c.973. Edgar's coinage reform
c.973-1066. Late Anglo-Saxon coinage
Overview:
In about 973, quite probably as another manifestation of royal power to be associated with the second consecration, Edgar implemented a reform of the coinage. This enforced a standard coinage over the whole kingdom, replacing the regional variants which had existed. Over the next half-century new types of coin (i.e., coins with new designs on the obverse and reverse) were introduced every six years or so, and earlier types were taken out of circulation. (In addition to the standard six-year issues, a few types, such as the Agnus Dei coins which appear to belong only to 1009, were issued for much shorter periods.) The relative chronology of the types is well-understood: the absolute chronology, however, has been the subject of a great deal of debate over the past thirty years. In the most developed version of the system, presented by Michael Dolley, changes took place every sixth year at Michaelmas, but several alternative systems have been suggested. Further, there is no irrefutable evidence of dating except where a change of type coincides with a change in reign, so that the king's name changes. It is probably simplest to assume that changes took place approximately every six years.
In the second quarter of the 11th century, changes of type took place about twice as often: there are three types to fit into the seven years of the reigns of Harold and Harthacnut (1035-42), and ten types to fit into Edward the Confessor's twenty-four years (1042-66).
The best recent summary of the subject is Metcalf's Atlas of Anglo-Saxon and Norman Coin Finds (1998).
Table of types and dates (type names describe the designs on the coins):
| Edgar's Reform type (Small Cross) | c.973-5 |
| Edward's Small Cross | 975-8 |
| Æthelred's First Small Cross | c.978-9 |
| Æthelred's First Hand | c.979-85 |
| Æthelred's Second Hand | c.985-91 |
| Æthelred's Benediction Hand | c.991 |
| Æthelred's Crux | c.991-7 |
| Æthelred's Small Crux | c.995-7 |
| Æthelred's Intermediate Small Cross | c.996 or earlier |
| Æthelred's Long Cross | c.997-1003 |
| Æthelred's Helmet | c.1003-9 |
| Æthelred's Agnus Dei | c.1009 |
| Æthelred's Last Small Cross | c.1009-16 |
| Cnut's Quatrefoil | c.1016-23 |
| Cnut's Pointed Helmet | c.1023-9 |
| Cnut's Short Cross | c.1029-35 |
| Harold Harefoot's Jewel Cross | 1036-c.1038 |
| Harold Harefoot's Fleur-de-Lis | c.1038-40 |
| Harthacnut's Jewel Cross | 1036-7 |
| Harthacnut's Arm-and-Sceptre | 1040-2 |
| Edward's Pacx | 1042-c.1044 |
| Edward's Radiate Small Cross | c.1044-6 |
| Edward's Trefoil Quadrilateral | c.1046-8 |
| Edward's Short Cross (Small flan) | c.1048-50 |
| Edward's Expanding Cross | c.1050-3 |
| Edward's Pointed Helmet | c.1053-6 |
| Edward's Sovereign / Eagles | c.1056-9 |
| Edward's Hammer Cross | c.1059-62 |
| Edward's Facing Bust / Small Cross | c.1062-5 |
| Edward's Pyramids | c.1065-6 |
| Harold Godwinesson's Pax | 1066 |
More detailed notes: Reform c.973
The only documentary reference to the coinage reform comes in the 13th-century work of Roger of Wendover, who notes that Edgar "ordered a new coinage to be made throughout the whole of England, because the old was so debased by the crime of the clippers that a penny hardly weighed a halfpenny in the scales". It is generally agreed that "the crime of the clippers" was a 13th-century problem and Roger's introduction of it to the 10th century is an anachronism: Dolley and Metcalf have shown that Edgar's pre-reform coinage was not noticeably lighter than the reform coinage (1961, p.166, n.2). This also discredits Roger's comment about the weight, but it may be that Roger was misinterpreting a source which noted that the silver content of Edgar's coins was about half what it had been in Alfred's day (as demonstrated by Blackburn, 1991 p.156). It has been argued that the whole comment can be dismissed, as a borrowing from earlier or later law codes which include phrases like "he ordered a new coinage to be made throughout the whole of England" (Brand 1984 pp.12-3), but this founders against the numismatic evidence that a new coinage was introduced towards the end of Edgar's reign.
Roger of Wendover mentions the coinage reform under the year 975, but as it appears in a general retrospective of Edgar's reign placed after the note of his death this cannot be used as dating evidence, any more than the panegyric on Edgar's reign which the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle puts in the year of his accession, 959. As the standardizing of the coinage would involve a significant assertion of royal power, it is tempting to associate it with all the other carefully-orchestrated conspicuous displays of royal power around Edgar's second coronation in 973, but there is admittedly no documentary evidence.
