) +PVLFSIE previously been attributed t o

of mints. LC 7 98 and BMC 2 00, 2 01 and have been attributed or re-attributed 2 49 and WC 969 to Wareham. WC 969, ON PERHE, escaped detection as a DERNE publication of the SCBI West Country I t came, like FEJ 2 49, from the City

DERNT DERNE

ON DERNE a variety

202, f or example, to D erby and FEJ read a s PVLFSIC coin u ntil a fter Museum fascicule. hoard, and passed

through two cabinets to reside i n the Pitt Rivers Collecti on, whence i t came i nto the possession of t he Salisbury • and South Wiltshire Museum. As such i t i s recorded in SCBI West Country Museums fascicule a s a coin of Wareham, with the proviso that the " moneyer i s n ot in BMC for mint or reign". The coin reads +PVLFWIE ON D ERNE and i s reads of FEJ

from the same pair of dies a s FEJ 2 49. The +EADPARD RD RE rather than " REX", t he 2 49 given i n Mr. Elmore J ones's paper[136].

obverse reading

Two groups of mint signatures exist: DYR, associated with PVLGAR and DERNE/ DERNT a ssociated with a moneyer PVLFSIE. Michael Dolley, commenting on the f irst g roup, suggested a location in the g eneral area o f Ipswich, identifying the Thwaite hoard a s a likely provenance and establishing the proximity to I pswich from the employment at DYR of an obverse die u sed by the moneyer Edwi at I pswich. demonstrating

Mr. Elmore J ones that DERNE and

2 34

was able to g o DERNT were o ne

further, and the

same ( FEJ

mint, 2 48)

a s the Hammer Cross penny was s truck from the same

of PVLFSIE ON DERNT obverse die a s the

coin PVLFSIE ON DERNE ( FEJ 2 49). He could not establish common die u sage between DERNE and I pswich, but was able t o locate the mint i n the I pswich area on the g rounds that the moneyer PVLFSIE was probably the same officer as Wulfsie a t I pswich. What was now needed was substantive proof to equate D YR with DERNE[137]. Such proof has n ot been forthcoming even though DYR's PVLGAR cannot be l inked with any o ther mint. I t i s an uncommon name, found only a t Lincoln and London, in both cases sporadically throughout the reign. All the Lincoln coins read PVLGAR or a variant, but are i n every case without the " F" which would render the name " Wulfgar"; at London PVLGAR and PVLFGAR forms are found. A superficial survey revealed no obverse die-link between Lincoln and DYR, and n o case can reasonably be made out to link Wulgar at Lincoln and Wul(f) gar a t London with PVLGAR a t DYR. I t i s, however, possible to go further than Mr. Elmore Jones in l inking DERNE's PVLFSIE with I pswich and making it more certain, because moneyers tend to move only between adjacent mints, that DERNE lay to the north of I pswich. Elmore J ones employed prosopographical criteria to suggest that i n the Pointed Helmet type PVLSIE transferred from I pswich to the new mint; the same criteria may be employed to account for his subsequent absence a t DERNE ( and I pswich) i n the Sovereign/ Martlets type by suggesting that he became a moneyer at N orwich, where a moneyer of this name i s known a t this t ime. No die-link appears to exist between Norwich and D ERNE, but an exhaustive search has yet to be undertaken. PVLSIE's career can be reconstructed a s follows: Norwich DERNE I pswich Reference to Table 6 3 will show that some details of this proposed i tinerary cannot yet be determined. PVLSIE may make a single move to Norwich returning during the Hammer Cross type to complete his career a t DERNE; or he may return to I pswich after his activity at DERNE and t ransfer direct to Norwich, returning to DERNE to commence the Hammer Cross i ssue there and finally retiring to

N orwich.

I t i s a pity proved to be one

that and

D YR the

quence the possibility first location and had

and DERNE cannot be absolutely same place, because i n conse-

that to be

the mint failed i n i ts relocated cannot be ruled

out. I f, however, they are to be one minting place, then DYR/ DERNE, l ocated between I pswich and Norwich, was a one-moneyer mint served i nitially by i ts own moneyer but s ubsequently by a moneyer shared between i t and Ipswich

in

the

Pointed

Helmet

2 35

type,

and

with

Norwich

E dward t he C onfessor :DYR/DERNE .

> -

4 —

c )

0

L n I D

. M a r t I e t s

•

f L n

o

( 1 )

0 9—

f -

C D

0 c o

r— I

• • 0 W

u i

D Y R / D E R N E

C T ' )

I

— 1

p c

=

H

> 1

H

H

o

H —4 4 =

2 36

1 U

•• H u ) 0

0 ) > 1 4 1 • 0 0 E Z

U )

H

TQ

I pswich

" Wulsie"

SF

I pswich

PVLSIE 2

EC

I pswich

PVLSIE 3

PH

I pswich

PVLSIE 4 DERNE

PVLSIE 5

PV LSIG 6

SM

Norwich

HC

Norwich PVLFSI DERNE

. BNJ .

XXVIII

PVL2SI

p .141. MCM,

. EA 1 294,1295, H 1 87,188, BM, ( modified from PV LSIG - BNJ ML,

FEJ

G R

PCB

X LVII

4 10,411,412,

1 190

ex

1 786, LC p .73).

LC

HM

3 804,

1 -827, WB

H 6 12,

7 .

WB 1 34, HAP 2 02a, JEM 1 31, BM 1 106, EA 1 327,1328, 6 71-H4401, LC 2 825e, A 9 60, CM 1 257, PCB 1 806b. S P 85-8413, SP 8 7-364, SP 8 7-9099 ( catalogued a s " Wulfsige").

9 .

BM ex

TABLE

3 0

2 814.

6 .

8 .

8

3 2VLFSIE 9

EA 1 280, 1281, BM 4 39, LC 2808, CJM 1 4-A27.

. A 8 67, BM, 5 . GR 1 203.

7

BM.

FEJ

6 3

2 48,

FEJ

2 49

The activities Norwich.

ex of

LC

8 49,

PVLSIE

a t

WC

SB

969.

I pswich,

DERNE

and

i n the Hammer Cross type. A s such D YR/ DERNE's s tatus i s f luid. The mint i s i nitially a plantation of some s trength for i t originates i ts own moneyer, an ability not impaired by the i mport of an obverse die from I pswich,

for

that

die

i s

drawn

not

from

a moneyer

i n

the

I pswich establishment but from Edwi, a single-type moneyer whose recorded output ( Ipswich 4 4) i s probably from that obverse die and whose total output was presumably intended to be l ess than that die's capacity. I t would seem, therefore, that the I pswich mint showed no g reat concern for DYR/ DERNE, wishing to service i t a s economically a s possible, and when, in the Pointed Helmet type, DYR/ DERNE was i n need of a new moneyer i t was Wulsie, Edwi's contemporary and one of the newest recruits to the I pswich mint, who was dispatched i n preference to the more senior Bruninc. Wulsie's subsequent career i s a t Norwich not I pswich, and his continued service of the mint a t DYR/ DERNE i s suggestive of a bond between moneyer and mint rather than mint and mint. Although DYR/ DERNE has sunk to the s tatus of b eing serviced not matter which

by another mint's moneyer, mint i t i s; i t cannot be

i t does regarded

merely as an " out-station" of the I pswich mint. That i t can be serviced from these two mints i s further i ndication of the l ocation of the mint. At the last, therefore, What

D YR/ DERNE does

i ts

has

no

i ndependent

existence

2 37

signify?

existence. Local

dignity,

c ertainly, would be a possibility, a s would be a need to recognise some i ncreased and l ocalised e conomic a ctivity, for both coining capacity and c oin outlets are significantly i ncreased i n Suffolk with the o pening o f Bury S t.Edmunds, the re-opening o f Sudbury a nd the s trengthening by a hundred per cent of the moneyer c omplement a t I pswich, o f Edward's reign and o f the reign.

a two-moneyer mint at the b eginning a f our-moneyer mint by the middle

Two o ther coins have been adduced a s evidence f or a mint at D YR/DERNE. One, an l E thelraed I I Last Small Cross coin o f EADRIC MON DERP ( H 6 89) i s dismissed by Mr.Elmore J ones; the o ther, an Edward the Confessor PACX penny o f BRININ ON DRI ( C4-800) i s a ttributed by D r. G. Galster to a mint o f " DIR"; D r. Galster points out that Bruninc i s an I pswich moneyer at t his p eriod. The moneyer has t entatively been i ncluded i n the canon o f D YR/DERNT moneyers[138]. N orwich When clearly s truck the mint s ignature presents no problems. A number of c oins require i ndividual note and are l isted for each type: PACX Leofwine: f rom HM 2 -136a n ow i n the British Museum. O smund: F 8 15 o f + OSIIVID ON NOR i s suggested by G rier son, a s author o f the Fitzwilliam Museum f ascicule o f S CSI, to be o f S candinavian origin. Such r eservations would probably not apply to other PACX pennies o f " Osmund" ( e.g. C4-1137). " Leofwi" forms occur i n the PACX type ( H 5 95, EA 1 268 ex GS 7 3/3-272, EHW 1 06b ex P CB 1 118, LC 2 809 and S HM-C) and i n no o ther type. They might include the coin or coins f rom which S eaby derived " Leofwig" a s a N orwich moneyer i n this type. S eaby also recorded a " Leofwig" i n the Small F lan type but the only coin which has c ome to l ight which might substantiate t his i s one which bears an ambiguous moneyer signature. While the philologist might wish to expand LEOFPI t o " Leofwig", no LEOFPIG f orm occurs a t Norwich or a t the n eighbouring Mints of Thetford and I pswich. A t Thetford o nly the full " -m e" deuterotheme i s f ound i n conjunction with " Leof-" and Sadler has shown that the c oin thought to represent the a ctivity of a " Leofwine" a t I pswich was mis-cut f or " Leofwold" ( see above, p . 2 29 ) . I t s eems unlikely that a " Leofwi" or " Leofwig" c an be identified a t Norwich by reference to such a moneyer a t adjacent mints, but despite the absence o f full data f rom the period prior t o Edward the Confessor's accession, coins of " Leofwi" a t Norwich have b een t enta tively a scribed t o a moneyer " Leofwig"[139]. Radiate/Small Cross Godwine: his s tatus i s d ifficult to d etermine. He i s unlikely to be the " Godwine" a ctive a t Norwich twenty-five years previously in C nut's Quatref oil type. A Trefoil-Quadrilateral penny ( H 8 5 + GODPINE

2 38

ON D OR) has been t entatively re-attributed to N orwich on t he grounds that a s the name-form i s o therwise unknown at D orchester i n Edward the Confessor's reign an alternative r eading ON I IOR should be considered. Although no " Godwine" i s o therwise known a t Norwich i n the type his p resence could follow naturally upon his activity in t he Radiate/Small Cross type. However, a " Godwine" can b e substantiated a t D orchester f or Harold I ( e.g. H 1 20) and Harthacnut ( H 2 8) and M s.Colman reports that the mint signature o f the T refoil-Quadrilateral H 8 5 does i ndeed read a s Hildebrand had proposed. Accordingly Godwine's activities during this period of t he reign should be confined to the Radiate/Small Cross type. The name-form does re-occur i n the Facing Bust t ype ( q.v.)[140]. Trefoil-Quadrilateral Leofwine: he i s the sole moneyer recorded i n this type. Small Flan As with the previous type the mint a ppears virtually dormant. Thurfurth: the commencement of Thurfurth's career cannot be i dentified with c ertainty. A m oneyer of this name i s active i n Cnut's reign a t Norwich and Thetford[141] and the probability must be t hat for unascertained reasons his career was i nterrupted. He has not been i ncluded a s a moneyer " likely to h ave struck" during the i ntervening types. " Leofwine" or " Leofwig": BM 1 091 o f + LEOPIC ON HOR constitutes a possible basis for S eaby's note o f the name-form i n the type. The coin could, however, constitute evidence for " Leofwine's" activity i n the type. Examination o f the coin suggests that the f inal " C" of t he l egend i s obscured by an abnormal extension of t he cross ( the c entral device o f the reverse). I f the d ie-cutter were working on behalf o f a " Leofwine" this extension of the cross might represent an a ttempt to c onvert " C" i nto " N". This would have been the die-cutter's second mistake, f or he had already omitted the " F" of the moneyer's name. I t s eems c ertain that the n ame was originally rendered a s LEOPIC but i t i s not c lear whether the extended arm of the c ross was to the l egend or was simply intended a s a correction f a m istake. I f i t was a correction any alteration o presumably only be i ntended the f inal l etter could a s " LEOPIN". T entatively, to r ender the name-form ssigned to " Leofwine". therefore, BM 1 091 has b een a L Ecd p1

WB and RTH 2 -94a o f Leofwine Expanding Cross( wnr) o f the heavy emission along with are p resumed to be the moneyer o f which the weights all o ther coins o f WB 5 3,54 are r ecorded. C 4-1141 ( cut halfpenny) a nd of T hurfurth may b e of either heavy or l ight emission; coins of both i ssues a re known f or this moneyer. Pointed Helmet Godman: Godman's s tatus i s a l ittle unclear because o f the pattern o f occurrence o f the name f orm nationally. F or the moment i t must be regarded as c oincidence that the name-form occurs i n two chrono-

2 39

E dward •t he C onfessor :

NOK w

0

0

Z

0


N , r e, r e ) 1. s7 .. )

1

3 8 I

—

H 6 0 3

1 2 .

Z , r7

C 4

X C -) C

( t

i — . .. / ..1 c z •; , r eE i g

P C B 5 9 3 e f 8 1 S ? W v s 2 . _ D N . P u s

"V

1 4 6 0 . C 4 1 3 5

1 3

V 7 2 .

Q ) f 0 0

, H 6 0 1 ,

-

0

6 0 2 . M L O C .

C 4 1 3 6

e a

1 0 2 .

C O

,1 2 . 1 3 4 .

E ( I )

4 c n

L A L 2 7 1 .

c oz

1 7 6 . 1 4

( . , ! i

— N

x x h ' 1

C 4 1 2 3 B t 1 5 3

t n _

I 6 4

e

.5 22

_

IV

& . .

— C O E

" j r ;

t 9 C . ' )

Z

S B 7 9 1 j 2 E 2 5 6

4 3

E x p . C r o s

•

Z

F E U ' S 3 1 B M . 4 E A 1 2 . 7 L D C .

t o

e

T r e f o i l

m o m u m u m .

. 2 1 4/ , ( T. O , ,N _ • . . 5h 0 l f ) 0 0 3 l u i ,1 t )

N

( 1 ) 1 ( I

r A A

t i, J

. I D 0 C C

d U

I A

0

—

c ,i n r

—

r i9

1 Z .

_

i 2 : i . L 1x

C " - •0 3

_

, 0 0 1 . I n

0 C O

C r i A

• P -

c z

0 0

Z ( 1 3 -

t Z

0

0

C i

4 0 L . 5 w _ J

I

i Z

a

u 1 0 1 . h L a x 1 -

0

. ,• N

L i

I

t e l c i o

2

u r , . J r n

( . 4

.

00

t i

L i

di f ,„ . , N_ I L ,_ t-: c l . 3 , . . i . , . . x N r --0

r e

C 1 L u .

0

u i

_ A

, 5-

Z 2

0 w _ ,

2

2 53


c n

C

>

c i 0

a >

t z - A

( . ) L > A •

_ e r . ) u _ _ I > A -

1 .

various renderings o f the moneyer's name. Edric: the name-form occurs later i n the reign, perhaps i ndicative o f a return o f the moneyer to the mint. Godlef: recorded i n the type f rom a coin in t he Montagu collection. The name-form occurs later in t he reign, and has been a ssumed to be representative o f the s ame moneyer. Tidred: recorded only f rom C 4-1233. Wulfric: a single coin bearing this name-form was o ffered a s l ot 1 188 i n the G rantley sale. F 8 26 + S...EO i s more probably a coin of Y ork, there being no moneyer whose name b egins with " S" active i n the type. T refoil-Quadrilateral ggelsige: i ncludes provisionally a cut halfpenny ...ON D EOD housed i n the museum o f the R oyal Mint. Although no die i dentity has b een confirmed the epigraphy i s very similar t o the c oin BM 1 527. A further coin possibly a ttributable to this moneyer i s c onsidered below, under the heading " Ethel..e". Legofrede: known f rom BM 1 529 + LEGOFREDE ON D EO. T he British Museum Catalogue normalises the name-form t o " Leofred" although i n so doing i t i ntroduces a moneyer who cannot o therwise be substantiated a t the Thetford mint. The c oin i s currently ( 23.10.1979) housed behind a " Leofwine" header i n the British Museum t rays. A s " LEGOFREDE", the name-form i s unique to Thetford a nd i s not recorded by S earle or Smart[144]. Whether represented a s a name-form i n i ts own right, or n ormalised a s " Leofred", i t must nevertheless constitute evidence of the activity a t the mint o f a moneyer o therwise unrepresented. The name-form i s alleged i n the n ext type but f rom an unsatisfactory record. " Ethel.. . e": known only f rom H 7 21 + EDEL... E O N DEOD. I f the transliteration i s correct n o o ther Thetford moneyer can b e confused with the moneyer, whoever h e was, who was responsible f or this penny. The " gthel-" p rototheme i s a rchaic, occurring i n Edward the Confessor's r eign only a t York, i n the PACX and R adiate/Small C ross types among c oins of " gthelwine" ( York 2 1 and 2 2). A contracted f orm ( gDE-) persists a t Winchester among coins o f " gthelstan" though no full gDELSTAN form o ccurs i n Edward's reign. I f, however, gDEL>gL-, EDEL.. . E should represent a t Thetford the " gthelsige" name-form even though i n i ts archaic f orm i t i s unknown a t Thetford i n Edward's reign ( Table 6 5). Small F lan ggelsige: i ncludes H 7 11 and PCB 5 89. H 7 11 was r ead by B .E.Hildebrand a s g LFPI ON DET b ut " glfwi" f orms do not o therwise exist ( Table 6 7) and e xamination o f published photographs o f o ther c oins o f T hetford 4 ( especially CM 1 170) suggests that the coin w ould r ead gLSIG. PCB 5 89 was catalogued a s reading g LFPI or g LSIE and i s now published ( as F 8 51) a s a c oin o f " glsig". C 4-1209 i s r ead a s gLSIGE in the S CBI fascicule t ext but i s probably f rom the s ame reverse die a s the o ther coins. Carson recorded an g LSIGE f orm f rom a coin i n the B ritish Museum trays ( CAR 2 6)

2 54

but currently there match h is reading.

does

not

appear

to

be

a

coin

to

( £1fwine): coins l inked with this f orm ( H 7 11 and PCB 5 89), which provided evidence f or a moneyer o f this name i n the Small Flan type, are more probably o f Ngelsige ( q. v.). The " Nlfwine" f orm does occur a t Thetford but n ot until later i n the reign ( Table 6 7). L egofrede: known only f rom a s econdary r eference[145].See note t o this moneyer's name for the previous type. L eofwine: i ncluded i s BM 1 113, a Trefoil-Quadrilateral x Small Flan mule c atalogued a s + LEOFPIN E OXF. The c oin has b eeen re-attributed to Thetford a s + LEOFPINE 0 D F [ 146]. There appears to be no die-link with o ther Thetf ord T refoil-Quadrilateral obverses. T idred: retires, r ecorded only f rom a s econdary reference a nd i s n ot recorded by Carson[147]. H 7 11 + NLFPI ON D ET and P CB 5 89 o f NLFPI or / E LSIE probably b elong t o the " Ngelsige" s eries ( see " Ngelsige", above). Expanding Cross glfric: known f rom a c oin i n the British Museum ( uncatalogued). ( Godlef): recorded only f rom a s econdary reference. P ointed H elmet Blacere: recorded only f rom BM 1 543. Edric: recorded f rom SP78-2760 a nd 5P78-9411. There i s a coin o f EDPII i n the Museum o f London ( Accn.no. 2 59) which despite i ts i llegible mint signature i s i ncluded among the Museum's coins a ttributed to Thetford. S overeign/ Martlets Atsere: known f rom a c oin i n the British Museum ( uncatalogued). Hammer C ross Nlfwine: the " Nlfwine" f orms a re g rouped together in Table 6 7. F olcerd: not known again until BMC IV o f William I . His presence has not b een a ssumed f or the i ntervening period. G odlef: included a re GDELN and GDELIC f orms ( see b elow). Wulwi: known only f rom SB 6 61-H3769. " Eastman": North records such a moneyer and one c oin i s listed by Thompson f rom the City f ind but n o c oin has b een s een and " Eastman" does not occur i n Willett's publ ished l isting[148]. Gdelic: recorded f rom e .g. BM 1 550. Carson n oted an obverse die l ink b etween c oins o f " Gdelic" and " Godlef" a nd a lthough this does n ot constitute proof o f c ommon i dentity i t must b e probable that " Gdelic" i s a f orm o f " Godlef". Gdeln: recorded f rom C 4-1221. The identity o f the money er i s o bscure. F or the philologist i t has a n i dentity o f i ts own; i ts o ccurrence a s a n obscure form alongside " Gdelic", another obscure f orm but one which i s die—linked with " Godlef" suggests that " Gdeln" and " Gdelic" forms might h ave a common a ssociation with " Godlef"[149]. F acing B ust Godlef: the name-form re-occurs i n the PAXS type o f William I . I t i s a lso r ecorded i n the City hoard f or the Pyramids type though no coin has c ome t o l ight. S umerled: i ncludes coins o f SVMRD ( e.g. F 9 52). Pyramids Nlfwine: recorded only f rom SB 7 34-E448 o f + IELFPINE G odwine:

0 1 \DET. the case

f or

the

2 55

moneyer's

activity

i n

this

type rests upon BM 1 559 of +GODPI ON DETFORDI and a further coin in the British Museum trays ( uncatalogued) which reads +GODPI ON D ITFO and which a t 2 3.10.1979. was housed under a "Godwig" header. There i s no full "Godwine" form known for this type, and accordingly the moneyer has not been included among those a ctive in this type. Godwig: recorded from CAR 1 45 ( BM) of +GODPIC ON D ETFOR. No absolutely unequivocal GODPIG occasional GODPI form in William a " Godwig" active a t Thetford. gLSIGE 1

RSC

gLSIIE 2

form exists, but the I 's reign may suggest

gLSIE 3

TQ

EDEL. . E 4 gGLSIE 5 gLSIG 6

SF ExC( h)

gILSIE 7

PH

gILSIE 9

EGELSIE 8 gILLSIE 10

1 . C4-1208. 2 . C 4-1210. 3 . BM. 4 . H 7 21. BM 1 527. 6 . e . g. F 8 51. 7 . e . g. BM 1 539. 8 . 9 . e . g. BM. 1 0. e . g. BM and PCB 6 08. Table

6 5

" ggelsige"

at

PACX

LEOFPIN 1 LEOFPINE 2

5 . e . g. e .g. BM.

Thetford.

RSC

LEOFPINE 3

TQ

LEOFPINE 4

SF

LEOCINE 14 LEOFPINE 6

LEEOFPINE 5

ExC ( 1)

LIFPINE 8

( wnr)

LEPINE 15

LEOF 1 2INE 7

( h)

LEOFPINE 9

PH

LEOFPINE 10 LIOPINE 11

LIF 1 2INE 12

L IOFPINE 13

1 . e . g. BM 1 535. 2 . e . g. C4-1230. 3 . e .g. C4-1227. 4 . GR 1 195. 5 . e . g. C4-1222. 6 . BM 1 113 ( TQ x SF mule; e . g. C4-1229). 7 . e . g. WB 6 1. 8 . H 7 33. 9 . C41 231. 1 0. e . g. BM 1 545. 1 1. SB 7 42-E312. 12. e . g. BM

1 546.

TABLE

1 3.

6 6

SB

6 80-H4915.

" Leofwine the

at

Thetford

1

ELFPINE

FB

ELEPINE 9

i n

15.

the

S HM-C.

reign

of

Edward

gLFPINE 8 gLFPINE 2

IELFPINE 3 IELFPINE 4

Pyr

1 . SB

BM-C.

Confessor.

HC

PAX

1 4.

gLEPINE 5 e . g. FEJ 7 34-E448.

8 . A 9 84. TABLE 6 7

8 36. 5 .

gGEPINE 7

gLFPINE 6 2 . RH

e . g. 2 5.

9 . H 7 17. " glfwine" forms

at

FEJ 8 37. 6 . Carson Thetford.

2 56

3 . 2 .

e .g. 7 .

BM. BM

4 . 1 21.

SF

LEFRIC 1

LEOFRIE 2

ExC( h)

L / E0FRIE 3

LEOFRIC 4

( wnr) 1 . e .g. G 1 058. TABLE

LEOFRIC 5 BM 1 526. 5 . e . g.

6 8

2 . H 7 25. LC 2 812.

" Leofric"

a t

GODRIC

FB

GODRIC 2

Pyr

GODRIC 3

PAX

GODRIC 6

1 .

I

e .g.

BM.

BM 1 559 ( CAR wine". 5 . BM TABLE

6 9

G0D 1 2I 4

( See

2 .

BM

e . g.

the

1 557.

" Godwin

reigns

1 0

PACX

GODPINE

FB

GODPINE 1

Table

of

GOPINE

GODPINE 3

I

GODPINE 4

I I

GODPINE 7

I II

GODPINE 8

4 .

e . g.

-

7 0) G

1 175.

4 .

BMC as a coin BM 1 22. and

" Godwig"

Edward

the

BM

of

and

" God-

forms

Confessor

at and

1 1

Pyr PAX

1 199.

GODPIG 5

3 .

catalogued i n 1 45). 6 . e . g.

"Godric",

Thetford in Harold II.

CM

Thetford.

" Godwig" 1 44) ( CAR

e . g.

1

HC

William

3 .

GODINE 5

( GODPI)

2

( GODPI)

6

( GODDI)

9

1 . CAR 138,139. 2 . BM 1 559 and BM. 3 . F 9 78. 4 . EA 1 353. 5 . BM 4 4. 6 . EA 1 354. 7 . BM 1 49, EP 1 182, DC 1 43, SCA 2 1-551, CJM 1 -H24. 8 . BM 2 13. 9 . SS 1 3. 1 0. SHM - C , BM. 1 1. H 7 23. TABLE

70

" Godwine" at Thetford i n the reigns of the Confessor, Harold I I and William I .

Edward

I n general name-forms appear to have been rendered with care. Table 6 6 shows that the " -wine" deuterotheme i s consistently achieved for " Leofwine", and " Leofric" i s any

consistently achieved " -wig" forms ( Table

be and

exercised " Godwig"

with forms

without the 6 8). Care

occurrence of must, however,

the " Godwin, " Godwine", " Godric" ( Tables 6 9 and 7 0). The latter

occurs once, in the Pyramids type, on an uncatalogued coin in the British Museum trays of +GODPI ON D ETFOR or D ITFOR ( CAR 1 45), and may also be represented by the GODPI forms of BM EA 1 354 in BMC type I

1 559 in the of William I ,

2 57

same and

type and of by the GODDI

f orm o f S S 1 3 i n BMC type I II o f William's reign. G odwine ( Table 7 0) and Godric ( Table 6 9) are discrete f orms; GODPIC, GODPI and GODDI f orms a re ambiguous. " Godwig" exists i n i ts own right a s a personal name a nd GODPI f orms would be philologically subordinate t o i t. I f the philological subordination were accompanied by prosopographical subordination a " Godwig" would have been active a t Thetford f rom the Pyramids type until BMC type I of William I and even until BMC type I II i f the GODDI of S S 1 3 i s susceptible to transliteration a s GODPI. Were this s o, the Godric and G odwine o f this period would have been j oined by a " Godwig" and this, f or the moment, i s the i nterpretation placed upon these coins, despite the wish f or GODPIC t o be discovered to be a mis-cut f orm o f GODRIC and for GODPI to be a subordinate f orm o f GODPINE. N orth records both " glfsige" and " ggelsige" a s Thetford moneyers but Table 6 5 suggests that n o " glf-" f orm occurs i n c onjunction with the " -sige" d euterotheme a nd a ccordingly " ggelsige" alone i s represented i n the Thetford mint profile on pp.250-253 above. [150] F or many moneyers, continuity o f tenure i s g ood and l ength of t enure i s quite clearly defined, but some observations are n ecessary, however, i n the case o f Edric, Godlef, F olcard, G odwine and glfwine. The occurrence patterns o f the f irst three moneyers a re suggestive of " associate" s tatus, Edric r etiring i n the Radiate type but a pparently reappearing briefly i n P ointed Helmet, G odlef active f rom perhaps the Expandi ng Cross type but known also i n the R adiate type, and F olcard apparently c ommencing i n BMC type I V of William I although the name-form a lso o ccurs i n Edward's Hammer Cross type. The name-forms G odlef a nd F olcard are unique to Thetford during this period a nd i t has been a ssumed that along with Edric, the i dentity o f the moneyer i s the same on each occasion that i t o ccurs. " Godwine" forms, occurring a t an i nterval o f s even types' duration, observe different characteristics. H ere the two occasions o f a ctivity represented by the occurrence of the name-form constitute s ubstantial there a re two periods of time and i t would s eem that The " Godwine" moneyers s haring the same name-form. the Expanding f orm recorded by Willett and S eaby i n I n the case Cross type has not come to l ight[151]. o f glfwine, Table 6 7 shows that unambiguous " glf-" f orms obtained to the exclusion o f " g1-" a nd " ggel-" f orms occur until the PAX type o f Harold I I. A subsidiary problem i s that posed by the gLEPINE f orm o f R H 2 5 i n the PAX type. I t could be capable o f i nterpreta tion a s " glfwine" or " ggelwine", the latter f orm being the published reading o f BM 1 21 of + T EGEPINE ON D ITFO. Examination of BM 1 21 shows " g" cut clearly. The " G" appears a s an upright with a very pronounced l ower horizontal bar, possibly with a slight u pward turn.

2 58

There i s the hint o f a n upper horizontal bar but i ts presence i s by no means certain: The next l etter i s c learly " E" and n ot " F". A case can be made, therefore, f or a transliteration i n favour o f ELEPINE rather than EGEPINE and which would coincide with the RH 2 5 i n b oth mint and moneyer signature ( +ELEPINE ON D ITFO). The e vidence f or a n " Egelwine" a t Thetford i s i nsubstantial a nd on balance the name-form can be deleted f rom the c anon o f Thetford moneyers.

E L i

.

T he mint profile i s derived f rom the PACX and Expandi ng C ross types. The six PACX moneyers are all i nherited from p rior to Edward's reign and o f the f ive Expanding Cross moneyers ( six, i f Godlef i s i ncluded), all but one w ere active i n the previous type. The transition from T refoil-Quadrilateral to Small Flan i s also suggestive o f six moneyers, but here the picture i s c omplicated by t he possibility that i n the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type L egofrede works s imultaneously with Brunstan and that i n the Small Flan type Legofrede and Tidred work simultaneously with Elfric and Leofric. N either Godlef nor E dric have b een credited with a presence during the p eriod Trefoil-Quadrilateral to Expanding Cross, but t his i s not an entirely happy representation of the m int's s tructure during this period. A complement of f ive or six i s maintained i n the P ointed Helmet, Sovereign/ Martlets, Hammer Cross and Facing Bust types, with a t l east six g oing forward from Hammer Cross to Facing Bust. Thereafter there i s a sudden contraction, for t hree o r f our moneyers seems a l ikely e stablished complement i n the Pyramids and PAX types, though a recovery b y BMC type I I o f William I i s sustained throughout his r eign. The most l ikely picture i s that of Thetford as a s ix-moneyer mint f rom the PACX type until a decline in t he Pyramids type. T wo possible peaks of moneyer c omplement emerge, in t he Radiate/Small Cross and Hammer Cross/Facing Bust types. Taken i n conjunction with M s.Colman's l ists of moneyers, R . A. G.Carson's work on the Thetford mint enables a raw die-study to be undertaken which suggests that productivity and moneyer complement are related: the g reater the number o f moneyers the g reater their individual productivity ( Table 7 1). This would suggest that rising demand would be met over a period of time ( even i f days or weeks) rather than i nstantly and simultaneously, a nd that a t l east a t a l arger mint moneyers were not multiplied beyond what was n ecessary. When moneyer complement declined, productivity showed no discernible i ncrease. S ome tentative comparisons can be a ttempted with the much more extensive Lincoln material: the Hammer C ross/Facing Bust peak i s common to both mints and s o i s the concentration o f dies ( and therefore output) i nto the hands of a very small number of moneyers. What i s not paralleled a t Thetford i s the apparent

i ncrease

i n

productivity

2 59

a t

Lincoln

a fter

i ts

2 60

P o s i b l e r e l a t i v e

( 1 )

-C 3

C O C C

0
1

>

a )

G

W

u ) 1 )

• H

0

2 61

'

m • -

a s t e r i s k e d i n c l u d e s t h e G D E L N a n d G D E L I C f o r m s .

A-

t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f r e v e r s e d i e s r e c o r d e . T h e i t e m

4

. .

C c u _ U -

. T h e t f o r d

4

— , 1 • 1 — k

1

• i

i n p a r t i c u l a r b y t h e w o r k o f M s . F C o l m a n ) . F i g u r e s i n b r a c k e t s i n d i c a t e

L r )

a n d a r e d e r i v e d f r o m R . A G . C a r s o n ' s p a p e r " T h e M i n t o f T h e t f o r d " ( m o d i f i e d

m

F i g u r e s r e p r e s n t h e m i n i m u m n u m b e r o f r e v e r s e d i e s e m p l o y e d b y a m o n e y e r

N . . . . .

4 . 2 3 . 4 2 . 6 2 . 6 4 . 0 2 . 9 1 . 8 5 . 0 3 . 7 2 . 7

E ( r )

3 1 1 3 1 8 2 4 1 6 9 4 5 2 6 8

, — i , 1 . . . -

2 5

( 1 3

9 6 5 o r 7 5 7 5 9 7 3

+ L r a 2 ' . ( f )

6

P . H e l m e t + c : _

_

E x p . C r o s c n u ) 0 L . _ C . ) . .

. _ C 4 ( I ) L . I -

4 1

, i

S 1

P

a )

P

, A Z 2 4

0

0

• H

r " -

C o n f e s o r .

F . B u s t P y r a m i d s

c ontraction

i n

size

a t

the

beginning

o f

the

r eign.

I t would seem that a t Thetford fifty per c ent or thereabouts o f mint output a s measured by the recorded reverse dies i s c ontrolled i n a g iven type by two moneyers, though a s Table 7 2 shows, i t i s not a lways the same moneyers. Certain i ndividuals t end t o dominate, i n particular Leofwine and E stmund. For the l atter part o f the reign the picture i s l ess ordered. This i s similar to the situation encountered a t Lincoln. P re-eminence i s not n eccessarily a product o f seniority some l ong-established moneyers, such a s Brunstan, T idred and G odlef, always have a l ow output - but i t does appear to be lasting and devolved u pon c ertain moneyers who retain i t f or much of their period i n o ffice. The Thetford mint relies h eavily upon e stablishment i n preference to " single-type" moneyers, o f whom t here a re f our i f Godwig i s regarded a s an e stablished moneyer. The " single-type" moneyers, representing n early twenty per c ent o f the moneyer total f or Edward's reign, contribu te only five o f the 2 15 recorded reverse d ies - u nder two and a half per c ent o f the total. I t should be observed, however, that two o f these moneyers, Mana and Wulfwi, are probably e stablished elsewhere. An unusual f eature i s the relatively s hort t enures enjoyed by a number o f Thetford's e stablished moneyers. All but the Trefoil-Quadrilateral and Pyramids t ypes s ee a significant element of the e stablishment r etire or c ommence and the phenomenon i s so p ronounced i n the P ointed Helmet and Sovereign/Martlets types that i t comes close to constituting a complete break i n continuity. The return o f G odlef and Edric may represent an a ttempt to ameliorate a difficult s ituation. A change of perhaps half of the e stablishment every two or three types i s i n contrast to the situation a t most o ther mints and suggests deliberate policy. C ertain moneyers appointed simultaneously ( i.e. during the same type) appear to be a ssociated with each o ther, pursuing careers which are b roadly parallel. O f the t en a ppointments to the Thetford e stablishment d uring the period PACX-Sovereign/ Martlets ( inclusive), all but Blacere and Thurfurth c onform to a pattern of paired working: Appointment Moneyers' Names R etirement R SC

/ Egelsige E stmund

SF

/ E lfric Leofric

SM

A tsere Sumerled

P ointed

H elmet

Expanding Cross

2 62

Facing

Bust

( h)

PACX

Edric

R SC

Leofwine

5 2%

Leofwine

ggelsige

5 2%

TQ

E stmund

Leofwine

6 9%

SF

E stmund

glfric

4 4%

ExC

E stmund

PH

and Leofwine Leofwine

or

Godlef

SM HC

Blacere

and Atsere

FB

glfwine

and

G odric

Pyr TABLE

Leofric

and

4 9% 5 0%

sample i s t oo small glfwine 5 6% 5 0% sample i s too small

7 2

Moneyer prominence a t Thetford i n the reign o f Edward the Confessor measured by recorded reverse dies.

M oneyers appointed a t Thetford prior to Edward's a ccession a lso o bserve this " pairing". Saegrim and Godwine retire t ogether in the PACX type a s do Leofwine and Edric i n the P ointed Helmet type. Even Legofrede can b e brought i nto t his pattern i f he i s regarded a s Brunstan's successo r and g lfric's predecessor, to g ive a Brunstan-Legofrede g lfric/Tidred-Leofric " pair". I n this fashion almost every e stablished moneyer a t Thetford during the PACXP ointed Helmet period participates i n a " pairing" a rrangement. I t must seem probable that the workshops are t enanted i n s ome form of succession, but while i t i s easy, f or example, to postulate a Saegrim-Godwine x ggelsigeE stmund transfer, i t i s difficult to determine exactly who s ucceeds whom i n the Expanding Cross - S overeign/ Martlets period. A s l engths o f t enure vary, i t i s clear that t here was no rotation of retirement - the glfric/ L eofric a ssociation f or example i s of such short duration that i t i s over b efore careers commenced much earlier have b een completed. Attempts • to show that c ertain workshops dominate ( i.e. that, for example, the relatively proloific Atsere and Blacere are successors t o E stmund a nd L eofwine) founder on the uncertainties surrounding c ontinuity a t Thetford i n the middle years of the reign. I f a d ie-study were to b e made of the Thetford mint i t would be i nteresting to s ee i f any die-linkage o ccurred b etween moneyers, and i f so, to s ee whether i t occurred within o r between pairs. T hetford's l inks with o ther mints are limited but the c riterion of c oincidence o f time and place, and the c oincidence o f repeated " possible" l inks with a n arrow range of mints suggests that such l inks might exist. The most definite l inks to emerge a ppear to b e with Norwich, which i n each o f four cases supplies

2 63

Thetford with moneyers: Manna i n Radiate/Small C ross, Thurfurth i n the Sovereign/Martlets type, l E lfwine i n Hammer Cross and Godwine i n the Facing Bust type. T hetf ord may well be the source o f Cambridge's Wulfwi. Any other l inks such a s that between the / Elfwine of Thetford and I pswich, are without any supporting pattern. The clearest l ink which i s i ndicated i s with N orwich i n the second half o f the reign, i llustrated by T able 6 4. Thetford emerges a s a mint o f unusual a nd sometimes unique characteristics, a mint which calls f or i ntensive s tudy. Bury

S t. Edmunds

With mint signatures EADM, EADMVN, coin evidence will sustain the presence Morcere a t the mint f rom the Small Flan

E DM etc. the o f a moneyer t o the F acing

Bust type. The evidence i s not always n umerous. A s ingle coin, the re-attributed BM 1 561 of H ORCEP O N ED, t estifies to the mint's activity i n the Small Flan type [ 152]. The S overeign/Martlets type may b e similarly r epresented. Two recordings a re published: HAP 1 -203a and FEJ 1 25, both of which read +MORCARE O N EADM. I n the absence of the Elmore J ones pedigree a nd of a photog raph of the coin i n the Parsons Sale, i t may n evertheless be that only one actual coin exists. The evidence c onsistently points to the presence of only o ne moneyer, whose career i s known type by type. Unless a new m oneyer were to come to l ight, f resh evidence would a t the most extend Morcere's l ength o f service. Morcere's service i s coincidental w ith the l ife o f the mint a t l east where Edward the Confessor's r eign i s concerned. The mint i s one o f several n ew creations during Edward's reign. I t i s a " one-moneyer mint" i n that a t any one time i t i s s erved by only o ne moneyer. I t i s entirely i solated and i ndependent of i ts neighbours a nd i t survives l onger than s ome of i ts c ontemporaries. The l ocation of a mint here may result f rom the royal g rant of abbatial jurisdiction i n West Suffolk in c .1044 [ 153]. The mint l ies dormant between the Facing Bust type and BMC type I II o f William I 's reign. G odinc, i ts new moneyer, probably moved on to pursue a c areer elsewhere and there i s no further activity a t the mint until a revival i n the 1 120's. Godinc may have moved t o London, where a moneyer o f this name i s k nown i n BMC types I II and IV and a t Thetford f rom BMC V III. G odinc a s a London moneyer i s derived f rom SP 8 1-3993 a nd SE 1 739 o f BMC I II and S S 1 6, BM 2 5 and S B 6 41H 2381, SB 6 45-H2817 and SB 6 89-H5444 ( the last three possibly representing one coin) of BMC IV. The c ircums tances surrounding the mint's closure i n William I 's r eign are i nstructive, for l ike Hethewulf o f Droitwich, Bury's moneyer outlives the mint, to be i ntegrated i nto the main minting system, while a t n eighbouring S udbury the mint i s apparently able to continue to f unction

2 64

B U RY

ST .

E D MU N DS

P y r a m i d s

E dward t he C onfessor:

c o I —, E o i e— I

0 —

N r , s , I x c e a .

e n o

•

r n

o

. -i r • -• e I - 1 N . . 4:

h h

e ' o— c o,z ;o ' i . , , 0, s ‘ , 0 4 C O • . _ , _

i f ) • —i •

I

H . C r o s F . B u s t ,

CO

C D \ . 0

0

,c0cOppco L 7< _ . i Z i N

a . Q S

N

Ln

L A

•

— h u i L . .

M O R C E R

0

, i

O D e f

I

. . , e .h

•i , 1

, . 9

U

a .

i n . 1 )

L r )

' h

.

r 4 0 )

E 0 eh

c s ) o p u .. 2

7

Q t o'

Ln

1 3 . 2 .

c

,—i

tT r

.

e n , 1 . e .

•

, 1

0

37 2 ,g 0 -- i . r .2 , hw i— t

, 1

C D , I

0

i

f r

t o

T r e f o i l

S m a l F l a n E x p . C r o s P . H e l m e t S . M a r t l e t s

L O

L e ) 0

CD

L I0

0 0 0

N X

i t ) •

( 1 ) + ( 0 . _ I D ( 0

c r

x 0 < c l _ u ) . • . i ( n 0 u ) -

0 o

— , — I

( 1 )

z

3 /

L i l

0 L . i . ,

I l i U

L n

0

> c f

E

c 0

=

> 1 C D

( 1 ) 0

0 0

• , 1

C ) 4 4

0 0 -

. H =

2 65

Q )

0 \ °

• 0 Z

I — I

C r )

1 -)

H

a fter Folcwine's retirement only by sharing : he s ervices o f Wulfric, a peripatetic moneyer with i nterests a t I pswich and Colchester. Although the Bury mint e xhibits f eatures similar to those of o ther mints and c an be designated a place remains a singular to occupy a place i n

i n regional minting s tructure, i t i nstitution, permitted, ls i t were, the minting system. I II

The

Eastern

Midlands

The density o f mints because of the dominance

here i s l ess than elsewhere of the " county" mint t o the

exclusion of " new" and secondary mints. These a re disti nctive, but not unique, characteristics a nd therefore designation of an " Eastern Midlands" area should not be regarded a s absolute: Chester, Shrewsbury and Oxford conform to this pattern. N one o f the mints i n the area closes a nd most are active throughout the reign. There are f ew s inglemoneyer mints. This g eneral s tability i n provision o f mints i s paralleled by s tability i n the numbers and share of moneyers. Such fluctuations a s d c occur are l argely accounted for by the contraction of moneyer c omplement a t Lincoln and S tamford ( Table 7 3). Two tripartite mint clusters emerge: Huntingdon, B edford and Cambridge, and D erby, Nottingham and Leicester. Cambridge Moneyers' name-forms present f ew problems, except i n the case o f name-forms terminating i n " -wi", " -wig" or " -wine" elements. " Godwine" appears to b e cpnsistently rendered a s such but " glf-" " wi", " wig" and " wine" f orms all occur, a s do " Wulf-" " vi" and " wine" f orms. The " glf-" forms are l aid out i n Table 7 4. T he evidence f or the " -wi" and " -wig" deuterothemes i s uncor =oversial; " -wine" however i s l ess satisfactory. Ambiguous mint signatures o f the Trefoil-Quadrilateral BM 4 72 of E LFPINE ONC ONER and i ts possible reverse die-duplicate S P 7 9-416 + ELFPINE ON EON CR have l ed to their r e-attribution to York[154]. I n the Expanding Cross type thE " glfwine" name-form derives f rom BM 4 73 published a s + ELFPI NDN GRA• NTE , , a coin on which the f inal l etter o f an a lready abbrteviated name-form i s l igatured with the f irst l etter o f the copulative: + ELF MON GRA -NTE. The c oin i s well preserved and from a well engraved die, a nd a t f irst sight reads + ELFPII. The " II" o f the mone7er's name a nd " 0" of ON are, l ike o ther l etters, boldly executed, whereas the diagonal l inking the final " I" a r d the " 0" i s thin and wire-like, and a l ess pronounced f e3ture than the surrounding l ettering. I t i s thinner than the d iagonal o f " N" i n ON and no additional space had been l eft between " I" and " 0" to accommodate " N" or " NE" i n f ull. F or

2 66

P 1

r 1

r 1

1 . 1 1

. 4 1

N

0 . I

, . 1

r 1

1 . ( 1 m

e . m

r 4 N

0 , 4

0 ( -NI

P y r a m i d s ]

1

C C I

. c 0 m

N

r e )

N

40 / 1

1 )

N

N

F . B u s t

m

0

N

m

N

40 / 1

g e l

N

N

0 H

r 1

0

1 1

0 1 C I

C O ( " 1

r 1 N

0 r 1

•. 4

C D • z r

0 1 C . 1

0 N

N i 1

c h r4

r 1

• 2 :

a \

.

N

L r )

N i

m

N

4 / 1 . 0

" z r

r 1

N

0

i i

. -4

c 0

c r %

c r % ‘ -1

m

m

F i v -1

N

S . M a r t l e t s

r )

•

L C )

N

e n

N

C O

e , 4 m

c p r i

M

O 1 1

. 1 e .

c ) e

4 / 1 . 0

L r " )

V ) •

c o 1

c p 1

, . . 1

N ‘ -' 1

r n N

0 , i

c o , . 4

, i H

o N

N

P . H e l m e t

V 1

( \ I

N

C 1 4

. : 14

M

rl

v1

. , : t .

r i • . 1

. : z r

N

E x p . C r o s

m i n ( N J

C C O LL -

— . . r

C l

. i e

C l

e . . 1

N

N

N

N

N

0

• , : t i

C l

C l

0 , t

1 -1

. z r

C l

C l

0 , 4

‘ i

N e i

C h i t

i t ) e i

( e ) e i

c r ) , i

M i d l a n d s .

O N •

e i • : z r

E ( 1 )

i n

T r e f o i l

. 4

, 4

H

0 C l

N

N

N

R a d i a t e

C l

1 -1 i i

C l

e .

C l

0 i i

r i

e i . 1 4

r e i

0 N

, 4 H

N

0

0 , -4

C 5 1 1 1

0

C l

r-1

i . r i N e N I N e

C O r 1

1 1

• ( N

T 1

r 1 L ( 1

L . r )

N

•

0 CI "

0

4 0 4

C

( 1

Q . )

0 4 1

g i . 0

C )

n i

r d C 1

0

E

u

-H

4 )

c

, .

4 i

V 0

0

9 1

4 4

3

g l

g l

Z

Z

0

« I

g i ( 1 )

4 ( I )

r i l i , .

b i

E e

a )

• H

• H

4 -3

c t )

4

Z

4

0 ( 1 )

•:

E H > 1

1 )

, r )

0

( 1 )

3 4

C Z

0

0 • H

4

2 67

4 g i

0

3 E

r d

g i

0 ( 4 1

4 1

e

r d 4 ) E 4 u )

4 1

i c V 0 ) C D 4 1 : u

0

H

e

, I

1 : )

4 ) • H 0 H E-4 :

•

( 1 )

r-1 > 1 > I

e

0 f
1

U ) ( d

M I ( 1 () 4 r d 0

a ) a )4 4 4

4 -1 0 0 0 0 0 F 1

E= PE zo \ on z s

( 1 )

c r i. ,i 4

.

mt ur 1

4 4 c n z 5 , 1

. 4 4 _ 1

0

2 zo 4

T A B L E 7 3

P A C X

' .

E dward t he C onfessor:

C A M BR I D GT .

C 3 1

2

N

rH

0 L b

C

C V

•

0

0 . : 1 •1

S . M a r t l e t s

•

c o

4 — G U

( i )

o .

K . A . J a c o b

r e. )

G O D S V N V

( N.

0 ) •

C O

o

•

r o

• z r . •

c s

n i

0

o f m o n e y e r s

, R I D G E

c A m e .

0 0

0

2 68

e n h a n c e d w i t h

•

< C .

C 3

— C Y

( . . )

C — , • : ( CL

r 1 ,

l .

w

Z

i 4 1 Z

S 1

1

Z -

0 . --

_ J

. ,


1 . 1 )

CIr l •c T

c ) •, 1 t Y 1 H •

t 3 1 •r • -)

W

W

W

0

• H U

Z

> X X 4

— W H

E

P H e l m e t

c n h

> 1 >

c l • e, r 0

N . , C O 4-1C O > 1 C Y ' ) , m > C I e

1 -)

• CO ( D

00

• ., • CD

( 1 )

a l

—

— > 1 >

> 1 r -) >

• —

Lu

C Q u ) X

,

1 CI4 1 e . 7 1, • H r z4 W O H , .

f -D • H 1 -) 0 I H IL

CIc r t c o

— , .1—

ZZ 2

( D Z

W Z C Q —

O

•Ln

•N

U

• C I

I 1 H

0

4 1

r , -

u )

› ,

L . )

Z

•c o C ) r 4 •• z r .

r n , 1 •c 0 CIr n • W O 4

4

( r ) ( r ) 0 L

c ) I H

I , 1 • . S )

S M a r t ! e h .

• r-

0 1 • (1

N

•N t n H •r --

( I i 2

W

C A . C. •—

• , -I W

O

C

t n i n

r-) e •C \ 1 C I H

W Z

W Z

( U

_ _ _ LL

U D 'U P )

— _ C O E ( 1)

C 3 ' N • r-)

C

4( 1 ) L I . -

C I .r D 0

.. z r •

t 7 1 H •N

C D H •< z r .

W

G

Z 4

W r . 4

C I i n

•L n t n H

I C T i f ) r - v )

W

W Z

W

r : Q L n

. C I c ) 'H

. r-t r ) Q

Z

Q1

W

• z t i •r \ I

Z

W N

H

c z Z < U

C : t z

x

x

Z H

0 r 4

U H

U H

H z

E-1 w E1

Z f : 0 Z

Z ( / ) a H

0 t z

W

0


c . x v SV I M . 0

9 3 9 4 9

7 3 7 4 7 5

1 4 2 7 5 , 2 7 6 . C 4 9 0 9 , 1 o .

4 3

1 t. 3 4

,

i

g m s l ' d 9 5 3 6

GH

A 7 9 S . N 1 3 7

. m c

BM

4 -

I -

L. L c 2 . B 1 0 C M 1 9 1 ,t , F E 1 4 2 _ 6 ( J 1 1 4 ,

i !

.

4 5 .

,t . ,

.

I G O

. 1 -

A N S . 1 • 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 0 1 M # 1 1 = 1 1 .

M 3 2 9

S P 9 2 -

. 4" .

,1 2 4 1 1 E

59 6

< a 8

h .

M3 8 7 M 4 0 9 .

h .i

1

O G

1 0 5 . 6 1 5 , G I , 6 1 7

( 7 9 l • G

M4 1 0

B M

, G

M 4 9 . P C B 6 4

P C B

3 9,

B M

BM 6 1 4 .

4 6 i

W I M P '

.

1

1

i

'

M 4 2 7 M . Bm ‘ 5 i .c j m 6 1 4 3 1 .

4 74 8 4 9

c m

,

A l t 4 1 1 1 %

t 2 3 4 . B m 6 2 3 . P c B 1 8 0 3 . B m 6 2 7 . F 2 ) 4 3 0 .

8 M 2 4

5 8 3 1 4 9 2 .

b

G S 8 4 ' 9

5 8

I N V 8 1

.M L .

-1 8 7

C a y 1 . A

Lc 3 8 2 1 . G m .

