Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973-1544: Behaviours, motivations, and mentalités 9781407356686, 9781407356693

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Of Related Interest
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Abstract
1. Introduction: coin hoards and medieval archaeology
2. Approaches to coin hoards: theory and practice
3. Methods and problems: the Coin hoards of medieval England and Wales database
4. Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544
5. Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards
6. Coins in context: the depositional circumstances of medieval coin hoards
7. Conclusion
8. Bibliography

Citation preview

L E A IN N L IO ON IT D L D IA A ER AT

M

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973-1544 Behaviours, motivations, and mentalités Murray Andrews BAR BRITISH SERIES 651

2019

210mm WIDTH

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973-1544 Behaviours, motivations, and mentalités Murray Andrews BAR BRITISH SERIES 651

2019 297mm HIGH

210 x 297mm BAR Andrew TITLE Artwork.indd 1

29/11/19 6:11 PM

Published in 2019 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR British Series 651 Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

978 1 4073 5668 6 paperback 978 1 4073 5669 3 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407356686 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library isbn isbn

© Murray Andrews 2019 Mid-fourteenth-century coin hoard from Wenvoe, South Glamorgan (© National Museum Wales/Portable Antiquities Scheme, CC BY-SA 4.0 licence). cover image

The Author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. Links to third party websites are provided by BAR Publishing in good faith and for information only. BAR Publishing disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK email [email protected] phone +44 (0)1865 310431 fax +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Andrews.indd 2

28/11/2019 16:26

Of Related Interest The Moneyers of England, 973–1086 Labour organisation in the Late Anglo-Saxon and Early Anglo-Norman English mints Jeremy Piercy BAR British Series 650

Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2019 Coinage in the Northumbrian Landscape and Economy, c.575–c.867 Tony Abramson

BAR British Series 641

Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2018 The South-Warwickshire Hoard of Roman Denarii A Catalogue Stanley Ireland

BAR British Series 585

Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2013

Coins and Samian Ware A study of the dating of coin-loss and the deposition of samian ware (terra sigillata), with a discussion of the decline of samian ware manufacture in the NW provinces of the Roman Empire, late 2nd to mid 3rd centuries AD Anthony C. King BAR International Series 2573

Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2013 The City and the Coin in the Ancient and Early Medieval Worlds Fernando López Sánchez

BAR International Series 2402

Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2012

For more information, or to purchase these titles, please visit www.barpublishing.com iii

Andrews.indd 3

28/11/2019 16:26

Andrews.indd 4

27/11/2019 11:15

Contents List of Figures.................................................................................................................................................................... viii List of Tables...................................................................................................................................................................... xvi Abstract............................................................................................................................................................................ xviii 1. Introduction: coin hoards and medieval archaeology................................................................................................. 1 2. Approaches to coin hoards: theory and practice......................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Laying foundations: coins, hoards, money, value, treasure....................................................................................... 3 2.2 The motives of hoarders............................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Approaches to hoarding I: content-driven study........................................................................................................ 5 2.3.1 Typological approaches...................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3.2 ‘Applied’ methods.............................................................................................................................................. 6 2.3.2.1 Chronological structure.............................................................................................................................. 6 2.3.2.2 Regional structure....................................................................................................................................... 7 2.3.2.3 Nominal structure....................................................................................................................................... 7 2.3.3 Non-numismatic contents................................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Approaches to hoarding II: context-driven studies.................................................................................................... 7 2.4.1 ‘Feature’/depositional context............................................................................................................................ 8 2.4.2 ‘Site’/landscape context..................................................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Approaches to coin hoards: a summary..................................................................................................................... 8 3. Methods and problems: the Coin hoards of medieval England and Wales database............................................... 10 3.1 Framing the study: definitions and parameters........................................................................................................ 10 3.2 Chronological periodisation..................................................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Database arrangement.............................................................................................................................................. 11 3.3.1 Hoard summary................................................................................................................................................ 12 3.3.2 Hoard contents.................................................................................................................................................. 12 3.3.3 Non-numismatic object summary.................................................................................................................... 12 3.3.4 Container summary.......................................................................................................................................... 12 3.3.5 Context summary............................................................................................................................................. 13 3.4 Populating the database: source material................................................................................................................. 13 3.4.1 Checklists......................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.4.2 Hoard reports.................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.4.3 Online archaeological databases...................................................................................................................... 13 3.4.4 Archaeological journals.................................................................................................................................... 13 3.4.5 Antiquarian and archival sources..................................................................................................................... 13 3.4.6 Historic Ordnance Survey mapping................................................................................................................. 14 3.4.7 Museum collections.......................................................................................................................................... 14 3.4.8 Personal correspondence.................................................................................................................................. 14 3.5 Data quality ratings.................................................................................................................................................. 14 3.6 Augmenting the evidence: findspot characterisation................................................................................................ 14 3.6.1 Historic mapping.............................................................................................................................................. 15 3.6.2 Archaeological records..................................................................................................................................... 15 3.7 Archaeological source criticism: formation processes and data bias....................................................................... 16 3.7.1 Record formation processes I: the burial stage................................................................................................ 16 3.7.2 Record formation processes II: the discovery stage......................................................................................... 17 3.7.2.1 Agricultural work...................................................................................................................................... 17 3.7.2.2 Archaeological investigations................................................................................................................... 17 3.7.2.3 Building work........................................................................................................................................... 18 3.7.2.4 Grave digging........................................................................................................................................... 21 3.7.2.5 Metal detecting......................................................................................................................................... 22 3.7.2.6 Other discovery circumstances................................................................................................................. 25 3.7.2.7 Unknown circumstances........................................................................................................................... 26 v

Andrews.indd 5

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 3.7.3 Record formation processes III: the registration stage..................................................................................... 26 3.7.4 Record formation processes: concluding remarks........................................................................................... 28 4. Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544......................................... 29 4.1 The pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544.................................................................................... 29 4.1.1 Phase A: Late Anglo-Saxon coin hoards, c.973-1066...................................................................................... 29 4.1.2 Phase B: Anglo-Norman coin hoards, 1066-1158............................................................................................ 31 4.1.3 Phase C: High medieval coin hoards, 1158-1279............................................................................................ 33 4.1.4 Phase D: Late medieval coin hoards, 1279-1544............................................................................................. 33 4.2 Patterns in perspective I: coin hoards and monetary trends..................................................................................... 36 4.2.1 Hoards and the size of the currency................................................................................................................. 36 4.2.2 Hoards and single coin finds............................................................................................................................ 37 4.3 Patterns in perspective II: coin hoards and socio-economic geographies................................................................ 38 4.3.1 Hoards and population..................................................................................................................................... 41 4.3.1.1 Benchmark 1: Domesday Book, 1086...................................................................................................... 41 4.3.1.2 Benchmark 2: England c.1290................................................................................................................. 42 4.3.1.3 Benchmark 3: The 1377 poll tax.............................................................................................................. 43 4.3.2 Hoards and the distribution of assessed wealth................................................................................................ 44 4.3.2.1 Benchmark 1: Domesday Book, 1086...................................................................................................... 45 4.3.2.2 Benchmark 2: The 1334 lay subsidy........................................................................................................ 45 4.3.2.3 Benchmark 3: The 1524-5 exchequer lay subsidies................................................................................. 46 4.3.3 Hoards and commerce...................................................................................................................................... 47 4.3.3.1 Hoards and towns..................................................................................................................................... 47 4.3.3.2 Hoards and transport infrastructure: road, river, and sea.......................................................................... 49 4.4 Patterns in perspective III: coin hoards and conflict................................................................................................ 52 4.4.1 The Norman Conquest and the ‘Harrying of the North’................................................................................... 52 4.4.2 The twelfth century ‘Anarchy’......................................................................................................................... 57 4.4.3 The Scottish Wars of Independence................................................................................................................. 57 4.5 Discussion: interpreting macro-scale patterning in coin hoards.............................................................................. 59 5. Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards................................................................................................. 62 5.1 The numismatic elements of coin hoards, c.973-1544............................................................................................. 62 5.1.1 Nominal structures........................................................................................................................................... 62 5.1.1.1 Phase A: Late Anglo-Saxon coin hoards, c.973-1066.............................................................................. 64 5.1.1.2 Phase B: Anglo-Norman coin hoards, 1066-1158.................................................................................... 66 5.1.1.3 Phase C: High medieval coin hoards, 1158-1279..................................................................................... 69 5.1.1.4 Phase D: Late medieval coin hoards, 1279-1544..................................................................................... 71 5.1.1.5 Discussion................................................................................................................................................. 99 5.1.2 Age structures................................................................................................................................................. 100 5.1.2.1 Phases A and B: Late Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman coin hoards, c.973-1158................................ 101 5.1.2.2 Phase C: High medieval coin hoards, 1158-1279................................................................................... 109 5.1.2.3 Phase D: Late medieval coin hoards, 1279-1544................................................................................... 117 5.1.2.4 Discussion............................................................................................................................................... 143 5.1.3 Regional structures......................................................................................................................................... 143 5.1.3.1 Phase A: Late Anglo-Saxon coin hoards, c.973-1066............................................................................ 143 5.1.3.2 Phase B: Anglo-Norman coin hoards, 1066-1158.................................................................................. 146 5.1.3.3 Phase C: High medieval coin hoards, 1158-1279................................................................................... 149 5.1.3.4 Phase D: Late medieval coin hoards, 1279-1544................................................................................... 156 5.1.3.5 Discussion............................................................................................................................................... 164 5.2 The non-numismatic elements of coin hoards, c.973-1544................................................................................... 164 5.2.1 The incidence of non-numismatic objects...................................................................................................... 165 5.2.2 Coveting the precious things? Objects and economic value.......................................................................... 165 5.2.3 Sending a message: status signifiers and symbolic values............................................................................. 168 5.2.4 Faith and fortune: religious and magical objects........................................................................................... 170 5.2.5 Personal pieces? Objects, emotions, and memories....................................................................................... 172 5.3 Coins beyond money?............................................................................................................................................ 174 6. Coins in context: the depositional circumstances of medieval coin hoards........................................................... 177 6.1 Pots of gold? The archaeology of hoard containers............................................................................................... 177 6.1.1 The incidence of containers............................................................................................................................ 177 vi

Andrews.indd 6

28/11/2019 16:26

Contents 6.1.2 Securing treasures? Containers and economic value..................................................................................... 180 6.1.3 Jars and jugs, boxes and bags: patterns in container forms............................................................................ 182 6.1.3.1 Bags and purses...................................................................................................................................... 182 6.1.3.2 Jugs and pitchers..................................................................................................................................... 183 6.1.3.3 Rouleaux................................................................................................................................................. 184 6.1.3.4 Jars and cooking vessels......................................................................................................................... 185 6.1.3.5 Boxes and chests..................................................................................................................................... 185 6.1.3.6 Sheet metal............................................................................................................................................. 186 6.1.3.7 Bottles..................................................................................................................................................... 186 6.1.3.8 Barrels, canisters, and other cylindrical storage containers................................................................... 186 6.1.3.9 Bowls, cups, and mugs........................................................................................................................... 187 6.1.3.10 Animal remains..................................................................................................................................... 187 6.1.3.11 Hollow stones....................................................................................................................................... 188 6.1.3.12 Trifoliate vessels................................................................................................................................... 188 6.1.3.13 Tripod ewers......................................................................................................................................... 188 6.1.3.14 Personal ornaments............................................................................................................................... 188 6.1.4 Discussion: containers and choices in medieval England and Wales............................................................. 189 6.2 Landscapes of deposition: a contextual archaeology of coin hoards..................................................................... 190 6.2.1 Cash in the attic: coin hoards and settlement................................................................................................. 190 6.2.2 Prayerful pennies: coin hoards and religious space....................................................................................... 192 6.2.3 A step into the unknown? Coin hoards and ancient monuments.................................................................... 195 6.2.4 Fields and forests, coasts and caves: coin hoards and the medieval landscape............................................. 197 6.2.5 Monetary miscellanea: coin hoards from other medieval sites...................................................................... 199 6.3 Discussion: coin hoards and the evidence of archaeological contexts................................................................... 200 7. Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................... 202 7.1 Where and when have coin hoards been recovered, and what factors condition these distributions?................... 202 7.2 What do patterns in the temporal and spatial incidence of coin hoards tell us about hoarding behaviour?.......... 202 7.3 What patterns, if any, are visible in the numismatic elements of medieval coin hoards, and what do they    tell us about hoarding behaviour?.......................................................................................................................... 202 7.4 What non-numismatic objects, if any, are found in medieval coin hoards, and what do they tell us about    hoarding behaviour?............................................................................................................................................... 203 7.5 What types of containers, if any, were used to store coin hoards, and what might they reveal about the    processes of hoard formation and deposition?....................................................................................................... 203 7.6 What patterns, if any, are visible in the archaeological contexts of coin hoards, and what do they tell    us about hoarding behaviour?................................................................................................................................ 204 7.7 Legacy and future work......................................................................................................................................... 204 8. Bibliography................................................................................................................................................................ 206 8.1 Printed primary sources......................................................................................................................................... 206 8.2 Secondary sources.................................................................................................................................................. 207 Appendix 1 is available to download from: www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html

vii

Andrews.indd 7

27/11/2019 11:15

List of Figures Figure 3.1. Proportional shares of Grade 1-4 findspot, contextual, and numismatic data ratings in the CHMEW dataset (n=815)................................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 3.2. Chronological distribution of all hoards by date of discovery......................................................................... 18 Figure 3.3. Chronological distribution of hoards found during agricultural work by date of discovery............................ 18 Figure 3.4. Chronological distribution of hoards found during archaeological investigations by date of discovery......... 20 Figure 3.5. Chronological distribution of hoards found during building work by date of discovery................................. 20 Figure 3.6. Chronological distribution of hoards found during grave digging by date of discovery................................. 21 Figure 3.7. Chronological distribution of hoards found during metal detecting by date of discovery............................... 21 Figure 3.8. Chronological distribution of hoards found in other circumstances by date of discovery............................... 22 Figure 3.9. Chronological distribution of hoards found in unknown circumstances by date of discovery........................ 22 Figure 3.10. Spatial distribution of hoards found during agricultural work....................................................................... 23 Figure 3.11. Spatial distribution of hoards found during archaeological investigations.................................................... 23 Figure 3.12. Spatial distribution of hoards found during building work............................................................................ 24 Figure 3.13. Spatial distribution of hoards found during grave digging............................................................................. 24 Figure 3.14. Spatial distribution of hoards found during metal detecting.......................................................................... 25 Figure 3.15. Spatial distribution of hoards found in other circumstances.......................................................................... 26 Figure 3.16. Spatial distribution of hoards found in unknown circumstances.................................................................... 27 Figure 4.1. Chronological distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards, c.973-1544 (n=780)..................................... 29 Figure 4.2. Chronological distribution of hoards by decade (n=815)................................................................................. 30 Figure 4.3. Boxplot of the distribution of minimum contemporary face values (d.) of coin hoards, c.973-1544 (n=701)............................................................................................................................................................ 30 Figure 4.4. Spatial distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards in Phase A (c.973-1066)............................................ 31 Figure 4.5. Spatial distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards in Phase B (1066-1158)............................................ 32 Figure 4.6. Spatial distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards in Phase C (1158-1279)............................................ 34 Figure 4.7. Spatial distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards deposited 1279-1412 in Phase D (1279-1544)......... 35 Figure 4.8. Spatial distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards deposited 1412-1544 in Phase D (1279-1544)......... 35 Figure 4.9. Hoards per-annum compared to Allen’s (2012) estimates of the size of the currency..................................... 36 Figure 4.10. Median face values (d.) of coin hoards compared to Allen’s (2012) estimates of the size of the currency......................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 4.11. Chronological distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards (n=780) compared to single finds (n=19050),c.973-1544................................................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 4.12. Comparative spatial distributions of hoards and single finds in Phase A (c.973-1066)................................. 39 Figure 4.13. Comparative spatial distributions of hoards and single finds in Phase B (1066-1158).................................. 40 Figure 4.14. Comparative spatial distributions of hoards and single finds in Phase C (1158-1279).................................. 40 Figure 4.15. Comparative spatial distributions of hoards and single finds in Phase D (1279-1544).................................. 41 Figure 4.16. Boxplot of the distributions of minimum contemporary face values (d.) of coin hoards by single find quintile, 1066-1544........................................................................................................................................... 42 viii

Andrews.indd 8

27/11/2019 11:15

List of Figures Figure 4.17. Comparative spatial distributions of Phase B (1066-1158) coin hoards and estimated population densities (after Broadberry et al 2015, 20-27) in 1086....................................................................................................... 43 Figure 4.18. Comparative spatial distributions of Period 9 (1279-1351) coin hoards and estimated population densities (after Broadberry et al 2015, 25-26) in c.1290.................................................................................................... 44 Figure 4.19. Comparative spatial distributions of Period 10 (1351-1412) coin hoards and estimated population densities (after Broadberry et al 2015, 25-26) in 1377....................................................................................................... 45 Figure 4.20. Comparative spatial distributions of Phase B (1066-1158) coin hoards and Domesday value (after Darby 1977, 359) densities in 1086.......................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 4.21. Comparative spatial distributions of Period 9 (1279-1351) coin hoards and lay subsidy assessed wealth (after Campbell and Bartley 2006, 324-25) densities in 1334................................................................................ 47 Figure 4.22. Comparative spatial distributions of Period 12 (1465-1544) coin hoards and lay subsidy assessed wealth (after Sheail 1972, 113-16) densities in 1524-5...................................................................................................... 48 Figure 4.23. Chronological distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards compared to the stock of active boroughs (after Letters 2013), c.973-1544......................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 4.24. Regression analysis of the distance between boroughs and coin hoards (n=69), and boroughs and random points (n=69), in Phase A (c.973-1066).......................................................................................................... 50 Figure 4.25. Regression analysis of the distance between boroughs and coin hoards (n=105), and boroughs and random points (n=105), in Phase B (1066-1158)......................................................................................................... 50 Figure 4.26. Regression analysis of the distance between boroughs and coin hoards (n=168), and boroughs and random points (n=168), in Phase C (1158-1279)......................................................................................................... 51 Figure 4.27. Regression analysis of the distance between boroughs and coin hoards (n=445), and boroughs and random points (n=445), in Phase D (1279-1544)........................................................................................................ 51 Figure 4.28. Regression analysis of the distance between roads and coin hoards (n=445), and roads and random points (n=445), in Phase D (1279-1544)............................................................................................................... 52 Figure 4.29. Regression analysis of the distance between navigable rivers and coin hoards (n=69), and navigable rivers and random points (n=69), in Phase A (c.973-1066)............................................................................... 52 Figure 4.30. Regression analysis of the distance between navigable rivers and coin hoards (n=105), and navigable rivers and random points (n=105), in Phase B (1066-1158).............................................................................. 53 Figure 4.31. Regression analysis of the distance between navigable rivers and coin hoards (n=168), and navigable rivers and random points (n=168), in Phase C (1158-1279).............................................................................. 53 Figure 4.32. Distribution of closing types of grade 3-4 coin hoards of the reigns of Edward the Confessor, Harold II, and William I from Hampshire and Sussex, compared to the rest of England and Wales................................. 55 Figure 4.33. Distribution of closing types of grade 3-4 coin hoards of the reigns of Edward the Confessor, Harold II, and William I from Yorkshire, compared to the rest of England and Wales...................................................... 55 Figure 4.34. Distribution of closing types of grade 2-4 coin hoards of the reigns of Edward the Confessor, Harold II, and William I from Hampshire and Sussex, compared to the rest of England and Wales................................. 56 Figure 4.35. Distribution of closing types of grade 2-4 coin hoards of the reigns of Edward the Confessor, Harold II, and William I from Yorkshire, compared to the rest of England and Wales...................................................... 56 Figure 4.36. Distribution of closing types of grade 2-4 coin hoards of Period 5 (1135-1158) from the East Midlands, compared to the rest of England and Wales....................................................................................................... 58 Figure 4.37. Distribution of closing types of grade 2-4 coin hoards of Period 5 (1135-1158) from the South West, compared to the rest of England and Wales.............................................................................................................. 58 Figure 4.38. Distribution of closing types of Grade 3-4 coin hoards of Period 9 (1279-1351) from Northern England, compared to the rest of England and Wales......................................................................................................... 60 Figure 5.1. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the nominal structures of coin hoards deposited c.973-1066, based on 33 hoards containing 12+ coins. Join heights indicate the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between hoards; low joins therefore indicate a greater degree of similarity between hoards than high joins............................................... 65 Figure 5.2. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards, c.973-1066. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.1........... 66 ix

Andrews.indd 9

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 Figure 5.3. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=30) by nominal structure cluster, c.973-1066............................... 67 Figure 5.4. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the nominal structures of coin hoards deposited 1066-1158, based on 44 hoards containing 12+ coins........................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 5.5. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 1 (clusters A-B), 1066-1158. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.2..................................................................................................................................... 70 Figure 5.6. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 2-5 (clusters C-J), 1066-1158. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.2..................................................................................................................................... 70 Figure 5.7. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=42) by nominal structure cluster, 1066-1158................................ 71 Figure 5.8. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the nominal structures of coin hoards deposited 1158-1279, based on 98 hoards containing 12+ coins..................................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 5.9. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 1 (cluster A), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.3..................................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 5.10. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 2 (clusters B-C), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.3......................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 5.11. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 3 (clusters D-E), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.3......................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 5.12. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 4 (clusters F-H), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.3......................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 5.13. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 5 (clusters I-K), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.3......................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 5.14. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 6-7 (clusters L-O), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.3......................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 5.15. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=94) by nominal structure cluster, 1158-1279.............................. 76 Figure 5.16. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the nominal structures of coin hoards deposited 1279-1351, based on 76 hoards containing 12+ coins........................................................................................................................... 78 Figure 5.17. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 1 (clusters A-B), 1279-1351. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.4......................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 5.18. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 2 (clusters C-D), 1279-1351. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.4......................................................................................................................... 80 Figure 5.19. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 3 (clusters E-G), 1279-1351. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.4......................................................................................................................... 80 Figure 5.20. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 4 (clusters H-J), 1279-1351. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.4......................................................................................................................... 81 Figure 5.21. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 5-8 (clusters K-P), 1279-1351. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.4......................................................................................................................... 81 Figure 5.22. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=74) by nominal structure cluster, 1279-1351............................. 82 Figure 5.23. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the nominal structures of coin hoards deposited 1351-1412, based on 45 hoards containing 12+ coins........................................................................................................................... 83 Figure 5.24. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 1 (cluster A), 1351-1412. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.5..................................................................................................................................... 84 Figure 5.25. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 2 (clusters B-C), 1351-1412. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.5......................................................................................................................... 85 Figure 5.26. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 3 (clusters D-E), 1351-1412. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.5......................................................................................................................... 85 Figure 5.27. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 4 (clusters F-H), 1351-1412. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.5......................................................................................................................... 86

x

Andrews.indd 10

27/11/2019 11:15

List of Figures Figure 5.28. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 5-6 (clusters I-K), 1351-1412. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.5......................................................................................................................... 86 Figure 5.29. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 7 (clusters L-N), 1351-1412. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.5......................................................................................................................... 87 Figure 5.30. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=44) by nominal structure cluster, 1351-1412............................. 87 Figure 5.31. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the nominal structures of coin hoards deposited 1412-1464, based on 35 hoards containing 12+ coins........................................................................................................................... 89 Figure 5.32. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 1 (clusters A-D), 1412-1464. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.6......................................................................................................................... 90 Figure 5.33. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 2 (clusters E-F), 1412-1464. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.6......................................................................................................................... 91 Figure 5.34. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 3 (clusters G-H), 1412-1464. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.6......................................................................................................................... 91 Figure 5.35. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 4 (clusters I-J), 1412-1464. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.6......................................................................................................................... 92 Figure 5.36. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 5-6 (clusters K-L), 1412-1464. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.6......................................................................................................................... 92 Figure 5.37. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=34) by nominal structure cluster, 1412-1464............................. 93 Figure 5.38. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the nominal structures of coin hoards deposited 1465-1544, based on 48 hoards containing 12+ coins........................................................................................................................... 94 Figure 5.39. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 1 (cluster A), 1465-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.7..................................................................................................................................... 95 Figure 5.40. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 2 (clusters B-C), 1465-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.7......................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 5.41. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 2 (clusters D-E), 1465-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.7......................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 5.42. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 3 (clusters F-H), 1465-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.7......................................................................................................................... 97 Figure 5.43. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 4 (cluster I), 1465-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.7..................................................................................................................................... 97 Figure 5.44. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 5-7 (clusters J-N), 1465-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.7......................................................................................................................... 98 Figure 5.45. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=43) by nominal structure cluster, 1465-1544............................. 98 Figure 5.46. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the age structures of coin hoards deposited c.973-1158, based on 62 hoards containing 12+ coins......................................................................................................................... 102 Figure 5.47. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 1-3 (clusters A-C), c.973-1158. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.8....................................................................................................................... 104 Figure 5.48. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 3 (cluster D), c.973-1158; the structures of these hoards are identical, and therefore overlay one another on the graph. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.8........ 104 Figure 5.49. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 4-5 (clusters E-I), c.973-1158. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.8................................................................................................................................... 105 Figure 5.50. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 6 (cluster J; sub-clusters α-β), c.973-1158. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.8; sub-cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.9........................................... 105 Figure 5.51. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 6 (cluster J; sub-clusters γ-ε), c.973-1158. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.8; sub-cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.9........................................... 106 Figure 5.52. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 6 (clusters K-L), c.973-1158. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.8................................................................................................................................... 106

