Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;+VGO.DVCKS, post: 8190449, member: 110504&quot;]Here’s one I landed recently.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1433871[/ATTACH]</p><p>Charles III, the Simple, King of the West Franks 898-923.&nbsp; Denier of Melle.&nbsp; Visibly of fine silver (typical of Carolingian issues); 22mm., 1.53 g.</p><p>Obv. CARLVS REX.</p><p>Rev. In two lines: MET [/] ALO.</p><p>Depeyrot (3rd ed., 2008) No. 630.&nbsp; Citing exactly one example with this variant of the obverse legend, weighing 1.52 g.</p><p>Cf. Nouchy p. 264, nos. 33A -33G.&nbsp; Listing several variants of the obverse legend, most of which he identifies as later immobilizations; none with the “CARLVS REX” legend, vs. “REX F” and “REX R.”&nbsp; (Cf. Depeyrot 629, also noting later immobilizations ending “REX FR” …with the caveat that the issue, especially as immobilized, has several further minor variations, which he doesn’t bother to enumerate.)</p><p>See also Duplessy, Feodales v. 1, 906, 906A, and 907: early immobilizations, dated c. 930- 1100, all with minor graphic variants of the ‘CARLVS REX R’ legend.</p><p><br /></p><p>‘Immobilization’ is exactly what it sounds like; the continuation of a given type over successive governing authorities, often with gradual alteration and degradation of the legends, motifs, and composition.&nbsp; This is especially endemic to early French feudal coins, mainly from the mid-10th century through the 11th-13th; sometimes even later.&nbsp; As Dunbabin observes, from the 10th century, mints “were as likely to be in the control of the bishops or great magnates as of the king” (France in the Making, p. 33 –a notably early instance (1985) of numismatic evidence being cited by academic historians of the middle ages).&nbsp; Dunbabin goes on to&nbsp; note the relatively few fully-realized ‘feudal’ issues, minted in the magnates’ own names, during these initial phases of the series (51-2).</p><p><br /></p><p>Where Carolingian coins are concerned, I’ve always gravitated toward the later reigns, ending with Hugh Capet’s accession in 987.&nbsp; Right, as far forward into the 10th century as possible.&nbsp; You could blame that on a morbid fascination with the decline of the regime, especially in France.&nbsp; Along with ongoing fireworks from the Vikings, this is when you start to see Carolingian feudalism evolve into the more familiar ‘Classic’ form, better known from the 11th, 12th and earlier 13th centuries.&nbsp; …Peeling off from the existing Carolingian administrative infrastructure (truly imperial …to some extent), and morphing into the level of local autonomy that many of us grew up associating with it.&nbsp; The tenth century begins to see the transition of Carolingian territorial ‘feudal’ offices, which were primarily by imperial or royal appointment, into specifically hereditary duchies, counties, and seigneuries.</p><p>In the coins, this process is symptomized by the plethora of early issues which continue the original, Carolingian and Robertian legends and motifs.&nbsp; …Even as their composition drops from silver to billon, with attendant decreases in weight.</p><p><br /></p><p>…Which, for a collector, can make the later, scarcer Carolingian reigns a real minefield.&nbsp; Immobilizations of issues in the name of the commonest reign, Charles the Bald (843-877), could be contemporaneous to later ones.&nbsp; …Or even later, whether by as little as a decade, or into the 11th century.&nbsp; This can be true even of examples which are evidently as early as that interval, on the basis of style.&nbsp; Often enough, the collector is effectively stuck with guesswork …with, right, weight, module and visually evident composition (billon vs. fine silver) as the other main, aggregately&nbsp; less than conclusive clues.</p><p><br /></p><p>Given this level of drama, the two reigns that have caused me the most trouble are Louis IV (936-954; effectively out of my range), and our friend Charles the Simple (898-923).&nbsp;&nbsp; Regarding the issues of Melle, both Nouchy and Depeyrot include listings of early immobilizations, along with the initial, official Carolingian issues.</p><p><br /></p><p>Of the two, only Depeyrot includes weights for the examples he cites, both official and immobilized.&nbsp; The difference tends to be dramatic: most of the latter are around 1.20 grams.&nbsp; …This is when the weight of this latest example of Melle, along with the composition and module, become as relevant as the (very) unusual obverse legend.&nbsp; I’m around 95 -98% ready to believe that this really is a contemporaneous issue of Charles III, the Simple.</p><p><br /></p><p>…A last detail on this point: both Depeyrot and Nouchy confirm that the original coinage was indeed initiated by Charles III, the Simple, vs. his grandfather, Charles II, the Bald.&nbsp; (Carolingian chroniclers were an inventive lot, where nicknames were concerned –other good ones are ‘the Fat’ and ‘the Stammerer’ –but as translated, ‘the Simple’ could connote forthrightness and candor, along with less complimentary qualities.)&nbsp; Here’s an example of Charles the (merely) Bald, from the same mint.&nbsp; Resembling, but predating the commonest &#039;GDR&#039; type, datable to the Edict of Pitres, from 865.&nbsp; Please note the Viking ‘peck marks,’ evincing the vast Danegelds Charles paid, beginning well over a century before AEthelred II’s better known ones.&nbsp; (From French ebay.&nbsp; The only Carolingian coins with peck marks that I previously knew of were from the Cuerdale Hoard, deposited in Yorkshire early in the 10th century.)</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1433874[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1433877[/ATTACH]</p><p>Charles the Bald, denier of Melle, of the preceding type. (Possibly a conspicuously early immobilization …but my money’s on it being a lifetime issue.)</p><p><br /></p><p>Obv. +CARLVS REX R (or perhaps a ligature of ‘FR’).</p><p>Rev. ‘KAROLVS’ monogram.&nbsp; +MET X VLLO.</p><p><br /></p><p>Cf. Depeyrot 619, 624 and 626 –all with variants of the ‘...REX R’ legend.&nbsp; He goes on to note immobilizations with the ‘CARLVS REX FR’ legend (627).&nbsp; –But these have to be early, in light of the weights of the examples he cites, and the substantively different type initiated by Charles the Simple.</p><p>Nouchy, while noting that this type was immobilized, cites only the ‘REX FR’ legend (p. 133, no. 41).</p><p>Now we can proceed to the better documented immobilizations of the type with the two-line ‘MET ALO’ legend.&nbsp; Duplessy (Monnaies Feodales), while no less, um, selectively exhaustive than Depeyrot or Nouchy, is of real help in dating them.&nbsp; This one is of the first phase of the imobilization; dated to ‘vers 930 - vers 1100’ (Duplessy</p><p>906).</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1433892[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;[ATTACH=full]1433882[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>And this one corresponds more nearly to Duplessy’s next phase, ‘XIIeme siecle’ (909).&nbsp; I’d really like this to correspond to the ducal reign of Guillaume IX (1086-1126), an early proponent of the&nbsp; troubadour genre, of whom a surprising number of lyrics are extant.&nbsp; ...Right now, I’m having trouble accessing them online, but I promise you, they’re refreshingly candid, and correspondingly graphic, in their content.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1433893[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1433894[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>If you made it this far, Please, post some Carolingians and early feudal stuff![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in