( 0 9

8 9

M 4 9 5

I t s o

L C 3 2 4 . 1 3 1 T

7 0

-

,

E dward t he C onfessor: L E tcEsTER

example, Chester. The P ointed H elmet BM 6 17 o f +PV LNAD ON LEGR would belong to Leicester because coins o f this moneyer a re found i n this period a t Leicester a nd surrounding mints ( Table 8 3) from well attested mint signatures ( e.g. ON LEH o f the Pointed H elmet BM 6 15) whereas the presence o f a moneyer o f this n ame cannot be substantiated a t Chester. S imilarly t he P ointed Helmet penny ( GM) of Godric a t LEGR w ould b elong t o Leicester i n the absence o f a n unimpeachable "Godric" a t Chester, and by analogy with e .g. BM 6 14 o f +GODRIC ON LEHER. The Sovereign/Martlets BM 6 51 o f G odric would also belong to Leicester ( see below ,pp. 327 a nd 3 32). The Hammer Cross penny o f " glric" a t LEGECEA ( GM ex Glendining 1 945) would belong to L eicester i n preference to Chester i n view o f the absence of the name-form a t Chester and the run of " glric"/"Egelric" f orms a t Leicester ( Table 8 2). Confusion b etween the Leicester mint signature and those o f mints o ther t han Chester u sually arises because o f wear or m is-striking on the coin concerned a nd i s c ommented upon below a s i t a rises. P " Likely" no. o f moneyers. 2 % o f all moneyers. 0 .9 No.of c oins ( I) 1 ( S) 1 ( Total) 2

R

T

S

E

P

S

H

F

P

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

4

1 .4

1 .8

1 .9

1 .9

1 .9

2 .0

2 .1

2 .9

2 .5

4 2 6

0 6 6

4 3 7

7 0 7

1 1 0 1 1

8 0 8

1 1 0 1 1

1 0 0 1 0

7 0 7

The coin evidence i s not substantial a nd a n umber o f c oins require comment: Expanding Cross ( h) A c oin bearing the reverse l egend + EDPNE ON LE: RICDII ( BMC 6 12) constitutes the s ole recorded evidence for a moneyer o f this name a t Leicester i n this or adjacent types. There i s no Edwine a t a ny n eighbouring mint in this type and the nearest. example i n t ime and l ocation i s provided by S tamford's Edwine the Small Flan type - EDPINN ON STANFOR ( BMC 1 225). Another problematic coin i s A 8 31 o f . ...LDERINE ON LE. published a s Gildewine o f LE( H?), a n uncertain mint reading a ttributed to Leicester. This i s probably a reverse die-duplicate o f the b etter preserved specimen F EJ 1 66 of +GYLDEPINE ON CEN, i n which t he i nitial " C" and f inal " N" of the mint signature a re clearly visible, and which belongs to the l ong series of c oins o f Gyldewine a t Canterbury. A Pointed H elmet c oin by the same moneyer, also o riginally a ttributed to Leicester ( BM 6 13 of + GLLDEPINE ON LEH:), has b een re-attributed to Canterbury by Blunt, D olley a nd E lmore J ones, and Gyldewine ( or " Gildewine") should b e deleted f rom the canon o f Leicester moneyers[167]. P ointed H elmet Of Wulnoth i t should be observed that G 1 065 + PVLINNOD ON CEN i s a die-duplicate o f a c oin

3 02

from t he City hoard i n the British Museum c orrectly read a s +PVLINNOD ON LEH ( see below, p .516). Sovereign/ Martlets Among the coins o f G odric i s BMC 6 51 +GODRIC ON LEGA ( attributed to the Chester mint) but now r ead a s GODRIC ON LEHA ( n4 e a .,7% ) and housed in the L eicester trays a t the British Museum. Conversely BMC 6 21 + LEOFPI NE ON LEH was reattributed to Chester[168] and L eofwine deleted from the canon of Leicester moneyers, but t his has had the effect o f extending the l ength of s ervice of Leofwine a t Chester by two o therwise unsubstantiated types. Supposition that the mint signature m ight prove to demonstrate that G 1 065 i s not alone i n d emanding re-attribution between Canterbury and Leicester i s vindicated by the discovery that BMC 6 21 i s n o l onger held i n the British Museum's Chester trays but i s now h oused a long with those o f Leofwine a t Canterbury a nd that the mint signature i s ¢ Il l a u(see below, pp. 327 and 3 32). Hammer Cross There are no coins bearing the full f orm " ggelric" i n this type. The recorded s pecimens, possibly all f rom the one reverse die, all read g LRIC apart from t he unsubstantiated LEB 1 87. A s Table 82 shows, no " gLF-" f orms a re known a t all. N o " gLF-" f orms appear to o ccur a t Leicester i n conjunction with the " -wine" deuterotheme, freeing " ggelwine" o f controversy, though a s with ggelric, no " gGEL-" f orm i s f ound i n this type the s ingle representative coin, M 4 48, reading +ELPINE ON LEHREC. Correspondence with the Leicester a nd Chester Museums suggests that WG 3 55 and M 4 48 are die-duplicates. Facing Bust An Eadwine was recorded i n the R oth Sale ( lot 9 2) with the reading + EADPINE ON LEHR and with " three pellets to the right o f the K ing's neck," and i n t he Chancton hoard there i s one coin recorded o f Wulfric at Chester which could perhaps be re-attributed to L eicester. I n the City hoard there i s one coin of W ilgrip a ttributable to Leicester. No coins have been p ublished to substantiate these recorded l istings, but

n one

of

them would

be

impossible.

T he coin evidence suggests the presence, a t l east from t he Trefoil-Quadrilateral type onwards, of three or f our moneyers. The best evidence c omes f rom the latter part of the reign, i n which three moneyers, Godric, ggelric and ggelwine, work " uninterruptedly" and " simultaneously" for a t l east three types i n sequence ( Sovereign/ Martlets, Hammer Cross and F acing Bust). From t ime to time they are j oined by Wulfric, i n the Pointed Helmet and Pyramids types and possibly i n Facing Bust. A similar pattern, f rom l ess c omplete evidence, prevails i n the f irst half of the reign, with three moneyers ( Wulnoth, Wulfric and Saewine) active by the Radiate type and f our moneyers active i n the Trefoil, Small Flan a nd Expanding C ross types ( Wulnoth, Wulfric, Saewine and G odric). Leaving a side for the moment the problems caused by Wulfric, there i s a considerable degree o f

3 03

1

P H

gGELRIC

SM

/ EGELRIC 2

H C

" / Egelric"

H C

AGLRIC 5

x FB

F B

AGLRIC

P yr

gGLRIC 7

1 .

M

2 . 6 .

e .g. F 8 98. BM 6 26. 7 .

TABLE

4 08

8 2

c ontinuity

g LRIC 4

3

( and

BNJ 3 . EP

" / Egelric" a t

6

the

XLIX

p .125,

..LRIC

O N

LEB 1 87. 4 . e .g. M 4 47. 1 072 ( and M 4 93 . ...LRIC at

5 . O N

LEHR). BM 6 25. LEHRE).

Leicester

Leicester

mint,

the

mint's

output

b eing derived e ssentially f rom only six moneyers during the entire reign: Wulfric, Godric, Saewine a nd Wulnoth, with / Egelric and Egelwine a s successors to S aewine a nd Wulnoth. I n the latter part of the reign these e stablished moneyers a re apparently a ssisted by a s equence o f " single-type" moneyers, Edwine, i n the Expanding C ross type, Liofric i n the Hammer Cross, Wilgrip ( and possibly Edwine again) i n the Facing Bust type and Outhulf i n the Pyramids type. D etermination of whether the moneyer complement i s three or f our moneyers depends e ssentially upon two c onsiderations a ) whether Wulfric can be r egarded a s l ikely to have worked i n those types f or which no c oins s truck by him are known and b ) upon the r ole o f the " single-type" moneyers. No d ecision can b e reached where Wulfric i s concerned. H e i s known with certainty f or f our o f the ten types of the reign and t he evidence f or his activity i s concentrated i n the f irst half of the reign, only one recorded coin, the Pyramids M 4 95 + PVLFRIC ON LEHRE, attesting to his presence with a ny c ertainty a fter the Pointed H elmet type. I t might be possible to account for the absence of c oins i n h is name a t Leicester by his presence a t another mint a nd • a Wulfric i s known a t Lincoln i n the PACX, Sovereign/ Martlets and Hammer Cross types and a t Stamford i n the P ointed Helmet type. No firm c onclusion c an be d rawn about this except to remark that a number of l inks between S tamford a nd Leicester appear possible. N early half the moneyers a t Leicester coin f or a s ingle type only, and their c ontribution t o the m int, i n t erms o f " moneyer-for-type c ombinations" o r in t erms o f recorded die u tilisation, i s minimal. Liofric, Wilgrip a nd Outhulf f ollow each o ther i n quick s uccession i n the Hammer Cross, Facing Bust and Pyramids t ypes, with Wilgrip possibly being j oined by Eadwine. That this i s evidence of a particular pattern of m oneying may well b e reinforced by o ther f eatures r elated t o at l east two of these moneyers, Wilgrip and Liofric. Wilgrip

3 04

may b e responsible for work a t a number o f mints a nd may s tand i n the same relationship to another mint ( perhaps S tamford) a s Wulnoth does to Leicester - i .e. though d evoting much o f his time to the needs of one mint he i s t o b e f ound elsewhere coining briefly o n a number o f o ccasions. Liofric too may be a S tamford moneyer, but i n the Hammer Cross type f or which he i s known a t L eicester a moneyer whose name i s rendered i n exactly the s ame fashion ( i.e. a s " Liofric" rather than " Leofric") i s f ound a t a number o f eastern mints ( see above, pp. 2 87-289). Outhulf, the final moneyer i n this t rain, i s u nlikely to be a ssociated with any o ther mint. The name i s very uncommon among moneyers, being confined i n Edward the Confessor's, Harold I I's and William I 's r eigns to York and Leicester. Although i t i s a t this l ate p eriod i n Edward's reign that Outhulf a t York c ommences w ork, and i t i s i n this very type that the conjectural t ransfer o f Arngrim f rom York to Nottingham takes place, there seems no reason, until a die s tudy can be completed, to suppose that Outhulf o f York and Outhulf o f Leicester are one and the same person. V iewed i n this l ight the Leicester mint can be s een a s a four-moneyer mint from the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type, the a ctivities o f the e stablished moneyers b eing supplemented a s and when necessary i n a number o f ways which, varied though they a re, all have the e ffect o f tightly regulating the number o f moneyers a t work a t the mint. I n Harold I I's reign and early i n William I 's r eign Leicester i s maintained a t three-moneyer s tatus but t he available evidence suggests that f rom William I ' s BMC I II type onwards this d eclines dramatically. S ix mints are adjacent to Leicester - N ottingham, D erby, Tamworth, Warwick, Northampton and S tamford and moneyer movement appears to occur with all but Warwick. Something o f an " exchange" appears to take place between Nottingham and Leicester i n the R adiate/Small Cross type, through Blacaman and Wulnoth, and Leicester appears able to draw upon what are e ssentially S tamford . moneyers, i n the f orm of Wilgrip and Liofric, i n the s econd half o f the reign. D erby i s also within Blacaman's orbit. The most clearly marked relationship a ppears to b e with Northampton to which Leicester apparently provides two moneyers, one a t l east a t the point a t which the N orthampton mint i s revitalised a s a threemoneyer mint i nstead o f a two-or one-moneyer mint, a nd the o ther shortly a fterwards. Both of the moneyers concerned, Saewine and Wulnoth, appear to make the t ransi tion i n mid-type, Wulnoth to the extent that i n the Pointed Helmet type he i s known a t both Leicester and Northampton i n the one type a nd Saewine to the extent that h e i s probably Leofric's replacement i n the S overeign/Martlets type. I t i s difficult to determine whether they a re replaced i n mid-type, because a lthough n ew moneyers do occur i n the types i n question there a re

3 05

S tamford

Nottingham

PACX PVL• NO: D 9

L eicester

Northampton

PVLNOD 1

PVLENNOD 5 R SC

PVLNOD 1°

TQ

..LNOD 2

SF

PVLNOD 3

ExC

PVLNOD 11

PH

PVLNOD 4 PVLNAD 6 PVLINNOD 7 . L'ENOID 8 PVLNOD 12

SM

PVLNOD 13 PU LHO-18

H C

PVLFNOD 14 PVLFNOD 15 PVL. NOD 16

F B

PVLFNOD 17

1 . H 2 78. 2 . BNJ XXXVI p .84. 3 . MCM. 4 . F EJ 4 26 e x LC, M 3 89, CM 1 191, BM. 5 . The f orm i s d erived f rom the c oin M 3 62 i n the City o f Nottingham Museum a nd Art G allery. I t i s o f i rregular work and i s o nly t enta tively a ttributed to S tamford.Obv: +HVDDC IONCC R ev: + PVLENNODNIT2 . 6 . BM 6 17. 7 . BM, G 1 065, BM 6 15. 8 . BM 6 16. 9 . BM 1 231. 1 0. H 6 65. 1 1. M 3 94, P CB 1 788. The catalogue reading o f P CB 1 788 suggests that t he coin i s broken i n the same place a s the f racture i n M 3 94. No clear pedigree exists to show that M 3 94 a nd P CB 1 788 are one and the same c oin, though the Nottingham Museum i s of the opinion that i ts penny o f Wulnoth i s probably the same a s the Carlyon-Britton example ( correspondence 3 .8.1979). 1 2. P CB 1 792. 1 3. OEM 3 2, F EJ 6 10, BM 5 27, M 4 28A, M 4 28, RS 1 58, BM , BM 5 28. 1 4. P CB 6 28. 1 5. BM 5 30, R S 1 69. 1 6. BM; t he die i s c orroded i n places and there i s just sufficient s pace f or o ne l etter between the L a nd N o f PVL.NOD. 1 7. CM 1 292. 1 8. unpublished f ind 1 984 ( see p .308 below). C onjectural of i tinerary of

reconstruction

, „ Nottingham 4

the

S tamford •

Wulnoth

Northampton • TABLE mints

8 3 " Wulnoth" i n the reign o f

and " Wulfnoth" a t East Edward the Confessor.

3 06

Midlands

o ther c ircumstances which could account for their prese nce. There i s a gap i n Saewine's career between the i ssues f or which h e i s l ast known a t Leicester a nd f irst k nown a t Northampton a nd i n the meantime N orthampton a ppears to have drawn i nitially f rom Warwick f or i ts o ther n ew moneyer. The redeployment of Wulnoth a ppears t o have had repercussions a t Tamworth, f or Wulnoth's r eplacement a t Leicester may well have moved thence f rom T amworth, where an / E gelwine i s known i n the Expanding C ross t ype. Wulnoth's career merits particular a ttention ( Table 8 3). With the exception o f the Radiate/Small Cross type h e i s known a t Leicester continuously until the P ointed Helmet type. A s a moneyer's name " Wul(f)noth" i s not uncommon but i s f ound outside the East Midlands a t only London and Exeter. Within the East Midlands the f orm i s found a t three o f the six adjacent mints. The PVLFNOD form i s restricted to the f inal two types o f the s eries and the persistence with which the name f orm i s rendered PVLNOD supports his transfer t o N orthampton. Assuming that we have before u s the work o f o ne moneyer, his a ttachment i s e ssentially t o one mint a t a t ime ( to Leicester and t ransferring to N orthampton), with b rief excursions while a t Leicester to N ottingham a nd S tamford. Data f or his career prior to 1 042 has y et t o be collated but may i nclude Lincoln, Leicester a nd N ottingham. A s a final note i t could be observed that t he careers o f Wulnoth and Wulfric might have had a considerable impact upon the s tructure o f the Leicester mint. I f Wulnoth's absence i s a ssumed f or a t l east part o f the PACX, Expanding Cross and P ointed H elmet types a nd Wulfric's absence i s a ssumed throughout the period Expanding Cross - Hammer Cross with the exception o f a b rief f lurry o f activity i n the P ointed H elmet type, mint complement could i n effect be reduced by one moneyer. I n Edward's reign the Leicester mint passes through two phases, the first a period i n which D erby, Leicester a nd N ottingham are closely connected, the s econd ( commenci ng perhaps i n the P ointed Helmet type) i n which Leicester, l ike the o ther two, pursues a more i ndependent path, such l inks a s there might be with o ther mints b eing to the s outh rather than to the north. While the c omplement a t Derby undergoes a slight contraction and Nottingham s lumbers i n apparent obscurity, declining to onemoneyer status, Leicester retains i ts importance a s a four-moneyer mint and i s able to withstand the demands made u pon i t by the renaissance o f Northampton t o the s outh. O ne o ther f eature which might l ink the D erby, N ottingham and Leicester mints i n the earlier y ears o f the reign i s the l ow l evel of activity r ecorded f or the l ight emission o f the Expanding Cross type.

3 07

L incoln

( See

above,

pp.106-118).

S tamford

( See

above,

pp.118-126).

N ottingham P " Likely" no. o f moneyers. % o f a ll moneyers. N o.of coins(I) ( S) ( Total)

R

T

S

E

P

S

H

F

4

4

3

3

3

1

1

2

2

1 .7 2 4 6

1 .8 1 3 4

1 .4 6 2 8

1 .4 4 0 4

1 .4 5 0 5

0 .5 1 0 1

0 .5 3 0 3

1 .0 6 0 6

1 .1 4 0 4

P

Coins survive f rom t en moneyers, whose activity varies c onsiderably but none o f whom, from c urrent c oin survival, appear to have been prolific. Of t he " single type" moneyers, the " Alhmund" name-form, unique to the mint, i s known only f rom the Small F lan BM 1 197 o f +ALHHVND A SNO, Arngrim from perhaps two F acing B ust pennies ( BM 1 202 and M 4 71), S noter from BM 1 198 a nd " Forman" from p m 1203 of +FORMAN ON SNO. Although " FORMAN" may constitute a unique rendering of the " Forna" f orms, which occur f rom Pointed Helmet type onwards, the c lear presence o f " -man" a s the deuterotheme i n c ontrast to the " -ne", " -na" a nd " -n" of t he " Forna" f orms ( Table 8 4) sugges ts the presence of an i ndependent name-form and o f a fourth " single-type" moneyer. The body of material to support the pattern o f a ctivity of e stablished moneyers i s equally i nsubstantial. F ew moneyers are known f rom more than two or t hree c oins i n a type, and Forna, the moneyer with t he greatest c ontinuity of activity type by type i n the reign, may b e k nown from only eight recorded coins. The rendering o f the " Forna" name-form ( Table 8 4) i s s ufficiently c onsistent to avoid confusions with the FRON, FROMA e tc. f orms r ecorded o f " Froma", F orna's contemporary at D erby. There i s a Small Flan penny i n the trays o f the Museum o f London ( Acc.No.49) purporting to be a coin o f Blacaman a t N ottingham, but which on examination w ould a ppear to read + BLACE H A N ! DO , a transliteration kindly corrobora ted by Mr. Lean ( 18.5.1981). Although s usceptible to i nterpretation a s a c oin of either D orchester or D erby a c ontraction such a s ON DO more probably represents D orchester rather than D erby and the coin has b een a ttribu ted t o the D orset mint ( see below, p .428 f. and T able 8 6 n .6). Saegrim's presence a t N ottingham d erives f rom a Radiate/Small Cross penny o f + S I EGRIM ON 2 N0, h oused i n the Hermitage Museum, Leningrad, which e xtends the moneyer's career i nto Edward's reign. Wulnoth's c areer a t N ottingham ( Table 8 3) i s extended into the H ammer C ross type by the f ind near Lewes i n 1 984 of a c oin o f +VVLII0(.) ON 2NOT. The epigraphy i s often difficult t o make out. The slightly o ff-centre striking o f the

3 08

reverse has d eprived the i nitial 1 2" o f " Wulnoth" o f i ts u pper cusp and the " N" of the moneyer's name i s without i ts diagonal. The " D" i s virtually impossible t o decipher and only the l ower elements o f the " S" o f the mint name have a ny clarity: The coin has a s important a bearing upon the career o f Wulnoth a s the PACX p enny ( BM-C) o f +HALFDENIS would have upon the career o f Halfdene. Colman records such a coin i n the British Museum [ 169] but, read a s +H AL I DENIS ON OX, i t i s perhaps better a ttributed to Oxford. A lthough a mere 4 0 published coins are recorded for t he mint, these are sufficient to reveal a mint s tructure differing sharply between the two halves o f the r eign. Until the transition f rom Expanding Cross to P ointed Helmet Nottingham i s shared between f ive established moneyers, Blacaman, Wulnoth, Saegrim, L eofsige and H aldene, i n a pattern made quite obscure by the intermittent nature o f their activity. F rom the P ointed Helmet type the mint i s i n the hands o f a single e stablished moneyer, F orna, until a rejuvenation t o twomoneyer status in the Facing Bust or PAX types l asting until a t l east BMC type IV o f William I . A variety of i nterpretations can be placed upon the s tructure of the mint during the first phase i n Edward's reign. As a f ive-moneyer mint, Leofsige, Wulnoth, Blacaman, Haldene a nd Saegrim might have worked simultaneously, but i f, g iven the i nadequacy o f the evidence for H aldene i n the PACX type, the apparently l ow l evel of a ctivity o f Saegrim, a nd the possibility that B lacaman and Wulnoth divided their time between Nottingham and Derby and Leicester, the available complement may never have s tood higher than a t two, or even one moneyer. The c areers of Blacaman and Wulnoth are suggetsive o f " association" both within and between mints. J ust a s Wulnoth appears e ssentially to be a Leicester moneyer ( Table 8 3), Blacaman, a t l east where Edward the C onfessor's r eign i s concerned, should b e regarded a s a N ottingham moneyer, encompassing a career: prior to 1 042 PACX Radiate/Small Cross Trefoil-Quadrilateral

Nottingham Nottingham Nottingham Nottingham

Small Flan Expanding Cross

Nottingham

( h)

D erby D erby Leicester

What will be noticed ( Table 8 3) i s that i n the R adiate/Smal1 Cross type the " Leicester" moneyer Wulnoth i s a t N ottingham while, on current evidence, the " Nottingham" moneyer i s a t Leicester. At Nottingham Blacaman and Wulnoth might even have a lternated with each o ther, though this i s t o propose administrative arrangements which t o say the l east are conjectural. The a ppearance o f the " single type" moneyers Snoter and Alhmund i n the Small F lan type, the o ne o ccasion when the Blacaman/Wulnoth " workshop"

3 09

E dward t he C onfessor :

NO1- 1 -1

H AM

1• 1 1 1 1 1 15 1K

/ « .. •• •••

4 —

c r

a _

E

z
-

a _ t -

t , -t 00 0 . i t. , . , 0 A L : 1

a

c . t 0

0 _

C D

G o L n e t -

2

0

S . M a r t l e t s

0

2

a _

t z i >

T A M W O Z T H

C

3 18

0

moneyer at either mint and fits the pattern o f minting a t T aunton no better than a t Tamworth. D ie cutters often engraved an " H" f orm for " N" and this pseudo" H", a nd i ndeed " H" i tself, can o ften b e further confused with t he l etter " M", a s the rendering o f " glfheh" a t Shrewsbury ( Table 9 1) well i llustrates[171]. T he coin evidence i tself i s not extensive. F or Edward's reign the British Museum Catalogue records three s pecimens and Hildebrand none; Danson, collecting material from these a nd a number o f o ther sources, records twenty. N o coins are known o f Harold I I's reign a nd for W illiam I the f igures are: BMC 4 , S CBI-Stockholm ( instead of BEH) 0 , and Danson 1 5. Two of the c oins of t hese r eigns ought perhaps to be deleted f rom the register of Tamworth mint coins, to give a g rand total of t hirty-three coins, representative o f a period o f forty-five y ears' a ctivity. The two coins to be considered f or deletion f rom Danson's register are a S overeign/ Martlets penny o f " Bruninc" and a Pyramids penny o f " gglwine?" Danson derived the S overeign/Martlets penny ( ANT 6 0) f rom " The City of London ( 1872) Hoard"; a s the l isting a s originally published contained only Hammer Cross a nd F acing Bust specimens o f this moneyer, Danson may h ave employed the I nventory record of this hoard, i n which BMC type i x ( Sovereign/Martlets) and xi ( Hammer Cross) are transposed[172]. A s, however, " Bruninc" i s r ecorded i n both types, D anson would be entitled to l ist " Bruninc" a s a moneyer i n the S overeign/Martlets type, but a s no c oin has apparently come to l ight, and the m oneyer i s not i ncluded for the type i n the original hoard record, i t would perhaps be a s well, a t l east for t he time being, to delete " Bruninc" f rom the canon of T amworth moneyers coining i n the S overeign/Martlets type. Danson may also have employed the I nventory f or a moneyer h e i ndicates i s doubtfully a ttributed, a Pyramids penny o f " gglwine?" ( ANT 6 7A). The I nventory l isting for B MC type xv ( recte xiii) i ncludes such an " gglwine?" but a gain the original l isting by Willett contains no such r eference, citing an " Egelwine" a s moneyer only i n B MC type v ( Expanding Cross). Although i t would not u tterly disrupt the emerging pattern o f moneyer operations a t Tamworth to find an " gglwine" a t work in t he Pyramids type, the reference has been discarded until a coin i s l ocated[173]. T he structure o f the Tamworth mint i s o f considerable i nterest. I n the first half of Edward's reign i t functions i ntermittently a s a one-moneyer mint under first Bruninc and t hen ggelwine, a pattern consistent with the mint's activity i n the reigns o f Cnut, Harold I and Harthacnut. I n the l atter half o f Edward's reign a completely different pattern emerges: two moneyers are a t work; Colinc f rom the S overeign/Martlets type and Bruninc ( presumably the B runinc o f earlier types i n Edward's reign) f rom the H ammer Cross type. Although both are a ctive i n

3 19

t he Hammer Cross type, henceforth they a ppear t o a lternate t ype by type - and i ndeed i f the Colinc o f Tamworth i s t he Cullinc a t S tafford, this pattern may emerge i n t he Hammer Cross type, which i s when Cullinc i s k nown a t S tafford. This pattern of a lternate working type by t ype i s sharply defined, be i t either a s a r eflection o f the accident o f coin survival or a s a r eflection o f a ctual minting practice. The Pyramids t ype marks a c essation of work and there i s no activity at t he mint until BMC type I I o f William I . At t he mint's resumption Bruninc and Colinc continue to work i n a ssociati on but the pattern has changed, for now, a s in the PAXS type, the next type for which the mint i s known, the two moneyers work simultaneously a p attern o f working which continues until their termination, i n the Cross-in-Quatrefoil type o f William I I. On n o occasion do they appear to employ each other's obverse dies. Tamworth, although perhaps a t f irst sight a t wo-moneyer mint, i s perhaps more a ccurately described a s a mint to which two moneyers are a ttached. This a rrangement prevails from the S overeign/Martlets or Hammer C ross type a nd i s modified a t some point between t he Pyramids type o f Edward the Confessor a nd the BMC t ype I I o f William I . Although there are hints o f such a n arrangement a t o ther mints such a s Wilton and S alisbury, nowhere does i t appear so markedly a s a t Tamworth. Bruninc might be considered the more " senior" moneyer, having commenced earlier i n Edward's reign than C olinc, b ut i f there i s a s econd reverse die to be employed, i t i s apparently to Colinc that the extra demand i s more frequently , addressed. The employment o f two moneyers when there hardly s eems enough work to engage t he attenti ons o f one moneyer suggests sharp peaks o f activity beyond the capacity of one moneyer t o sustain but i t might also reflect satisfaction o f multiple j urisdictions or prerogatives [ 174]. Although the evidence, a s currently known, favours i nterpretation o f Tamworth a s i n effect a o ne-moneyer mint i n Edward's reign and, when i t i s a ctive, a s a two-moneyer mint i n William I 's reign, the evidence, e specially for the post-Conquest period, i s heavily dependent upon a small number o f hoards. T he William I I pennies probably derive exclusively f rom t he Tamworth hoard, the PAXS pennies o f William I a re p robably a ll from B eauworth and f our o f the eleven BMC type I I pennies o f William I come from the York find o f 1 845. A f ew further finds might alter the picture dramatically. The mint i s e ssentially s elf-contained, but i t i s possible that i t supplied S tafford with i ts mint's m oneyer f or the Hammer Cross type and i t i s not b eyond t he bounds o f possibility that ggelwine may well have moved o n to L eicester.

3 20

S tafford P

R

T

S

" Likely" no. o f moneyers. % of a ll moneyers. N o. of c oins(I) N o. of c oins(S) ( Total)

E 1 0 .5 1 0 1

P ? ? 3? 0 3?

S

H 1 0 .5 6 0 6

F

p 1 0 .6 1 7 I 1 8

The coin evidence marshalled below shows a mint a ctive i n the Expanding Cross and Hammer Cross types. There i s i n addition a s eries of coins of the Pyramids type which bear mint signatures suggestive o f either S tafford or S teyning. Activity i s also suspected i n the P ointed Helmet type. I n g eneral i t i s to Blunt's r emarks on the S tafford mint signature and to the work o f Dolley and Robinson that tribute must be paid, f or i t i s u pon their work that a ssumptions underlying a ttributi ons t o the S tafford mint are based[175]. E xpanding Cross + ELFRIC ON STEFORDE BM 1 204. P ointed Helmet " Elfric": two coins cited by Blunt f rom l ot 2 2 o f the catalogue of the F aulkner collection. The catalogue d id n ot give a full reverse reading and the coins have n ot b een traced. " Omund": a coin r eading +OVMVND ON STEF i s recorded by Blunt but has not ben traced. Hammer C ross + CVLLINC ON STAFF ( ) CM 1 262, G 1 130, M 4 56,457, BM ex LC 8 48, FEJ 7 77 e tc. The Hammer Cross penny o f Wilgrip a t " Stafford" ( GS 8 1/5-402A) i s presumably a c oin o f the S tamford mint. Pyramids +GODPINE ON ST EBM 1 218, CM 1 238, C 4-1182, F 9 64, BT( 2 c oins), BH, WGT, BC 2 23, A 1 079, BM(2 coins). F EJ 7 79 e tc. + GODPINE ON STA PCB 6 48c, FEJ 7 80. S ee D olley and S trudwick ( 1956),p.59 re.BM 1 240. E ach period o f a ctivity i s brief and signals the appearance o f a n ew moneyer. An Elfric i s known a s the s ole S tafford moneyer i n Harold I 's reign ( e.g. H 8 63) and throughout Cnut's reign ( e.g. C3-3490 o f the Quatrefoil type, C 3-3491 of the P ointed Helmet type and H 3 220 o f the Short Cross type). The name-form i s unrecorded i n BMC, BEH or S CBI-Index f or E thelraed I I. There can be no c ertainty that the Elfric who works so c onsistently i n the 1 020's and 1 030's i s the Elfric of Edward's r eign, but t he coincidence of name-form presence a t S tafford and i ts absence a t n eighbouring mints ( Chester, Shrewsbury, Tamworth and D erby) during the period Cnut-Edward the Confessor, suggest that perhaps a common i dentity may be a ssumed. While o f " Omund" i t must b e said that the

3 21

t he C onfessor :STAFFO R D r n 0 2 It r il

U i I

L. :

. 9 ' '—

C ol ' i : Ar i _ c o d 0 ,

0 1 N s a u=I 'm 0 r , 7 . 1e < . • st z 0r - 1 ' 0 . , ., . ) 2 ii 0— Xc i . — s • r er G O n 'e r t . ) 2 tA e l . •r 4 s 4, — u. p i4 g X1 r O• , V ) - ' e i . 4 1 4 : ,4 r : r _ -r . . i c , -•P _ . e -

. 1 5 0 0 t . 5

i . 4r .s ui t c i o , ,g o.L 4, E 4 SF 2 . , :x 4 ) t= . 4 . 7 , _ 1 co . 4 sz D—Hro t üt t, . ,r o( 40 --x — , . i e , d . i im, • 4

( 5 1 . 0• ( 2 ,( ! : < -0. 4 , L r ' •m r :

0 44

•0

_•

r v ; C . 1 r-

e l . 4-

r -• . "u•

2 1 2 , J , 1 2z

0 e•; ‘te T

Up

v r

c P

r 4 1

S . M a r t l e t s

g

0

00

u J 2

_ J

3 22

C V L 1 N C . ,

a :

1 . • : 5 :

. 1I. r . i. i t•gi r. c .407• t u0 «

name-form occurs a t n o mint i n the vicinity o f S tafford, the " Cullinc" name-form i s very similar to the " Collinc" a t n eighbouring Tamworth. All the coins o f " Cullinc" a t S tafford a ppear to be s truck from a single reverse die a nd so i t cannot be known whether the moneyer might o therwise have employed the COLLINC or COLINC f orms i nvariably adopted by the moneyer a t Tamworth i n this and adjacent types. The very s trong possibility that the Cullinc o f S tafford and the Collinc o f Tamworth are o ne a nd the same moneyer i s endorsed by Mrs.Smart's ordering o f the name-forms[176]. The mint i s re-opened i n the Pyramids type under Godwine. He may have coined more prolifically i n that a t l east two reverse dies ( e.g. BM 1 218 and F EJ 7 80) were employed. The relatively extensive survival o f coins o f this moneyer i n this type might owe i ts origin to whatever has i nfluenced the s urvival o f Pyramids pennies a t n eighbouring Chester ( p. 3 31 ) a nd Shrewsbury ( p. 340 ) where, untypically, the number o f r ecorded coins equals or exceeds the numbers i n every o ther type for the reign. The similarity o f survival pattern might help endorse Godwine a s a S tafford moneyer, even though survival patterns a t S teyning a re such a s to produce numerous coins f rom the Pyramids type. Unlike his predecessor a t S tafford, G odwine's enjoyment o f the mint extends over a number o f y ears. He i s known i n BMC type I ( from e .g. LC 2 840 +GODPINE ON ST / EF) a nd BMC type I I ( e.g. BM 1 40 +GODPINE ON STEFFOR) of William I and i t may only be a matter o f time b efore his presence i n Harold I I's PAX type i s r evealed. G od wine's subsequent c areer i s obscure. A moneyer o f this name i s known a t S tafford i n BMC VIII f rom e .g. BM 9 81 of +GODPINE ON STIEF but there i s only the coincidence of name-form to suggest continuity. I t i s not unknown for name-forms l ast recorded early i n William I 's r eign ( or even l ate i n Edward the Confessor's reign) to reappear i n BMC type VIII o f William I but the appearance of a Wulfnoth a t S tafford i n BMC type I I ( from e .g. M 5 18 o f + PVLFNOD ON ST / EFF) a s possible successor to Godwine might suggest that unless S tafford i s about to imitate the curious workings o f the Tamworth mint, Godwine's s ervices have been t erminated. N o f irm c onclusi on can b e reached, therefore, about the i dentity o f the G odwine o f BMC type VIII, even when i t i s proposed that he might a lso be the Godwine f ound a t D erby i n BMC types V II and V III of William I 's reign. What might be possible i s that the Godwine o f Pyramids a nd BMC I a nd I I i s the G odwine of Shrewsbury who retires i n the Pyramids type a fter a career commencing i n Hammer Cross. Consideration o f the " status" o f the mint a t S tafford i nteresting points. I n the period prior raises some accession - and i ndeed i n Edward's reign to Edward's i ncluding, the Expanding Cross type - the up t o, and atterly functioning i ntermittently - a ppears mint, albeit l sufficient vigour to pursue an i ndependent to have had

3 23

existence enjoying the exclusive s ervices o f i ts moneyer. D ecay i s a pparent f rom the end o f Cnut's r eign o nwards, a nd n o a ctivity a ppears t o have t aken place a t a ll i n the f irst half o f Edward's r eign. E lfric's " return" i n the Expanding C ross type s ignals what i s a revival o f the mint when measured purely i n t erms o f mint a ctivity, but what was a s tep f orward was a lso a r etreat, f or i n i ts r evived f orm, a t l east a fter E lfric's r etirement, S tafford i s, i n e ffect, a " non-mint". C oins a re s till s truck there but by moneyers ( Cullinc a nd G odwine) who would o therwise have s truck elsewhere. The mint, therefore, retains i ts existence, but, i t would a ppear, a s o ne which was n o l onger s een a s h aving a n e ssential part t o play i n the mechanism o f placing n ew c oin i nto c ircula tion. Y et a s a n outlet S tafford i s undeniably maintained i n b eing - a nd sustained a s e conomically a s possible - r etained perhaps i n d eference t o l ocal f eeling. I n what may have b een a c lash o f i nterests, l ocal i nterests, c ivic o r o therwise, prevailed, a nd i ndeed f rom the e nd o f the r eign S tafford has r egained i ts a utonomy a t l east i n s o far a s i t may b e measured by S tafford's enjoyment once more o f the exclusive s ervices o f a moneyer. I t might b e that G odwine's a ppointment hints a t c ompromise o f a nother nature - that G odwine had a s tatus a s moneyer which was not easily t erminated a nd that c ontinued pressure t o preserve a mint a t S tafford e nabled a moneyer whose s ervices a t Shrewsbury were s uperfluous t o b e f ound occupation. Shrewsbury might have c ommended i tself a s a s ource f or a S tafford moneyer b ecause o f i ts proximity ( thirty miles' distance a s o pposed t o the f orty-five miles b etween Chester a nd S tafford) a nd b ecause i t was undergoing a s light d ecline whereas Chester, though l osing D uninc a nd L eofnoth i n the Pyramids type was s till r ecruiting moneyers. T amworth might not h ave b een happy t o a ssist b ecause what was a pparently r equired was permanent t ransfer a t a t ime when Tamworth wished t o retain the s ervices o f i ts two moneyers o n a permanent a nd exclusive basis. These observations a bout t he s tructure a nd s tatus o f the S tafford mint d epend h eavily u pon a g eneral picture o f minting management emerging mint-by-mint a s each i s examined a nd to which S tafford i tself c ontributes. There i s, therefore, a s trong element o f c onjecture i n such observations, even though they a re supported by o bservations d rawn f rom the e xperince o f o ther mints. I t must a lso b e s tressed that a ny r emarks a bout t he S tafford mint i n Edward the C onfessor's r eign a re d rawn f rom the c oin evidence a s i t n ow s tands a nd the extent t o which this i s narrowly d ependent u pon two o r three l ocal h oards has b een emphasised r ecently by P .H.Robinson i n a number o f papers[177].

3 24

The Moneyer and the Mint in the reign of Edward the Con£essor 1042-1066

by Anthony Freeman Part ii

BAR British Series 145(ii) 1985

B�A.R.

5, Centremead, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 0ES, England.

GENERAL EDITORS A.R Hands, B. Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D.R Walker, M.A.

BAR 145 (II), 1 985 :'The Moneyer and the Mint in the reign of Edw ard the Confessor' Part II

©

Anthony Freeman,

1 985.

The author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9781407391311 (Volume I) paperback ISBN 9781407391328 (Volume II) paperback ISBN 9780860543541 (Volume set) paperback ISBN 9781407317588 (Volume set) e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860543541 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Contents Part

i i page

Chapter

3 :

The Mints: a survey and i nterpretation of the c oin evidence IV: S evern Valley and Chester Chester 3 27, Shrewsbury 3 40, D roitwich 3 48, Worcester 3 53, P ershore 3 60, Winchcombe 3 62, Gloucester 3 65, Hereford 3 74, B erkeley 3 80, Bristol 3 82. V :West Wessex

3 25

3 87

Bath 3 91, Exeter 3 93, Lydford 3 98, Barnstaple 4 02, Watchet 4 04, Taunton 4 06, I lchester 4 10, P etherton 4 16, Langport 4 18, Milborne P ort 4 21, B ruton 4 21, Warminster 4 21, FRO 4 24, Shaftesbury 4 24, D orchester 4 28, Bridport 4 33, Wareham 4 35. VI:Central and Eastern Wessex Malmesbury 4 38, Cricklade 4 44, Oxford 4 48, Wallingford 4 58, B edwyn 4 65, S ali sbury 467, Wilton 4 75, Chichester 4 80, S teyning 4 83, Lewes 4 85, Hastings 4 93, R omn. :y 5 01, Hythe 5 03, D over 5 06, Canterbur) 5 11, Sandwich 5 18, R ochester 5 23.

4 38

The ranking o f mints Number o f moneyers and mints by type Number o f moneyers by mints and type Number o f coins by mints a nd type Number o f coins by mints List o f moneyers

5 27 5 29 5 31 5 35 5 40 5 43

Appendices I I I II IV V VI

Notes a nd R eferences Bibliography List o f mints

5 57 5 65 5 82

IV S evern

Valley and Chester

Contrary to t rends elsewhere the number o f moneyers rises from the Expanding Cross type while the proportion o f moneyers rises even more sharply - to the order of thirty % i n terms o f absolute numbers o f moneyers and by s ome fifty % i n t erms o f the a rea's share o f moneyers, t o b ecome g reater than that f or London and i ts immediate hinterland. Both the number and percentage o f mints a lso rise, though this trend does not a ssert i tself until the rising trend among moneyers has e stablished i tself. The additional moneyers are f ound i n these n ew or revived mints ( Droitwich, unusually, among new mints, acquiring two-moneyer s tatus) and are a lso found i n t he established mints o f Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester and Shrewsbury, a ll o f which acquire a larger moneyer c omplement a t s ome point during the latter years of the reign a s each emerges f rom a period i n which some moneyers a ppear to have worked i ntermittently while o thers provided a c ore o f continuous service. The i ncrease i n mints i s occasioned by the revival o f Wihchcombe and the firm e stablishment o f D roitwich to c ompensate f or the f ailure o f P ershore and perhaps o f B erkeley. The n ew mints ( Berkeley, P ershore and D roitwich) are all situated adjacent to existing mints but the three are n ever active simultaneously. Droitwich's creation does coincide with change a t Worcester which the figures i n T able 8 7 disguise: the number o f " established" moneyers declines by one but the overall c omplement i s maintained by means of " single-type" and " associate" moneyers. I n a s ense, therefore, D roitwich functions alongside a s tructurally " weakened" Worcester. The fact that this happens, and that n ew moneyers a re diverted to a n ew mint rather than added to Worcester's . complement, suggests that some " secondary" minting, outside the main centres, i s being constantly a ttempted a long the middle Severn valley, employing, i n all l ikelihood, moneyers outside the control o f the county mints. Gloucester draws i n moneyers f rom surrounding mints i n the S overeign/ Martlets type a nd may have been c ontinuously a ssociated with H ereford through the a ctivities o f T E lric and L eofnoth. Hereford and Worcester are probably unrelated i n t erms o f moneyer personnel and Winchcombe a nd Chester a re each probably quite i solated f rom all o f these mints. The area i s i n some s enses " transitional" i n character. The density o f mint provision along the corridor Bristol to Worcester reflects that prevailing' i n parts o f Wessex; the pattern o f " county" mints discernible i n this " corridor" and elsewhere i n the area reflects the pattern of provision across Eastern England. What distinguishes the area i s i ts uncharacteristic i ncrease i n moneyer complement and mint provision.

3 25

.

4 C N

I C

c f )

L n 3 L n

4 / 1 . 0

N

1 . 1 )

N

c, c oil )

4 / 1 . 0

c f. )

0

. C " )

r I

L C ' )

r

t r i

C O

N

c 0

r * -

o z ;m : ) r -i

c o

c n

c y)e

U Z I

4. / 1 0

C . )

+ f -

i t )

C Y )

C h e s t e r

L Ö

r f )

( 1 )

L C 1

r n r Y )

4 1

r . . r I

( I ) 0 C . )

N C Y.)

• z t .

• e • I

-

L C )

t h e S e v e r n v a l e y a n d

a x

L D

( Y ) 0

i n

N r I

L .

c . ) + ( T . )

4 / 1 0

L f )

4 / 1 . 0

L I )

o f m i n t s a n d m o n e y e r s

L f )

C . )

▪

> 4 C I ) H C D

. _ H e r e f o r d

G l o u c e s t e r

W i n c h o m b e

W o r c e s t e r

D r o i t w i c h

S h r e w s b u r y

C h e s t e r

g i L i )

Ot t ) 0 • • : C D r C i r H = > , C D = 0 > 1 a )P > 1 H M H

u ) g 1 W > I ( 1 . )

r I

g - ( f ) • ( l 4 -) u ) > 1 4 C D -H E -H

0 E , oo E4 21 1. _ 2 „,o

o o

k

R =

3 26

t 1

r c •H

0:

=

. "1

0 0 \0

• 0

0 Z 0 \ °

> H X ( l . )

c . ) Q ,

a

i c

4

Chester Confusion between a Leicester and a Chester mint s ignature was largely resolved a c entury ago[178] and i n the present s tudy the presence o f LEGand LEIGa s prototheme and -CE, -CES, and -ES a s examples o f the f inal element have been regarded a s substantive evidence f or a ttribution of the coin concerned to Chester. Ambiguous f orms do exist, such a s LE, encountered on a Small F lan penny o f + COLBRAND ON LE ( GM). This coin i s a ttributed to Chester by a ssociation with o ther Small F lan pennies i n this moneyer's name s truck from dies with l ess ambiguous mint signatures such a s ON LEI ( e.g. WG 2 92 a nd M 3 71). Common obverse die u sage and the absence o f coins o f the moneyer concerned a t the " other" mint are also criteria which may be applied to determine correct a ttribution. Other ambiguous mint signatures are susceptible to similar treatment. One coin, a S overeign/ Martlets penny o f + LEOFPINE ON LEH ( BM 6 21) requires special notice. Originally regarded a s a Leicester penny ( where i t constituted the only evidence for the presence i n Edward's reign o f a " Leofwine" a t the Leicester mint), i t was subsequently re-attributed to Chester. A " Leofwine" i s known a t Chester until the Expanding Cross type, employing dies with regular " Chester" mint signatures: PACX: LEGECESR - BM 6 34,LEGEC -H 2 74, LEIIC - H 2 73 R adiate: LEI - H 2 72 T refoil: LEICE - FEJ 1 79 Small F lan: LEI - M 3 72 Exp.Cross(1):LEICE - BM 6 38 Exp.Cross( h):LEICE - WG 3 10 ( See also Table 8 9). Consequently, the re-attributed BM 6 21 once more constitu ted the s ole example of the moneyer's work i n the S overeign/ Martlets type. The employment of an abbreviated f orm o f a n impeccable Leicester mint signature o therwise unknown a t Chester made i t s eem reasonable to question the re-attribution. I f Leofwine were a Leicester moneyer i n the S overeign/Martlets type he may well have been d rafted t emporarily i nto the mint f rom S tamford. " Singletype" moneyers are common a t Leicester; most appear t o b e drawn f rom adjacent mints and there i s a clear s equence o f such moneyers one after the o ther late i n Edward the Confessor's reign. A Leofwine c ould occupy a position i n the s equence Blacaman-Edwine-(Leofwine)Wilgrip-Eadwine-Outhulf. A case could be made, therefore, f or the penny + LEOFPINE ON LEH to be re-assigned to the Leicester mint. I t will be remembered, however, that a coin with a mint signature ON CEN was re-read a s ON LEH and re-attributed f rom Canterbury to ' Leicester ( below, p . 5 16 ) ; a fruitful l ine o f i nvestigation would b e t o s ee i f a n apparent mint signature ON LEH were i n fact to have b een engraved ON CEN. The final " H" would have been cut a s and mis-striking or o ther obliteration might have made i t difficult for modern eyes

H

3 27

r IP A S C m X a l R a C d E F i S l a T t E n R e 1 E T x r p e . f C o r i l s P . H e l m e t S . M a r t l e t s H . C r o s

F . B u s t 1H P y r a 1 m i d s E dward t he C onfessor: c i ;es -r E

L E o n , I N D E R . O N D s p E A R : T c o L i 1 k I p . m . . . 0 I / E L F 5 t G E / E L F s % G E ( ) E I R y I w N r E C i S c R V N 4 )

, C 5 O N L M E B A L R N D K D i n V N . i I N . C 1 4 1I 1

L

1 I V S C A L N G V R S O G A R 1 L

)

L E O F N 0 f ) E O F N O D ( i

F A R G R I N I ( 1

, A L C S 1 L E : o r P t G I iI l >

2 L 1 0 S H 4 P D . 2 L F R A i 1 O T 4 b I i N ? E ? . 1 0 ? 1 i n i . 6 . . I . . 4 i 1

I / I R D G V A N L I S I A p . 1 . .1

,

L , k l I . . Ä \ ,

d W 1 -

L n u . w

Z U

0 < C l _

_

c C e t L 5

-

t . 0 ( . 5 0

u .

L i . JI 0. < ) u

< c z

L i .

w

_ e _ u _

Z

. 9 c . i r '

13

C ,4

w

_ 0

. . i


r i ) Z

, ) ,

L A

i n

0 C

c n o

•I ^ u ' 7 M e Ac v * 4

e r ) c q e n r A t . 5 •ö I )

r

. m

0

Z

, . ,

V D

• c0 r • • 1 r i " )

0

‘ . 0 •— 1

C : )

( 1

r H

r . , -

c vr ' ). r r ),. .o . t z e c . i ) m

M < ,1

•

r -

• 00 r n

C f )

N

a ,

r - •c o( \ 1c . )

r i

c 0 c 0 • rn i f ) c 0

U )

N

•

N

•

N

•L n c o r ' )

•

C O

• N

▪• a l r 1

4 t . 4 : * * .

4 E

_ ) r 0 U \ e 1 , 0 e _ l r i ) _

I M -

c . ) • 3 , _ Z1 / 3 c o , ( 1 . . , c u • c , _ c . 3 > . v ) . ) . r ) . : _ 3

• 9 C J,

✓

O

r--

r-)

t r,

• r --

( , )

• ( f )

c p

( , ) N

•

U ) • O

H CJ ) rH

• U )

C I )

e l

W • H • H

W

0

0

• r 1

0

0

E C D 0 L 4 44 E 40 0

• H • 4 1 0

V31

0 • • 0 0 o \ c , z z

E i

to detect the horizontal t op bar o f the l etter " C". A " Leofwine; moreover, i s a well-established Canterbury moneyer, a lbeit k nown only f rom S P 7 8-4372 a nd SP 8 5 5 784 f or the type i n question. Both c oins ( if i n fact there b e two, rather than one o ffered f or sale twice) read + LEOFPINE ON CEN but were published without photographs. Could BM 6 21 b e re-attributed once again, this t ime to Canterbury? This must surely b e i ts c orrect a ttributi on and the coin now resides i n the British Museum's " Canterbury" trays, the mint signature being read a s ou n tm . One further c oin requires mention i n the context o f Chester mint signatures, a P ointed Helmet penny o f +GODRIC ON LEGR ( GM). Such a mint s ignature displays elements f ound a t both Chester a nd Leicester, a nd despite i ts current a ttribution to the Chester mint, merits re-attribution to Leicester on the g rounds that no coin o f G odric o ther than the S overeign/Martlets penny o f +GODRIC ON LEGA i s a ttributed t o Chester ( BM 6 51), a nd that this f orm of mint signature i s not encountered i n the output o f any o ther o f Edward's Chester moneyers. At Leicester there i s a G odric coining s teadily for most o f Edward the Confessor's r eign and employing typically " Leicester" mint signatures: TQ: LEHR - H 2 75 SF: LEHER - BM 6 11 ExC( h): LEHERE - M 3 87 PH: LEHER - BM 6 14; LEGR - GM SM: LEHR - M 4 27; LECR - CM 1 234; LEGA - BM 6 51 HC: LEHRECE - BM 6 23 FB: LEHR - BM 6 27 PAX: LEHRE: - G 1 191 BM 6 51 i tself now resides i n the British Museum's " Leic ester" trays; f or " LEGA" a s " LEHA" s ee p . 3 03 above. What i s clear i s that there exists a l ittle parcel o f coins o f a moneyer " Godric" which c ould b elong to either mint but on balance belongs perhaps to Leicester; what i s also clear i s that, i n g eneral, die cutters t ook care to distinguish between the Leicester and Chester mint s ignatures. A further c oin with a problematical mint signature i s noted below i n the discussion o f the " glfsige" name-form. P rosopographical problems a re posed by a s eries o f coins i n the names o f gLFSI, A LESIGE, ALCSI, ALHSIGE, ALXXI e tc. Table 8 8 l ists the renderings encountered a t Chester f rom the coins recorded and suggests that two, or possibly three, distinct elements occur: " Alcsige" and " glfsi"/"glfsige". There a re virtually no ambiguous f orms a nd most o f those that do c ome i nto this category a re almost certainly carelessly-struck renderings o f a substantive form. The t ruly ambivalent f orms a re the ALESIGE and gLESI or g LCSI f orms o f Hammer Cross and Facing Bust ( column C o f Table 8 8). A LESIGE i s derived f rom the coin M 4 35, the fascicule photograph o f which shows the i nitial l etter clearly t o be " A" rather than " g" and the third l etter very probably " E".

3 32

Unfortunately, with one exception, photographs of the other Hammer Cross pennies of " Elfsige", ALFSIGE and ALCSIGE are not r eadily available; the one coin which i s photographed i s probably f rom the same pair o f dies. This i s the c oin WG 3 47 ( but actually no.345 i n the accompanying plate XII o f the S CBI fascicule) transcribed as " A(e) lfsige" but with the third l etter o f the moneyer's name more l ikely t o have been " E" than " F". On balance the presence o f i ntitial " A" rather than " / E" suggests that WG 3 45(pl.) and M 4 35 are more l ikely to be coins of " Alcsige" than " / Elfsige". The c oin o f 1 E LESI or / E LCSI in the Facing Bust type has no counterpart a t all, being the o nly coin o f the type a ttributable to this particular series of moneyers' names. Although the c oin i n question, lying i n the British Museum trays and ticketed " / ELFSI", i s b roken, the f irst l etter i s " / E"; the difficulty l ies with the third l etter. The spine o f the l etter i s clear the top bar i s poorly cut ( ) and the centre bar n o more than the beginning o f a tiny wedge, though i t d oes spring f rom the spine and i s not a pellet (n . ) ; the l ower bar i s e ssentially a l arge pellet but i n a particular l ight can appear a s a wedge ( A4 ) and a s the elements f or a l etter " E" are present a t entative transliteration a s E LESI may be suggested. The presence o f " F E" rather than " A" a s the i nitial l etter, and the appearance of the l ower bar more a s a pellet than a wedge when examined under the binocular microscope (f l ) suggests that this coin was perhaps s truck by the moneyer " / Elfsi"/ " / Elfsige". The A LHSIGE family encountered i n the Pointed Helmet type ( Column Db) i s unique to Chester a s i s EALCSI; the latter i s a ssumed to be an alternative rendering of " Alcsi", i n the same way that, a t London for example, EALDGAR i s occasionally encountered i n c onjunction with the more numerous ALDGAR f orm. ALHSI a nd ALXXI probably reflect responses to pronunciation difficulties more u sually rendered ALCSIE or ALCSIGE. A different form of difficulty i s that presented by the evidence f or ' f lIelfsi" i n BMC type VII o f William I 's reign. His presence i n this type i s d erived solely f rom the coin S S 4 1 + IELFSI ON LERHRE. This c oin the authors of the S CBI fascicule r egarded a s a Leicester c oin on the g rounds of the " impeccable" nature of LERHRE a s a Leicester mint signature a nd, although i t i s probably a unique f orm of the more u sual LEHRECE, i t c ertainly has no counterpart among the more u sual " Chester" f orms. However, no " / Elfsi"/"/ Elfsige" i s o therwise known a t Leicester or any neighbouring mint ( e.g. Huntingdon, B edford, N orthampton, N ottingham, D erby, Tamworth or S tamford) during the l atter part o f William's reign and i t i s perhaps worth pointing out that i f LEHECE can be a n a cceptable Chester mint signature i n the next type ( i.e. BMC type VIII), the epigraphically similar LEHRECE could therefore be a Chester mint signature. LEHECE a s a mint signature i s derived f rom BM 5 86 + IELFSI ON LEHECE, s truck f rom the same obverse die a s BMC 5 85 + IELFSI

E;

ON

LECESTR

-

LECESTR

presumably

3 33

being

acceptable

a s

" gLFSIGE"

" J ELFSI"

AM3IGUOUS

PACX

gLFSIGE 1

ELFSIIEE 2

RSC

gLFSIGE 3

gLFSIE 6

" ALCSIGE"

ELFSIGE 4 ELSIG 5 TQ

ELFSIGE 7

gLFSIE 8

SF

1 0 " glfsige" 1 ELFSI

ELFSIE 9 1 1

gLFSIE 12 ExC( 1)

ELFSIE 13

ExC

" glfsie"

( wnr)

ELFSIE 15

ALCSIE 41 ALCSIE 42

1 4

" Alcsige"

4 3

ELSIE 16 ALFSIE 17

ExC( h)

ALCSIE 44

gLFSIE 18 ELFSIE 19 ELESIE 20 PH

gLFSIGE 21

gLFSIIE 23

ALCSIE 55

ALHSIC 46

gLFSIG 22

ELFSIIE 24

ALCSIIE 45

ALHSIE 47 ALHSIGE 48

SM

ELFSIGE 25

ALCSI 49

gLFSIG 26 HC

" glfsige" 27 1 ELF5I 2 7a ALFSIGE

FB Pyr

ALESIGE 29

2 8

( "glfsi") gLFSIG 31

gLFSI

3 0

gLESI gLCSI

or EALCSI

3 2

PAX IELFSI

3 4

gLFSI

3 5

ELFSI

3 6

IELFSI

3 7

IELFSI

3 8

I ELFSI

3 9

" Agfsi" TABLE

8 8

5 0

3°

ELFS 33

I I

ALCSIGE

5 1

ALXXI

52

ALXXI

53

ALCSI

5 4

4 0

" glfs"Pglfsige"

and

" Alhsige"

at

forms

" Alcsi"/" Alcsige"/"Alhsi"/

Chester.

