Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Egry, post: 7330776, member: 113686"]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. [ATTACH=full]1280496[/ATTACH]<a href="https://colonialcoins.com.au/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://colonialcoins.com.au/" rel="nofollow">(image courtesy of Colonial Coins and Medals - where it was purchased)</a>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. [ATTACH=full]1280515[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1280514[/ATTACH] 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 <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />. [/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches