Fouracre P. The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 1: c. 500-c. 700

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Money and coinage 663

477 to 480, and the eastern emperor Zeno during 476–477 and 480–491, and

hence most of his coins carry their names. The same is true of the Ostrogothic

kings from Theoderic (490–526) onwards, who similarly ruled on behalf of the

eastern emperors, at least until Justinian launched his campaign to oust them

in 535.

The coinage from Odovacar’s period of rule is remarkable in three respects.

He revived the production of silver, in Zeno’s name, on a substantial scale at

three mints, Milan, Ravenna and Rome, a feature that would be maintained

through the Ostrogothic period. Secondly, although bronze coin production

had virtually ceased, an issue of large bronze 40 nummus pieces was insti-

tuted at Rome in Zeno’s name. What is remarkable is that they appear to

have anticipated or even inspired the major monetary reform that Anastasius

implemented at Constantinople in 498,providing a range of bronze denom-

inations headed by a follis of 40 nummi. The portrait on the Zeno issue is

quite different from the stylised imperial busts current in the fourth and ﬁfth

centuries, for it has a naturalistic, rather rugged image that seems to strive

for a true likeness of the emperor. This concept, like other features of the

design and inscriptions, including the use of ‘sc’(Senatus consulta), deliber-

ately harks back to the coinage of the early Empire. The dating of this issue

is unclear – it may even have been produced not by Odovacar but by the

Ostrogothic leader Theoderic while controlling Rome in 490–491.

It was suc-

ceeded by a series of large anonymous bronzes, generally termed ‘municipal’ or

‘senatorial’ issues of Rome, which continue through much of the Ostrogothic

period.

The third feature of Odovacar’s rule is the issue of silver and bronze coins

carrying his own name (fl odovac)ormonogram and again a naturalistic

portrait. This is certainly the earliest, and virtually the only contemporary

portrait of one of the barbarian leaders – the bronze coins of the Lombard king

Aistulf (749–754)are another notable exception. Odovacar is shown bare-

headed with a bushy moustache and without regalia, emphasising his non-

imperial status. These coins, struck at Ravenna, belong either to the period

in 477 before he recognised Julius Nepos as emperor, or more likely to the

latter part of his reign when Odovacar was at war with the Ostrogoths and

was from 490 effectively conﬁned to Ravenna.

They provided a precedent for

Theoderic to place his own name or monogram on the gold and silver and

may have inspired Gunthamund (484–496)toinitiate a regal coinage for the

Vandals at Carthage.

Grierson and Mays (1992), pp. 186–7, dating it to 477;Kent (1994), pp. 218–19, dating it 490–491

under Theoderic.

Grierson and Blackburn (1986), p. 28;Kent (1994), pp. 213–14.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

664 m a rk blackburn

In many respects, then, Odovacar’s coinage set the pattern for the large

and impressive coinage of the Ostrogoths. Under them gold continued to

be issued at Rome, Ravenna, Milan and, after the loss of Ravenna in 540,

Pavia (Ticinium), always in the name of the reigning emperor except under

Baduila (541–552)who, while resisting the conquest of Justinian, preferred

to acknowledge the long-deceased Anastasius on his coins. The other notable

exception is a magniﬁcent triple solidus,amedallic piece, which has Theoderic’s

name and titles (rex theodericvs pivs princis)around his facing bust.

Although it was clearly issued to celebrate an important event (which one is

still hotly disputed),

because of its medallic character it should not be seen

as breaching the convention that gold coinage should bear the name of the

emperor.

Theoderic built on Odovacar’s initiative of issuing a silver half-siliqua

by adding a smaller denomination, the quarter-siliqua.However, unlike

Odovacar’s coins, which were either in the name of the emperor, Zeno, or

that of Odovacar himself, the Ostrogothic coins normally carry both the name

of the emperor around the imperial portrait, and on the reverse the name

or monogram of the king. Thus it is an overtly regal coinage issued under

the auspices of the emperor. Although all three mints initially participated in

striking silver, under Theoderic’s successors its production was concentrated

at Ravenna until 540 and then at Pavia. Ostrogothic bronze followed a rather

different pattern, for the bulk of it was issued at Rome in at least ﬁve different

denominations, and without any reference to either the emperor or the king

because the Senate was formally responsible for authorising its issue. A notable

exception is the follis of Theodahad (534–536), which has a very imposing bust

of the king, who we know intended this image to perpetuate his memory for

centuries.