3 34

1 . H 2 57. 2 . H 2 67. 3 . C 4-916, H 2 56, C 4-915. 4 . H 2 66, NMI. 5 . C 4-920. 6 . C 4-914, WG 2 84 ex P CB 1 106. 7 . C 4-919. 8 . WG 2 86. 9 . H 2 65, BM 6 32. 1 0. I NV 2 55. 1 1. O C 6 4. 1 2. BM, Sc ex FEJ 1 80, H 2 55, WG 2 89 ex P CB 5 85, NMW ex C M 1 151 ex GR 1 190 ex HM/1-827. 1 3. BM 6 36. 1 4. GM. 1 5. WB 2 2. 1 6. HAP 1 98b. 1 7. CJM 1 4-A29. 1 8. WG 2 97, WG 2 98, S c ex FEJ 1 81. 1 9. M 3 84. 2 0. G S 8 0/10-251. 2 1. GM. 2 2. WG 3 14, BM, GS 7 8/12-99, FEJ 1 82, S C, SB 6 89-H5435, SB 6 93-H5652. 2 3. BM, G 1 066, WG 3 15, WG 3 16, M 4 03, CM 1 207. 2 4. LC 2 814c. 2 5. GM. 2 6. BM 6 46, M 4 20. 2 7. GM, NMW. 2 7a. WG 3 45(pl.) ( =WG 3 47 i n t ext). 2 8. BM, WG 3 47(pl.)(=WG 3 45 i n text), WG 3 46, BM 6 54, HM 1 -844d. 2 9. M 4 35. 3 0. BM. 3 1. 3 3.

HM/2-156c, M 4 86, LC M 4 87, HM/1-852b, PCB

3 842. 6 45, WG

3 2. WG 3 71, 3 68, WG 3 19,

WG WG

3 72. 3 70,

SC e x SB 6 42-H2528, G 1 168, F 9 61, and ( helmeted bust variety) S C ex F EJ 1 87, WG 3 88, WG 3 87 ( ex PCB 1 173e?), BM 6 60. 3 4. R SH 3 41. 3 5. LC 8 87 ex P CB 1 838. 3 6. AN 2 2, BM 7 7. 3 7. LC 9 26. 3 8. SS 4 1 ( sub Leicester). 3 9. M 5 58, WG 4 00, BM 5 86, WG 3 99, BM 5 85, R SH 3 42a. 4 0. GM. 4 1. S B 6 63-H3922. 4 2. HM/2-139g, LC 2 810, WB 2 0. 4 3. S P 8 8-1372. 4 4. S C, GS 7 5/1-106, WG 3 00 ex P CB 5 96 ex HM/1-836, M 3 82, SP 8 4-4717. 4 5. BM, M 4 04, WG 3 17. 4 6. S C ex SB Aug.1965-H3021, SB 7 21-E494, SB 7 30-E262. 4 7. WG 3 18. 4 8. SP 8 1-3989, SP 8 1-1205. 4 9. WG 3 31, WG 3 32. 5 0. NMW. 5 1. WG 3 81, WG 3 80 ex PCB 1 818b, WG 3 79 ex P CB 1 818c, WG 3 78. 5 2. WG 3 73, BM 6 61, S C, S C. 5 3. BM 4 8, WG 3 92, G 1 188. 5 4. WG 3 95, BM 7 9. 5 5. SHM-C. TABLE

8 8

" glfs"/"glfsige" and " Alcsi"/"Alcsige"/"Alhsi"/ " Alhsige" forms a t Chester

a Chester mint s ignature during this period. The die l ink between BM 5 85 and 5 86 i s paralleled by that between WG 3 99 and WG 4 00. The moneyer signatures l isted i n Table 8 8 suggest that ALHSI, ALXXI and ALCSIE ( to take the most u sual renderings) are v ariants o f one moneyer's name, i n i ts expanded f orm A LCSIGE. This moneyer i s known f or most types from the E xpanding Cross(light i ssue) o f Edward the Confessor t o BMC type I I o f William I . The name also appears earlier i n the mint's history, i n the Last Small Cross type o f g thelraed I I and the Quatrefoil type of C nut, a g rouping sufficiently remote i n time t o suggest no c onnection with the mid-century moneyer. Table 8 8 shows that " glfsi"/"glfsige" are clearly distinct f rom " Alcsige". Columns A and B demonstrate a degree o f differentiation within " glfsi" and " glfsige" forms i n that the latter terminate twenty years or more before the former. " glfsige" i s recorded a s a moneyer's name i n the " Three-line" t ype of Eadgar and then i n every substantive type from C nut's Quatrefoil type onwards, giving a .m inimum/maximum t enure o f office a t Chester between Cnut's Quatrefoil and Edward's Pyramids type ( the l ast for which a f ull " glfsige" form i s recorded) of some

3 35

f orty t o fifty years. There i s n o significant i nterruption i n the output of coins i n this name and s o even i f i t were desirable to postulate t he presence o f two moneyers o f this name working i n succession, the a bsence o f a clear break would make i t impossible to d etermine when the change occurred. What must be clear i s that the " / Elfsiu rl Elfsige" of Cnut's reign cannot be the " Ielfsi" o f William I 's PAXS emission unless a career extending to upwards of sixty years i s admissable. I f " / Elfsin and " / Elfsige" are variations o f a single n ame-form, the " Ielfsi" a t work until PAXS must have succeeded an " I Elfsi" o f the earlier period rather t han worked s imultaneously; had he worked s imultaneously clear differentiation b etween the two moneyers would have been n ecessary i n the manner employed i n the heavy emission o f the Expanding C ross type to distinguish between " I Elfsi"/"/ Elfsige" and " / Elfsie Alda". No coins i n the name o f " / Elfsin were s truck i n the PAX type of Harold I I, o r the BMC types I ,III and I V of William I . The break b etween types I I and V i n William's reign may reflect the g eneral c onfusion o f a ffairs i n this period a t the Chester mint; the b reak b etween Pyramids and William I 's type I I may b e the real occasion o f the break, accounted f or by the i ncreasingly advanced age o f " / Elfsin/u/ Elfsige". The presence of / E LFSIE ALDA i n the Expanding Cross t ype may be evidence that the t ermination of one moneyer's s ervice and the commencement o f that of his successor took place during that type, the absence of the second name A LDA i n subsequent types i ndicating that there were no l onger two moneyers o f the same name. An ELFSIEADA i s r ecorded, however, among the Hammer Cross coins recorded i n the C ity hoard, suggesting simultaneous working by two moneyers of the same name over several years, thus making i t more difficult to determine the moment o f break i n the work o f the moneyers " / Elfsi"/"/ Elfsige". To conclude: / E lfsi a nd / Elfsige, philologically the same name-form, may represent one moneyer working until the Pyramids type a nd a second moneyer a t work i n William I 's r eign; Alcsige worked f rom the Expanding Cross type until BMC type I I of William I , and / E lfsie Alda was active b riefly i n the middle y ears o f Edward's reign. The coin evidence for a n umber o f other requires a ttention. The following coins a re i n the name of " / Elfwine": Edward the Confessor Small Flan Exp.Cross ( wnr) P ointed Helmet Hammer Cross Facing Bust William I BMC I I A s the name-form raed I I onwards

moneyers recorded

+ / ELFPNE ON LEI + / ELEPINE ON L ICESTR +ELFPINE ON L EIGECE + ELPINE ON LEGECE " I Elewinen

( WG ( WB ( SC) ( WG ( WG

2 90) 2 1)

" / Elfwine"

( WG p .35)

3 55) p .35)

occurs regularly f rom the reign of / E thelmore than one moneyer of this name i s

3 36

a t work. While i t i s not possible to determine when one m oneyer c eased work and another s tarted, the break between the J ewel C ross type of Harold I and the Small F lan t ype o f Edward t he Confessor i s of sufficient duration to s uggest that i t occurs then. The " E ntwine" series i s s till under i nvestigation. The Pointed Helmet coin o f E ntwine came to l ight recently and should, perhaps, b e t reated with some caution. The Hammer Cross WG 3 55 i s v ery probably a die-duplicate of M 4 48 o f E LPINE ON LEHREC, a ttributed to Leicester and similarly a Facing Bust p enny o f " gglwine" housed i n S tockholm and a ttributed to Chester could be a die-duplicate o f the Leicester penny M 4 67. E fforts to trace a Bonnet penny o f glfwine a t C hester have s o far proved unsuccessful and i t s eems probable that g lfwine's career a t Chester t erminated prior to the Pointed Helmet type rather than early i n William I 's reign. The Chester I fascicule of S CBI records " Croc" a s a Chester moneyer i n Cnut's reign and i n the J ewel Cross, F leur -da lis and Arm and S ceptre types of Harold I a nd Harthacnut but not for Edward the Confessor. S eaby, however, appeared to know of activity i n the PACX type and i n the S taatliche Münzsammlung i n Munich there i s a c oin o f + C.D. 00C ON LEIIC ( or + C. ROCC ON LEIIC) of the Radiate/Small Cross type described i n the Museum's t rays as a " copy of a Chester penny". Colman records a P ACX penny of C roc i n S tockholm and i t i s on the basis o f these references that " Croc" i s i ncluded a s a Chester moneyer during the first two types of the reign. The coins o f " Leofwine" are listed i n Table 8 9. They are unremarkable except for the i nclusion o f LEFPI f orms i n the PACX type. Pin e notes LEOFPIG f orms a s recently a s the Fleur-de-lis type of Harold I and a s LEFPI ( or more u sually " Leofwi") f orms are o ften contracti ons of the " -wig" rather than " -wine" deuterotheme, c onsideration must be given to the possibility that subsumed i n the " Leofwine" f orms i n Table 8 9 a re the coins o f a nother moneyer. Although not critical f or the moneyer's presence i n the type, a q uestion mark needs to be placed beside S B 7 37-E15, one o f the coins o f Bruninc i n the S overeign/ Martlets type, a nd originally o ffered f or sale a s a penny o f the London mint. I ts reverse l egend, +BR - v N iN ic ON LC , i s a die duplicate o f M 4 21, F EJ 1 85 and WG 3 33 and 3 34. BM 6 47 may share the same reverse die and i ts obverse i s almost identical. The reverse of BM 6 47 reads d ie f l .nw

a s

S B 737- E 15

e l le t ?

17

'Y N NI C d i e

ON

f i o . v .

S B 7 37- E5

3 37

LEG:

PACX

LEFPI 1

LE0PINE 2

LEOFPINE 3

R SC

LEOFPINE 4

TQ

LE0FPINE 6

SF

LE0FPINE 7

ExC(1)

LEOFPINE 8

ExC( h)

LE0F 3 2INE 9

The S overeign/Martlets penny ( see pp.327 and 3 32 above).

BM

6 21

i s

LEOFPINEE 5

not

i ncluded

1 . BM 6 34, WG 2 83. 2 . H 2 74, BM. 3 . H 2 73. 4 . H 2 72. 5 . S P 8 2-4340. This coin was offered f or sale a s a penny of the Lewes mint but Chester seems a more l ikely a ttribution. S ee below, pp.485 a nd 489. 6 . GM ex F EJ 1 79. 7 . M 3 72, SC ex SP 8 4-3773, WG 2 94, BM 6 29. 8 . BM 6 38. 9 . WG 3 10, 3 11, S C. TABLE

8 9

" Leofwine" reign.

a t

Chester

i n

Edward the

C onfessor's

The difference i n obverse i s that o n SB 7 37-E15 the king's right hand i s very slightly further t o the right and the sceptre head i s depicted a s t rather than I BM 6 48 and E 6 88 are probably f rom s eparate pairs o f dies. A further specimen may exist i n the f orm o f LC 3 810. A coin more recently o ffered for sale by B . A.Seaby Ltd. ( SB 7 45-E433) may turn out to b e the same c oin a s S B 7 37-E15. The coin SB 7 37-E15 exhibits a c lose similarity i n all but s ize to a coin i n the Y orkshire Museum noted by C .S.S.Lyon a s a r ound halfpenny o f Edward the Confessor. Lyon observed that his " round h alfpenny", the exact nature of which i n f act continued t o puzzle him, was virtually a die-duplicate of a full-size penny, WG 3 34; so close was the identity that i t was " almost a s though the dies used for the two coins were prepared f rom master dies with the aid o f a reducing machine". The impossibility should not have been ruled out, f or Lyon's penny was subsequently published as a f orgery a s EP 1 528, and i t may be that one a t l east from S B 7 37-E15, BM 6 47, M 4 21 and WG 3 33 and 3 34 come from the same s table[179]. Three coins, o f Colbrand, Leofnoth and " Ordric", require notice. Hildebrand a ssociated the PACX f ragment H 2 64 + COL...LEI with the moneyer Colbrand a nd i n the absence of the name-form prior t o Edward the C onfessor's a ccession Colbrand's tenure would therefore be supposed to run from the PACX type. H 2 64 has, however, been shown to be a die-duplicate o f WG 2 82 o f Colthegn a nd Colbrand's o ffice may therefore b e deemed to c ommence i n the Radiate/Small Cross type[180]. Of L eofnoth, one c oin, M 4 38 o f + LIOFNOD ON D LEP..., a Hammer Cross penny, should probably be a ttributed to G loucester rather than Chester; to do so does not alter the pattern o f Leofnoth's activity at Chester. A 9 41, the o ne c oin representative of Ordric a t Chester has been re-attributed

3 38

to

G loucester[181].

W ith moneyers' identities and terms of office n ow defined i t i s possible to a ttempt a reconstruction o f the m oneyer canon at the Chester mint. The TrefoilQuadrilateral and F acing Bust types constitute the types i n which a ll the established moneyers l ikely to have worked were also a ctive i n the preceding and succeeding types and suggests a complement o f seven a nd six moneyers respectively. I n f our types, Radiate/Small Cross, Expandi ng C ross, S overeign/ Martlets and Pyramids some e stablished moneyers t erminate their s ervice while o thers c ommence. N o s atisfactory f ormula exists which will determine f rom the data recorded f rom the c oins whether the moneyers worked simultaneously or s equentially. I f simultaneous working i n Radiate/ Small Cross i s a ssumed, the moneyer complement would h ave risen temporarily by two moneyers, and b ecause that w ould appear to have b een an artificial rise the moneyers c oncerned a re regarded a s having succeeded e ach o ther i n mid-issue, S nel and Croc by Colbrand and H uscarl. The same c ould be true o f two o f the o ther types concerned, and so i n the Sovereign/ Martlets type Duninc has been treated a s Colbrand's successor and Thrond could be r egarded a s successor to one o f Duninc or L eofnotb i n the Pyramids type. I n the Expanding C ross type the n ewcomer Alcsi must b e regarded, on the basis of the c oin SB 6 63-H3922, a s c olleague o f the two moneyers terminating i n the type. The difficulties of i nterpretation surrounding the calculation o f l ikely moneyer complement need no further i llustration. I n g eneral a " minimal" i nterpreta tion o f sequential rather than simultaneous working has been adopted. The crucial " overlap" i s that i n the Expanding Cross type between Leofwine a nd Fargrim on the o ne hand and " Alcsige" on the o ther. I f but one of them c ould be confined to a s ingle emission " Alcsige" to the " heavy" emission o r one o f Leofwine a nd Fargrim to the " light" coinage, the " overlap" c ould b e e liminated. F or Leofwine a nd Fargrim the c oin evidence f or their activity i n the " heavy" type i s sound, but " Alcsige's" presence i n the " light" type appears to b e derived f rom one coin only, o ffered f or sale by B .A.Seaby Ltd. i n 1 973 a s SB 6 63-H3922 " ALCSIE ON LEIGESTR o f the ' Expanding Cross type' ( Seaby no.) S 6 92." The c oin i s u nphotographed a nd i ts a ttribution to the " light" c oinage i s depend?nt upon i ts correct cataloguing a s S 6 92 ( Expanding Cro , ss type " light" i ssue) a s opposed t o S 6 92A ( Expanding Cross type " heavy" i ssue). The Chester mint would appear, therefore, to pass through f our phases i n Edward the Confessor's reign. I n the R adiate/Small C ross and T refoil-Quadrilateral types t he complement i s probably s table a t s even moneyers. D uring the middle of the reign ( Small F lan and Expanding C ross) there i s a slight i ncrease to eight, a fter which t here i s a return to the plateau o f s even moneyers unless

3 39

the sequence o f " single-type" moneyers i s i ntended to preserve the enhanced capacity of the Expanding C ross " peak". As the reign comes t o an end, a c ontraction occurs, bringing the established complement down to s ix moneyers. Thereafter t enure i s very f ragmented. Coins a re known f rom three moneyers only i n Harold I I's reign, but Bruninc, known in Pyramids and BMC type I o f William I may also have b een active; i n BMC type I h e i s the sole moneyer of whom coins are k nown. There i s a sudden, and very t emporary, revival in BMC type I I, though the evidence f or some moneyers i s v ery s light, and the mint i s virtually closed until BMC type VIII. There i s a s trong presence o f " single-type" moneyers. At six out of twenty-one moneyers, the p roportion i s not unusual; nor i s i t untypical that this third o f the moneyer force should contribute only a t enth o f actual moneyer-for-type occurrences. With the exception o f Colthegn, at work i n the PACX type, their activity i s concentrated i n the Expanding Cross-Hammer C ross period, which further research might show t o have b een a period of i ncreased activity among established moneyers. The Chester mint appears to b e s elf-contained, i solated f rom contact with other mints and f rom changes that take place elsewhere. Some moneyers bear name-forms f ound elsewhere but i n g eneral these are n ames s uch a s " Leofwine", " glfwine" etc., which i nhibit the detection of any pattern o f movement. Chester's g eographical i solation maybe the principal f actor a t work; similar conditions appear t o prevail a t Y ork and Lincoln. Shrewsbury P " Likely" no. o f moneyers . % o f moneyers . No.of coins(I) No.of coins(S) ( Total)

R

T

S

E

5

5

4

4

5

2 .2 2 5 7

2 .3 0 1 0 1 0

1 .8 2 3 5

1 .9 1 4 5

2 .3 1 5 0 1 5

P 5 2 .3 1 1 0 1 1

S

H

F

P

5

6

6

6

2 .5 1 4 0 1 4

3 .1 2 0 0 2 0

3 .4 8 0 8

3 .7 3 2 2 3 4

There has been confusion between a S haftesbury or Shrewsbury a ttribution for c oins o f G odesbrand. Table 9 0 suggests that with the exception of s ome c oins of the latter part of William I 's reign, all t he c oins concerned belong to the Shrewsbury mint. Table 9 0 l ists one example of each o f the mint signatures of " Godesbrand" i dentifiable a s Shrewsbury or S haftesbury during the period 1 042-1087 arranged under two main and two s ubsidiary g roupings o f signatures. The " main" groupings c omprise those signatures which can clearly be l inked with a particular mint either because o f the presence of a n unambiguous mint signature such a s S CRO( Shrewsbury) or S CF(Shaftesbury) or can be a sociated with the mint because the coin concerned i s s truck f rom a n obverse

3 40

die employed by another moneyer who has s truck c oins bearing unambiguous mint signatures. The " subsidiary" g rouping c omprises ambiguous mint signatures which, taken individually, could represent either Shresbury or S haftesbury, but which can be i nterpreted by a ssociation with o ther coins o f e stablished mint signature. Thus ON S o f G 1 185, a mule of an Edward the Confessor Pyramids type o bverse and a reverse of William I 's Bonnet type, i s a Shrewsbury c oin because the obverse die was employed by G odwine a t Shrewsbury to coin CM 1 327 which possesses the i mpeccable Shrewsbury mint signature ON SCOBEP. The ON SC of e .g. BM 1 164, an Expanding Cross penny lacking any such die l ink, i s only " likely" to be o f the S hrewsbury mint by analogy with o ther coins o f Godesbrand of the period. Similarly the SRI a nd S I mint signatures encountered i n the PAXS emission o f William I are i dentifiable a s Shrewsbury by the presence o f an obverse die l ink b etween BM 9 35, a coin o f Godesbrand, and BM 9 33, a c oin of the Shrewsbury moneyer I ernwi, while Godesbrand's coin BM 9 37 i s s truck from the same obverse die a s that employed by the Shrewsbury moneyer S egrim ( e.g. BM 9 39). SCI becomes a " Shaftesbury" mint signature i nstead o f a " likely" Shaftesbury mint signature when i t i s discovered that BM 9 27 i s s truck from the same obverse die a s e .g. BM 9 21, a coin o f the Shaftesbury moneyer I elfnoth. Godesbrand i s therefore the name of a moneyer a t Shrewsbury f rom the Expanding Cross type of Edward the Confessor to PAXS type of William I , a nd a moneyer o f the same name i s active a t Shaftesbury f rom the Sword type again to the PAXS type o f William I . Once such a pattern has been c reated remaining ambiguous f orms can be f itted i n. " SC" i n Expanding Cross would probably represent Shrewsbury even though i n the PAXS type Shaftesbury i s a more l ikely a ttribution, and " SCI" i n the same PAXS type would, on balance, represent Shaftesbury. N o SC mint-signature can be i dentified f or William I 's Profile/Cross-Trefoil type and accordingly the coins c oncerned m ight be a ttributable to Shaftesbury. The s ame attribution to Shaftesbury o f S C-signed coins i n P AXS may also b e made, albeit tentatively: while S CF a nd SCI f orms a re found a t Shaftesbury only S I and SRI f orms a re found a t Shrewsbury. Accordingly the coin M 5 91, a PAXS penny of Godesbrand, which has b een a ttribute d to Shrewsbury, should perhaps be re-attributed to S haftesbury. C o .c is of the o ther " Shrewsbury" moneyers s eem to b e satisfactorily a ttributed to that mint. O ther c oins o r attributions requiring notice a re considered a s they a rise: R adiate/Small Cross: an LFEH form occurs i n this type ( H 6 45 and SHM). Apparently rendered solely g LFEH or g LFHEH i n Edward's reign ( Table 9 1), the name-form occurs p rior t o 1 042 a longside the " glfelm" forms which S earle a nd Smart recognise a s discrete[182]. Epigraphically t hey can be so similar that philological ambiguity can a rise, a s the E xpanding Cross examples i n Table 9 1 demons trate. One f urther Radiate/Small cross c oin requires

3 41

E dward t he C onfessor.

E dward t he C onfessor s mum sa u g y 4-

n

e r

t

e

c. , 0-

a .

0

C O

'1-

r 02

p


1 •

>1

Q )

0

D R O I T V ‘ 1 C

0

0

c b

i z

G . ) 0 E4 -

E

:

g 1

0

•

0 0 0 o \ c '

0

0

c 5-

0 , i H

4 >

4 . 1 C Z

W C Z 2 1

t :
,

E

( 1 )

a n d G o d r i c .

4 >

0 • e

r d

j

H

" 4 r d

>

0

X

-

U

a . ,

L C )

f D

a i ( C I c f )

c o

r : Q

H e t h e w u l f

s u b o r d i n a t e f o r m s

c o

4 4 0

u n e q u i v o c a l

Z • • z r c o

.4i

E

• H

0

0

s 1 4 1

• rt j

a m b i g u o u s

C C 1

( 4 1

. c c )

•

r c J

P I C / P I C N E H m i n t s i g n a t u r e s

X c s > ( l \

U

0 1

X




351

>

H

N

H

E, c \ F 1

of a " new" mint ( "Ba"), ( iii) ambiguous signatures capable of a ssociation with the " new" mint or an existing mint ( group "Ab") and ( iv) signatures subordinate to the " new" mint substantive ( group " Bb"). The c rucial mint signatures are class " Aa" of Hethewulf a t Worcester ( ON PIG) i n BMC type IV of William I linked with " Ba" of Hethewulf at Droitwich ( ON p iEprc) in BMC type xiv. The plcmint signatures, i f f ound i n i solation, could be blundreed renderings of Winchester, Watchet, Winchcombe or Worcester mint signatures but the listing of the coins establishes that there i s a homogenous body of plc- mint signatures related to a coherent body of moneyers from whose activities a neat mint profile may b e established of a mint i n which two moneyers work s ide-by-side for several years. This picture i s strengthened by the

fact

and the

GODRIC in the moneyers were

that

the

mint

signatures

o f

all

coins

of

HEDEPVLF

types concerned at the mints to which originally a ttributed conform to the

pI-/picformula and thus all coins of HEDEPVLF and GODRIC may be successfully extracted from these mints without the creation of any ambiguity at the mint of PIC/PICNEH. An apparent exception might exist i n the case of a Godric Martlets type. to substantiate

attributed to Winchester in the Sovereign/ No actual coin has as yet b een published the reference[186]. The " Godric" name-

form i s common, and i s currently k nown a t thirteen mints; Bath, Ilchester, Salisbury, Shaftesbury, London, Southwark, Maldon, Bedford, Cambridge, Huntingdon, Thetford, Lincoln and Leicester, at two of which ( Huntingdon a nd Salisbury) the work of a Godric i s i nterrupted during this period of Edward's reign, and one would i nitially be drawn to the conclusion that PIC/PICNEH were l ocated close to one of these two mints. Other evidence renders this nugatory. The " Hethewulf" name-form is confined to the PIC/PICNEH series until William I 's reign when i t occurs at Worcester in BMC type IV and Hereford i n BMC type V . Closer i nvestigation a t the suggestion o f Mr. C . E. Blunt showed that the BMC IV Hunterian penny of +HEADEPVLF ON plc i s correctly read . .. ON PIG, and S tewart and Blunt publish i t as such. The of one of the PIC/ PICNEH moneyers with and Hereford mints and the presence of

i dentification the Worcester BMC type xiv

coins at the PIC/PICNEH mint n arrows the f ield to the West Midlands, a s S tewart and Blunt demonstrate. Although i t i s apparently true that no contemporary or n ear contemporary documentary references d escribe Droitwich or any plcsettlement a s a minting place[187], a nd S tewart and Blunt were unable to establish any common employment of dies among the PIC/PICNEH moneyers or b etween PIC/ PICNEH and o ther mints, and Droitwich was only one among numerous in the

settlements i n eleventh century

Worcester, i ts i ts location in

several counties a s " Wich", i ts

importance an area i n

t o be known proximity to

as an economic centre which coins of BMC type

and xiv

were struck, would all combine to identify Droitwich, i n preference to Wigmore, Wick-by-Pershore . or Wigwig,

3 52

a s

t he

modern

PIC/PICNEH.

The D roitwich mint functions with s ome vigour despite i ts r elatively b rief existence. Alone among o ther n ew f oundations i t i s s erved by two moneyers rather than one. I t appears to o riginate i ts own moneyers rather than d raw u pon n eighbouring Worcester, though the c reation o f D roitwich may not have g one unnoticed a t Worcester ( p. 3 58 b elow). On D roitwich's closure H ethewulf, the moneyer under whom the mint opened, i s d rawn i nto the main minting system , but fails to f ind s ecurity o f t enure; o f G odric no more a ppears to be h eard. D roitwich i s the l ast i n a l ine, g eographically and chronologically, o f small mints which have the appearance o f satellites to G loucester a nd Worcester ( Berkeley-Pershore-Droitwich) a nd the creation o f a D roitwich mint may be allied t o the unsuccessful plantation a t P ershore. I n this respect the c reation o f these mints - and e specially o f P ershore and D roitwich - s tands i n marked contrast to the c ontempo rary policy i n D evon and S omerset o f elimination o f smaller l ocal mints and c oncentration upon more major c entres, e specially Exeter. Worcester

" Likely" n o. o f moneyers. % o f moneyers. N o.of coins ( I) N o.of coins ( S) ( Total)

P

R

T

S

E

P

S

H

F

BMC xiv

3 1 .3 2 1 3

3 1 .4 4 2 6

3 1 .4 1 1 2

4 1 .9 6 1 7

5 2 .3 7 3 1 0

5 2 .3 5 0 5

5 2 .5 6 0 6

5 2 .6 1 2 0 1 2

5 2 .9 6 0 6

4 2 .5 4 0 4

The g eneral paucity o f c oin evidence i s a t i ts most marked i n the earlier y ears o f the reign. I n about two-thirds of the moneyer-for-type occurrences, moneyers a re known for the type f rom a single recorded coin, a f eature which i s a s s trongly pronounced i n the s econd half of the reign a s i n the f irst. I t would a lso s eem that the c oin evidence f or c ertain moneyers i s consistently f uller than f or o ther moneyers. With the exception o f G odwine ( Worcester 8 4) the " single-type" moneyers a re each currently k nown f rom a single c oin, whereas o f the e stablishment, Leofstan, / Egelwine and Garulf a re u sually known f rom more than one coin i n each type. I t cannot be s tressed too s trongly, however, that i n the absence o f a die s tudy only the absolute minimum number o f coins has b een e stablished f or each moneyerf or-type occurrence. The data therefore i s u nreliable and i ts implication that certain moneyers dominate output - quite u nproven. F ragmented t enures a re a lso apparently a s trong f eature o f the Worcester mint a nd all moneyers a ctive i n the f irst half o f the reign experi ence this. I n the s econd half of the reign Wicing and Garulf c oin i n each type and T Egelwine, Leofstan and Leofric c ontinue to be represented spasmodically:

3 53

I l e L i

0

0

L E 0 F s T A N

L E O P R

/ E G L I D N E

X

t

0
. _ H V

i B N I ) < L V I l i ! n o . U .

o Z

u . _ ) 4N -1 r • J

2

[ 1 9

( % 2z

S P 7 9 4 2 1 M L

P I T 9 7 5

1 0

1 0 9

C r,

B M 1 3 2 3

F . B u s t

4 9

00

c , 4

— c z u a _

r e , r - 0 r n ‘ -7

oL r )

1• W C 7 2

1 %

_ _ r c )

ö 0 I -

B M I 3 2

S 5 7 2 1 — E 4 9 6

L C 3 8 2 o . B c t K B 6 3 , 1 6 4 . S P 7 8 2 _ 7 6 , 9 2 7 4 1

H . C r o s

1 0 %

— . + — . z i l _ 5 c 0 c r t t . J

( -

H A P 2 0 2 e B M 1 3 2 0 , A 1 0 4 F E -s 9 7 4 . G S 8 4 1 ' 4 1 5 3 P 9 2 3 5 9 0

L r, r - 7

-

( 2 1 0

• L O

r -

r n

0 o t _ t - . c )

I

r 2 t 0 t < , . P. r -

2 E x p . C r o s P . H e l m e t S . M a r t l e t s

Q

e

o r ' n o Z r Z •c i o ,f •t j -0

. z t •

_

Z

Z•. 1

C A

s• • c o— r c r '

_ . .

• t e d- ' ' ) r e , , — r n

( 0 E ( r )

e L n

o 3

— a

e •

A . c r , ‚ 4

2' h ° 3 7 ` , , c )

e 0 _

, . , .

, I N . C 2\ o o i x ,

_ 1

a-) • o o

3

4 -z 0

N

/ r - e k r N i

r , 0 C T . 0

: I

U

, D

. 0' • a, G "

R a d i a t e T r e f o i l

r n Z Z . r . : 71c D 4 •2 Z Z c I 3 Z

X ( _ ) < C L

D L I l i

'r n G O c , ( N t , D ' < ' t < U a . Ji

Z

c 2

u ) e l 0

; L I J

C A

1

e l _ I

U Z , . u . J

L i .

i _ u 2

c z


L eofstan and l Egelwine a re paradoxically the t wo moneyers who might be revealed a s pre-eminent. A lthough the f ragmented t enures may reflect poor distribution of Worcester coins i n hoard material i t i s a f eature which, while not unique, i s present much more strongly a t Worc ester than a t any o ther major mint, though i t i s a lso present, very s trongly i n the f irst half o f the r eign but t o a l esser extent i n the s econd half, a t Gloucester, H ereford and Shrewsbury.

Small

I ndividual coins merit s ome n otice: F lan the re-attribution o f BM

1 314

o f

+GODPINE

0 though mooted, s eems undesirable i n view of what s eems a clear mint signature[188]. O ther c oins o f the moneyer i n the type e xhibit i dentical readings to BM 1 314, and i t seems very probable that all were s truck f rom a s ingle reverse d ie. A cut halfpenny A 8 18 ex LAL 2 69 o f ...FRIC ON P IHER bonstitutes the o nly recorded specimen of Leofric i n this type. The mint s ignature i s impeccable and the " F" o f the prototheme, surviving a t l east i n part, (u ) requires an a ttribution to " Leofric". Expanding Cross ( 1) the full " / Egelwine" f orm o ccurs only on a coin o f unrecorded weight ( HM 2 -142a). SP 7 8-8307 of ..ELPI ON PIHERECE provides a shortened rendering o f the name-form a nd may b e the same c oin a s P CB 1 130 o f W ELPI ON PIHERECE. " Encwne" i s recorded f rom CM 1 186 of + ENE I' NE ( ) MP H-El: a name-form which b ears no relationship to contemporary coins of e ither the Worcester or Winchester mints; the nature o f the " H" i n the mint signature i s unclear. The coin i s not w ell executed but for the moment must b e regarded a s i ndicative o f the work of an o therwise u nknown moneyer. Leofstan i s known with c ertainty i n the l ight emission only f rom the Expanding Cross penny GS 8 2/4-76 catalogued by G lendining a s a penny of " Leofstan" of " Winchester". As such i t would have been uniC lue a nd would have extended Leofstan's career a t Winchester by a decade. E xamination o f this coin suggests a reverse r eading o f I T I MISI MO MPH-n 2e1 The " N" o f " Leofstan" and the " N" of " ON" a re cut q uite unambiguously a s " N" while the " H" of the mint-signature i s equally clearly cut with a horizontal c ross-bar. Considerable wear has occurred b etween the " H" of the mint signature and the i nitial " L" o f the moneyer's name a nd i t i s impossible to d etermine with certainty what was engraved there b eyond the observation that there appear to b e a g roup o f markings which c ould c ons titute either pellets, a f ree-standing l etter s uch a s " R", or a l etter l igatured with the " H"; there i s a possibility that all or part o f this group i s s uperimposed upon a transverse bar o f the initial c ross. " Leofstan" occurs a t Worcester a s a name-form i n E dward the Confessor's reign i n most t ypes a nd t he coin i n question would f it neatly i nto t his pattern. N o obverse die l ink between GS 8 2/4-76 a nd o ther Worcester m int pennies of the same type has y et been d etected but f rom

3 56

o t her criteria i t must seem highly probable that this coin d erives f rom Worcester rather than Winchester. I t p rovides a u seful reminder o f the c onfusion which can o ccasionally occur between Worcester and Winchester mint-signatures. The moneyer may also b e represented i n t he l ight emission by a coin of + LL... AN ON PIHERE i n a private c ollection, but i ts weight has y et to b e a scertained. Pointed minting

Helmet " Eilric" i s recorded f rom F EJ 9 72. This may well have been undertaken by the moneyer

" Elric" whose presence a t Gloucester and H ereford, and possible transportation of a BMC viib die f rom Gloucester to H ereford i s noted below ( p. 3 74 ) . I t i s a BMC viib obverse die - a lbeit a different one - which " Eilric" employs a t Worcester, and the multiplicity o f c oincidences, of prosopography, o f place a nd time ( and i n the latter context expecially of type viib dies), suggest a possible c ommon i dentity of person. ( Table 9 4). M int

signatures

are

g enerally

unambiguous

except

for p roblems with PIN and PIH forms. D oubts about mint signatures have b een resolved i n Worcester's favour i n the case o f L eofstan and Godwine, and i n D roitwich's favour i n the case o f coins o f Godric a nd Hethewulf formerly a ttributed to Winchester and Worcester; moneyer name-forms also a ppear very regular for the most part. However, what had i nitially s eemed to be representative of " Elfwine" i s o n i nspection never closer than " Elwine" except in the c ase o f a Facing Bust coin, and a s Table 9 5 s uggests, " Egelwine" i s the commoner name-form. A scrutiny o f the r eigns of Cnut, Harold I and Harthacnut ( limited t o C 3,C4, BEH, BMC and S CBI-28) suggests that during that period full " Elfwine" forms are confined to C nut's Pointed Helmet type ( e.g.BM 5 57), whereas " Egelwine" f orms ( and ambiguous E ILPII f orms) are found throughout. While such ambivalent forms could, perhaps, be a scribed to " Elfwine" even i f " Egelwine" were a preferable expansion philologically, substantive " Elfwine" forms occur only i n emissions s ome thirty-five years apart. " Elwine" forms, such a s that i n the PACX type, have b een therefore normalised to " Egelwine", and " Elfwine" has been d epicted a s a single-type moneyer i n the F acing Bust type. The two o ther ambiguous nameforms. EILRIC a nd ENCPNE, are the subject of c omments i n t he moneyer/type survey above. North's " Wulfwine" of E dward the C onfessor and Harold I I i s presumably derived f rom the pv i ,Fpi o f H 7 57 i n the Small F lan type and t he PVLPNE o f C 4-1300 i n the PAX type. There can be n o certainty that these two coins are the work o f one a nd the same man and i n the present survey have been t reated a s s eparate moneyers with s eparate names[189].

be no of

N o base f or calculation of moneyer c omplement can c reated with absolute precision because there i s t ype i n which there i s complete continuity i n terms m oneyer complement between one type a nd either i ts

3 57

predecessor

or

successor

and

o nly

i n

the

H ammer

C ross

type are all the " likely" moneyers actually present. This f ragmentation, a s already o bserved, i s v ery pronounc ed, but an impressive overall s tability o f moneyer c omplement i n terms o f personnel i s detectable: the three e stablished moneyers i nherited by Edward the C onf essor a t Worcester a re all s till a t work i n the H ammer Cross type and those who j oin the e stablishment during Edward's reign all work through t o that o f William I and this s tability, compensating f or the f ragmentation o f t enure, and coupled with the Hammer Cross evidence, enables some f irm conclusions t o b e d rawn a bout moneyer c omplement. E stablishment c omplement up to a nd i ncluding the Hammer Cross type consists o f those three moneyers k nown i n the PACX type supplemented by the two additional moneyers who j oin i n the Small F lan and Expanding C ross types. The moneyer Garulf who j oins the mint i n the E xpa nding Cross type has been t reated äs a separate p erson f rom the moneyer of the same n ame prior t o Edward's a ccession. Thus for the first three types o f the reign Worcester i s a three-moneyer m int; i n the Small F lan type i t becomes a four-moneyer mint and has f ive e stabl ished moneyers from Expanding C ross to BMC xiv. I n that type, or i n the PAX type o f Harold I I, the e stabl ishment then contracts to f our, a t which i t i s maintained f or much of William I 's reign. This contraction i s however accompanied by the activity o f t wo moneyers, Baldric and glfgeard, who function respectively i n the F acing Bust and " transitional" ( BMC xiv) types and then reappear i n BMC type IV o f William I , acting, i t would s eem, i n the capacity o f " associate" moneyers reappearing a s l ater replacements f or e stablished moneyers. Supplementation of e stablishment i s also apparent through the " single-type" moneyers G odwine, Wulfwi, ENCPNE and E ILRIC, active during the period o f expansion f rom three t o f ive moneyers, and the moneyer glfwine, c oining i n the Facing Bust type. Facing Bust i s also a time o f expansion, albeit on a modest s cale, modest i n the s ense that the e stablishment i s about to c ontract to f our while a " pool" o f moneyers apparently available to s ervice the mint i ncreases. The mint i s largely i ndependent o f i ts n eighbours i n t erms of personnel, though t he " single-type" moneyers Wulfwi and E ILRIC may be drawn f rom Gloucester. Leofstan, a n e stablished moneyer, may work briefly a t Gloucester i n the S overeign/Martlets type, a period of u nusual a cti vity a t that mint. I n terms o f moneyer movement G louc ester and Worcester appear t o be within the s ame " orbit", though i t has to be said that Worcester's Wulfwi c ould possibly derive f rom H ereford where a Wulfwine i s a ctive rather than f rom Gloucester, where " Wulfwig" o ccurs. Worcester may not b e i mmune to pressures a t work elsewhere. S ome similarity either o f organisation or of c oin survival s eems to prevail a t Worcester, Hereford

3 58

Worcester

Gloucester

PACX

gLLRIC 2

Trefoil

. . ELRICC 3

SF

gLRIC 4

Exp.C.

gIELRIC 5 gILRIC ELRIC

viib

Hereford

Shrewsbury

EIELRIC 9 1 0

gLRIC

6

7

EILRIC 1

PH gILRIC 8

vii SM

gGELRIC

HC

gLRIC 12

1 1

. .. RIC 16

gLRIE 13 FB

gGLRIC

Pyr

gGLRIC 24

1 7

gGELRIC 18 gLRIC 19 gGELRIC 20

I PAX gGELRIC

IA

1 4

gGELRIC 15

I I I

EGLRIC 22

IV

I EGELRIC 23

1 .

FEJ

BM

4 53.

9 72.

2 .

6 .

H

H 1 89,

1 91.

3 .

BG/ G

8 6.

BG/ G 7 .

7 7. PCB

4 .

C 4-875.

1 125,

BG/ G

5 . 8 3.

8 . BM 456. 9 . BM 4 53, ML. 1 0. C 4-895, H 2 34. 1 1. LAL 280, FEJ 3 54, LC 8 36, BM, ML, G 1 098. 1 2. A 9 48. 1 3. F 9 19, C 4-896, BM 5 51. 1 4. G 1 234. 1 5. PCB 6 76, BM 2 3. 1 6. M 4 30. 1 7. M 4 73. 1 8. SP 9 0-2870. 1 9. M 4 97, Q ex GS 7 6/14-162. 2 0. RSH 3 55, PCB 6 22. 2 2. PCB 6 84, AN 3 5, BM 1 37. 2 3. Sc ex GS 7 5/5-91. 2 4. 5P80-363.

TABLE

9 4

" glric" and

at

Gloucester,

Shrewsbury.

3 59

Worcester,

Hereford

PACX

gLPINE 1

Radiate

gGEL2INE 2 gLPINE 3

Trefoil-Q. Small

F . gLPINE 4

Exp. Cross Pointed

gIELPI

5

. .. ELPI

6

EIGLPINE 7

H .

S . Martlets

gGEPINE 8

Hammer

C .

gGELPINE 9

Facing

B .

gLFPINE 10

Trans. P.

IEGLPINE 11

1 .

BM.

6 . SP CM

SP 7 8-8307. 7 . HM2-142a. 82-3094. 9 . CM 1 272, BM 1 318.

TABLE

2 .

95.

H

7 52.

3 .

" glfwine"

BM,

and

H

7 53. 4 . BM. 5 . PCB 1 130. 8 . BM 1 317, 1318, FEJ 9 73, 1 319. 1 0. BM 1 322. 1 1.

" ggelwine"

at

Worcester.

and Gloucester and the " expansion" at the end of the reign coincides with the extension of minting privileges to the two other Worcestershire boroughs, P ershore a nd Droitwich. For a short period, possibly a s l ittle a s four years, ( Hammer Cross, Facing Bust, BMC xiv and PAX), both moneyers and minting outlets appear to have i ncreased i n number in and around Worcester, possibly to

the

detriment

of

Worcester

i tself.

P ershore The Pershore mint functioned only i n Edward the Confessor's reign and appears t o be known f rom a single coin of PVLFRIC ON PEREwE now in the British Museum ( ex LC 8 47 ex PCB 6 29). Both the type ( Hammer Cross) and the l ocation ( sone eight miles south-east of Worcester) may be significant. I t i s unusual for a n ew mint to be established a t this s tage in the reign y et i t i s in this same type that another mint i s opened, at the same distance but to the north-east at Droitwich. Unlike Petherton, P ershore does have been mint, for

o f Worcester, not appear to

a halting place for a moneyer vacating another i ts moneyer, Wulfric, cannot easily b e a ssociat-

ed with any adjacent mint, though a re-attribution to Gloucester o f

Colman, H 1 75

i n was

suggesting adding to

the canon of Gloucester moneyers a Wulfric who c ould perhaps have been recruited for service at P ershore[190]. The probable " independence" of P ershore a s a minting place should not necessarily cause surprise: both Hethewulf

and

Godric,

the

moneyers

3 60

responsible

• for

coining

E dward t he C onfessor pERsHoge

L a •

. M a r t l e t s

O D

a )

0 :

c n

0

F -

a ) 1 0

a _

• 0

• Q )

( I ) >1 a )

=

E

• H

0

G ) 0

P t _ K 5 H O R E

Cn

0

r —I

=

• H

0 c \ '

0

( 4 1 •

at Droitwich, appear to be independent mint - and certainly of Worcester. What

of a ny adjacent might be signif-

icant i s that Pershore, l ike D roitwich, i s a D omesday borough and that what had been restricted t o Worcester i tself was now extended, simultaneously o r i n turn, to the two other D omesday boroughs in the modern county of Worcester, thus destroying Worcester's apparent domination of the region. I n south-eastern Gloucestershire and eastern Worcestershire some s econdary minting activi ty, with moneyers outside the control of mints, was constantly being a ttempted at tiny mints progression and

marching from the

Droitwich.

as i ts failed

the county a chain of

in chronological and g eographical putative FRO to Berkeley, P ershore

P ershore's

eclipse

foundation. I t might be that the and was re-sited at Droitwich.

i s

a s

perplexing

P ershore plantation

Winchcombe Both

mint

and

moneyer

signature

have

been

the

subject

of discussion over a lengthy period of time[191]. I n Edward' s reign only one moneyer, G oldwine, can reasonably be associated with the mint. The recorded coins of Goldwine are listed below: Edward the Small Flan

Confessor

+GOLDEPINE ON pi chester), H 7 81b 1 953 lot 264).

H 7 81 ( originally a ttributed to Winand H . C. Dangar sale ( Glendinning 1 5.iv.

Expanding Cross ( h) +GOLDEPINE ON IN BG/ G + .. DEI. NE 0 ... BM Pointed A coin

Helmet of this

type

for North includes which the Winchcombe Sovereign/ Martlets

1 85

ex

may

the mint

have

3 806

b een

NP IINEELE

BM

type mint 1 520

to Winchelsea). +GOLDPINE 0 NPI NCELE BG/ G 1 86. reverse reading i s recorded i n the Facing Bust +GOLDPINE ON PINE Pyramids + . GOLDPIN PINCEL s Harold

6 00.

recorded

recently, a s

but has since i s known[193]. ( originally

one

i n

deleted

a ttributed

A further c oin of this R oth sale pt.ii. lot 9 9.

BG/G

1 87

ex

LC

8 62

ex

PCB

650.

I I

Winchester ON

PCB

F 955.

PAX +GOLDPINE ON pi BG/ G +GOLDPIN ON PINCECI or

ex

Pointed H elmet type was active[192].

North originally recorded this i t from the types for which the Hammer Cross +GOLDPINE 0

LC

and

PINCELE

William

now

1 88. BM

read

( cf. BG/ G

1 12 a s

( originally ON

1 88)).

I

BMC IV +GOLDPINE

ON

IN

BG/G

1 89.

3 62

PINCELI

attributed ( cf.BG/G

to

p .109)

BMC

V

+GOLDPINE

ON PINC

BM

+GOLDPINE

ON PICL

BG/ G

+GOLDPINE Wilton).

ON PIL A further

p .109 from BMC V II +GOLDPINE BMC V III

the

sale

BG/G

+GOLDPINE ON PINCL +GOLDPINE ON PINC BC 2 79, N 2 84.

1 90

ex

LC

2 867

ex

HM2-219,

BM

3 86 .

BM 3 84 ( originally a ttributed to specimen ON IN i s recorded i n BG/ G

Durrant

ON PINC

3 87.

BM

lot

1 77.

1 91.

1 065, BG/ G CM 1 460,

1 92, LC 9 91. BM 1 064, PCB

7 41,1275,

The mint signatures PINCELE of the Hammer Cross type and the PAX type of Harold I I, PINCEL of the Pyramids type, PINCL of William I 's PAXS type and PICL of William I BMC type V identify the existence of a mint which i s not, for example, Worcester or Winchester. The moneyer name-form a ssociated with these " substantive" forms during the period under review i s always GOLDPIN or GOLDPINE, and e stablishes the existence of the mint in a t least the types mentioned above. Other coins of a "Goldwine" exist, but bearing the ambiguous mint signatures pI, PIN or PINE etc. of e . g.the Small Flan type or the Expanding Cross type. Such coins would generally be associated with Winchester, though Winchelsea has also been an attribution ( of.e. g. BM 1 520). The ON pi' , of BM 3 84 of BMC type V of William I has l ed that coin to be a ttributed to Wilton. All " Goldwine" coins of these ambiguous mint signatures have been gathered t ogether under a Winchcombe attribution by a ssociation with fuller mint signatures or by die that published between BG/ G 1 88 ( ON pi) and of to

Harold I I. Winchcombe

Among there

William I which would establish

the are

l inks such a s BM 1 12(PINCELE)

"Goldwine" coins thus a ttributed none outside the PAXS type of

b ear unambiguous mint signatures v V inchester unequivocally a s their

enance, and "Goldwine" i s as a name-form encountered

which prov-

not therefore to be regarded i n this period at Winchester.

Coins of " Godwine" are however to be found a t Winchester in some profusion. A "Godwine" does coin at Worcester and Gloucester, i n times which would agree, chronologically, with the sequence of " Goldwine's" activity at Winchcombe. "Godwine" occurs a t Worcester i n the Small Flan type, the type during which Goldwine re-opens the Winchcombe mint, and at Gloucester in the Sovereign/ Martlets type, i s questioned. form over

the I n

type view

for which his work at Winchcombe of the care with which the name-

"Goldwine" i s cut upon a series a period of s ome forty years, the

of dies extending attractive picture

of a country moneyer a ssisting on occasion at county mints will have to be foregone. Winchcombe i s an entirely self-contained mint, apparently immune to pressures bearing links

upon

with

them

i ts i n

neighbours terms

of

and

personnel.

3 63

currently

having

no

E dward t he C onfessor w INcHcom u

•

I 4 0

I 4

0

l L )

L C\

r 1

•

0

U -

0

n

• N O N

rH

( c )

G Ö L D " b 1 , 1 £

L C ) 1 — i

•

‘ — I N

( 1)

.0 4— ( 1 )

F—

U ) 4 —

•

0 C l ) u i

W I N C I C O M B E

_ 1

C l )

c n

0

• H 1 ) 0 > i ( > 4 W 0 U r H 0

• H

E

0

0

4 4 4 0 = 0 0 \ 0 Z

0

Gloucester P " Likely"

moneyers. No.of coins(I)

a

T

S

E

P

S

H

F

P

6

6

7

7

8

8

7

7

2 .7 3

2 .8 9

3 .3 1 9

3 .3 1 0

4 .0 1 9

4 .1 1 9

4 .0 8

4 .3 3

3 6

4 1 3

3 2 2

2 1 2

1 2 0

0 1 9

0 8

0 3

no.

of moneyers. % o f a ll

No.of

R

coins(S) ( Total)

6

6

2 .6 2 .7 4 1 5 9

5 6

The mint signature i s u sually unambiguous and with f ew exceptions the same i s true o f the signatures

of t he moneyers. The c oin evidence per moneyer i s not numerous: i n the r ecorded sources no moneyer i s known for a ny one type f rom more than six coins. This might account for the f ragmented continuity patterns of so many moneyers: of the fifteen or more moneyers a t work at o ne time or a nother i n Edward the Confessor's reign only f ive are k nown f or more than three c onsecutive types a situation similar to that a t H ereford and Worcester. I ndeed, the total tally of moneyers i s unclear. Although fifteen moneyers can b e i dentified with c ertainty, the t otal number a t work i n Edward's reign cannot be s tated with any f inality b ecause o f uncertainty surrounding a possible further f our. The fifteen are Elric, Elfsig, Brihtnoth, G odric, Eawulf, Leofnoth, Leofstan, Leofwine, Ordric, S eolcwine, S ilac, Wulfgaet, Wulfwerd and Wulfwig; the possible additional moneyers are " Ellff", IREENOD, EDVPI and Wulfric. The similarities of paucity o f coin evidence, a nd o f moneyer name-form and t enure suggestive o f quite widespread simultaneous working o f moneyers a t the three mints, are sufficiently prominent to be disquieting because they hint a t relationships which can only b e d emonstrated by the most circumstantial o f evidence. F ragmentation of t enures, especially i n the first half o f the reign, i s a case in point. A heavy dependence upon l imited hoard material may have distorted survival patterns, but a s certain moneyers a re nevertheless well represented, and a s the pattern i s encountered a t n eighbouring mints, fragmented tenures may nevertheless demonstrate c ontinuity. Accordingly , f rom meagre and c onfusing c oin evidence, a remarkably coherent picture o f the G loucester mint can emerge, though to create i t particular mention i s r equired o f n umerous coins and of s ome moneyers. Coins of " Ellff" occur i n the PACX type a nd could be a ttributed t o Elfsige on what are perhaps the l ess than satisfactory g rounds that Elfsige i s the o nly moneyer whose name-form c ontains a full " Elf-" element a s prototheme. That n o " Elf-" element lurks among the coins of " Elric" emerges f rom Table 9 6 and no " Elf-" f orm appears to exist i n the period immediately prior to Edward's a ccession other than the " Elfsige" f orm. " Ellff" could exist in i ts own right[194] or represent a blundered

3 65

Edward

the

Confessor :GLOUCES TE R , •• •

( J )

( J ) GO

V I B R I H T N O D

0

•

a )

U . _ J

_ J

a

•

L E O F I D N I E

S . M a r t l e t s

•

•

. . t •i n C e

0 •

o z L . 5 . „ 4 0, e 3

o _ X

c Z ,• c r,

a. v iu

•

( . 5

C l )

0

a )

2

Q

o

Z O

J O -

U . 0

U .

i _ J

e

c z, a

t i .

u i

>

U -

< ( . ( J

> t s :\

S C A I 9 0 2

( . )

•

F — 4

a ) + -

c r

•

B R \

G L O U C E S T E R

( 7 ) L t .

