INTERPRETING SINGLE FINDS IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND - THE SECONDARY LIVES OF COINS (original) (raw)
Related papers
In medieval Britain coins found use beyond the monetary exchange purpose for which they were originally produced. Through the study of surviving coin finds and supporting documentary and archaeological evidence, this paper introduces the principal non-currency methods to which coins were put and explores a number of questions: why were coins used as the adaptive edium and for what purpose? What can we deduce from the type, denomination and condition of the adapted coins? What do the various practices outlined below tell us about the relationships between people and money, display and piety, and religion and ritual?
Review of Naismith et al., Early Medieval Monetary History
Medieval Review, 2015
The essays in this volume are dedicated to Mark Blackburn and seek to celebrate his scholarly legacy. As such, the contributions, while focused on medieval coinage and centered on the British Isles, are as much about the impact numismatics makes on wider issues in history and archaeology as well as the diverse geographies in which Blackburn researched. The editors have divided the collection into four main parts, corresponding to the honoree's primary areas of research. Parts 1-3 offer synthetic studies, integrating monetary history into broader debates about politics, economics, art, culture and daily life. Part 4, by contrast, concentrates on particular coin finds and demonstrates a variety of interpretive methods for this evidence.
Early World Coins - 2015 Revision of the Anglo-Saxon Metrology Section
Clarification of the Anglo-Saxon metrological facts in the recent Naismith book has prompted me to shift position on the chronology of the English Troy/Tower system. I still believe this derives from Islam, probably via the agency of Jewish traders travelling west. However - the crucial event I have now moved back in time - in line with Skinner - to the specific reform of the coinage by Offa in 792/3. Once that mental adjustment is made, it immediately becomes apparent that Offa’s major reform closely coincided with that of Charlemagne’s major reform of 793/4. And that both of them follow closely on from Charlemagne’s general statement of intent in his Admonito Generalis of 789. Thus we have not two events, but really just one, albeit a rather complex one. I still support Grierson’s interpretation of Charlemagne’s standard, but I have added further chronological material to strengthen it, and to extended its probable links to both Russian and Ottoman traditions.