After reading through a (digital) copy of "History of Monetary Systems" by Alexander Del Mar (1895) I only by coincidence came across a very likely answer to a what I have considered a bit of a mystery. Although, with the high volume of wise people on this forum it may only have been a mystery to me. Why aren't gold coins minted in early medieval Britain when there are large quantities minted in contemporary Byzantium and Islamic kingdoms? Over the years I have purchased a couple coins of old British kings, one of Cnut 1016-1035 (of which unfortunately I don't readily have a picture) and another of a different Cnut who was a Christian Viking of Northumbria. I find them interesting as they compliment my Roman collection, the fall of one great empire which then slowly forms the creation of another. (image courtesy of Colonial Coins and Medals - where it was purchased) Cnut, Viking King of York circa 898-915 AD, Silver Penny, ‘CVNNETTI’ Type with patriarchal cross, struck at York Mint circa 900-905 AD. Obverse: Inverted patriarchal cross, “C N V T” at end of limbs, “R E X” in angles, “CNVT REX” (“King Cnut”). Reverse: Small cross pattée with two opposing pellets within small beaded border, legend around, “+ CVN + ETT ·:· TI :”. S.993; N.501. Some theories that I have been told by others had to do with the flow of gold from northern Europe following the Viking slave trade into Byzantium and Islamic Markets, where the Vikings preferred silver and would get a better exchange rate in the south as the Byzantines and Islamic nations preferred gold. This basic theory would explain why so little Byzantine silver coins from the era exist, but from my knowledge Islamic silver isn't that rare? After reading the chapter "The Sacred Character of Gold" in Del Mar's book his explanation seemed to make the most sense me (until someone corrects me). He explains that during the Roman Empire (both West and East) no Christian vassal ever struck a gold coin without intending to proclaim their own sovereignty and to defy the Caesars. If a gold coin was struck by one of these 'States' its use implied his position of control similar to the Emperor of Rome. He references Herodian stating that "Commodus refused to believe that his favourite Percennius [Niger] aspired to the Empire until he was shown some pieces of provincial money, upon which appeared the effigy of his faithless minister." He makes the reasonable assumption that all the Christian princes of medieval Europe were independent sovereigns before the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 AD, but that none of them ever struck a gold coin before that event between the 8th and 13th century. Even though byzantine and Islamic gold was a principle medium of exchange in Northern Europe. His justification is that the moment these princes became Christians, or were conquered and brought under control of the Roman hierarchy their gold mines closed and their minting of gold coins ceased as this was provocative to the Pontiff of Rome. However, the privilege regarding silver was extended to both mining and coinage and conducted by all the Western princes including the Western emperor as this was part of the public treasury. The imperial treasury was known by another name and considered a sacred institution. This then would last until the Sack of Constantinople, he provides a list of the earliest Christian gold coins excluding those from the Byzantine Empire. His explanation didn't seem to have much traction in his day as the below quote from his book explains. "That Christian Europe abstained from coining gold for five centuries because such coinage was a prerogative of the Basileus, is an explanation that may not be acceptable to the old school of historians; but this is not a sufficient reason for its rejection. The old school would have been very greedy of knowledge if they had not left something for the new school to discover." The last sentence really resonates with me. I find it so fascinating that someone from 1895 references "the old school" of thinking as obstinate. It just goes to show that old and new school is just a frame of reference and one day you just may become the obstinate old school. I have no idea how historically accurate his theory is, but it sure makes for a good story. Please feel free to add or correct the above if needed. Otherwise share your 8th to 13th century coins and especially any (non-byzantine) European Christian gold .
I know nothing, like Jon Snow. My guesss is that it’s pointless to mint gold fir a populace that can’t afford it for regular transaction. the US treasury could totally print $100k or even $1M bills if they wanted to, but there isn’t enough demand for such. maybe the govt decided that “$10k bill equivalents” weren’t necessary foe ther peasant populace
I agree, there would have been a lot of peasants, but there would also be a lot of kings, princes, lords, jarls, and wealthy merchants. They were using gold coinage, just not coins that were minted in their territory. By the lack of comments on this thread it seems like I may be one of the few who found this curious. Serves me right, my wife called me a nerd for writing it in the first place lol.