1 4 N 0 f )

a-

3 66

1

E dward t he C onfessor

GLoUctsTER 0N o z 1,

iP y r a m i d s

- N `n r e ) r A - e'D4 Zc "ü c oXJ

FE7 3 1 9

E

i ic z o . r nc o( n u,

4 6 2

. , : c

h.

o

0

0

7 .

1 2 9

0 c o r - < 3c r l 4 -

C . 0

=

t i,

L o

n o

-

W p p

4Z • . . . .J(b

F € ) 3 1

=

: Z CD L i. ,L

c 0-'

0,

z

E x p . C r o s

•u ", O . c v

c o C o 4 e

( 1 3

a _

, . .

m r s

C4 8 7 5

4

1 6 0

c

— — a ] , . ,

' 4

' ; '

0 0

_ r -c r .t n r -4 uZ

i f )

" e r

t n ) _ i Z .

—

. S )

Z1 -

1

_ J D O

L A c ,ic i )

—

c h

4 3

r 4)

=

I

4 . ) I r o ( r 1 Cr

e l c 7 , _

c ° U )

BG / 7

T r e f o i l

1

1 C O ' i 0

8 4 5

Z0e

-2 5

, t . C r o —

7 5

t o

E( . 5

C f . ) 0 13

BG/ G9 1

• M ,3

z0 , 0 _ e

c o

G S 8 3 1 0

K

•. 9

2

L1 4 5 h

c e

[ e l L .

4' 5 9 I

c ,

4h

L i , _

2

i . 1. 4 s

Z L I J

O g2

Z

A m c

P . H e l m e t

0 tü

Z

u 7

, i -

Ü

t r ) c i . e e

c p4

c o

N O _ -

h m

C 1U .

7 c 0 k . 9

o p

Zt2)3 a _ r N c . i s r2 c . i 1 ,13 5 - 4 rn -

c n ( f D e

- —( . 5

e l

B G I C T

8 7

a 0 C Z )

( u Z E N O D )

7 Pc 4 3 1 ( 4 7

S . M a r t l e t s

t o4

G M

Z U 3 p o •c r \

9 7 B G / 9 . w B

2

0

L i 3 n 1 6

_ ,

, P c 8 6 1 5 . L c 3 8 1 0 G S 8 ( 3 ( 0 4 .

H . C r o s

N

1 4 8 B M 4 6 8 B G / G 1 0 7 FE 7 3 J ,Pc 6 1 5

J ' Pc o

(I S

, c . ° ,

c o

c o . 1 ) r-

B M

c o

1 3 %

e

— ü s .

4 6 9 1

. „ e„ 0 7L I,

0

O M B G I

Z

B M 4 6 BG / G 1 0 5

F . B u s t

I 0 0 _

4 -

c o 'c f ) ( 7 N t O

N1 E

z I ,

g ) . . 00

i

4

l C O 0 u

U

Li > Z 5 x o-, = 1

X 0

_ L i

1 (1 )

c 2 C 2

1 . 4 . 1

I ( ! ) L . L i L

3

0

U _ i

L i U Z — e 0

o

L b

2

. E. ) e ‘ n 0

L b

C D 0 2 u _ 0 U i

_ I

I ‹ L f L I . 0 u i —J

u . 1

u i 2

2

o

2 ,

-

0 ,

c z U i L I .

4 . 1 . 1 _ J

o 4 0

_ _ J

L b

367

v " )

j i

>

>

( . 5 , _ -, . >

u _ o c U _ J >

PACX

ELLRIC 1

TQ

. ...ELRIC 2

SF

ELRIC 3

ExC

E LRIC

PH

EILRIC 7

1 . 5 .

H 1 91. H 1 89.

TABLE

9 6

E ILRIC 5

E IELRIC

2 . BG/ G 7 7. 3 . C 4-875. 4 . P CB 6 . BM 4 53. 7 . BM 4 56, BG/ G 8 6. " Elricu a t Gloucester the Confessor.

i n

the

6

1 125,

reign

BG/G 8 3. of

Edward

rendering of the EPVLFF whose name-form occurs on the single specimen ( C4-633) a ttesting to his presence ( in the Arm and S ceptre type of Harthacnut). Smart normalises EPVLFF to " Ethelwulfu, a name-form ( and in f act thereby a moneyer) otherwise unrecorded a t Gloucester, but the authors of the City o f Gloucester Museum s ection o f the Bristol and Gloucester Museums fascicule of S CBI regard this coin o f EPVLFF a s a n example o f the work o f a moneyer " Eawulf", otherwise known i n the Small F lan and Expanding Cross types o f Edward the Confessor. Could E LLFF, on phonetic g rounds, be a r endering of " Eawulf"? N either the " Ea" n or " w" elements presenti n the " Eawulf" name-form c ommend this solution, and y et i n phonological terms E LLFF and EAPVLF could be s imilar. Smart, i n considering the Small Flan a nd Expandi ng Cross coins o f the " Eawulf" series represented i n the f irst twenty fascicules of S CBI, normalises EAPVLF e tc. to " Eadwulf" but despite her recorded reading of BG/G 7 9 a s EADPLF the full f l Ead-u form does not o ccur a t Gloucester: BG/ G 7 9, transcribed i n the SCBI fascicule a s " Eadwulf", appears to read Z 9 MP WL 1Pand i s therefore susceptible to transcription a s EAPVLF. For the moment the correct a ttribution of the " Ellffu coins will have to remain unresolved[195]. Uncertainties s urround the presence of Leofnoth i n the S overeign/Martlets and Hammer C ross types. No unambiguous " Leofnoth" reading exists f or the S overeign/Martlets type a nd the moneyer's presence i n the type i s derived solely f rom the coin PCB 1 147 o f + DREENOD ON GDEP ( ex City a nd Evans). The coin has been t entatively i ncluded i n the " Leofnoth" series, but only because no o ther moneyer's name terminates i n the same element. Leofnoth's presence i n the Sovereign/ Martlets type cannot be gauged by r eference to a n emission i n the following Hammer Cross type, despite h is inclusion by Blunt and D olley a s a moneyer a t G loucester i n the Hammer Cross type, because once again the evidence, though more satisfactory, s till l eaves some room f or d oubt. Two coins were recorded i n the City hoard and a t l east one o f them might b e represented i n the surviving c oin evidence, which also consists of two c oins, M 4 38 a nd a specimen i n the London Museum. M 4 38 was transcribed a s " Liofnoth" ON D LEP... a nd attributed to Chester o r Gloucester. There i s certainly a " Leofnoth" at Chester

3 68

• i n this type a s, f or example A 9 40 + LIOFENOD ON LEGECC testifies; the presence of " D" i n the mint signature, and the h int from the plate accompanying S CBI-M 4 38 that the mint s ignature DLEP.... c ould be expanded to read D LEPE o r D LEPC.. s uggests a Gloucester a ttribution i s preferable to a Chester a ttribution. The coin i n the London Museum may w ell turn out to be a die-duplicate. I t could b e read a s + LIOFNOP ON D LEP...EE': a s far a s the mint signature i s concerned the " L" could have a top bar, rendering i t a s " C", and the bottom bars of the two final l etter E 's are obscured and may again have b een s truck a s CC; the top l oop o f " P" i s also a little doubtful. Part of the flan i s worn and s pace exists for perhaps one l etter between P and E . Lewes might b e considered as an alternative mint but the presence t here of a moneyer of this name i s derived f rom a single c oin a t Brighton f rom the Small F lan type. The evidence for Leofnoth i n the Sovereign/Martlets and H ammer Cross types i s, therefore, i nadequate, but perhaps of sufficient value to l ink the coins with Glouc ester and to extend the moneyer's t enure by two types. Leofnoth's presence i n the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type also p resents problems i n that i t appears to be d erived from a single s pecimen, H 5 8 + LEOFNOD ON C IC, which » Ms. Colman has re-read a s ...ON GLE[196]. The Small Flan c oin ( PCB 1 111) + CINENgR ON G L, normalised to " Cinemaer", would be the only example of such a moneyer's work a t Gloucester, but more probably belongs to the series BMC 7 94 and BMC 7 95, the reverses o f both of which read + CINE W ER ON LV and a re a ttributed by G rueber to London. PCB 1 111 should a ccordingly be re-attributed to London - unless the London coins should b e re-attributed t o G loucester. Mrs. Veronica Smart devotes c onsiderable attention t o the moneyers S eolcwine and S ilac and although the two f orms run virtually c oncurrently, she i s quite satisfied that the work of two s eparate moneyers can be d etected[197]. Both f orms are found exclusively at G loucester. The two Hammer Cross pennies BMC 4 66 +GVOLCPINE ON GLEPC: and BG/G 1 05 +GVOL...INE ON G LEPC: may b e i rregular f orms of " Seolcwine"; although no undisputed forms of S eolcwine are known i n this type h e i s otherwise a n established Gloucester moneyer. A further coin presenting d ifficulties i s the S overeign/Martlets penny H 1 75 of Wulfric which M s.Fran Colman has suggested be r e-attributed f rom Chichester to Gloucester but this must r emain tentative i n view o f the suggestion by Mrs. Smart that the mint signature terminates i n the form CES[198]. A final coin f or consideration i s the coin, or c oins, o f + gDVII ON G LEPEIC ( Montagu I l ot 8 49 ex D urlaacher) and + 4D V191 ON w cvEl )cn -: ( BG/G 9 7). I f this reading or readings i s meant to pass f or an o fficial moneyer's name, i t would perhaps be that o f g lric or glfsig. glfsig i s known i n this type and glric t erminated work i n the preceding type, but there i s no n ecessity that a coin bearing a blundered resemblance t o their names means that o ne of them was responsible. However,

3 69

f or reasons discussed elsewhere, i t can b e suggested that the coin or coins was not s truck by a n ew moneyer, but by an existing Gloucester m oneyer ( see b elow, p .373). The

i nterpretation

o f

the

material

may

suffer

f rom

i ts paucity and f rom questions posed by u nsatisfactory evidence f or some moneyers i n c ertain types o r by i nterruptions i n s ervice. No c oins, f or example, of Eawulf a re k nown between the Arm and S ceptre type i n the n ame o f Harthacnut and the Small F lan type of E dward unless the c oins o f " / Ellff" are the products of t he workshops o f Eawulf. I ndeed, i n no type i s there complete continuity with the preceding type. N evertheless, with c are a very clear mint profile can b e constructed. During the f irst half o f Edward's r eign, f rom the PACX type to the l ight i ssue o f the E xpanding Cross type, the names o f six e stablished moneyers are known, and though i t i s only i n the Small Flan type that a ll six are recorded together ( along with Wulfwig, the s ole " single-type" moneyer recorded i n this period of the r eign) their g eneral pattern o f occurrence e nables Gloucester to b e characterised a s a six-moneyer mint d uring this period. A similar base, o f seven and subsequently e ight e stablished moneyers, can be c onstructed for the P ointed H elmet, Sovereign/Martlets and Hammer Cross types, on the a ssumptions that i n the Hammer Cross type Brihtnoth i s Leofnoth's successor and not his c ontemporary, that GVOLCPINE i s a representation o f " Seolcwine", and that the a pparent absence o f / E lfsig a nd Wulfgaet i n the F acing Bust type i s a reflection o f p oor coin survival rather than t emporary retirement or a prelude to t he very l ow l evel o f output i n the Pyramids type. I t remains to be e stablished, therefore, a t what point a six-moneyer mint b ecame a seven-moneyer mint, and to d ecide what, i f a nything, i s presaged by the mint's dramatic decline i n the Pyramids type. The t ransition f rom s ix to s even moneyers takes place a t some stage i n the h eavy emission o f the Expanding Cross type, o r i n the Pointed Helmet or S overeign/Martlets types. The exact point i s difficult to determine because during this period moneyers c ease work i n types i n which o thers commence a nd may work s equentially or simultaneously. A " minimum" a nd " maximum" i nterpretation are o ffered on this basis i n Table 9 7, by which the i ncrease i n moneyer c omplement c an be shown to occur i n any one o f the three types. The Sovereign/ Martlets type might be preferred a s the point of expansi on, not f or any reason i ndicated by the a ctivity o f the e stablished moneyers, but b ecause i t i s in t hat type that a t l east three, and possibly a s many a s s ix " single-type" moneyers are drawn i nto the s ervice o f the mint. Such i ntensity o f a ctivity would s eem l ikely t o coincide with an i ncreased c omplement of e stablished moneyers. The mint's i nactivity i n the Pyramids type, thöugh purely temporary, may r eflect a contraction o f moneyer complement to six moneyers, d eclining further to f ive i n BMC types I and I I o f William I , a nd perhaps

3 70

Exp.Cross

/ E LR C

P ointed

H .

S . Martlets 1 >v is 3 /E T

G OD R I C

EOLC

L E OF m op

LEOF N o p

Ame lG

A ISS IG

pvLrpaRD

1 7 vLF>ERD

E

L EOF

VL F

( NE

5I LAc O WR I C

" Minimum" or " sequential" i nterpretation, i n which E awulf i s succeeded by Leofwine and Wulfgaet i s s uccessor t o glric or Godric, and the i ncrease i n complement occurs i n the S overeign/Martlets type. Exp.Cross

P ointed

H .

S . Martlets

A LR IC

5 I L AC

G oDg tc

S EO 4 D INE

L E O FNO I D

L E OF NO D

/ E tss IG h vL 9 D E RD

I D V I . F 1 )ERD L E . 0 1 1 ,I NE

E Apv Ls

1 2 % / L IG ,ET I ncrease type.

i n

c omplement

Exp.Cross

occurs

P ointed

i n

H .

the

O RD R IC P ointed H elmet

S . Martlets S IL AC

O DR ic

SEOlc \ J INE

L E o rNo iD

L O FNOD

/ t L FS IC i

US IG

pv is l 2Egc .

¢ t i ts ( DER D

E ApvLF

e A r G& r L EOF P N E ORD R IC

" Maximum" or " simultaneous" i nterpretation i n which L eofwine and E awulf work side-by-side i n Expanding C ross and Wulf g aet i s a colleague to glric a nd Godric i n Pointed H elmet, the i ncrease i n complement occurr ing i n the Expanding Cross ( heavy) type. TABLE

97

Mint

c omplement

i ncrease

a t

Gloucester.

four thereafter. Consistency demands that i f Eawulf, probably unknown i n Edward's reign until the Small F lan type, be i ncluded a s a moneyer l ikely to have been a ctive i n PACX, R adiate and Trefoil types, then Ordric, known i n t he S overeign/Martlets and Hammer Cross types and again in the PAX type o f Harold I I and BMC I and I I of William I ought also to be i ncluded i n the canon of moneyers for t he i ntervening Facing Bust and Pyramids types. T o do s o, however, would not be to disguise a " contraction occurring i n the later s tages o f the F acing Bust type o r i n the Pyramids type.

3 71

The mint's activity i s t he responsibility o f a relatively small number o f moneyers enjoying l engthy t enures and whose careers a re d evoted exclusively to the mint, supplemented by two e stablished moneyers whose s tatus i s ambiguous, and by a s pate of " single-type" moneyers. The s tatus o f Elric a nd Leofnoth i s ambiguous because the name-forms occur i n a pattern which suggests the possibility o f a division of a ctivity between several mints. An " Elric" i s to be f ound a t Gloucester, Hereford, Worcester and Shrewsbury i n a pattern which suggests s imultaneous working a t Gloucester and H ereford a nd a " Leofnoth" i s also found a t G loucester a nd Hereford i n a similar pattern. There would, presumably, be l ittle purpose i n continual exchange o f moneyers, b ecause each mint would, i n effect, obtain t he s ervices o f one f ull moneyer. What might have happened, however, i s that a t a ny one time only one o f t he two moneyers divides his t ime between the two mints. Thus i n the PACX type a Leofnoth i s found a t both Gloucester and Hereford; i n the T refoil a nd Small F lan types i t i s Elric's turn, i n Expanding Cross, Pointed Helmet and S overeign/Martlets i t i s Leofnoth who i s active at b oth mints. One effect o f this, i f i t takes place a t a ll, i s to r educe the effective complement of moneyers a t the two mints by one half o f one " unit". G loucester emerges a s a mint g radually i ntensifying i ts a ctivities until a peak i s r eached i n the S overeign/ Martlets type, in which the e stablished moneyers a re a ssisted by a number of " single-type" moneyers. Two o f them are well a ttested and with unequivocal Gloucester mint s ignatures: G LEPECST f rom Godwine and G LEP f rom Leofstan. There i s scant evidence f or the activity o f " single-type" moneyers and each appears to have employed no more than a single s et o f dies. This i s t rue even o f G odwine, of whom three coins are recorded. Such l imited output suggests a sharp and short-lived peak o f activity, a demand which was either over and above the normal demand a t the mint o r a d emand which was no greater than normal but which was b eyond the capacity o f the e stablished moneyers t o satisfy. I f replacements f or Elric and Godric, who ceased work i n the preceding Pointed Helmet type, were not i mmediately available, i f Leofwine were s low to resume activity a fter his apparent absence i n the Pointed H elmet type, and i f Leofnoth were absent a t H ereford o r had t emporarily c eased to be a Gloucester moneyer ( the S overeign/Martlets penny o f P CB 1 147 +CREENOD ON UTEP n ot b eing a c oin o f Leofnoth), the Gloucester mint at the c ommencement o f the S overeign/ Martlets type would have h ad at most only f our moneyers available t o s trike instead of the u sual s ix or s even. Two solutions might have b een adopted t o meet this problem: the drafting-in of additional moneyers f or a brief period and t he operation by existing moneyers of more than one pair o f dies simultaneously. G odwine may well have been drawn f rom the B ristol mint,

3 72

where a moneyer o f that name coins i n each type f rom Expanding Cross t o Facing Bust with the exception of the S overeign/Martlets type; no " Godwine" form l ies hidden i n the " Goldwine" series a t neighbouring Winchcombe and the name-form d oes not occur a t H ereford or Worcester with the transient e xception o f a " Godwine" a t Worcester i n the Small F lan type. Leofstan may be drawn f rom Worcester, the nearest mint a t which the name-form occurs , and where a moneyer of this name coins regularly until the Hammer Cross type. I n part a t l east, therefore, Gloucester s eems t o have solved i ts problem by d rawing upon n eighbouring mints for a ssistance. A capacity to originate i ts own moneyers might account f or the presence of a third " single-type" moneyer, Wulfric ( if the c oin H 1 75 has b een correctly re-attributed); a balance appears t o be s truck between the mint's own resources and those of i ts n eighbours. O ther, l ess regular, expedients may have been adopted to ensure that d emand for c oin could be met. The c oins P CB 1 147 of + 1 1REENOD ON GrEP and BG/G 9 7 of + / EDVPI ON G LEPCIE: may r epresent d eliberately blundered representations o f " Leofnoth" and " / Elfsig" or " / Elric" or even " Eawulf" respectively, from dies cut l ocally to meet an urgent n eed a nd controlled by existing moneyers. The mint signatures possess sufficient verisimilitude to pass f or " Gloucester" and the moneyer signatures would a ppear blundered only to the l iterate. I f the moneyer signatures are i ntended to r esemble moneyers a t the Gloucester mint, the two names chosen may be those o f moneyers represented i n the preceding type but known not t o be currently active ( e.g. Leofnoth and /Uric), while a t the same time the meaningless obverse l egend of BG/G 9 7 and the " blunderings" o f the reverse c ould enable the coins t o b e disowned i f n ecessary. Further evidence of c risis i n this type c omes from the i rregularities surrounding a coin of Leofwine i n the B ritish Museum trays ( uncatalogued) overstruck on the P ointed H elmet type[199]. The c oncentration of expedients - the u se of an o bsolete die, the possible employment o f deliberately blundered dies and the employment o f " single-type" moneyers, some n ew to the s ervice and o thers " borrowed" from n eighbouring mints all suggest a rupture i n the mint s tructure which the mint profile table f or Gloucester neatly obscures - a s was perhaps the i ntention nine hundred years ago. The episode i llustrates that a need for c oin existed which had to be met, i t reflects the speed a nd flexibility o f the response, and i t f ocuses attention upon the " single-type" moneyer. G loucester's l inks with neighbouring mints are largely confined t o those already proposed. One might speculate that on their retirement i n the P ointed H elmet type G odric and / E lric move to D roitwich and Worcester or . Hereford respectively and that Wulfric moves t o P ershore a fter his the main l ink, i n

b rief s o far

appearance a s i t can b e

3 73

a t G loucester, but e stablished, a ppears

• t o have been with Hereford. S ome substance t o the possibi lity o f movement o f a moneyer b etween G loucester and H ereford might be provided by t he employment a t Hereford i n the P ointed Helmet type o f an obverse die o f the rare type BMC viib u sed a t Gloucester by Elfsig to coin B C 2 06, C 4-874 and FEJ 3 16 ( see FEJ catalogue p .31). A t H ereford the die i s u sed by the newcomer Ethestan t o coin BM ex LC 8 31 ex PCB 1 142. Who b etter t o transport the die perhaps than Leofnoth? I t i s observed elsewhere that the Wulfwig i n the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type might b e a ssociated with the Hereford and Worcester mints ( see b elow, this page). H ereford P " Likely" no. o f moneyers % o f all moneyers N o.of coins ( I) N o.of coins ( S) ( Total)

R

T

S

E

P

S

H

F

P

5

5

5

5

5

7

7

7

6

6

2 .2 1 5 6

2 .3 1 5 6

2 .3 5 5 1 0

2 .4 4 2 6

2 .3 4 0 4

3 .3 6 0 6

3 .5 8 1 9

3 .6 1 3 2 1 5

3 .4 3 0 3

3 .7 2 0 2

The rendering o f the moneyers' names i s o ften obscure a nd even when once determined a n unclear pattern of work emerges. The Radiate/Small Cross penny of PVISIG ( C4-899) and the Trefoil-Quadrilateral penny PVLFSTE ( C4-900) could be brought together tentatively u nder the name of " Wulfsig", a moneyer known a t the mint prior t o Edward the Confessor's a ccession but u nknown by a c onventional name-form i n Edward's reign i tself; the PVLFSTE and PVISIG f orms a re not found o n any o ther recorded coin. Mrs.Smart prefers " Wulfstan" t o " Wulfsige" a s a normalisation o f PVLFSTE, although t o do s o i s t o introduce to the mint on the evidence of a n ambiguous name-form a moneyer otherwise unknown at H ereford or a t any adjacent mint[200]. Some confusion o ccurs with PVLFPI and PVLFWINE f orms, but the s eries i s confined to the early years o f Edward's r eign and i n the absence o f " PVLFPIG" f orms the PVLFPI f orm ( occurring i n BM, S HM-C and GR 1 194 i n the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type) c ould b e i dentified with the PVLFPINE forms occurring i n the PACX, Radiate/Small Cross and Pointed H elmet types. However, i n the Small Flan type coins o f "Wulfwig" occur a t Gloucester and a coin o f " Wulfwi" occurs a t Worcester: G loucester +PVLPIG ON G LE BM 4 52 +PVLPIG ON G LE BG/G 8 1 ex F EJ 3 12 Worcester + PVLFPI 0 PIHER H 7 57 a nd i t must b e conceded that a c ommon i dentity i s possi ble. Coins o f E ISTAN ( SB 6 69-H4278), " Etsan" ( an unveri fied f orm recorded on the coin G S 7 4/3-159) a nd EDESTAN ( BM ex LC 8 31 ex P CB 1 142) have b een a rranged elsewhere under the overall h eading o f " Ethestanu ( for Winchester s ee p . 1 38 and for Bristol s ee p . 139 ) . Confusion a lso

3 74

arises from the forms EDPICG, EADRIC and EADPI. The precise sequence i s given i n Table 9 8. " Edwig" and " Eadric" are independent philologically while " Eadwi" might b e a c ontraction o f " Edwig" or possess an existence i n i ts own right. Accordingly there could be a t work at H ereford an " Eadric" i n the period S overeign/Martl ets - PAX, with the EDPICG and EADPI series representing the a ctivity of a f urther one o r two moneyers, an " Edwig" i n the Expanding C ross type and an " Eadwi" broadly paralleling Eadric's period of o ffice, or a single " Eadwig" functioning f rom the Expanding Cross type onwards. A further complication might a rise through the presence of a n " Edwine" i n William I 's reign; recorded by N orth, i t may be d erived f rom a c oin or coins o f BMC type I I recorded by Brooke. Brooke's s ource was the W .Sharp Ogden Collection, a coin from which was o ffered i n the H . A. Parsons Sale of 1 929 ( lot 2 24) and which read + EDPI ON H EREFORI. This specimen constitutes the only coin which can b e l inked with an " Edwine" name-form and c onsequently " Edwine" can be discounted a s a H ereford moneyer in Edward's reign. Although i n philological t erms " Eadwi" may h ave t o be equated with " Eadwig" the pattern o f minting a t Hereford and the chronological distinction between the two f orms. amounting to some s even or eight. years, could suggest the presence o f two moneyers[201]. The H ammer Cross penny BM 5 48 i ncluded i n Table 9 8 under the h eading of " coins i n the name of ' Eadwi'" r equires further comment. O stensibly a coin of Earnwi - i t i s described a s such i n the British Museum Catalogue the BMC reading +E A 9p i : O N HE RE F OdE suggests that this coin could be i ncluded among those s truck by Eadwi. One coin which appears to defy a ttribution i s the Radiate/ Small Cross cut half-penny H 2 36 which apparently reads +G ERE : . The " G" may have b een mis-struck f or " E" or even misread f or " E" and an upright o f a l etter such as " N" i s visible where the mint signature resumes. The o nly moneyer with a personal name commencing with " E" likely to have s truck i n this type i s Earnwig, a lthough no R adiate coins a re known o f this moneyer. No moneyer with a name commencing with " E" or " G" or a similarly former letter other than Earnwig i s a t work i n the type preceding o r succeeding the Radiate type and so H 2 36 would have been s truck by Earnwig, or by a hitherto unknown " single-type" moneyer, or was not s truck a t Hereford. Mints l ikely to i nclude the f orm " ....ERE" i n the mint signature i nclude Leicester, where a G odric works in the T refoil-Quadrilateral, and Dover, where Cinstan and Eadwine work i n the Radiate/Small Cross type. F inally: n o " Elf-"forms l ie concealed i n the " El-" and " Egel-""-ric" name f orm a t Hereford ( Table 9 9). R esolution o f these problems a ssociated with moneyer name-form c reates a pattern o f t enure which i s f ragmented, difficult t o i nterpret and sustained i n s ome cases by questionable coin evidence. N one o f the nine moneyers at work i n the f irst half o f the reign i s known with

3 75

_

»

B M 5 4 3

I

i m u m o m i m a m i l i t ,

1 1

D v L F

• •

3

M L

PI

R J E D L 3 L F

)

i.. . . . . m i

• • • •

1

t

m

7

—F A N a m m i l o m i l m i

Ue

. K .

2 _ C

L . L .

_ _ c u . E ( i )

0 C Y 0 u _

L . 0 C Y L . L 1

U d .

L . , J

3 76

_

C O 0 , V I

a \0\

U .

I -—

t . „ , *

C D

E

U l U l

C I _ X L . L . J

e m i c N a

U-)

e L ,

9

0 •i

2 < I o

U -

G S 7 4 ' 3 I 5 S B6 9 I 1 4 2 . 7 8

c 00

2 6

I G

B M G 1 0 9 ? L A L 2 9 0 . \ c B 3 6 F E : I 3 5 4 , M 4 2 5

/ E D S

r E L F b I G

/ E G W R 1 C

E D I G

E A D R I C

L E O P N O D

E A R N I t D I G

s ,

P C B 1 4 2 4 L E 8 3 1

l iii s m m o m e m p

C , ) 4 ( Z ) . u P O C r

C R D R I C

p v L s I G

L E O g N O D

P . H e l m e t S . M a r t l e t H . C r o s F . B u s t P y r a m i d s

o N , c z

L i . m i —

2 6

—

F E 7 3 5 3

•

C D, i 0

4

,

X C D < C L

E A R w I D &

T r e f o i l

.

ERE FOR D

0 . c t

e I

a 3

w J

u I

, . i G c \

0 . I ,

t r .

I . c n

l . 9

C o -

R C O . , )

o n u

, c o c o — N c r )

_ 1 — I

I Z

0 c r

C i

,

E dward t he C onfessor

w E urozo

P y r a m i d s

o

Z r n

F . B u s t

‘ i. £ — . ,

O \ • ,: t

‘ . , . 1 L a .u .

— L n U U o _ . 1

6 8

r. 4 5 z

. 0 r i l t . r . —

6 7

r e

BM S 5 2 .

p c g

C Z t r )

BNJ X V I

F E) 3 5 5 2

t i )

4 / 1 . D

i 5 6 .

H . C r o s

0 2

W C 3 I 4 .

Z 00 " z 1

BM 5 4 2

.

_ c r, 4

I

S . M a r t l e t s

N

R M 5 4 6 2 3 9

I s

. i z

4 .

, 0 .

. ,9

e •

P . H e l m e t

_ _ 49 / 1

0 _

L i '

1

2

c

F E 1

L C 8 1 4

A £ 3 2 1 P C B 5 9 7

6 5

L

/3 5 2

n .

L b

I n L A

E x p . C r o s

o o . ;

V o ¢

.

I

s .

C 4 9 0

C 4 9 0

2 4 0 . 1 3 m

— 1 o c s L 7 c f )

-7 2 _

C T ' C O

U P 6 3 9

4 ' l . )

—

— -

( D _

Q

l u

7 c o

ea

ö 1 . 1

U0

w . . . )

1 . 1 . u z D eg

0

Z i c 4 I

_

D

2

L 1 (

U i

0 ) —N I

1 -

1 1 2 3 7 , 2 3 . 0 4 2 9 7

2 u i

c . 1

C 4 2 9 8 . H A 5 9 7

R a d i a t e M O M O M M I O R M W M W

X t r ) h ¢ z' -) 1 0 i n

X Ci < CL

_ 0

I

4

c • . ) , 9

N I

§ 3 Z

9 3

8 3 2 3 5 . O c

T r e f o i l

4 3

. O1 4 / — c,1 r i _ .e 1 > C O

Z P a

—

5 3 6

1 c o

— —

E ( r )

N 4

P C B I 2 ) L C

_ e

A —, u , u _

S E 7 1 8 — E 3 2 7 , A t • e 1 C 5 8 3 !

4

8 4

LL

NM W

Z-

D u

3

t . r •

1 -- 1 2
( 2

( 1 ) , , r u u ,

l

»

,

a

c . 7

,

_ 4

, .4 _ ,

4 rz,.

— P u _ . . J >

u i 2 e. --1 >

. ,

Type

Coins i n name of " Edwig"

Ex.C.(1)

EDPICG 1

the

Coins i n name o f " Eadric"

the

Coins i n name of " Eadwi"

the

Ex.C.( h) PH SM

EDRIC 2

HC

EADRIC 3

EADPI

6

FB Pyr.

EADRIC 4

PAX

EDRIC 5

" Eadwi"

7

EDPI 8

I I

1 . A 8 28. 2 . ML. 3 . P CB 6 25, LC 3 816, S B 7 13-E13. 4 . M 4 92. 5 . BM 4 1. 6 . WB 1 14, BM 5 48, P CB 1 156, F EJ 3 55, BNJ XXVIII,p.457 no.20. 7 . recorded by North ( 1963),p.132 a s " Eadwi" and a s " Edwin ( a moneyer distinct f rom " Eadwig") i n North ( 1980) p .144. The o nly c oin ( or coins) which have come to l ight a re the Harold I I penny, l ot 1 92b i n the Talbot-Ready Sale ( Sotheby, Wilkinson and Hodge, November 1 920) a nd S B 7 54-E220 o f + EDPI ON HEREFOR. The l atter i s described a s " struck f rom rusty dies" and the rendering o f 1 9 . presents some slight ambiguity, there b eing a slight tail t o the l etter ( p) which might hint a t an intended " R" with the consequence that the coin would have t o be a ttributed to " Edric" rather than " Edwi". 8 . HAP 1 -224. TABLE

9 8

" Ed-"

and

" Ead-"

forms

a t

H ereford.

any c ertainty for more than two consecutive types a nd i t i s rare for more than three moneyers to b e recorded i n a particular type. The only satisfactory gauge o f moneyer complement which these c onditions will permit i s one based upon a pattern o f a ppearance by i ndividual moneyers a t l east once within t hree c onsecutive types. On this basis Hereford c ould b e described a s a f ivemoneyer mint i n the f irst half o f the reign, a position which might require modification i n the l ight o f evidence concerning the movement o f moneyers. I n t he second half o f the reign a different p icture emerges i n which there i s g reater coherence i n t he pattern o f moneying and the complement i s i ncreased. A t the e nd of the period, however, there i s a reversal t o the confused situation which had prevailed u ntil the Pointed Helmet type. The transition f rom the S overeign/ Martlets type to the Hammer Cross type constitutes the nearest that can b e found a t H ereford o f a " ruling base" f rom which an accurate moneyer calculation c an be made, i n that all f ive of the moneyers known f or the S overeign/Martlets

3 78

TQ

E IELRIC 1 gLRIC 2

S F

SM

gGELRIC 3 gLRIE 4

H C

gLRIC 5

PAX

gGLRIC 6

I

gGELRIC 7

1 . M L, BM M 4 25, LC 5 . A 9 48.

5 43. 2 . H 2 34, C 4-895. 3 . F EJ 3 54, 8 36, BM , LAL 2 80. 4 . F 9 19, BM 5 51, 6 . G 1 234. 7 . BM 2 3, P CB 6 76 ex HM.

TABLE

" ggelric"

9 9

a t

G 1 098, C 4-896.

Hereford.

type g o f orward i nto the next type; a sixth moneyer's presence can be i nferred from g thestan's a ppearance i n the Pointed Helmet and Hammer Cross types and Edwig ( in the Hammer Cross type) would constitute a s eventh moneyer. The i ncrease i n c omplement i s, however, shortl ived and f rom the Facing Bust type, i f not f rom late i n the hammer Cross type, the mint reverts to a c omplement o f s ix moneyers, a nd though this s tatus may b e deemed to c ontinue a t l east until the reign o f Harold I I, the surviving c oins suggest an active complement o f no more than two moneyers i n the F acing Bust and Pyramids types. During William I 's reign the mint may have three-or f our-moneyer status but the paucity o f evidence i s ext reme. The uneven minting pattern a t Hereford i n the first half o f Edward's r eign may reflect hoard characteristics, mint practice or poor survival o f coins. The H ereford pattern may be s een a t neighbouring Worcester, a nd though t o a much l ess marked extent, a t Gloucester. N evertheless a t Hereford, a s i ndeed almost everywhere else where f ragmented t enures are observed s ome moneyers are represented by a complete sequence of types, which encourages the view that unless hoarding or accidental l oss disc riminated actively against c ertain moneyers, the c oin evidence i s a reflection of actual mint practice. There i s also, presumably, no reason to suppose that hoarders discriminated against certain mints, though weight would b e g rounds for discrimination. Hereford i s l ocated i n P eterssson's " West Mercian" mint district which c ons istently c oins a t the top of the weight table and coins s truck a t H ereford i n the first half o f Edward's reign show weights which conform closely to P etersson's " West M ercian" average. There would be no obvious g rounds f or s election against c oins o f the H ereford mint and the coin evidence f or the first half o f the reign may perhaps b e regarded a s a skeleton which i t would take no more than half-a-dozen coins to f ill out. The mint l ay i n unsettled t erritory and i n 1 055 the city a nd

3 79

surrounding countryside were ravaged by the Welsh, but i f the descent upon Hereford o ccurred i n the P ointed H elmet type i t appears to have n o impact upon the mint unless the i ncreased s trength o f the mint i n this a nd succeeding types i s a reflection o f r econstruction a nd renewed economic vigour[202]. The Hereford mint i s s erviced by e stablished moneyers with the possible exception o f " Wulfwi" i n the T refoilQuadrilateral type. All but two o f the " established" moneyers appear to devote their exclusive a ttention to the H ereford mint but ggelric and Leofnoth may b e a ssociated with the Gloucester mint. I f this i s s o, ggelric appears on a number o f o ccasions to work simultaneously a t both Hereford and Gloucester a nd L eofnoth to alternate between the two mints a t certain periods and to work simultaneously a t o thers. ggelric may additi onally be f ound briefly a t Worcester a nd both " ggelric" and " Earnwi" forms are to be found a t Shrewsbury, though i n no i dentifiable pattern of relationship with H ereford. I f Leofnoth and ggelric do serve H ereford and G loucester i n the way described, H ereford would be deprived o f Leofnoth's services during the Trefoil and S mall F lan types and of ggelric's services during the Expanding Cross and Pointed Helmet types, with c onsequences f or the extent of l ikely moneyer c omplement: what would o therwise be a five-moneyer mint f or much o f the first half o f the reign may actually be a f our-moneyer mint, s trengthening to six-moneyer s tatus i n the S overeign/ Martlets and Hammer Cross types. B erkeley The mint i s known only i n Edward the C onfessor's reign. I t functions under the moneyer Edgar i n the T refoil-Quadrilateral and Pointed Helmet types a nd may also have functioned i n the PACX type. The PACX penny i s a t Copenhagen ( C4-749) and reads + VLFCYTL 0 : BEO. Galster a ttributed this coin to B erkeley and drew a ttenti on to the clarity of the mint signature; the clarity o f the photograph of the c oin i n the Copenhagen f ascicule of S CBI i s such that the f inal l etter o f the mint name can b e seen without doubt a s a n " 0". The editors o f the fascicule recorded their r eservations, pointing out that the moneyer, while o therwise unknown a t B erkeley, i s k nown i n this type a t B edford, and that BED could have been mistakenly engraved a s BEO. C 4-749 does n ot die-link with the two B edford PACX pennies o f U lfcetel, F C 8 94 of + VLFCETL 0 BED and H 1 6 +VLFCYTEL 0 B ED. " BE" and " BED" are mint readings which c ould b e h eld t o c ontain some ambiguity, but a P ointed H elmet c oin o f + VLFCYTEL ON BEDEF ( PCB 1 132) does supply a n unequivocal reading to t estify to the a ctivity of a n " Ulfcytel" a t the B edford mint, an activity reinforced by the presence o f a n " Ulfc etel" a t Huntingdon i n the Small F lan type ( a type f or which " Ulfcytel" i s also known a t B edford). There

3 80

E dward t he C onfessor B E -RKELEY

3 81

i s no evidence of an " Ulfcetel" a t work in the vicinity of B erkeley immediately prior t o Edward the C onfessor's accession, when York and Lincoln are the o nly mints where the name-form i s f ound - c oins o f VLFCIL a nd V LFTL o f London of Harold I ( H 7 18-720) a nd of VFLCTL a nd VLEFCETL ( H 1 44 and H 1 45) have b een re-attributed a s " Danish" On grounds o f coincidence the c oin C4-749 would be a ttributed to B edford rather than B erkeley, yet the i ncidence o f blundered mint signatures i s probably l ess than Blunt and D olley implied and f or that reason a B erkeley a ttribution i s preferable even i f current coin evidence cannot a s y et fully sustain i t. There i s n o i nherent reason why, i f B E0 were acceptable a s a B erkeley mint signature, the c oin i n question should not have been s truck there. Short-lived mints o f Edward the Confessor are u sually one-moneyer mints i n b oth s enses o f the word i .e. they are worked by o ne moneyer a t a ny one time and the l ife o f the mint i s parallelled by that o f the moneyer, but there are exceptions, s uch a s the succession o f S irred and Saewan at " Newport". The mint signatures o f Edgar, the o ther Berkeley moneyer, are impeccable, recognition, perhaps, o f the need t o avoid ambiguous renderings which c ould b e confused with the names o f o ther mints: Trefoil-Quadrilateral: + EDGAR ON BEORC ( BM 3 1) + EDGAR ON BERCLE(BG/ G 1 93 ex Montagu) P ointed Helmet + EDGAR ON BEORC ( C4-748) I n the form thus rendered the moneyer's name-form i s unique i n this reign to the mint[203]. The mint i s a new creation. I t exists i n c omplete physical i solation f rom i ts n eighbours but i ts e xistence may reflect a policy by which the G loucester and W orcester mints are supplemented by satellites; Berkeley i s a t l east one mint i n a chronological chain o f a ctivity finally finding expression a t D roitwich. Bristol Abbreviated forms of mint s ignature such a s " BR" o f BM 3 2 ( HPATEMAN 0 1 1 3R ) have l ed to c onfusion of mint a ttribution, discussion o f which i s summarised by G rinsell [ 204]. The correct identification o f c ertain moneyers also poses problems. The " ggel-" and " glf-wine" forms a t B ristol are outlined i n Table 1 00, based, except a s i ndicated, upon the l ist o f Bristol moneyers c ontained ( with references) i n the i ntroduction t o the material i n the SCBI fascicule f or the B ristol and G loucester Museums[205]. The occurrence o f t he two forms s uggests, despite the appearance o f a n glfwine i n Cnut's Q uatrefoil type, a chronological s equence without overlap except early i n Edward the Confessor's r eign. Mrs.Smart, noting the sound-change " gthel" = ," ggel", was unable t o record any " gthelwine" forms a t Bristol, and observed that the " gLPINE" form o f H 2 3 i n t he Radiate/Small Cross

3 82

Cnut Quatrefoil Short C ross Harold I J ewel C ross Harthacnut Arm a nd Sceptre Edward the C onfessor Trans. Arm a nd S ceptre PACX Radiate/Small Cross Trefoil Quadrilateral

" Sgelwine" " Sgelwine"

" Slfwine"

" Sgelwine" " Sgelwine"

" Sgelwine" " Slfwine" " " Slfwine"* "

" Sgelwine" " Sgelwine "

S overeign/Martlets Hammer Cross Facing Bust Pyramids Harold I I PAX

**

***

TABLE

" Slfwine" " Slfwine" " Slfwine" " / Elfwine" " Slfwine"

Grinsell ( 1962) p .8 records the presence o f " Sgelwine" i n this type. Elfwine's presence i s derived f rom two coins in the B ritish Museum's trays not i n BMC. One reads +SLFPIIIN E 0 : BRII and the o ther ( BM 1 589 r e-attributed) i s a cut halfpenny from the same reverse die. The " / Elfwine" of this type i s derived f rom the SLPINE of H 2 3 and should therefore perhaps be i ncluded a s an " Sgelwine" form. 1 00

/ E gel-

a nd

/ E lf-wine

forms

a t

Bristol.

type might have b een a development of " Sgelwine"[206]. Thus, one moneyer, Sgelwine, ceases work i n the Radiate/ Small Cross type. The Slfwine o f the PACX type ( and possibly of the R adiate type depending upon one's i nterpretation o f the c oin C 4-757), may or may not be the same person as the Slfwine of the S overeign/Martlets type o nwards. The i nterval between the PACX or Radiate types, and the S overeign/Martlets type i s sufficiently g reat to i ndicate the presence of two moneyers o f this name; and even i f only one " Slfwine" i s a t work the i nterval b etween t he types i s such a s to discount his presence a t the mint during the i ntervening years. A further problem relating to the very early years of E dward's reign concerns the question of the presence of a moneyer Slfric i n the PACX type, derived from a single penny i n t he Grantley Sale catalogued a s + SLRIC ON BRIC ( GR 1 197a). I n the absence o f any o ther c oin to c orroborate the Grantley reading one i s i nclined to s uggest that this could be a misreading o f SLPIG, found in the same type f rom BM 3 3 and HAP 1 34. Such a ' conclusion must remain tentative, e specially i n the l ight of c oins o f an £1fric later i n the reign ( Pointed Helmet Hammer Cross, and i ndeed, according to the

3 83

I D1 N E

E dward t he C onfessor : B Ri s -r oL

N N

N

• r i

, 1 •

, 1

' e l 0

• ,2 4

r -c p r -

.

H . C r o s F . B u s t P y r a m i d s

L c-) c f-) •

c s • c .) 01

/ E L F R i C

, 1

L a -f -

•

i

a ) _ I L . _ ( 1 3

r n

t r l • i 1

r n c v i n

/ 1 L F R I C

E S T A N D E S T A N I / t L F t ‚ I N E / E L _ F

; P . H e l m e t S .

e C l )

• , 1

-

E x p . C r o s

N

c s • 0

0 1 0

0 1

-

G O D N E G O D I N E C E O R L

( 0 L I _

N

— — C D

0 1 • 0

E

C l )

• e

•

e i ' 1 ' 0 3

T r e f o i l S

, I

-

a )

4 ( 0 . 10 ( 0 C C

e l

C O • , I

0

L f " ) L C )

X 0

i n

( \ 1

•

0 1 • 11

c n

,/ V . F t D E R D . I L -

/ E , • € D l


I H u ) 0 Q ) , - I 1 0 > I H C r C I C L ) ( l 0 › , 4 4

C C

• H

: •

1 -

r .

3 84

0 • 4 4 0 0 0 c \ o Ez

4 ) 0 H

E dward t he C onfessor: BR Is -r oL r Y 1 r r .. -

h 1 . 1 ) t , .

. Z Z c !D

" ,• , . r ,• 0 i t z
a . •

B M 3 6 . L C 3 8 1 6 + M / 5 3 6

1 5 .

N i . m m i m i l m .

G 1 4 . B G / B 3 7 '

F . B u s t ( A ( r ) 0 L l _ . )

•

u

3 9

P y r a m i d s

44 D Z t o c 0

W 4 —

, j .

0

Z e zE e o .


. j n

I -

. . .

r e l C s

6S , B M 3 5 . B G / B 3 5 .

4 —

0 .

T I

t

0. -0 1

* 5 • h . F 8

2t —

-3 " 1 0 9 . B M 2 1 .

_

City hoard l istings, i n Expanding Cross too). I f t he G rantley coin had i ndeed been c orrectly catalogued a further problem o f i nterpretation would now b e created, f or a " gap" would be c reated b etween N itric's work a t the b eginning and middle o f the r eign, j ust a s one c ould exist between an Entwine a t t he beginning a nd end o f the reign, and this lacuna would then become a more pronounced and disconcerting f eature of the mint. Two o ther name-forms require note. Coins of t he moneyer Hwateman have been r e-attributed t o Bridport [ 207] while a final problem i s posed by t he moneyer " Snewine". A " Saewine" worked a t the mint under Harold I and Harthacnut, but i s k nown in the PACX i ssue o f Edward only a s SNEPINE ( H 2 5) and i n the Trefoil-Quadrilateral i ssue a s SMEAPINE ( LC 7 93). Both " Saewine" and " Smeawine" are well a ttested a s moneyers' names, " Saewine" a t Exeter, Leicester, Northampton, Wilton and Winchester during the period 1 042-1087, and " Smeawine" a t Guildford i n Cnut's reign. " Snewine" a s a moneyer's n ame occurs i n the period 1 042-1087 only a t Bristol and o nly f rom this coin. Both Smart and C olman have a ttempted t o l ink i t with o ther forms, Smart equating " Snewine" a t Bristol with " Smewine" and Colman equating " Snewine" with " Saewine". The c onjunction i n Cnut's reign o f " Snewine" and " Saewine" f orms a t Winchester, and o f SNEAPINE with SMEAPINE f orms a t Guildford, suggests that perhaps the various renderings o f a single nameform i ndicate the presence of a moneyer " Snewine" u p to a nd i ncluding the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type[208]. There are eight points i n Edward's r eign which act a s " base points" f or the c alculation of e stablished moneyer complement. I n the PACX type all five e stablished moneyers l ikely to have worked have c ome f orward f rom prior to Edward's accession. I n the Radiate/Small Cross type all f our moneyers l ikely to have worked were probably active i n the PACX type a nd i n the Trefoil-Quadrilateral and Small F lan types there i s c ontinuity o f activity by the remaining moneyers. The P ointed H elmet a nd Hammer Cross types were the reponsibility of a canon of three moneyers, reduced i n the Facing Bust a nd Pyramids types to two. F rom these points o f reference the likely complement o f moneyers may be calculated i n those t wo types, Expanding Cross and Sovereign/Martlets in which o ne moneyer c eases work and others s tart. T o suggest simultaneous rather than sequential working in s uch cases i s t o raise the moneyer complement by one m oneyer i n each o f the two types c oncerned and t o disturb what i s o therwise an orderly pattern o f activity a nd accordi ngly, i n the Expanding Cross type Nlfwerd may b e regarded a s b eing succeeded by Godwine a nd i n the S overeign/ Martlets type Nlfwine may be r egarded as N thestan's successor. The Radiate/Small C ross penny o f ELPINE ( H 2 3) has been t reated a s the w ork of " Ngelwine" rather than " Nlfwine" which confines t he latter at t his s tage

3 86

i n t he reign to a single emission i n the PACX type makes him one o f three " single-type" moneyers a t mint. W ithin

a very

s table

s tructure

the

moneyer

and the

complement

fluctuates during the reign. S tability l ies i n the heavy dependence u pon established moneyers and i n the mint's apparent t otal self-reliance i n the origination of m oneyers and the employment o f their exclusive s ervices. Only two " single-type" moneyers are known. Both occur i n the PACX type and their presence can be l inked with t he changes i n personnel which accompanied a change i n t he size o f the mint. The mint appears to experience four phases i n Edward's reign, firstly a period o f rapid decline from what h ad been a short-lived period a s perhaps a f ive-moneyer mint; secondly between the Trefoil-Quadrilateral and P ointed Helmet types i t i s a two-moneyer mint; thirdly, f rom the P ointed Helmet to Hammer Cross type i t i s a three-moneyer mint; and finally, f rom the Hammer Cross or F acing Bust types i t reverts once more to t wo-moneyer s tatus, which prevails throughout William I 's r eign until the PAXS type. Modification o f this picture would be n ecessary i f Godwine were cast a s Elf werd's colleague i n the Expanding Cross type, or i f. SMEAPINE i n the T refoil-Quadrilateral type were a nameform discrete f rom SNEPINE. The one exception to the mint's apparent i solation from i ts n eighbours i s the possible " secondment" of G odwine to Gloucester i n the Sovereign/Martlets type, the type i n which no coins of G odwine a re recorded for Bristol. V West Wessex There are within this area two spheres, that revolving a round Exeter and that revolving around I lchester and S haftesbury. Wareham, Dorchester and Bridport may constitute a narrow, third, sphere. Within the two major groupings the essential cores consist of Exeter, Lydford-Barnstaple, Watchet, Taunton, " Ilchester" and Shaftesbury, but with the extinction of Lydford-Barnstaple, Watchet and a number of o ther minor mints, the core i s dramatically reduced to f our mints, and i ndeed to Exeter and Shaftesbury a lone during a brief period i n which Taunton's i nterests appear to be subordinated to those of E xeter and I lchesteris to those of Shaftesbury. Lydford and Barnstaple are i n effect one mint, to t he extent that Barnstaple's revival i n the Expanding Cross type casts i t i n the role o f Lydford's successor. The contraction i n mints occasioned by Lydford-Barnstaple' s extinction i s preceded by the apparent absorption of Lydford's moneyer Elfric i nto the Exeter canon o f moneyers a nd the probable working by Elfric o f Lydford and Barnstaple a s " out" mints. I t cannot be proved

3 87

P y r a m i d s

1

M D ' e l

F L / 1 D L O

N

r I r 1

r I r I

' e l

C Y 1

r I r I

N

1 1 N

' I '

N I e i

1 1 N

" e l

r I

e l

C l

N

S . M a r t l e t


L E O F

‘ ' . h

i

i

F . B u s t

P y r a m i d s

Z

M E

w 2

a

EX E T ER

1

'

1

) I C N G

H . C r o s

• I

C O —

( 1 ) 1— — 4— L _

N Z 1L ) °« . 1 — . t . f i( re

C O

2

• ( I )

1 3 ' 12 z c . c .

c o 0 - Ov l r -0 0i n SD i L Ao t

c.W 4

C. ( 0

1 . 1 . 1 . M i

1 . .

[ 2

L C )

1 . .

r s 1 0 g o

L i_

, ,

3 , . J

0 3

. i r-

P C B

9 8 % -

R B 1 9 , W C 6 7 2 . S C .

Z P 8 1

_ .

8 c c o :

1

— C O

E A D • b o a

) 2 1 / L N O 9 ) ,

kL E . O F P I N E

D O D A

O D E P i N E ( G

e

Z C 2

.