xi

Andrews.indd 11

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 Figure 5.53. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 7-9 (clusters M-O), c.973-1158. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.8....................................................................................................................... 107 Figure 5.54. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 10 (clusters P-Q), c.973-1158. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.8................................................................................................................................... 107 Figure 5.55. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 10 (clusters R-T), c.973-1158. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.8................................................................................................................................... 108 Figure 5.56. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=58) by age structure cluster, c.973-1158.................................. 108 Figure 5.57. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the age structures of coin hoards deposited 1158-1279, based on 56 hoards containing 12+ coins................................................................................................................................... 110 Figure 5.58. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 1-2 (clusters A-E), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.10................................................................................................................................. 112 Figure 5.59. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 3-4 (clusters F-G), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.10................................................................................................................................. 112 Figure 5.60. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 5 (clusters H-J), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.10................................................................................................................................. 113 Figure 5.61. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 6 (cluster K), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.10................................................................................................................................. 113 Figure 5.62. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 7 (clusters L-M), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.10................................................................................................................................. 114 Figure 5.63. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 8 (clusters N-Q), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.10................................................................................................................................. 114 Figure 5.64. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 9 (clusters R-S), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.10................................................................................................................................. 115 Figure 5.65. Age structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 10 (cluster T), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.10................................................................................................................................. 115 Figure 5.66. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=51) by age structure cluster, 1158-1279................................... 116 Figure 5.67. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the age structures of the noble element of coin hoards deposited 1279-1544, based on 10 hoards containing 12+ coins..................................................................................... 118 Figure 5.68. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (noble element only) in supergroups 1-2 (clusters A-C), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.11................................................................................................. 119 Figure 5.69. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (noble element only) in supergroup 3 (clusters D-F), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.11................................................................................................. 120 Figure 5.70. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=10) by age structure cluster (noble element only), 1279-1544..... 120 Figure 5.71. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the age structures of the groat element of coin hoards deposited 1279-1544, based on 45 hoards containing 12+ coins...................................................................................................... 122 Figure 5.72. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (groat element only) in supergroup 1 (cluster A), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.12................................................................................................. 124 Figure 5.73. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (groat element only) in supergroup 1 (cluster B), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.12................................................................................................. 124 Figure 5.74. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (groat element only) in supergroup 1 (cluster C), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.12................................................................................................. 125 Figure 5.75. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (groat element only) in supergroup 2 (cluster D), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.12................................................................................................. 125 Figure 5.76. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (groat element only) in supergroup 2 (cluster E), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.12................................................................................................. 126 Figure 5.77. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (groat element only) in supergroups 2 and 4 (clusters F and H), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.12................................................................................. 126

xii

Andrews.indd 12

27/11/2019 11:15

List of Figures Figure 5.78. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (groat element only) in supergroup 3 (cluster G), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.12................................................................................................. 127 Figure 5.79. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (groat element only) in supergroups 5 and 8 (clusters I and O), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.12.................................................................................. 127 Figure 5.80. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (groat element only) in supergroup 6 (clusters J-K), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.12................................................................................................. 128 Figure 5.81. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (groat element only) in supergroup 6 (clusters L-M), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.12................................................................................................. 128 Figure 5.82. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (groat element only) in supergroups 7 and 8 (clusters N and P), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.12................................................................................. 129 Figure 5.83. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=41) by age structure cluster (groat element only), 1279-1544...... 129 Figure 5.84. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the age structures of the penny element of coin hoards deposited 1279-1544, based on 68 hoards containing 12+ coins...................................................................................................... 131 Figure 5.85. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (penny element only) in supergroup 1 (cluster A; sub-cluster α), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.13; sub-cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.14................... 133 Figure 5.86. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (penny element only) in supergroup 1 (cluster A; sub-cluster β), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.13; sub-cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.14................... 133 Figure 5.87. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (penny element only) in supergroup 1 (cluster A; sub-cluster γ), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.13; sub-cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.14................... 134 Figure 5.88. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (penny element only) in supergroup 1 (cluster A; sub-clusters δ, ε, and ζ), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.13; sub-cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.14........................................................................................................................................................ 134 Figure 5.89. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (penny element only) in supergroup 1 (clusters A and B; sub-clusters η, θ, ι, and κ), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.13; sub-cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.14........................................................................................................................................................ 135 Figure 5.90. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (penny element only) in supergroup 2 (clusters C-D), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.13................................................................................................. 135 Figure 5.91. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (penny element only) in supergroup 2 (cluster E), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.13................................................................................................. 136 Figure 5.92. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (penny element only) in supergroup 3 (cluster F), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.13................................................................................................. 136 Figure 5.93. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (penny element only) in supergroup 4 (clusters G-H), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.13................................................................................................. 137 Figure 5.94. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (penny element only) in supergroup 5 (clusters I-J), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.13................................................................................................. 137 Figure 5.95. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (penny element only) in supergroup 6 (clusters K-L), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.13................................................................................................. 138 Figure 5.96. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (penny element only) in supergroup 6 (clusters M-O), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.13................................................................................................. 138 Figure 5.97. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (penny element only) in supergroups 7-8 (clusters P-Q), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.13................................................................................................. 139 Figure 5.98. Age structures of sampled coin hoards (penny element only) in supergroups 9-10 (clusters R-T), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.13................................................................................................. 139 Figure 5.99. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=67) by age structure cluster (penny element only), 1279-1544......................................................................................................................................................................... 140 Figure 5.100. Spatial distribution of selected hoards by age structure sub-cluster (penny element only), 1279-1544......... 141 Figure 5.101. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the regional structures of coin hoards deposited c.973-1066, based on 23 hoards containing 12+ coins......................................................................................................................... 144 xiii

Andrews.indd 13

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 Figure 5.102. Regional structures of sampled coin hoards, c.973-1066. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.15....... 146 Figure 5.103. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=21) by regional structure cluster, c.973-1066......................... 147 Figure 5.104. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the regional structures of coin hoards deposited 1066-1158, based on 27 hoards containing 12+ coins......................................................................................................................... 148 Figure 5.105. Regional structures of sampled coin hoards, 1066-1158. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.16........ 149 Figure 5.106. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=26) by regional structure cluster, 1066-1158.......................... 150 Figure 5.107. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the regional structures of coin hoards deposited 1158-1279, based on 77 hoards containing 12+ coins......................................................................................................................... 151 Figure 5.108. Regional structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 1 (clusters A-F), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.17..................................................................................................................... 152 Figure 5.109. Regional structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 2 (clusters G-H), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.17..................................................................................................................... 153 Figure 5.110. Regional structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 3 (clusters I-J), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.17..................................................................................................................... 153 Figure 5.111. Regional structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 4 (cluster K), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.17..................................................................................................................... 154 Figure 5.112. Regional structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 5-6 (clusters L-N), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.17..................................................................................................................... 154 Figure 5.113. Regional structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 7-8 (clusters O-P), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.17..................................................................................................................... 155 Figure 5.114. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=75) by regional structure cluster, 1158-1279.......................... 155 Figure 5.115. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the regional structures of coin hoards deposited 1279-1544, based on 158 hoards containing 12+ coins....................................................................................................................... 157 Figure 5.116. Regional structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 1 (clusters A-B), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.18..................................................................................................................... 159 Figure 5.117. Regional structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 2 (clusters C-D), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.18..................................................................................................................... 159 Figure 5.118. Regional structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 3 (clusters E-I), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.18..................................................................................................................... 160 Figure 5.119. Regional structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 4-5 (clusters J-N), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.18..................................................................................................................... 160 Figure 5.120. Regional structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 6-7 (clusters O-P), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.18..................................................................................................................... 161 Figure 5.121. Regional structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 8-9 (clusters Q-T), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.18..................................................................................................................... 161 Figure 5.122. Regional structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 10-12 (clusters U-X), 1279-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.18..................................................................................................................... 162 Figure 5.123. Spatial distribution of localised hoards belonging to supergroups 1-4 (n=75) by regional structure cluster, 1279-1544.............................................................................................................................................. 162 Figure 5.124. Spatial distribution of localised hoards belonging to supergroups 5-12 (n=75) by regional structure cluster, 1279-1544.............................................................................................................................................. 163 Figure 5.125. Chronological distribution of ‘mixed’ hoards (n=41), dated by their numismatic elements, compared to all securely-periodised coin hoards (n=780), c.973-1544............................................................................ 166 Figure 5.126. Spatial distribution of localised ‘mixed’ hoards (n=41), compared to the spatial distribution of all coin hoards deposited c.973-1544........................................................................................................................... 166 Figure 5.127. Number of non-numismatic objects present in ‘mixed’ coin hoards (n=41), c.973-1544.......................... 167 Figure 5.128. Primary materials of non-numismatic objects (n=111) in ‘mixed’ coin hoards, c.973-1544..................... 168 xiv

Andrews.indd 14

27/11/2019 11:15

List of Figures Figure 5.129. Secondary and tertiary materials (n=37) of non-numismatic objects in ‘mixed’ coin hoards, c.973-1544.... 168 Figure 5.130. Non-numismatic objects present in ‘mixed’ coin hoards (n=111) by artefact class, c.973-1544............... 169 Figure 5.131. Inscribed silver finger ring from the South Warnborough (Hampshire; SWH) hoard (PAS SUR-842487, ©Surrey County Council, CC BY-SA 4.0 licence).................................................................................... 171 Figure 5.132. Inscribed silver disc brooch from the Sutton (Cambridgeshire; SUT) hoard (Hickes 1703, 187ff.)......... 175 Figure 6.1. Detail of miniature accompanying Boethius’ De Consolatione Philosophiae, illustrated by Jean Colombe, c.1477 (London, British Library, Harley MS 4339, f. 2, CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication licence).......... 178 Figure 6.2. Chronological distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards with containers (n=167), compared to all securely-periodised coin hoards (n=780), c.973-1544............................................................................................ 178 Figure 6.3. Spatial distribution of securely-periodised and localised coin hoards with associated containers (n=165)....... 179 Figure 6.4. Material compositions of English and Welsh coin hoard containers (n=182) deposited c.973-1544, compared with Danish hoard containers (n=137) deposited c.1050-c.1550..................................................................... 180 Figure 6.5. Ceramic jug container from the Ryther (North Yorkshire; RYT) hoard (York Museums Trust, accession no. YORYM.1994.151, author’s photograph; ©York Museums Trust (Yorkshire Museum))......................... 184 Figure 6.6. Ceramic jar from the Newark on Trent (Nottinghamshire; NWK) hoard (Toplis 1881, 308)........................ 185 Figure 6.7. Lead sheet container from the Tamworth (Staffordshire; TAM) hoard (Keary 1877, 340)........................... 187 Figure 6.8. Lead canister container from the Beauworth (Hampshire; BWH) hoard (Carlyon-Britton 1905, 102)......... 187 Figure 6.9. Hollow ironstone container from the Ampthill (Bedfordshire; AMP) hoard (Burgon 1840, 54)................... 188 Figure 6.10. Ceramic crucible from the St Mary at Hill (London; SMH) hoard (Griffith 1786, 357ff.).......................... 188 Figure 6.11. Copper-alloy tripod ewer container from the Balcombe (West Sussex; BAL) hoard (Cooper 1899, 231)...... 189 Figure 6.12. Silver-gilt reliquary pendant container from the Wragby area (Lincolnshire; WRG) hoard (Photo adapted from ©Portable Antiquities Scheme/The British Museum, CC BY-SA 4.0 licence).............................. 189

xv

Andrews.indd 15

27/11/2019 11:15

List of Tables Table 3.1. Coinless precious metal hoards from medieval England and Wales, ordered by terminus post quem (TPQ)....... 10 Table 3.2. Hoard periodisation system (adapted from Allen 2002 and Kelleher 2012)...................................................... 11 Table 3.3. Data quality codes and definitions..................................................................................................................... 14 Table 3.4. Data quality ratings by date of discovery........................................................................................................... 19 Table 3.5. Data quality ratings by circumstance of discovery, ordered alphabetically....................................................... 19 Table 4.1. Observed and expected numbers of hoards based on single find density quintiles in Phases A-D (c.973-1544)..... 41 Table 4.2. Observed and expected numbers of hoards based on population quintiles in 1086, c.1290, and 1377............. 43 Table 4.3. Observed and expected numbers of hoards based on assessed wealth quintiles in 1086, 1334, and 1524-1525..... 46 Table 5.1. Nominal structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, c.973-1066.................................................. 66 Table 5.2. Nominal structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, 1066-1158................................................... 69 Table 5.3. Nominal structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, 1158-1279................................................... 73 Table 5.4. Nominal structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, 1279-1351................................................... 79 Table 5.5. Nominal structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, 1351-1412................................................... 84 Table 5.6. Nominal structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, 1412-1464................................................... 90 Table 5.7. Nominal structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, 1465-1544................................................... 95 Table 5.8. Age structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, c.973-1158. Medians falling between two years are denoted as ‘h’.............................................................................................................................................. 103 Table 5.9. Age structure sub-cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, c.973-1158................................................. 109 Table 5.10. Age structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, 1158-1279. Medians falling between two years are denoted as ‘h’...............................................................................................................................................111 Table 5.11. Age structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards (noble element only), 1279-1544. Medians falling between two years are denoted as ‘h’..................................................................................................... 119 Table 5.12. Age structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards groat element only), 1279-1544. Medians falling between two years are denoted as ‘h’..................................................................................................... 123 Table 5.13. Age structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards (penny element only), 1279-1544. Medians falling between two years are denoted as ‘h’..................................................................................................... 132 Table 5.14. Age structure sub-cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards (penny element only), 1279-1544. Medians falling between two years are denoted as ‘h’..................................................................................................... 140 Table 5.15. Regional structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, c.973-1066.............................................. 146 Table 5.16. Regional structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, 1066-1158............................................... 149 Table 5.17. Regional structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, 1158-1279. Medians falling between two years are denoted as ‘h’............................................................................................................................... 152 Table 5.18. Regional structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, 1279-1544............................................... 158 Table 5.19. Number of ‘mixed’ hoards whose minimum face values are greater than, equal to, or less than the median face value for their period, based on 37 periodised ‘mixed’ hoards with known minimum face values............. 167 Table 5.20. Bullion face value equivalents of non-numismatic objects in six ‘mixed’ hoards. Coin weights from Allen (2012, 134-56), gold:silver ratio (1:10) from Nightingale (1984, 237).......................................................... 169 Table 6.1. Material composition of coin hoard containers (n=182), ordered alphabetically............................................ 179

xvi

Andrews.indd 16

27/11/2019 11:15

List of Tables Table 6.2. Chronological distribution of securely-periodised hoards with containers (n=165), ordered alphabetically by container material................................................................................................................................. 180 Table 6.3. Relationships between the minimum face values (d.) of securely-periodised hoards with containers and the median face values of all hoards of corresponding periods by container material (n=149)................................ 182 Table 6.4. Form classification of hoard containers (n=155), ordered by descending frequency...................................... 182 Table 6.5. Chronological distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards with containers (n=144), ordered by descending frequency........................................................................................................................................................ 183 Table 6.6. Chronological distribution of securely-periodised hoards from settlement sites by sub-class (n=136), ordered by descending frequency..................................................................................................................................... 191 Table 6.7. Chronological distribution of securely-periodised hoards from religious sites by sub-class (n=65), ordered by descending frequency..................................................................................................................................... 193 Table 6.8. Chronological distribution of securely-periodised hoards from ancient monuments by sub-class (n=18), ordered by descending frequency........................................................................................................................ 196 Table 6.9. Chronological distribution of securely-periodised hoards from ‘landscape’ locations by sub-class (n=357), ordered by descending frequency...................................................................................................................... 198

xvii

Andrews.indd 17

27/11/2019 11:15

Abstract This book presents an archaeological and numismatic analysis of coin hoarding in medieval England and Wales, using sophisticated multivariate and spatial techniques to identify, characterise, and interpret patterns in hoards as a means of understanding the specific behaviours, motivations, and mentalités that effected their formation and deposition throughout the period c.973-1544. The primary source material, much of it hitherto unpublished, consists of a bespoke research database of 815 medieval coin hoards, which contains information relating to both the contents and archaeological contexts of hoards and their spatial and temporal circumstances of deposition and rediscovery. This material is scrutinised across four key chapters that explore different aspects of hoarding phenomena. The impacts of post-depositional processes on data coverage and representativeness are discussed in chapter three, and inform considerations of the spatial and temporal incidence of coin hoarding presented in chapter four; analyses presented in this latter chapter situate hoarding in a wider archaeological and historical context, and highlight the influence of background economic and monetary phenomena on global trends in hoard patterning. Chapter five offers a large-scale study of patterns in numismatic and non-numismatic contents, and evidences the technical processes and subjective considerations – both economic and non-economic – that resulted in the production of hoard deposits. These findings are complemented in chapter six by a pioneering discussion of the containers and archaeological contexts of medieval hoard deposits, which emphasise the diverse motives behind hoarding behaviour. The results of this study therefore offer significant new insights into coin hoarding as a medieval socio-economic phenomenon, and are of direct relevance to wider debates concerning the relationships between people, places, and objects in historic societies.

xviii

Andrews.indd 18

27/11/2019 11:15

1 Introduction: coin hoards and medieval archaeology On a winter’s day in January 1448 three men met at Towcester, the appointed executors of the late parish rector William Sponne, former Archdeacon of Norfolk. Their task was not entirely straightforward, for Sponne was a man of some means and planned to be remembered as such. According to the terms of his will, the men were to commission a memorial chantry in the south aisle of Towcester’s church of St Lawrence, which would be staffed by two priests sustained using income from property eventually bequeathed to the parish in 1451 (Cox 1906, 181). His funeral, meanwhile, was to be an elaborate event in its own right. Thirteen men robed in white were to carry Sponne’s shrouded corpse to the chancel, where it would be interred on a bed of white sand inside a large, fashionable cadaver tomb of white stone, topped with a painted wooden effigy robed in ecclesiastical garments – a grand design more befitting a cathedral than a parish church (Giggins 2010, 26; Bailey, Pevsner, and Cherry 2013, 621). Memorials like these were costly, and had to be financed with the cash left behind in Sponne’s personal coffers. It was for this reason that the executors made their way towards the rectory house, where, having prised open a crevice in an interior wall, they uncovered £2000 in gold coin, money apparently hidden by the late minister for safekeeping (Knighton 2003, 127, no. 212).

sequences, mirroring a common application of cemetery evidence in studies of other artefact classes (e.g. Brooke 1916, cxciv-cxcv; Allen 1951, lx; cf. Petrie 1899, 297-300; Bayliss et al. 2013). Associated non-numismatic artefacts like personal jewellery or ceramic containers arouse archaeological interest for similar reasons, providing welldated objects that can be integrated into typo-chronologies (e.g. Sarfatij 1979, 492-95; Hinton 1982, 7; Röber 1989, 107-11; Theune 2010). While these issues have been the primary focus of medieval hoard scholarship for the past two centuries, there have also been parallel attempts to apply the evidence of coin hoards to higher level discussions within the historical sciences. Working from the premise that the coins in hoards represent samples of currency abstracted from circulation, numismatists have used hoard evidence to address problems within the discipline of monetary history; in this fashion, coin hoards have been employed as source material for reconstructions of the composition and size of medieval currency at specified dates, and as evidence for the varied impacts of monetary policies and political reforms on medieval economies (e.g. Spufford 1970, 56-73; Jonsson 1987; Archibald 1988, 286-93; Allen 2007, 202-06; 2012, 317-45; Svensson 2017). Efforts to apply coin hoard evidence to wider questions in medieval archaeology, however, are few and far between, and in a British context fall into two camps: either hoards are sparingly presented as illustrations of phenomena otherwise studied from non-hoard sources (e.g. Platt 1978, 101; Hinton 1990, 209; Roesdahl and Verhaeghe 2011, 197), or they are entirely absent from the archaeological narrative (e.g. Clarke 1984). This disconnect between the perceived archaeological and numismatic potential of medieval coin hoards is by no means a uniquely British problem (Kemmers and Myrberg 2011, 87-88), and, where not reflecting prejudices about the interest or utility of numismatic evidence (Laing 1969, xv; Casey 1986, 7), reveals unspoken assumptions about the uniform function and meaning of coins in cross-cultural contexts (e.g. Grierson 1975, 2-5). If coins are thought to relate principally to monetary and political issues, then it follows that hoard evidence is best directed to answering questions of a similar character.

Sponne’s cache is an early example of what would now be termed a coin hoard, a class of archaeological assemblage usually defined as a group of two or more coins deposited together (Grierson 1975, 130; Casey 1986, 51; GrinderHansen 1992, 26; Moesgaard 2015, 6). Under the guise of ‘buried treasure’, hoards of coins and other objects have long excited public interest, and remain an enduring element of modern pop culture: treasure hunts are central plot devices in blockbuster films, and genuine discoveries of archaeological hoards routinely excite press coverage in print and television media. Within the modern imagination, hoards tell romantic tales of lost fortunes, of plunder and unrest, and of the thrill of discovery; they speak, therefore, to the concerns and desires of the present as much as they do to the affairs of the past. Within the twin disciplines of medieval archaeology and numismatics, however, coin hoards have often assumed a more muted interest. To numismatists, hoards have a primary value insofar as they provide specimens of coins, sometimes in great numbers, that can be individually classified, measured, and weighed to shed light on the structure and technical organisation of medieval coinage and coin production (e.g. Petersson 1969; Archibald 2001; Archibald and Cook 2001, 69-91; Churchill and Thomas 2012). Moreover, as ‘closed sets’ of synchronous objects, coin hoards offer useful pegs in numismatic dating

To some extent, however, a singular focus on the potential of medieval coin hoards as economic or monetary evidence presumes an ability to run when in fact we are still learning to walk. For most parts of Europe, the nature of coin hoarding as an independent socio-economic phenomenon of the medieval period remains poorly understood, and consequently key questions remain unresolved: who composed coin hoards, what did they put in them, how 1

Andrews.indd 1

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 and where did they bury them and, ultimately, why did they do it? While answers have often been sought in later historical analogies, the most significant evidence surely consists of patterns in the hoards themselves. In this respect, the dearth of modern archaeological and numismatic syntheses of medieval European coin hoards is a major disciplinary stumbling block (but cf. GrinderHansen 1992 and Gullbekk and Sættem 2019), and indeed many basic matters of fact – relating, for instance, to patterns in the chronological and spatial incidence of coin hoards, their numismatic and non-numismatic contents, and their depositional circumstances – remain entirely unresolved. The situation in England and Wales is no exception to this trend; previous reviews of medieval coin hoard evidence by Thompson (1956, xxiii-xlix) and Allen (2002; 2015a) are brief and of limited scope, the former being primarily concerned with the relationship between coin hoards and documented political events, and the latter with specific aspects of their numismatic contents and spatial distributions. Without a basic knowledge of the pattern of coin hoards, we cannot hope to achieve a rounded understanding of hoarding as a socio-economic phenomenon, and without this, it is difficult to see how anything but the most banal historical conclusions can be drawn from hoard evidence.

coin hoards might be ‘re-membered’ into wider discourses in contemporary medieval archaeology (Myrberg 2009, 170-71; Kemmers and Myrberg 2011, 104). The aims of this study, therefore, are to identify, characterise, and interpret archaeological and numismatic patterns in coin hoards deposited in England and Wales during the period c.973-1544, paying particular attention to the behaviour and motivations of individuals involved in the hoarding process. In order to direct study, six principal research questions have been designed: 1. Where and when have coin hoards been recovered, and what factors condition these distributions? 2. What do patterns in the temporal and spatial incidence of coin hoards tell us about hoarding behaviour? 3. What patterns, if any, are visible in the numismatic elements of medieval coin hoards, and what do they tell us about hoarding behaviour? 4. What non-numismatic objects, if any, are found in medieval coin hoards, and what do they tell us about hoarding behaviour? 5. What types of containers, if any, were used to store coin hoards, and what do they tell us about hoarding behaviour? 6. What patterns, if any, are visible in the archaeological contexts of coin hoards, and what do they tell us about hoarding behaviour?