Interesting parallels are to be found in the coinage of the Vandals of North

Africa. The Vandals do not appear to have minted coins while in Spain (409–

429), but from their North African kingdom, based at Carthage (439–533),

there is a substantial and innovative coinage. They were probably responsible

for two series of pseudo-imperial silver coins in the name of Honorius (395–

423),

and for some of the many varieties of bronze minimi current in North

Africa in the ﬁfth century. This pseudo-imperial phase was short-lived, for by

the end of the century Gunthamund (484–496) had initiated a regal coinage,

which, like Odavacar’s independent issue, made no reference to the emperor.

Arslan (1989) argues it marked the ﬁnal conquest of Italy in 493; Alf

oldi (1978) and (1988) the thirtieth

anniversary of Theoderic’s reign over the Ostrogoths in 500; and Grierson (1985) his conquest over

the Franks and Burgundians in 508/9.

Cassiodorus, Variae i.6.7.

Although Kent (1994), pp. 232–3,proposes a pre-Vandal origin for one of them.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Money and coinage 665

A sequence of 100, 50 and 25 denarius pieces in silver and 1 nummus bronze

coins were issued, and broadly maintained by succeeding kings down to the

Byzantine reconquest. In parallel with this was an anonymous civic coinage of

42, 21, 12 and 4 nummus bronze coins apparently modelled on the civic issues

of Rome, even if the denominational system was different. These were issued

in two series, the earlier depicting the deity Carthego holding ears of corn, and

the later one combining a standing soldier and the head of a Punic horse with

the legend karthago.

A curious subsidiary coinage supplemented these large bronze issues and

providesfurther evidence for links between Italy and North Africa. Thisconsists

of a substantial number of old, worn bronze coins mainly of the ﬁrst century

ad which have been incised with a mark of value – lxxxiii (83)onsestertii

and xlii (42)onasses and dupondii. They evidently belong to the ﬁfth or sixth

century, but their origin is uncertain,

for while their denominations conform

to the Carthaginian system and a few specimens have been found in North

Africa, many more have been found in Italy.

With Justinian’s success in partially rebuilding the Empire, he had to decide

whether to impose a uniform monetary system on all the reconquered ter-

ritories. As already indicated, silver currency was not used elsewhere in the

Empire, so in continuing their production at Carthage and in Italy the local

denominations and weight standards were adopted. The copper coinage was a

different matter, for a range of denominations based on the follis of 40 nummi

had been produced in Constantinople since Anastasius’ reform of 498, and

Justinian himself revised their weights and designs several times to accommo-

date changes in the relativevalue ofgold to copper. Forbronze,then, the systems

implemented in Africa and Italy were essentially those of Constantinople. In

both regions, production of silver and bronze was highest during the decade

following their reconquest as the Vandal and Ostrogothic coins were reminted

into Byzantine ones. Gold solidi and tremisses were struck at Rome and later

Ravenna with some continuity of Ostrogothic practices. It is now evident that

a third mint, in Sicily, was opened soon after the reconquest of 535,

and this

was later to grow into one of the Empire’s most productive mints in the seventh

and eighth centuries. At Carthage, where no gold had been struck under the

Vandals, Justinian initially sent gold coins from Constantinople to pay the

troops, but from 537 until the Arab conquest of the city in 698 it produced a

distinctive gold coinage comprising almost exclusively solidi.

The conquest of

a strip of south-eastern Spainin 553,aByzantinetoe-hold which was maintained

Morrisson (1983) argues for a North African origin; Grierson and Blackburn (1986), pp. 28–31, for

an Italian one.

Hahn (2000), pp. 47–8.

Morrisson (1988).

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

666 mark blackburn

until 624, led to a mint being established probably in Carthagena, the admin-

istrative centre. For much of the period of Byzantine rule it produced a modest

number of gold tremisses, the main denomination of Visigothic Spain, and one

that could not be supplied from Carthage.

In the Balkans, the Ostrogothic

colony at Sirmium, which Theoderic had captured from the Gepids in 504,

was also a victim of the war in Italy, and control reverted to the Gepids in

540.Aseries of locally minted silver half siliquae, which began with ones in

the name of Theoderic, of Italian type, continued under the Gepids until their

defeat by the Avars in the 580s.