L T

4 . 1 : F I D N E

ü Z

4 N ( 2\

—

r e ( . 7

C C W

u s

i l l

i" )

i l l

Q

L J J

X

0

3 94

0 2 u . 3

e

z : a .

. i ,

G R 1 8 5 > R B 2 0

ö I

C 4 8 0 4 . H 8 7 . R 3 1 9 5 , 1 9 6 1 9 8 , J 9 7

G R 1 8 5

N r n

, S e v t . r

1

1 j 7 V L N O D

2

W C 6 ' 7 0

j1

l i•

}0 3 .— 'V ( 1 ) CC

G 9 s 8 e 5 i c . a B M 2 0 6 2 -c . 4 2

Q )

C 4 8 0 5 . H 8

i

1

.

W B 5

T r e f o i

2 3

1 3

•

5 8 2

l


• j

1 1 . B M 2 1 .

B m 2 0 9 . S P 2 5 1 A 6 3 , 8 4 7 1 5 e `

* 8 5

* 9 1 ,

r i e ( r. 0 - c o

R B 2 0 9 . L C 8 1 3 e . W C 6 8 5 . p c

-, L C 2 5 3 0 9

,, , .

1 0 8 G 1 2 4 . B m 2 9 .

C

R B 2 1 0 , 2 . 0 9 E G R 1 9 7 . F E 7 2 9 3 . +

AZ 1 0 7 ß

e .

S B

6 4 6

- H2 3 1 5 ,

L A L

R e , 2 1 8 z o 2 5 4 6 c _ B M . ,

, 2 . 0

B M 2 4 . FEI2 9 5 . G S 1 7 5 , 3 4 7 . A M C W0 7 1 0 , 7 0 1 .

- 3 4 7 5 1 -I M- M B E2 3 0 , 7 3 4 E4 7 . SC A 2 1 5 4 9 . B2 1 5 . W C 6 9 2 ,* 1 4 8 1 -

M .LAL 2 . R B 2 . ) ( , 2 t 7 E 1 3 1 4 . 6 , 1 7 9 6 .

ß t v i 2 1 3 . K LC , 2 8 1 4

e

1 2 _ 4

* 3'

Pc ß

t i e Dc L,

I 9 9 .

, . . . , 2`f . ., ,

S P S

e

WC 7 1 2 . 1 4 6 n 2 . M c m

h t f l

l 9 3 -

, 2 c 0 ee

2 0 4 , 2 0 5 , 2 0 6 .

F -

, Ac 4i i ie

LA L 2 7 8 c .

Z T 1

S1 3 7 6 5

* 1 3 8 P C

0

1 4 c , 7 1 4

R B

1 8 0 2 b .

6 2 7

2 3 4 , 2 . 3 5 , 2 3 6 ,

E1 2 9 7 -

B

F9 1 3 , 9 1 4

W 8 1 5 4 .

_ J Z

R B

r : ; ) ( X

7 1 5 .

> w v 5

G 1 2 5 , 1 2 6 .

7 1 3

1 3 .

B M

B M S.W C

2 3 7 .

4 6 4 .

SC A 3 2 4 0 1

W B

w 0

CB 1 6

LC 2 8 6 .

*

,2 1 3 7 1->R B

x

Cm i 2 4 7 -

C M 1 2 § . R B 2 1 4 5 P9 2 8 1 . '

1 9 0 2 . c I ESt i . W v s

PC T 3

4 6 4 E 1 6 . c l >

Lc 9 , 4 b .

A 9 4 G .M 4 1 .

2 3 0 -

2 3 . 7 3 1 .

1 0 2 L i

h . BM 2 1 .

C O

1 0 9

d

1 3M 2 4 2 7

g"

Z1 0 6 . 5 6 7 4 1 -

•c : 2 ) 4-

c . A

0 2 -

e

M 4 . 4 0

i n

B M

I Z B

-c i Ncc ° . ,

LC 8 4

t eX t r )

, •i z i4E . > c e-1 . -"l

2 3 1 .

2 _ 9 .

Jni j

•

.

0 — -

.• ( 7,

. p 9 1 2

E

Ft . 8 6 2 4 » 1 5 .

s p 8 1 9 8 9

L s . ) c • I

Lc , 7 9 3 *

Z I )

H 9 3 . K B 2 1 2 , 2 1 3 . F E . 7 2 9 8 . P

a '

PCB 1 0 3 .

_

e e iio n 0 . r o 06 ;c i . l i .t i l( 7 )

"

N2 0 9 .

( 4 ac • . 1 r N c o dV ) , 03 • z i-

0 u

i e5

c . i c p 4 e . , ? Ü

E7 2 . 9 4 . 2 . 9 0 5 .

0

c o r ) _ —

r-

3 5 H 3 7 .

0 -

*

° S

* 1 0 3 F

Jr . 1 ( -4 '

e

a l r ( 1

c j m

8 0 1 4 3 2

c d 0D . 6 c i l c z

G S

c o e n L . )

,

L C 9 1 3 .

N 0 _

‚ e4 1 j . J ` oe c o

G T g 7 51 R1 8 7 2 0 3 9 ß K B 2 3 8 . El ' 2 9 L c . 2 9 e P CB 1 8

r i l

* I S H A P 2 0 1 6 . R B 1 9 1 , 9 2 , 1 9 3 , 1 9 4 ,

4( 1 ) L

R B 2 0 3 . P c 1 3 5 9 6 .

_ . 0

c ö

1 c ( 2 )

P y r a m i d s _

O ( 2 Z 0 4 "i , . , •u i

W C 6 8 4 h . BM 2 1 0 .

a ) + ( 0 . ,0 C o 1 : 2 C c 0 0 _

-

* 5 L .

E

e ' 1 ‘

S

c t C O j , 9r 1 0

Cr l

1 4 7 BM 2 5 . R 1 3 2 3 M I 2 9 6 . V i c 7 0 2 . L C 2 . 8 1 9 . C t 4 8 9 3 a -

E

E H W 1 0 5

( 0

C4 9 0 7

( 0

1 4

F . B u s t

t 7 o

2 0 7 .

L n 0 0

B M

c o c r \

R ( 3 2 9 .

H . C r o s

/ e l C r s u • W I ON c 4r A

R. 3 2 7 M L

5 . M a r t l e t s

2

1 4 3

_ _ _

I

Confess or

1 2 . 5

P . H e l m e t th e

BM 2 0 8 ,

E x p . C r o s

Ed ward

EXETER

r .

t o

substantiate

the

City

which i s i llustrated + gLFRIC or gLFRIE ON catalogued. glfwine

hoard

r ecord

and

S B

• 6 65-H4066,

i n S CMB, may very probably r ead EXECESTER rather than gLFPIN a s should be regarded a s a moneyer

who did not work b eyond the Trefoil-Quadrilateral t ype. Both S eaby i n his survey of early types o f Edward's reign and S tewart, i n his monograph on the E xeter mint, t erminate glfwine i n this type[209]. The g lfwine a t Exeter f rom William I BMC type I would be a different moneyer of the same name. The careers o f Edmaer, Godwine, Lifinc, Doda and Saewine are well a ttested, a s a re those of Wulfmaer and Wulfwine. I ncluded i n the c orpus o f c oins f or Wulfmaer i s the S overeign/ Martlets p enny C 4-893a a scribed to Hertford ( see above, ppJ97 and 1 98 ). A coin i n the City hoard may extend Wulfmaer's c areer i nto the Facing Bust type, and Wulfwine, known i n Edward's reign only f or the Pyramids type, i s presumably the moneyer known f rom William I 's BMC type I II onwards. The P ointed Helmet penny BM 2 16 of + CEPINE ON EXECEST ought probably to be i ncluded among the coins a ttributed t o Saewine. Saewine himself may well work o nly u ntil the Pyramids type, the moneyer o f the same name f rom William I BMC type IV onwards p erhaps being a different person. A Leofwine i s known a t Exeter both early a nd l ate i n Edward's reign. He i s well a ttested in PACX a nd Radiate/Small Cross, and again i n the F acing B ust type ( and i n Harold I I's PAX and William I 's BMC I types); his presence i n the Hammer Cross type depends upon the record of the " Gracechurch Street" hoard a nd a c oin ( presumably the same one) with a doubtful mint signature n ow i n the Museum o f London. I n all probability there were two moneyers o f this name a t Exeter, o ne at work f rom the reign of Cnut onwards, and a second moneyer b etween Hammer Cross and William I 's BMC I . A Wulfnoth i s a lso known both early and l ate i n Edward's r eign, the f irst i nstance having worked f or Harold I a nd Harthac nut and Edward's PACX type, a nd in the s econd c ase i n the Pyramids type only. Whether or not the two are one and the same person cannot be determined, though i n view of the unusual circumstances prevailing a t the mint late i n Edward's reign and i n Harold I I's r eign, i t i s not impossible that a past moneyer was recalled. H e cannot be regarded a s having worked during the interval between PACX and Pyramids. Coins o f Hunewine are k nown f or the Small F lan and Expanding C ross types, and r epres ent either a revival of this w ell-established moneyer, o r the work of a n ew moneyer o f the same name. His earlier career a t s everal mints has been charted by S tewart between g thelraed I I's S econd Hand type a nd Cnut's Pointed Helmet type. U nknown thereafter u ntil Edward's Small F lan type, a period of between nineteen a nd twenty-five y ears, he would h ave had a career spanning b etween fifty-seven and sixty-eight years were the H unewine o f Expanding Cross to have been the H unewine of g thelraed's S econd Hand type. A s with L eofwine and Wulfnoth the i nterval between the two periods o f _ s triking

3 96

i s s uch that complete absence must be a ssumed. " Established" moneyers dividing their a ttention between Exeter and other mints. T E lfric i s the one moneyer a t Exeter in Edward's reign who, l ike Hunewine i n earlier reigns, serves more than one mint during a succession of t ypes. S tewart's reconstructed i tinerary has been extended by i nclusion o f Radiate/Small Cross a nd T refoilQuadrilateral c oins f or Exeter, although the evidence for the latter type derives solely f rom the amended reading given by Oliver Burrows to the coin ( lot 2 26) in t he " Briggs" P arcel[210]. F or the time being l E lfric has n ot been i ncluded a s an Exeter moneyer i n the Expanding C ross type d espite the record o f the coin LAL 2 71, a " badly chipped" specimen o f + EDFRIEC ON . ...ES with a p ellet i n the f irst quarter o f the reverse. The cataloguer was unhappy about an Exeter a ttribution a nd no other evidence sustains / E lfric's presence i n this type. Elfric's career i s of great i nterest. H e commences at Lydford and gained responsibility f or Barnstaple after / Elfgard's r etirement i n Harold I 's reign, a duty which he was obliged to share with his existing i nterests at Lydford and t he extension o f his i nterests t o Exeter ( see page 4 01). " Single-type" moneyers a t Exeter. A number o f " singletype" moneyers w ere a t work a t Exeter. They a re well attested - Eadwold i n the PACX type, Eadwi, l Edsie and Saewulf i n the E xpanding Cross type and Wicing i n the Hammer Cross type. Coins o f the Facing Bust moneyer Eadwerd have b een re-attributed to Canterbury. The coin of " Erfric" i n the P ointed Helmet type ( BM 2 17 +ERFRIC ON CXCESTR) i s perhaps better designated a s a c oin of " I Elfric" than representative of a new moneyer. Construction of a mint profile relies upon f eatures most clearly evident i n the PACX, P ointed H elmet, S overeign/ Martlets a nd Facing Bust types. I n the PACX type all the moneyers except the " single-type" Eadwold have come forward f rom previous types and the mint c omplement may accordingly b e established a t s even. I n the Pointed Helmet and S overeign/Martlets types the f our moneyers who come forward f rom the Expanding Cross type a re all a t work and g o forward i nto the Hammer Cross type to give a c omplement o f f our moneyers. During the i nterveni ng period between PACX and Expanding Cross the mint i s e ither a four- or five-moneyer mint. The established moneyers with the exception o f Elfric devote their career exclusively to the service o f the Exeter mint. They are a ssisted by s ix " singletype" moneyers, two of whom ( Eadwold i n the PACX type a nd Saewulf i n the Expanding Cross type) are unknown elsewhere and the remaining four o f whom ( T Edsie and E adwi i n the Expanding Cross type, Wicing i n the Hammer C ross type and Wulnoth i n the Pyramids type) b ear names which they share with moneyers previously a t Exeter o r Lydford. This apparent " revival" i s also f ound among

3 97

three e stablished moneyers: Leofwine, Hunewine a nd Saewine and g ives rise to the possibility that a " reserve" of moneyers had been created. This, and the employment o f " single-type" moneyers, i s a s trong, a nd largely i nexplicable, f eature o f the organisation of the Exeter mint. Eadwold's appearance i n the PACX type may coincide with glfwine's apparent absence o r with the c ontraction i n the e stablished complement. gdsie, Eadwi a nd Saewulf i n the Expanding Cross type may r eplace the t emporarily absent Elfric or may be summoned i n the heavy emission o f the type to replace the numerous absences among the e stablished moneyers. Wicing a nd Wulnoth also coincide with apparent absences among e stablished moneyers. S uch a survey, while showing a c orrespondence between the a ctivity o f " single-type" moneyers and change i n size or personnel i n the mint e stablishment, does n ot prove any absolute correlation, f or such changes occurring i n o ther types fail to a ttract " single-type" moneyers to the mint. Exeter s tands a t the centre o f a dramatic reordering o f mint facilities by which the a rea t o the north a nd west i s d eprived o f i ndependent provision. The " drawingi n" o f glfric to the Exeter mint i s the process by which f irst Lydford and then Barnstaple a re extinguished, and i s accompanied by the closure o f Watchet. These processes are described under the mints concerned. Even Taunton falls momentarily under threat, i ts interests subordinated to those o f Exeter i n the PAX type of Harold I I, when to supplement the two surviving Exeter moneyers, Taunton's sole moneyer i s moved t o Exeter a t the c ost o f the closure o f the Taunton mint. I f centralisation o f this nature i s to be the policy Exeter would naturally emerge a s the sole minting centre i n D evon a nd northwest S omerset, yet there i s n o apparent i mpact u pon the mint i n t erms o f either moneyer numbers or their degree o f a ctivity. I n a similar contest i n central S omerset there was, perhaps, n othing i nevitable a bout the f inal emergence o f I lchester. Under William I Exeter was t o find i ts role reversed a s h as already b een i ntima ted ( p. 389 above) and which i s described i n greater d etail

elsewhere

( pp.409-410).

Lydford The activity o f the Lydford mint i s a ttested to by only a very f ew coins, recorded a s follows: PACX + ELFRIC ON LYD : F EJ 5 56 ex LC 3 798. + gLFRIC ON LYD : BM. A further coin l ay i n R . P.V.Brettell's c ollection and there i s i n the British Museum t rays f or London a c oin o stensibly reading + LEDFRIC 0 : u NN which may read ELFRIC, the f irst l etter ( "L") being without the t ransverse l ower bar of a t rue " L" and t he "D" ( the third l etter) appearing more l ike an " 0" s uperimposed on what was originally " I" or " L". A tail i s a lso present,

3 98

which g ives i t the a ppearance o f an " R" i . e. PACX x Radiate/Small Cross mule ( +A)ELFRIC ON cut halfpenny, Kvinneg : irda, G ot l and[211]. Radiate/Small Cross + / ELFRIC ON L l DAFO H 590. Trefoil-Quadrilateral + / EUFRIC ON LYDAF S HM-C. Small F lan + gLFRIC ONN LVD H 407 ( see van der Meer ( 1961),p.182 citing Dolley i n SNC 1 958 pp.161 162. I t i s a dieduplicate of BM 8 12 ( Dolley and Lyon ( 1968),p.60.). + / ELFRIC ONN LVD BM 8 12. + gLFRIC C 4-1127. Although discussed elsewhere ( pp.166-67) two c oins ( G 1 102 and C H-N2) of the S overeign/ Martlets type i n the name of " Leofthegn" have been a ssociated with the Lydford mint since 1 980[212]. The two c oins, though s truck from the same obverse, do not a ppear t o share the same reverse. The " martlets" face i n different directions and t he epigraphy i s slightly a t variance. The penultimate l etter of the mint signature could well be " E" rather than " L". I ts l ower horizontal bar i s horizontal rather than a t a n angle suitable for the representation of t he tail o f a l etter such a s " R". The f irst a nd third letters o f the mint-signature ( the " H" o f ONN or HEi - and the 1 — o f E J-) a re clearly s truck though the transverse bar o f the final l etter i s higher on the stem on the coin CH-N2 than on G 1 102. The f ollowing combinations therefore seem possible: HLH F ICK H LK NE INLH NEV ' N LK LH L The r epetition o f H and I - or K on two r everse dies does seem a deliberate a ttempt to cut those l etters and i f the mint i s to b e i dentified a s one a t or near which a Leofthegn works, B edford or the surrounding a rea must b e sought because that is the only mint at which a Leofthegn i s known i n the s econd half o f Edward's reign though no unequivocal Bedford mint-signature exists for L eofthegn a t B edford except for the Pyramids cut halfpenny A1063 + LEOFI.... DEFO. I n t erms o f minting policy west of E xeter i t i s unlikely that a " Leofthegn" would be a ttached to the Lydford mint i n the S overeign/ Martlets type. The Lydford mint i s a single-moneyer mint working regularly i n the first f our types o f Edward's reign. Throughout this period the mint i s the responsibility of t he moneyer g lfric and a s I an S tewart has c onvincingly demonstrated this moneyer saw extensive s ervice a t Exeter, Lydford and Barnstaple i nitially a s Lydford's s ole moneyer from Harold I 's J ewel Cross type where h e worked exclusively until the Radiate/Small Cross type. S tewart notes a b rief presence a t Barnstaple i n this type, but his career at Lydford i s resumed immediately, until on the

3 99

E dward t he C onfessor:

LY OF O R D

0

S . M a r t l e t s

( 3

0

L U

a )

0 . ) + c )

i f ) C \ 1

( o

• • ••• •••

LL

_ J

mint's closure, i n the Small F lan type, he t ransfers, probably via Exeter, to Barnstaple. He i s the only moneyer to be a ssociated with Barnstaple i n Edward's reign and f rom the P ointed Helmet type serves Exeter and B arnstaple s imultaneously. S tewart's picture can be modified i n the l ight o f two further coins: Radiate/ Small Cross + gLF C ON ECEX GR 1 185c. Trefoil-Quadrilateral + ELFRIC ON ECXCE WB 5 ( amended by Oliver Burrows f rom an o riginal reading +GIFRIC ON ECXCE). These coins i ndicate a close connection with the Exeter mint much earlier than has been supposed and show that i n i ts final years the Lydford mint was managed i n the same way that was to be adopted for Barnstaple before i t, t oo, c eased o peration. glfric's career passes through a n umber o f s tages: 1 . e xclusively a t Lydford, a s that mint's sole moneyer. 2 . a t Exeter and Lydford, a s Lydford's sole moneyer. 3 . a t Exeter and B arnstaple, a s Barnstaple's sole moneyer. Each point of major change i n glfric's career ( in each case a point of t ransition f or the Lydford and Barnstaple mints) witnesses i rregular working. The Radiate/Small Cross type, which i s the point of transition f rom phase one to phase two and which sees the end o f Lydford's . enjoyment of the exclusive services o f a moneyer, i s marked by a PACX x Radiate/Small Cross mule a nd by the moneyer's b rief a ppearance a t Barnstaple. glfric employed a s ingle reverse d ie to s trike the PACX x Radiate mule and true R adiate c oins ( H 5 90) and the obverse die u sed to s trike the mule had already been employed a t Lydford i n t he PACX type ( BM). glfric did not take to Barnstaple the Radiate/Small Cross obverse employed to s trike H 5 90 o f Lydford; H 4 i s f rom a different obverse die. The closure o f the Lydford mint and re-opening of Barnstaple i s marked, on c urrent c oin evidence, by his absence f rom Exeter i n t he Expanding Cross type. S tewart's arrangement of g lfric's activities could therefore be amended to demonstrate a career a s follows: J ewel Cross - PACX Lydford Radiate/Small Cross Lydford Exeter Barnstaple Trefoil-Quadrilateral Lydford Exeter Small Flan Lydford Exeter Expanding Cross Barnstaple P ointed H elmet Exeter Barnstaple S overeign/Martlets Exeter Barnstaple Hammer Cross Exeter Barnstaple In this i tinerary are reflected changes i n the s tatus of all three mints c oncerned. Although, a s S tewart has shown, a g ood number, though not all, o f Lydford's moneyers a re a ssociated with Exeter, Lydford appears t o have a fully independent l ife from the J ewel C ross type until the P ACX type o f Edward the Confessor; Barns taple has a s imilarly i ndependent existence under glfgar f or much o f this period. At a point a fter the F leurd e-Lys type of H arold I , the l ast type f or which glfgar

4 01

i s known at Barnstaple, minting west and n orth-west of Exeter becomes concentrated in the hands of o ne money er, the glfric already responsible for the mint at Lydford. Coining still takes Barnstaple but in addition his time between Lydford and end of the Small Flan type

place at both Lydford a nd glfric has now t o divide Exeter. During o r at the the arrangements undergo a

total revision with Barnstaple substituted f or Lydford and Lydford closed. Barnstaple' s revival does n ot enable i t to recover i ts former s tatus u nder glfgar, f or glfric continues to serve at Exeter. I ndeed, one might suppose that glfric's presence a t Exeter suggests a changing pattern of minting there, by which a country moneyer i s brought in to the central mint and works out f rom there, first to his old mint and subsequently to Barnstaple. On glfric's demise Barnstaple closes. Overall the changes have been threefold: 1 . Lydford a nd Barnstaple are rendered subordinate to Exeter with 2 . minting taking place at only one place ( Lydford initially a nd then Barnstaple) and 3 . the country mints are extinguished. Why Barnstaple should be f avoured at the expense of Lydford must be left to other s tudents to d etermine, but i t i s worthy of note, at l east i n passing, that this centralising process was t o be reversed, for i n William I 's reign the country mints are re-established, with much greater independence, a t or near the original locations, at Barnstaple again, a nd at Launceston, eleven miles' distance from Lydford. I t may also be observed that at Watchet, orbit, minting i s of time.

in also

Edward's reign extinguished for

outside Exeter's a similar period

Barnstaple Barnstaple

i s

known

in

Edward

the

Confessor's

reign

from a handful of coins in the Radiate/ Small Cross, Expanding Cross, Pointed Helmet, Sovereign/Martlets and Hammer Cross types. They are all of the one moneyer, glfric, and share the mint signature BEARD, BERDE, BERDEST, or

BEARB.

The

material

i s

here: Radiate/Small Cross H 4 +gLFRIC ON BEARD BM +gLFRIC ON BEARD Expanding Cross RBB 4 23 +gLFRIC with the agu Sale Pointed RBB 4 24 BM

( light) ON BERDE:

reading +gLFRIC ( II-138b). Helmet +gLFRICC +gLFRICC

ON ON

die

BERDE' : ex BERDE ex BEARB BEARB

Hammer WC 7 06

BERDEST

ON

slight

that

duplicate

of

i t

can

b e

listed

H 4 .

ex Drabble 5 31, LC 812; a coin ON BFRDE was offered i n the Mont-

Sovereign/ Martlets F 888 +gLFRIC ON G 1 090 +gLFRIC ON Cross +gLFRIC

so

PCB 6 02, Drabble 5 33. LC 8 21, " ex P CB".

4 02

BARNS TAPL E

L . r ) C \ J C D ( V

0

C D

-s

WG 7 0 6 .

•

R1 3B4 2 5 .

E dward 1 -h e C onfessor

L C )

•

C V 0

C N

( N . 1

( V

C D

S . M a r t I e i

•

L C)

•

C)

F la r i

E x p . C r o s

C D

•

c 4

2

C D

c ,

.• Oc a 1 ) =

R N S T A P L E

>4

B A

J

=

4 03

G . )

r — I ( I • 0 • E 44 • H 0 4 1 0

( ) • H C O 0

C D › i ( 4 0 )

0

• 0 0

Ez

( f ) f t s 4 0

Hammer Cross ( continued) RBB 4 25 + gLFRIC ON BERDEST Barnstaple i s thus a one-moneyer mint enjoying t he s ervices o f a single moneyer throughout the r eign. T he mint does not, however, enjoy glfric's exclusive s ervices. glfric a ppears to have pursued a busy career a t a number o f D 2von mints and, a s has already been proposed, i s probably to be found a t Lydford and Exeter i n the Radiate/ Small Cross type a nd a t Exeter u ntil the Pointed Helmet, S overeign/Martlets and Hammer Cross types. On ly i n the E xpanding Cross type does he appear t o devote his a ttention exclusively to the B arnstaple mint, a picture which could be changed by a single chance find. The Barnstaple mint does n ot function i n a vacuum. I ts brief a ctivity i n the early part o f Edward the C onf essor's reign coincides with a r eorganisation o f minting west o f Exeter whereby Lydford l oses i ts i ndependence and i s " paired" with Exeter, i ts moneyer ( surely the selfsame glfric who i s responsible f or minting at B arnstaple) dividing his a ttention between t he two mints. On Lydford's closure i n the Small Flan type Barnstaple replaces Lydford a s the outer arm of glfric's " pair" u ntil t he demise o f both glfric and the Barnstaple mint i n the Hammer Cross type completes Exeter's d omination of t he D evon mints. Exeter's supremacy l asts u ntil a d ramatic reversal under William I . Watchet The coin evidence f or the a ctivities of t he Watchet mint i n Edward the Confessor's r eign i s very slight: Blackburn's corpus records nine coins, one o f which has not b een l ocated and i s no more than the Walbrook hoard's l isting. As Blackburn observes, s ome coins hitherto a ttributed to o ther mints, such as H 1 2, a re now re-attributed to Watchet, while o ther c oins, such a s P CB 6 40, and BMC 1 298 and i ts die-duplicate WC 6 75 ex LC 8 00 o f + L.0 ON CEPORD a re no l onger t hought t o have been minted a t Watchet[213]. The picture which emerges i s o f a one-moneyer m int s erved e xclusively and c ontinuously by the moneyer G odcild. To t he extent that G odcild works solely a t Watchet, the m int l ies outside Exeter's orbit. I ts moneyer does not, for e xample, divide his a ttention between the two mints yet on the o ther hand i s appears susceptible to t he pressures which s ee the closure o f Lydford and B arnstaple and the concentration of minting u pon Exeter a nd Taunton and which subsequently s ee the r eversal o f this policy. These pressures make a g reater i mpact u pon Watchet than upon Barnstaple ( or " Lydford-Barnstaple") i n that Watchet closes i n the P ointed H elmet t ype whereas B arnstaple survives until Hammer Cross, a nd Barnstaple r e-opens ( and Launceston opens) i n BMC type V whereas Watchet re-commences i n type VI, but o nce re-opened, Watchet

4 04

P y r a m i d s

E dward t he C onfessor : wA -K HET

i i f ) z

c o

, H . C r o s

L i . _

_ . c i

0

o 2 c r , 0 . c r• , D o c o

P . H e l m e t S . M a r t l e t s

. 0

r H

• C D

N J

CD

N I

‘ . 1c )

r H

C D C Y 1

r n

-1 , IL I LI -+ , c o ,

M

VI

X

r n -> t i . — j

.o c ) 09 , I n

f • • c r s

0

i f)

•

r i

` 1 )t

--

S m a l I F l a n E x p . C r o s

U

n 0

i f)

— 1

4 -

r ->

4 -

•

r nx a-e n r -z a0

4

c F 2 c l -

T r e f o i l

c f )

>

i n • ( c )

, 1

II > ‹ F ,

t 1 c ) , 1

z c i 3 F : , c ) u 1 Z

i n

r H

•

C D N I N I

C s i n 0 c J c 0

P A C X R a d i a t e

L if '

. . . . . . . . .

' e •

r — I

t r ) C O ( 1 2

0

• 0 f ) 0 (

I I

= > 1 D > 1 C

h L i . )

L i

. ,

3 0 . 5

405

( 4 )

.

, -

, -

/ ) 1 (

1

4 4

0

U

> 1

0

• H

C A i — I

.• H . - — . . n j

C D

0

0 0 \0

• 0 0

Ez

i)

0 H

resumes i ts independent existence. This s tatus i s typical of the mint' s existence to date, for even Hunewine, the mint's second moneyer after i ts opening under Sigeric in gthelraed I I's reign, works exclusively a t the mint except

at

the

points

of

his

arrival

and

departure.

The

data below i s drawn from Blackburn's corpus a nd differs only from his proposals i n that Godcild a nd Hunewine are not shown working concurrently i n Cnut's Quatrefoil type: ETHELRgD r i i cu

t iAr iu

D t .toND KA Np

C .K V X

L ..N. , ...>>

I I

HtL ME T

.J..

S I GE2 .‘C .

CNUT

L •S MALL

EDWARD

POSTCONQUEST

Q UATREFO IL P . HEL r 4 : - ON wARD TO CLOSURE I

C .

W I LL IA M I

WILL iA m n

Sc,ov c

ä.... . . ..m.m.. . .W .N i P

Taunton P " Likely" no. of moneyers. % of all moneyers. No.of coins No.of coins

( I) ( S)

( Total) clear

Both mint and the

R

T

S

1

1

1

0 .4 2 1

0 .5 1 1

3

2

E

P

S

H

1

1

1

1

0 .5 3 1

0 .5 2 0

0 .5 2 0

0 .5 5 0

0 .6 1 0

4

2

2

5

1

and moneyer attributions single recorded specimen

F

P

are generally of Gillecrist

has already been the subject of c omment ( p. 3 17 above). His presence here i s anomalous and causes greater disturbance to the Taunton mint profile than it d oes t o the pattern of minting at Tamworth, but the mint signature favours Taunton. coins that they can

So be

small i s the surviving recorded i n full:

PACX +BOGA ON TANT . ... GA ON T ..

BM ex H 709 BM

1 263

BM

1 262,

H 7 08

Small +BOGA

BM

1 261,

WC

+BOGA ( mint signature Pointed Helmet +BRIHTRIC ON TAH

unrecorded)

Sovereign/ Martlets +BRIHTRIC ON TANTVN E SM x HC Mule " Brihtric" ( unrecorded

reading)

Hammer Cross +BRIHRIC ON TANT

Pyramids +BRIHTRIC

ON

4 06

6 77, 678

SHM-C ML

( two

coins)

BM

1 264,

PCB

6 18

ML WC LC

TAN

of

HM2-136a

+CILLECRIST OHHTAH Trefoil-Quadrilateral +BOIA ON TANTVNE Flan ON TANT

number

7 22, 3 820,

FEJ

8 14,

F EJ

8 15

WC

EHW

7 23 BM

1 20

ex 1 265,

RTH

8 0a

1

E dward t he C onfessor : r Auw ro e r

L r J o '

P y r a m i d s

o

F . B u s t

-

-

• i n

er , 1c

,

H . C r o s

1 u l i i )

;1

I i-C u w c i : , . . J3

( . ) 1 — S

L -Q .

S . M a r t l e t s

C * 4 Z j i

2 . . CL ij

1 4

P . H e l m e t

r

E x p . C r o s

_

_

H 7 O

A

< L . 7 0 D I

B M

T r e f o i l

_

t A le

C O E c r )

8 28-1

.8 L9'LL93M

_ _

-1 ,4 ‘ 1 S *19ZI

c c o

-

C D i — ( 0 . 0 ( 0

c r

x 0 < Q-

_ . 4 , , n

i ; .

J

2

t € 1 ,

h , I

C s • i -

c ;

i -

:1 1 4 j . 1

-

Z o 1 -

u

Z



, a _

, • • 1, i i n. : z r •r 4, i. 1 ,. DN i, 4c , )( , ), 1

4 c e L o r i N

V D e

. e i

C O N

N ' r e r 1 r n

C : )

— ii Ni n, r, i

i n1 . °N r I C ' l C Y 1 r 1

e i ' . C )1 4 N

N • t e •

N e l

N ( N

i i N 1 . 0• , : 1 "r 1 r 1 M D N C . 1 r I r , )r n r 11 1r o / 4 1 4 ), 1N

N L ö

" I L I 1

1 C ) N

N N C O L Ö f Ir 11 4 )6 1 r n r I d i 0 1 r 1

o L C )

4 / 1 . 0

. 00 r i r l

C O 0 1 I - N

t

H . C r o s F . B u s t

r n

r l i n

0 N

1 0 0 ‚4 C ? )

S . M a r t l e t s

( Y 1. 0

+ L ( ) C I N r n T 1 e s c n r i r i r ) r - ( I N t 1

0 1 i n

N i n

, . 0 N

N r IN • Z rr 1

r l N t I t I • , : rN , i

C O e

. C ) e .

r I N

N

• N

N 0 1 r 1N

P . H e l m e t

N N C O L 1 t 1

. I D r ) i n r IN

e a s t e r n

i E x p . C r o s

I n N

L _ ( 1 3 —

— — « 3

N t i , . 0e i r 1N N N r 1r I . e . N 1 1e IN N 1 i r

0

L (

, t 4

r v

r d N r 1 1C ? )

r d

. _ C

4 ( 1 ) L . I -

0

N 1 4 ‘ . 0. : 1 I 1 N ‘ 7 t 4N r — i I N e iN, r 1

r o N , . iN

L 1 1 i r )

C f l i n

« C I N

N 0 , ir , -)

c e n t r a l

E ( . 7 )

H

c o i N C Y ) N C V • z r( N r t i

N N , r ), : t .

( , )r i i n

R a d i a t e

N r i ,. 0 ,1 4

X 0

1 1r n r -r 1 N

( Y.) L Ö

c s % . 7 t 1

i n i n

r , ) i n

N N

L O 6 1 1 1N

0 1 ( N ( 1 N ,

i , ( c n r - (

C 2 ‘ . _

r ) N

i n c o i . 1C • 1 • H

r d g l ( i ) 0 r c ( 4 1 , 0 f l ö C I U ), H r C i C

> 1 k

WW 4 4 t : 3 ) c ou ) , 0 C ( 1 )GH

EU 0I 3H4 C ) U H • HL I 1H I : , r 1 t H 0H 0 1 g i X ( L i W r dH• H. 2 0 0 t i l C I ) U

> 1 k

k 4 = ( i ) - W ' C I _ 0 04 ) 0 H 0 i g iH U ) H W l > 1 ( L )4 0 , . W1 'r C t - a W ( J ) Eg ) > 00 0 4 )• H 4 ) ( 1 ) r c s o > 1 0 r d r d 0 0i H: C I ) h 1 X C Z X 2 U U ) C Z 439

= c ) •r WL g i = 0 > i / ) H ( 1 ) ( H ( 1 ) . > 1

I n ( f lH U ) C i ) • g iH g I H1 : > 'E H W n j ( 1 ) r 1> ) > 14 U › i

)4 u r 1 c 5, - 04 w 0 4 i z u.

00 0 • 0 C 0 0H 0 < 0T 1 0 HC 2 1 = E0 E= 4J \°i c V ) EZ E0 0rd 4 J H

1

c l a

> a z

3 C O l n / . i l Z

t i

ja

0

L J Z .

_ J
< C .) cr 1 2-

, £ )

•

.— ID CO Cr

- ---

D

e i 0 U, . / 2 '

0 _

c a

— I

. i ‹ .

L 7 ` L . L 4 e .

460

C 3 Z t i l 4 O D

E dward t he C onfessor 1

: \ •,/ ALL ING ,Fo u t -p

‘ 2 9 7 . A 4 1.

4

1 0 5 3 B e . I 1 8 2 5 W P ' A S 7 .

NL iE

r -

.

i n '

I -

• i , , , ,. • ,0 c 0

u

1

1

L A L

S B Y 2 6

rn

^

1 0 V 1 . . . , 0

v

ii )i n1 9 2-c ° e L . . , . ,

• , ,0

.

M k

e A)

p i

•0 c v c q d

9 z . 1 z e l

,

‘ 8

W F 2 7 1 A . G n i l .

,D

S . M a r t l e t s '

c 4

r 2 5 7 M 1 2 , 5 .

,1 I • 40 / 1

G O

r n

z

4

•

'' h

I — — _,

. . 1

. 4 , k _

_, •r • •

I , , e.

r 4

2 8 b . A 9 2 8 ,

r z

c o

e r0, „ ° )

Z

' W A 5 6 .

8 4 9 B M r 2 . 9 0

, F

'

0 2 ,u i . 7 ,z .c, _

, J • ) . '

E M 3 1 W 1 3 1 4 5

L C

-

R *1°

S P 9 2 5 3 2

1 3 0 h . S P 8 0 H A P 2 0 3 1 . F 9 5 3 1 . 0 8 6 1 .

SP 3- 5 0 J I O 4 9 ß M

.1 -3 6 2 4 3 5 4 .

—

B M 1 2

I s, —

l i : g (2 .7 -, 0 z o c J u , gr ,T o

3, A 9 6 . H A P 2 0 '

•c r r ••

I I

_

1 1 2 H I M 2 .

3 9

F . B u s t

u ' I

E t 2

1

H . C r o s

u

< e )

k — I M 2 1 5 2 , 1 ) ,

, P y r a m i d s

4 0

W F 3 1 7 .

B M .

0 9

0 -

0< e ) Z 5) IZ f. c n e

N

r 4

0 ) 0

Z

.

SI 7

xa0 0 _

u . ,4

f > !J r --

. , ; . ,

gg 4 -

•

E x p . C r o s

s i c o .,C P r - , o r 0 :, - ` ' — I -• i ' • i- — ° .

1

,

e

c 1 1

= f a

•c ot i

•0 C n L i _ C o 1

N

0 0 —

U)

2

e a

< c 4 2. f

• , 4 Nr ,

< .

0 , 7 0 \ 14

1 . 1 1

1 1

'„ . I .

•i x

C O

,I " -

—

r "V r l e ' s c r

c . , , _

E 00

P E ' S $ 6 1 5 E

--

, I )

L C 8 3 0 . A 8 9 3 .

Z

j

H M t 8 4 1 . B M .

P . H e l m e t

—

r

5 6

I

L C 1 3 5 .

'° ( ) ‘ 2 , „

o r—
.

0 . 2 I

0

0 DI

0 42 U . J

S . M a r t l e t s

0

1 4 7 0 , 7 5 8 , 7 5 9

•

•

a _

F 8 2 1 B M 1 3 2 4 . W C 9 5 6 . B M 1 3 2 E ) . N I L .

—

%I

. . -

G S 7 4 : 3 1 4 0 e s s H m u

8 2 8 3

I

( r )

< 7 5 -

2

t

i s p 7 s 1 3 2 , , g m

I M 4 1 3 0 , C M 1 2 9 . 0 . 1 . 5 E 2 1 ; 7 3 2 E 3 4 1 . L C 8 , 5 ‘ . W c 9 7 0 . 1 0 8 1 . 8 1 4 I 3 6 5 , 1 3 6

BM PC B 6 4 1 , I 1 7 2 4 C E B . G S 7 4 3 1 7 0 . C H W B 1 7 . l i t A N 4 3 X v i — 1 3 4 .

( 3 9

7 9 S H M 8 FE Z

.

4 M 1 3 7

9 1 4 .

4

F E 2 1 5 . P C s 6 S t •

I

I 1 4 0

r i 3 N 7 2 e

I N C

D F I J M E

_

. A M C

9 1 3

, . 0

F E I

0 r,

6 5 o * S o A 4 9 . B M .

w iu roN

t v l 4 7 . B M 1 3 5 9 , 1 3 6 0 . L . C . 8 5 6 d

P y r a m i d s i t o

6

M 4 7 % . B M 1 3 5 7 . , W C 73 5 , 73 6 .

3 9

F . B u s t

E dward t he C onfessor

,

1

the s econd extensive. PACX

half o f the The material

reign the evidence i s i s c ommented upon where

much more n ecessary:

Lifinc: recorded f rom F 8 21. R adiate/Small Cross glfstan: recorded f rom C 4-1238. T refoil-Quadrilateral glfstan: the obverse of BM 1 325 o f l E lfstan was employed by glfwine to s trike a Trefoil-Quadrilateral x Expanding C ross mule ( BM 1 327)[253]. Small F lan glfstan:

Smart

has

shown

that

the

c oin

H 7 00

of

" Winchest-

er" i s a die-duplicate of H 7 58 of + ELFSTAN 0 p i and should therefore be a ttributed to the Wilton mint[254]. Expanding Cross ( light) glfwine: recorded f rom BM 1 327. S overeign/ Martlets Swetric: although P CB 1 150 and BM 1 132 o f " Richborough" a nd BM 1 079 o f " Maldon" are a ttributed to Wilton, a t 1 6.8.79 BM 1 079 remained housed i n the British Museum t rays under a " Maldon" header. The a ttribution o f o ther c oins, such a s BM 1 346 o f + SPETRIC ON PILTV, does not appear to have a roused misgivings 1 255]. Hammer Cross glfwine: recorded from one coin in the City hoard. glfwold: one coin ( F 9 32) carries the ambiguous f orm " glfword" ( q.v.). glfword: recorded f rom F 9 32 ( Table 1 18). F acing Bust glfwine: recorded f rom BM 1 358. Leofwine: i ncluded i s a coin o f + LEOFPINE- ON PI VN (CH-N2) which has been identified a s a reverse die-duplicate o f F EJ 9 14 and a ttributed to the Winchester mint. Despite the unusual mint signature a Wilton a ttribution s eems preferable i n the l ight o f the absence o f coins in this moneyer's name a t Winchester a fter the Expanding Cross type. Leofwine i s otherwise substantiated a s a Wilton moneyer by mint signatures such a s ON PILV of BM 1 361. Thurecil: Thurecil could be considered a moneyer i n this type only i f the Museum of London c oin of +DVREEL pe l ( Acc.no.132) i s a ttributed to Wilton rather than Warwick. Pyramids l fwold: known f rom BM 1 362. This material i s largely uncontroversial. Some r ea ttribution o f coins i n Wilton's f avour has taken place ( e.g. H 7 00 and BM 1 079) but mint s ignatures a re u sually u nambiguous - only i n the case of Thurecil i n the Facing Bust type i s a moneyer-for-type occurrence dependent upon a doubtful mint signature. The coin, which i f a ttributed t o Wilton would extend Thurecil's t enure by o ne type, was probably s truck a t Warwick. Moneyer signatures a re very regular. The glfwine name-form appears a lways t o b e' rendered thus, without a ttendant " -i" or " -ig" forms; only " glfword" occasions some further consideration. The f orm occurs on one recorded c oin a s +ALFPORD ON PILTVNE

4 78

Exp.Cross(1)

g LFPOLD 1

Exp.Cross( wnr)

g LFPOLD 2

Pointed

Helmet

ALFPOLD 3

Sovereign/ Martlets Hammer

Cross

Facing Bust

g LFPOLD 6 g LFPOLD

ALPOLD 5

ALFPOLD 7

ALFPOD 8

1 0

A LPOLD

ALFPORD 9

1 1

ALFPOLD 12

Pyramids g LFPOLD 14

PAX

ALFPOLD 4

ALFPOLD 15

ALPOLD 16

1 E LP0LD 17

E LFPOLD 13 1 . CM 1 183. 2 . L C 2 812, HAP 1 98g. 3 . e .g. WC 6 95. 4 . e .g. BM 1 338. 5 . e . g. CM 1 236. 6 . e .g. BM 1 350. 7 . e .g. BM 1 352. 8 . BM 1 351. 9 . F 9 32. The S CBI fascicule shows A ...PORD clearly enough. The s econd l etter, the putative " L", appears cut i n a very rounded form, as , and the " F" has survived a s i F , but the "Ageword" thus i ntimated combines elements not o therwise compounded at Wilton. However, future physical examination o f the c oin will doubtless corroborate the "Alfword" t ransl iteration. 1 0. M 4 78. 1 1. BM 1 357. 1 2. BM 1 362. 1 3. S P 7 9-2945. 1 4. e .g. BM 9 6. 1 5. e .g. C 4-1299. 1 6. e .g. WC 7 46. 1 7. e .g. BM 9 7.

1 L J

TABLE

1 18

" glfwold"

a t

Wilton.

( F 9 32). Head, who published the Chancton hoard, i n which the c oin was contained, did not recognise the name-form a s i ndependent a nd N orth does not record " glfword" a s a Wilton moneyer. S earle and Smart do however recognise " Elfword" a s a discrete f orm. Smart l ists i t a s a subordinate f orm o f " glfweard" and a s such distinguishes i t from " glfwold", a d evelopment of an " glfweald" form. At London a single " glfword" form exists, within a n extensive " glfweard" series ( BM 9 56 i n London 1 06) a nd a t o ther mints where " glfword" occurs, such a s Bristol, i t must clearly belong within the " glfweard" s eries. Nowhere, however, in Edward's reign does " / Elfword" exist a s a c ontinuous series i n i ts own right and only a t Wilton i s the a ssociation with " glfweard" broken, where i ts presence at Wilton has probably been obscured by the weight of the " glfwold" material[Table 1 18]. I t i s not to be f ound even among glfwold's enormous output i n the PAX type o f Harold I I, i n which, a t the most conservative e stimate, he employed no l ess than twelve reverse dies ( see above, p .58-9)[256]. The c larity o f the t enures revealed by this material a ssists the re-creation o f the mint s tructure. Base points for the calculation o f moneyer c omplement are t he transition f rom PACX to Radiate/Small Cross ( three moneyers), f rom Radiate/Small Cross to T refoil-Quadrilateral' ( four moneyers, the three existing moneyers b eing joined by Wineman), and the transition f rom P ointed Helmet to t he Sovereign/Martlets type ( three moneyers, j oined

4 79

i n the latter type g o f orward i nto the points o f reference

by three more moneyers, a ll of whom Hammer Cross type). No o ther absolute exist but f rom the Pyramids type o n-

wards the mint i s very unlikely t o have had more t han f our moneyers coining simultaneously and from BMC type V o f William I i t would have been a three-moneyer mint. The mint i s g enerally s table a t three- or f our-moneyer s tatus: three until the P ointed H elmet type ( except f or a t emporary i ncrease to f our i n the Radiate/Small C ross and Trefoil-Quadrilateral types), a nd f our f rom the Pyramids type. I n the Small F lan type there i s a s udden weakening a nd during the Sovereign/Martlets, Hammer C ross and F acing Bust types a very marked s trengthening. The " weakening" i n the Small Flan type i s occasioned by t he d eparture of glfstan ( perhaps f or Winchester, where a n glfstan i s known i n this type), by the absence o f glfwine, and by the non-replacement of the two moneyers who c ease work i n the preceding type. While i t would, o f course, take no more than the discovery o f one coin, a S mall F lan penny o f Thurecil, Lifinc or Wineman, to change this i nterpretation, Wilton's apparent crisis coincides with the complete closure, for the time b eing, o f adjacent Salisbury, with which a close relationship existed, f rom which Wineman had rece i ,tly t ransferred a nd f rom which one o f the two remaining moneyers ( glfwold) i s about t o transfer. The s trengthening of the Wilton mint, doubling i ts complement f rom three to s ix e stablished moneyers, coincides with S alisbury's revival ( albeit i n a vestigial form), and may be related to the sharp c ontraction o f c omplement a t Winchester. Although the n ew i ntensity o f output i s not maintained the mint emerges with four moneyers rather than three. This substantial e nlargement i s serviced i n i ts entirety by r ecruitment exclusive to the mint ( and may even b e reinforced i n the Hammer Cross type by t wo single-type moneyers who are also unique to the mint). I ndeed, i n t erms of personnel, Wilton i s independent o f all mints except Winchester, to which i t may c ontribute one moneyer, and Salisbury, f rom which i t draws two moneyers. Chichester P " Likely" no. of moneyers. % o f a ll moneyers. N o.of c oins ( I) N o.of c oins ( S) ( Total)

R

T

S

E

1

1

1

1

0 .5 0 1 1

0 .5 1 1 2

0 .5 1 2 3

0 .5 1 2 1 1 3

P

S

H

F

P

3

3

3

2

2

1 .4 2 2 0 2 2

1 .5 3 4 1 3 5

1 .5 4 1 0 4 1

1 .1 2 4 1 2 5

1 .2 2 1 0 2 1

The relatively slight c oin evidence for the f irst half of Edward the Confessor's r eign should not n ecessarily imply a n i ncomplete picture o f mint s tructure during that period. The mint i s clearly a o ne-moneyer mint i n the

4 80

Small F lan and Expanding Cross types and the problem i s whether or not that represents a reduction i n complement f rom a possible two moneyers i n the Radiate/Small Cross a nd T refoil-Quadrilateral types. The critical coins a re the R adiate/Small C ross penny H 5 6 of + NE ON C IC and the Trefoil-Quadrilateral penny H 5 8 of + LEOFNOD ON C IC. H ildebrand c onsidered the f ormer coin to be a penny o f " glfwine" whose p resence a t Chichester he k new of from the T refoil-Quadrilateral penny H 5 7 o f + gLFPINE ON C ICE. What h e did not k now was that the moneyer Leofwine, a t Chichester i n the r eigns o f Cnut and Harthacnut, was also a t Chichester i n the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type, and there s eems n o reason why, from the reading g iven, the coin H 5 6 should n ot have been s truck by Leofwine i nstead o f glfwine. I ndeed, there i s every reason why an a ttribution to Leofwine i s preferable. H 5 6, a s a coin o f glfwine, would constitute the sole evidence f or that moneyer's activity i n the Radiate/Small Cross type and would bring forward by one type the c ommencement o f his career; i f the coin can b e a ttributed t o Leofwine ( otherwise unknown i n the type but known i n o ther types) glfwine can b e regarded a s Leofwine's successor a nd the mint neatly represented a s a o ne-moneyer mint throughout the f irst half o f the reign - provided that the re-attribution o f H 5 8 to Gloucester a nd of BM Uz i. a Small F lan penny of EDPI ON C ICESI, to I pswich, i s acceptable. S tewart has an i ndirect reference t o a Godric a t Chichester i n the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type b ut this i s surely a t ransposition f or Lewes. S light though the coin evidence i s, i t appears to create a complete pattern of a ctivity for the first half o f Edward the C onfesor's reign[257]. By contrast the evidence f or the s econd half o f the reign i s very substantial a nd Chichester undergoes a s igni ficant change. I n the Pointed Helmet type glfwine i s joined by Wulfric ( for the remainder of the reign) and Godwine ( until Hammer Cross and again i n PAX - and possibly active i n William I 's reign). The soundness o f the evidence a nd the continuity with which the moneyers s truck make i t an easy task t o a ssess the size o f the Chichester mint:a one-moneyer mint until P ointed Helmet and then a three- and latterly two-moneyer mint. The exact point at which two-moneyer s tatus i s achieved i s difficult to determine. The moneyer G odwine i s unknown a t Chichester i n the Facing Bust and Pyramids types but apparently returns i n the PAX type on Wulfric's departure, perhaps to be r eplaced i n turn by Bruman. The " Godwine" name-form persists, however, appearing i n BMC types V a nd V I o f William I and again i n William I I types I I, I II(?), IV a nd V , l ate i n H enry I 's reign, and once i n S tephen's reign. The Godwine o f H enry I a nd S tephen would presumably n ot b e the G odwine o f William I a nd I I but i s the Godwine of William I 's reign the Godwine of Harold I I ( and, probably, E dward the Confessor)? Alternatively his a bsence late i n Edward's reign might reflect division of a ctivity between Chichester and Lewes, but whatever

4 81

C l _

L E O

P l e

u , i E L F I D I N E .

T r e f o i l

I

_ . _ 0 3

L i _ ( 0

4

E c r ) t o

K i. z u c o

z

. a U -

_ J

r n

u i z

0

0

X 2 = &

« > . •

c o r - r ,

_ .

E r , . . c, , c ) 4 _

t f %

N

r n N

X

Z

c o

i «

N N

L 9 L i )

X C D
5

4 2 3

. C J M I A 3 I H A P 2 0 c . S c A 1 3 8 , 1 3 e i

F E 7 B 1 4

— r 4 3 1 , S T F 9 2 8 , 9 2 . B M 1 2 3 ,

6 3 0 , 1 6 2 ,

I 5 U 4 S c 2 1 % . P C 9 P C S 1 7 1 • F E 7 % 0 1 •

7 T 8 4 1

1 4 6 7 . 0 4 e g

1 2 . 1 4 C M 1 2 6 3 .

A 9 8 2 , 9 8 3 .

6 4 1 2 ,

L C 8 4

1 8 0 7 S p i n e / 8 % . c i m .R . M .K 5 1 6 .

4C

.

5 . C , 1 5 3 F 9 s B c r . M 4 7 9 0 . A 1 ' 6 31 S17 , 7, 89 2 4 9 3 ° 05 4 1

1 7 3 , 7 6 ' 1 0 1 2 . S P 1 3 5

7 2 5 F . 1 2 , 7 3 0 4 / 6 4 3 7 4 6_ E s 1 4 . . G s

-E 5 4 3 6 , 6 4 3 H2. 6 40 , 6 3 9 H 2 4 0 , L A L 2 3 0 < S P 3 7 . r •

6 8 9

6 9 7 E I S ' , 6 9 1 E 2 4 7 ,

8 2 9

G S 7 ' 1 5

S c •

S C A 1 4 7 , 4 1 -

31 3 5 .

S P 8 7

L C

0 6 1 9 B 5 M 1 Z i S , 1 26 B . B . r . M

1AH A I i o +

-4 3 4 E .

1 4 2 ) 6

1 7 A Z 1

5; 8 1

B i .• B M • / '

1 ,. 8 .