This study seeks to address the lacunae in medieval hoard studies through a systematic archaeological and numismatic analysis of the evidence for coin hoarding in England and Wales during the period c.973-1544. At one level, its appearance reflects a groundswell of archaeological and numismatic interest in hoarding as a socio-economic phenomenon pursuant on the evergrowing number of hoards uncovered by members of the public, and in particular by hobbyist metal detectorists, in Britain and in other European countries (Östergren 2009, 14-15; Scholz 2011; Bland 2013, 214; Ghey 2015). From a methodological perspective, however, it is also a particularly opportune moment at which to examine hoard evidence. Advances in computer technology have simplified the collation, storage, and analysis of large and complex archaeological datasets, and consequently allow us to ask ever more sophisticated questions of hoard data; moreover, the proliferation of comparative digital datasets permit cross-examinations of archaeological and historical sources in ways that were inconceivable to previous generations of scholars. In the present context, therefore, a thorough examination of the archaeological and numismatic evidence for medieval coin hoarding, informed by modern cross-disciplinary scholarship and using sophisticated methods of data analysis, has the potential to not only set our understanding of hoarding phenomena on a firm empirical footing, but might also offer entirely new insights into the practices and mentalités that underpinned the hoarding process in a peculiarly medieval context. On this basis, it becomes possible to not only re-evaluate the potential of hoards as source material for economic and monetary history, but to also employ hoards as a more general source of information relating to the people and societies that produced them; in this way,

The study is structured around seven chapters. The present chapter has set out the underlying rationales, aims, and questions behind the research project. The second chapter, meanwhile, reviews theoretical and methodological issues of relevance to the study of medieval coin hoards, drawing conclusions that inform interpretations of the evidence advanced elsewhere in the study. The third chapter addresses specific problems relating to the production and analysis of the hoard dataset, delineating core research parameters and frameworks, outlining data sources, and employing source-critical methods to explore the impact of post-depositional processes on data coverage and representativeness. The fourth chapter outlines macroscale patterns in the incidence of coin hoarding in England and Wales c.973-1544, exploring the relationship between hoarding and underlying chronologies and geographies of commerce, conflict, population, and wealth derived from external archaeological and historical sources. The fifth chapter refocuses attention towards the compositional dimensions of hoard deposits, analysing their numismatic and non-numismatic elements as a means of understanding hoarding behaviour; the sixth, meanwhile, extends this study to the containers and archaeological contexts that hoards were deposited in, a hitherto unexplored dimension of the English and Welsh hoard dataset. A concluding chapter draws together key research findings and explores their implications for an understanding of hoarding phenomena and for wider issues in archaeology and numismatics. This is followed by a bibliography and an appendix containing a fully-referenced gazetteer of English and Welsh coin hoards deposited during the period c.973-1544. 2

Andrews.indd 2

27/11/2019 11:15

2 Approaches to coin hoards: theory and practice This chapter reviews foundational concepts and issues of relevance to the study of medieval coin hoards as a means of framing subsequent analyses of the English and Welsh hoard data. It begins by outlining three key concepts – coins, hoards, and money – and explores their connections with notions of value and treasure, which are situated in a broader context to understand the relationship of hoarding to wider questions of wealth, social status and identity in medieval Europe. This is followed by a review of existing interpretative and methodological frameworks prevalent within the wider field of hoard studies. Core thematic issues and findings are summarised at the end of the chapter.

2007, 45; Haselgrove and Krmnicek 2012, 236). ‘Value’ here refers specifically to economic value, a property that medieval scholars and theologians understood to derive from the intrinsic characteristics of objects and external changes wrought upon them (Farber 2006, 50-59). The capacity of coins to possess and manifest economic value cannot, therefore, be divorced from their materiality (Kluge 2007, 26; Kemmers and Myrberg 2011, 88). In the first instance, gold and silver coins were made of scarce materials, derived from mines and workings scattered across central Europe, Africa, and Asia (Spufford 1988, 163-86; Campbell 1991, 108-10; Kuroda 2009, 24956). Moreover, these materials were thought to possess ‘intrinsic’ sensory and symbolic facets that underpinned their economic values (Clark 1986, 50; Hobbs 2006, 6); Thomas Aquinas, for example, argued that the ‘excellence and purity’ of gold and silver imbued objects of these materials with economic worth (Shapcote 1920, 322), and an emphasis on the material splendour of precious metal coins is occasionally reflected in the names that contemporaries used for particular denominations, such as the English gold noble, or the Spanish gold excellente. At the same time, human labour expended in the processes by which precious metals were transformed into coined money contributed to the economic values of the finished products (cf. Dyer 2011, 218), involving a complex chaîne opératoire that encompassed the physical mining and processing of raw materials, their transportation to mints, the preparation of raw material and tools necessary for the minting process, the physical striking of coins, and subsequent quality control assessments (McLees 1994; Bayley 2008; Allen 2012, 103-33; Scholz and Lentzsch 2014). Beyond these technical processes, the social statuses of those involved in coin production – which variously included elite goldsmiths, mint-masters, and moneyers, and at a more distant level kings, aristocrats, and senior ecclesiastics (Nightingale 1982, 38-41; Allen 2012, 101) – could imbue the resultant objects with special esteem reflected in their economic worth (Gurevich 1985, 185; cf. Flad 2012, 309-11). Although economic value was a pre-eminent property of coins as money, coins as objects could acquire other forms of value connected with their accumulated histories of ownership and possession, their potential non-monetary functions, and their symbolic meanings and connotations; in this respect, coins can be considered a peculiarly hypervalorised object class, a characteristic that has important repercussions for archaeological interpretation.

2.1 Laying foundations: coins, hoards, money, value, treasure The concept of the coin hoard is one that has evaded explicit theorisation in medieval archaeology and numismatics, reflecting a traditional reliance on ‘commonsense’ interpretations concerning the familiarity of coins as monetary media. It is prudent, therefore, to spend some time addressing theoretical concepts of relevance to an understanding of coin hoarding in its specifically medieval context. If a hoard is defined as a group of objects deliberately brought together (Ghey 2015, 11), then it follows that a coin hoard is defined as a group of coins deliberately brought together (Grierson 1975, 130; Casey 1986, 15). Coin hoards are reflected archaeologically, however, by groups of coins that were not only intentionally brought together, but were also subsequently deposited together, regardless of whether the act of deposition was intentional or accidental. In this manner, coin hoards can be contrasted with ‘single finds’ of individual coins deposited on their own, which can similarly derive from deliberate (e.g. an individual coin presented at a shrine) or unintentional (e.g. an individual coin lost from a purse) acts of deposition (Moesgaard 2002, 228-30; Blackburn 2005, 10). These definitions, of course, presuppose a working understanding of what a coin is. In a medieval European context, coins can be broadly defined as small, flat objects, usually of discoidal shape, and generally made of precious metal of standardised fineness and weight, that have been stamped with images and texts relating to the authorities – civic, religious, or royal – responsible for their production, and that are primarily intended for use as a form of money, a concept that is traditionally defined by its functions as a standard for measuring value, a medium of exchange, a standard of deferred payment, and a store of value in the abstract (Grierson 1975, 6; Britnell 2004; Kluge

As accumulations of valuable objects, coin hoards necessarily represent tangible forms of wealth or, in the terms of the thirteenth-century legal treatise Bracton, of treasure (Thorne 1968, 338). Treasure is a concept 3

Andrews.indd 3

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 inextricably linked to coin hoards (Johns 1996, 2-3; Descatoire 2007a, 9-10), and its Latin form, thesaurus, is employed in four main senses in medieval texts:

be considered as wealth accumulations, both reflecting and actively reproducing the social status and identities of the individuals responsible for their formation. This framework is valuable, if a little partial, and should be accompanied by a brief statement concerning the peculiarities of coin hoards as archaeological assemblages. As assemblages, coin hoards possess contents and contexts generated through a dialectic of human behaviour and natural process, and can be considered to possess biographical characteristics (cf. Joyce and Pollard 2010, 308-09). Hoards are ‘born’ through a process of accumulation or thesaurisation, in which objects are withdrawn from everyday use or circulation contexts, and brought together in a group; they are then subject to successive stages of containment and deposition, of dormancy in the ground, of eventual rediscovery, and of final entry into the archaeological record through an act of registration (Sarvas 1981; Grinder-Hansen 1992). The pre- and peridepositional stages of hoard biography are of special historic relevance insofar as they involve successive acts of past agency; hoards are assembled, contained, and deposited by people operating within – and in the process reproducing or transforming – definite cultural and material frameworks that condition decisions on what to bring together, how to assemble them, and where to deposit them. Through the twin lenses of textual evidence and assemblage theory, therefore, the processes of hoard formation and deposition can be considered as successive steps in the assemblage biographies of coin hoards that involve interactions between people, objects, and places, each of which could be imbued with meaning and value. By studying hoards in their totality as assemblages, it should be possible to identify processes involved in their formation and containment and deposition, and to thereby broach motives and meanings behind the hoarding process.

1. A ‘treasure’ (i.e. an accumulation of precious or valuable things); 2. A place where valuables are stored (i.e. a treasury); 3. An institution concerned with treasure (e.g. a state treasury or exchequer); 4. The legal concept of treasure trove. While the final three definitions are concerned with treasure of a material kind, the first – an accumulation of valuable things – need not be; in their study of the concept of treasure in medieval French texts, Bon and GuerreauJalabert (2008, 98) have demonstrated that spiritual characters and moral values are labelled as ‘treasures’ at least as frequently as material objects are, articulating an important contrast between ‘earthly’ and ‘heavenly’ treasures that are otherwise identified in the usage of the Middle English noun trēsŏur (Lewis et al. 1993, 1032-34). Medieval coin hoards could, therefore, be considered a very ‘earthly’ form of treasure, and therefore of wealth in general; insofar as wealth is a key constituent of social status (Gurevich 1985, 215-19), coin hoards would not only reflect the status of their owners but, in a systemic context, would have been pivotal in constructing and maintaining that status. Coin hoards are, however, only a slight subset of the category of wealth, and pale in significance when compared to wealth in land (Martin 1997, 48). A measure of this discrepancy can be provided by the case of the Tutbury hoard, by far the largest hoard of medieval coins hitherto uncovered on British soil, and potentially consisting of a parcel lost from the war chest of Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, after his flight from Tutbury Castle in 1322 (Kelleher and Williams 2011, 67-69). Though overwhelmingly large in numismatic terms, it ranks rather modestly when compared to the Earl’s finances; in 1311 his gross income, drawn mainly from his extensive landholdings, amounted to £11,000 (Given-Wilson 1996, 30). Even at its largest estimate, the Tutbury hoard would have therefore represented less than two month’s landed income for a man of Thomas’ stature. Moreover, it is important to recognise that the form taken by wealth was not a trivial matter in medieval Europe (Gurevich 1985, 215), and nor was it necessarily the principal constituent of status and identity (Dyer 1998, 314); for Welsh aristocrats, for example, tradition rated lineal descent and gentility, and not monetary wealth, as the primary influences on social standing (Davies 1995, 49).

2.2 The motives of hoarders Motivation is a key concept in hoard studies, and its interpretation has long preceded the systematic analysis of hoard evidence. For many numismatists, the identification of coins with money forms both the start and end points of interpretation: coined money functions as a relatively stable and physically discrete store of economic value (Grierson 1975, 6), and consequently coin hoards can be understood as accumulated monetary wealth abstracted from the circulation sphere and temporarily deposited for purposes of safekeeping (Grierson 1975, 130-36; Moesgaard 2002, 230; Kluge 2007, 28; Bland 2015, 15). From this perspective, the hoard record is essentially a catalogue of failures, consisting of deposits that for one reason or another were never collected by their owners; assuming that non-recovery occurs at random, the resulting hoard record should nonetheless provide a reasonably accurate sample of background patterns in hoard formation and deposition at a given time and place (Casey 1986, 53; Reece 2002, 71; Kluge 2007, 33; Guest 2015, 101). This ‘safekeeping’ interpretation has specific resonance in the context of medieval texts; Bracton, for example, notes that

The conceptual associations of coins and hoards expressed in medieval texts set out some basic lines of interpretation for the analysis of coin hoards as medieval socio-economic phenomena. Coins, in both their functional role as money media and in their physical form as material objects, possessed economic and social values; insofar as they group together objects of value, coin hoards can therefore 4

Andrews.indd 4

27/11/2019 11:15

Approaches to coin hoards: theory and practice people might hide objects ‘in the earth for gain or through fear or for safekeeping’ (Thorne 1968, 338).

the possibility that ‘ritual’ concepts might have been invoked during the deposition of ‘safekeeping’ hoards, and vice-versa; the validity of either approach must surely be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Given the explicit links between coins, money, and wealth, this ‘safekeeping’ model is understandably the dominant paradigm in the study of medieval coin hoards. Within the broader field of hoard studies, however, a growing volume of research in pre- and early historic archaeology situates hoards in the framework of ‘ritual’ deposition, often of a presumed votive character (e.g. Aitchison 1988, 275-77; Fitzpatrick 2005; van Heesch 2005; Moorhead, Booth and Bland 2010; Score 2011; Hurst and Leins 2013), a position seemingly at odds with the ‘safekeeping’ model. In part, the differences in interpretation reflect different angles of enquiry; whereas ‘safekeeping’ interpretations take the contents of hoards as their starting point, ‘ritual’ interpretations place greater emphasis on the evidence of archaeological contexts, highlighting depositional environments – for instance, hoards placed in or near ‘irretrievable’, typically wet, locations, or in otherwise topographically distinct places (e.g. Bradley 1990; Bradley 2000; Cowie 2004; Yates and Bradley 2010; Fontijn 2012) – that are considered to be impractical sites for recoverable deposits. However, prehistorians and Roman archaeologists have also drawn attention to aspects of the selection and treatment of hoard contents (e.g. Levy 1982; Aitchison 1988; Ghey 2015, 25-26) that are counter-intuitive to the ‘safekeeping’ of valuables, and might instead reflect traces of ritualised behaviour.

A key dimension of this discussion concerns the influence of methodological differences on interpretations of the motivations of hoarders; ‘safekeeping’ interpretations usually approach hoards from the perspective of their contents, whereas ‘ritual’ interpretations typically prioritise depositional contexts. While this decoupling of contents from contexts raises interpretative problems, it nonetheless provides a useful means of reviewing existing methodological approaches, to which we will now turn. 2.3 Approaches to hoarding I: content-driven study Content-driven approaches to the analysis of medieval hoard evidence have been common since the early nineteenth century. By the late twentieth century two distinct research traditions relating to the analysis of hoard contents had emerged in European scholarship, distinguished here as ‘typological’ and ‘applied’ approaches. 2.3.1 Typological approaches Typology has a long lineage in hoard studies (e.g. Evans 1881, 457-59), and several classificatory schemes have developed as a means of categorising individual coin hoards; among the most influential is that of Philip Grierson (1975, 131-36) which, building on earlier work (Laing 1969, 56-60), proposed a fourfold classification of abandoned, accidental, emergency, and savings hoards, each loosely defined according to aspects of numismatic composition. The names Grierson attributes to particular classes reflect the underlying duality of the typological approach; on the one hand, typologies seek to discern groups of mutually-similar finds while, on the other, they offer an interpretative framework within which similar hoards can be understood. While such approaches have met with widespread approval among numismatists – particularly unusual in a discipline characterised by distinctive regional research traditions (Suchodolski 1998, 367) – objections have been levelled at their practical utility; both Reece (2002, 72) and Blackburn (2005, 13) argue that a hoard’s contents rarely, if ever, provide strong evidence with which to assign it to a particular class, while Kent (1988, 202) lists the numerous unproven assumptions that typological approaches rely on. Moreover, from an archaeological perspective, we might argue that extant typologies are of poor quality; boundaries between classes are ill-defined and overlap, while value-laden class names (e.g. ‘savings hoard’, ‘purse hoard’) form an interpretative straitjacket based on flimsy assumptions concerning their distinctiveness in the numismatic record. Given their limited utility and numerous flaws, the extent to which a-priori hoard typologies represent a fruitful approach to understanding hoard evidence is questionable.

‘Ritual’ interpretations of hoarding phenomena have found little favour in medieval numismatics (although cf. Van Vilsteren 2000). Aside from a general disdain towards the notion of deliberately depositing valuables without the intent of recovery, it has often been suggested that Christian practice is incompatible with votive behaviour (Bradley 2000, 153; Krabath 2007, 116; Bland 2015, 2). These presumptions are, however, difficult to sustain; there is in fact a considerable body of evidence relating to votive deposition in late medieval western Europe (e.g. Stocker and Everson 2003; Anderson 2010, 198-200), some of which explicitly involved the use of coins (e.g. Caruana 1991; Van Vilsteren 2000, 61; Nayling and Jones 2014, 271), a pattern that accords with broader historical evidence against complete discontinuity in the ritual practices of pre-Christian and Christian Europe (Hutton 2011, 235-41). While it would be imprudent to comment here on the validity of either interpretation, we might note that the dichotomy between ‘ritual’ and ‘safekeeping’ motives implicitly reproduces the dichotomy between ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’ activity, a modern distinction that has been critiqued for its ethnocentric presumptions (Verhoeven 2011, 124); in the conceptual framework of medieval European Christianity the physical world was itself simultaneously sacred and profane (Hayes 2003, xvii), and even stereotypically ‘profane’ objects like coins often bore images and legends imbued with Biblical symbolism. Moreover, there seems no prima facie reason to discount 5

Andrews.indd 5

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 2.3.2 ‘Applied’ methods

elevated the principle to the status of law, arguing that ‘for the prehistoric and other periods, the rule is: the greater the number of hoards, the greater the devastation and the greater the distress’. Though doubtlessly coloured by contemporary politics (Wetterlöv 2011), the MommsenBlanchet-Bolin approach sits comfortably in a period whose archaeological frameworks understood cultural change as stimulated by violent exogenous actions; its longevity is therefore surprising, and has been defended in recent scholarship through historical analogy. The classic account of Samuel Pepys, who concealed a hoard in 1667 fearing a Dutch invasion, is cited innumerable times in numismatic literature (e.g. MacDonald 1903, 292; Noe 1920, 13-14; Casey 1986, 53-5), and parallel examples have been drawn from the Second World War (Painter and Künzl 1997; Bland 2015). However, their relevance to pre-modern contexts is often only assumed, and rarely demonstrated (Guest 2015, 103), and indeed several welldocumented periods of unrest have left little, if any, trace in the hoard record (e.g. Sarvas 1967). As Grinder-Hansen (1991, 112) has argued, peaks and troughs in the hoard record should be understood in the context of the society in which they occur; there may be several factors – including inflation, changes in the extent of monetisation, or raised taxes – that might exert a stronger influence on hoarding patterns than ‘war and unrest’ alone.

Analyses of hoard contents conducted within the framework of ‘applied numismatics’ or ‘Münzfundanalyse’ (Lockyear 2007, 2; Kluge 2007, 31) arguably provide a more fruitful route towards an understanding of hoarding behaviour. In contrast to ‘pure’ numismatics – concerned with questions relating to coin production, metrology, and typology – ‘applied numismatics’ is defined by its emphasis on the use and deposition of coins in archaeological or historical contexts (Lockyear 2007), representing a lively strand of research that is well-developed in Iron Age, Roman and early medieval contexts (e.g. Reece 1988; Gullbekk 1995; Lockyear 2007; Walton 2012) but somewhat underdeveloped in medieval Britain (although cf. Kelleher 2012). Applied to hoard studies, a key theoretical postulate is that coin hoards are samples, albeit at several removes, of a global coinage pool – defined as all coins in a given area at one time, within which local variations may exist (Lockyear 2007, 21-23) – and therefore offer insights into both the coinage pool from which they were derived and the selection processes by which they were removed from it. ‘Structure’ is a key concept within applied numismatics, and refers to the pattern of coin types present in a hoard (Lockyear 2007, 39, fn. 1); Kluge’s (2007, 31) distinctions between the ‘chronological structure’, ‘nominal structure’, and ‘regional structure’ of coin hoards offer particularly relevant insights into the hoarding process, and are examined in turn below.

Approaches based on the internal ‘age structure’ of a hoard – that is, the chronological distribution of coins by issue date or type – are inseparable from the work of Richard Reece, who has employed quantitative techniques to study the age structures of Roman Imperial coin hoards (Reece 1988). A key theme emerging from Reece’s work is that coin hoards removed from the same coinage pool will tend to have similar age structures, and that by characterising this ‘normal’ background pattern – the product of several factors, including the tempo of coin production and variations in the ‘wastage rate’ of coin from circulation (Thordeman 1948; Volk 1987) – we can identify hoards with abnormal age structures deriving from peculiarities in their formation processes (Reece 1981; Reece 1988; Reece 2015). Building on Reece’s work, Lockyear (1993, 368) has divided the age structure of coin hoards into three notional zones:

2.3.2.1 Chronological structure Chronological patterns in hoarding have been approached from two angles: analysis of background chronological patterns in the incidence of hoard deposition, and analysis of the internal ‘age structures’ of coin hoards. The former approach, by far the most common (e.g. Grinder Hansen 1991, 113; Bland 2015), involves assigning dates to hoards and plotting their relative chronological positions as a means of identifying and interpreting longterm fluctuations in the rate of hoard deposition. Once plotted on a graph, the ensuing chronological undulations are compared to patterns in the archaeological or historical record, most popularly chronologies of war and unrest – which, according to the ‘safekeeping’ interpretation, might increase the rate of deposition and reduce the rate of contemporary recovery owing to social dislocation (Grinder-Hansen 1991, 105). Periods of ‘peak hoarding’ have been connected to historical conflicts, including the Norman Conquest (Dolley 1966, 37-40), the mid-twelfth century ‘Anarchy’ (Thomas 2008), the Scottish Wars of Independence (Thompson 1956, xxvi-xlii) and, more speculatively, the Peasant’s Revolt (Laing 1969, 282) and the Glyndŵr rebellion (Boon 1986, 120-23). This approach has a lineage extending as far back as Mommsen (1860, 411) – for whom hoarding peaks reflected ‘devastating war’ – but was first systematically employed by Blanchet (1900) to understand hoarding in Roman Gaul; its maximalist advocate, Sture Bolin (1926, 209),

1. The ‘fall out’ zone, represented by the oldest coins in a hoard. Having circulated for a long time by the point of hoard formation, these had more time to leave the coinage pool and are commensurately rare; 2. The ‘homogenous zone’, representing coins which had circulated for a sufficiently long time to have an even distribution in the coinage pool; 3. The ‘erratic zone’, containing the youngest coins in the hoard. Abnormality in age structures tends to be most pronounced in the ‘fall out’ and ‘erratic zones’, allowing two principal abnormal structures to be identified; ‘archaic’ structures, characterised by relatively large quantities of older coins, and ‘modern’ structures, with large quantities 6

Andrews.indd 6

27/11/2019 11:15

Approaches to coin hoards: theory and practice of recent coins (Lockyear 1996, 158). These may have important interpretative implications for understanding formation factors; hoards with pronounced ‘archaic’ structures may represent deposits withdrawn from circulation at one point, retained, and augmented at a later date (a ‘savings’ or ‘passive’ hoard; Reece 1981, 303; Von Heijne 2004, 42), whereas ‘modern’ structures may have been withdrawn from circulation suddenly (an ‘emergency’ or ‘active’ hoard), although Lockyear (1993) identifies several additional factors that may account for variations in the ‘erratic zone’ including differential wastage rates and ‘introduction delays’. Research of this kind is necessarily quantitative; Reece has made use of percentage-based methods, while Lockyear has employed multivariate statistical techniques like cluster analysis and correspondence analysis.

the per-capita supply of currency over time (Allen 2002, 35), a theme revisited in recent work (Allen 2015a, 158160). These observations have important implications for understanding the relationship of hoarding to background monetary patterns, although can be criticised on several grounds. The aggregative approach amounts to building a ‘master hoard’ to which individual finds may bear little resemblance, and whose composition may be skewed by very large single-denomination hoards; similarly, the descriptive categories used to describe denominational contents says little, if anything, about the relative shares of denominations within a category. The use of median values without an accompanying measure of statistical dispersion is problematic (Shennan 1988, 40-41), especially if the underlying distribution is not normal, as Cook (2015, 169) has suggested of Edwardian hoards. These are issues, however, which might be resolved through further analysis.