The Indian summer of Byzantine rule in Italy lasted barely two decades

before the Lombards invaded in 568/9 and established their own kingdom,

initially in the north, in Lombardy, but subsequently extending to Tuscany

and to a vast tract of central and southern Italy, governed from Benevento

and Spoleto. Three distinct strands of coinage developed in upper Italy,

Tuscany and Benevento; Spoleto did not strike its own coins. The earliest was

in the north and consisted of imitations of tremisses of Ravenna of the emper-

ors Justinian I (d. 565), Justin II (565–578) and Maurice (582–602), coins that

would have been circulating in the region during the period of their campaigns.

These imitations were initially of reasonably good style and of similar fabric

to the originals, but the Maurice copies continued to be issued for almost a

century, gradually becoming more stylised, with meaningless inscriptions, and

developing a very distinctive broad thin fabric with a saucer-shaped proﬁle.

In Tuscany a very different coinage was produced, based on tremisses of Hera-

clius (610–641) and Constans II (641–668) with a cross potent reverse design.

They also developed an unusual fabric, but rather than growing wider, as in

Lombardy, they became smaller and thicker, though also with a dished pro-

ﬁle. By the second half of the seventh century the inscription had become

merely a series of alternating ‘V’s and ‘I’s. Both series of coins had become

so characteristic of their regions that they were in effect anonymous ‘national’

coinages, but the transition to overtly Lombard issues came at the end of the

seventh century, and again the two regions followed very different paths. In

Lombardy a royal coinage was established by Cunipert (688–700), which

retained the previous broad fabric and subtly exchanged the image of the

king for the imperial bust, and the winged ﬁgure of St Michael for the winged

Victory. The Tuscan coinage, by contrast, became a series of municipal issues,

with the monogram or name of the city: Pisa, Lucca, Pistoria and possibly

Chiusi. The third series mentioned above, the coinage of the Duchy of Ben-

evento, only started at the end of the seventh century, with pseudo-imperial

Grierson (1982), p. 56.

Metlich (2004), pp. 43–4 suggesting the ‘Theoderic’ pieces are later Gepid copies of Ostrogothic

coins.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Money and coinage 667

solidi and tremisses attributed to Gisulf I (689–706), and although the Ben-

eventan coinage ﬂourished for almost two centuries, it falls effectively outside

the scope of this survey.

gaul and iberia, pseudo-imperial coinages

The monetary circulation was quite different in Gaul and the Iberian Penin-

sula, where from the early ﬁfth century there was already a shortage of silver and

bronze coins. Here during the ﬁfth and sixth centuries the Visigoths, Sueves,

Burgundians and Franks produced coinages predominantly in gold and imi-

tating imperial designs and legends. In addition there were occasional small

issues in silver or bronze. This pseudo-imperial phase lasted until the 580s,

when distinctive ‘national’ coinages developed.

The Visigoths were the ﬁrst to issue coins of their own. The series could be

seen as being led by issues of Priscus Attalus, the Prefect of Rome whom Alaric

I(395–410) had proclaimed emperor after the siege of 410. Rare coins were

struck in his name at Rome in that year, and he accompanied the Visigoths

when they crossed the Alps into Gaul in 412.Two years later he was again

proclaimed emperor by the Goths, and a few solidi and siliquae were struck by

him at Narbonne in 414–415.

These apart, the Visigothic coinage consisted

entirely of anonymous pseudo-imperial issues throughout their main Gallic

phase based at Toulouse (418–507) and for the ﬁrst seventy-ﬁve years of their

kingdom in Spain (507–711). These appear to have begun before 421, and may

well have been produced with the consent of Honorius, whose name they bear

and who had approved the settlement as feoderati in south-west Gaul. It is

notable from the succession of emperors named on Visigothic coins that those

absent are the ones who failed to make peace with the Visigoths and whose

imperial authority they seem to have been unwilling to acknowledge on the

coinage.

As with the Ostrogoths in the sixth century, the names of deceased

emperors may have been used instead. The series comprises mainly solidi and

tremisses, without any indication of mint-place, though for the majority of

ﬁfth-century issues Toulouse, as the capital, is the most likely. Some rare silver

issues in the names of Honorius and Valentinian III are also attributed to the

Visigoths. There is a clear break in the coinage coinciding with the expulsion of

the Visigothsfrom Gaul after their defeat at Vouill

ein507,for the Iberian series,

recognised by its distinctive style and local ﬁnd distribution, starts with copies

of Anastasius’ new solidus introduced at Constantinople in 507. The tremisses

are of an Ostrogothic type, used only by Theoderic, who in 508 intervened

on behalf of the Visigoths against the Franks and became regent to the young

Kent (1994), pp. 138–42.