9 I C

1 s 2 1 7 .

e l . A1 0 7 2 0 . , 1 7 , 1 9 ° 1 5 1

p •3 6

1

E dward t he C onfessor :s -r e ,o,o NG .

of i ts impact upon the S teyning mint profile. Coins of a " Godwine" i n the Pyramids type with the o therwise apparently a cceptable mint signature ON ST / E have been re-attributed to S tafford[259]. T he picture which emerges i s e ssentially that of a single-moneyer mint. The qualification a rises f irstly i n respect o f Wulfric's activity i n the PACX type, when he a ppears alongside F rithewine a s a " second" moneyer to c oin C 4-1180 o f + PVLFRIC ON STE, and s econdly i n respect of Wulfgaet's activity i n both the l ight and heavy emissions o f the Expanding Cross type, when he joins Wulfric. I ndeed, on current evidence, Wulfgaet, the " single-type" moneyer, was far more active than the " established" moneyer. I t i s a s i f, f rom t ime to time, the nature o f the output required o f the mint i s s uch a s to elevate i t, temporarily, to two-moneyer status, but that, a s yet, no exact designation o f S teyning's s tatus a s a minting place had been a chieved. This enhanced activity o ccurs during a period o f relative quiescence a t the Chichester mint and suggests a l evel of a ctivity a t S teyning which i s a s extensive a s that of the senior mint. This apparent parity i s shortlived. Chichester's apparent decline proves t emporary and i n the Pointed Helmet type Chichester u ndergoes a remarkable recovery, a recovery which eclipses S teyning and i s achieved partly a t S teyning's expense. I t i s probable that i n the P ointed Helmet and S overeign/Martlets types, S teyning's Wulfric has to divide his time b etween the two mints until, i n fact, he i s absorbed by the Chichester mint. H is d eparture i s the occasion o f s omething of a recovery o f the S teyning mint for i t now enjoys the exclusive services o f D ermon, Wulfric's successor, u ntil his retirement i n BMC type VI o f William I . As a t Chichester, there appears to be a n up-turn i n activity i n the E xpanding Cross type, a nd the l arge volume of surviving coin evidence suggests that Wulfric engages in a high rate o f activity a t both the Chichester and S teyning mints. That so substantial a volume o f surviving c oin evidence sustains a picture of S teyning as n o more than a one-moneyer mint i n the l atter y ears of t he reign suggests that the picture o f S teyning a s a two-moneyer mint i n the early years o f the reign, derived from a much l ess substantial body o f evidence, i s a r eliable one. Lewes I n though

general the mint signature presents no a number o f i ndividual coins require

problems, a ttention

and a re considered i n turn: Radiate/Small Cross: A coin o f + LEOFPINEE ON LE a ttributed to the Lewes mint was o ffered for sale by S pink i n 1 974 ( SP 8 2-4340). N o o ther coin i s recorded which helps to i dentify Leofwine a s a Lewes moneyer i n this type though a moneyer o f this name i n the Small F lan and

4 85

E dward t he C onfessor . L E . wEs

1 P y r a m i d s

E dward t he C onfessor

E e a

0

r e 1 c • J

I Z 0 c i a i , • c o ( A 1< 4 N c gs c i ) S

e n

4 m

Z a-1 ,

F . B u s t

f

•

0 ‘ " t ' •

C )

< e a 0

G O

BM

B M '

6 7 B M 5 9 4 5 9 5 . CM 1 2 . 3 . E l 4 1 SP 7 9 4 3 4 0 4 . ?C B 1 4 2 .

I

U .

Pc B 1 7 9 7 . H A Bt i5 9 6 . r E j 4 2 . B T S P A 6 4 1 0 . Sc2 1 3 . 8 5 ' 6 1 3 9 .

Lc 8 3 7 a .

S T

*

6 0 2 B

H . C r o s

—

• ,: —

E a t c l P 57 2 . c ' • c r \a . V I U ) L l A W

4 7

V )

—

A

I

.

I h i f ) 0 ‘ . 1 ) C O u l c 0 Z 0 2 e t c ' O C, 0

0

e

I IS . M a r t l e t s

10

G O 'N

0 0 0 Z 0 ", I I

C , c o 1

T

i n

1e i ö , . , • I Hz •

0

—

, S )

H . cc •0

c °

1 4 8

Br i 6 0 7 .

u o

. D. 0

C O

PC B 1 8 1 . SC A 6 4 3 .

C e t

o

h 2

BT

H

•

b e

P . H e l m e t

i s - ( 3

. c)

L r ) 7

3

\ -. 3

C • J

C 0

'

, ,c_— . _ •

H A . H A P 1 9 , SM 5 8 9 . F EJ 4 3 9 .

6

I n

1 3 1 3 XX I r2 6 i v .

00

II

Cm 1 2 _ 1 3 . L C 8 2 6

.on —
0 C Z

< L 5 0 c 0

-

C O

ic r ) _ d •s

E L _ a 0 L u u _ Z

1 o n

( f )

f i )

X C D

5

2 c t v l Z

Cn

i s ,

u i 2

W ( 7

0


_ i

1 A P 1 9

U V )

a .

, 1 8 0 . * 6 9 A A 1 0 6 2 z L C 8 5 7 , 1 k m 1 8 S 6 . , > F E -1 2 7 0

P C B 6 4 3 > N

B M 1 8 7 S P 8 7 r .

_

3 6 1 . B M

6 2 _

P

, -C O ( A -

a o V2 - • . t. .

. 9 e a ' i-

s ( n r


p G

1 .

a )

M 1 9

2 . 7

4 0 4 8 .

› J E

8 9

8 M t 9 2 L c 3 2 4 4 F u

z o1

c c r % , f )

1 7 6 , + 7 , 1 7 3 , 1 7 9

Zu 8 M 1 3 5 . D C .

o

G S ' 1 0 2 4 3

› . c o

0 S0 c 3L U

-

C i r

P C S 6 3 5 . B P 1 7 c . A M C 6 4 3 i

,

u l e )

F 2 3 2 7 e , .

_ 0

I -

-1 4 3 9 2 . › F E z 2 7 5 . * 2 . e , S c A 1 1 2 . 1 . g m

L i _

5 9

1 2 4 6

o n -A co ,

-; 4 2 9 1 5 , 6 5 2

.

L s )

B M 1 8 , 1 8 2

L u u r - 4

G o _ . 9 _ A 0 0

S 7

o c 4

L c 8 / 4 1 7 + F £ T 2 7 1

I ) B M 3 1 9

1 8

P y r a m i d s

0

1

Z r s a B M ) X V 1 p b

1 3 t 4 J ) 7 , . 7 . 9 . S C w 1 3 1 1 . L c 3 1 7 J B M 1 8 6 . c m F E . 3 2 4 + A m c

F . B u s t

1

•

C C O

I

X LL 1 o A c o I N

9 3 1 3 0

_J

. 4 3

( n 0 s . .

E M 1 7 2 . p c s o z S a e L c 3 i 9 t e i 1 9S P

F E . 1 2 . 6 7

r c o

* 1 9 5 8 A n H 4 4 , 6 4 5

c i N

S C A 2 0 7 0

B M 1 7 .

. u . i u -

1H A P 1 9 1

0 r i o e -

P C B S 7 9 .

-

H 7 5 .

e d

F E . 7 2 . ‘ 6

r -

7 9 . 1 7 6

r t I e t s

N

C 4

2 3

P . H e l m e t M

2 .

T r e f o i l ( i ) U ) 0 L C D

2 1

R a d i a t e

,

,

1 E dward t he C onfessor .Dov uz

r n I -

-

0

z

c . e

r -

c s, r-

ment declining to three moneyers i n the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type and two i n the Small F lan type. I n scheme I Lufwine and E tsige are g iven " associate" s tatus, their activity at D over resuming o n the r etirement o f B oga and Eadwine, and D over would thus b e described a s a three-moneyer mint until i ts c ontraction i n the Small F lan type. The complete continuity o f personnel type by-type from Expanding Cross t o Hammer Cross e stablished D over beyond doubt a s a three-moneyer mint until at l east the Facing Bust type. Wulfwerd's a ctivity in the Facing Bust and PAX types suggests that the mint may, unusually, have i ncreased i ts c omplement b riefly a t the end of Edward's reign. T he only continuity b etween the two halves known i n every

of the reign i s provided by Cinstan, type except Pyramids. C oins survive

of Wulfwerd and Cinstan from Harold I I's PAX i ssue. They a re all o f BMC Ia and a t l east three o bverse dies were employed ( two by Cinstan). N o coins are k nown o f Manwine for this type but his presence a t the mint may b e inferred f rom the survival o f his c oins f rom Pyramids and William I 's BMC type I i ssue, and f rom Dover's previous history a s a three-or f our-moneyer mint. The current pattern o f coin survival suggests sharp and continued decline i n William's r eign. O nly Manwine i s reliably a ttested; B ruman's presence i s o nly slightly l ess shadowy than that o f the moneyer responsible f or the Bonnet penny i n the care o f the D over Museum ( Dover Museum ref.0.4727; for the re-attribution of this coin to Shrewsbury see above, page 3 46 ) . A revival does seem to occur i n BMC V II and VIII o f William's reign which returns the complement t o four or f ive. I n these types coins are known bearing the names of two moneyers whose l ast recorded presence was Edward's Hammer Cross type ( Godwine) and Harold's PAX type ( Cins tan), a circumstance not entirely unknown elsewhere, and one which makes any picture o f the Dover mint v ery unreliable for much of William's r eign. R econstruction o f the D over mint i s, therefore, not without i ts diffficulties. Until the p resence of Lufwine i n the PACX type and E tsige in the PACX and Radiate/Small Cross types can b e demonstrated, i t i s posible to propose that the maintenance f or much of Edward's reign of three-moneyer s tatus i s the product o f two contrasting systems o f organisation. I n t he PACX, Radiate and Trefoil-Quadrilateral types the mint i s i n possession of a reserve o f moneyers ( Lufwine and E tsige) with which i t replaces B oga and Eadwine; a fter the sharp drop i n activity i n the Small Flan type when the mint's sole surviving e stablished moneyer has to be supplemented by the services o f the single-type moneyer Winstan the mint i s subjected t o sudden reform. The " pool" i s abolished and the mints new ( and, i n effect, reduced) establishment i s required t o work steadily i n type a fter type. Underlying this reform might be the reduction i n the number o f active moneyers which

5 10

-

Facing PAX

Bust

PVLFPVRD PVLETVRD

( BM ( BM

1 91) 1 1, A 1 121,

" Wulfwurd" RTH 2 -100 photographed i n the reads PVLETVRD TABLE

1 22

manifests

' Wulfwurd" a t the Confessor i tself

G 1 232)

ex HM 2 -178.The coin i s Roth Sale catalogue and

D over i n the reigns and Harold I I

elsewhere

i n

of

Edward

other ways.

The mint appears to be quite self-contained during this period; i ndeed CEOLWI ( and variants), CINSTAN and MANWINE are to b e found a s moneyers' names nowhere else i n E ngland - and , a re highly uncommon a s personal names i n t his period. Wulfwurd, Eadwine and Godwine a re the only moneyers who may possibly be active a t o ther mints. A Wulfward works a t London during this period but there i s n o reason to a ssume a l ink and D over's moneyer signs himself " Wulfwurd" rather than " Wulfward" ( Table 1 22). Eadwine may move t o R ochester during the Radiate/Small Cross type and G odwine may be the Goldwine a t Hythe i n t he Hammer Cross type. No convincing case can be made in f avour o f these moves - i t i s not until the PAXS type o f William I that a more definite l ink s eems probable - with S andwich. Canterbury P " Likely" no. of m oneyers. % o f all moneyers . No.of coins ( I) No o f coins ( S) ( Total)

R

T

S

E

P

S

H

F

P

7

7

7

7

7

7

6

6

6

6

3 .0 2 9 1 1

3 .2 6 1 8 2 4

3 .2 1 8 2 3 4 1

3 .3 2 3 1 0 3 3

3 .3 2 4 8 3 2

3 .3 2 3 1 2 4

3 .0 1 9 1 2 0

3 .1 2 9 4 3 3

3 .4 2 1 0 2 1

3 .7 1 1 0 1 1

S ix moneyers, Gyldewine, Leofstan, Lifwine, Manna, Eadward and glfred, a re a t work f or type after type i n E dward the C onfessor's reign. With the addition of Cytel, who c eases work i n the PACX type, ten moneyers, occupying six " workshops", provide continuous output through the reign. A seventh " workshop", functioning until the P ointed Helmet type, i s that o f Brunman and his successor Wulstan. North distinguished between a " Caldewine" and a " Goldwine" a t Canterbury i n the reigns of b oth Harold I a nd Edward the Confessor but no c oins o f a " Goldwine" a ppear to have come to l ight i n Edward's reign and " Caldewine", a s Table 1 23 suggests, i s better normalised a s " Gyldewine"[273]. " glfred" and " glred" ( Table 1 24) may b e close renderings of a common name-form which can b e normalised to " glfred", but the presence of the " EI "farm a t a mint a t which North finds an " gthelwine"[274] might suggest the hidden presence of an " ggelred" However neither f ull " ggelred" nor " gthelred" forms appear to

5 11

E dward t he C onfessor

C M 4TER BUR: 1

E dward t he C onfessor .

CA NT ERB U RY

5 13

x 0

< C L

D CO

c z u i

Z

o


R

. . )

z

=4 . ;• x

i n

2

0

u )

c i .

1 C

t l a

o •

i t

1 •

E c o

I li ) 1 7 1 1 1 1 " 1 " 1

F . B u s t

t e l Z t O Ce'

3

H . C r o s

o ' e E c f )

,S . M a r t l e t s

-

s

c r

P . H e l m e t

-r -h 2 rL i c oL i -

-

V ) ( 1 ) 0 L C . ) O . X

.

r • t r i i L

t . i . i

—

2 c r ,

. ) •5 1 :4 .£11 ' 95 l l

U . .

• f S9 -L .s A M• t I l l 913 > £ 1 , 1 dY t i •DS •We -1 90 13 - 6 0L S S

C o

5 1 1 3 v-C o L L33 ' LS I t o ' oSS •l en V 43 ' 1 >S 1 1 %S tS 1 1 w s • 9 £ .9 2 ri •LZ

' 5S il 1 49 •9 0i1- b tL ' 54£4 H oi -9 ` bbh£ 1 1 -499 S S oII -90g SO V4L 1221 * 1

C

; . 3 x

_

r i x c o

_ .

,

c ' )( 2 • 12 t z ' , )r )

T r e f o i l

( •. c m . ,

C D I ( 1 : 3 O a

C r

i n L i l _ 1

G O D S A C

• 1 : 3

o

0; •=

r :

e G

: : .• •

F I A N E

! I M I M M I O R M I M I M O

f g2 = , c o -, *

U

V, i :

r i r `

•- U : : r i

c r , t e . , 7 . u

V ' n

c

v _ i •. ) 00 i n • - r Z

0

• D S

.

, P I A 2• -0 r r -

< C L

t n r q : : ,e l . n . a0 , 3

•

t . ) I

c . . 1£ , i • c e= u

2 U —

0 c L C 2 i

0

Z

0

< t n

e

5 19

.

u i 2

c i 5L I 7 1

*

.

P ointed Helmet type ( correspondence 3 .3.1982). Leofwine therefore remains unrecorded in the S overeign/Martlets type. The evidence to support G odric, successor t o Leofwine, i s very slight, being no more than a couple o f coins of the Facing Bust and the " Transitional Pyramids" ( BMC xiv) type. No coins o f the Pyramids type have c ome to l ight despite hints of their e xistence: S tewart and Blunt i mply the existence of s uch coins of a moneyer o ther than Godric[277]. A Godric i s a lso recorded, from the coin C 4-1155 ( and possibly the c oin LD-C), i n the Radiate/Small Cross type. The mint signature of C 4-1155 ON SAN should s erve to l ocate the moneyer a t Sandwich, although a s another Radiate/Small Cross penny o f Thurstan ON SAN, ( HM 1 -822) has been r e-attributed to S tamford, where a Thurstan i s well e stablished, a similar re-attribution should a lso be considered f or the G odric coin, there being a well e stablished moneyer of that name a t S tamford. A Small Flan penny in the R oth sale ( lot 8 5f) of FAREhIR ON SA, from the City hoard, catalogued under " Sandwich", ought also to b e re-attributed to the S tamford mint by analogy with BM 1 151, although a new moneyer i s thereby added to t he canon o f S tamford moneyers[278]. The coin evidence, with the exception of the R adiate/ Small Cross penny C 4-1155, shows S andwich t o be a singlemoneyer mint, first under Leofwine and then Godric. F or the early period o f William I 's reign the c oin evidence i s unsound, and i n all probability the mint was dormant; i t revives i n BMC type I V of W j Uiam's reign i n what i s clearly a re-fashioned a nd s trong , - f orm. I t i s impossible to be c ertain that SE . dwich obtains f rom i ts moneyers their exclusive servic:s. Leofwine may have made a brief excursion to Hythe in the Small F lan type, though Hythe's " Leofwine" could ' l ave o riginated a t Hastings, or even D over, where a LEcFPINE/LIOFPINE/ LIFPINE/LVFPINE had c oined since a t l eas - the b eginning o f Cnut's reign. Table 1 25 shows that there i s, however, no hint a t Hythe or Sandwich of the LVFPINE f orms which the D over moneyer came eventually t o employ to the exclusi on of all o thers. A " Lifwine" i s active at R ochester f rom the Sovereign/Martlets type and a nother moneyer with the same name-form i s a t Canterbury until the Facing Bust type but to suggest that they are one and the same moneyer i s to propose an erratic f orm o f moneyer-sharing which i s based on nothing more than random c oincidence of names. On the o ther hand, given the close p roximity e specially o f Sandwich to Canterbury, there i s nothing improper i n the suggestion. I n William's r eign the mint either supplies, or i s supplied by, glfheh, a moneyer i n and

BMC V " simultaneously" i n n ewly c reated P evensey a t Sandwich - he i s f irst r ecorded at b oth mints i n this type though he tends to devote more time to Sandwich. Another moneyer late i n William's reign,

G odwine,

may

work

simultaneously

5 20

a t

D over

and

S andwich.

" L e o f w i n e "

0 H 4

Z,

0 H 4

0 H 4

S a n d w i c h

H

T A B L E 1 2 5

H

S o v e r i g n / M a r t l e t s

Z,

P o i n t e d H e l m e t

r L i 0 H u p

E x p a n d i n g C r o s

• e t

T r e f o i l Q u a d r i l a t e r a l

H

R a d i a t e ! S m a l

L I O F P I N E

Z

s r › .

r--

5 21 •

1 -D

r -L n

c)

H

H

T 1

1 . 1

c Y \ r--

C r) • 0 H c o e t t Y )

r' s

0

c o

H

•

Sandwich

and

Hythe

are

n ew

mints

created

early

i n Edward the Confessor's reign and commence almost simultaneously ( assuming that the Radiate/Small Cross c oin H 2 45 of / E lfwine may safely b e attributed t o Hythe). Both mints are located i n territory already well served by moneyers and mints. Canterbury l ies twelve miles due west and D over thirteen miles to the south of Sandwich. Hythe, twelve miles from R omney and sixteen f rom Canterbury, i s a t almost the s ame distance f rom D over a s i s Sandwich. Their function cannot have been t o " in-fill" between Romney, Dover and Canterbury, a nd relates perhaps to a g rowing c ommercial or s trategic importance of the a rea which i n turn made i t desirable to e stablish mints either i n satisfaction o f l ocal demands or i n response to wider needs which were focussed u pon the K ent coast. I f commercial f orces are among those a t play, the s trengthening o f minting facilities i n the counties to the north o f the a pproaches to the Thames might also bear t ribute to them; certainly s trategic i nterests were a t work i n K ent a nd f rom the moment o f i ts i nception events of more than l ocal s ignificance shaped the fortunes of the S andwich mint. Although i ts sack i n 1 048 may make no p erceptible i mpact upon mint activity, the needs o f the g reat f leet c oncentrated a t S andwich i n the next year t o l end a sistance to the Emperor[279] may have occasioned what a ppears to have been a considerable i ncrease i n output i n the Small F lan type. I n g eneral, Leofwine's surviving output i s small, u sually the product of two reverse dies, but in the Small F lan type a t l east s even reverse dies a ppear t o have b een employed. The actual f igures are: PACX - 2 , Radiate/Small Cross 2 , Trefoil-Quadrilateral 2 , Small F lan - 7 , P ointed Helmet - 2 and Hammer Cross 1. I n each case the f igures constitute a minimum figure. Sandwich may not be alone i n i ts r eaction but i ts response provides an i lluminating comparison with the London and Lewes mints' employment of additional moneyers i n this type. The apparent absence of Expanding Cross and PAX coins may also be c onnected with political events [ 280] and the g ranting o f minting rights i n Sandwich might have represented a d elicate balance i n relations between crown and port - a port of d oubtful loyalty but o f great value to the c rown. The bargaining which might have occurred would have u nderscored the p rivileges g ranted by K ing Edward to the men o f F ordwich, S andwich, D over and Romney i n return f or ships and s eamen. Stenton was o f the opinion that Edward p robably came t o similar t erms with the men of Hythe and Hastings[281] and the D omesday survey contains h ints o f similar a rrangements with L ewes[282]. The development of the Hythe and Sandwich mints f ollows divergent paths. Sandwich emerges a s either a s elf-contained single-moneyer mint, or a mint closely bound t o Canterbury, experiencing s omething of a n eclipse f rom the Expanding Cross type but reviving g radually

5 22

under William I . I ts apparent i ndependence f rom i ts neighbours i s emphasised by the lasting contacts forged between Sandwich and Pevensey when the latter i s created i n William I 's reign, l inks which exclude P evensey's near n eighbours of R omney and Hastings. Hythe, by compari son, s truggles to survive i ts i nception and has difficulty i n originating, or retaining, moneyers. Rochester

" Likely" no. of moneyers . % of a ll moneyers. No.of coins ( I) No.of coins ( S) ( Total)

P

R

T

P

S

H

F

P

1

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

0 .4 1 1 2

0 .9 1 3 4

0 .9 4 1 5

0 .9 3 0 3

1 .5 4 0 4

1 .0 5 0 5

1 .1 3 0 3

1 .2 1 0 1

The coin evidence i s very slight. The moneyerfor-type occurrences are supported by possibly a s f ew as t wenty-seven recorded coins and i n a t l east s even cases the moneyer i s probably recorded i n a type by one c oin only. Accurate reconstruction of the R ochestermint i n Edward's reign i s thus excessively dependent upon i ndividual coins, particularly i n the case o f Leofstan i n the Sovereign/Martlets type and Lifwine i n the PAX t ype of Harold I I. Leofstan's presence i n the S overeign/Martlets type i s derived f rom FEJ 6 77 +LIFMTAN ON ROFE, extending the moneyer's tenure forward from the PAX type by f our types and submitting the R ochester mint thereby to consideration a s a three-moneyer mint b etween the S overeign/ Martlets and PAX types. Lifwine's presence in t he PAX type, d erived f rom NUN 1 81 + LEOFPINE ON RO, has a similar impact upon i nterpretation o f the mint's structure. Of the six moneyers known a t the mint i n Edward the Confessor's reign, two, Lifwine and Leofstan appear to suffer major i nterruptions to their work i n the l atter part o f the reign and no coins a t all are known in the Small Flan and Expanding Cross types due to the simultaneous i nterruption to the work of Godwine and Edwine. The transitions f rom Radiate/Small Cross to T refoil-Quadrilateral and from Pointed Helmet to Sovereign/Martlets provide base points f rom which to calculate moneyer c omplement, i n both cases a t two moneyers, and the mint has been i nterpreted accordingly for the whole of the i nterveing period. I n the S overeign/ Martlets a nd Hammer Cross types a case for an expansion to f our e stablished moneyers could be made, o n the basis of s imultaneous rather than sequential working by the moneyers c oncerned, but a s this i s a period of retirement and replacement i n Rochester mint personnel, and a s the p resence of no more than three moneyers i n the Facing Bust, Pyramids a nd PAX types can even be hinted a t, i t s eems preferable to regard the latter part o f the reign as o ne of modest expansion i n which the c omplement

5 23

' , . . . . „

C 4 1 5 4 . 1 3 \ 1 3 B M 1 3 4

. _

L C 3 7 9 1

e F E . J 6 7 , _ .

1 3 M 1 3 E

6

1

i

RT H 2 9 4 & .

7 ,

i

1

%

2 3 ;

M

&

M . O

i

P

E dward t he C onfessor . RocHEsTeR I ll

was raised from t wo to three moneyers; the evidence of recorded coin survivals suggests that f rom the Pyramids or PAX type two was the most a t which the moneyer complement c ould be a ssessed. The fragmented record of the three moneyers Leofstan, Lifwine and Lifwine Horn, who in F acing Bust, Pyramids and PAX types c ontribute between them only four moneyer-for-type occurrences, coupled with the i rregular a nd " alternating" activities o f Lifwine Horn a nd Lifstan a s the mint's two moneyers under William I , s uggests that these moneyers constituted a " pool" from which the mint could draw personnel a s required and r eminds us that the remains of the R ochester mint are those o f an i ncomplete skeleton. At l east an " interface" between Lifwine Horn and Godwine, and between Edwine and Lifwine or Leofstan s eems e stablished: one would not expect t o discover coins of Edwine o f the Hammer Cross type o r of Lifwine Horn i n the S overeign/ Martlets type - while on the other hand coins o f either Lifwine or Leofstan from, say, the Pointed H elmet type can b e anticipated. A s far a s c an be determined the R ochester mint recruits i ts own moneyers i ndependently and s ends out no moneyers to o ther mints. With the exception o f Lifwine Horn, all name-forms known at Rochester occur a t London or n eighbouring K entish mints but there i s no pattern of o ccurrence which l inks them, and no obverse die l inks have been detected between the Hammer Cross coins BM 1 139 and F EJ 6 78 o f Lifwine and Lifwine Horn respectively at R ochester and BMC 1 160 Lifwine of Sandwich. Little use i s made of " single-type" moneyers - possibly none at a ll i f the Wulfric of the Trefoil-Quadrilateral type i s the Wulfric n oted a t R ochester during the reign of Cnut. The flurry of a ctivity i n the S overeign/Martlets and Hammer Cross types may demonstrate that the • apparent i solation of the mint, perhaps i ndicative o f special status, does not render Rochester immune f rom trends apparent elsewhere and it isparticipating, i f only briefly, in a modest expansion; l ikewise the absence o f recorded coins of the Small Flan and Expanding Cross types may be due to Canterbury's direct enjoyment of the R ochester see i n the absence o f i ts bishop[283].

I n f ocussing a ttention upon i ndividual moneyers and i ndividual mints, the present s tudy has l eft unanswered many questions. I n particular, the nature o f " the mint", the distribution o f dies, the relationship between the moneyer and t he mint, between moneyer a nd moneyer, of mint to locality and to central authority, a re imperfectly understood. Moreover i n discharging that g reatest of responsibilities, the accurate representation of the past, uncritical acceptance and i nterpretation o f evidence a re the most damaging misdemeanours which can be l aid b efore those who claim to be historians. I t

5 25

must b e particularly s tressed, t herefore, that the hypotheses o f moneyer movement between mints and of the " single-type" moneyer must be rigorously t ested a nd reviewed whenever f resh evidence comes to l ight. I n this context i t i s salutary to report that i nspection of the Wareham mint trays i n the British M useum n ow reveals that the Hammer Cross penny o f BM 1 308 o f " Godeman" and the Harold I I penny BM 9 1 o f " Swetman" are b oth a ttributable to the moneyer Sideman; two Wareham moneyers have thus become phantoms, both o f whom were s upposedly " single-type" moneyers. There a re, no doubt, o ther " moneyers", i n o ther mint towns, against whom a question mark might be placed. Such s crutiny notwithstanding, however, we are l eft with the working hypothesis that the number of moneyers i s not without rationale a nd we a re a fforded a measure of u rban economic activity not o therwise revealed. There was, perhaps, movement of moneyers on a scale not hitherto supposed. Further die s tudies could clarify these relationships within and b etween mints: what will b e revealed i s not y et discernible but i t i s surely, eventually, k nowable.

5 26

APPENDICES

APPENDIX

I - The

Ranking

of

Mints.

Arrangement: Mints with 5 or more moneyers are ranked ( 1-17) according to " likely" moneyer complement. Mints enj oying the same number of moneyers are bracketed together. The mints above the horizontal line command the services of 50% of the moneyers active i n the type.

5 27

L C ) N Q 0 c o r - r - N

r Ir 1

4

E X P A N D I N G C R O S

• 0

r d g i S 1 0 ( 1 ) H 0 0 S 1 V U

u ) 4

r -

r d

l J U ) • O •

S M A L F L A N

o

0

o • o• H

e

H P

4

rc i c r ) 4 -) 1 1 c o 0 H H

a )1 g i

g i

X 0 C ) V ) 4 1 3

( 1 )

g i

g l

( I )

1 : 1 )

• O < r j

0 4 4 >1 4

0( . . ) 3

r d

4 4

( C I

r c i • o 1 . ) o g l 04 4. a )4 4 O P

E 1 c r )

rd 0 0 g i g i u ) r e U 0 . ) 3 41 4 4 a ) E 0 3

n : 1 4 1

C .)

1 )

X 0

C I ) U ) Oz

L Ö LÖLf lLf l

4r dr d

Q ) 0 0 U P r d. - 0 ( / ) c o • C 0 Q ) •O 0 H a > I4 0 0

4 1

0 G ) H g i H 0 X ( 1 ) O L 7 E4 0 r4 M

01 . 1 )1 )

• O

g l

a )a )

P-P. u ) c o 0 c l 01J U U 3 H g I 3

00

4 3 Z

¼oLÖL Ö

› 1 a ) Pr dr dr d c f ) g i g l . 1 ) C l ) • H 00 0 0 0 g i 0 V c o O 0 U L P 4 1 04 1 0g i r d, U C C ) 00 4 J P E HJ 0 0 a ) p

r d

•

•O

g i

0

( I )

0 -H H 4 > I 4 L 9 C) 3

V D/ 4 1 0L I )l f )L C )

Q )

( I ) ( " C i H 1 4 1 5 4 e H E1 0 c / 2 3 0c /2

N 00 1C OC ON N / 4 1 . 01 4 / . 01 4 / 0V OL f lL ( )L C ) ( 1r Ir 1 a )a )

r d

S . M A R T L E T S

g i 0 r d 0 O g i cn O 4 4 0 3 4 1 O 4 4 0 c l ) 4 1 0 0 1 1 > 1, O • 0 E -4 c i )

I n L n

r d g i

0 0 0 g i 0 u ) G ) 4 4 3 0 Q ) -41 4 -) E 0 g i C C u g i H C C u -P 3 M E1 0 cn c i ) 0

'o N o c N N N r 1r Ir I

0 0 4 4 4 0 0 c l H g i H 0 X 0 L 7E A U W Z

NC C O L C )‘ 1C O N N O1 4 / . 0V D C Y " ) r r 1r

> 1

› ^ I

a ) p

g l( r ) ( 1 ) 0 C D

> 1

E c C0 ( 1 )c e> 1 O 0• H

a ) p

0

i n L n L n

d 1 ) r C g i H 0 0 0 0 0 04 -1 . 41 U U

Nr I0N

• g i O 4 4 X O

T R E F O I L

g i

U ( 1 )

( 1 )

L C )

4 4 r d r d 7 : 2 C c o c o • H a ) a )r d0 a )5 0 0 C O 0 4 4 4 Q ) 4 1 4 1 0 00 0 W c o 4 4 EP C S 4 C 04 i g i 0 0 4 1 r i O 0 -H " H 4 > 1 4 3 L 7 0 Z O L ) E-I cA 3

N r " )N0O DC O NN N N / 4 1 01 I C ) rlrIrH

•

O

H N r e ). : Z r1 . 1 O

i n L C )

r ö

> 1 g . 1 a ) g ia ) a )s • 1o s 4a ) . 4 ) r d z4 r i r c ip 4 1 a )o l i f )z g i g i4 ) u ) g i g iu )a e l1 )r d 0H 0r d 0 g l0 0 0 0U ) C u ) H 0 4 1 1 ) C D U -H l a ) gl g l

> 1 g l

g l

c g iCcC u4 i a ) co 5 11 2 ) H glr I gl E X C Z H G ) . C 0 c o o C u

O 0 H H 4

P . H E L M E T

R A D I A T E

4 - u p u p u p

L n

N r I • c er Ir Ir 4r H

r IO ( e )N

N

r • •1 4 / . 0V D/ 4 1 0i f )

I.0

H 0 0 4 4 P 0 0 E

o

4 jr 4J c o g i c o 0 0 0 c o

• g i C u 4 4 o O 0H H P C u X H 4 > 1 3 4 u p U C . ) 0 C . 7

0 0 1r q r Ir I

pL n L n i n L n L n L . n

r IN

5 28

r - c o a%

0 H N C•e 1 L C ) s r 1 r • 1

•

1 -

Appendix

I I

Totals

o f

moneyers

and mints

by type.

Arrangement: the " raw" total i s a tally of moneyers known at e ach mint uncorrected for chance absence. When so corrected a tally of moneyers " likely" to have worked can b e achieved, which can be further " adjusted" a s an aggregate f or all mints to take i nto account presumed movement o f moneyers between mints within one type.

5 29

r

( r ) 0 , I I r 1

C U

L ( )

N l 0 r I

r I

> •

4 c f l

o : D

c o

r i

rH

ri

0

L .

C 7 1 c I

N a \ ( I

N 0

0 0

r •-)

C 3 1

I n

. i . .

N

( 1 )

C D

N I

N I

V D

i n . i

N

N I

N

N

N I

r -i N i

r •-)

N

N

N

l i Z I e I N

C V N C V

r I r i N

L C ) L C )

0 N

N N N

N N

L f )

N e . N

e C Y ) N I

0 ( N / N

c o 0 N

c o r •-) N

0 c ,) N

0

0

L C )

0 : ( r ) t r ) 0

a p r o p r i a t e .

X

( 1

L f )

r n i n

* i n c l u d e s

+ :

H u ) 4 M I g 4 ( C S

H

. u ) 0 r d

0 > 1 > 1

0

› , =

= ( 1 :

H 0 n i 4

e

•

= ( t i

4 ) 1 . )

i — I , " ? 0 0 ) H

>

• 0 r d 4 W

z • Q ) 14 i 4 0 ( / ) — 1

( / ) g i W > 1

= > 1 0 H 3 W

r d 4 H > < 0 0 r —I( 1

4 ( C I ( i ) • H

• g i

c )

APPENDIX

III

A bbreviations:

Totals

" a"" 1"-

o f

moneyers

by mints

and

type.

a ctual number of moneyers recorded i n the type. possible complement at work simult-

a neously. * - BMC type xiv. I - Current disposition: British I sles, I reland and North America. S - Current disposition: Continental E urope.

5 31

0 1 r 1

N

C e-), . o, , $ )N

e nH N

HeN e .

NH e n, a )H

e

c r ), i

( . 1

( . )L n

N Nr 14 14i

r I N N rn

N H I

H

Ne nH

N

H C r l q : ) / 4 1 , 0 N e N N

4 1 e l N C M

N H I r n l i p N

N C r ) H i

N

H i . g ) ( 7 ) ‘ 1 " N . 7 ' H i 0 ' 1

H I ' C l ' N ' e

e tN e nNe n

r I N e n e 1

C r )

H I H I

i n

i i, ir nc r )r • -r e )% c )N r . ), 1r ir ii 1 in

C T\ (N 1

( )

H

P i

H i H I ( Y ) ' S D 0 4 1

F . B u s t

1

P y r a m i d s

H ,

W I

H

, ,

H

r d H, 1c oe ., i

•

S . M a r t l e t J H . C r o s P . H e l m e t

C O H r i l N N " Zr

r "-- M

e t

a )H r nr -

r n

,1 "

r 1 r I

m

, . 4I nr -c -e ni nN e nH He n

e

r -H e nsH

4 1 N N T I H i H I

C ' l

4 1

e tc oa \e nr -N N H . 1r n

e t

4 / 1 1 )H

e n

i n 4 1

H N r e ) H i

N

H i H i

i nr -c oH i nH e l

He n

i n

NHN

i n H I

o z s

i( . ]e i

H i

r n

H I r ii n C O 0 H I 4 1

H . . ,

N

r-)r I

H i N

H i

r c s

NeH

HN

ri

• T s

N

, . 1N • z rH I

r i c 1T IN Ir e ), 4, . 1H , C d H

H , ,

E x p . C r o s

i n, , oN e n

i n N N H I H i C r ) r 1 e l

1 ' 1

H

1

e nH

e t, , g )N .e n

e nNH

r 4

i n N N

r n. • , : t iN , 1

4 1

( Y-)i n

c rr 1

r n

H I C l

N

N 4 1 N N H

i nH

( Y ) ri

‘ i

C \ I

in

4. / 1 0

(N

i ne

Hr nr -sHi n HN H H

C e )

C r )

N

N

e ne

( 0 —

L t _ _ ( T . , E

U-)

N N H I

H I

N C r ) H i H

r e l

H

e .NNH

i n H i C r )

H i C r )

i nHq : ,

N i ne

C d H

HH H H

e n

H

e nC . \i nN / 4 1 . oH H

Ne n

e .He .

N i ne .

H

, T r e f o i l

,: 1 4

a ) 4 C U

. IHN r f ) H r

r 4t i

( " ' )r -r -r 1e tHm

He n

i n

. c )H N

c r

r d HH N N

NT HH

r nr • -, c i H ,: r .H e n

He t

L e )

e nHN e .i n

. 0 ( 1 0

i n " z r

— •

H

. . _

•

I t i

Ne n

C ' . H

i n H I H i

H i r - C O

i C r ) N N ' C l ' H I H

N H i ‘ . 0

N i n " z e

N r )

C ' t H i

k . 0 H i H

H i N C O

i C r ) N N N i H I H

N H I i n

N r ) C r )

E g i ET S > 1 ew ( 1 ) a )a )1 . ) 4 ) •t 3 )i 44r c l > 14 U > 1 ) H $ 1 H C n1 Jr C i0 u )( ne c i u ( I r ö Q ) ( 1 . ) ( 1 )4 1 0O ‚ . 04 i —1 oo c i )H g i( 1 )0 ( i )H g 44 G . )' 0 H( 4 1( 4 / 44 ) 0 -H • ia )4 , C. - > 1f L 1 ( f lU ) 0> 1( 1 )W P H4 ) ( 1 )4 ) >0 0 0 0 • H U ) I X C Z H r d( i )a ) g i g i ( 1 3 0 3 , - . 0 0 g i Q ) W 0 0 > 1er d Z224 14 -0C 7X X X AC r lC AC AC AUUC _ )C . )C . )U 2 C ZC f c CC AC AC AC AC )C )C a ) › ,H

5 32

P y r a m i d s

e H

H

N

d i el

O N H 1

i n

N

e ne n

i n

, . 1, 1, 1r I

i n

N

, 1

M

H

V I

r I N

H e .e nc y ,, 1

N

H

i n M

0 H

N H

H

H

M

N i

1 i n

40 / 1

H

N

H

H

e . VD

r d

•

F . B u s t

H

" z r

• r t i

L a 4 1 ) 0 L . 0

M

• H

N i H

N ie

. e . r i N

R I

e ' r1

0 / 4. 1 0 H H

N

Ni n

e .

N

H

i n N

P I i n

N

40 / 1

I I T 1 H

H

H

i 4 i 1

T . 1r ne . N ,z )T . 4

( I , I r n

H

, 1

40 / 1

r I

r I

H

40 / 1

H

H

H

40 / 1

N

, 1 . i

N

r I r I T I N

N

r 4

. M a r t l e t

4 / 1 . 0

m

, 1 , i r i N i / 40 N 1

r I

r I H

• H ., • I t

i nN

H

N

N

e '

e l e l O N r I N

N

N

T 4 N

H

M

M

N

, I

N I r i N

e '

e l e . 0 N T I M

N

N

N

N

e l

e l d i C O M M

N

T I H

N

H

d i r I e ' e l 0 C 3 1 T I M

M

r I e s r I d i

e l 0 0 i I N

M

i nN

e .,I C0

r e ) , 1 r 1

N

e i e, , i C O

e i , 4 , I

, . 1 e, N

. H • I t i

H

. z r r i C O

N

H

H

N

I n N

r t . H

M

i n H

N

H

r 1 N

i n M

C ' • r I

T I N

N

e

r e ) r • •

N

I n, 1

r 1

i 1N

N

i n C r. )1 4 / . 0

H

i n H

H

r I N

e s H

i 1 m

4 / 1 . 0

•

E x p . C r o s P . H e l m e t

H

C d C P C ) —

i n0 , x ) r I M

•

U -

H , , •

N i r i

e s

• z t, . , : r r 1 011 rI T I d i

r o

N J r i

n e

d i N

H

N

e . • z t . , i , 1 r i

N

N

r I

r I

C I / 4 1 . 0 N e s r I T 4 M

t 1

r I r I N

r . 1 r 1

N

M

C I M

N

N

• r 41

e s H

r n

M

N

1 1 0 "1 4 r / 1 r I N r I M

N

I A m

N C O H r I M

N

N

T 1 H

N

T I N

M / 4 1 . 0

H

N

e i / 4. 1 0

T I

N

H

N

N

H

N

H

N

e ., 1

N

A

— — 4 1 3 E ( f )

•

T r e f o i l

H

Q ) 4 t i

• . . 0 c o C X

H

M / 4 1 . 0

H rI

N

• ( 0

• H

, i t

r I H

r 1e .

H

I A

H

H

M

T 4 N

1 1 H

M

H

e . /. 0 4 1

H

H

N

N

T 1 N

i n

e n, 1

c r %

r i N i N i

m

N i N i • , z t . c i , i

m

, 1 , 1 i n e .

t `•

r .

•

P A C X

H

N

1 1 N

N

r n C O N . r I r I M

C' 4

N

i n • z r t . 0

r i H

N i

, i N i

H

N

N

N

i nm

H

• r d

0

g i

V

( 1 . )

0

r d

g • I

o

I J

g l ( 1 )

( 1 )

G . )

-H

i n

r I M rI

« i . -

, 0 z E, t y l

N d i

> I

E

> I 0 g l W 4 E4 a l

H

g i C O t7 14 ) 0 g i c r ) ( 1 ) 9 1 0 C O , Z l i a )

U ) 0

0 0 0 0 U r t i 4 1 V

u ) 0 ( c i 0 rd ( 1 ) t l i , . H H g i E W 1, I -) 0

4

4

Z

0

s i4

› i g i

0 ( . ) C I ) > 1 , S Z H ( l ( I ) t o 4 H r d 1

g i

, c ) e

V

c r )

0 , . 4 _ 1 ( 1 . ) g i C r 2 L ii

0u ) 1 3 er ir 1z „ g ig i4 L k s i4 f l i U E H M S g l r 4 c d n ,e 0 w •H o > le e li 00 0 x 0 ( 1 )0 0 0 r t if a . , Q4 4 J

g 4 J > 1 ,1 Z I1 11

Z

f : 1 4 C D U

r I

r e . I z$ I

t nu o u ) . H

C O N H N

, -

4

4

4

4

2

Z

Z

5 33

Z

Z

O CL I CI I

Z

Z tZ u) v) C f ) C r 2 C r ) C n U )

P y r ; M i d s

I

•

f o , r 4

H

F . B u s t

, C d

w U , 0 L

H

r 1

r- I C . 1

% . 0 H I H I H I

4. / 1 0

e .

N

L . r ), . 1 ,. 0i n‘ 1 , 4

4 / 1 , 0

t -ir 1 t 1

h

( r ) r 1

t 1

I f ) t H i f ) V D rI H

4 / 1 . 0

r 1 r 1 r 1 1 1 / 4 1 . 0

e ., . 4

N

, . , 0

r q

C O I I

r -u lN i 1

N

‘ . 0

c r ,L . nN

N

% . 0

r q m I

r i

r 1

r 1 h

i n

N

H

0

r I 1 4 C q r I C N e

C V

e t E

r o r -

H

, .,

4 / 1 . 0

r 1 r 1 r I m 1

L ne .

r 1

I I

r i

. H e l m e

E

t H

S . M a r t I

4 c s i n

, i , 1 , — i i — i / 4 1 . 0 L . C ) 1 -4

m I

C d

H

O D 1 1 m I

r : ,41

0

E x p . C r o s

. . , 1

r 1

oN C d c

C C O — ( . 1 — . . -

4 1 3

E t o

r i . . . . .

1 1

N

N

, 1

L . ni n

N

r 1

o1 o z ) c

T r e f o i l

N

V D " e t 1

r 1

r ` l u l c o , i r I

N , 1r n

r 1

0 H I H I

r I N t I

U l m I

1r -u )‘ i

•

H • . . .

, . 0

. C ) • , : r 1 . 1 I 1 N

r 1

r 1 C v l t 1

m 1

i x )i n

r 1

H

N

H 1

N

H I

H

" 11

c

I 1

1f -m 14N 441N t . nh

r I r 1

, . 0

e s m 1

N

m I ' e

H i

% . 0

e .

N

H

r 1

0 1 t r ) r I

( . 4 r l C 7 \ H I t 1

H i

R a d i a t e

H

H I N

o4 C d c

r 1

' e

r i r I e

• X

( . ) < c t _

•

H

. .

r 1 N r i

t 1

0

-H

e

r I C Y )

H i

r ' " ) C5 . H

r I C V e H N

L nr e )c y , r 1

f t N N 1

r e r n g i

. 0 • , : t . I I

N

r l, 4r i

r q l I D r q m I

m I

. c

V g i 0 r d4 -

g i 0 4 )

> 1 4 g i C I E W . - 4 g 1 g i o o ( I t c ) a )

r I

r or qu l 1 1

0g i . 0 0 g i 0 u ) 4 ) U Q ) U )

E > 10 3 z4 ), i a )E 3

U 4 0 0 U c o G . ) i t E G . ) r -I g i g i g i P r —I g i 4 4 -3 i f Ir t i. n if tf tf tfti i H H 0 U " ) C A C I ) P i E H E H Z 3 3 3 3 3

5 34

g i 0 >1

.

APPENDIX IV Number of coins to published disposition.

by

type

a nd

mint

according

Coins o f British a nd N orth American disposition a re denoted by " I" and those o f continental European disposition are denoted by " S". D ispositions a re derived f rom the s ources listed on pp. vi - x ii and there can b e no doubt that there are many coins yet t o b e published. The numbers of c oins are t he minimum sustainable f rom the i ndividual mint profiles. Overall numbers are greater than the sum o f i ndividual tallies to t ake account o f published c oins o f unrecorded disposition. * signifies the i nclusion o f coins of BMC t ype xiv.

5 35

C D 0

0 0 N 0 1 10 0 0 0 0

P y r a m i d s

i t C O H

. ; : t .

0 0 C D 0 Z r )

i ti t

Nr 10 0111I MN IH I 1 40 / C1 r 1l 0 N O NC D O H0 0 0 0 0 0

r i H i C D

r i l, t

C O

C Oe i n p i r • • ( " n

0 0C D'en 1 0 0 0 0C ) 0 0 0 0

00 0 N O

C : )0 0

. : t i C \ 1

H

00 0 0 0

N + N

( 1 )0 0 0 0 0

0

F . B u s t

L I 0 H r I

( 1 )

c r ) + H( N N C O N 0 1 H I N

' e / 4 1 . C )C I 0 1 C O H i H" z 1 4H i C O 0 1H I r o ‘ . o H i N r e ) • Z t4 r I r I N

c y Ni n 1 1

C T % 1 1

N

0

0

N h C Y )N H

C O

H I H I i n c y ,c 5 %e i nc o‘ . 1 H i c o r n

U )C D 0 0 C D 0 H I H I

0

s i

c r ) L 0 u . M

0

S . M a r t l e i 4 0 E . . . 0 M ( 1 :

0

0

0 1

0

0

0

r I r I r I r I 0

0

0

r I

r 4 0

. . 1

C O

C O , ;

0 11 40 N C / O r i c o

C D N H I N C Dr I0 0 0 C D

0 0

N C D 0 0 0

i n, t mco Nt - eco‘1 i n H I N 1 4 / . 0N H r i

H i C e l H

0 C O C O / 4 1 . 0N H N I

0 H I C D C O I n H iC D0 r e )c ) , i

i n

m c ) P.)t o 0

( 3 1` e ( N • e l r : H N I

0

H

e + HH I N / 4 1 . 0r n , 1t o 0

4 / 1 0

C D 0 C D C D

0

U ) i n 0 L C D . . X L J

c o o i r ii i e c n, te c v ( . 1c o N N H I NH H I

+ H I C O 0 1 H I

0 1

H i C O 0 ' , 2 4r )N 0 1H I N N / 4 1 . 0 H N H

N H

i n . : I 'N

0 p i

c ) T 1c z . l oN m o t o , 1c ) r I

c p e

e

I N I N

H

r q c r . e

( " 4 0

r t o i c o 1 . -i fN 1 1N H I / 40 1 N H

I A N

a l

( ? " ) ' , : t .N

C n0

0 0 C D 0

N I C D 0 1

N i n ( Y )

H

— —

U E -

( / _ ) . . C 9 ( 1 ) I I C ) 4 t o • . . E D t u

7 r .

H

,z t iC I

N I

* 7 1 'H i N0 H I N N I

N + HN

N H N N

. z r

0

E n ,Z 1H i n e

i n ( N ic . 4

0 C O 1 / 4 0H N N N I H ' e H % c,C O C O H 1 4 / . 0H IC O N I N HH , 4

HN H I * e C D

0 0 0

c n / 4 1 . 0I n 0 i no v ic , r ,

H i H C O • : 1 " .i n 1 / 4 . 0 H 0 1 i ni i. e . i n c , 1

o p

, 1c . r . ) , 4r -

C O / 4 1 0

H

z : rN N

0 0 1 C O , i

' e0 1N H I N I

H ,. oN i n

, i i n N , i

H

r )H

C D

0 1 H I C D

H i N I N

C Dr ' lN I N ' e

0 N C D e , 1

P i , 1( . 1

X 0Vd

c n

E Er c i › i er . 4 0

o › i ii g l

al

>I

e r d o 1 1 g l H u ) u ) 0 › 1( 1 )4 . 1 ( 1 ) 4 1 Z H g i4 )r c ,r d g 14 3 > 1 e r c i 0 0 0( Z

4-)

g iH 0 0 0 4P r C i C O T 1H g i g i

g i . 1 0 O0 o , . • e jl I4r o 1 ) U t 7 )1 ir C i, C ) g l t ou )r c l c o • H C f " )H g l Q ) ( I )( 1 )H C I ) 0H g l ( 1 )4 1, C , C, S 4 > 1, C 4 > 4, r ) 4 c n 0 0 0, . 0 o 0H U g l E 0' H HH g l g l > 0C g t e e, . , . og ia ) 00 g i> I

g l 1 1 g 4 wr c l e c

)

g i ( 1 ) 4 ) 00 xO

( I )L i l c o or c i Ur d• H4 1 ( 1 1 o H 4 ) 04 ) g i OH U )L I L I0 H c o a ) a )x

< C a C a C A C a C a C a C a C a C c l 1 : 1 C a C . ) U C _ ) C . ) C . ) U 2 2 2 2 2 C 4 C I . 0 0 X X X:

5 36

C ) C D

C D 0

i n N

H

C D

0

C D C D 0

C > N

P y r a m i d s

I C

H , C I ) 0

4 1 . 0 z c r ) •

H

i n

( - c ;. 1 1 e i H () 0 C D N H

C D H

N C D C D

C I ' i n 0 N H 0 H C D H I

H I H

e . e e e i H H

r n N H I

I 1 N

C I H

C D ¼ 0 i n r-) , 1 , 1 m 1 40 /

¼ 0 , i

V ) C D 0

C D H

0

C D C D C D H

H

40 / 1

d i

C > C D 0

C D

C D C D

N H

0 H N

0

N N

i n H

C D

C ,.

i n H

H N C l C > C D C D C D

C D C D

H

, 1 r i C O c o

C D C D C D 0

C D C D 0

C D N

N M / 4. 1 0 e . , 4 H C I C f )

i n • q1 N

N

40 / 1

C D C D C >

C D 0

e . m

c o e . r n i 1

40 / 1

L r ) C r ) 0

L 0

.

P . H e l m e t E x p . C r o s

H CO H

H I e . e . H

H I N N H I H C I -1 40 C / O

i f l / 40 1

c r ) , )

o

o

o

r - r--

c . c .

c ) N

H

H

C O

C O H m

r f ) e s N L n

N

N

, 1 r ) m , i

U ) i i c ) o

o

c o , 1 i n C D H H

N

C > C > H I / 40 C 1 D C O

H

r H

, + i n d ' • q i ‘ i N e . c ).

i n i n C I 0 1 C O H N

H I

e . r n N

C r ) C V

0

H

d i N

N

% . 0 H

c i-) ‘ ) c )

N

H

r n , i

N

O

o

N

N ‘ , 0 e . r n

N

C D H

H

N H I C O V I H I r e ) N c o o , 1 r n e . c y % e . r n , . 4 N N C O ,

C D H

c o r i

0

/ 4 1 0 r i

N

c o

H

C D C D 0

C I N

0

0

i n 0 1 i n r-, 1 , 1

C D C D N r n H

C D

i n r H H

C D

C D H

C D

C ` . N N C D, i N

d i • , 11 H H , 4 , 4

C O C D C I

e .

C D . , I ' . N

C D H

0

' : t i H

i n i n N , 1

H

r n c o r n

N

, 4 o

, , / 4D H 1 I N

' e l 0 1

C D C D H

C D

H

N

H

H I

H I

, . 1

N

L I I V D 1 --

C D C D z t . H

d i

N

0 1

0 r n c o N r i

N

c -- e . LU o , 4 N , 1 , i

d i H r n i n r n N

1 - H

H I H I H

C I N

C O C D

LL r o

E

i n H

c r )

/ D C D 'C

T r e f o i l

7. . . . .

S * M a r t l e t s

S

N

N

, i

o

H H

N

N

• z r N

C I C I C D H C V i n

N

N

N

r i e

i n N o N H H

1

r - c y , e . q : ) H

C l ) e . X

N

H

i n o 0 1 O N N

N

c i ) / 4D H 1

I 1 , 1 C D

c o r-1 . C I e ' N c o

• : 11 / 40 1

1 i e i

C )

1 r c • . a e

e s r n , 1 N 4 N , - N ‘ . c ) , 1 /0 d 4 1 i 1 / 4 C ) H I H d i C O

N

i i

H I H I H

N

H

i n ‘ . 0 , 1 , 4 N , 1

r-- , 1 ‘ i

H

N

C O H H

H r n

H I H

C I 0

C D N

, i c ) e . N

N

0

N

H

0

, 4 i n C . I

H

N N

N

N

4 -

< a 1 I

N

H I CI

H

C IL II H I CI N C I

H

H I

N H

N• : zr

H I H

N

H

C D N

i n

C D C D H

> i

0

g i

r e

' H 4

g i

g i

P 0

C D

C D

> 1

u ) U 0 u )

a ) H .