2.3.2.2 Regional structure Regional structures concern the locational origins of the coins in a hoard, whether viewed from the perspective of individual mints or broader regional units (Kluge 2007, 32). This is a reasonably well-explored aspect of English and Welsh coin hoards (e.g. Spufford 1963; Daubney 2009; Kelleher 2012) albeit largely approached using descriptive methods; in Viking Age numismatics, however, simple statistical visualisations have been used to good effect to identify underlying patterns conditioning the formation of coin hoards (Lyon 1981; Gullbekk 1995). Regional structures provide a valuable opportunity to compare hoards with single find data; if the latter represent casual losses, they might provide an informative backdrop representing regional coinage pools (Moesgaard 2002, 235-36) against which hoards with an unusual regional structure can be identified, potentially reflecting formation in a different region to that of their deposition.

By contrast, Cook’s (2015) study of English hoards deposited 1279-1351 used a descriptive approach to argue that hoards of the period fall into two main groups – one of a few shillings, and another of a few pounds – that might reflect two ends of a hoarding spectrum (large accumulated savings/capital sums and small groups of everyday cash/purses) or alternatively the savings of people of different social status. Through a consideration of an excavated ‘purse’ hoard he convincingly argues against the overzealous identification of small hoards as accidental ‘purse’ losses, and situates small hoards alongside local historical evidence to reveal their potential significance to individuals of lower social status (Cook 2015, 171-72). Cook provides a seductive approach to the social archaeology of hoarding, but unlike Allen, gives little sense of the broader picture against which individual hoards can be compared for peculiarity; like Allen, it can also be criticised for its subjective approach and aversion to statistics, with not a single graph or table in sight.

2.3.2.3 Nominal structure

2.3.3 Non-numismatic contents

The nominal structure of a hoard concerns its internal denominational composition and overall face value, and therefore supplies crucial evidence for active denominational selection, the relative magnitudes of hoards, purchasing powers, and plausibly, therefore, the social standing of individual hoarders. Despite this, surprisingly little work has focused on actual hoards from medieval England and Wales, the preference given to generalised assertions concerning the tendency of hoarders to save ‘the best coins they can obtain’ (Laing 1969, 54). Studies conducted by Allen (2002; 2015a) and Cook (2015) are exceptions. Allen (2002, 26-29) took an aggregative approach to the nominal structure of hoards deposited 1158-1544, arguing that certain denominations – until 1351 the penny, and thereafter large gold and silver issues – were preferentially selected by hoarders; in addition, hoards were assigned to descriptive categories (e.g. ‘Gold + groats’, ‘Groats + other silver or billon’; Allen 2002, 29) to assess the relationship between denominations in hoard finds. Face values were considered on the basis of median values, which potentially reflected documented shifts in

Marginalised within an already marginalised study area, non-numismatic objects from medieval coin hoards have received little scrutiny in an English and Welsh context. Examinations have proceeded on an individual basis and have typically been concerned with typological matters; integration of numismatic and non-numismatic evidence rarely advances beyond questions of object dating, and a tendency for coins and non-coins to be separately examined and published – Cherry’s (1973) study of the jewellery from the Fishpool hoard, for example, was published in an entirely separate journal to the Archibald’s (1967) study of the coins – has impaired cross-fertilisation of archaeological and numismatic scholarship. Integration of this evidence is therefore an analytical priority. 2.4 Approaches to hoarding II: context-driven studies Contexts, as we have seen, are the second principal component of a coin hoard; while contextual analysis 7

Andrews.indd 7

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 of coin hoards has become a key research theme in Iron Age and Roman hoard studies (e.g. Moorhead, Booth and Bland 2010; Hurst and Leins 2013; De Jersey 2014), they remain wholly undeveloped in the context of medieval England and Wales, the present project aiming to rectify this omission. Wigg-Wolf’s (2009) distinction between the ‘feature’ or depositional and ‘site’ or landscape contexts of coin finds provides a useful framework for discussion.

previously addressed, it should be noted that the focus on ‘irretrievable’ contexts – which may or may not be as irretrievable as often suggested (Randsborg 2002) – may not be representative of hoard evidence as a whole; hoards deposited in ‘mundane’ features like pits or wall crevices have equal potential as source material for the deposition process. 2.4.2 ‘Site’/landscape context

2.4.1 ‘Feature’/depositional context

Studies of hoards from ‘wet’ contexts bridge the gap between features and discrete sites or landscapes, two scales of context that have been approached in rather different ways. Much work at the site level has sought to identify the relationship between coin hoards and areas of settlement activity; the pioneering work of Majvor Östergren and the RAGU hoard project is particularly important, using field survey and excavation to establish a clear link between settlement sites and Gotland’s numerous Viking Age silver hoards (Östergren 1989; Jonsson and Östergren 1990, 145). Recent work by Besly and Briggs (2013) has examined the relationship between seventeenth century English coin hoards and contemporary houses; a parallel Scandinavian and Central European research tradition, meanwhile, has explored the phenomenon of ‘church finds’ – either single finds or hoards deposited in medieval churches – with a focus on the ‘ritual’ or ‘profane’ interpretation of these deposits (Liebgott 1992; Klein 1995; Suchodolski 1995), although as ever medieval English and Welsh evidence has scarcely featured in these discussions.

The act of depositing a coin hoard involves a series of actions – for instance, placement in a container, or burial in a pit – that are usefully subsumed into the concept of its depositional or feature context. Distinction may be drawn between the act of containment – involving the placement of contents into a definite container or containers – and the act of burial or concealment, which involves the placement of a coin hoard, with or without container, in a distinct feature or locale as a terminal phase of the depositional process. As with non-coin contents, the study of containers is usually pursued in isolation from the associated numismatic or archaeological evidence. Corpora of medieval European hoard containers have been independently produced by ceramicists concerned with typochronological issues (e.g. Hagen 1937; Sarfatij 1979; Stoll 1985; Liebgott 1992; Dean 2007); no similar survey exists for England and Wales, although individual hoard vessels have been published with little, if any, commentary on their relationship to the wider hoard assemblage (e.g. Dunning 1947; Cherry 1978). Perhaps owing to this niche focus, parallel discussions on the storage of ‘treasure’ have drawn almost exclusively on documentary sources (Hayward 1997; 2007), rather than the material evidence of hoard containers. Marginalisation is here again detrimental to broader interpretation; containers, as objects circulating in definite cultural contexts, may provide important information concerning hoarder identity, and in their relationship to contained objects they offer perspectives on the act of concealment and deposition itself, a potential clearest in those rare instances where coin hoards have been recovered archaeologically and their contents excavated. Through micro-excavation of the late eleventh century Stumle (Gotland, Sweden) hoard, for instance, it was possible to identify differential age-structures in the upper and lower layers, reflecting a process of formation and containing undertaken over a more-or-less prolonged period (Jonsson and Östergren 1990, 156-58).

Proponents of the ‘safekeeping’ interpretation of hoarding have often suggested that hoards were deposited near ‘landmarks’ to facilitate their recovery (Laing 1969, 55), a concept that has permeated into the metal detecting literature (Fletcher 1996; Grove 2005). Many potential ‘landmarks’ – for instance, isolated trees, or oddly shaped rocks – are unlikely to survive into the present day (Reece 2002), and consequently the identifiable features that attract modern scholars may in fact have been wholly irrelevant to the hoarder (De Jersey 2014, 40). A more important objection is the implicit contention that ‘landmarks’ are significant only insofar as hoards are placed in or near them. Contrary to this, we might contend that the relationship is reciprocal; ‘landmarks’ may be significant places in their own right, imbued with significance and meanings that are reproduced, or freshly created, through the act of hoard deposition (Bradley 2000). 2.5 Approaches to coin hoards: a summary

Analysis at the deposit or feature level, by contrast, is common in studies of prehistoric and early medieval hoarding, which have often focused on the deposition of objects in ‘irretrievable’ features (e.g. Needham 1988; Bradley 1990; Hedeager 1999; Stocker and Everson 2003; Graham-Campbell and Sheehan 2009; Yates and Bradley 2010; Naylor 2015). As ever, medieval coin hoards have been entirely absent from these discussions. While the interpretative implications of these studies has been

The preceding discussions have highlighted key themes and concepts of relevance to the archaeological analysis of medieval coin hoards. Theoretical consideration has stressed the importance of understanding hoards as multifaceted archaeological assemblages rather than simple accumulations of coins; they are, however, very particular kinds of assemblage, conceptually demarcated by contemporaries as ‘treasure’, whose formation and 8

Andrews.indd 8

27/11/2019 11:15

Approaches to coin hoards: theory and practice deposition did not simply reflect, but actively (re) produced, the hoarder’s social status and identity insofar as it was mediated by the enabling properties of wealth and the broader significance of place. The dichotomy between ‘safekeeping’ and ‘ritual’ hoards may be more closely entangled than traditionally contended, and their interpretative utility might be assessed on a case-bycase basis rooted in macro- and micro-scale analysis; the understanding of background ‘normality’ emphasised by applied numismatics is here crucial, demanding that hoards be analysed with a strong understanding of their broader context, for which the careful use of numerical and statistical methods is a valuable tool. The act of deposition is at least as important as the act of formation for understanding the hoarding process, and consequently the historic neglect of the former dimension of hoarding within medieval studies is a major impediment to archaeological knowledge. These issues, then, shape both analysis and interpretation, which we may now begin to address.

9

Andrews.indd 9

27/11/2019 11:15

3 Methods and problems: the Coin hoards of medieval England and Wales database In contrast to the wide-ranging nature of the preceding chapter, the present chapter focuses on a restricted number of themes relating to the production and analysis of a large-scale coin hoard dataset. Discussion follows a tripartite structure. Firstly, the definitional parameters of the research project are delineated, and a core system of chronological periodisation used in subsequent analyses is outlined. Secondly, attention focuses on the practicalities of creating a hoard dataset, including discussions of database structure and source material; variations in data quality are also reviewed, and a methodology for augmenting selected records with externally-derived contextual information is presented. Finally, the assembled data is subjected to systematic archaeological source criticism in order to evaluate the impact of post-depositional processes on data coverage and representativeness, and also to develop an appreciation of how these processes generate biases and constraints that must be considered when drawing archaeological conclusions from the assembled dataset.

also practical problems that impede a direct comparison between coin hoards and coinless precious metal hoards. For example, while it is usually possible to establish reliable depositional chronologies for coin hoards on the basis of internal and comparative numismatic evidence (Archibald 1988), attempts to determine likely termini ante quos in the depositional chronologies of coinless precious metal hoards are complicated by the weight of documentary evidence demonstrating the extended uselives of secular and ecclesiastical jewellery and plate (Glanville 1987, 321; Stratford 2012). The problem is well illustrated by the hoard of precious and base metal objects found at Whittlesey Mere (Cambridgeshire) in 1850, whose contents are stylistically marked as bespoke possessions of the local Benedictine abbey at Ramsey (Oman 1957, 89-91). The hoard’s terminus post quem is afforded by a silver-gilt incense boat produced c.1350, but it is likely that the use-lives of the objects in the hoard were punctuated, like so many other precious church goods, by prolonged periods of storage in a dedicated abbatial treasury (Frazer 1986, 12). In lieu of associated archaeological evidence, one cannot therefore reliably evaluate arguments concerning the hoard’s possible deposition during Ramsey’s dissolution in 1539 (Dickinson 1961, 135). This inevitable chronological fuzziness impedes meaningful comparison; should the Whittlesey Mere find be compared to coin hoards deposited in the mid to late fourteenth century, coin hoards deposited in the early to mid-sixteenth century, somewhere in between, or all of the above? Resolving these fundamental questions depends on a considerable volume of object-centred study beyond the possibilities of the present research project, and must therefore be relegated to future analysis. While it is therefore methodologically appropriate to deal solely with coin hoards in the present study, it is nonetheless necessary to remain alert to the wider contextual setting of medieval collective object deposition within which coin hoarding sits.

3.1 Framing the study: definitions and parameters The scope of the present study is delineated by three main parameters. In the first instance, research is solely concerned with coin hoards, a class of assemblage previously defined as a group of two or more coins deposited together. Hoard deposits that do not meet the compositional criteria – for example, hoards of medieval ceramic vessels (Janssen 1988), or of iron tools (Hesse 2007) – are therefore excluded from investigation. In view of the preceding theoretical discussions (chapter two), the omission of coinless precious metal hoards requires particular justification. Excluding these deposits was partly a pragmatic decision, reflecting both the low survival rate of non-numismatic medieval precious metal objects (Glanville 1987, 3) and the paucity of examples found in hoard contexts (Table 3.1). However, there are

Table 3.1. Coinless precious metal hoards from medieval England and Wales, ordered by terminus post quem (TPQ). TPQ

Findspot

Description

Reference

1100-1150

Great Wratting, Suffolk

Two gold finger rings.

Graham-Campbell 1989

c.1250

Cwm Mynach, Gwynedd

Silver chalice and paten.

Cherry 2000, 171

c.1350

Whittlesea Mere, Cambridgeshire

Silver-gilt censer and incense boat.

Oman 1957, 89-91

c.1350

Hamstall Ridware, Staffordshire

Silver-gilt chalice and paten.

Spira 2000, 140

1300-1400

Abberley, Worcestershire

Five silver spoons.

Moore 1970

1400-1550

Near Lewes, East Sussex

Four gold finger rings.

PAS SUSS-9BD050

1400-1550

Uncertain location

Two gold finger rings.

PAS DOR-46EFBD

10

Andrews.indd 10

27/11/2019 11:15

Methods and problems: the Coin hoards of medieval England and Wales database The two remaining parameters of the study are temporal and spatial. These limits have been set at AD c.973-1544 and England and Wales respectively, a remit reflecting the traditional chronological boundaries of the medieval English coinage issued between Edgar’s reform of c.973 and the ‘Great Debasement’ of early Tudor England, and the spatial confines within which English coin circulated as the principal legally-sanctioned coinage throughout this period. The decision to exclude hoards from Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man, three locations where English coin circulated on some scale (Allen 2017a), primarily reflects practical issues concerning to the cross-comparability of material reported and published on the basis of different academic and legal regimes to those prevalent in England and Wales (Campbell 2013; Fox 2013; Myles 2014). It is hoped that future work will permit the integration of these datasets into a single body of evidence.

phase C (1158-1279) correspond with the immobilised Cross-and-Crosslets/‘Tealby’, Short Cross, and Long Cross coinages, each characterised by long-lasting standard types issued at multiple mints, while phase D reflects the late medieval ‘open system’ of multidenominational and, after 1344, bimetallic coins whose designs remained essentially fixed from the reign of Edward I to Henry VII (Allen 2012; Kelleher 2012). Unlike phase C, whose periods are separated by the complete recoinages of 1180, 1247, and 1279, the periods of phase D (1279-1544) are delineated by debasements and weight reductions that only partially removed earlier coins from circulation (Archibald 1988, 288); for this reason, as will be seen, hoards deposited in the fourteenth to mid-sixteenth centuries have somewhat extended age structures when compared to those deposited during the late tenth to thirteenth centuries. Hoards are assigned to a particular phase or period on the basis of their likely date of deposition rather than their closing date (see below), although in practice it is rare for the two dates to significantly diverge.

3.2 Chronological periodisation Given the considerable temporal breadth of the present study, a framework of chronological periodisation was adopted to facilitate the identification and interpretation of data patterning. The periodisation system used here is adapted from Allen (2002, 25) and Kelleher (2012, 28182), and divides hoards across four phases and 12 periods defined by distinct coinage ‘systems’ (Table 3.2). Phase A (c.973-1066) reflects the pre-Conquest ‘renovatio’ system established by Edgar in c.973, characterised by an extensive network of English mints striking uniform types subject to regular systematic recoinage every few years (Jonsson 1987; Stewart 1990); phase B (1066-1158), meanwhile, represents the continuation of this system under the Anglo-Norman kings (Blackburn 1991; Blackburn 1994). These phases have been divided into two and three periods respectively, each of broadly comparable length and drawn around convenient regnal dates. The three constituent periods of

3.3 Database arrangement Prior to undertaking data collection on the basis of these definitions and study parameters, a bespoke Microsoft Access ‘Coin hoards of medieval England and Wales’ (CHMEW) relational database was developed by the author as a means of pursuing the efficient storage and retrieval of archaeological and numismatic information. In this system each individual hoard is allocated a unique three-character alphanumeric hoard ID (e.g. BH1 for ‘Bishophill no. 1, York’, SED for ‘Sedlescombe’; cf. Lockyear 2016, 1623), which ties together information entered into a central ‘hoard summary’ table and connected tables detailing contents and contextual data. In line with other largescale numismatic databases record standardisation was prioritised in database design (Volk 1992; Jonsson 1995;

Table 3.2. Hoard periodisation system (adapted from Allen 2002 and Kelleher 2012). Phase

Period

Date Range

Description

A

1

973-1016

Edgar Reform type to Æthelred II

A

2

1016-1066

Cnut to Harold II

B

3

1066-1100

William I to William II

B

4

1100-1135

Henry I

B

5

1135-1158

Stephen, Matilda, and Baronial coinages

C

6

1158-1180

Cross-and-Crosslets (‘Tealby’) coinage

C

7

1180-1247

Short Cross coinage

C

8

1247-1279

Long Cross coinage

D

9

1279-1351

Edward I to Edward III ‘Florin’ coinage

D

10

1351-1412

Edward III Fourth coinage to Henry IV Heavy coinage

D

11

1412-1464

Henry IV Light coinage to Edward IV Heavy coinage

D

12

1465-1544

Edward IV Light coinage to Henry VIII Second issue

11

Andrews.indd 11

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 Lockyear 2007), and the five principal tables and their contents may be summarised as follows:

Material: Metal: AU (gold), AR (silver), AE (copper alloy), or billon.

3.3.1 Hoard summary

Denomination: Denomination of coin type (e.g. ‘Groat’, ‘Noble’, ‘Penny’).

This table contains basic information on individual hoards. Fields include:

Issuer: Issuer of coin (e.g. ‘Alexander III of Scotland’, ‘Cnut’, ‘Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy’).

Hoard ID: Unique three-character alphanumeric identifier (see above).

Catalogue reference: Coin type reference in standard numismatic catalogue (e.g. Poey d’Avant 1858; Mayhew 1983; North 1994), where known. Linked to ‘Types’ subtable recording issuer, type name, earliest (date from) and latest (date to) production dates of that coin type.

Year of discovery: Year of discovery or, where not stated, year first reported. Circumstances of discovery: Circumstance of discovery (e.g. archaeological investigation, building work, metal detecting).

Mint: Mint where coin struck (e.g. ‘Dublin’, ‘London’, ‘Venice’). Moneyer: Moneyer name where recorded on coin.

Hoard description: Summary description of hoard contents and context.

Quantity: Number of coins of individual type in hoard. 3.3.3 Non-numismatic object summary

Hoard value: Face value of hoard in contemporary medieval currency. Based on coin element only (excludes non-numismatic components); may represent minimum figure if hoard incompletely recorded.

This table contains non-numismatic content information for all hoards. Individual objects are related to their corresponding hoards via the Hoard ID. Fields include:

Closing date: Date of production of the youngest coin in the hoard (terminus post quem).

Object material 1: Principal material of object (e.g. ‘bone’, ‘gold’, ‘silver’).

Date of deposition: Suggested date of deposition based on internal hoard evidence, drawn principally from Allen (2012). Usually, though not exclusively, within a few years of the closing date.

Object material 2: Secondary material of object (e.g. ‘bone’, ‘gold’, ‘silver’). Object class: Object class (e.g. ‘devotional object’, ‘personal ornament’).

Period: Chronological period of the hoard (see above). Phase: Chronological phase of the hoard (see above).

Object subclass 1: Principal object subclass (e.g. ‘brooch’, ‘ring’).

NGR: Ordnance Survey Grid Reference for findspot. Latitude: WGS84 latitude coordinate for findspot.

Object subclass 2: Secondary object subclass (e.g. ‘brooch’, ‘ring’).

Longitude: WGS84 longitude coordinate for findspot.

Description: Detailed object description, with reference.

Findspot rating: Data quality rating for findspot information (see below).

3.3.4 Container summary

Contextual data rating: Data quality rating for contextual information (see below).

This table contains information on containers for all hoards. Individual containers are related to their corresponding hoards via the Hoard ID. Fields include:

Numismatic data rating: Data quality rating for numismatic information (see below).

Container material: Principal material of container (e.g. ‘ceramic’, ‘stone’).

Notes: Principal references, and any associated comments.

Container type: Vessel type (e.g. ‘jug’, ‘mug’, ‘tripod ewer’). Ceramic forms after MPRG 1998.

3.3.2 Hoard contents

Fabric type: Detailed description of container material (e.g. ‘Cheam whiteware’, ‘Midlands purple ware’).

This table contains numismatic content information for all hoards. Individual coin entries are related to their corresponding hoards via the Hoard ID. Fields include:

Description: Detailed container description, with reference. 12

Andrews.indd 12

27/11/2019 11:15

Methods and problems: the Coin hoards of medieval England and Wales database 3.3.5 Context summary

3.4.2 Hoard reports

This table contains previously documented contextual information for all hoards. Individual context entries are related to their corresponding hoards via the Hoard ID. Fields include:

The summary information provided by checklists was ‘fleshed out’ with numismatic and archaeological data recorded in individual hoard reports. Published reports were obtained from academic and museum libraries, and principally comprised numismatic accounts published in the British Numismatic Journal, the Numismatic Chronicle, and the Treasure Annual Report series. Unpublished reports, which almost exclusively comprised formal Treasure Reports issued to the coroner under the terms of the Treasure Act 1996 or the preceding law of Treasure Trove, were also consulted; these were accessed through direct liaison with museum professionals based at the British Museum Department of Coins and Medals, Buckinghamshire County Museum, Museums Worcestershire, and National Museum Wales Department of Archaeology and Numismatics.

Site class: Principal class of archaeological site where the hoard found (after Historic England 2014). Site context: Subclass of archaeological site where the hoard was found (e.g. ‘barrow’, ‘church’. ‘fortified house’). Site context detail: Detailed description of site context, with reference. Nature of context: Class of feature that the hoard was recovered from (e.g. ‘grave’, ‘pit’, ‘wall cavity’).

3.4.3 Online archaeological databases

Associated features: Description of archaeological features (e.g. pits) or artefacts/ecofacts (e.g. animal bones; potsherds) associated with the hoard.

Online archaeological databases were also consulted as a means of providing further details on known hoards and of obtaining primary information concerning additional hoards that are not otherwise recorded in published checklists. Databases consulted in this manner include the Archaeology Data Service (ADS), and the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS).

Data was entered into these tables using a tabbed form, and were manually checked following entry; completed (i.e. data fully entered and checked) records were distinguished through the use of a tick-box in the hoard summary table during database compilation. A gazetteer summarising core information from the CHMEW database is included here as Appendix A.

3.4.4 Archaeological journals National and regional archaeological journals – for example, Archaeologia Cambrensis, Oxoniensia, and the Transactions of the Worcestershire Archaeological Society – were examined for information concerning hoard finds, and in several instances resulted in the discovery of ‘forgotten’ hoards that were not noted in other sources. This assessment proceeded on the basis of published journal indices available from academic library services (Institute of Historical Research (IHR) Library, UCL Institute of Archaeology Library) and online library databases (ADS Library).