Kent (1994), pp. 220–1.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

668 m ark blackburn

king, his grandson, Amalaric (507–531). Although subsequently the emperor’s

name was changed, the original type, with a Victory running to the right with

a palm and wreath, was used until the end of the Visigothic pseudo-imperial

series and became a distinctive Gothic design. Already there are signs of a

consistent monetary policy and of careful management of the coinage, which

are features that are less evident under the Franks.

The Sueves were also among the earliest to issue their own coins, starting

in the 430sor440s with solidi copied from ones of Honorius (393–423) and

tremisses from ones of Valentinian III (425–455). Honorius’ name may have

been used because he was ruling in 411 when the Sueves were ﬁrst allowed to

settle as foederati in the western half of Gallaecia (north-western Spain). Their

subsequent expansion under King Rechiarius (438–455) south and east as far as

erida and Seville, in the wake of the Vandal passage into Africa, marked the

watershed of their political fortunes. Rechiarius is one of only two Suevic kings

to be named on the coinage – on an extremely rare silver siliqua copied from

one of Honorius, but with the reverse inscription ivssv richiari reges

and the letters br (for Bracara, their capital Braga in northern Portugal). The

Sueves did not change their coinage to acknowledge the current emperor, but

continued to produce the same types of solidi and tremisses intermittently for 150

years, until their conquest by Leovigild and incorporation into the Visigothic

state in 585.Inthe ﬁnal years of the coinage there are signs of a transition

to a ‘national’ series, as the names or initials of several mints appear in the

inscriptions, and one unique piece has odiacca reiges, interpreted as the

name of the last Suevic king Audeca (584–585).

The Burgundians, whose kingdom was short-lived, being conquered by

the Franks in 534, left a small but highly accomplished coinage. Only coins

of the last three kings – Gundobad (c.473–516), Sigismund (516–524) and

Gundomar II (524–532)–can be identiﬁed today by the monograms of their

names included in the design. These comprise solidi and tremisses in the names

of the current emperor, starting with Anastasius (so after 491), together with

rare silver issues of Gundobad and Sigismund, and bronze nummi of Gundobad

with the mint abbreviation ld for Lugdunum (Lyons), where the other coins

may also have been struck. Itis likely that these were preceded by an anonymous

series of coins that today cannot be distinguished from other Gallic issues

attributed to the Visigoths.

In contrast to most of the other Germanic kingdoms, the Franks were slow

to produce their own coinage. Their gold coinage does not begin until the

early sixth century, perhaps after their conquest of the Visigothic kingdom of

Toulouse in 507.Inthe mid-ﬁfth century, when they occupied northern Gaul

and western Germany, they seem to have produced a variety of very thin light

silver coins, some in imitation of issues of Valentinian III of Trier, and others

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Money and coinage 669

in the names of Majorian (457–461) and Anthemius (467–472).

However, it

is difﬁcult to determine the status of each issue, whether Frankish or perhaps

quasi-Roman,produced by Aegidius,Majorian’s loyalmagister militum in Gaul,

or his son Syagrius. These fragile coins have mostly been found as offerings in

graves, but their original purpose was presumably for monetary circulation.

The Frankish gold of the sixth century is readily distinguished from the

Visigothic issues by its designs and ﬁnd distribution. It consists of solidi in the

names of Anastasius and Justin I and tremisses naming all the emperors from

Anastasius down to Justin II (565–578), indicating the period over which they

were struck. Within them there is a variety of styles and designs, particularly

among the tremisses of the mid-sixth century, and it is evident that a number

of mints were operating. In addition to these pseudo-imperial issues, there

are two royal ones. One consists of small silver and copper denominations

with the names or monograms of Childebert I (511–558) and his successors.

These were produced in Burgundy and Provence, principally at Lyons and

Marseilles, in continuation of the small change that had been issued by the

Burgundians and Ostrogoths. The second series has already been alluded to –

solidi and tremisses of Theodebert of Metz (534–548) struck in celebration of

his successful campaign in Italy in 539–540, annexing much of the north. The

coins have such legends as dn theodebertvs victor,around the king’s

helmeted bust, and it must be these to which Procopius was referring when

he commented that Germanic peoples now occupied all the west, including

Provence, where their kings could preside over chariot races at Arles and did

not even scruple to strike gold coins bearing their own efﬁgy and name.

