Mark Blackburn - Money And Coinage

Paul Fouracre (Ed.) - The New Cambridge Medieval History. Volume 1, c.500-c.700 (Cambridge University Press, 2005) 660-674

Coinage in the Roman world in the early fifth century consisted of a multidenominational system in gold, silver and bronze. 1 By the eighth century the coinage of western Europe was entirely of silver essentially in one denomination, the thin broad Carolingian penny. The change from a classical to a medieval coinage was radical, but the way in which it came about was neither sudden nor dramatic. It was a gradual process of transformation and evolution. This chapter will trace those developments from the earliest Germanic coinages of the fifth century to the introduction of the silver penny in the late seventh century, at which point the story is picked up in the second volume of the coinage of western Europe was entirely of silver essentially in one denomination, the thin broad Carolingian penny. The change from a classical to a medieval coinage was radical, but the way in which it came about was neither sudden nor dramatic. It was a gradual process of transformation and evolution. This chapter will trace those developments from the earliest Germanic coinages of the fifth century to the introduction of the silver penny in the late seventh century, at which point the story is picked up in the second volume of the New Cambridge Medieval History.

The late fourth and fifth centuries saw the movement and resettlement of the peoples of central and eastern Europe on a scale that is unprecedented in historical times. Most of the tribes that settled within the former Roman Empire and established new Germanic states had at some stage acted as mercenaries for or concluded treaties with the emperor, which instilled in them a degree of respect for imperial authority, albeit a precarious one. They would have obtained substantial amounts of coin, mainly gold, as mercenaries, in tribute and as plunder, which gave them experience in dealing with money, even if they had not struck coins of their own before moving into the Empire. This was, no doubt, a factor in encouraging the continuity of circulation and minting that we find in most of the newly established Germanic kingdoms. Only in England and the northern fringes of Gaul did the circulation of coinage cease for a while after the collapse of the Roman administration. There the use of money had to be relearnt a century or more later from their Germanic neighbours.

The coinages of most of the new states passed through two phases: a ‘pseudoimperial’ phase in which the coins purported to be issued with the authority of the current or some former emperor, and a ‘national’ phase in which the inscriptions and designs deliberately reflected the state’s independence. For each kingdom this change came at different times and was expressed in different ways. The first to suppress all reference to the empire on their silver and bronze coins in the late fifth century were Odovacar in Italy (briefly) and the Vandals in North Africa. The Visigoths and Franks both transformed their coinages in the later sixth century, the first adopting an overtly regal currency and the second choosing to permit a variety of semi-private issues. A century later the Lombards in Italy were the last to relinquish the imperial tradition by adopting a combination of regal and municipal coinages. Of course, official Byzantine issues continued in their remaining possessions in central Italy, Sicily and parts of the Balkans.

Although there are few written texts that shed light on the nature of money in the early Middle Ages, the coins themselves have survived in substantial quantity, and by studying their inscriptions, designs, dies, weights, metallic compositions and fi nd contexts we can achieve some understanding of the monetary systems in which they were used. In the late Roman Empire coin production had been concentrated in a small number of mints, amounting in the west to four in Italy (Rome, Ravenna, Milan and Aquileia) and three in Gaul (Arles, Lyons and Trier); the London mint, having closed in 325, was perhaps revived during the 380s and Barcelona had operated briefly under the usurper Maximus (410– 411). By the seventh century there were still only a handful of mints in Italy, but several hundreds in Gaul, perhaps fi fty in Spain and a few in England. Coin production thus remained essentially within the bounds of the old Roman Empire, but, as one might expect, with a much greater degree of local minting.

In the fourth century an elaborate range of denominations had been issued by the Romans in three metals – gold, silver and bronze – but in the early fifth century production in silver and bronze was severely reduced. In Gaul and Britain the silver coins in circulation were clipped down to reduce their weight and the few new ones struck in Gaul were produced to a much reduced weight standard. Bronze was limited to the smallest denomination, the nummus. Only the gold coinage was produced on a moderate scale, and came to dominate the currency. Of the three denominations in gold – the solidus, its half the semissis and its third the tremissis – the largest and smallest formed the basis of most coinages in western Europe in the succeeding two centuries. Thus the dominance of gold, which is so striking a feature of early medieval coinage of the sixth and seventh centuries, was already established under the later western emperors.

