Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:14:46.435Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Towards a revision of the internal chronology of the coinages of Edward the Elder and Plegmund

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Michael Dolley
Affiliation:
The Queen's University, Belfast

Extract

A number of years ago it was observed by the present writer that the later issues of King Edward the Elder's two substantive types (Brooke 12 and 13) can be distinguished from the earlier by the fact that they are struck on relatively spread flans. The diameter of typical pieces with the Cuerdale provenance for example is 20–1 mm, while pieces which have very close affinities with the earliest coins of Athelstan have a mean diameter in the region of 22–3 mm. It was further noticed that the coinage of Plegmund, archbishop of Canterbury, exhibits a neat dichotomy between pennies which conform in style and module to late, but not the very latest, coins of Alfred the Great and pennies which patently are contemporary with the later, but not the earlier, coins of Edward the Elder. The hypothesis was further advanced, and seems now generally accepted, that the Canterbury mint was closed as a consequence of the two-pronged Viking attack on Kent in 892 and opened again at least a year or two before the death of Plegmund. It follows that the inception of the last phase of Edward's coinage falls likewise at least a couple of years before the archbishop's demise, an event which is uniformly dated in the numismatic literature to 914. Nor can numismatists altogether be blamed for their consistency in accepting without demur a date proposed without any indication of controversy by so respectable, and indeed magisterial, a work of reference as F. M. Powicke and E. B. Fryde, Handbook of British Chronology.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 175 note 1 NC 6th ser. 15 (1955), ‘Proceedings’, p. xx, but no details there given.Google Scholar

page 175 note 2 Brooke, G. C., English Coins, 3rd ed. (London, 1950).Google Scholar

page 175 note 3 Nordisk Numismatisk Årsskrift 19571988, 39.Google Scholar

page 175 note 4 Most recently by Seaby, P. J., Coins of England and the United Kingdom, 12th ed. (London, 1973), p. 42Google Scholar, which could plead such recent (1967) and seemingly impeccable academic authority as Sylloge of Gains of the Brit. Isles, Asbmolean 1, 53–6.Google Scholar

page 175 note 5 2nd ed. (London, 1961), p. 209.

page 176 note 1 O'Donovan, M. A., ‘An Interim Revision of Episcopal Dates for the Province of Canterbury, 850–950: Part I’, ASE 1 (1972), 2344..Google Scholar

page 176 note 2 Ibid. pp. 26 and 31.

page 177 note 1 Stenton, F. M., Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1971), p. 446.Google Scholar

page 177 note 2 II Athelstan 14; English Historical Documents c. 500–1042, ed. Whitelock, D. (London, 1955), p. 384.Google Scholar