3.4 Populating the database: source material Within this framework, the database was populated with information relating to 815 medieval coin hoards known from published and unpublished records. Sources consulted are described below. 3.4.1 Checklists Existing checklists of medieval coin hoards formed a primary resource for data collection. These usually adopt a summary format, describing a hoard’s general location (e.g. ‘Seasalter, Kent’), date of discovery, probable date of deposition and/or closing date, contemporary face value, and a general statement of its contents (e.g. ‘English to Edward III Florin coinage and Irish; 37 coins’), and provide references to published material concerning the hoard in question. The most recent checklist of English coin hoards of the period c.973-1544 is by Allen (2012, 446-514), who has also recently produced a checklist of Welsh coin hoards (Allen 2015a, 160-63). Additional checklists by Thompson (1956), Brown and Dolley (1971), Blackburn and Pagan (1986), Allen (2002), Briggs (2012), and Cook (2015, 175-78) were also consulted, as were annual checklists of Coin hoards from the British Isles serialised in the British Numismatic Journal.

3.4.5 Antiquarian and archival sources Further information on early hoard finds was obtained through the use of published antiquarian and regional or local histories; this material was sourced primarily from academic or copyright libraries (British Library, IHR Library), although the collections of local archives and civic library services (Aylesbury Study Centre, Birmingham Central Library, Centre for Buckinghamshire Studies, Worcester The Hive Library) and online libraries (Google Books, HathiTrust Digital Library, Internet Archive Digital Library) were also used. In addition, contemporary accounts of hoard discoveries were obtained from newspaper holdings in national and county archives and libraries; while these latter sources were primarily consulted as a means of acquiring information relating to discovery circumstances and findspots, several ‘forgotten’ hoards were also found therein. 13

Andrews.indd 13

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 3.4.6 Historic Ordnance Survey mapping

3.5 Data quality ratings

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Ordnance Survey mapping routinely recorded precise locational information relating to finds of archaeological remains (Phillips 1980, 19-20; Oliver 1993, 44-46), and for this reason a systematic search of historic Ordnance Survey mapping was undertaken as a means of augmenting and verifying the findspots of early discoveries. The merits of this evidence were most explicit in cases where the exact findspots of named hoards were highlighted on maps, but also proved relevant to more general localisation efforts, such as in cases where hoards were documented as having been found on named or numbered building plots, tenements, or farmhouses.

As indicated above, the source material employed during data collection varies widely in detail and reliability, and for this reason it proved necessary to implement a system of data quality ratings as a means of evaluating and filtering data in any subsequent analyses (cf. Lockyear 2007, 17-19). Three parallel rating schemes were developed to assess the quality of numismatic, contextual, and findspot data for individual hoards, using a numerical scale adapted from the ‘Crisis or continuity: hoarding in Iron Age and Roman Britain’ project (E. Ghey, pers. comm. 7 October 2014); these are outlined in Table 3.3. For present purposes, it is important to note the overall pattern of data quality for the assembled dataset (Figure 3.1). Findspot data is of mixed quality, but has a slight overrepresentation of Grade 1 records (29.7 per cent) and conversely a moderate underrepresentation of Grade 4 records (18.3 per cent). Contextual data, meanwhile, is overwhelmingly poor, with Grade 1 records accounting for nearly two-thirds of the dataset; the converse is true of numismatic data, where Grade 1 records account for just 3.6 per cent of the dataset, while Grade 3 and 4 records have a combined share of 59.9 per cent of the dataset.

3.4.7 Museum collections Two targeted museum visits – one to Buckinghamshire County Museum, and another to York Museums Trust – were undertaken as a means of collecting primary data relating to the non-numismatic components of hoard finds, which have often been published to a lower standard than the equivalent numismatic evidence. This work was conducted on a limited scale, and involved the visual assessment and documentation of extant hoard containers and also the recording of non-numismatic artefactual contents.

3.6 Augmenting the evidence: findspot characterisation As is evident from the pattern of data quality ratings, pre-existing information concerning the archaeological contexts of hoards – understood here in a dual sense as both the individual features (e.g. ditches, pits, wall cavities) and wider site or landscape locations (e.g. churches, rural houses, wetland) that hoards were deposited in (cf. Wigg-Wolf 2009, 109-10) – was extremely limited, a situation that placed serious constraints on the scope of analysis. However, it was possible to partially mitigate this problem through the considered use of high quality (i.e. Grade 3-4) findspot data. In cases where such information was available, hoards were subjected to a

3.4.8 Personal correspondence Personal correspondence with archaeologists and numismatists occasionally revealed relevant information concerning the discovery circumstances or contextual settings of hoard finds. In addition, correspondence with ceramic specialists was pursued as a means of confirming and amending the author’s proposed identifications of ceramic fabric types used in particular hoard containers.

Table 3.3. Data quality codes and definitions. Grade

Quality

Findspot data rating

Contextual data rating

Numismatic data rating

1

Poor

Centre of parish, or 4 figure grid reference.

Dispersed by plough, or metal detector or antiquarian find without detail.

Coins unidentified, or doubtful identification (e.g. ‘Coins of one of the Edwards’).

2

Fair

Approximate location within parish, or 6 figure grid reference.

Basic physical description, and/or account of associated objects and/or container.

Coins identified to denomination and/or issuer, but not type, or a small sample from a large hoard.

3

Good

Named building or field, or 8 figure grid reference.

Detailed antiquarian account, including physical description, associated artefacts, and/or illustration, or post-1950 excavation with some stratigraphic information.

Coins identified to type, but without ancillary identification (e.g. mint and/or moneyer), or identified using outdated typology, or mid-sized samples from large hoards.

4

Excellent

Location known to within 50m, or 10 figure grid reference.

Modern controlled excavation with full and detailed archaeological documentation, including plans, photographs, and context records.

Coins fully identified to type, mint, and moneyer, with records and/ or photographs for future reidentification, if necessary.

14

Andrews.indd 14

28/11/2019 16:26

Methods and problems: the Coin hoards of medieval England and Wales database

Figure 3.1. Proportional shares of Grade 1-4 findspot, contextual, and numismatic data ratings in the CHMEW dataset (n=815).

process of findspot characterisation on the basis of a rapid desk-based assessment methodology, involving the systematic collation of evidence relating to archaeological sites, natural or anthropogenic landscape features, and historic land use patterns within a static 200m radius of individual findspots. The decision to employ study areas of predefined size should be understood as a pragmatic attempt to efficiently synthesise core information relating to the historic landscape settings of hoard deposits within the parameters of a fixed-term research project, rather than an attempt to rigidly define ‘sites’ on the basis of abstract metrics (cf. Plog, Plog, and Wait 1978, 387; Gallant 1986, 408); the choice of a 200m radius in particular reflects the effective use of this measure in recent studies of RomanoBritish metal detector finds and prehistoric metalwork hoards (Brindle 2014, 22; D. Yates, pers. comm. 28 June 2016). Sources consulted fall into two primary classes, outlined below.

preserved as relict traces in the morphology of later fields and woodland (Muir 2000, 204-22; Rippon 2012, 19-52). Special emphasis was placed on the evidence of minor toponyms (e.g. field and road names) recorded on historic maps that contained elements relating to historic land use or landscape characteristics; these include references to farmland (e.g. ME āker, fē ̣ld; Cym. cae, maes), woodland (e.g. ME hirst, wọ̄de; Cym. coed, gwig), and wetland (e.g. ME fen, mīre, mō̆s; Cym. cors, mign), among others. 3.6.2 Archaeological records Where available, the evidence of historic maps was augmented by external archaeological data, which was integrated into the assessment process in two separate ways. Firstly, published site gazetteers relating to castles (King 1983), deserted medieval villages (Sheail 1989), and moated sites (Coveney 2014, 255-512) were systematically examined as a means of identifying medieval sites located within 200m of a hoard findspot that were not otherwise attested by historic mapping; a fundamentally similar process was pursued in relation to multi-period metal detector finds recorded on the PAS database. Secondly, in cases where historic maps recorded potentially relevant buildings or monuments in the immediate vicinity of hoard findspots, further information was sought from external sources; while these principally comprised published books and journal articles, a limited quantity of additional information was gleaned from unpublished ‘grey literature’ obtained from the digital ADS Library and physical Historic Environment Record (HER) libraries.

3.6.1 Historic mapping Historic Ordnance Survey maps – particularly those produced for the 1:2500 scale County Series of 1853/41945 – were consulted as baseline evidence for historic landscape characteristics in the vicinity of hoard findspots (Taylor 1974, 102-08), and, where available, were complemented in this role by earlier tithe, enclosure, and estate maps. Aside from their utility in indicating the presence of relevant pre-existing anthropogenic (e.g. prehistoric barrows, ditches, and hillforts) and natural (e.g. caves, mountains, wetland) landscape features, these sources frequently record distinctively medieval landscape features – for instance, individual selions from open fields, or the perimeter boundaries of medieval parks –

In view of the limited scope of these assessments, a circumstance that entirely reflects external time constraints 15

Andrews.indd 15

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 on the process of data collection, it is appropriate to treat any resulting inferences concerning the site or landscape contexts of coin hoards as tentative baselines only. More information could be acquired by systematically integrating existing unassessed source material – for example, aerial photography, LiDAR, and HER data – or through primary data collection at hoard sites, which might include fieldwalking, geophysical prospection, and targeted excavation. However, this work is entirely beyond the scope of the present project.

of their non-numismatic elements and their containers. It is important to note that nearly two-thirds of England and Wales is covered by cambisol and luvisol soils, both of which are known to provide generally poor preservation conditions for base metal artefacts and organic remains (Kibblewhite, Tóth, and Hermann 2015, 262); objects made of these materials – for example, iron brooches and textile bags – may consequently be underrepresented in the dataset because of hostile burial environments. In locations under active cultivation, these geochemical impacts might be aggravated through the application of agrochemical fertilisers, which seem to accelerate the rate of corrosion of base metal artefacts in the soil (Gerwin and Baumhauer 2000, 64-65; Pollard et al. 2004, 372-73; Nord et al. 2005, 259-60).

3.7 Archaeological source criticism: formation processes and data bias In order to pursue a meaningful analysis of the assembled hoard dataset, it is first necessary to subject the evidence to a rigorous source criticism in order to determine the influence of post-depositional processes on its coverage and representativeness, and to further develop an understanding of how these processes impart biases and constraints that must be considered when producing archaeological inferences on the basis of data patterning (Eggers 1959, 255-58; Kristiansen 1978, 3-4; Schiffer 1996, 8-11; Sommer 2014, 238-41). In the present context, source criticism can be structured with reference to the three post-depositional stages of hoard biography: namely, the burial stage, the discovery stage, and the registration stage.

Further issues relate to biotic and anthropogenic processes that affect the physical integrity of buried archaeological deposits (Fokkens 1998, 58-59). The former principally concern the disturbance of hoards by plant roots and burrowing animals, a phenomenon rendered explicit in the cases of finds from a mole hill at Glascwm (Powys; GCR) and among tree roots at Llysdinam (Powys; LSD) and Stow Hill (Powys; SRA). Insofar as these processes of bioturbation result in the partial or complete destruction of stratigraphic associations and the dispersal of hoard contents, they can be considered to have an entirely negative impact on the contextual and numismatic record quality of affected hoards, although have little effect on overall patterns of spatial distribution at the macro-scale. Comparable impacts are observed in relation to one prominent anthropogenic process, ploughing, which effects the total destruction of contextual relationships within affected areas of cultivated fields; in Britain and other parts of Europe ploughzone depths typically extend to c.30cm below ground level, although under ‘deep ploughing’ regimes archaeological strata buried at depths of 35-50cm below ground level are routinely impacted (Steinberg 1996, 368; Upex 2004, 161). The interpretative problems posed by the physical destruction of archaeological strata are further compounded by a tendency to disperse artefacts across the ploughzone, a cumulative process that is exacerbated by successive tillage events and localised topographic factors (Boismier 1997, 236; De Bie et al. 2014, 45-46) and acutely affects small artefacts like coins (Henriksen 2016, 81-82). The phenomenon of plough dispersal has a major negative impact on the hoard record. At best, it affects our ability to determine whether the coins and non-coin artefacts from any given hoard recovered from the ploughzone are a complete or partial reflection of an original deposit; at worst, it may result in dispersed hoards being erroneously identified as single find accumulations, or vice versa, or in the non-numismatic components of hoards becoming disassociated from the coins that they were originally deposited with. While the numismatic implications of these processes are partly surmountable – the issue of completeness can be sensibly addressed with reference to sampling theory and through targeted fieldwork, and one can frequently distinguish hoarded and non-hoarded coins on the basis of physical condition and numismatic characteristics (Horsnæs 2002, 103-06) – the

3.7.1 Record formation processes I: the burial stage From the moment of their deposition, coin hoards are subject to a range of chemical and physical processes that affect the nature of their survival in the archaeological record (Schiffer 1996, 147). Unfortunately, the impacts of these processes are overwhelmingly negative, tending to destroy traces of historic behaviour that might otherwise inform modern understandings of the hoarding process. In a hoard context, the biases and problems introduced during the burial phase relate to three core phenomena: geochemical processes inherent to burial environments, biotic processes induced by animals and plants whose habitats coincide with burial locations, and anthropogenic processes generated by human involvement with burial locations. The impact of burial environments on the survival of material remains has long been appreciated by archaeologists (e.g. Wheeler 1954, 89; Cornwall 1958, 48-71), and has briefly featured in numismatic discussions concerning the effects of soil chemistry on the preservation of coins and the consequent representativeness of excavated and metal detected single find assemblages (Christophersen 1989, 4; Moesgaard 2002, 254-55). While geochemical processes enacted during the burial phase are unlikely to have a significant detrimental effect on the physical survival of the numismatic elements of medieval coin hoards – gold and silver, the principal material constituents of medieval English coins, are noble metals, and are consequently highly resistant to corrosion, oxidation, and other forms of geochemically-induced degradation (Van Os, Huisman, and Meijers 2009, 126-33) – they could affect the survival 16

Andrews.indd 16

27/11/2019 11:15

Methods and problems: the Coin hoards of medieval England and Wales database effects on contextual evidence are not; since cultivated fields are a key source of hoard discoveries (see below), the scale of this problem cannot be understated. Similar issues are raised by other anthropogenic processes that involve destructive intrusions into buried archaeological deposits, such as ditch cutting or the digging of trenches and refuse pits (Fokkens 1998, 59), but which do not immediately result in the discovery of the newly decontextualised hoard.

evidence for peak in discovery associated with the process of parliamentary enclosure or the expansion of English agriculture in its mid-nineteenth century ‘golden age’ (Jones 1968, 17-25), the decline in the rate of discovery after 1875 probably reflects the effects of the agricultural ‘great depression’, which resulted in a contraction in the absolute and relative extent of grain cultivation in eastern and southern England (Perry 1972, 34-38). The lack of twentieth-century discoveries, meanwhile, probably reflects the mechanisation of agriculture, which resulted in farmworkers engaging less directly with the soil as they stopped following ploughs and began driving tractors (Whetham 1970, 322-25). Hoards discovered during agricultural work are characterised by poor overall data quality ratings, and while this pattern is not solely a product of phenomena occurring in the discovery stage – poor contextual data quality, for example, may reflect the impact of plough disturbance on hoard deposits incurred at the burial stage (see above), while poor numismatic data quality may reflect difficulties in reconciling changing standards in hoard reporting at the registration stage incurred over time (see below) – the contribution of discovery circumstances to this situation should not be overlooked. In particular, the inherently uncontrolled nature of non-archaeological recovery, pursued in this case by untrained farmworkers, has a major negative impact on the representation and quality of contextual and findspot information, and consequently places severe limits on the capacity of these finds to convey any more than basic details concerning hoarding phenomena.

3.7.2 Record formation processes II: the discovery stage Whether the fruit of deliberate searching or pure luck, the discovery of a coin hoard is a concrete process conducted in definite chronological and technical circumstances, the precise configuration of which influences the shape of the resultant archaeological record (Kristiansen 1978, 2-3; Fonnesbech-Sandberg 1985, 189; Green et al. 2017, 253-56). As such, an understanding of the aggregate circumstantial dimensions of the hoard record is an essential prerequisite for any systematic analysis of that record, highlighting biases and other limitations incurred at the discovery stage that might impair or otherwise affect its representativeness and archaeological utility. Information concerning the discovery circumstances of medieval coin hoards can be evaluated from multiple overlapping perspectives, and is effectively synthesised as a series of graphs, tables, and maps. Figures 3.2-3.9 therefore plot the chronological incidence of hoard discovery, first in general terms (Figure 3.2) and then subdivided by discovery method (Figures 3.3-3.9); Figures 3.10-3.16, meanwhile, illustrate the spatial distribution of hoard discoveries divided on the basis of discovery method. Finally, Tables 3.4-3.5 summarise the evidence of data quality ratings on the basis of the date of discovery (Table 3.4) and method of discovery (Table 3.5). The issues raised by this evidence are complex, and are addressed below with reference to specific methods of discovery.

3.7.2.2 Archaeological investigations Archaeological investigations have uncovered 39 medieval coin hoards between 1835 and 2010, of which 34 were discovered after 1960 (Figure 3.4). This late skew results from underlying trends in British archaeological fieldwork, which was pursued on an enormously expanded scale from the mid-twentieth century onwards (Gerrard 2003, 95; Andersson, Scholkmann, and Svart Kristiansen 2007, 21-23). The spatial distribution (Figure 3.11) of archaeologically found hoards has remained fairly static over time, and consistently exhibits a moderate distributional bias towards southern England, a phenomenon that reflects general locational biases in the incidence of archaeological investigation in post-war England (Evans 2014, 15-19). The pattern of sites yielding hoard finds, meanwhile, seems also to reflect background trends in the character of archaeological investigations and the research interests of archaeological practitioners (cf. Hamond 1980, 215; Schiffer 1996, 362-63); early finds, like the hoards from Dunstable (Bedfordshire; DST), Rayleigh (Essex; RAY), and Newminster Abbey (Northumberland; NAN) reflect an initial disciplinary preoccupation with the visible remains of castles and monastic sites (Gerrard 2003, 59), while the late twentieth century sensitivity towards the destruction of subsurface and standing archaeological remains in towns and cities (Heighway 1972, 4-7) is reflected by a glut of

3.7.2.1 Agricultural work Agricultural work is a modest contributor to the hoard record, and has revealed 40 hoards between 1684 and 1990 (Figure 3.3). Most of these hoards were unearthed during ploughing, a phenomenon that explains their distributional skew towards the arable lowlands of eastern and south-eastern England; this tendency is particularly evident when the point distribution of hoards found during agricultural work is converted into a standard deviational ellipse and compared to an equivalent ellipse calculated for the distribution of all hoards irrespective of discovery circumstances (Figure 3.10).1 Although there is little The standard deviational ellipses (SDEs) presented here were produced using Yuill’s (1971) method, which summarises key spatial characteristics of a point distribution (average location, dispersal, orientation, shape) in the form of a closed curve calculated from the standard deviations of X and Y coordinates around their average centre. SDEs are a valuable tool for summarising spatial trends in large point datasets, which often suffer from visual ‘clutter’ (Raine 1978, 328), and are therefore used here to facilitate comparisons between the distributions of subsets of hoards (e.g. hoards found during agricultural work) and the background distribution of all hoards. 1 

17

Andrews.indd 17

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 3.2. Chronological distribution of all hoards by date of discovery.

Figure 3.3. Chronological distribution of hoards found during agricultural work by date of discovery.

3.7.2.3 Building work

finds from urban excavations from the 1960s onwards (e.g. CLC; COP; GSA). As a rule of thumb, hoards found during archaeological investigations considerably outperform hoards found by other means irrespective of data quality metric, a favourable situation that owes much to circumstances at the discovery stage; one cannot explain the abundance of high quality contextual and findspot data among archaeologically-found hoards, for example, without reference to the practice of painstaking and well-documented recovery by trained archaeologists.

A total of 170 medieval coin hoards – just over a fifth of the dataset – were found during building work, and typically either comprise hoards uncovered while making groundworks for new buildings (e.g. CO2; HNR; SMH) or those found while demolishing or making alterations and repairs to standing medieval buildings (e.g. LLL; PSH; WOK). Known finds span the period 1607-2013 (Figure 3.5), and exhibit modest peaks in the mid- to late nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries, before trailing off in the 18

Andrews.indd 18

27/11/2019 11:15

Methods and problems: the Coin hoards of medieval England and Wales database Table 3.4. Data quality ratings by date of discovery. Date of discovery

Findspot data rating 1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

To 1750

13

7

5

0

14

10

1

0

5

20

0

0

1751-1775

15

2

5

1

12

11

0

0

5

18

0

0

1776-1800

16

4

4

0

16

8

0

0

3

19

2

0

1801-1825

14

9

6

2

15

15

1

0

2

22

6

1

1826-1850

19

17

13

8

34

19

4

0

3

45

8

1

1851-1875

26

27

11

8

42

29

1

0

1

50

17

4

1876-1900

16

11

9

8

23

18

3

0

1

25

13

5

1901-1925

16

0

7

6

15

14

0

0

0

10

16

3

1926-1950

8

6

14

6

13

18

2

1

1

9

20

4

1951-1975

6

13

29

13

26

18

16

1

0

11

27

23

1976-2000

82

40

29

14

118

34

6

7

3

38

74

50

2001-2016

11

78

78

83

201

43

6

0

5

31

95

119

Subtotal

242

214

210

149

529

237

40

9

29

298

278

210

Total

Contextual data rating

815

Numismatic data rating

815

815

Table 3.5. Data quality ratings by circumstance of discovery, ordered alphabetically. Circumstance of discovery

Findspot data rating 1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

Agricultural work

21

10

6

3

23

17

0

0

4

28

8

0

Archaeological investigation

2

12

12

13

7

6

17

9

0

7

17

15

Building work

39

35

62

34

63

95

12

0

3

84

64

19

Grave digging

1

0

10

4

6

8

1

0

1

11

2

1

Metal detecting

65

103

94

86

277

65

6

0

5

47

138

158

Other

12

25

15

7

37

19

3

0

3

29

15

12

Unknown

102

29

11

2

116

27

1

0

13

92

34

5

Subtotal

242

214

210

149

529

237

40

9

29

298

278

210

Total

Contextual data rating

815

815

late twentieth century. This pattern is broadly explicable in terms of historical developments in construction and planning; the two peaks in the rate of discovery, for example, reflect periods of increased construction pursuant on contemporary demographic (Thane 2005, 44-46; Broadberry et al. 2015, 31) and economic (Pemberton 2005, 185-86; Broadberry et al. 2015, 243-44) growth, while the late twentieth century decline must be viewed in tandem with the pattern of archaeologicallyfound hoards (see above) as reflecting increased legal and social constraints on the ability to conduct building work without some form of archaeological observation.

Numismatic data rating

815

Given their significant contribution to the overall dataset, it is unsurprising to note that the spatial incidence of hoards found during building work generally resembles the distribution pattern of the dataset as a whole (Figure 3.12), albeit with a minor skew to the northwest. Within this, however, are some find clusters that may be influenced by circumstantial factors at the discovery stage. More-or-less consistent ‘hotspots’ in Chester, Coventry, London, Nottingham, and York, for example, may reflect a tendency for building work to concentrate in modern urban centres, while other concentrations may result from localised episodes of transformation in the built 19

Andrews.indd 19

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 3.4. Chronological distribution of hoards found during archaeological investigations by date of discovery.

Figure 3.5. Chronological distribution of hoards found during building work by date of discovery.

environment; the cluster of finds on the Gower Peninsula during the early nineteenth century, for example, almost certainly reflects a boom in building work in the Swansea area pursuant on the growth of the copper industry (Jenkins 2000, 143-45).

from the inherently localisable character of building work, which occurs on defined plots of a restricted size, while the second reflects variations in the nature of contextual information from building sites vis-à-vis other locations. As previously noted, many hoards uncovered during building work derive from the fabric of standing medieval buildings, and in these cases their feature and site level contextual settings – for example, in a wall cavity in an urban house – are often explicit, and are consequently more readily discerned by an untrained building labourer than trace features in buried soils. The dependence of this

Data quality ratings for hoards found during building work are generally acceptable, and one might note both an overrepresentation of higher quality spatial data and an underrepresentation of the poorest quality contextual data among these finds. The first phenomenon results 20

Andrews.indd 20

27/11/2019 11:15

Methods and problems: the Coin hoards of medieval England and Wales database

Figure 3.6. Chronological distribution of hoards found during grave digging by date of discovery.