Gold had a special status that went beyond its high intrinsic value, for it was regarded as an imperial metal that should always carry an emperor’s name – if the current emperor was politically unacceptable, then an earlier one would suffice. Lesser rulers put their own names on their gold coinage at their peril, as with the Frankish king Theodebert (534– 548) who was severely criticised by Procopius for having the impertinence to do so: ‘it is not considered right … for any … sovereign in the whole barbarian world to imprint his own likeness on a gold stater’. 2 Silver and bronze were quite a different matter, and rulers were more confi dent in recording their names on these, with or without that of the emperor. It was this convention, the emperor’s prerogative in respect of gold, that perpetuated the pseudo-imperial phase.

The coinages of the Visigoths, Sueves, Franks, Burgundians, Anglo-Saxons and Lombards were essentially mono-metallic in gold, with some very limited and local issues of small silver and bronze coins. Even in the Byzantine Empire silver had fallen out of use save for ceremonial purposes, and there was nothing to bridge the very high value gold denominations and the small bronze minimi. However, in the late fifth century Odovacar and then the Ostrogoths succeeded in re-establishing in Italy an impressive range of denominations in all three metals, providing an adequate currency for all types of transactions. Likewise in North Africa the Vandals re-established a range of silver and bronze denominations, but unusually without any gold coins. In both regions after the reconquests of the succeeded in re-establishing in Italy an impressive range of denominations in all three metals, providing an adequate currency for all types of transactions. Likewise in North Africa the Vandals re-established a range of silver and bronze denominations, but unusually without any gold coins. In both regions after the reconquests of the 530s and 540s, Justinian maintained the production of silver and bronze.  By the third quarter of the sixth century, however, the minting of silver coins in Europe was confined essentially to Ravenna, and its economic impact was minimal.

Precious metals were more valuable in the early Middle Ages than they are today, and the standard gold coins were, therefore, very high denominations. A solidus, for example, bought 90 kg of butchered pork in Rome in 452, so it was hardly suitable for domestic transactions. 3 The nummus, by contrast, was a very low-value coin, fluctuating between 7200 and 12,000 nummi to the solidus in the fifth and sixth centuries. A building-labourer in the early sixth century could earn 200 nummi a day.

[...]

Conclusions

In the two or three centuries since the break-up of the Roman Empire in the West money had evolved significantly and would have hardly been recognised by someone who lived in the fifth century. By the year 700 each of the constituent states had its own distinctive monetary system, and its coins had become a useful national emblem signifying its independence and, one hopes, its sound financial condition. The process by which this had been achieved  sheds some light on the evolution of the states themselves. The pseudo-imperial phase of coinage is particularly difficult to interpret. The copying of imperial coinages may have been motivated in part by economic factors – when establishing a new currency, countries often emulate the successful coinages that are circulating in the region. But as the comments of Procopius and the pattern of coin inscriptions show, the imperial prerogative to strike gold coins was also a powerful force, and the emperors appear to have maintained sufficient influence over the new Germanic states to enforce it during the fifth and much of the sixth centuries. Most of the states appear to have sought legitimacy for their coinages by implying that it was authorised by the emperor, whether through an ancient agreement as perhaps with the Sueves and Vandals, or through the continuing consent of the current emperor in the East, as not only the Ostrogoths but also the Visigoths and the Franks appear to have done. Yet the apparent dullness of these anonymous imitative coinages can easily mask signs of fundamental developments taking place in the organisation of minting and regulation of the monetary system. With the transition to so-called ‘national’ coinages, when the names of mints and/or moneyers are displayed and there is freedom to adopt new coin designs, we get a much clearer insight into the organisation that lay behind it. 30 Then one can see just how far the states had already come in the development of their own monetary systems.

Notas

1 For surveys of late Roman coinage see Grierson and Mays (1992) and Kent (1994); for early medieval European coinages other than Byzantine see Grierson and Blackburn (1986); and for Byzantine coinage see Grierson (1982), Hendy (1985) and Hahn (2000)

2 Procopius, Bell. Goth. ii.33.5– 6

3 Spufford (1988), p. 8.

30 Hendy (1988).