Stewart (1990 p.462) and Jonsson (1987 p.84) discuss the possibilities and problems of dating the reform from the numismatic evidence, the surviving Small Cross coins of Edgar, Edward, and Æthelred. Based on the fact that some moneyers seem to have got through several coin dies (the patterns used to stamp new coins) in Edgar's part of the issue, Jonsson concludes that the new coinage must have begun a few years before 975, and agrees that c.973 appears likely. Stewart suggests c.972 based on the surviving number of coins, though he admits that this is based on assumptions that the surviving material is representative and that coinage was at a steady rate, neither of which is necessarily true (there might, for instance, have been a larger-than-usual production in 973 to launch the new system).
Short of a newly-discovered piece of documentary evidence to fix the dating more precisely (for instance, a dated law code of Edgar to promulgate the reform), c.973 seems the most reasonable estimate for the date of Edgar's reform.
Small Cross to First Hand c.979
The first type, Small Cross, was used by Edgar, Edward the Martyr, and Æthelred. It was replaced early in Æthelred's reign (far fewer coins of Æthelred survive than of Edgar or Edward) by the First Hand type.
The more precise date c.979 is based on the contents of a hoard found at Chester in 1914, which contained 111 Small Cross coins (of Edgar, Edward, and Æthelred) and 11 First Hand coins. If this hoard was deposited in response to the Viking raids on Cheshire of 980 (see Metcalf and Dolley, 1961 pp.152-3), then the very small proportion of First Hand coins in the hoard would imply that the type had just been introduced in 980, hence c.979 for the changeover date.
First Hand to Second Hand c.985
Dolley suggested that Second Hand was introduced by 986, on the grounds that a hoard found at Iona with both First and Second Hand coins should be associated with the Viking raid on Iona of 986 (Petersson 1969 pp.75-6). As Petersson notes, the association is plausible but not certain. Stewart (1990 p.478) argues that the mid-980s is a likely time for the introduction of Second Hand, whether or not the Iona context is correctly identified.
Some numismatists have argued that Second Hand was not a distinctive new type, but only a variant of First Hand. They have practically the same reverse design (the Hand of God descending from a cloud, flanked by alpha and omega), which, it is argued, would make it needlessly difficult for moneyers to tell the issues apart. However, it is likely that political iconography (the Hand of God emphasizing divine support for Æthelred's reign) would be considered more important than the convenience of moneyers. It should also be remembered that the Hand types occur near the beginning of the reform, quite possibly before all the details had been worked out: perhaps it was the experience of confusion between First and Second Hand which ensured that more substantial changes were made between types in subsequent issues.
Another curious point about Second Hand is that very few coins of the type survive from northern mints: there are only two known from York, and none from Lincoln. If the currently-known finds are an accurate reflection of the situation in the tenth century, it may be that these mints were closed in the Second Hand period, or that they did not receive new dies to produce Second Hand. It is worth noting that there are seven known First Hand coins from York with blundered inscriptions, which might suggest that First Hand dies were re-used in York after the withdrawal of the issue elsewhere. The English narrative histories shed no light on northern affairs in the later 980s, but the reference in the Annals of Ulster to a raid on Iona in 986 show that there were Vikings in the area, and a series of unrecorded punishing raids on Northumbria that disrupted mint activity would help explain the scarcity of northern Second Hand coins.
Second Hand to Crux c.991?
Crux to Long Cross c.997?
The evidence for the dating of these changes is much less clear than elsewhere in the series, because there is no point where numismatic evidence can clearly be linked with historical records. See Metcalf's Atlas for further discussion.
Jonsson (p.191) makes the interesting suggestion, not taken up elsewhere, that the introduction of Crux should be placed in 993, the year which marks the end of Æthelred's "irresponsible phase". 993 might also mark the end of the tenure of Earl Thored of Northumbria (who last witnesses a charter in 992), and might therefore be an appropriate moment for strong royal control and the single currency to be reintroduced in the north of England. This suggestion would tie the change of type much more closely to the political background, but as our knowledge of the period is so incomplete, and as the numismatic evidence is so inconclusive, it cannot be insisted upon.