Figure 3.7. Chronological distribution of hoards found during metal detecting by date of discovery.

information on visual apparency, however, may negatively impact its representativeness.

situation that reflects the defined boundaries and restricted size of churchyards, hoards found while grave digging are disproportionately associated with low quality numismatic and contextual data. In the case of the latter, even positive statements of apparent contextual association must be treated with due caution; churchyards are notoriously complicated multiperiod archaeological sites characterised by complex sequences of intercutting and disturbed horizontal and vertical stratigraphy (Rodwell 1989 146-47), and as such it is difficult to verify claims concerning physical associations between hoards and burials or structural features.

3.7.2.4 Grave digging Grave digging is a minor contributor to the hoard record, providing 15 specimens over the period 1660-1968 (Figure 3.6). These finds are skewed towards northwest England and Wales (Figure 3.13), although the significance of this is unclear in view of the small numbers involved. Notwithstanding their unusually accurate findspots, a 21

Andrews.indd 21

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 3.8. Chronological distribution of hoards found in other circumstances by date of discovery.

Figure 3.9. Chronological distribution of hoards found in unknown circumstances by date of discovery.

3.7.2.5 Metal detecting

unsurprising that the spatial distribution of the former should closely resemble that of the latter, exhibiting a strong distributional bias towards southern and eastern England that has only recently (i.e. post-2000) been partoffset by a growth in the number of finds reported from northwest England and Wales (Figure 3.14). Since moreor-less identical distributional skews have been observed in studies of English and Welsh metal detector finds of non-hoarded objects of varying date (e.g. Richards, Naylor, and Holas-Clark 2009; Bevan 2012; Walton 2012, 18; Brindle 2014, 3-4; Cooper and Green 2017),

Some 348 medieval coin hoards – equivalent to 42.7 per cent of the dataset – were uncovered by hobbyist metal detectorists between 1971 and 2016 (Figure 3.7); this exclusively modern chronology, which exhibits an enormous increase in the rate of discovery after 2005, broadly corresponds with established historical trends in the popularity of metal detecting as a recreational pursuit (Robbins 2014, 11-14). Given the dominant position of metal detected hoards in the dataset as a whole, it is 22

Andrews.indd 22

27/11/2019 11:15

Methods and problems: the Coin hoards of medieval England and Wales database

Figure 3.10. Spatial distribution of hoards found during agricultural work.

Figure 3.11. Spatial distribution of hoards found during archaeological investigations.

23

Andrews.indd 23

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 3.12. Spatial distribution of hoards found during building work.

Figure 3.13. Spatial distribution of hoards found during grave digging.

24

Andrews.indd 24

27/11/2019 11:15

Methods and problems: the Coin hoards of medieval England and Wales database

Figure 3.14. Spatial distribution of hoards found during metal detecting.

it is probable that this pattern is at least as reflective of modern affordance constraints on metal detecting activity – which tends to be pursued most intensively in lowland arable locations in southeast and eastern England – as it is of genuine historic patterning in the spatial incidence of hoard deposition. The preferential selection of sites by metal detectorists may also impact on locational patterning at the regional and sub-regional levels; factors like the availability of landowner permissions, ease of access to land, and the proximity of Scheduled Ancient Monuments have all been shown to influence the observed distribution of metal detecting activity (Bevan 2012, 494-96; Brindle 2014, 19), and may consequently skew the distributional pattern of metal detected hoards.

archaeological training among metal detector users also impairs contextual data quality; Brindle (2014, 18), for example, notes that many metal detector users do not recognise or collect non-metal artefacts uncovered in the ploughsoil, a practice that may bias the representation of ceramic or organic hoard containers in the resultant dataset. Finally, it is important to note that, whether by intent or accident, not all metal detecting activity is restricted to the ploughsoil layers of cultivated fields; where these circumstances do not prevail – for example, where hoards are found in pastureland, or where hoards are removed from buried subsoils below the depth of plough disturbance – it is likely that latent contextual information is either destroyed or at least overlooked by finders (Gill 2015, 52-53).

The quality of numismatic and findspot information associated with metal detected hoards is relatively good, a situation that owes much to the efforts of PAS archaeologists in encouraging hobbyists to adhere to ‘best practice’ standards (Portable Antiquities Scheme 2006); the fruits of this work are evidenced by the improvement of findspot data quality between 1976-2001 and 200116, which almost entirely reflects the increased use of GPS devices in the field by metal detector users in line with these standards (Brindle 2014, 20). Contextual data quality is generally poor, a circumstance that largely reflects situational biases towards discovery in ploughed fields. However, it is probable that a general lack of

3.7.2.6 Other discovery circumstances A handful of discovery circumstances represented in the hoard dataset do not neatly fall into the categories previously discussed (Figure 3.8; Figure 3.15). Many of these result from miscellaneous activities that result in the disturbance of buried soils; these include 21 hoards found during domestic work, three hoards found while peat cutting, and two found during quarrying. Activities pursued near or in watercourses are minor contributors, and include four hoards found in river mud by ‘mudlarks’ and one hoard uncovered by dredging. A further 28 25

Andrews.indd 25

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 3.15. Spatial distribution of hoards found in other circumstances.

hoards, meanwhile, belong to a miscellaneous class of true ‘chance discoveries’; examples include the hoard from Beauworth (Hampshire; BWH), found by boys playing in a meadow, and the hoard from Ramshaw Moor (Northumberland; RAM), which was uncovered during hare coursing. Despite their circumstantial diversity, these hoards all share the common property of being found by non-archaeologists, a fact reflected in their uniformly poor data quality ratings; it is consequently likely that many of the issues associated with hoards recovered in this manner, such as the non-observance or accidental destruction of contextual evidence, are present in these cases.

is difficult to evaluate the potential biases introduced at the discovery stage where basic information concerning discovery circumstances is unavailable, although it is likely that many of the general issues presented by nonarchaeological discoveries operate. The limitations of this evidence are reflected in data quality ratings, which are uniformly poor irrespective of criterion. 3.7.3 Record formation processes III: the registration stage The events that follow in the wake of the physical unearthing of a coin hoard belong to a separate and final ‘registration stage’ of assemblage biography, and play a significant role in determining the form and manner of a hoard’s entry into the archaeological record, if indeed it enters the record at all. At least four successive junctures within the registration stage can be identified, comprising phases of recognition, reporting, recording, and dissemination, each of which have implications for the formation of the hoard record.

3.7.2.7 Unknown circumstances A total of 144 hoards, or 17.7 per cent of the dataset as a whole, were uncovered in unknown circumstances. The chronological distribution of these finds (Figure 3.9) exhibits modest peaks in the mid-nineteenth and late twentieth centuries, and it is consequently likely that most represent poorly-documented discoveries made during building work or hobbyist metal detecting; this conclusion may be supported by the close parallels between the spatial distribution of hoards discovered in unknown circumstances and that of the dataset as a whole (Figure 3.16), the latter of which has been previously shown to largely reflect the pattern of hoards found by building labourers and metal detector users. By definition,

The phase of recognition essentially concerns the capacity of finders and other parties to acknowledge that a coin hoard had indeed been uncovered. On a fundamental level, this presumes a basic ability to identify potential archaeological remains, a skill that is neither innate nor inherently straightforward. Surface accretions and oxidised deposits 26

Andrews.indd 26

27/11/2019 11:15

Methods and problems: the Coin hoards of medieval England and Wales database

Figure 3.16. Spatial distribution of hoards found in unknown circumstances.

present on coins from the Nottingham (Nottinghamshire; NT1) hoard, for example, led the finders to believe that they had in fact uncovered a mass of old bottle tops, a misidentification that resulted in their decision to amuse themselves by throwing the coins at one another (Toplis 1881, 37). In a similar vein, the finders of a fourteenth century hoard from Thame (Oxfordshire; THA) were unable to see past the corrosion deposits that obscured the surface of the coins, which were consequently presented to a group of children playing in the street, ‘who used them for the purpose of pelting each other, so that by far the larger part have been quite lost’ (Oxford Journal, 14 December 1889, 8). Were it not for the fortuitous intervention of local antiquaries, numismatists, and landowners, it is likely that neither find would have entered the archaeological record at all, and consequently one must remain attuned to the possibility that an unknown quantity of additional hoard finds were entirely lost because of non-identification.

awareness of the relevant legal regimes, a desire on the part of finders to fulfil their statutory obligations, and on the effective enforcement of treasure law, requirements that are not always met. References to hoards being partially or totally dispersed among people present at the moment of discovery suggest that finders have often lacked an understanding of treasure law, or have otherwise assumed the precedence of the principle of ‘finders, keepers’. In such circumstances, the formal reporting of a hoard is a matter of luck; for example, we only learn of a fourteenth century hoard from Kidderminster (Worcestershire; KID) because a journalist happened to pass through the area while the hoard was being dispersed among gathered crowds (Andrews 2015, 113), and similarly our awareness of the eleventh century hoard from Chancton Upper Farm (West Sussex; CUF) is almost entirely thanks to the observations of a local postmaster concerning the use of curious pieces of ‘old tin’ as beer money at a local pub (Lucas 1868, 213). Furthermore, we must acknowledge the deliberate non-reporting of hoards illicitly discovered by looters, a practice that is sometimes evidenced by the appearance of large parcels of coins without verifiable collecting histories on the retail market. The problems posed by implied instances of total non-reporting should be understood in parallel to the more pervasive issue of partial reporting, in which the overall reliability or archaeological utility of data is impaired by constraints at the reporting phase: for instance, through a failure to

The positive identification of a hoard deposit does not guarantee its subsequent reporting to external individuals and institutions. By definition, non-reporting has a wholly negative impact on the completeness, and possibly the representativeness, of the archaeological record as a whole, although in a hoard context this problem may be mitigated by the legal imperative to report finds under the terms of successive treasure laws (Bland 2009). The success of these policies, however, entirely depends on a popular 27

Andrews.indd 27

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 3.7.4 Record formation processes: concluding remarks

provide precise findspot data, or through the provision of incomplete information concerning associated finds.

When viewed through the lens of archaeological source criticism, it is evident that the assembled dataset has numerous deficiencies that flow from anthropogenic, biotic, and geochemical processes enacted after its constituent hoards were deposited. However, it would be entirely incorrect to dismiss the dataset, and any analyses drawn from it, on this basis alone. At a fundamental level, the problems noted above must be understood as specific manifestations of innate issues that affect the archaeological record as a whole; there is no such thing as an entirely unbiased archaeological dataset, and consequently if we are to make use of archaeological evidence of any kind, we must be prepared to accept the myriad caveats that come with it. At the same time, it is important not to exaggerate the influence of postdepositional bias on resultant data patterning; Bevan’s (2012, 496) study of macro-scale distribution patterns in metal detected finds recorded by the PAS, for example, illustrates the difficulties involved in determining the extent to which modern finds distributions reflect the influence of recovery biases or instead ‘repeatedly encouraging environments for human activity throughout time’, and his conclusions concerning the need to ‘remain agnostic’ about the causes of observed patterning are particularly relevant in the context of the present study. For these reasons, the analyses conducted in the following chapters are pursued in a spirit of cautious optimism, employing cogent mitigation policies where suitable – for instance, restricting the use of certain analytical techniques to highquality data only – and exercising an honest scepticism when interpreting resultant data patterning.

The final two phases of the registration stage – recording and dissemination – pose further issues for an understanding of the formation of the hoard record. Where reported through the proper legal channels, it has traditionally been the case that coin hoards found in England and Wales are recorded to a high standard by specialist numismatists and archaeologists based in academic institutions or museums, a convention with obvious positive implications where data quality is concerned. However, it is also the case that standards are not static, a fact most evident in the context of numismatic classification. Most of the typologies that are currently used to classify English coins of the period 1158-1544, for example, were substantively lain out in the early twentieth century and employ entirely different diagnostic criteria to earlier schemes (North 1989; Mass 2001). For the most part, it is therefore impossible to establish accurate concordances between the typologies used to classify the coins in hoards recorded before and after c.1900, a circumstance that places limits on the relative utility of early and late reports as source material; the scale of the problem is indicated by Table 3.4, which reveals a dramatic increase in the proportion of hoards with grade 3-4 numismatic data quality after 1900. At the dissemination phase, a primary issue concerns subjective decisions over what information should, and should not, be made available in the public domain. Many recent hoard reports, for example, choose to deliberately omit information concerning contextual circumstances and findspots as a means of preserving the integrity of a find site against looting (cf. James 2001, 1072; Hadley and Richards 2016, 26, fn. 21), and while this information can sometimes be obtained from unpublished Treasure Reports, archaeological ‘grey literature’, or archival documents, there are instances in which information is no longer preserved in any form. Disciplinary traditions concerning the separate publication of hoard coins inherently results in their disaggregation from other elements of the deposits they originate from, a circumstance that can result in knowledge loss (Guest 2015, 106). The case of the fourteenth century hoard from Newminster Abbey (Northumbria; NAN) is instructive. Discovered during excavations in the abbey cellarium in 1925, the hoard originally consisted of 486 coins and two silver annular brooches. The coins were promptly dispatched to the British Museum, where they were identified and published by George Brooke in the Numismatic Chronicle. Brooke was never informed of the brooches, however, which were retained and published separately in the Northumbrian journal Archaeologia Aeliana; as a result, subsequent researchers have proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the hoard contained coins alone (Thompson 1956, 108, no. 286; Allen 2012, 483, no. 293). Aside from emphasising the problems of partial publication, the Newminster Abbey hoard highlights fundamental issues involved with the retrieval of published data when compiling a hoard corpus, which substantially depends on the analyst’s access to, and awareness of, a body of evidence that has been published in a wide variety of source types. 28

Andrews.indd 28

27/11/2019 11:15

4 Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544 Since the publication of Thompson’s (1956) Inventory it has been apparent that medieval coin hoards are not evenly distributed across time and space, but instead exhibit temporal and spatial patterns that both provide a background context to the interpretation of individual hoards and have wider archaeological and historical implications for a general understanding of medieval hoarding practices. This chapter analyses the hoard dataset on a macro-scale to outline trends in the incidence of coin hoarding in England and Wales c.973-1544, and assesses the relationship of hoarding to underlying chronologies and geographies of commerce, population, and wealth as reflected in historical and archaeological sources. Finally, it provides a critical assessment of purported links between hoarding and violence, with specific reference to three historical conflicts: the Norman Conquest and ‘Harrying of the North’, the twelfth century ‘Anarchy’, and the Scottish Wars of Independence.

thereafter (Figure 4.1). Adjusting these totals for the lengths of the respective periods provides smoothed perannum totals of 0.86 hoards/year in c.973-1016 and 0.72 hoards/year in 1016-1066, indicating a comparatively low level of deposition or, at least, of contemporary non-recovery. This conclusion is reiterated even where per-annum totals are recalculated at a finer grain; although there are decades where the per-annum rate of deposition is lower or higher than the per-annum total for the relevant period, apart from the 1000s and 1060s the differences are usually very limited (Figure 4.2). Judged purely by their numismatic elements, the contemporary face values of hoards vary between periods, with a median face value of 7½d. for hoards buried in c.973-1016 rising to 1s. 5d. for hoards buried in 10161066. Contextualising these sums is difficult in view of the limited quantity of surviving late Anglo-Saxon price data, but what is available suggests that the median in c.973-1016 might be broadly comparable to the price of a pig or 15-23kg of cheese, while in 1016-1066 it was slightly less than the value of a cow or 34-51kg of cheese (Fairbairn 2013, 84). When considering these valuations, however, it is important to note that in neither period does the pattern of face values follow a normal distribution (Figure 4.3). Twelve of the hoards deposited c.973-1016 were valued at just 2d., with the hoard from near Lewes

4.1 The pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544 4.1.1 Phase A: Late Anglo-Saxon coin hoards, c.973-1066 A total of 73 coin hoards are known to have been deposited in England and Wales between c.973 and 1066, of which 37 were deposited before 1016 and 36 in the half-century

Figure 4.1. Chronological distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards, c.973-1544 (n=780).

29

Andrews.indd 29

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 4.2. Chronological distribution of hoards by decade (n=815).

Figure 4.3. Boxplot of the distribution of minimum contemporary face values (d.) of coin hoards, c.973-1544 (n=701).

in the latter period, equivalent now to 16s. 6½d., and accompanying this development is a growth in the number of very large hoards containing hundreds or thousands of pennies, with the three largest deposits – the Lenborough (Buckinghamshire; LEN), ‘Cnut’ (Cambridgeshire?; CNU) and Kingsholm (Gloucestershire; KHG) hoards – all valued from £20 to £40.

(East Sussex; NLS) worth a mere 1½d.; although the interquartile range for this period equates to 2s. 1½d., a handful of larger hoards contained much more significant sums, peaking at more than £1 5s. 0d. in the hoard buried c.980 near Oakham (Rutland; OAK). The increase in the median value between c.973-1016 and 1016-1066 relates to a significant widening of the interquartile range 30

Andrews.indd 30

27/11/2019 11:15

Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544 Findspot information exists for 69 Phase A hoards, whose distributions are mapped in Figure 4.4. In c.973-1016 there is a clear division in the incidence of hoarding either side of a line between the Severn Estuary and the Wash, with the few hoards from northern and midland England and Wales contrasting with the large numbers found in East Anglia and southeast England. Within this hoard-rich region there are apparent geographical concentrations. Four East Anglian hoards were discovered in the immediate vicinity of Bury St Edmunds, split evenly between those closing with Aethelred II’s Crux (c.991-997) and Long Cross (c.9971003) types; four of the five hoards that skirt the South Downs from near Lewes (East Sussex; NLS) in the east to Cheriton (Hampshire; CHT) in the west also apparently terminate with Long Cross pennies. A third group follows the Thames from Isleworth (Greater London; ISL) to the City of London, but is more chronologically diverse. The evidence from the area to the north and west is dispersed, although a pair of hoards from south Wales at Laugharne (Dyfed; LAU) and Penrice (West Glamorgan; PRC) are spatially proximate. In 1016-1066 the distribution of finds shifts slightly to the northwest, resulting in a division between a hoard-rich southeast and hoard-poor northwest now more properly delineated by a line between the Humber and Severn Estuaries. In the southeast notable concentrations include a chronologically-disparate group of three hoards from the Bury St Edmunds area at Ixworth (Suffolk; IXW), Rougham (Suffolk; ROU), and Campsey

Ash/Thwaite (Suffolk; CAS), while a further three hoards from Appledore (Kent; APP), Sedlescombe (East Sussex; SED), and Milton Street (East Sussex; MSE) are all located near rivers a short distance inland of the Kentish and Sussex coast. Outside of this core zone two hoards from the Nottingham area – Barkergate (Nottinghamshire; BGN) and Sherwood Forest (Nottinghamshire; SHW) – were both probably deposited in the late 1050s, while in Wales the distribution of hoards shifts from the south to the northwest, and includes two hoards of the 1020s from the Creuddyn Peninsula at Bryn Maelgwyn (Clwyd; BRY) and Pant-yr-Eglwys (Clwyd; PAN) and two further hoards from Drwsdangoed/Penarth Fawr (Gwynedd; DRW) and Llandwrog (Gwynedd; LDW) on the Llŷn Peninsula. 4.1.2 Phase B: Anglo-Norman coin hoards, 1066-1158 A total of 109 coin hoards were deposited between 1066 and 1158, of which 60 were deposited before 1100, 20 in 1100-1135, and 29 in 1135-1158 (Figure 4.1); when smoothed for period duration these figures equate to 1.76 hoards/year in 1066-1100, contracting to 0.57 hoards/year in 1100-1135, before rising again to 1.26 hoards/year in 1135-1158. The period 1100-1135 notwithstanding, these figures are generally suggestive of a slight increase in the rate of hoard deposition or non-recovery compared to the preceding phase, although in absolute terms the numbers remain small. Two slight peaks are identifiable at the

Figure 4.4. Spatial distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards in Phase A (c.973-1066).

31

Andrews.indd 31

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 decadal level: one in the 1060s, and another in the 1140s (Figure 4.2).

Findspot information is present for 105 Phase B hoards, whose distributions are mapped in Figure 4.5. In all three periods the fundamental division between a hoardrich southeast and hoard-poor northwest is maintained either side of the Humber and Severn Estuaries, although there are slight shifts in emphasis at the period level. The distribution of hoards in 1066-1100 is similar to the situation in 1016-1066, although hoards extend further into northern England than previously; the latter include a concentration of twelve hoards from the Vale of York and Pennine Edge, seven of which occur within the city walls of York itself. As in Phase A, hoards of this period are abundant along the South Downs and Kentish and Sussex coastline, and London and East Anglia remain well-represented; however, in the latter there is a modest northward shift from Bury St Edmunds to Kings Lynn and Norwich. Hoards of the period 1100-1135 are less numerous and are more concentrated southeast of the Humber-Severn line, with finds from Knaresborough (North Yorkshire; KNA) and Milford Haven (Dyfed; MIL) representing extreme outliers in the north and west; previously observed concentrations around London, the Kent and Sussex coast, and the Kings Lynn-Norwich area are also evident in this period. By 1135-1158 hoard distributions revert to the basic pattern of 1066-1100, with slight regional concentrations. Three hoards of the 1140s and 1150s from Box (Wiltshire; BOX), Latton (Wiltshire;

As previously, the face values of hoards in this phase vary between periods. Median values equate to 1s. 3½d. in 1066-1100, dipping slightly to 10½d. in 1100-1135, and rising again to a peak of 1s. 7¾d. in 1135-1158 (Figure 4.3); these values are only slightly larger than those observed before the Norman Conquest in 1016-1066, and, as in that period, the interquartile range of Phase B hoards is highly varied, equivalent to 19s. 11½d. in 10661100, 4s. 5½d. in 1100-1135, and 11s. 4d. in 1135-1158. Prices appear to have remained relatively stable between the tenth and mid-twelfth centuries (Farmer 1988, 716), and consequently the purchasing power represented by the median face values is unlikely to have been much greater than in Phase A. In all three periods several large coin hoards appear as outliers to the core distribution of face values. Roughly a quarter of hoards deposited in both 1066-1100 and 1135-1158 were worth upwards of £1, the former including two extremely large hoards from Oulton (Staffordshire; OUL) and Beauworth (Hampshire; BWH) valued at approximately £17 and £50 respectively. However, just three of the 20 hoards deposited in 11001135 were worth more than £1; the largest hoard is from the Malandry, Lincoln (Lincolnshire; MLI), valued at just over £3.

Figure 4.5. Spatial distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards in Phase B (1066-1158).

32

Andrews.indd 32

27/11/2019 11:15

Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544 LAT), and Wroughton (Wiltshire; WRW) constitute a small group from the Avon Vales. A second group from the Bedford area (Bedfordshire; BAB), Dean and Shelton (Bedfordshire; DAS), and Grendon (Northamptonshire; GRE) are centred on the 1140s, as are four hoards from around the Thames Estuary at Dartford/Gravesend (Kent; DGK), Eynesford (Kent; EYN), Linton (Kent; LIN), and Rayleigh (Essex; RAY). The hoard from St Kentigern’s Church, Crosthwaite (Cumbria; SKC) is a lone outlier in northwest England.

distinctions between northwest and southeast England either side of the Humber-Severn line persist throughout the phase, although variations remain between periods. In 1158-1180 hoards tend to be more prolific in the East of England and East Midlands, with the sole possible concentration consisting of the hoards from Mile Ditches (Cambridgeshire; MDC) and Royston (Hertfordshire; ROY); three Northumbrian finds from Bramham Moor (West Yorkshire; BM2), Thorpe Thewles (County Durham; TRT), and Outchester (Northumberland; OUT) are relatively distant from the core zone of hoarding, but are otherwise consistent with the eastern distributional trend. By 1180-1247 there is a westward expansion in the incidence of hoarding, which now penetrates traditionally marginal locales in northwest (e.g. NAT; NBA; NCA) and southwest England (e.g. LOX; STC) and mid-Wales (e.g. CWM; MON). Previously observed ‘hotspots’ of hoarding in London and Norfolk are now joined by groups of hoards around Dover (BHK; DOK; SBH), the south Buckinghamshire Chilterns (CLS; HWY; WEN), and the area around Coventry and Leicester (FIL; HHL; THU), although none of these are particularly chronologically proximate; the concentration of four hoards around Morecambe Bay (NAT; NBA; NCA; SLA) has a similarly dispersed chronology. Several pairs of hoards – for instance, those from the Manchester (CLL; ECC) and York (MMO; YM2) areas, and from a southern stretch of the River Severn between Gloucester and Tewkesbury (LEG; TEW) – are spatially identifiable, but rarely coincide chronologically. The slight decline in the rate of hoard deposition between 1180-1247 and 1247-1279 is mirrored by a modest contraction in the spatial extent of hoarding in the latter period, which focuses more on central England and the Home Counties although retains key hotspots in London, East Anglia, and the area around Coventry and Leicester. As ever, outliers to the core distribution pattern are present, including two northern hoards of the 1250s or 1260s from Callaly (Northumberland; CNO) and Cawton (North Yorkshire; CWA).