Imperial pressure prevailed, and Theodebert’s initiative was not followed by

his contemporaries or immediate successors. Yet a precedent had been set, and

a generation later the Visigoths and Franks were moving towards establishing

their own distinctive ‘national’ coinages.

establishment of ‘national’ coinages

The simpler and more orderly of the two coinages is that of the Visigoths.

the third quarter of the sixth century the pseudo-imperial tremisses had a design

that was effectively Visigothic, rendered in a characteristic and highly stylised

way, while the emperor’s name had become barely legible. The weight standard

had been adjusted to align with that of the Frankish tremissis, and it is evident

from the variety of styles that there were already a number of mints operating

even though these were not named. Hence, this was already a very distinctive

Lafaurie (1987); Kent (1994), pp. 171–2, 187, 198.

Procopius, Bell. Goth. iii.33.5–6.

Miles (1952); Grierson and Blackburn (1986), pp. 49–54.

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

670 ma rk blackburn

Visigothic coinage, but its transition into an overtly regal one was prompted

by political events. Leovigild (568–586), who had been active throughout the

570s campaigning against the Byzantines and the Sueves, became engaged in

a civil war with his usurping son Hermenigild (579–584), who had established

an independent kingdom in the south based on Seville.

It is not clear whether

Leovigild had already begun issuing coins in his own name,

or Hermenigild

took the initiative in order to assert his own regal authority,

but it is clear that

both rivals used the coinage for propaganda purposes. Hermenigild’s coins are

of the usual Visigothic type but bearing his name, ermenigild, qualiﬁed by

rex inclitus (‘illustrious king’) or regi a Deo vita (‘life to the king from God’).

Leovigild’s of similar type use either the rex inclitus title or a version of Dominus

nostra Livvigildus rex.Inafurther development Leovigild changed the reverse

design to a cross-on-steps and added the name of the mint with appropriate

epithets for those that had been recaptured from Hermenigild or taken from

the Sueves, e.g. Emerita victoria (‘M

erida conquered’), CumDeo Ispali adquisita

(‘Seville acquired through God’).

Finally, as the civil war ended in 584, Leovigild made a still more radical

reform of the coinage, placing his own facing bust on both sides of the coin

and returning the weight to the Roman standard, but reducing the ﬁneness

of the gold to about 75 per cent. Coins of the new type at C

ordoba have

the inscription C

ordoba bis optinuit (‘C

ordoba twice obtained’), referring to

the fact that Leovigild had taken the city ﬁrst from Byzantium in 572 and

then, in 584,fromHermenigild. Immediately one sees that at least twenty

mints were then operating, and the number rises to thirty-ﬁve or more in some

subsequent reigns. More than eighty mints in total are named on the Visigothic

coinage, but many of them were small unidentiﬁed places that either did not

survive the period of Arab rule or lost their identity. More than 60 per cent

of the coins were struck at four principal mints (M

erida, Toledo, Seville and

ordoba) in southern and central Spain, while moderately productive mints

include Barbi, Eliberri (near Granada) and Tucci in the south and Tarragona,

Barcelona, Gerona and Narbonne in the north-east.

In the former Sueve

territory in northern Portugal and Galicia there was a proliferation of small

mints, suggesting a different administrative arrangement there.

Leovigild’s last coinage established a system that survived with little change

until the end of the Visigothic era. The uniformity of design, with the king’s

facing bust on both sides, was of necessity broken during the joint reign of

Chindasuinth and Reccesuinth (649–653), when in order to accommodate

For the details of Leovigild’s reign, see Barbero and Loring, chapter 7 above.

Gomes, Peixoto and Rodrigues (1985), p. 28.

Grierson and Blackburn (1986), pp. 49–51.

Metcalf (1986).

Money and coinage 671

both names the mint had to be represented as a monogram in the centre of

the reverse. Thereafter there was more variation in the types, with either a

monogram or cross-on-steps reverse and facing or proﬁle busts on the obverse.

An exceptional design from the reign of Ervig (680–687) shows the facing head

of Christ superimposed on a small cross-on-steps, which signiﬁcantly pre-dates

Justinian II’s ‘Bust of Christ’ coin type, also backed by a cross, introduced at

Constantinople in about 692. Both seem to reﬂect a current theological debate

as to how Christ should be represented in art.

The ﬁneness of the gold was

maintained at Leovigild’s standard of about 75 per cent until the early seventh

century, after which it ﬂuctuated between 50 and 70 per cent until the end of

the century, slipping to about 35 per cent in the last decade before the Arab

conquest of 711.