The Byzantine gold was called the bezant in Western Europe and acted as the currency for high value transactions. Silver was used, but peasants/serfs on manors paid and received goods in kind for the most part.
The Lombards appear to have shared the apparent reluctance to coin in gold, but they got over it. The following solidi and tremisses illustrate this. The first coin is a Lombardic solidus of Romuald II the Duke of Beneventum from 706 to 731. Although he had the temerity to add his initial to the the reverse field, the coin is otherwise in the name and with the portrait of Emperor Justinian II as shown below on the right, which is the true Byzantine issue. (The coin on the left is the younger bust of Justinian II.) You can see it is a close approximation, although Romuald’s solidi had a lower gold content averaging 72%. The following two tremisses were issued by Grimoald III less than a century later. Both now feature the name and the portrait of the Duke, with no nod toward Constantinople. The reverse of the first (788-792AD) names Dominus Carolus Rex, referring to Charlemagne. The second was struck after the Beneventans had thrown off Carolingian overlordship (792-806AD) and Charlemagne’s name has been removed. The last solidus was struck by Sicard (832-839AD) and again no other suzerainty is acknowledged. I believe he was the last Duke of Beneventum to strike gold coins. The Normans in Sicily also struck gold before the Conquest of Constantinople in 1204. The coin on the left is a tari of Roger II 1130-1154AD. (The other is a Venetian ducat which came after the conquest.) As I recall, Charlemagne struck some rare gold; sadly the Hrefn collection lacks any examples. And the crusader states struck dinars although initially these were close copies of the Islamic coins. Here’s a couple (with a later electrum ducat.) There are also Anglo Saxon Thrymsas. I am sure others can think of more pre-1204 gold. But as a generalization, it is true that gold coin distinct from the Empire, East and West, is uncommon.
Goodness, I forgot about the Visigoths. They had an extensive royal coinage in Spain in the names of their own kings.
Was much gold ever mined in the British Isles? There is a good reason why the U.S. never built a mint in Iowa.
Great thread, I find the ideas very interesting and pretty convincing. Interesting how one political group would use coins produced by another as a common practice. Thanks for following your instincts and writing this for us. John
I, for one, find it fascinating! And what's wrong with being a nerd? I don't remember the term being used when I was young, but if it had been, I probably would have qualified.
Very impressive Lombard gold collection you have. Curious how they still minted them with the bust of the Eastern Roman emperor, similar to how Valabathus minted 'most' of his coins with both his and the bust of Aurelian so to not get himself killed. I wonder if there was a bit of fear in minting coins in their own image? Or, if it was as simple as they wanted to mint lower quality coins and have them pass as the real thing, similar to how the Eastern Celts replicated the Alexander III tetradrachms for centuries. I only have one Visgoth gold coin but it is from the 7th century. (I apologise for the poor quality image. Better ones are coming soon!) SPAIN: THE VISGOTHS SISEBUT GOLD TREMISSIS, EMERITA MINT. 612-621 AD1.48 GRAMS Thank you for your very detailed post.
My wife uses it almost as a term of endearment when I'm doing something that she thinks would not interest another person on the planet, like reading a 125 year old book on the monetary system. I'm a proud nerd.
I really like this one. I have read a couple historical fiction books that feature King Offa of Mercia as formidable warrior although I don't think there was a lot that was factual about him in that book other than the name. Again, curious why a King in his own right would mint a coin replicating those of another far off empire instead of one depicting his own kingdom.
Your quote about knowledge reminds me of Eckhel, a hundred years earlier: "All human research has in common that we are ignorant of more matters than we know about, so a wise man will not attempt to explain everything, but just what he is sure about, and will leave any open questions to our successors, who may be able to solve them with new evidence and ideas, or failing that will remain ignorant like ourselves." (My paraphrase of Eckhel's Latin) ;