4.1.3 Phase C: High medieval coin hoards, 1158-1279 A total of 175 coin hoards belong to the period 11581279. Eleven of these finds cannot be securely attributed to a discrete period within the phase; of the remaining 164 hoards, 26 were deposited between 1158 and 1180, 94 between 1180 and 1247, and 44 between 1247 and 1279 (Figure 4.1). Smoothing these figures by period length results in per-annum values of 1.18 hoards/year in 1158-1180, 1.40 hoards/year in 1180-1247, and 1.38 hoards/year in 1247-1279. As previously, these results are consistent with a modest general increase in the rate of hoard deposition or non-recovery compared to the preceding phase, although remain low in absolute magnitude. Viewed at the decadal level, there are few large peaks or troughs in hoarding chronologies, although slight ‘peaks’ in the 1170s, 1200s/1210s, 1240s, and 1270s broadly coincide with the period-defining recoinages of 1180, 1247, and 1279, and the partial recoinage of 1205 (Figure 4.2). These peaks are more probably an artefact of numismatic dating methods than a reflection of genuine spikes in the rate of hoarding. The face values of hoards in this phase continue to vary within and between periods. In 1158-1180 the median value of hoards is nearly double that of 1135-1158 at 3s. ¾d., declining in 1180-1247 to 1s. 6½d. and 1s. 4½d. in 12471279; an identical trajectory is present in the interquartile ranges of the three periods, equivalent to 18s. 11¼d. in 1158-1180, 6s. 3d. in 1180-1247, and 3s. 8d. in 1247-1279 (Figure 4.3). Cheese prices again provide a useful index for assessing the purchasing power represented by median values; the median for 1158-1180 would have bought roughly 52kg of cheese in the 1170s (Farmer 1988, 757), while the medians for 1180-1247 and 1247-1279 would buy approximately 23kg of cheese in the 1210s and 17kg in the 1250s respectively (Clark 2004, 76-77). As previously, several particularly large hoards represent outliers to the core distributional trend. Seven hoards deposited in 11581180 were worth £1 or more, including an exceptionally large hoard from Tealby (Lincolnshire; TEA) valued at approximately £25; the largest hoards of the periods 11801247 and 1247-1279 are both from Colchester (Essex; CO1 and CO2) and are of considerably greater magnitude, valued at more than £45 and £58 respectively.

4.1.4 Phase D: Late medieval coin hoards, 1279-1544 A total of 456 coin hoards belong to the period 12791544, of which 434 can be securely periodised: 137 were deposited between 1279 and 1351, 106 in 1351-1412, 68 in 1412-1464, and 123 in 1465-1544 (Figure 4.1). These equate to per-annum values of 1.90 in 1279-1351, 1.74 in 1351-1412, 1.31 in 1412-1464, and 1.56 in 1465-1544, and therefore rank among the highest rates of deposition or non-recovery observed in this study. Decadal peaks in the 1270s, 1350s, 1410s, 1460s, and 1520s directly correspond with weight reductions that effected changes in the age-structure of the currency, and are probably influenced by numismatic dating conventions; troughs are also visible in the 1330s, 1390s-1400s, 1440s-1450s, 1510s, and 1530s-1540s (Figure 4.2).

Findspot information is present for 168 Phase C hoards, 157 of which can be attributed to individual periods and are mapped in Figure 4.6. The previously observed

The face values of hoards deposited in this phase are noticeably larger than in preceding periods. In 1279-1351 the median value of hoards is nearly double that of 124733

Andrews.indd 33

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 4.6. Spatial distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards in Phase C (1158-1279).

variations at the period level attest to diachronic shifts in the spatial pattern of hoarding. In 1279-1351 southeast England – and particularly the areas around London (e.g. ES1; ES2, SAC), Surrey (e.g. CRD; OXT; WGT), and the East Anglian (e.g. BEN; GYN; HDD) and Kentish (e.g. DOV; ELA) coasts – remains the core centre of hoarding, although a northwards and westwards expansion is visible compared to the preceding periods. This development is especially marked at the peripheries, with noticeable clusters of hoards in northern England between Amble and Newcastle-upon-Tyne (e.g. AMB; CRM; RTY), Harrogate and York (e.g. BOO; COP; KNP), and, to a lesser extent, the area west of Carlisle (BMC; HCC; WIG), and in Wales either side of the Menai Strait (e.g. CNR; LDA; LVS) and in the Swansea area (e.g. NA1; SWS; UPK); however, it is also visible more centrally in the West Midlands, which has a particular concentration around Coventry (e.g. AST; CWH; HSC), and is otherwise reflected by a general penetration of finds into areas of mid-Wales and northern England that previously yielded hoards in very limited numbers. This overall pattern is almost entirely preserved in 1351-1412, albeit with a slight southwestern shift effected by the identification of two new ‘hotspots’ of hoarding in Dorset (e.g. DOR; HAL; PID) and the Vale of Glamorgan (e.g. BVS; MKN; PNL). In 1412-1464 there is a contraction in the incidence of hoarding in the northwest, resulting in a reversion to the pre-1279 divide between

1279 at 2s. 8d., rising dramatically to 12s. 0d. in 1351-1412 before moderately decreasing to 11s. 9d. in 1412-1464 and 7s. 8d. in 1465-1544; a similar trajectory is charted by the interquartile ranges in all four periods, which equate to £1 1s. 2¾d. in 1279-1351, £3 3s. 6¼d. in 1351-1412, £3 17s. 10¾d. in 1412-1464, and £2 1s. 1d. in 1465-1544 (Figure 4.3). Using cheese prices as an index once more, the median face values would equate to roughly 28kg of cheese in the 1300s (median 1279-1351), 140kg in the 1370s (median 1351-1412), 134kg in the 1440s (median 1412-1464), and 95kg in the 1500s (median 1465-1544) (Clarke 2004, 77-82). As ever, extremely high-value hoards are outliers to these core distributions. A total of 39 hoards in this phase – six in 1279-1351, 14 in 1351-1412, 11 in 1412-1464, and eight in 1465-1544 – are worth £10 or more, the largest being the remarkable hoard of £2000 in gold nobles and half nobles found in the rectory wall at Towcester (Northamptonshire; TOW) in c.1448; the second largest hoard of the phase is the find from Tutbury (Staffordshire; TUT), worth at least £500 when it was deposited in the early 1320s. Findspot information is present for 445 Phase D hoards, 424 of which can be attributed to individual periods and are mapped in Figures 4.7-4.8. While the divide between a hoard-poor northwest and hoard-rich southeast either side of the Humber-Severn line persists throughout the phase, 34

Andrews.indd 34

27/11/2019 11:15

Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544

Figure 4.7. Spatial distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards deposited 1279-1412 in Phase D (1279-1544).

Figure 4.8. Spatial distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards deposited 1412-1544 in Phase D (1279-1544).

35

Andrews.indd 35

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 northwest and southeast; within the latter there are some possible concentrations of hoards in familiar regions, most notably London (e.g. HIG; LD3), Surrey (e.g. BRR; WLR), and a stretch between Colchester and Ipswich (e.g. ARE; EBS; IPS; SJG). This new pattern is largely reproduced in 1465-1544, albeit with a slight shift to the west resulting from an upsurge in hoarding in southwest England, which concentrates in north Dorset and south Wiltshire (e.g. FGW; OKE; WRM).

(Allen 2012, 317-19). This data forms the starting point for several innovative reconstructions of available money stocks at fixed dates (e.g. Metcalf 1981, 63-65; Mayhew 1995; Latimer 2003), of which those of Allen (2005; 2012) are by far the most detailed and comprehensive, providing a range of estimates for 21 fixed dates between c.973 and 1544. Allen’s low and high estimates for available money stocks are plotted in Figure 4.9 as a line graph – using the admittedly problematic assumption of a constant growth rate between each estimate – superimposed on a histogram depicting the incidence of hoarding per-annum.

4.2 Patterns in perspective I: coin hoards and monetary trends

Although the differing scales of quantification make it hard to draw firm conclusions, there is a general sense of a shared trajectory in the incidence of hoarding and the contemporary size of the currency. In particular, the upsurge in the per-annum rate of hoard deposition after 1135 to a peak in 1279-1351 broadly corresponds with a contemporary expansion in available money stocks, and the subsequent decline in hoarding between 1412 and 1464 – followed by a resurgence in the period 1465-1544 – similarly resembles a pattern of decline and resurgence in the size of the currency in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The relationship of hoards and money supply in 1351-1412 is less clear, however, as the wide range of estimates for money stocks in 1377 reflect considerable uncertainty over the size of the silver currency at this date (Allen 2012, 331-36); the per-annum rate of hoarding in 1351-1412 is consistent with a decline in the size of the currency from the early to the late fourteenth century as indicated by Allen’s minimum estimates, but conversely would not correspond with the increase suggested by his maximum estimate. However, there is an anomaly to this broad pattern of association in 1066-1100, where the per-

To reliably interpret observed hoarding patterns, it is necessary to situate the evidence in its wider context. In particular, monetary trends identified in archaeological, historical, and numismatic sources are an essential frame of reference, and as such this section considers the relationship between coin hoards and two facets of medieval monetary history: fluctuations in the size of the currency, the pattern of coin supply and use as indicated by single finds. 4.2.1 Hoards and the size of the currency Since the availability of coin is, by definition, a precondition for the formation and deposition of coin hoards, it is essential that patterns in hoarding are not evaluated apart from background trends in the amount of coined money available at any given time. Fortunately, by European standards, evidence for the volume of currency in medieval England and Wales is comparatively prolific, reflecting both an uncharacteristically high rate of survival of medieval mint accounts, and a large number of published die-studies from which to estimate patterns of mint output

Figure 4.9. Hoards per-annum compared to Allen’s (2012) estimates of the size of the currency.

36

Andrews.indd 36

27/11/2019 11:15

Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544 annum rate of hoarding exhibits a strong peak that does not seem to correspond with a particularly significant growth in the size of the currency at a general level.

century (Figure 4.2), at which point the size of the currency is likely to have been considerably smaller than it was in 1544. While the rates of change at the individual period level may not always correspond, there is nonetheless a general correspondence between the trajectories of both datasets; as such, it is not wholly unreasonable to conclude that both the incidence and magnitude of hoarding broadly follow contours delineated by the amount of money available to be hoarded at any given time.

The face values of hoards provide an alternative lens on the relationship between currency sizes and the pattern of hoarding. Figure 4.10 plots Allen’s estimates against the median face values of periodised coin hoards between c.973 and 1544. Though the results show some general similarities – the tendency for later hoards to be larger than earlier ones, for example, is consistent with the marked expansion in the size of the currency over the study period – there are some points of potential divergence. For example, in 1279-1351 the growth in the median face value of hoards (95 per cent increase between 1247-1279 and 1279-1351) is considerably smaller than the comparable growth of money stocks during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries (8 per cent to 63 per cent increase between 1247 and 1279; 138 per cent to 200 per cent increase between 1279 and 1310). Similarly, while the pattern of hoard face values in 13511412 sits a little better with trends in the money supply – the shared rise reflects the now-regular appearance of a domestic gold coinage in the circulating pool – the decline in hoard face values in 1412-1464 is less marked than the estimated money stock would suggest, and in 1465-1544 the median value of hoards continues to decline in contrast to an apparent rise in the size of the currency from a low of roughly £750,000 to £950,000 in 1470 to £1,000,000 to £1,500,000 in 1544 (Allen 2012, 344). However, this last discrepancy probably reflects the heavily skewed intraperiod distribution of hoards in 1465-1544, most of which were deposited before the reduction in weight standards in 1526, and in many cases before the end of the fifteenth

4.2.2 Hoards and single coin finds Single finds of coins are frequently used as an index measure for temporal and spatial trends in the supply and use of coinage in medieval Europe (Moesgaard 2002). In a British context major studies by Rigold (1977), Holmes (2004), Kelleher (2012), and Naismith (2013) have characterised large-scale patterns in single find evidence from the tenth to sixteenth centuries, identifying relatively consistent trajectories in the incidence of single finds that almost certainly reflect underlying trends in coin supply and coin use. As such, this material provides an important comparative source for assessing the relationship between coin hoards and background monetary phenomena. For this reason, a corpus of 20,216 georeferenced single finds from England and Wales has been assembled as background data for comparative analysis, comprising 3,188 single finds dated c.973-1158 from the Fitzwilliam Museum’s Corpus of Early Medieval Coin Finds (EMC), and a further 17,028 single finds dated 1158-1544 and collated by Richard Kelleher from the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) database; all of these specimens can be allocated to one of the four phases, and 19,050 to one of the 12 periods, used in the present study.

Figure 4.10. Median face values (d.) of coin hoards compared to Allen’s (2012) estimates of the size of the currency.

37

Andrews.indd 37

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 Figure 4.11 plots the chronological distribution of coin hoards against single finds, demonstrating that both classes of find follow a broadly similar trajectory. As previously, however, they are not an exact match. One of the most visible divergences between proportions of single finds and hoards occurs in the period between 1279-1351, where a common peak is more pronounced in single finds than in hoards. However, the scale of this divergence is at least partly artificial. As previously noted (see Chapter 3), the cessation of regular complete recoinages after 1279 means that 1279-1544 is the sole phase in this study in which coins minted in one period persisted in circulation on some scale into subsequent periods, and estimates by Archibald (1988, 288-89) and Allen (2015b, 19) suggest that as many as half of the pennies struck between 1279 and 1351 may remained in circulation into the following century and possibly beyond. Accounting for this ‘carry-over’ smooths the profile of single finds, although distinctions remain between the two datasets; in particular, hoards of c.9731016 and 1066-1100 are more common than contemporary single finds, and conversely single finds outstrip hoards in the periods 1180-1247 and 1247-1279. Interesting though these distinctions are, at the purely chronological level the two datasets seem to have more in common than separates them, and follow a broadly shared trajectory throughout the study period. This conclusion is supported by distributional analysis. Figures 4.12-4.15 map single finds by phase, using a 40km diameter hexagonal tile surface as a mapping unit to replot dot distributions as a choropleth density map. Tiles with null values have been omitted from analysis, and the remaining tiles have been split into quintiles according to single find density values to form a background surface against which contemporary hoards can be assessed. For each phase, map evidence and chi-squared testing (Table 4.1) confirms that hoards are not evenly distributed across single find density quintiles.1 Indeed, there is a very strong positive correlation between the incidence of hoards and the incidence of single finds in all four phases; during any one phase, for example, between 58 per cent and 70 per cent of hoards occur in tiles assigned to the upper two single find density quintiles, and the uppermost single find density quintile in particular contains anywhere from two to nine times as many hoards as the lowest quintile does.2 The global character and strength of this association indicates that there is an

extremely close relationship between the spatial incidence of hoarding and the supply and use of coins as indicated by single finds. As previously, a different lens on the relationship between single finds and hoards is provided by the evidence of face values. Figure 4.16 plots the face values of coin hoards deposited between 1066 and 1544 – insufficient data is available for hoards deposited c.973-1066 – by the single find density quintiles they occur in. Simple linear regression analysis shows that between 1066 and 1158 there is a strong negative correlation (r=-0.78; R2=0.62) between the median size of hoards and the number of single finds present in the areas they were found in. Hoards from single find density quintiles 1 and 2, for instance, have median face values of 8s. 3¼d. and 1s. 6d. respectively, while those from quintiles 4 and 5 have median values of 8d. and 7d.; similarly, the minimum hoard size in quintile 1 is 3d., compared to 2d. in quintiles 2-4 and 1.5d. in quintile 5. In 1158-1279 and 1279-1544, however, the distribution of median face values is relatively even across quintiles, and variation is most acute in hoards from the highest single find quintiles; thus in 1158-1279 hoards from quintile 5 have the highest median face values (1s. 8d.) and quintile 4 the lowest (1s. 2d.), whereas in 1279-1544 quintile 4 hoards have the highest median face values (7s. 9d.) and quintile 5 the lowest (3s. 8¼d.). However, in all three phases the size of the smallest hoard is consistently less in areas yielding large numbers of single finds than they are in areas yielding small numbers of single finds. In 1158-1279 the smallest hoards in quintiles 1 and 2 were valued at 4d. and 2d. respectively, whereas those from quintiles 4 and 5 were worth just ¾d. and ½d.; in 1279-1544 the equivalent values for quintiles 1 and 2 were 3d. and 2d., while those for quintiles 4 and 5 were ½d. and ¾d. respectively. These results may therefore suggest that smaller hoards are generally more frequent in areas characterised by a greater scale of coin supply and use than in areas where these factors are more limited, which may suggest in turn that the availability of coin was a key determining factor in the capacity of poorer individuals to participate in the hoarding process. 4.3 Patterns in perspective II: coin hoards and socioeconomic geographies

 Phase A: One-sample Chi-squared test, H0= hoards are equally distributed across all five single find quintiles. χ²calc=28.825, χ²0.05[4]=9.488, χ²0.01[4]=13.277, χ²0.001[4]=18.467; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05, α=0.01, and α=0.001. Phase B: One-sample Chi-squared test, H0= hoards are equally distributed across all five single find quintiles. χ²calc=24.701, χ²0.05[4]=9.488, χ²0.01[4]=13.277, χ²0.001[4]=18.467; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05, α=0.01, and α=0.001. Phase C: One-sample Chi-squared test, H0= hoards are equally distributed across all five single find quintiles. χ²calc=50.623, χ²0.05[4]=9.488, χ²0.01[4]=13.277 χ²0.001[4]=18.467; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05, α=0.01, and α=0.001. Phase D: One-sample Chi-squared test, H0= hoards are equally distributed across all five single find quintiles. χ²calc=55.438, χ²0.05[4]=9.488, χ²0.01[4]=13.277 χ²0.001[4]=18.467; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05, α=0.01, and α=0.001. 2  Phase A: r=+0.93, R2=0.86; Phase B: r=+0.97, R2=0.94; Phase C: r=+0.93, R2=0.87; Phase D: r=+0.90, R2=0.81. 1

Although the preceding analysis has demonstrated a close correspondence between patterns in hoarding and background trends in the extent of coin availability and coin use in England and Wales, it is nonetheless important to assess the extent to which observed patterns in hoarding do, or do not, relate to other aspects of medieval economy and society. This section therefore considers the relationship between hoarding and three important nonmonetary variables: demography, assessed tax wealth, and the extent of ‘commercialisation’ as reflected in the incidence of towns and communication/transport infrastructure (i.e. roads, navigable rivers, and coastal routes). 38

Andrews.indd 38

27/11/2019 11:15

Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544

Figure 4.11. Chronological distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards (n=780) compared to single finds (n=19050),c.973-1544.

Figure 4.12. Comparative spatial distributions of hoards and single finds in Phase A (c.973-1066).

39

Andrews.indd 39

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 4.13. Comparative spatial distributions of hoards and single finds in Phase B (1066-1158).

Figure 4.14. Comparative spatial distributions of hoards and single finds in Phase C (1158-1279).

40

Andrews.indd 40

27/11/2019 11:15

Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544

Figure 4.15. Comparative spatial distributions of hoards and single finds in Phase D (1279-1544). Table 4.1. Observed and expected numbers of hoards based on single find density quintiles in Phases A-D (c.973-1544). Single finds density quintile

c.973-1066 Obs.

Exp.

Obs.

Exp.

Obs.

Exp.

Obs.

Exp.

1

3

12.6

6

19.4

10

30.2

51

81.8

2

9

12.6

10

19.4

20

30.2

56

81.8

3

7

12.6

24

19.4

28

30.2

66

81.8

4

17

12.6

25

19.4

31

30.2

123

81.8

5

27

12.6

32

19.4

62

30.2

113

81.8

Total

63

1066-1158

1158-1279

97

1279-1544

151

4.3.1 Hoards and population

409

and the distribution of population in medieval England; Welsh hoards are omitted from the analysis owing to the paucity of comparable demographic evidence (Davies 2004, 214).

The significance of population as a variable in medieval society has long been the subject of historical debate (Postan 1966; 1973; Brenner 1976; Bois 1978), and its relation to the pattern of hoarding is therefore of considerable interest. Unlike many other European countries, England possesses a large body of surviving medieval tax and manorial documents whose wide coverage provides a reasonable foundation for reconstructing historic demographic patterns at the national and regional levels. Demographic estimates generated at three ‘benchmark’ dates – 1086, c.1290, and 1377 – are used here to assess the relationship between the incidence of coin hoarding

4.3.1.1 Benchmark 1: Domesday Book, 1086 Commissioned by William I on Christmas Day 1085 and compiled from local reports produced the following year (Roffe 2000, 224; Harvey 2014, 87-90), the Domesday Book provides a wealth of fine-grained data concerning patterns of land-use, population, tenure, and wealth in late Anglo-Saxon and early Norman England. From a demographic perspective, vill-level head counts recorded 41

Andrews.indd 41

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 4.16. Boxplot of the distributions of minimum contemporary face values (d.) of coin hoards by single find quintile, 1066-1544.

in the Domesday Book offer a reasonable foundation for county and national level estimates of English population distributions in 1086, although require several assumptions to be made concerning household sizes, the scale of omission from the survey, and the implied character of recorded slaves. For example, pioneering work by Russell (1948, 34-54) assumes that Domesday head counts – including slaves – represent heads of households, each of the latter averaging 3.5 individuals in size, and uses comparative valuations and household densities to provide estimates for towns and regions omitted from the Domesday survey; by contrast, Darby (1977, 87-94) provides estimates based on different assumptions concerning the nature of Domesday slaves, and uses three alternative household multipliers of x4, x4.5, and x5. In view of the uncertainties involved with direct calculations from the Domesday Book, recent county-level population estimates for 1086 combine regressive projections from the 1377 poll tax (see below) – inferring annual population growth rates from twelfth to fourteenth century manorial records – with Domesday-derived evidence for county population shares (Broadberry et al. 2015, 20-27); the resulting estimates are broadly consistent with certain fixed-date estimates based directly on Domesday head counts.

with comparatively high population densities in 1086 yielding more hoards than those with lower population densities, a conclusion supported by formal statistical testing of observed hoard counts (Table 4.2).3 The sole outlier from this general trend occurs in the lowest population density quintile, which is heavily skewed by the presence of eight hoards from York. That this unusual characteristic is so clearly linked to the presence of a single large town, probably the largest outside London in 1086 (Dyer 2000, 752), might be taken as a vindication the strength of the association between population density and the incidence of hoarding at this date. 4.3.1.2 Benchmark 2: England c.1290 Regressive demographic projections have also been used to generate estimates for county-level populations in England c.1290 (Broadberry et al. 2015, 25-26) on the assumption that the distribution of population mirrors the county distributions of taxpayers recorded in the lay subsidies of 1290, 1327 and 1332 (Campbell 2008, 92526). These estimates have been converted to density values, divided into quintiles, and mapped as choropleths against the distribution of English coin hoards deposited in 12791351 (Figure 4.18). As previously, chi-squared testing of observed counts (Table 4.2) shows that hoards are not distributed evenly across population density quintiles, no doubt reflecting the disproportionately high numbers of

These latter county estimates have been converted to density values, divided into quintiles, and plotted as a choropleth map alongside the distribution of Phase B English coin hoards in Figure 4.17. The results show a moderate positive correlation between the two datasets (simple linear regression: r=+0.62, R2=0.39), with areas

3  One-sample Chi-squared test, H0= hoards are equally distributed across all five population density quintiles. χ²calc=16.808, χ²0.05[4]=9.488, χ²0.01[4]=13.277; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05 and α=0.01.