It had been thought that the Visigoths issued only high-value gold coins,

until the recent recognition of a series of small bronze coins.

There are at

least four distinct types, which are attributed to Seville, M

erida and possibly

ordoba and Toledo. Although difﬁcult to date, they appear to belong to the

eighth century. They have been found on sites in southern and central Spain,

together with earlier North African bronze minimi and later Arab fels.

The Merovingian ‘national’ coinage developed at much the same time as the

Visigothic one, but the form it took was quite different. The ﬁrst signs of the

transition came in the third quarter of the sixth century, when occasionally a

place-name or personal name – that of a mint or a moneyer – can be discerned

within the normally corrupt pseudo-imperial inscriptions. Only rarely can the

name of a king be found on tremisses, the earliest in this phase being that of

Sigibert I of Austrasia (561–575). A more distinct change took place probably

in the 580s with the wide-spread adoption of new designs, usually combining a

bust on the obverse with a cross design on the reverse, and inscriptions giving

the names of the mint and moneyer. By the end of the sixth century a pattern

was established that would persist until the end of the Merovingian era in 751.

In contrast to the well-managed centrally controlled Visigothic coinage, the

Frankish system appears quite chaotic. Only a tiny proportion of the coins

carry the name of a king, though others indicate that they were issued from

the palace (In palacio ﬁtur, Palati moneta, Racio domini, etc.). Some are clearly

ecclesiastical issues (Racio ecclesiae or Racio followed by a saint’s name), but

most have merely the name of the place at which they were struck, often with

that of the moneyer who was responsible for them. This has been interpreted

as a quasi-private coinage, with the moneyers acting either for the town or on

their own account to exchange old and foreign coin and bullion for acceptable

new money. Yet there must have been a degree of administrative control over

Grierson and Blackburn (1986), pp. 51–2.

Crusafont i Sabater (1994).

672 mark blackburn

minting to maintain standards of weight and ﬁneness and some standardisation

in design found among the coins of particular regions.

The coinage of Provence under the Franks is a notable exception to this

diverse pattern, revealing its distinctive Ostrogothic heritage and system of

government under the Patricians of Provence. Highly literate pseudo-imperial

issues continued down to the reign of Heraclius (610–641), and were succeeded

by royal ones from Chlothar II (613–629)toDagobert II (restored 676–679).

There was considerable uniformity of design – an imperial or royal bust and a

cross-on-step or globule, often ﬂanked by the initials of the mint name (Mar-

seilles, Arles, Uz

es or Viviers); there were no mint/moneyer issues. Solidi,as

well as tremisses, continued to be struck in considerable numbers. Interestingly,

when production of silver deniers replaced that of the gold coins in the 670s

the king’s name was no longer put on the coins, but rather that of the patri-

cian, indicating a survival of the belief that gold was the most noble metal,

appropriate for an emperor or king.

The Merovingian gold coinage was a large one. It survives today in thou-

sands of specimens struck at several hundred mints, many of them no longer

identiﬁable because the place-name is a common one or has changed. The most

productive mints were in major centres, such as Chalon-sur-Sa

one, Paris, Le

Mans, Rouen, Quentovic, Dorestad, Mainz, Trier, etc., but many must have

been in small settlements or on individual estates. A signiﬁcant proportion of

the coins has occurred as stray ﬁnds, arguably representing accidental losses

from circulation. Such high-value coins as these are not readily abandoned

without a search, which makes the ﬁnd record still more impressive and sug-

gests that they represent a very substantial and active currency. The currency

may well have been expanding during the seventh century, but if so it was

against a background of a limited or even contracting volume of gold avail-

able for monetary purposes. From the beginning of the seventh century the

ﬁneness of the Merovingian tremissis started to decline from a level of around

90 per cent. Evidence drawn from a series of coin hoards of different dates and

from the ﬁneness of the royal coins that can be accurately dated suggests that

there was a broad and progressive decline in the proportion of gold to around

70 per cent by c.630, 50 per cent by c.650 and 30 per cent by 670, though

these ﬁgures should only be taken as marking a general trend, for there could

be considerable variation between coins of similar date.

In the early 670s the

production of base gold tremisses was superseded by that of new deniers of ﬁne

silver.

Another stage had been reached on the journey from an antique to a

medieval coinage.

Rigold (1954).

Kent (1975); Brown (1981); Stahl and Oddy (1992).

Blackburn (1995).