4 U u l

> ,i i 0 , H

H

H

a l ( 1 )u )0 0 C D U H r i ( j )

4 a

0

U V

0

E i

al

( 1 ,4

W

0

g l

> I

W

g l

g l . 1)

g l

rC I

rd

Cr )

4 C i l 4 3 o u ), $ ) e g i 1 L a 0 R I U V 0 g i u ) › i. .0 I 0 u ) 3 0 0 H o 0 0 C L , H H . 1 , . Q ) • H ( ) l a ) u ) i4 J r c i E 4 1 4 3 P 0 u ) - r d , C - Ir c i 4 4 a ) 4 -, C I ) 4 1 E > i r e

a ) • H

0 r 4 P

H > i i t

I g l C O 1 -4 0

, -

g l P 41 0 0 X

g i 1 J C D ( 1 )

r o a )

U 0

0

. - I T S

a l

4 1

r d

T s w

a aa a Z Z zz z z o a az a a u p c f )c n c f )c nc n u ) c n c i ) 5 37

.

C

0

0

0

0

C

H

0

S I 0

S 4 / 1 . 0

P y r a m i d s

i c

40 / 1

H

( r ) c ) c o

i n C T M N

0

N 0 H 0 H 40 / 1 ; :i , 4 c ) c ) c ) N

L C )

0

F . B u s t

H

H

H . C r o s

C . / )

H

C . n

40 / 1

0

N

0

H O i n C \ 1

011

0

N

H

0

0

( N I A L r ) C O " z r S C O N 0

0

0

O N

H

0 1

e ? 1 c p

N N

c o

H

O

N

O / 40 1

H

H 40 / 1

c o

N

O

0

C r I

O

H

P . H e l m e t

S . M a r t l e t s

H

H

N C O L O N I N 0

H

N

0

H

N I

O

H

00 01 / 40 1 N N

C O

0 H

N

H

0

v I ( " 1 O

H e

C e,

N LC ) H 0

H

e l

O

M H

H " z r H c ) c o c, -) N H C I

c r ) ¼ 0 + ( r ) N H

E x p . C r o s

N

( T

, 1 e, , 1 ' -7 0 H 0

c t i — U — — ( 1 3 E V )

c r N e ' H H

H

C O c o r e ) 1 i N , i — H

H CA

M

O

N

H

N

H

N H

T r e f o i l

H

H

0

( . 1

C )

+ ( a • . ' 0 V O C r

. : 14 N H , 4 0-% ( Y. )C : .

C O

N

O S CO e, , i

c o c o ( N I r-- , , i n H H

O

O , 4 i n ( N )

o , I % c )

O

e l

H P " ) e l

H

C O

c o N

i n

, I +

e , c r, S

e l +

0 1 S

C f ) +

0 1 C : 3 1

H 0 S H S

40 i / 1 . C1

S H

, 1 + H

0 0 1 S 0 1 H

40 / 1

H

S , 1 c o , 4 c v , . 1

z r

c o

0 1 N N S N

0 S S

C O c n e I s-N c n

e i n e

o '-) +

40 / 1

e l H

e

0

e l

0 e l , 1

, 4 , li n c ) ,1 H

4 / 1 . ( p

X

, 1

< C l _

+ N CO H

M

O

e l

0

, 1 c nr -1 / 4 1 0 f ` . 1

c ) rq

0

H

N 1

H e l

H H

e, , 1 r " )

.

0

o r o4

a ) 4 )

L k , -1

• H f i

t : 3 1

4

u l , .

E

4 J

0

0

H +

N S ( 3 1

+

r --

N e

N O1

N N

e , .

r--

i n

+ 0

e, c o

N

, 1

H

C c o N H

N e

H + c n

i n C T C O

N

e ' ' , 1

e z r / 4 1 . 0 n z t i i n C T

H

S +

C O

, i + H

N

N

N 1 /0 4 H 1 4. / 0 H

0 / 4 1 0

N C O i n

4 ( 1 ) u ) 1 -) 0

r or t : i. o c s er z in z sr o-H•H• r i oo 5 38

c i ) < E4 0

E 1

1 400

1 200

1 000

8 00

6 00

4 00

2 00

Coins o f European Coins North

Continental D isposition.

of British, I rish and American D ispositi nn.

R ecorded

Coins

of

Edward

5 39

the

Confessor

APPENDIX V

Number

disposition

of

o f

coins:

recorded

coins

by mints

( I)Britain a nd N orth America ( S) Continental Europe. * denotes i nclusion of c oins unrecorded disposition.

5 40

o f

I S 7 4 8 1 5 1 1 2 7 1 1 4 2 1 2 2 2 0 1 2 0 5 1 1 8 1 4 6 5 1 9 1 7 1 1 5 1 77 7 4 3 02 5 4 1 56 7 7 5 2 8 2 7 4 3 5 1 4 1 3 6 7 3 7 7 0 9 1 1 28 2 7 1 2 9 5 2 3 2 3 1 2 33 1 1 4 7 2 0 3 8 2 7 1 0 4 9 1 4 5 1 1 6 2 1 01 2 5 2 1 6 3 1 2 1 60 2 0 3 98 3 14 7 72 4 57 4 6 2 2 5 2 3 7 5 0 7 1 2 3 1 28 5 8 3 2 9 1 28 4 3 1 0 1 3 1 2 2 2 5 2 5 3 3 4 2 4

Aylesbury Barnstaple Bath Bedford Bedwyn Berkeley BRENE Bridport Bristol Bruton Buckingham Bury S t. Edmunds Cambridge Canterbury Chester Chichester Colchester Cricklade Derby Dorchester Dover Droitwich DYR Exeter FRO Gloucester Guildford Hastings Hereford Hertford Horndon Huntingdon Hythe Ilchester Ipswich Langport Leicester Lewes Lincoln London Lydford Maldon Malmesbury "Milborne P ort" NIPEPORTE Northampton Norwich Nottingham Oxford Pershore Petherton Reading Rochester Romney Salisbury

5 41

Total 1 1 9 6 3 8 5 2 3 4 1 2 6 9 5 1 1 2 0 1 04* 2 51 3 56 1 63 1 03 3 1 4 9 1 9 8 0 7 1 0 1 55 3 1 18 2 4 2 44 6 7 6 5 1 6 5* 6 1 8 1 26 3 7 5 1 80 7 12 1 229 1 0 2 7 3 0 5 9 4 1 86 4 1 1 72* 1 4 3 2 7 2 8 5 8

S andwich Shaftesbury Shrewsbury S outhwark S PES S tafford S tamford S teyning S udbury Tamworth Taunton Thetford Wallingford Wareham Warminster Warwick Watchet Wilton Winchcombe Winchester Worcester Y ork

I S 3 1 8 2 9 1 0 1 05 2 4 3 9 1 9 0 2 2 6 1 1 86 8 5 9 8 7 1 0 0 1 8 2 1 6 3 265 8 4 1 28 1 0 2 4 1 2 0 3 7 1 6 5 5 1 26 2 2 7 2 3 93 1 23 5 3 8 G rand T otals

1 160 2 57 1 417 6 570 2 108 8 705* [ +27]

5 42

T otal 3 9 3 9 1 29 5 9* 2 2 7 2 71 1 05 1 0 2 0 1 9 3 49 1 39* 2 5 2 5 3 1 0 1 48 9 5 20* 6 1

APPENDIX

VI

List

o f

moneyers.

The I ndex o f moneyers provides page references stantive name-forms with the addition of a number scribed or subordinate f orms.

5 43

to subo f tran-

/ Edgar gdric gdsie gDVII ggelggelmaer ggelman ggelric

ggelred ggelsi ggelsige ggelwerd ggelwi

London 1 53. Canterbury 5 13. Exeter 3 94. Gloucester 4 3,369-70,373. see also " g1-". Bath 3 92,393. see " glman". Gloucester 3 59,368,372. H ereford

3 59,372,376,

3 79. Leicester 3 00,304. London 1 45,175. Oxford 4 48-457. Shrewsbury 3 42,346,359. Worcester 3 59,372. Canterbury 5 13,516. see " ggelsige". London 1 45,159-60,175. Thetford 2 51,256. London 1 45,155,170. Shaftesbury 4 27.

Cricklade 4 47. London 1 45,157, 174. Oxford 4 48-457. Wallingford 4 57-462. Worcester 3 60; see " ggelwig","ggelwine", " glwi","glwine". ggelwig London 1 45,157,174. Oxford 4 48-457. Wallingford 4 57-462; s ee " ggelwi","glwi","/ Elwig". ggelwine Bristol 3 83,385. Cricklade 4 45-448. I lchester 4 11,412. Langport 4 18,419. Leicester 3 00. London 1 45,157,174. N orthampton 2 92. Oxford 4 48-457. Tamworth 3 18. Thetford 256. Wallingford 4 62. Winchester 1 29,134,135. W orcester 3 54,360; see " glwi". gielsee " g1-". glcsige Chester 3 34. London 1 75. gldred London 1 64 / Elf eh Lincoln 1 09; see " glfheh". glff Gloucester 3 65,366. glffet London 1 46,163. Chester 3 29. London 1 45. / Elf gar glfgeard Worcester 3 54. glfgeat Lincoln 1 09. London 1 46,163. Shrewsbury 3 42, 3 45. / E lf g et London 1 46,163. glfheh Shrewsbury 3 41-342,345. S tamford 1 21; s ee " glfeh". / E lfhelm Shrewsbury 3 45. York 8 6. / E lf here glfnoth Lincoln 1 09. London 1 45. / E lf red Canterbury 5 13,515,516. London 1 45. Barnstaple 4 01-3. Bristol 3 85. C anterbury glfric 5 13. Exeter 3 94,397,399-404. Guildford 2 05, 2 06. London 1 75. Lydford 3 98-402. S outhwark 1 86. S tafford 3 21, 322. T hetford 2 51. glfs Chester 332-6. glfsi(e) Chester 332-6. Lewes 4 86. Warwick 295. glfsie Alda Chester 3 29,332-6. glfsige Chester 3 29,332-6. Gloucester 366. London 1 45,159,175. Warwick 2 95. London 1 46. Wilton 1 39,476. Winchester 1 29,136. glfstan London 1 46. / E lfwald see " glfweard". / Elf ward Bristol 3 85. Canterbury 5 13. London 1 46,155, glfweard

5 44

glfwi glfwig

glfwine

glfwold glfwond glfword gllff glglman glmar glred glric

glsige glsi(i)e inward glwi glwig glwine

glwold / Es t an gstan Loc gthelmaer gthelwine gthestan gwulf Aghmund Ahlmund Alcsi Alcsige Aldgar Aleof Ales i ge

1 70. Shaftesbury 4 25-427. Wilton 4 76. Cambridge 2 66,272. London 1 46,157,174. 4 48-457. Thetford 2 54.

Oxford

Bristol 3 85. Cambridge 2 69,272. H ereford 3 76. London 1 74. Oxford 4 48-457. Wallingford 4 59,460,462. Bristol 3 83,385. Cambridge 2 66,269,272,286. Canterbury 5 13. Chester 3 29,336-7. Chichester 4 81,482. Colchester 2 25. Cricklade 4 45-448. Exeter 3 94. Hertford 1 96. Huntingdon 2 83, 2 86. Hythe 5 03,504. I pswich 2 31. Lincoln 4 4,109. London 1 46,157,174. ON MI 2 92,421. N orthampton 2 91,293. Norwich 2 40. Oxford 4 53. S outhwark 1 86. Thetford 2 51,256. Wilton 4 76. Wallingford 462. Winchester 1 29,135. Worcester 3 54,360. York 8 6. London 1 46. Salisbury 468,471. Wilton 5 89 ,471,477-9. London 1 63,170. Bristol 3 85. London 1 46. Wilton 4 76-9; s ee " glfweard". Gloucester 3 65,366. s ee " ggel-","/ Elf-". B edford 7 , 159,277. London 1 46,159. Lincoln 1 09. Canterbury 5 13,515,516. London 1 45. Gloucester 3 57,359,367,368. Leicester 3 04.London 1 75. Hereford 3 59,379. Shrewsbury 3 46,359. Worcester 3 59. Chester 3 32-6. London 1 59,175. Thetford 2 54,256. Thetford 2 54,256. Shaftesbury 4 27; s ee " glfweard","/ Egelwerd". London 1 57-9,174. Oxford 4 48-457. Wallingford 4 57-462. Bristol 3 85. London 1 57-9,174. Oxford 4 484 57. Wallingford 4 57-462. Cricklade 4 45-7,448. London 1 57-9,174. N orthampton 2 93. Oxford 4 56. Wallingford 4 62. Worcester 3 54. York 8 6; see " glfwine", " ggelwine". Wilton 4 79. Bristol 1 36,139. Buckingham 1 36,213. Warwick 1 36, 295. Winchester 1 36,138. Winchester 1 29,136,138. Bath 3 91,392. Cricklade 4 45-8. York 8 6. Bristol 1 36,139,385. H ereford 1 36,376. Warwick 1 36. Winchester 1 29,136,138. s ee " Eawulf". Lincoln 1 09. N ottingham 3 10. Chester 3 29,332-6. Chester 3 29,332-6. London 1 49. York 8 6. Chester 3 22-6.

5 45

Alfwold Alf word Alhmund Alhsie Alhsige Alxxi Anderboda Arcel Arcetel Arc i i Arfra Arncetel Arncil Arngrim

Wilton 4 76,479. Wilton 4 76,479. Nottingham 3 10. Chester 3 22-6. Chester 3 22-6. Chester 3 22-6. Winchester 1 29. York 9 4,99. York 8 6,94,99. York 9 4,99. S tamford 1 21. York 8 2,86,94,99. see " Arncetel". Nottingham 3 10,312. 8 7,312. Arngrim Loa York 8 7. Asferth Lincoln 1 10. A slac Lincoln 1 10. Atsere Thetford 2 51. Autti Lincoln 1 09. Baldric Baldwine Beorn Binred Biorn Blacaman

Blacere Boga Boia Brand Bricsige Brid Brihtmaer Brihtnoth Brihtred Brihtric

Brihtwal Brihtwi Brihtwine Brihtwold " Brinin" Brininc " Brinit" Brixi Brixsie Bruinc Bruman

S tamford

1 21,312.

York

Worcester 3 54. S tamford 1 21. York 8 7. see " Brihtred" Wareham 4 3,436-7. D erby 4 6,309-12,313-14,316-17. D orchester 4 6,313-14,317,428-433. Guildford 2 06. Leicester 4 6,300,309-13,316-17. N ottingham 4 6, 3 09-13,316-17. Thetford 2 51. Dover 5 09. Taunton 4 06-408. see " Boga". Wallingford 4 7,460. Winchester 4 7, 129. London 1 47. Hastings 4 94. London 1 47. Wallingford 4 7,293,461. Winchester 4 7,130. Gloucester 3 66. London 1 47,160. 0xford 4 51; s ee " Wihtred". Colchester 2 25. Exeter 4 16 ( see " Taunton"). I pswich 2 31. Lincoln 1 09. P etherton 4167 . R eading 2 08,416. Taunton 406-409, 416. Wallingford 4 61. Oxford 4 49. Malmesbury 4 6,440-444. FRO 4 23,424. London 1 47. Malmesbury 4 6, 4404 44. Wallingford 4 61. Oxford 4 49,451. Winchester 1 30. DYR 2 36. see " Bruninc". S tamford 1 21. Wilton 4 77. London 1 47. Lewes 4 89. I pswich 2 29-32. London 1 75. S outhwark 175; see

" Brunman". 5 46

Brun Brungar Brunhyse Bruninc Brunm Brunman Brunnusel Brunred Brunstan Brunwige Brunwine Bured Burewine Burgred " Burhei" "Burnrei" Burred Burunwine

London 1 53,156. Winchester 1 30. London 1 47. Colchester 2 22,225. Chester 3 29,337-8. I pswich 1 07,231. Lincoln 1 07. London 1 47. Tamworth 3 18. I pswich 2 31. Canterbury 5 13. I pswich 2 31,232. London 1 47, 1 60,175. Southwark 1 75,186. Colchester 2 22. S outhwark 1 85,186,188. Thetford 2 51. Colchester 2 22. S tamford 1 21. Wallingford 4 59-63. s ee " Burred". Wallingford 4 61. London 1 47,173,188. S outhwark 1 73,185,186,188. s ee " Burnrei". London 1 47,173,188. London 1 47,173,188. Southwark 1 73,185,186,188. Wallingford 4 59.

Caentwine Caldewine " Caldwine" " Cdocc" Cedeman Cenelm Centwine " Ceoca" Ceolwi Ceorl Cetel Cild Cillecrist Cilii Cilwi C‘inemaer Cinstan Col Colbin Colbrand Colgrim Coll Collinc Colswegen Colthegn Corff " Com a" Croc " Cron" Cullinc Cuthferth Cytel

Wilton 4 77. Canterbury 5 13. Malmesbury 4 42. Chester 3 37. Shaftesbury 4 27. N orwich 2 40. Wilton 4 76. s ee " Godwine Ceoca". D over 5 09. Bristol 3 85. Y ork 8 7. B edwyn 4 66. Taunton 3 17,406,407. Lincoln 1 09. s ee " Ceolwi". Gloucester 3 69. London 1 47. D over 5 07,509. York 8 7,100; see " Coll". D erby 3 14. Chester 3 29,338. Lincoln 1 09. Winchester 1 27,130; see " Col". Tamworth 3 18,323; see also " Cullinc" Hastings 4 94. Chester 3 29. London 1 47. R eading 2 08. N ottingham 3 11. Chester 3 29,337. D erby 3 16. S tafford 3 22,323; see also " Collinc".

Daeaei Daeiniht

Maldon Maldon

Lincoln 1 09. Canterbury 5 13. 2 20,221. 2 20,221.

5 47

D egi D ehfin D eonen D eorhan D eorinc

Maldon 2 20,221. Norwich 2 40. London 1 81. see " Deorman". see " Durinc".

D eorman

Colchester 2 25. London 1 48,162,181. S teyning 4 84. D eorsige Hertford 1 95,196. D ermon see " Deorman". D iorman see " Deorman". D irema London 1 62,181; s ee " Dearman". D ireman London 1 62,181; s ee " Deorman". D irinc Lewes 4 86,489; see " Durinc". D irman London 1 62,181; s ee " Dearman". D odda Exeter 3 94. D odinc London 1 81. " Drsiic" Hertford - see " Deorsige". Dudig London 1 48,181. Dudinc Horndon 2 18,219. London 1 48,181. Duducoc/Wydecoc Shaftesbury 4 25-427. Dunberd I lchester 4 12. Dun i nc Chester 3 29. Hastings 4 95,498. Dunstan Chester 3 29. Dunwig Huntingdon 2 81,283. Duric London 1 81. Durinc Hastings 4 95,496. London 1 48,181; see " Dirinc". Durreb London 1 53,163. Dyrinc see " Durinc". " Ead-" Eadgar Eadmaer Eadmund Eadric Eadrig Eadsige Eadward Eadweard Eadwi

Eadwig Eadwine

Eadwold Ealcsi Ealdgar Ealdred Ealdulf Ealdwi EaIdwig Ealdwine Ealgar

see " Ed-". see " Ealdgar". Canterbury 5 14,517. Exeter 3 94. Lincoln 1 09. London 1 48. Hereford 3 75,376,378. Lincoln 4 4,109.London 1 48, 1 55,168,171. see " Eadric". London 1 64; s ee " Etsige","/ Edsie". Canterbury 5 13. Lewes 4 86. London 1 48. Wallingford 461; s ee " Eadweard". Cambridge 2 69; see " Eadward". Exeter 3 94. Hereford 3 75,378. Ipswich 2 31. Thetford 2 52; see " Eadwig","Eadwine","Edwig" etc. Lewes 1 56,486. London 1 48,155,171. Cambridge 2 69. D over 5 09. Leicester 3 00. Lewes 4 87. London 1 48. N orwich 2 40. S tamford 1 21; see " Edwine". Exeter 3 94. London 1 48. see " Alcsi". London 1 49. London 1 49. London 1 49. London 1 49,160. Malmesbury 4 6,440,443. see " Ealdwi". London 1 49,160. Malmesbury 4 6,440,443. see

" Ealdgar".

5 48

Eanwerd

Eidgar " Eiei-" " Eil-" Eilwine Eistan " El-" Eltan " Encwne" Endrig Enric Enstan Eocil Eola Eorlewine Epi Erfric Erncil Erncytel Erngrim Estan Esther Estin Estmaer Estmund Etsige Etstan Ewi Ewiewii

Canterbury 5 13. Y ork 8 3,87, 94. H ereford 3 77. H ereford 3 77. Shrewsbury 3 42. Worcester 3 54; s ee " Estmaer". G loucester 3 66,368. London 1 56,165-166. s ee also " Ead-". B erkeley 6 , 381. S haftesbury 4 27. London 1 48. Canterbury 5 13. Hereford 3 78. London 1 71. Shafte sbury 4 25. Thetford 2 52. s ee " gdsie". Cambridge 269. s ee " Eadward". H ereford 3 75,378. I pswich 2 31. London 1 71. Winchester 1 27,130; s ee also " Edwig","Edwine", " Eadwig" e tc. H ereford 1 56,375,378. I pswich 2 31. Oxford 4 51. Thetford 2 52. L eicester 3 00. Lincoln 1 10. London 1 48. Oxford 4 51. R ochester 5 24. S tamford 1 21. Winchester 1 30,134; s ee " Eadwine". London 1 49. s ee " g1-","ggel-","glf-". s ee " g1-","ggel-","glf-". I lchester 4 12. Langport 4 18. H ereford 3 74. s ee " ggel-","g1-" , "glf-". Y ork 8 8,100,102. Worcester 3 54. s ee " Eadric". D erby 3 14. s ee " Cinstan". Y ork 9 6. Y ork 9 9,102. Bath 3 92. s ee " Ewi". E xeter 3 94. Y ork 8 3, 86,94. Y ork 8 3,86,94. Y ork 8 7. B ristol 3 85. Winchester 1 29,136; s ee " gstan". s ee " Estmaer". R omney 5 01. London 1 49,159; see " Eastmaer". London 1 49. Thetford 2 52. D over 5 09. London 1 49,164; s ee " Eadsige". H ereford 3 76. H ertford 1 57,196,202. London 1 49,157,202. s ee " Ewi".

Fare h ir Fargrim Folcerd Folcwine

S tamford 1 21. Chester 3 30. S tamford Thetford 2 52. S udbury 2 26,227.

Earcil Earnwi Earnwig Eastmaer Eawulf " Ecwig" " Ed-" Edgar Ediricc Edred Edric Edsie Edstan Edward Edwi

Edwig Edwine

5 49

1 19,121.

F orman Nottingham 3 10. F orna Nottingham 3 10,311. F rithemund Winchester 1 30. Frithewine S teyning 4 84. F roma D erby 3 14,316. F ron D erby 3 16. Garfin Garulf Gdelic Gdeln G eldewine G eola Gife Gildewine Gillecrist G od G odcild G odeburd G odefurth Godelef Godeman Godere Godesbrand G odesunu Godeverd Godi Godlam Godlef G odman Godric

Gods unu Godwi G odwic Godwidia G odwig Godwine

Lincoln 1 10. Worcester 3 54. Thetford 2 52. Thetford 2 52. Canterbury 5 13,515. York 1 00,102. Lincoln 1 10. Canterbury 3 02,515. Taunton 4 07. London 1 49,156-7. Watchet 4 05. Norwich 2 40,243-4. Norwich 2 40,243-4. Thetford 2 52. see " Godman". London 1 49,165. Shaftesbury 3 41,344,426. Shrewsbury 3 41, 343, 3 44,346,426. Canterbury 5 13,515-6. Cambridge 2 69, 5156 . London 1 49. Norwich 2 40,243-4. London - s ee " God". Cambridge 2 69. Thetford 2 52. Hertford 1 96. London 1 49. Norwich 2 41. Southwark 1 86. Winchester 1 30. Bath 3 92. B edford 7 ,277,287. " BIU" 4 22. Bruton 4 21,422. D erby 3 14. Droitwich 3 49-51. G loucester 3 67,489. Huntingdon 2 83. I lchester 412. Leicester 3 01,303,332. L ewes 4 87,489. Lincoln 4 1,110. London 1 50. Maldon 2 20. Oxford 451. Salisbury 4 68,472. Sandwich 5 19. Shaftesbury 4 25,427,472. Southwark 1 87. S tamford 1 21. Thetford 2 52,257. Winchester 1 30,472. Y ork 88. see " Godesunu". London 1 53,176. Thetford 2 57; see " Godwig", " Godwine". see " Godwig". Winchester 1 00,136. London 1 53,176. Thetford 2 53,257. Bedford 7 ,277. Bristol 3 85. Cambridge 269. Chichester 4 82,490. Colchester 2 25. D orchester 4 6,238,428,430,431. Dover 5 09. Exeter 395. Gloucester 3 67. Guildford 2 06. H ertford 1 76, 197. Huntingdon 2 83. Lewes 4 87. London 1 50, 176. Maldon 2 20. N orwich 2 41. Oxford 4 51. R ochester 5 24. Salisbury 4 68. Shrewsbury 3 43. S tafford 3 21,322. S tamford 1 19,122. Thetford 2 44, 253, 2 57. Winchester 1 31,136. Worcester 354. Y ork 8 8.

5 50

Godwine Ceoca Winchester 1 00,131,136. Godwine Widia Winchester 1 31,136,141. Gola York 8 9,100, 102. Goldan London 1 50. Goldman Colchester 225. Golsi s ee " Goldsige". Goldsige London 1 50,155,169. Goldsine s ee "Goldsige". Goltsige s ee "Goldsige". Goltsine London 1 50, 155,169; see " Goldsige". Goldwine H ertford 1 76,197. Hythe 1 76,503,504. Grimulf Gunulf Guolfwine Guthred Gwelic Gyldewine Haerred Haldene Harcin Hethewi Hethewulf

1 50, 161,176. Winchcombe Y ork 8 8. Y ork 8 8. G loucester 3 69. Hythe 5 03-4. Thetford 2 52. s ee " Gildewine".

London

3 62-3,364.

Here g od Hildulf Hunewine Hunna Huscarl Hwateman

Wilton 4 77. N ottingham 3 09,310.[Oxford 3 09,448,452]. S tamford 1 22. s ee " Hethewulf". D roitwich 3 48-51. H ereford 3 51. Worcester 3 51. Oxford 4 52. Lincoln 1 10. Exeter 3 95,396. Malmesbury 4 40. Chester 3 30. B ridport 4 33-5. D orchester 4 6,428-435.

Iocetel Iocil Iokel Iola Iolana Iorel Iugketel Iurelel

Y ork Y ork Y ork Y ork Y ork Y ork Y ork Y ork

Kentwine

Wilton

Ladmaer " Lef-" Legofrede Leofdaeg Leofistan Leofman Leofnoth

Winchester 1 31. s ee " Leaf-","Lif-","Liof-","Luf-". Thetford 253,254. s ee " Leofthegn". London 1 51. Lewes 4 87. Chester 3 30,338. Gloucester 3 67,368-9. H ereford 3 77. Lewes 4 87,489. Lincoln 1 10. London 1 53.

Leof r ed Leofric

8 3,88,95-9. 8 3,88, 95-9. 8 3,88,95-9. 8 9,99, 102. 8 9,99,102. 8 8,95-9. 8 5,95-9. 8 3,89,95-9. 4 77.

York 8 9. Cricklade 4 45,447. London 1 50. Leicester 3 01. London 1 50,288. N orthampton 2 91. N orwich 2 41. S tamford 1 22,288. Thetford 2 53,257,288. Warwick 2 95. Worcester 3 54; s ee

5 51

Leofsige L eofstan

" Liofric". London 1 51. Nottingham 3 10. Canterbury 5 14. Gloucester 3 67. I pswich London 1 51. Northampton 2 91. Rochester

2 31. 5 24.

Salisbury 4 68,470. Shrewsbury 3 43. Winchester 1 31,134-5. Worcester 3 54,356-7. Leofthegn Bedford 7 ,277; s ee also pp.166-7, 399. Leof ward Colchester 2 25. Lewes 4 87. Leofwig Chester 3 30,337. Lewes 4 87. Lincoln 1 07,110. London 1 51. Norwich 2 38,239, 241. Warwick 2 95. Leof wine Aylesbury 2 10,211. Buckingham 2 13. C anterbury 3 03,327,514,520. Chester 3 03, 327,330,338. Chichester 4 82. D erby 3 14. Dover 5 07, 514. Exeter 3 95,396. Gloucester 4 3,367, 373. Hastings 4 95,496. Huntingdon 2 83. Leicester 3 03. Lewes 4 85-6,487. Lincoln 4 4,110. London 1 51. Northampton 2 91. Norwich 2 38,239,241. R ochester 5 24. Sandwich 5 18-522. Shrewsbury 3 43. Southwark 1 87. S tamford 1 22. Thetford 253,256.Wal1i ngford 4 61. Warwick 2 95. Wilton 4 77,478. Winchester 1 31,478. Y ork 8 9; see " Lifwine", " Liofwine". Leof wine Riclaf Winchester 1 31. Leofwold Guildford 2 06,207. Ipswich 2 31. London 1 51. Winchester 1 32. Licinc see " Lifinc". see " Leof-","Liof-","Luf-". Lifinc Exeter 3 95. Hertford 1 97,198. Ipswich 2 31. Lincoln 1 07. London 1 07,151,162. Warwick 2 95,297,298. Wilton 4 77. Winchester 1 32, 134. York 8 9. Lifing see " Lifinc". see " Leofred". Lifred Lifsi see " Leofsige". Canterbury 5 14,520. Dover 5 20. Hastings 4 98. Lifwine Hythe 5 01,520. R ochester 5 24. S andwich 520-1. Thetford 2 56; s ee " Leofwine", ."Liofwine". Rochester 5 24. Lifwine Horn see " Leof-","Lif-","Luf-". " Liof-" Cricklade 4 45,447. L ondon 1 50. S outhwark Liofred 1 87; see " Leofred". Huntingdon 5 1,283,287,288. Leicester 2 87-8, Liofric 3 01. Norwich 5 1,241,287,288. S tamford 5 1, 122, 2 87,288. Huntingdon 2 81,283,287. Hythe 2 81,496,503, 504. Liofwine Norwich 2 87. Sandwich 5 19-521. S tamford 1 22, 287. Thetford 2 56,287; s ee " Leofwine","Lifwine m . Liofwold Loc " Lreenod" " Luf-" Lufestan Luffe Luff i nc Luf wine

s ee " Leofwold". Winchester 1 29,132,136. Gloucester 4 3,372-3. see " Leof-","Liof-","Lif-". see " Leofstan". Warwick 2 95,297,298. Warwick 2 95,297,298. Dover 5 07,509.

5 52

" Lyf-"

s ee

" Leof-","Liof"-","Lif-","Luf-".

Man Mana

Canterbury

5 14.

York

8 9.

Manwine Morcere

Canterbury 5 14. Lincoln Thetford 2 53. D over 5 09. Bury S t.Edmunds 2 65.

Northman

L ewes

Ordric Orlaf Osferth Oslac O smaer Osmund Oswald Osward Os werd Oswold Othbern Othgrim Othun Outhbeorn Outhgrim Outhulf

G loucester 3 37-8,367. H ereford 3 77. London 1 51. s ee " Asferth". s ee " Aslac". B ath 3 92. Lewes 4 87. London 1 51,189. Norwich wark 1 87,189. Lewes 4 87,496. I lchester 4 12. S tamford 1 22. L ewes 4 87,496. Lincoln 1 10. York 8 9. Lincoln 1 10. York 9 0. Y ork 8 9. s ee " Othbern". s ee " Othgrim". L eicester 3 01. York 9 0.

Price

N orwich

Raedulf Rafen Ringulf Roscetel Rudcarl

H ereford 3 77. Y ork 9 0. N orwich 2 41. Y ork 1 01-103. Canterbury 5 14.

Saeboda Saecol Saefugel Saegrim Saemaer Saewan Saewerd Saewine

S alisbury 4 68,471. Cambridge 2 69. Y ork 9 0. N ottingham 3 08,310. Thetford 2 53. H ertford 1 97,198. N IPEPORTE 2 14,215. Winchester 1 32. B ristol 3 85. Exeter 3 95. Leicester 3 01. N orthampton 2 84-5,291,293. Wilton 4 77. Winchester 1 33. Exeter 3 95. Y ork 9 0. Gloucester 3 67,369. London 1 51. Wareham 4 36-8,526. Canterbury 5 14. B edford 7 ,277. Gloucester 3 67,369. Canterbury 5 14. London 1 51. N IPEPORTE 4 4,

Saewulf Scula S eolcwine Sibwine Sideman Sigered Sigod S ilac Sired

1 10.

N orwich

2 41.

4 87.

2 41.

S outh-

2 41.

2 14,215.

5 53

S lewine Smeawine S naeborn S nel S newine S noter S pileman S praclinc S prot S tanherd S tanmaer S tircol S treoll Sumerled Swafa Swarcolf Swart Swartcol Swartcolf Swart i nc Sweart Sweartcol Sweartlinc Swegn Swert i nc Swetman Swetric Swota Swotric Syldewine The odred Theodric Thor Thorcetel Thorcil Thorstan Thrond Thurcetel Thurcil Thurfurth Thurgrim Thurstan Thurulf Tidred Titred Udfe Uhtred Ulf Ulf c etel

York 9 1. Bristol 3 85-6. York 9 1. Chester 3 30. Bristol 3 85-6. Nottingham 3 10. Winchester 1 33. London 1 52. Winchester 1 33. Chester 3 30. Canterbury 5 14. Colchester 2 25. York 9 1. York 9 1. Lincoln 1 11. Thetford 2 53. Lincoln 1 11. S tamford 1 22. S tamford 1 22; see " Sweart". York 9 1. see " Swarcolf". see " Swertinc". Lincoln 1 11; see " Swart". Chester 3 30. Wallingford 4 7,465. " Winchester" 4 7,465. York 9 1. D erby 3 14. Lincoln 1 11; s ee " Swartinc". London 1 52. Northampton 2 91. Oxford S outhwark 1 87. Wareham 4 37,526. Wilton 4 77. Bedford 7 ,277. Bedford 7 ,277. see " Gildewine".

4 52.

Buckingham 2 13. Hastings 4 95. Hythe 5 05. Hertford 1 97,198. London 1 52. Warwick 2 95. London 1 52. York 9 2. Lincoln 1 11; see " Thurcetel","Thurcil". see " Thurcil". Norwich 242; see " Thurstan". Chester 3 30. Lincoln 1 11; see " Thorcetel". Warwick 2 95. Wilton 4 77,478; s ee " Thurcil", " Thorcetel". London 1 52. Norwich 2 41. Thetford 2 53. Lincoln 1 11. Norwich 2 42. York 9 2. N orwich 2 42. S tamford 1 23; see " Thorstan" S tamford 1 23. Thetford 2 53. Hertford 1 97,198. Lincoln 1 11,113. s ee " Brihtred","Wihtred". Lincoln 1 11,113. B edford 7 ,277,285-6,380-1. Berkeley 6 ,380-1. Huntingdon 2 83,285-6. Y ork 9 2,100-101; see " Ulfcil".

5 54

Ulfcil York 9 2,100-101; see " Ulfcetel". Ulfctel Thaginc Y ork 9 2. Ulfcytel see " Ulfcetel". Umitred see " Brihtred","Wihtred". Unolf York 9 2. Waedel Bath 3 92. Waelraefen Lincoln 1 11. Wibaern Cambridge 2 69. Wicing Exeter 3 95. Worcester 3 54. Widia Winchester 1 33,136,141. Wihtred H ertford 1 97,198. London 1 52,160,161; s ee " Brihtred". Wilgrip H ertford 1 97. Leicester 3 01. Lincoln 1 07,111, 1 62-3. S tamford 1 23,163. Wineman Lincoln 1 11. Salisbury 4 68,471. Wilton 4 71,477. Winstan D over 5 07, 509. Salisbury 4 68,472. Winchester 1 33,472. Winterfugel York 9 2. Winus Wilton 4 77. Wirgal Chester 3 30. Wirinc s ee " Dirinc" Wuducoc s ee " Wydecoc","Duducoc". Wufnoth London 1 52. Wulc London 1 62. Wulcred s ee " Wulfred". Wulcwine s ee " Wulfwine". Wulf Lincoln 1 11,113. Wulfbeorn Lincoln 1 12. Wulfeh D erby 3 14. Wulfgaet Canterbury 5 14. Gloucester 3 67. Shrewsbury 3 43. S teyning 4 84. Wulf g ar Lincoln 1 11. London 1 52,155; s ee a lso " Wulgar". Wulf h eh see " Wulfeh". Wulfmaer Bedford 2 77. Exeter 1 98,395. Shrewsbury 3 43; see " Wulmaer". London Exeter 3 95,396. Leicester 3 01,306. Wulf n oth 1 52. N orthampton 2 91,306. N ottingham 3 06,310. S tamford 3 06; s ee " Wulnoth". London Wulfred Aylesbury 2 10,211. Canterbury 5 14. 1 52. Chichester 4 82-5,490. Gloucester 3 67,369. Wulfric Hastings 4 90,495. Hertford 1 97. Leicester 3 01. Lincoln 4 4,111. London 1 52. P ershore 3 61. R ochester 5 24. Shaftesbury 4 25,427. S tamford 1 23. S teyning 4 84-5,490. Thetford 2 53. Wareham 4 36. Wulfsi DYR 2 34,236,237. I pswich 2 31,237. London 1 73. N orwich 2 37,242; s ee " Wulfsige". DYR 2 34, 236,237. Hereford 3 74,377. I pswich Wulf s ige 2 31,237. London 1 52,173. Norwich 2 37; s ee " Wulfsi". Canterbury 5 14. Hereford 3 77. London 1 52; Wulf s tan see " Wulstan". Hereford 3 74. Wulf s te Dover 5 09,511. Gloucester 3 67. London 1 53. Wulf ward

5 55

Wulfwi

Wulf wig

Wulf wine

Wulf word Wulf wurd Wulgar Wulinnoth Wulmaer Wulnoth

Wulred Wulsi(ge) Wuls tan Wulwi Wurreb Wydecoc Wydeman Wynstan

Bedford 7 ,277,278, 285. Cambridge 269,272, 2 78. Colchester 2 79. Gloucester 367,374. Hereford 3 74,377. Huntingdon 2 79,285. London 1 72. Oxford 4 52,458. T hetford 2 53, 279. Worcester 3 54,374; see also " Wulfwig","Wulfwine". Bedford 7 ,274,277,278. G loucester 3 67,374. Hereford 3 77. Huntingdon 2 79,283,285. London 1 53. Bedford 7 ,274,277,278. Bristol 385. Cambridge 2 69,272,278,285. Colchester 2 25,279. Exeter 3 95. Hereford 3 74,377. H untingdon 2 79,283,285. Lewes 4 87. London 1 53,172. Southwark 1 87. S tamford 1 23,279. Wallingford 461. Warwick 2 95. Worcester 3 57; see a lso " Wulfwi". see " Wulfward". see " Wulfward". DYR 4 4,234,236,315. Lincoln 4 4, 111. London 1 52. " Canterbury" 5 16-7. Leicester 3 06, 516-7. Bedford 7 ,277. Exeter 1 98,395. R omney 5 02; see " Wulfmaer". Leicester 46,301,302-3,306-7,309-12. London 1 52. Northampton 2 91,306-7,312. N ottingham 4 6,306-7,308-9,309-12. S tamford 1 23,306; see " Wulfnoth". s ee " Wulfred". DIR 2 34. I pswich 2 31,237. London 1 52. Norwich 2 42. Canterbury 5 14. Huntingdon 2 83. London 1 52. Warminster 4 21,422; see " Wulfstan". " Dover" 5 06. London 1 62. see " Durreb". see " Duducoc". Shrewsbury 3 43. Winchester 1 33.

5 56

F ootnotes Chapter 1 .

2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 10.

1 1. 12. 13. 1 4. 15. 16. 17. 18. 1 9. 20. 2 1. 22.

2 4. 25. 26.

1

D olley ( 1955 and 1 961d), S eaby ( 1956), P etersson ( 1969), Carson ( 1971) and o ther commentaries publishe d in Scandinavia ( e.g. Commentationes ( 1961)) and i n the United K ingdom ( e.g. ASE). e . g. D olley a nd Metcalf ( 1961) and P etersson ( 1969). e . g. Mossop ( 1970), Ebsworth ( 1966) a nd Blackburn ( 1974 and 1 976). e . g. P etersson ( 1969). e . g. Metcalf ( 1978). e . g. CNS, S CBI, Smart ( 1968 and 1 973b), Blunt and v on F eilitzen ( 1971) and Colman ( 1981). e . g. Biddle a nd Keene ( 1976),pp.396-422, Hill ( 1978), pp.213-226 and S tafford ( 1978 and 1 980). S tewart ( 1975a) pp.220-1. B lackburn ( 1974), p .24. e . g.Loyn ( 1961), S tafford ( 1980) and f or an appreci ation of the work of S ir F rank S tenton s ee, among o thers, Blunt a nd D olley ( 1969), pp.5-7. e . g. Blunt a nd von F eilitzen ( 1971), P in e ( 1975), Smart ( 1979 a nd 1 981) and Colman ( 1981). M etcalf ( paper delivered before the British Numismatic S ociety 2 3.ix.80). P otin ( 1967). Mossop ( 1970) pl.LXV-LXXX, C I and C II. S tewart ( 1970). Blunt and D olley ( 1969). S tewart ( 1975),p.222. e . g. van der Meer ( 1961), Smart ( 1975) and Colman ( 1978). Holm ( 1917). Colman ( 1981). Blackburn a nd D olley ( 1982) and Archibald ( 1982). I n the absence of a full s tatistical analysis of the c oin material the s tudent must consult the evidence for each moneyer i ndividually f rom the mint profiles accompanying the discussion o f each mint, or f rom Appendix V . At 3 .4.1985 2 ,054 moneyerfor-type occurrences are recorded f or Edward the Confessor's r eign o f which 4 59 are each derived from a single coin ( i.e.22%). Within this percentage lie major variations, exceptionally, a s with I lche ster and G loucester, o f up to 5 0%, and within mints the representativeness o f the evidence can vary significantly f rom moneyer to moneyer.

Chapter 2 3.

and references

2

S ee Smart ( 1979) f or a reminder of the ween numismatics and onomastics. See Mossop ( 1970) " Diagrams" LXV-LXXX. Nightingale ( 1982),pp.36 and 4 1-2. Ebsworth ( 1966),pp.65-6.

5 57

alliance

bet-

2 7. 2 8. 2 9. 3 0. 3 1. 3 2.

3 3. 3 4. 3 5. 3 6. 3 7. 3 8. 3 9. 4 0. 4 1. 4 2. 4 3. 4 4. 4 5. 4 6.

Mossop ( 1970). Carson ( 1949). Blunt a nd D olley ( 1973),pp.100-1. Mossop ( 1970), f old-out. e .g. R uding ( 1840) I , pp.49-50; G rueber and K eary ( 1887), p .cv; S tainer ( 1904),p.xii. e .g. D olley ( 1959),pp.56-7; S tewart ( 1970); Blackburn ( 1974),pp.19-22; S tewart ( 1975a); S tewart ( 1975b), pp.11-12; S tewart ( 1978a). P agan ( 1984). M etcalf ( 1981), p .49. s ee e specially Lyon ( 1970), Metcalf ( 1978), pp.176 and 1 82, and M etcalf ( 1982),pp.52-6. H ill ( 1978) e specially pp.214-6. s ee M etcalf ( 1982) e specially pp.52-6. s ee e .g. N ightingale ( 1982), e specially pp.44ff. S tewart ( 1978a). D olley a nd M etcalf ( 1961), e specially pp.148-52, a nd s ee e .g. H ill ( 1978),p.221. D olley a nd Metcalf ( 1961), pp.149-50. B iddle a nd K eene ( 1976), e specially pp.397 and 4 22, a nd B rand ( 1984), pp.45-9. e .g. D olley ( 1970),p.29. D olley ( 1970),p.25. Archibald ( 1974),p.248. P etersson ( 1969),pp.86, 1 28-9 a nd 1 34.

Chapter 4 7. 4 8.

4 9. 5 0. 5 1. 5 2. 5 3. 5 4. 5 5. 5 6. 5 7. 5 8. 5 9. 6 0. 6 1. 6 2.

6 3.

3

Smart ( 1969),pp.24-5. Smart ( 1981):F or " Arncetel" p .14; for " Ulfcetel" ( pp.74-5) h er evidence i s l ess c omplete, having to d raw u pon more than one mint to obtain b oth " -cil" and " -cetel" f orms, while o nly " -citel" f orms c an b e obtained f or the " Io-" prototheme ( p.48). P in e ( 1975), p .xlviii. i bid., sub Pyramids type. Smart ( 1981),pp.12 a nd 3 3, a nd von F eilitzen ( 1969), p .12. The f ive r everse d ies proposed by Colman ( 1981), p .345 may i n fact r epresentno more than three dies. Smart ( 1982),p.106. P in e ( 1975), p .xlviii ( "Radiate/Small Cross") and Smart ( 1981),p.34. P in e ( 1975),p.xlviii a nd Smart ( 1982),p.110. D olley ( 1971). Smart ( 1982),pp.110 a nd 1 13. Mossop ( 1970). Willett ( 1876),p.354. Colman ( 1978),pp.134-5 a nd ( 1981),p.286. Colman ( 1978),p.135. CNS XVI.1 p .96, where VDFE and V LF are listed without c omment a s s eparate moneyers. Mrs.Smart h as a note about the c ognate f orms PV LF and VLF ( Smart ( 1969), p .22). Smart ( 1975), p .169.

5 58

6 4.

6 5. 6 6. 6 7. 6 8. 6 9. 7 0. 7 1. 7 2. 7 3. 7 4. 7 5.

7 6. 7 7. 7 8. 7 9. 8 0. 8 1. 8 2. 8 3. 8 4. 8 5. 8 6. 8 7. 8 8. 8 9. 9 0. 9 1. 9 2. 9 3. 9 4. 9 5. 9 6. 9 7. 9 8. 9 9. 1 00. 1 01. 1 02. 1 03. 1 04. 1 05. 1 06. 1 07.

t he reference, i n the I nregistreringsbök f or Wisby G ymnasii Mynt, Medaljer o ch A ntiquieteter f or 1 839 n ow h eld i n G otlands F ornsal, Visby, was b rought t o light by M ichael D olley ( Dolley ( 1980),p.23). H ead ( 1867),p.105. H ill ( 1936),pp.38-40 a nd 3 68-9. f or " Brinit" s ee Colman ( 1978),p.135 a nd ( 1981), p .321; f or Harcin s ee S eaby ( 1956),p.144. S mart ( 1975), p p.169-70. D olley and S trudwick ( 1956),p.59 a nd C olman ( 1981), p .322. D olley a nd S trudwick ( 1956),p.59 a nd c orrespondence with G lendining & C o. S eptember 1 983. S eaby ( 1956), p .144. D olley and S trudwick ( 1956),p.59. Skaare ( 1976),p.67. Wells ( 1934: BNJ XXII e specially pp.37,50,53,59) and S tewart ( SCMB A pril 1 970) see BNJ XXVII p .373, D olley a nd S trudwick ( 1959), p .59, B iddle and K eene ( 1976),pp.404 a nd 4 08, a nd Pagan ( 1984). Biddle and K eene ( 1976),p.408. Colman ( 1981),p.340. Smart ( 1981),p.57. Smart ( 1981),p.76, S tewart ( 1978a),pp.112-3 and von F eilitzen a nd Blunt ( 1970),pp.210-11. Barlow ( 1976),p.36. Smart ( 1975),p.169. BM 1 04 and D olley a nd S trudwick ( 1956),p.58. see e .g. D olley ( 1974) a nd ( 1976). Dolley ( 1977),p.357 a nd e .g. N orth ( 1963),p.133. Smart ( 1981),pp.6-7 a nd 1 1-12. Gunstone ( 1980),p.91. Burrows ( 1978),p.75. van d er Meer ( 1961),p.185. Smart ( 1975),p.169. Colman ( 1978), p.133 a nd G unstone ( 1977) r e. WC 6 75 citing D olley ( 1961a),p.164. Smart ( 1975),p.169. Colman ( 1978), p .135. Colman ( 1981), pp.297-8. Colman ( 1978), p .135. Smart ( 1981),p.33. North ( 1963),pp.132-3 a nd ( 1980),pp.144-5. Colman ( 1981), p.297. Thompson ( 1956),p.25 a nd H ead ( 1867),p.109. Dolley ( 1956), p.98. North ( 1980),p.145. Thompson ( 1956),p.26 a nd H ead ( 1867),p.110. Thompson ( 1956),p.27 a nd H ead ( 1867),p.110. Dolley ( 1961). Stenton ( 1946) .,pp.420-6 a nd D omesday B ook ( Sussex) ed. J . Morris ( 1976), 1 2.1. see Lyon ( 1981). Smart ( 1981),p.22. Dolley and S trudwick ( 1956), p .58.

5 59

1 08. 1 09. 1 10. 1 11. 1 12. 1 13. 1 14. 1 15. 1 16. 1 17. 1 18. 1 19. 1 20. 1 21. 1 22. 1 23. 1 24. 1 25. 1 26. 1 27. 1 28. 1 29. 1 30. 1 31. 1 32. 1 33. 1 34. 1 35. 1 36. 1 37.

1 38. 1 39. 1 40.

1 41. 1 42. 1 43.

1 44. 1 45. 1 46. 1 47. 1 48. 1 49. 1 50.

Willett ( 1876),p.364. N orth ( 1980),pp.101,107,111,119,125,135. D olley ( 1978),p.9. van d er Meer ( 1961),p.182. Willett ( 1876),p.351. personal c orrespondence with National Museum Copenhagen 2 0.4.1982 a nd s ee Smart ( 1981). Smart ( 1981),p.26. D olley ( 1959),pp.56-7. D olley and S trudwick ( 1956),p.58. D olley ( 1961c) a nd van d er M eer ( 1963). F reeman ( 1984) a nd f orthcoming n ote i n B erkshire Archaeological J ournal. N ightingale ( 1982). Thompson ( 1956),p.27 a nd van d er Meer ( 1981),p.181. N orth ( 1980),pp.123 a nd 1 33. D olley, Elliot a nd E lmore J ones ( 1966), p.50. R oberston ( 1961),p.x. D olley ( 1956), pp.92-9. Thompson ( 1956),p.91 a nd A rchibald ( 1974), p.269 n .56. S ee a lso Mills ( 1977). Ekwall ( 1960),p.312. D olley ( 1959a),pp.63-4. Burrows ( 1978),p.72 a nd D olley and S trudwick ( 1956), p .59. D olley ( 1957). N orth ( 1980),pp.138 a nd 1 46. S eaby ( 1956),pp.139 a nd 1 41 a nd Willett ( 1876), p.352. D olley a nd S trudwick ( 1956),p.58, S eaby ( 1956), p.141 and S adler ( 1976) a nd ( 1978). Willett ( 1876),p.352 a nd Sadler ( 1978). Thompson ( 1956),p.95. Sadler ( 1978),p.239 a nd S tewart and B lunt ( 1980). Elmore J ones ( 1963),p.66n. D olley ( 1960) c ited i n Elmore J ones ( 1963), p.66. The l ink c ited i s b etween BM 4 38 o f I pswich a nd BM 2 02 o f D YR; s ee E lmore J ones ( 1963), pp.67-8. Elmore J ones ( 1963),p.68 a nd G alster ( 1972),p.ix. S eaby ( 1956),p.143. Smart ( 1975),p.168 a nd Colman ( 1978), p.134. S ee S CBI ( Index), B EH a nd BMC f or G odwine prior t o Edward the Confessor. S eaby ( 1956),p.143. Willett ( 1876),p.359. D olley ( 1978a). O ther details have been kindly supplied by the i ndividuals a nd f irms n amed a nd I wish t o r ecord my g ratitude and i ndebtedness t o them. S earle ( 1897) a nd Smart ( 1981). S eaby ( 1956),p.145. D olley a nd S trudwick ( 1956), p.59. S eaby ( 1956),p.145 a nd Carson ( 1949). N orth ( 1980),p.146, Thompson ( 1956),p.95 and Willett ( 1876),p.366. Carson ( 1949),p.224 a nd Smart ( 1981),pp.37 a nd 3 9. N orth ( 1980),p.146.

5 60

1 51. 1 52. 1 53. 1 54.

W illett ( 1876), p .367 and S eaby ( 1956),p.145. B lunt, D olley a nd Elmore J ones ( 1956), p .59. S tatham ( 1970), p .405 a nd s ee B rooke(1916),I p .clxiv. B lunt, D olley a nd Elmore J ones ( 1956), p .58.

1 55.

S ee Smart ( 1973c) ‚ p.36. For a tion o f BM 4 73 a s a coin of J acob ( 1984), p .73.

1 56.

1 80. 1 81. 1 82.

B urrows ( 1978), p .75, and see J acob ( 1984) e specially p p. 7 2-4. J acob ( 1984), p .74. S eaby ( 1956), p .141. N orth ( 1963), p .133 a nd ( 1980),p.144. o bservations o n the Huntingdon mint kindly supplied b y Mr.Robin E aglen. s ee Dolley ( 1961). s ee D olley ( 1961b),p.155 citing an unpublished paper by F .Elmore J ones. s ee Elmore J ones ( 1971a) and Blunt and D olley ( 1971). s ee S tenton ( 1946),pp.570-1 and D olley ( 1961),pp. 1 7-24. E bsworth ( 1966). T hompson ( 1956), pp.37-8. B lunt, D olley a nd Elmore J ones ( 1956), p .58. D olley and S trudwick ( 1956), p .58. C olman ( 1981), p .312. D olley and S trudwick ( 1956), p .58 and s ee BMC( A/S)II, p . cxiii. S ee also Elmore J ones ( 1963), p .66, citing D olley i n SNC N ov.1960. Danson ( 1970), p .47 and 4 8. Willett ( 1876), p .365, Thompson ( 1956), p .95 and Burrows ( 1978), p .66. Willett ( 1876), p .365 and Thompson ( 1956), p .96. " Unsigned a rticle" ( 1970), p .652. s ee B lunt ( 1973), p .18 citing D olley ( 1962) and R obinson ( 1969). Smart ( 1981), p .24. R obinson ( 1970a), pp.23ff. and ( 1970b), p .384. G . van der Meer ( 1961), p .182 citing NC 1 885 pp.258-9 and N C 1 891 pp.12-24. S ee Lyon ( 1966), ( 1976), p .182n. a nd P in e ( 1975), p . xxii. Smart ( 1975), p .169. Robinson ( 1983), p .126. S earle ( 1897), pp.10-12 and Smart ( 1981), pp.2-

1 83. 1 84. 1 85.