Long Cross to Helmet c.1003
The change from Long Cross to Helmet is traditionally dated to about 1003, because the Wilton mint was closed temporarily between the end of Æthelred's Long Cross issue and the first issue of Cnut, and this has been associated with the destruction of Wilton recorded by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle under 1003 (Dolley and Metcalf, p.153). Three of the four Wilton moneyers are recorded at a new mint in Salisbury, whose first issue is Æthelred's Helmet type.
The dating is not conclusive: other towns were destroyed in 1003-4 but their mints still produced Æthelred's Helmet type (Metcalf, Atlas p.126, lists Exeter, Norwich and Thetford), which shows that the mints either were not destroyed in the first place or could be started up again fairly quickly. The move of the mint from Wilton to the more defensible hill-fort site of Salisbury (Old Sarum, not modern Salisbury) is plausibly associated with the recorded burning of Wilton in 1003, but this is as usual a case of a plausible explanation rather than proof.
Helmet to Last Small Cross c.1009
An argument supporting this dating was advanced by Lyon (1966), who noted that Last Small Cross coins of Oxford and Wallingford were very rare, and suggested that the mints were in fact closed for part or most of the Last Small Cross period. He associated this with the burning of Oxford noted by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle under 1009.
The burning of Oxford in 1009 provides a plausible context for a break in production of the Oxford mint, though as the evidence of Exeter, Norwich and Thetford shows (all three ravaged in 1003-4 but still producing Æthelred's Helmet issue), this is not proof. One could argue that the effects of Vikings attacks on already-battered areas would become more severe as the years of raiding went on, and that the English administrative systems would become less able to cope with emergencies. So it is plausible, if not demonstrable, that the destruction of Oxford in 1009 would have had more far-reaching effects than that of Exeter in 1003.
Later issues (Cnut, Harold, Harthacnut, Edward)
After Æthelred's reign, it becomes more difficult to date the changes of coinage, because there are fewer deposited hoards with externally-dated reference points. The relative chronology, the order of the types, is known and accepted, but in most cases the only available evidence for dating is on the change of reign. Thus the two changes of type in Cnut's reign are spaced one-third and two-thirds of the way through his reign, and Edward's reign is divided into two- and three-year periods to fit his ten types into his twenty-four years. It is reasonable to assume roughly equal periods for the issues in Cnut's and Edward's reigns because there are no huge imbalances in the number of surviving coins of different types, such as might suggest that one issue was larger (and so perhaps issued over a longer period) than the others.
The more exact dating of the issues of Harold Harefoot and Harthacnut is possible because both narrative and numismatic sources offer clearer information. In 1036 Harold became regent of all England for himself and his half-brother, and coins of the Jewel Cross type appear in the names of both Harold and Harthacnut. In 1037 Harold became sole ruler, so presumably Harthacnut's Jewel Cross issue ceased: however, there are so many more of Harold's Jewel Cross coins than of Harthacnut's that it seems likely that his issue continued into the following year. The next issue, Fleur-de-Lis, was solely in Harold's name and so can be dated from the end of Harold's Jewel Cross (presumably 1038) until his death in 1040, and the issue after that, Harthacnut's Arm-and-Sceptre, was solely in Harthacnut's name so can be dated to his reign after Harold's death, 1040-2.
M. Blackburn, "Æthelred's coinage and the payment of tribute", in D. Scragg (ed.), The Battle of Maldon AD 991 (Oxford: 1991), pp.156-69
J. Brand, Periodic Change of Type in the Anglo-Saxon and Norman Periods (Rochester: 1984)
M. Dolley, "Roger of Wendover's Date for Eadgar's Coinage Reform", British Numismatic Journal 49 (1979), pp.1-11
M. Dolley and M. Metcalf, "The Reform of the Englsih Coinage under Eadgar", in M. Dolley (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Coins (London: 1961), pp.136-68
K. Jonsson, The New Era: The Reformation of the Late Anglo-Saxon Coinage (London: 1987)
S. Lyon, "The Significance of the Sack of Oxford in 1009/10 for the Chronology of the Coinage of Æthelred II", British Numismatic Journal 35 (1966), pp.34-7
M. Metcalf, An Atlas of Anglo-Saxon and Norman Coin Finds 973-1086 (London: 1998)
B. Petersson, Anglo-Saxon Currency: King Edgar's Reform to the Norman Conquest (Lund: 1969)
K. Jonsson (ed.), Studies in Late Anglo-Saxon Coinage (Stockholm: 1990), esp. articles by B. Petersson ("Coins and weights. Late Anglo-Saxon pennies and mints c.973-1066") and I. Stewart ("Coinage and recoinage after Edgar's reform")