3 . Pletts ( 1979) and correspondence 2 .7.1982. Colman ( 1981), p .319. S tewart and Blunt ( 1980). S ee also Loyn

1 57. 1 58. 1 59. 1 60. 1 61. 1 62. 1 63. 1 64. 1 65. 1 66. 1 67. 1 68. 1 69. 1 70.

1 71. 1 72. 1 73. 1 74. 1 75. 1 76. 1 77. 1 78. 1 79.

1 86. 1 87. 1 88. 1 89. 1 90. 1 91.

K . A.Jacob's c onsider/ E lfwig or / E lfwine s ee

( 1961),

p . 1 35n. Biddle and K eene ( 1976), p .408. Loyn ( 1961), pp.132 1 1 34 and 1 35n. Dolley and S trudwick ( 1956), p .59 and F EJ ( A/S) catalogue p .83 l ot 9 70. North ( 1980), p .147. Colman ( 1978), p .134. See B lunt a nd D olley ( 1973), pp.105-9 a nd Gelling

5 61

1 92. 1 93. 1 94.

1 95. 1 96.

1 97. 1 98.

1 99. 2 00. 2 01. 2 02.

( 1973), p .114. N orth ( 1980), p .147. N orth ( 1963), p .135, N orth ( 1980), p .147 and B lunt and D olley ( 1973), p .108. S earle ( 1897), p .6 l ists " Elf" a s a n eleventh century name-form. The name i s n ot recorded i n SCBI-Index ( Smart ( 1981)). S ee Smart ( 1981), pp.13 and 3 2 and Blunt a nd D olley ( 1973), p .99. Colman ( 1978), p .133. F rom photographs k indly s uppl ied by an i ntermediary t he mint signature appears to read . Smart ( 1973d), pp.116-7. Colman ( 1978), p .133 and Smart ( 1975), p .169. A l arge f ragment of the coin, containing three o r f our o f the first l etters o f the mint s ignature, i s missing. Blunt and D olley ( 1973), pp.100-101. Smart ( 1981), p .81. S ee N orth ( 1980), p .144, B rooke ( 1916), p .ccxii and the H . A.Parsons sale catalogue 1 929. S ee P etersson ( 1969) pp.92 a nd 2 46 a nd Barlow ( 1970),

g mE 2 LB

2 18. 2 19.

pp. 2 06-8. S ee Blunt and D olley i n G alster ( 1972), p .ix a nd i n Grinsell, Blunt and Dolley ( 1973), p .109n. S ee a lso Smart ( 1975), pp.166 a nd 1 68 and D olley a nd Metcalf ( 1961), p .167n. G rinsell ( 1973a), pp.13-14. op.cit. pp.29-34. G rinsell's l ist does n ot constitu te a c orpus of the B ristol mint. Smart ( 1973c), p .36. Blunt, Dolley and Elmore J ones ( 1956), p .58. S ee Grinsell ( 1973a), pp.29-30, Smart ( 1975), p .168 and ( 1981), p .67, and Colman ( 1978), p .133 a nd ( 1981), p .255. S eaby ( 1956), p .140 and S tewart ( 1970), p .22. S tewart ( 1975b), p .11 and Burrows ( 1978), p .73. D olley and Lyon ( 1968), pp.59-60. N orth ( 1980), p .145. Blackburn ( 1974), p .31, D olley ( 1961a), p .164 and S tewart a nd Blunt ( 1980), p .53. F EJ Catalogue ( Glendining May 1 971), p .10 citing SNC D ecember 1 958. Colman ( 1978), p .134. Smart ( 1975), p .175 a nd Colman ( 1978), p .134. Hill ( 1978) e specially p .218. I n this area o f c entral S omerset only two o f the King's estates i dentified by H ill were without a mint. N orth ( 1980), p .137. BNJ XXVI p .355 and D olley ( 1961c), pp.70, 74.

2 20. 2 21. 2 22.

S tewart ( 1970), p .23. van der Meer ( 1961), p .181. Gunstone ( 1977), pl.xxiii citing

2 23. 2 24.

D olley ( 1963), p .56 and D olley ( 1959a), p .66. S ee D olley and S trudwick ( 1956), p .58, B NJ XXVIII p .127, Elmore J ones Sale Catalogue ( Glendining

2 03.

2 04. 2 05. 2 06. 2 07. 2 08.

1 209. 2 10. 2 11. 2 12. 2 13. 2 14. 2 15. 2 16. 2 17.

5 62

Dolley

( 1961a).

2 25. 2 26. 2 27. 2 28. 2 29. 2 30. 2 31. 2 32. 2 33. 2 34. 2 35. 2 36. 2 37. 2 38. 2 39. 2 40. 2 41. 2 42. 2 43. 2 44. 2 45. 2 46. 2 47. 2 48. 2 49. 2 50.

2 51. 2 52. 2 53. 254. 2 55. 2 56. 2 57.

2 58. 2 59. 2 60. 2 61. 2 62.

2 63.

M ay 1 971) p .75 a nd N orth ( 1980), pp.200 a nd 1 44. D olley ( 1958). S ee Smart ( 1975), p .169, C olman ( 1978), p .134 a nd North ( 1963), p .123. c ited by Brooke ( 1916) I p .clxix. B lunt, D olley a nd E lmore J ones ( 1956), p .58. S ymonds ( 1923). S ee also D olley ( 1956), pp.92-5 N orth ( 1980), p p.134-4. D olley a nd S trudwick ( 1956), p .59. v an d er Meer ( 1961), p .182 a nd Colman ( 1978), p .135. v an der Meer ( 1961), p .182. E lmore J ones ( 1963), p .67. G unstone ( 1977), p .xxix. S oerd ( 1965), p .500. D olley and S trudwick ( 1956), p .59. S eaby ( 1956), p .143.. S mart ( 1981), p .82. S tainer ( 1904), p .xxx. E bsworth ( 1966), p .62. W illett ( 1876), p .368. P agan ( 1984). E lmore J ones ( 1971). C arlyon-Britton ( 1902). D olley and S trudwick ( 1956), p .59. B lunt ( 1974). G unstone ( 1977) pl.xxiv. Smart ( 1981), p p.50-7. B rooke ( 1916), pp.cxlix-cl, who notes i rregulariti es surrounding glfsi's a ctivities during the period BMC types I -III o f William I . Thompson ( 1956), p .190 a nd Archibald ( 1974), p . 2 69 n .56. Elmore J ones ( 1956), p .190. S eaby ( 1956), p .137n a nd Elmore J ones ( 1956), p .190. Smart ( 1975), p .169. S ee Carlyon-Britton catalogue, D olley a nd S trudwick ( 1956), p .59 a nd D olley ( 1959a), p .64. Head ( 1867), p .121 1 N orth ( 1980), p .147, S earle ( 1897), p .25 a nd Smart ( 1980), pp.5,6 a nd 1 1. Colman ( 1978), p .134. I n view o f the r e-attribution of H 5 8, a re-examination o f the s ingle c oin o f Leofnoth o f L ewes ( also o f the T refoil-Quadrilateral type) might b e merited. S ee a lso D olley a nd S trudwick ( 1956), p .58 a nd S tewart ( 1978a), p .117. S tewart ( 1978a) e specially pp.116-7. Dolley and S trudwick ( 1956), p .59. King 2 07 ( King ( 1956), p .257) a nd Colman ( 1978), p .134. Dolley and S trudwick ( 1956), p .58. King ( 1956), p .530, S tewart ( 1978a), p .134, D udley ( 1978), p .75 a nd N orth ( 1963), p .133 a nd ( 1980), p .145. King 2 65 ( King ( 1956), p .530), H ead Dolley ( 1961b), pp.167-8, N orth

5 63

( 1867), ( 1980),

p .102 1 p .145

2 64. 2 65.

2 66. 2 67. 2 68. 2 69.

2 70. 2 71. 2 72. 2 73. 2 74. 2 75. 2 76. 2 77. 2 78. 2 79. 2 80. 2 81. 2 82. 2 83.

a nd B rooke ( 1950), p .73. Thompson ( 1956), pp.120-122 and S tewart ( 1978a), pp.91-2. Willett ( 1876), p .350, King ( 1956), p .254, D udley ( 1978) and S tewart ( 1978a),p.133. D espite a n element o f s pecial pleading, " Durinc" i s i ncluded i n the mint profile because, u nlike " Oswold", his presence causes l ittle o r n o distortion. K ing ( 1956), p .255. S tewart ( 1978a) e specially p p.101-117. N orth ( 1980), p .137, D olley a nd S trudwick ( 1955), p .59 and Colman ( 1981), p .316. S ee N orth ( 1963), p .180 a nd ( 1980), p .144, B MC ( A/S) I I, p .383, Blunt, D olley a nd Elmore J ones ( 1956), p .58, Elmore J ones Catalogue, G lendining, May 1 971 p .36, van der Meer ( 1961), p .182, Colman ( 1978), p .134 a nd H ead ( 1867), p .100. Smart ( 1975), p .168 a nd C olman ( 1978), p .134 a nd ( 1981), p .268. Colman ( 1981), p .269. Colman and D olley ( 1977), and B NJ XXIII p .177. N orth ( 1980), pp.133 a nd 1 43. op.cit. p .143. Smart ( 1975), p .159. D olley a nd S trudwick ( 1956), p .58. S tewart a nd Blunt ( 1980), p .57 n .31 a nd p .55 c oin 6 . D olley and S trudwick ( 1956), p .59. S tenton ( 1946), pp.422-3. op.cit. pp.559 a nd 5 78-9. op.cit. p .426. D omesday B ook ( Sussex) ed.J. Morris ( 1976), 1 2.1. Barlow ( 1970), p .198n.

5 64

Bibliography of

Allen

( 1940)

Anderson

( 1935)

Archibald

( 1974)

Archibald

( 1982)

Ballard

( 1904)

Barlow

( 1970)

Barlow

( 1976)

Becker

( 1981)

Beljakov and Janina ( 1977)

Berga

Biddle

( 1977)

( 1976)

Biddle and Keene ( 1976)

Blackburn

( 1974)

Blackburn

( 1976)

Blackburn

( 1976a)

works

cited and

consulted.

D . Allen, " Treasure trove 1 933-1939", BNJ XXIII pt.II ( 1939) pp.269-286. W . Anderson, " Achtzig neue Münzen aus d em Funde von NagingCina", Acta et Commentationes Universitatensis Tartuensis XXXVII ( 1935). M . M. Archibald, " English medieval coins a s dating evidence",in J .Casey and R . Reece ( ed.) " Coins and the archaeologist". Oxford,1974,pp.2342 71. idem, " Anglo-Norman coins a t D resden: a correction", SNC XC ( 1982) p .306. A .Ballard, The Domesday Boroughs", Oxford, 1 904. F .Barlow, " Edward the Confessor". London, 1 970. idem, " The Winton D omesday" i n M . Biddle ( ed.) " Winchester S tudies I : Winchester i n the early middle ages" Oxford,1976,pp.1-141. C .J.Becker ( ed.) " Studies i n northern coinages of the eleventh c entury", Copenhagen 1 981. A .S.Beljakov and S . A.Janina, " Koloderskii klad kuficheskikh i zapadnoeuropejskikh serebryanykh monet 6 0-h g odov X I v ", Numizmaticheskii Sbornik 5 /2 ( 1977) pp.10-99. T . M.Berga, " Analiz numizmaticheskogo materiala i z arheologicheskikh Pamyatnikov Latvii X -XII vekov", Latvijas P SR Z inatnu Akademijas Vestis ( 1977) ) pp.86-99. M .Biddle ( ed.) " Winchester S tudies I : Winchester i n the early middle ages". Oxford, 1 976. M .Biddle and J . R. Keene, " Winchester i n the eleventh and twelfth c enturi es", i n M .Biddle ( ed.) " Winchester s tudies I : Winchester i n the early middle ages". Oxford,1976 pp.2414 48. M . A.S.Blackburn, " The mint o f Watchet", BNJ X LIV ( 1974) pp.13-38. i dem, " The mint o f Watchet: appendi x", BNJ X LVI ( 1976) pp.75-76. idem, R eview: " Coins a nd coinage i n Viking age Norway", by K olbj Orn Skaare, 1 976, BNJ XLVI ( 1976) pp.808 1.

5 65

Blackburn

( 1977)

Blackburn

( 1978)

idem, " Thoughts on imitations o f the Anglo-Saxon coinage", S CMB O ctober ( 1977). idem, " Anglo-Saxon coins i n Polish museums",SNC LXXXVI 5 20 and 5 77-9.

Blackburn

( 1981)

Blackburn and D ailey ( 1982) Blackburn and J onsson ( 1981)

Blackburn and Metcalf ( 1981)

Blackburn, and D ailey

Colyer ( 1983)

Blunt

( 1973)

Blunt

( 1974)

Blunt and ( 1969)

Dailey

Blunt and ( 1971)

Dailey

Blunt and ( 1973)

Dailey

( 1978)

pp.518-

idem, " An i mitative workshop active during g thelraed I I's ' Long Cross' i ssue", i n C .J.Becker ( ed.) " Studies i n northern c oinages of t he eleventh c entury", Copenhagen 1 981 pp.29-88. M . A.Blackburn and R . Dolley, " The Anglo-Saxon a nd Norman c oins a t Dresden",SNC XC ( 1982) pp.47-49. M . A.Blackburn and K .Jonsson, " The Anglo-Saxon a nd Anglo-Norman element of north European coin f inds", i n M . A.Blackburn and D . Metcalf ( eds.) " Viking age c oinage i n the northern lands: the s ixth Oxford Symposium on coinage a nd monetary h istory", British Archaeological R eports, I nternational S eries 1 22,1981 pp1472 56. M . A.Blackburn and D . M. Metcalf ( eds.) " Viking age c oinage in the Northern lands: the s ixth Oxford S ymposium on coinage a nd monetary h istory", British Archaeological R eports, I nternational S eries 1 22, 1 981. M .Blackburn, C .Colyer and R . Dolley, " Early medieval coins f rom Lincoln and i ts shire c .770-1100" in T he Archaeology o f Lincoln VI ( i), Council for British Archaeology, 1 983. C .E.Blunt,"The origins of t he S tafford mint", i n F .Sandgren ( ed.) " Otium et negotium". S tockholm, 1 973. idem, " The mint-name S EARRUM o n a coin o f Edward the C onfessor", SCMB 6 70 ( June 1 974) p p.191-192. C .E.Blunt and R . Dolley, " University collection, R eading", SCBI I I.London,1969. eidem, " The mints o f N orthampton and S outhampton up to the t ime o f Edgar's reform", i n R .A.G. Carson ( ed.) " Mints, dies and c urrency: e ssays dedicated to the m emory o f Albert Baldwin". London,1971 pp. 9 1-100. eidem, " City o f Gloucester Museum, ancient British coins a nd coins o f the Gloucestershire mints", i n L . V. Grinsell,C.E.Blunt and R .Dolley, " Bristol and Gloucester Museums:

5 66

Blunt a nd von F eilitzen

( 1971)

Blunt a nd Gunstone ( 1981)

Blunt, Elmore

Dolley and Jones ( 1956)

Blunt, Elmore J ones and M ack ( 1971)

Brady

( 1982)

Brand

( 1971)

Brand

( 1984)

Brandon

( 1978)

Brooke

( 1916)

Brooke

( 1932)

Brooke

( 1950)

Brooke

( 1975)

Burrows

( 1978)

ancient British c oins and coins of the Bristol and Gloucestershire mints". S CBI 1 9 ( SCBI 1 9a and 1 9b). London,1972 pp.87-142. 0 .von F eilitzen and C .E.Blunt, " Personal names on the coinage o f Edgar" i n P .Clemoes and K . Hughes ( eds.) " England before the Conquest: s tudi es i n primary sources presented to D orothy Whitelock". Cambridge, 1 971 pp.183-214. C .E.Blunt and A . Gunstone, " The Lincoln and S tamford mints i n the tenth and eleventh c enturies", Lincolnshire Museums I nformation Sheets, Numismatic S eries No.5 ( 1981). C .E.Blunt, R . Dolley and F .Elmore J ones, " Some corrigenda to the two volumes o f the British Museum Catalogue o f Anglo-Saxon coins", i n R . Dolley and J .S.Strudwick, " The provenances of the Anglo-Saxon coins recorded i n the two volumes o f the British Museum Catalogue", BNJ XXVIII ( i) ( 1955) pp.57-59. C .E.Blunt, F .Elmore J ones and R .P. Mack, " Mrs.Emery May Norweb Collecti on. Ancient British, Anglo-Saxon and English coins to 1 180", S CBI 1 6. London, 1 971. J . D.Brady, " Ancient British, AngloSaxon and Norman c oins i n American collections", SCBI 3 0, London, 1 982. J . D.Brand, " The Shrewsbury Mint, 1 249-1250", i n R . A. G.Carson ( ed.), " Mints, dies and currency: e ssays dedicated to the memory of Albert Baldwin". London, 1 971 pp.129-150. J . D.Brand, " Periodic change of type i n the Anglo-Saxon and Norman peri ods". Rochester,1984. P .Brandon ( ed.) " The S outh Saxons". London, 1 978. G .C.Brooke, " A catalogue of English coins i n the British Museum: the Norman kings". London, 1 916. idem, " English coins", i st edition London, 1 932. idem, " English coins", 3 rd edition London, 1 950. C . N.L.Brooke, " London 8 00-1216: the shaping o f a city". London,1975. 0 .Burrows, " An unnoticed parcel from the 1 872 Queen Victoria S treet hoard", BNJ X LVII ( 1977) pp.667 6.

5 67

Butler

Byde

( 1961)

( 1968)

Carlyon-Britton ( 1902) Carlyon-Britton ( 1905) and later

Carlyon-Britton ( 1905) Carson ( 1949) Carson

Clemoes

( 1971)

( 1971)

Clemoes and Hughes ( 1971)

Clough

( 1980)

Coin Hoards ( 1975) and later. Colman ( 1978)

Colman

( 1981)

Colman D olley

and ( 1977)

Commentationes ( 1961) and later

V .J.Butler, " The metrology of the late Anglo-Saxon penny: t he reigns of f E thelraed I I a nd Cnut", i n R . Dolley ( ed.) " Anglo-Saxon coins". London, 1 961 pp.195ff. A .Byde, " A note o n the moneyer Bur(r)ed o f S outhwark a nd London mints", BNJ XXXVI ( 1967) p p.191-192. P . W.P.Carlyon-Britton, " A note o n the mints o f B edwyn and M arlborough" NC ( 1902) pp.20-25. idem, " A numismatic history of the reigns o f William I a nd William I I ( 1066-1100)" BNJ I I ( 1905) pp. 8 7-184; I II ( 1906) pp.117-172; I V ( 1907) pp.47-78; V ( 1908) p p.97-122; VI ( 1909) pp.147-176; V II ( 1910) pp.1-26; VIII ( 1911) pp.61-82; I X ( 1912) pp.129-144; X ( 1913) pp.334 2. i dem, " Eadward the Confessor a nd his coins", N C ( 1905) p p.179-205. R . A. G.Carson,"The mint of T hetford", NC ( 1949) pp.189-236. idem, ( ed.) " Mints, dies a nd currency: e ssays i n memory o f Albert Baldwin".London, 1 971. P .Clemoes ( ed.) " Anglo-Saxon E ngland", I - , Cambridge, 1 971. P .Clemoes and K .Hughes ( eds.) " Engl and before the Conquest: s tudies i n primary s ources presented t o Dorothy Whitelock". Cambridge, 1 971. T .H. McK.Clough, " Museums i n East Anglia: the Morley S t. Peter hoard, and Anglo-Saxon, Norman and Angevin coins, and l ater coins of t he Norwich mint", S CBI 2 6 London 1 980. " Coin hoards" ( 1975 t o date), Royal Numismatic Society. F .E.Colman, " Some moneyers o f E dward the Confessor i n Hildebrand 's catalogue", BNJ X LVII ( 1977) pp.1331 35. idem, " A syllological study of the moneyers' names on the c oins o f Edward the C onfessor", unpublished D .Phil. thesis, University o f Oxford 1 981. F .E.Colman and R . Dolley, " A dubious Edward the C onfessor moneyer o f D over", SNC LXXXV ( 1977) p .56. " Commentationes de Nummis S aeculorum IX I I.

- X I i n S uecia r epertis", S tockholm, 1 961-1968.

5 68

I

-

D annenberg

D anson

( 1884)

( 1970)

Darby a nd Versey ( 1975) D olley ( 1955)

D olley

( 1955a)

D olley

( 1956)

Dolley

( 1957)

Dolley

( 1958)

Dolley

( 1958a)

Dolley

( 1959)

Dolley

( 1959a)

Dolley

( 1960)

Dolley

( 1961)

Dolley

( 1961a)

Dolley

( 1961b)

Dolley

( 1961c)

Dolley

( 1961d)

Dolley

( 1961e)

H . Dannenberg, " Der Münzfund von Vossberg", Z eitschrift für Numismatik 1 1 ( 1884) pp.264-330. E . W. Danson, " The Anglo-Saxon and Norman mint of Tamworth, S taffordshire", Transactions o f the S outh S taffordshire Archaeological a nd Historical S ociety X I ( 1969-1970) pp32-57, H .C. Darby and G . R.Versey, " Domesday Gazeteer". London, 1 975. R . Dolley, " The ' Jewel-Cross' coinage of glfgifu Emma, Harthacnut and Harold I ", BNJ XXVII ( iii) ( 1954) pp.266-275. idem, " The mint o f Chester: pt.I", Chester Archaeological S ociety J ournal XLII ( 1955) pp.1-20. idem, " Three late Anglo-Saxon notes" BNJ XXVIII ( i)(1955) pp.88-105. idem, " A note on the mints o f S udbury and S outhwark a t the end o f the reign of g thelread I I", BNJ XXVIII ( ii)(1956) pp.264-269. idem, " Two Anglo-Saxon notes", BNJ XXVIII ( iii)(1957) pp.499-508. idem, " Some reflections on H ildebrand Type A of g thelraed I I", Antikvariskt Arkiv 9 ( 1958). idem, " Three more l ate Anglo-Saxon notes", BNJ XXIX ( i)(1958) pp.51-60. idem, " Three west c ountry notes", BNJ XXIX ( i)(1958) pp.61-68. idem, " A new late Saxon mint i n Suffolk", SNC LXVIII ( 1960). idem, " The unpublished 1 895 f ind of coins o f Edward the Confessor from Harewood", Yearbook of the British A ssociation o f Numismatic Societies ( 1961) pp.17-25. idem, " ' L( 0)C(I)' on eleventh c entury English coins", NC ( 1961). idem, " The relevance o f obverse die-links to some problems o f the late Anglo-Saxon coinage", i n " Commentationes de Nummis Saeculorum IX-XI i n Suecia repertis", I . S tockholm, 1 961 pp.153-172. idem, " A note on the Anglo-Saxon mint o f R eading", BNJ XXX ( i)(1960) pp.70-75. idem, ( ed.) " Anglo-Saxon c oins" London, 1 961. idem, " A note on the Anglo-Saxon mint a t Berkeley", Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire

5 69

D olley

( 1961f)

D olley

( 1962)

D olley

( 1963)

D olley

( 1967)

D olley

( 1968)

D ailey

( 1970)

D ailey

( 1971)

D ailey

( 1974)

D ailey

( 1976)

D ailey

( 1977)

D ailey

( 1978)

D ailey

( 1978a)

D ailey

( 1980)

D olley ( 1978)

and

D ailey Elmore

a nd J ones

( 1956)

D ailey and Elmore J ones

( 1961)

Blunt

Archaeological Society, LXXX ( 1961) pp.80-89. idem, " A n ote on the A nglo-Saxon Mint of P etherton", SNC July-Aug. 1 961 p .167. idem, " The Anglo-Saxon c oins f rom Meals Sands", Transactions of t he Historic S ociety o f Lancashire a nd Cheshire CXIII ( 1961) p p.197-201. idem, " Two Anglo-Saxon n otes", BNJ XXXI ( 1962) pp.53-56. idem, " An important u npublished penny of the C onfessor from an I rish hoard", BNJXXXV ( 1966) pp.193-4. idem, " The Anglo-Norman c oins i n the Uppsala University Cabinet", BNJ XXXVIII ( 1968) pp.29-34. idem, " Anglo-Saxon pennies". London, 1 970. idem, " The mythical Norman element i n the 1 882 B ishophill ( York) f ind of Anglo-Saxon coins", r eprinted from The Y orkshire Philosophical Society Annual R eport ( 1971). idem, " Two a nomalous PACX pennies attributed t o Edward the C onfessor", SNC LXXXII ( 1974) p .239. idem, " A note on the E dward the Confessor element i n the 1 880 E springe hoard", S CMB 7 00 ( 1976) pp. 4 61-464. idem, " A further note on c ertain unpublished variants of t he PACX type o f Edward the Confessor", SNC LXXXV ( 1977) pp.357-358. idem, " A note o n the i nsular element i n the 1 934 Ludwiszcze hoard", SCMB 7 13 ( 1978) pp.8-9. idem, " An u npublished moneyer o f Edward the Confessor", S CMB 7 21 ( 1978) pp.269-271. idem, " The H iberno-Norse c oins i n Gotlands Fornsal, Visby", BNJ XLVIII ( 1978) pp.20-34. R . Dolley and C .E.Blunt, " Coins from the Winchester excavations 1 9611 973", BNJ X LVII ( 1977) p p.1351 38. R . Dolley and F .Elmore Jones, " An i ntermediate ' Small Cross' i ssue of / E thelraed I I and s ome l ate vari eties of the ' Crux' type", BNJ XXVIII ( i)(1955) pp.75-87. eidem, " Some r emarks on BMC t ype VII var.B of Edward the Confessor", NC 6 th S eries X X ( 1960) pp183-190.

5 70

D olley a nd ( 1968)

Lyon

D olley and van d er Meer

Dolley and ( 1961)

( 1958)

Metcalf

Dolley and S trudwick ( 1956)

Dolley, van d er

Blunt and Meer ( 1968)

Dolley, Elliot Elmore J ones

and

Dolley, Elmore J ones and Lyon ( 1969)

Dudley

Dykes

( 1978)

( 1976)

Ebsworth

Ekwall

Eldjgrn

( 1966)

( 1960)

( 1948)

Elmore

Jones

( 1956)

Elmore

Jones

( 1960)

Elmore

Jones

( 1963)

R .Dolley and C .S.S.Lyon, " Additional evidence for the sequence of types early i n the reign o f Edward the Confessor", BNJ XXXVI ( 1967) pp.59-6L R . Dolley and G .van der Meer, " A group o f Anglo-Saxon pence a t S udeley Castle", NC 6 th S eries XVIII ( 1958) pp.123-129. R .Dolley a nd D . M. Metcalf, " The r eform o f the English coinage under Eadgar", i n R .Dolley ( ed.) " AngloSaxon c oins", London, 1 961 pp.1361 68. R .Dolley and J .S.Strudwick, " The provenances o f the Anglo-Saxon coins recorded i n the two volumes o f the British Museum Catalogue", BNJ XXVIII ( i)(1955) pp.26-59. R .Dolley, C .E.Blunt a nd G .van der Meer, " The Anglo-Saxon element i n the 1 967 Burge hoard f rom Lummelunda parish G otland", BNJ XXXVI ( 1967) pp.81-85. R . Dolley, D .J.Elliot and F .Elmore J ones, " The Buckingham mint", BNJ XXXIV ( 1965) pp.46-52. R . Dolley with F .Elmore J ones and C .S.S.Lyon, " Royal Coin Cabinet S tockholm: the Anglo-Norman coins", SCBI h a. London, 1 969. C .Dudley, " Saxon and medieval mints and moneyers i n Sussex", i n Archaeology i n Sussex to A . D.1500",CBA R esearch R eport 2 9, 1 978 pp.707 8. D . W. Dykes,"Anglo-Saxon coins i n the National Museum of Wales". Cardi ff, 1 976. N .J.Ebsworth,"The Anglo-Saxon and Norman mint o f Warwick", BNJ XXXIV ( 1965) pp.53-85. E .Ekwall,"The concise Oxford dicti onary of English place-names". London, 1 960. K .Eldjärn, " Gaulverjabaer-Fundet og nogle mindre I slandske montfund fra Vikingetiden", NNÄ ( 1948) pp.39 -62 . F .Elmore J ones, " An unpublished mule o f Edward the Confessor", BNJ XXVIII ( i)(1955) pp.189-190. idem, " Two unpublished BarnstapleExter die-links", BNJ XXIX ( ii) ( 1959) pp.417-418. idem, " Four Anglo-Saxon, N orman and P lantagenet notes:the mysterious mint o f ' Dernt'; two unpublished

5 71

Elmore

J ones

( 1964)

Elmore

J ones

( 1968)

Elmore

J ones

( 1971)

pennies of William I I, S tephen t ype VII; four ' new' coins and an unpubl ished Edward I II/Edward I I mule", BNJ XXXI ( 1962) pp.66-74. i dem, " An u npublished penny of Willi am I ", BNJ XXXII ( 1963) pp.919 3. i dem, " A C ricklade/Salisbury/ Wilton die-link i n William I t ype VIII", SNC LXXVI ( 1968) pp.224-225. i dem, " A s upplementary n ote on t he mints o f B edwyn and Marlborough", i n R . A. G.Carson ( ed.), " Mints, d ies and 1 27.

Elmore

J ones

( 1971a)

von

F eilitzen

( 1969)

von

F eilitzen

( 1976)

von F eilitzen Blunt ( 1971)

F erenius

and

( 1972)

F reeman

( 1971)

F reeman

( 1984)

F reeman ( 1985) f orthcoming Galster

( 1946)

Galster

( 1964)

Galster

( 1966)

currency".London,

1 971

pp.121-

i dem, " Southampton/Winchester d ie l inks i n Canute's Quatrefoil type", BNJ XXXIX ( 1970) pp.6-11. 0 .von F eilitzen, " Notes o n the p ersonal names i n the c ollection", i n C .E.Blunt a nd R . Dolley, " Universi ty Collection, R eading: AngloSaxon and N orman c oins", S CBI I I. London, 1 969 pp.9-13. idem, " The personal names and bynames o f the Winton Domesday", i n M .Biddle,(ed.) " Winchester in t he early middle ages". Oxford, 1 976 pp. 1 43-229. 0 .von F eilitzen and C .E. Blunt, " Personal names on the c oins o f Edgar", i n P .Clemoes and K . Hughes,(eds.) " England before the Conquest:studies i n primary s ources presented t o Dorothy Whitelock". Cambridge, 1 971 pp.183-214. J .Ferenius, " Det Äldsta T ensta", i n " Spänga f öre Tensta". S tockholm , 1 972. W . A.D.Freeman, " The Wallingford mint", unpublished M . A. d issertati on, University o f R eading, 1 971. idem, " A new c oin f or Brihtric a t R eading", SNC XCII ( 1984) pp.1791 80. idem, " Reading:its s tatus a nd s tandi ng a s a minor l ate Anglo-Saxon mint " . Berkshire Archaeological Journal. G . Galster, " Montfundet fra H aagerup" NNA IX ( 1944). idem, R oyal Collection o f coins and medals, N ational Museum Copenhagen: pt.I", S CBI 4 .London, 1 964. idem,"Royal C ollection o f coins and medals, N ational Museum Copenhagen: pt.II", S CBI 7 .London, 1 966.

5 72

G alster

( 1970)

G alster

( 1972)

G alster

( 1978)

G elling

( 1973)

G rierson

( 1958)

Grinsell

( 1962)

G rinsell

( 1973)

G rinsell

( 1973a)

Grinsell, Blunt Dolley ( 1973)

Grueber and Keary ( 1887)

Gunstone

( 1971)

Gunstone

( 1977)

Gunstone

( 1980)

Gunstone

( 1981)

Härdh

( 1976)

idem,"Royal Collection of coins and medals, National Museum Copenhagen: pts I IIA,IIIB,IIIC", S CBI 1 3,14,15.London,1970 ( 3 volumes). idem, " Royal Collection of Coins and medals, National Museum Copenhagen: pt.IV", S CBI 1 8.London,1972. idem, " Vikingetids montfund f ra Bornholm", NNA ( 1977) pp.5-246. M . Gelling, " The mint names", i n L .V. Grinsell,C.E.Blunt and R .Dolley, " Bristol and Gloucester Museums: ancient British coins and coins of the Bristol and Gloucestershire mints", SCBI 1 9b.London,1972 pp. 1 13-114. P . Grierson, " The F itzwilliam Museum, I ", S CBI 1 .London, Cambridge: pt . 1 958. L .V. Grinsell,

and

Harris

Hatz

( 1983-)

( 1974)

Hawkins H ead

( 1887)

( 1867)

Hildebrand

( 1881)

Hill

( 1936)

Hill

( 1978)

Hill

( 1978)

Hocking

Holm

( 1906)

( 1917)

H olst

I lisch

J acob

( 1954)

( 1981)

( 1984)

K eary and ( 1887 and

K eynes

Grueber 1 893)

( 1978)

E .J. Harris,"The moneyers of the Norman kings and the types t hey are known to have s truck", S CMB 7 73 ( Jan.1983) to date. G .Hatz, " Zum vorhanischen Münzumlauf auf Gotland. D er Schatzfund von Burge", Z eitschrift d es Vereins für Hamburgische Geschichte 6 0(1974) pp.17-22. E .Hawkins, " The silver c oins of E ngland". 3 rd.edition London, 1 887. B .V. Head, " An account o f the h oard of Anglo-Saxon coins found a t Chancton Farm, S ussex" „ NC N ew S eries VII ( 1867) pp.63-126. — B .E. Hildebrand,"Anglosachsiska Mynt i Svenska K ongliga Myntkabinettet funna i Sveriges jord". 2 nd.edition, S tockholm, 1 881. J . W. F. Hill,"Medieval Lincoln. Oxford, 1 936. D .Hill, " Trends i n the d evelopment of towns during the reign o f E thelred I I"., i n D . Hill.(ed.) " Ethelred the Unready: papers f rom the Millenary C onference" . Oxford, 1 978 pp.213-226. D .Hill,(ed.) " Ethelred the Unready: papers from the Millenary Conference". Oxford, 1 978. W .J. Hocking,"Catalogue of the coins, tokens, medals, dies and s eals i n the museum o f the R oyal M int: Vol. I ". London, 1 906. S .Holm, " Studier ofver Uppsala Universitets Anglosaxiska Myntsamling". Uppsala, 1 917. H .Holst, " Myntfunnet fra S t. Olays Voll i Sarpsborg", NNUM 1 954, pp. 1 10-114. P .Ilisch, " German-Viking age coinage and the North", i n M . A.Blackburn and D . M. Metcalf,(eds.) Viking age coinage i n the Northern l ands: the sixth Oxford S ymposium on coinage and monetary h istory", British Archaeological R eports, International S eries 1 22, 1 981 pp.129-255. K . A.Jacob, " The mint of Cambridge", SCMB 1 984 pp.34-43 and 7 2-76. C .F. Keary and H . A. Grueber, A catalogue of English coins i n the British Museum: Anglo-Saxon series: 2 vols". London, 1 887 a nd 1 893. S . Keynes, " An i nterpretation o f the ' Pacx 1 ,1Pax' and ' Paxs' p ennies"

5 74

K ing ( 1956) l ater.

Kluge

and

( 1978)

Leimus

Lieber

( 1979)

( 1981)

Loyn

( 1961)

Lyon

( 1966)

Lyon

( 1970)

Lyon

( 1971)

Lyon

( 1974)

Lyon

( 1976)

Lyon

( 1981)

in P .Clemoes, ( ed.) " Anglo-Saxon England: Vol. VII". Cambridge, 1 978 pp.165-173. H .H. King, " The coins o f the S ussex mints", BNJ XXVIII ( i)(1955) pp.607 4; ( ii)(1956) pp.249-269; ( iii) ( 1957) pp.518-536; XXIX ( i)(1958) pp.191-192. B . Kluge, " Bemerkungen zur S truktur der Funde europäischer Münzen des 1 0 und 1 1 J ahrhunderts im O stseegebiet", Z fA 1 2 ( 1978) pp.181-190. I Leimus, " Der S chatzfund von Maidla", Eesti NSV T eaduste Akadeemia Toimetised 2 8/1 ( 1979) pp.47-81. A .E.Lieber, " International trade and coinage i n the N orthern l ands during the early middle ages: an i ntroduction", i n M . A.Blackburn and D . M. Metcalf ( eds.) " Viking age coinage i n the N orthern lands: the S ixth Oxford Symposium on c oinage and monetary history", British Archaeological R eports, I nternational S eries 1 22 1 981 pp.1-34. H . R.Loyn, " Boroughs and mints A . D. 9 00 to 1 066", i n R . Dolley,(ed.) " Anglo-Saxon c oins". London, 1 961 pp.122-135. C .S.S.Lyon, " A round halfpenny o f Edward the Confessor", BNJ XXXIV ( 1965) pp.42-45. idem, " Analysis of material" i n H . R. Mossop,"The Lincoln mint". N ewcastle Upon Tyne 1 970 pp.11-20. idem, " Variations i n currency i n late Anglo-Saxon E ngland", i n R . A. G. Carson,(ed.) Mints, dies and currency". London, 1 971 pp.101-120. idem, R eview: " English coinage 6 001 900", by C .H. V.Sutherland,1973, BNJ XLIV ( 1974) pp.84-88. idem, " Some problems i n i nterpreting Anglo-Saxon coinage", i n P .Clemoes, ( ed.) " Anglo-Saxon England Vol. V". Cambridge, 1 976 pp.173-224. idem, " Some u se o f scatter diagrams for demonstrating heterogeneity i n Viking-age c oinage a nd coin hoards" , in M . A. Blackburn and D . M. Metcalf ( eds.) " Viking age c oinage i n the Northern lands: the S ixth Oxford Symposium on coinage and monetary history", British Archaeological Reports, I nternational S eries 1 22, 1 981

pp.383-389.

5 75

Mack

( 1973)

Malmer and Rasmusson ( 1975)

R .P. Mack,"R .P. Mack Collection.Anci ent British, Anglo-Saxon a nd Norman coins", S CBI 2 0. London, 1 973. B . Malmer a nd N . Rasmusson,(eds.) " Corpus Nummorum XI qui in S uecia S tockholm, 1 975 - .

Saeculorum I Xreperti sunt".

van

der Meer

( 1961)

G . van der M eer, " Some c orrections to and c omments on B . E. Hildebrand's catalogue o f the Anglo-Saxon c oins i n the Swedish R oyal Coin Cabinet", i n R . Dolley,(ed.)"Anglo-Saxon coins" London, 1 961 pp.169-187.

van

der Meer

( 1963)

idem, " A s econd Anglo-Saxon c oin of R eading", BNJ XXXI ( 1962) pp.1611 62.

Metcalf

( 1969)

Metcalf

( 1977)

Metcalf

( 1978)

Metcalf

( 1981)

Metcalf

( 1982)

Mills

( 1977)

Morris

( 1976)

Mossop

( 1970)

Nightingale

Nordman

( 1982)

( 1921)

North

( 1963)

N orth

( 1980)

Pagan

( 1984)

D . M. Metcalf,"Ashmolean Museum, O xford: pt.II.". S CSI 1 2,London, 1 969. idem, " Geographical patterns o f minting i n medieval England", S CMB ( Sept.-Nov.1977). idem, " The ranking of boroughs: numismatic evidence from the reign of / E thelraed I I", i n D .Hill,(ed.) " Ethelred the Unready: papers f rom the Millenary Conference". Oxford, 1 978 pp.159-212. idem, " Continuity and change i n English monetary history c .9731 086: pt.I", BNJ L ( 1980) pp.20-49. idem, " Continuity and change i n English monetary history c .9731 086: pt.II", BNJ LI(1981) pp.52-90. W .E. Mills,"The mint a t H orndon i n E ssex", The H avering Collector ( June 1 977) pp.9-11. J . Morris,"Domesday Book ( Sussex)", a facsimile o f Abraham Farley 's text of 1 783. Chichester, 1 976. H . R. Mossop,"The Lincoln mint". N ewcastle Upon Tyne, 1 970. P . Nightingale, " Some London moneyers and reflections on the organisation of English mints i n the eleventh and twelfth c enturies", NC 1 42(1982) pp.34-50. C . A. Nordman,"Anglo-Saxon coins found i n F inland". Helsinki, 1 921. J .J. North,"English Hammered C oinage: Vol.I". 1st edition,London,1963. idem, Tnglish H ammered Coinage: Vol.I" 2nd edition,London,1980. H .Pagan,"A die-linked g roup o f coins of Wallingford",SNC XCII ( 1984) pp. 3 22-3.

5 76

P etersson

( 1969)

P in e

( 1964)

P in e

( 1972)

P in e

( 1975)

Pletts

( 1979)

P otin

( 1967)

Potin

( 1968)

Raper

( 1883)

R eynolds

Robertson

( 1977)

( 1961)

Robinson

( 1970a)

Robinson

( 1970b)

Robinson

( 1982)

Robinson

( 1983)

Ruding

( 1840)

Rundquist

( 1947)

H .B. A.Petersson,"Anglo-Saxon currency". Lund, 1 969. E .Pirie, " Grosvenor Museum, Chester. P t.I: the Willoughby Gardner Collection of coins with the Chester mint signature", S CBI 5 .London,1964. idem, " Early Norman c oins i n the Yorkshire Museum", reprinted f rom the Yorkshire Philosophical S ociety Annual R eport ( 1972). idem, " Coins i n Yorkshire Collections", S CBI 2 1. London, 1 975. D .Pletts,"The Shrewsbury mint", Shrewsbury and A tcham Borough Council, 1 979. V . M.Potin, " Topografiia nakhodok zapadnoevropeiskikh monet X -XIII vv. na territorii drevnei R usin, i n Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaza IX ( 1967) pp.106-188. idem, " Drevnei Rusi i europeiskie gosudarstva v . X-XIII vv",Leningrad, 1 968. W . A. Raper, " On the silver pennies of Edward the Confessor f ound a t S edlescomb", SAC XXXIII ( 1883). S . Reynolds,"An i ntroduction to the history of medieval towns". Oxford, 1 977. A . Robertson,"Hunterian and C oates Collections University of Glasgow. P t.I: Anglo-Saxon coins", S CBI 2 . London, 1 961. P . H. Robinson,"The S tafford ( 1800) and Oulton ( 1795) hoards", BNJ XXXVIII ( 1969) pp.22-30. idem, " On a possible late AngloSaxon hoard f rom Mayfield,Staffs", SNC LXXVIII ( 1970) pp.384-385. idem, " Recent acquisitions by D evize s Museum of ancient British,Saxon and Norman c oins", Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazi ne LXXVI ( 1981) pp.83-91. idem, " The ' EADPEARD' variety o f the Hammer Cross type o f Edward the Confessor", BNJ LII ( 1982),pp. 1 23-131. R . Ruding, " Annals o f the c oinage of Great Britain and i ts dependencies".3rd edition.London,1840. G . Rundquist, " Tvä S ilverskatter f rän Vikingatiden i Smäländsk j ord", NNA XII

( 1946).

5 77

S adler

S adler

( 1976)

( 1978)

S andgren

S awyer

( 1973)

( 1978)

S chnittger

S eaby

( 1915)

( 1956)

S earle

( 1897)

Shortt

( 1948)

Skaare

( 1976)

Smart

( 1968)

Smart

( 1969)

Smart

( 1973a)

Smart

( 1973b)

Smart

( 1973c)

Smart

( 1973d)

J .C.Sadler,"A

history

of

t he

I pswich

mint and i ts S axon and Norman moneyers". I pswich, 1 976. i dem, " Leofwine: a mythical moneyer of I pswich f or Edward the C onfessor" , S CMB 7 20 ( August 1 978) pp.238-240. F .Sandgren ( ed.) " Otium e t negotium: s tudies i n Onomatology a nd library science presented to Olof von F eili tzen". S tockholm, 1 973. P .Sawyer,"From R oman B ritain t o Norman England". London, 1 978. B .Schnittger, " Silverskatten f rän S tora S ojdeby", Fornvännen 1 0 ( 1915) pp.5-246. P .Seaby, " The sequence o f AngloSaxon coin types,1030-1050", BNJ XXVIII ( i)(1955) pp.111-146. W . G.Searle, " Onomasticon AngloSaxonicum". Cambridge, 1 897. H .de S .Shortt, " The mints of Wiltshire", NC ( 1948) pp.169-187. K .Skaare,"Coins and coinage in Viki ng-age Norway". O slo,1976. V .Smart,"Moneyers of the l ate AngloSaxon c oinage 9 73-1016", i n Commenta tiones de N ummis S aeculorum IX-XI i n Suecia r epertis, I I".Stockholm, 1 968. idem, " A note on the moneyers o f the mint of Lincoln", in H . R. Mossop, " The L incoln mint".Newcastle Upon Tyne,1970 pp.20-27. idem, " The moneyers' names", i n L .V. Grinsell,"The Bath mint: a n historical o utline".London,1973 pp. 3 9-40. idem, " Cnut's York moneyers", i n F .Sandgren,(ed.)" Otium et n egotium". S tockholm, 1 973 pp.221-231. idem, " The moneyers' names", in L .V. Grinsell,C.E.Blunt and R . Dolley, " Bristol and Gloucester Museums: ancient British coins and coins o f the Bristol and Gloucestershire mints", S CBI 1 9a.London,1972 pp. 3 5-38. i dem, " The moneyers' names", i n L .V. Grinsell,C.E.Blunt and R . Dolley, " British and Gloucester Museums: ancient British coins a nd coins of the Bristol and Gloucestershire mints". S CBI 1 9b.London,1972 pp. 1 15-119.

5 78

Smart

( 1975)

Smart

( 1979)

Smart

( 1981)

Smart

( 1982)

Söerd

( 1965)

S tafford

( 1978)

S tafford

( 1980)

S tainer

( 1904)

S tatham

( 1970)

S tenton

( 1946)

S tevenson

( 1966)

S tewart

( 1970)

Stewart

( 1975)

S tewart

( 1975a)

S tewart

( 1975b)

idem, " Some corrections to B .E. Hildebrand's Corpus o f Anglo-Saxon Moneyers: f rom Cnut to Edward the Confessor", i n P .Clemoes, ( ed.) "Anglo-Saxon England" Vol I V . Cambridge, 1 975 pp.155-170. idem, " Moneyers' names on the AngloSaxon coinage", Nomina 3 ( 1979) pp. 2 0-28. idem, " Cummulative i ndex o f Volumes 1 -20", SCBI 2 8.London, 1 981. idem, " The York moneyers' names", i n M . Warhurst, " Merseyside County Museums:ancient British and l ater coins to 1 279", S CBI 2 9.London,1982 pp.105-113. V .Söerd, " Ein Münzfund des XII J ahrhunderts aus K ohtla-Khäva", E esti NSV T eaduste Akadeemia T oimetised 1 4 ( 1965) pp.486-513. P .Stafford, " The reign o f / E thelraed I I: a s tudy i n the l imitations on royal policy and action", i n D .Hill, ( ed.) " Ethelred the Unready: papers f rom the Millenary Conference".0xford, 1 978 pp.15-46. idem, " Historical implications o f the regional production of dies under / E thelraed I I", BNJ X LVIII ( 1978) pp.35-51. C .L.Stainer, " Oxford s ilver pennies 9 25-1272".0xford, 1 904. M .P.Statham, " Bury S t.Edmunds", i n " Encyclopaedia Britannica" IV, 1 970 edition p .465. F . M.Stenton, " Anglo-Saxon England". Oxford, 1 946. R .Stevenson, " National Museum of Antiquities of S cotland, Edinburgh: pt.I".London,1966. B . H.I.H.Stewart, " The Exeter mint and i ts moneyers", i n Catalogue of the R .P.V.Brettell Collection of coins of Exeter and Civil War I ssues of D evon", Glendining and Co., 2 8th October,1970 pp.3-37. idem, " A numeration o f l ate AngloSaxon coin types", BNJ XLV ( 1975) pp.12-18. idem, " Reflections on s ome Wessex mints and their moneyers", N C 7 th S eries XV ( 1975) pp.219-229. idem, " The Barnstaple mint a nd i ts moneyers", i n " Catalogue o f English, Scottish and I rish Hammered s ilver coins i ncluding the R .P. V.Brettell

5 79

Collection

o f coins of Barnstaple s eries o f modern English crowns". G lendining and Co.,18th J une, 1 975 p p.7-12. idem, " Twenty Viking-age c oin hoards f rom Gotland", SNC LXXXVI ( 1978) p .243.

a nd

S tewart

( 1978)

S tewart

( 1978a)

S tewart

( 1982)

S tewart ( 1980)

and

Blunt

S trong

( 1969)

S ugden

( 1979)

Sutherland

( 1973)

Symonds

( 1907)

Symonds

( 1923)

Talvio

( 1978)

Talvio

( 1981)

Thompson

( 1956)

Thompson

( 1967)

Unsigned Article ( 1970)

a

idem, " The S ussex mints and their moneyers", i n P . Brandon ( ed.) " The S outh Saxons". London, 1 978 pp.89-137 . idem, " F, V a nd B on Tenth Century coins", SNC X C ( 1982) p .270. B .H.I.H.Stewart and C . E.Blunt, " The Droitwich mint and BMC type X IV of Edward the Confessor", BNJ XLVIII ( 1978) pp.52-57. R .Strong, " National P ortrait Gallery Tudor and J acobean P ortraits", London, 1 969. K .F.Sugden, " Coins f rom the Chancton find", SNC LXXXVII ( 1979) p .336. C .H.V.Sutherland, " English coinage 6 00-1900".London, 1 973. H .Symonds, " Coins s truck i n Dorset during the S axon, Norman a nd S tuart periods", Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian F ield Club XXVIII ( 1907) pp.159-167. i dem, " The evidence for a n AngloSaxon mint a t B ridport", P roceedings o f the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian F ield Club, X LIII ( 1923) pp. 3 7-40. T .Talvio, " The National Museum H elsinki and other public c ollections i n F inland: A nglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman and Hiberno N orse coins", S CBI 2 5. London, 1 978. idem, " The s tudy of Viking-age numismatics i n the Baltic east", i n M .A. Blackburn and D . M. Metcalf ( eds.) " Viking age c oinage i n the N orthern lands: the S ixth Oxford S ymposium on coinage a nd monetary h istory", British Archaeological R eports, I nternational S eries 1 22,1981 pp.354 6. J .D. A.Thompson, " Inventory o f British coin hoards A .D.600-1500". Oxford, 1 956. idem, " Ashmolean Museum, Oxford: P t. I " SCBI 9 .London 1 967. Unsigned Article, ' " Tamworth", i n " Encyclopaedia B ritannica" Vol . XXI 1 970 edition p .652.

5 80

Urtans Warne

( 1977) ( 1872)

Warhurst

( 1982)

Wells ( 1934) later.

and

Willett

( 1876)

Willett

( 1883)

Z ak

( 1963

)

V .Urtans, " Senakie depoziti Latvija". R iga, 1 977. C .Warne, Ancient Dorset". Bournemouth, 1 872. M .Warhurst,"Merseyside County Museums ancient British and l ater c oins to 1 279", S CBI 2 9.London,1982. W .C. Wells, " The S tamford and P eterborough mints", BNJ XXII ( 19347 ) pp.35-77; XXIII ( 1938-41) pp.7-28 and XXIV ( 1941-44) pp.69-109 and 1 45-174. E .H. Willett, " On a hoard o f Saxon pennies f ound i n the City o f London i n 1 872", NC New S eries XVI ( 1876) pp.323ff. i dem, " Notes on the S edlescomb f ind", SAC XXXIII ( 1883). J .Zak, " ' Importy' Skandynawskie na Z iemiach Z achodios/owianskich od IX do XI wieku: P ts.1-3".Posnan, 1 963-67.

5 81

List

of

mints.

page

page

Aylesbury

2 11

" Milborne

Barnstaple Bath B edford B edwyn B erkeley B ridport Bristol B ruton Buckingham Bury S t.Edmunds

4 02 3 91 2 74 4 65 3 80 4 33 3 82 4 21 2 12 2 64

N IPEPORTE Northampton Norwich Nottingham

2 14 2 89 2 38 3 08

Oxford

4 48

P ershore P etherton

3 60 4 16

Cambridge Canterbury Chester Chichester Colchester C ricklade

2 66 5 11 3 27 4 80 2 22 4 44

R eading R ochester R omney

2 07 5 23 5 01

D erby D orchester D over D roitwich D IR

3 13 4 28 5 06 3 48 2 34

Salisbury Sandwich Shaftesbury Shrewsbury S outhwark S tafford S tamford S teyning S udbury

4 67 5 18 4 24 3 40 1 85 3 21 1 18 4 83 2 26

Exeter

3 93

F RO

4 24

Tamworth Taunton Thetford

3 17 4 06 2 49

G loucester Guildford

3 65 2 04

Hastings H ereford Hertford Horndon Huntingdon Hythe

4 93 3 74 1 94 2 17 2 81 5 03

Wallingford Wareham Warminster Warwick Watchet Wilton Winchcombe Winchester Worcester

4 58 4 35 4 21 2 94 4 04 4 75 3 62 1 26 3 53

I lchester I pswich

4 10 2 28

Langport Leicester Lewes Lincoln London Lydford

4 18 2 99 4 85 1 06 1 41 3 98

Maldon Malmesbury

2 19 4 38

York

5 82

P ort"

4 21

8 2