42

Andrews.indd 42

27/11/2019 11:15

Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544

Figure 4.17. Comparative spatial distributions of Phase B (1066-1158) coin hoards and estimated population densities (after Broadberry et al 2015, 20-27) in 1086. Table 4.2. Observed and expected numbers of hoards based on population quintiles in 1086, c.1290, and 1377. c.1290

Population density quintile

1086 Obs.

Exp.

Obs.

Exp.

Obs.

Exp.

1

21

19.8

20

24

26

18.6

2

5

19.8

37

24

18

18.6

3

19

19.8

15

24

14

18.6

4

25

19.8

15

24

23

18.6

5

29

19.8

33

24

12

18.6

Total

99

1377

120

hoards observed in quintiles 2 and 5; however, the results of a simple linear regression analysis (r=+0.06, R2=0) suggest that there is no correlation between population density and the number of hoards at this date.4

93

and unpopular taxes collected during the 1370s to finance English military campaigns in France, a programme which would ultimately culminate in the Peasant’s Revolt of 1381 (Hilton 1973, 162-63). Demographers have used the receipts and central enrolments of county tax collectors to enumerate the total number of taxpayers per county in 1377, which have then been converted into county level population estimates according to defined assumptions concerning the proportion of untaxed children, the extent of under-numeration, and the number of clergy, ‘mendicant friars’, and adults in Cheshire and Durham excluded from the enrolled records (Hinde 2003, 70-71). Recent estimates assume that children constituted 37.5 per

4.3.1.3 Benchmark 3: The 1377 poll tax Levied at the rate of 4d. per head on every lay adult in England, the 1377 poll tax was one of a series of heavy One-sample Chi-squared test, H0= hoards are equally distributed across all five population density quintiles. χ²calc=17.833, χ²0.05[4]=9.488, χ²0.01[4]=13.277; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05 and α=0.01. 4 

43

Andrews.indd 43

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 4.18. Comparative spatial distributions of Period 9 (1279-1351) coin hoards and estimated population densities (after Broadberry et al 2015, 25-26) in c.1290.

cent of the population, that just over 60,000 clergymen, mendicants, and adults in Cheshire and Durham were excluded from the enrolled records, and that the underenumeration rate was 10 per cent (Broadberry et al. 2015, 25-26); as previously, the resulting county totals have been converted to county level density values, divided into quintiles, and are mapped against the distribution of English hoards deposited between 1351 and 1412 in Figure 4.19. While a simple linear regression of the data may hint at a moderate negative correlation between population density and the incidence of coin hoards (r=0.62; R2=0.38), chi-squared testing of observed counts (Table 4.2) suggest that the pattern does not represent a statistically significant deviation from the expected values of an even distribution.5

et al. 1979). Pioneering work by Allen (2002, 36) has explored the relationship between patterns of wealth reflected in these sources and the incidence of hoarding, arguing that the distribution of late medieval hoards bears little relationship to the wealth distributions implied by the 1334 or 1524-1525 lay subsidies. This thesis was developed in a subsequent paper (Allen 2015a, 151-58) that divided England into three discrete ‘zones’, comparing the relative share of each in terms of hoards, population in 1377, and taxable wealth at the time of the 1225, 1334, and 1524-1525 lay subsidies, using a ‘central zone’ – a band of 20 counties extending from Dorset and Somerset in the southwest to Lincolnshire and Norfolk in the northeast – as an index measure. On this basis Allen (2015a, 158) concluded that there was no clear and consistent relationship between taxable wealth, population, and hoarding during the high and late middle ages; southeast England had more hoards dated to 1279-1464 than would be expected given its share of taxable wealth and population in 1334 and 1377, but fewer hoards dated to 1465-1544 than its share of wealth in 1524-1525 would suggest, and, conversely, northwest England had many more hoards dated to 1279-1351 than would be expected from its share of taxable wealth in 1334. Certain theoretical and methodological limitations, however, mean that the validity of these results may be questioned. In particular, the proposed tripartite division of England overgeneralises the character of individual

4.3.2 Hoards and the distribution of assessed wealth Fiscal records are a fundamental source of evidence for the distribution of wealth in medieval England, and three specific datasets have dominated historical discussion during the twentieth century: the Domesday Book, the 1334 lay subsidy, and the 1524-1525 lay subsidies (Darby  One-sample Chi-squared test, H0= hoards are equally distributed across all five population density quintiles. χ²calc=7.484, χ²0.05[4]=9.488; therefore, cannot reject H0 at α=0.05. 5

44

Andrews.indd 44

27/11/2019 11:15

Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544

Figure 4.19. Comparative spatial distributions of Period 10 (1351-1412) coin hoards and estimated population densities (after Broadberry et al 2015, 25-26) in 1377.

‘zones’, masking sometimes considerable intra-‘zone’ variations in wealth density evident in the lay subsidies at the county level at fixed dates (Schofield 1965, 506) and across time periods (Darby et al. 1979, 256-61); in any case, the remarkably varied sizes of the units used – the ‘zone’ for southeast England contains just five counties, less than half of the 12 in the northwest English ‘zone’ and a quarter of the 20 counties that constitute the ‘central zone’ (Allen 2015a, 156) – undoubtedly affect the resulting data analysis. To overcome these limitations, this section reassesses the relationship between taxable wealth and the incidence of hoarding at three ‘benchmark’ dates – 1086, 1334, and 1524-1525 – at a finer-grained county level, using a substantially enlarged hoard corpus.

by chi-squared testing of observed counts (Table 4.3), although simple linear regression indicates no correlation between the two datasets (r=-0.02; R2=0).6 While the latter analysis is probably skewed by the concentration of finds from York – a large and wealthy city by eleventh century English standards (Palliser 2014, 93-95) – in the lowest wealth density quintile, excluding these hoards scarcely alters the results. 4.3.2.2 Benchmark 2: The 1334 lay subsidy First introduced in England during the thirteenth century, lay subsidies were a form of national tax approved by parliament for a defined purpose – most commonly military expenditure – and levied at fixed rates on the assessed wealth of the laity. Working from the reasonable, if unproven, assumption that tax assessors undertook their valuations on the basis of a wide variety of movable goods, and that taxes were applied fairly evenly across the country (Jenks 1998, 2-7), economic historians and historical geographers have used lay subsidy evidence to chart the distribution of wealth in late thirteenth and early fourteenth century England; owing to its unusually

4.3.2.1 Benchmark 1: Domesday Book, 1086 The Domesday Book provides an extraordinarily detailed record of the annual income of individual vills at the time of the 1086 survey, and Darby (1977, 359) has previously synthesised this data at the county level to present an overview of the distribution of landed wealth in England in the Norman period. Figure 4.20 presents Darby’s data as a choropleth of density values divided into quintiles, which is plotted against the distribution of Phase B English coin hoards. The non-even distribution of hoards across wealth density quintiles is underlined

 One-sample Chi-squared test, H0= hoards are equally distributed across all five wealth density quintiles. χ²calc=11.813, χ²0.05[4]=9.488, χ²0.01[4]=13.277; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05, but not at α=0.01. 6

45

Andrews.indd 45

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 4.20. Comparative spatial distributions of Phase B (1066-1158) coin hoards and Domesday value (after Darby 1977, 359) densities in 1086. Table 4.3. Observed and expected numbers of hoards based on assessed wealth quintiles in 1086, 1334, and 1524-1525. Assessed wealth density quintile

1086 Obs.

Exp.

Obs.

Exp.

Obs.

Exp.

1

22

19.2

27

24

16

20.8

2

10

19.2

30

24

14

20.8

3

30

19.2

15

24

14

20.8

4

15

19.2

27

24

31

20.8

5

19

19.2

21

24

29

20.8

Total

1334

1524-1525

96

120

extensive national coverage (Glasscock 1976, 137), the 1334 lay subsidy, notionally levied at a fifteenth of the value of movable goods in rural areas and a tenth in towns, has assumed particular prominence in these discussions. Figure 4.21 plots county totals of assessed wealth derived from the 1334 lay subsidy (Campbell and Bartley 2006, 324-25) as a choropleth of density values divided into quintiles, overlain by a dot-distribution map of English hoards deposited between 1279 and 1351. In this case map evidence does not indicate any clear relationship between the distribution of assessed wealth and coin hoards; while simple linear regression hints at a weak to moderate negative correlation (r=-0.40; R2=0.16) between the two

104

variables, chi-squared testing of observed counts (Table 4.3) shows that the observed distribution of coin hoards across wealth density quintiles does not significantly deviate from the expected values of an even distribution.7 4.3.2.3 Benchmark 3: The 1524-5 exchequer lay subsidies Like the 1334 lay subsidy, the 1524-5 exchequer lay subsidies are commonly used by historians as evidence   One-sample Chi-squared test, H0= hoards are equally distributed across all five wealth density quintiles. χ²calc=6.000, χ²0.05[4]=9.488; therefore, cannot reject H0 at α=0.05. 7

46

Andrews.indd 46

27/11/2019 11:15

Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544

Figure 4.21. Comparative spatial distributions of Period 9 (1279-1351) coin hoards and lay subsidy assessed wealth (after Campbell and Bartley 2006, 324-25) densities in 1334.

for the distribution of wealth in early sixteenth century England, with the caveat that the coverage of returns is incomplete, and that there is evidence for regional variation in the nature of how appointed officials assessed wealth and collected the tax (Sheail 1972, 113-16). Figure 4.22 plots the county totals of taxed wealth collected in 1524 and 1525 (Sheail 1998, 438) as a choropleth of density values divided into quintiles, overlain by a dot-distribution map of English hoards deposited between 1465 and 1544. Chi-squared testing of observed counts (Table 4.3) demonstrates that hoards are not evenly distributed across wealth density quintiles, and a simple linear regression shows a strong positive correlation (r=+0.80; R2=0.64) between taxed wealth and the incidence of hoarding in this period, with counties grouped into the highest assessed wealth density quintile yielding nearly twice as many hoards as those in the lowest.8

numismatic evidence – most notably fixed-date estimates of the size of the currency (Mayhew 1995) – have played a central role in the development of a ‘commercialisation’ paradigm in medieval historiography. Despite this, there have been few direct attempts to assess the relationship of the coin find record to commercial activity, whether represented by the chronological and geographical patterns of urban and rural marketing or by evidence for transport networks and commercial routes (although cf. Oksanen and Lewis 2016). To rectify these omissions, this section considers the temporal and spatial relationships between coin hoards, towns, overland roads, navigable inland rivers, and coastal shipping routes. 4.3.3.1 Hoards and towns Urbanisation is frequently used as an index measure for the extent of commercialisation in the medieval period (Hilton 1985, 5; Britnell 1995, 9). Chartered boroughs – towns in possession of a charter granting distinctly urban legal rights and customs – provide an important, if imperfect (Dyer 2002, 6-12), metric for assessing diachronic trends in the extent of medieval urbanisation, and a recent comprehensive survey of medieval commercial institutions in England and Wales details nearly 700 such locations active in England and Wales at various dates to 1516 (Letters 2013). Figure 4.23

4.3.3 Hoards and commerce Since the late twentieth century there has been a growing recognition of the importance of regular commercial activity in medieval society, and certain classes of  One-sample Chi-squared test, H0= hoards are equally distributed across all five wealth density quintiles. χ²calc=13.788, χ²0.05[4]=9.488, χ²0.01[4]=13.277; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05 and α=0.01. 8

47

Andrews.indd 47

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 4.22. Comparative spatial distributions of Period 12 (1465-1544) coin hoards and lay subsidy assessed wealth (after Sheail 1972, 113-16) densities in 1524-5.

Figure 4.23. Chronological distribution of securely-periodised coin hoards compared to the stock of active boroughs (after Letters 2013), c.973-1544.

48

Andrews.indd 48

27/11/2019 11:15

Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544 uses this comparative evidence to plot the chronological distribution of coin hoards against the stock of active boroughs in England and Wales during each period. The results hint at a broadly shared trajectory between the two datasets, and it is of particular interest that two periods of notable growth in the hoard dataset – 1180-1247 and 1279-1351 – seem to correspond with marked growths in the stock of chartered boroughs in England and Wales. An alternative perspective on this relationship can be sought through the application of spatial regression analysis, a technique with a long archaeological (Fulford and Hodder 1974; Hodder 1974) and numismatic (Metcalf 1998, 45-46) pedigree. For each phase the distance between each georeferenced coin hoard and its nearest contemporary active borough has been calculated using the distance matrix tool in QGIS, and the resulting values (Figures 4.24-4.27) have been plotted as a spatial regression ‘falloff’ curve alongside a curve generated from an identical number of computer-generated randomly-distributed points (cf. Brookes 2007, 59). The results demonstrate a moderate to strong correlation between the distributions of boroughs and coin hoards during all four phases, with the sharp fall-off in the incidence of coin hoards beyond c.5km of a borough – roughly one hour’s walk – closely approximating a logarithmic trendline. The application of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test – a formal statistical test well-suited to the analysis of data measured on an ordinal scale or higher (Shennan 1988, 55) – confirms that the differences between the observed coin hoard and random distributions are consistently highly significant, which suggests that the close relationship between hoards and towns does not result from random chance.9

main, from a small number of contemporary cartographic sources – most notably Matthew Paris’ mid-thirteenth century map (Breen 2005, 59) and the mid-fourteenth (Lilley, Lloyd and Campbell 2009, 2) or early fifteenth century (Smallwood 2009, 23-24) Gough map – and a larger, but nonetheless disparate and frequently oblique, body of documentary references gleaned from accounts (Martin 1976, 165-72), itineraries (Hindle 1976, 212-16), and legal disputes over poorly-maintained or derelict routes (Bland 1957, 6-8). Using these sources, Paul Hindle (1976, 220) has reconstructed a map of the minimum extent of the English and Welsh roadway network c.1348 that has found widespread, albeit not uncritical (cf. Edwards and Hindle 1991, 133; Harrison 2015, 1200), acceptance among archaeologists and historians as broadly representative of the late medieval road system (Steane 1985, 106; Unwin 1995, 145). Figure 4.28 illustrates the relationship between the late medieval road system as reconstructed by Hindle and the distribution of Phase D coin hoards, plotting the coin hoard spatial regression ‘fall-off’ curve against a curve generated from an identical number of computergenerated randomly-distributed points. The results show a strong correlation between the pattern of late medieval roads and the spatial incidence of contemporary coin hoards, nearly half of which occur within 4km of a road; as in the case of boroughs, the marked decline beyond this distance closely resembles the logarithmic trendline. The results of a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test confirm that the differences between the observed distribution of coin hoards and the random distribution are highly significant.10 Navigable rivers were frequently exploited in the medieval period as a cheap means of freighting goods inland across long distances (Masschaele 1993, 271-74). The extent of these routes, however, remain contentious. A major reconstruction by Edwards and Hindle (1991), derived principally from the evidence of thirteenth to fifteenth century administrative documents, has been challenged by John Langdon (1993, 4-7), whose work on fourteenth century purveyance accounts highlighted major obstacles – including mills, weirs, and seasonal weather – that significantly impeded passage across large stretches of theoretically navigable rivers. Langdon’s (1993, 9) observation that the extent of river navigability may have contracted during the later middle ages is supported by the work of Evan Jones (2000, 69-72), who has shown that several routes plotted by Edwards and Hindle had been wholly obstructed or silted up by the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Although there is as yet no comprehensive map of late medieval navigable rivers that accounts for these changes, recent assessments of early documentary and onomastic evidence (Hooke 2007; Cole 2013) have reinforced the broad consensus that the Edwards and Hindle map provides a reasonably accurate global indication of the extent of river navigability during

4.3.3.2 Hoards and transport infrastructure: road, river, and sea Nodal points like towns only provide a partial insight into the spatial configurations of medieval commerce, and it is important that these locations are not divorced from the transport routes that connected towns to each other and to other settlements. Consequently, this section analyses the relationship between the spatial incidence of hoarding and three key aspects of medieval transport infrastructure: overland roads, navigable inland rivers, and coastal shipping routes. As in mainland Europe (cf. Krüger 1951, 23; Szilágyi 2012, 2-3; Toda 2013, 173), the evidence for overland roadway networks in medieval England and Wales derives, in the  Phase A: Two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, H0= no difference between regression curves (nrand=69). Dmaxobs=0.362, Dmax0.05=0.232, Dmax0.01=0.278; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05 and α=0.01. Phase B: two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, H0= no difference between regression curves (nrand=105). Dmaxobs=0.257, Dmax0.05=0.188, Dmax0.01=0.225; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05 and α=0.01. Phase C: two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, H0= no difference between regression curves (nrand=168). Dmaxobs=0.179, Dmax0.05=0.148, Dmax0.01=0.178; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05 and α=0.01. Phase D: two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, H0= no difference between regression curves (nrand=445). Dmaxobs=0.182, Dmax0.05=0.091, Dmax0.01=0.109; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05 and α=0.01. 9

 Two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, H0= no difference between regression curves (nrand=445). Dmaxobs=0.223, Dmax0.05=0.091, Dmax0.01=0.109; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05 and at α=0.01. 10

49

Andrews.indd 49

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 4.24. Regression analysis of the distance between boroughs and coin hoards (n=69), and boroughs and random points (n=69), in Phase A (c.973-1066).

Figure 4.25. Regression analysis of the distance between boroughs and coin hoards (n=105), and boroughs and random points (n=105), in Phase B (1066-1158).

hoards and rivers, declining markedly beyond c.5km of a navigable river; application of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test shows that the differences between observed hoard distributions and the random distributions are consistently highly significant.11

the early and high medieval periods (Blair 2007, 12-13). Consequently, it has been used as a baseline measure with which to assess the spatial relationship between coin hoards and inland river routes can be assessed in Phases A, B, and C. Figures 4.29-4.31 depict the relationship between the early and high medieval navigable rivers mapped by Edwards and Hindle and the distribution of coin hoards in Phases A, B, and C, in each case plotting the coin hoard spatial regression ‘fall-off’ curve against a curve generated from an identical number of computer-generated randomlydistributed points. In all three phases there is a moderate to strong correlation between the incidence of coin

  Phase A: two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, H0= no difference between regression curves (nrand=69). Dmaxobs=0.391, Dmax0.05=0.232, Dmax0.01=0.278; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05 and α=0.01. Phase B: two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, H0= no difference between regression curves (nrand=105). Dmaxobs=0.210, Dmax0.05=0.188, Dmax0.01=0.225; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05, but not at α=0.01. Phase C: two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, H0= no difference between regression curves (nrand=168). Dmaxobs=0190., Dmax0.05=0.148, Dmax0.01=0.178; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05 and α=0.01. 11

50

Andrews.indd 50

27/11/2019 11:15

Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544

Figure 4.26. Regression analysis of the distance between boroughs and coin hoards (n=168), and boroughs and random points (n=168), in Phase C (1158-1279).

Figure 4.27. Regression analysis of the distance between boroughs and coin hoards (n=445), and boroughs and random points (n=445), in Phase D (1279-1544).

In addition to roads and inland waterways, seaborne coastal routes were intensively exploited throughout the medieval period for commercial purposes, although the scale and significance of this activity has been historically underestimated due to the poor survival of local customs accounts (Britnell 1986, 70-71; Kowaleski 1995, 225). Nonetheless, both archaeological and documentary sources indicate that coastal shipping was a major mechanism for the transfer of bulk goods like grain, fuel, and building stone (Blake 1967, 9-12; Galloway 2000, 36-39; Bone 2016, 73), for which per-unit transit costs might be as little as a tenth of the equivalent cost for overland transport (Campbell et al. 1993, 193-98). Despite the volume of economic activity pursued along these routes, however, there is little indication of a global association between coin hoards and the coastline for any phase between c.973

and 1544, and formal statistical testing confirms that observed spatial relationships between hoards and the coastline are not significantly different to those observed in random point distributions.12

  Phase A: two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, H0= no difference between regression curves (nrand=69). Dmaxobs=0.101, Dmax0.05=0.188; therefore, cannot reject H0 at α=0.05. Phase B: two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, H0= no difference between regression curves (nrand=105). Dmaxobs=0.133, Dmax0.05=0.188; therefore, cannot reject H0 at α=0.05. Phase C: two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, H0= no difference between regression curves (nrand=168). Dmaxobs=0.113, Dmax0.05=0.148; therefore, cannot reject H0 at α=0.05. Phase D: two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, H0= no difference between regression curves (nrand=445). Dmaxobs=0.067, Dmax0.05=0.091; therefore, cannot reject H0 at α=0.05. 12

51

Andrews.indd 51

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 4.28. Regression analysis of the distance between roads and coin hoards (n=445), and roads and random points (n=445), in Phase D (1279-1544).

Figure 4.29. Regression analysis of the distance between navigable rivers and coin hoards (n=69), and navigable rivers and random points (n=69), in Phase A (c.973-1066).

4.4.1 The Norman Conquest and the ‘Harrying of the North’

4.4 Patterns in perspective III: coin hoards and conflict As discussed in Chapter 2, the ‘war and unrest’ model of hoarding has exerted a strong influence on medieval numismatics, and it would therefore be inappropriate to ignore potential links between the incidence of hoarding and historical conflict in the context of the present chapter. This section provides a critical assessment of the relationship between hoards and unrest in England and Wales through the lens of three distinct episodes of conflict: the Norman Conquest and subsequent ‘Harrying of the North’, the twelfth century ‘Anarchy’, and the fourteenth century Scottish Wars of Independence.

Since at least the nineteenth century numismatists have connected individual hoards closing with coins of Edward the Confessor, Harold II, and William I with the familiar and dramatic events of the Norman Conquest (Lucas 1869, 219). No systematic statement would emerge, however, until the publication of Thompson’s Inventory, which drew attention to two groups of hoards purportedly linked to the ‘uneasy conditions’ of the Conquest period. The first group consisted of hoards deposited on the south coast of England – and particularly in Sussex – in c.1066, 52

Andrews.indd 52

27/11/2019 11:15

Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544

Figure 4.30. Regression analysis of the distance between navigable rivers and coin hoards (n=105), and navigable rivers and random points (n=105), in Phase B (1066-1158).

Figure 4.31. Regression analysis of the distance between navigable rivers and coin hoards (n=168), and navigable rivers and random points (n=168), in Phase C (1158-1279).

Saxon malaise recorded in chronicle sources (Dolley 1966, 37-40). These confident assertions cannot be viewed in isolation from Dolley’s staunch – and often caustic (Brand 1984, 1; Stewart 1990, 459) – advocacy of the thesis that the English coinage of c.973-1135 was characterised by more-or-less complete recoinages undertaken on a rigidly sexennial, and later triennial, basis (Dolley and Metcalf 1961, 152), a claim that, in lieu of explicitly dated coin legends, depended on an absolute chronology of coin types derived from anecdotal connections between individual hoards and externally-dated historical events. While subsequent scholarship has challenged Dolley’s sexennial and triennial chronologies (Brand 1984; Stewart 1990;

which Thompson (1956, xxiv) suggested were linked to the initial incursions of William I’s armies; the second, meanwhile, consisted of hoards buried in Yorkshire during the late 1060s or early 1070s, which arguably related to unrest during the infamous ‘Harrying of the North’ in 1069-1070 (Thompson 1956, xxv). These suggestions were later advanced more forcefully by Michael Dolley, whose brief pamphlet on The Norman Conquest and the English Coinage interwove textual narratives and hoards to construct a framework in which nearly all hoards deposited between 1066 and 1135 – and especially those from the south coast and Yorkshire – could be linked to named battles, military threats, rebellions, and general 53

Andrews.indd 53

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 Eaglen 2006; Allen 2014), many of the general connections that he and Thompson drew between dated historic events and specific hoards of the Conquest period – most notably the south coast and Yorkshire groups – remain embedded in the archaeological, historical, and numismatic literature (Palliser 1993, 7-8; Muir 1997, 120-21; Kelleher 2012, 63; Fairbairn 2013, 334-36; Allen 2015a, 147).

in the rate of non-recovery are poorly understood, being represented by limited antiquarian descriptions or a handful of surviving coins sampled from larger deposits according to uncertain criteria. Indeed, in some cases information is so limited that scope for speculation is rife, and so too is the risk of circular reasoning. Dolley (1966, 44), for instance, confidently ascribed two hoards from Bierley (West Yorkshire; BIE) and Bramham Moor (West Yorkshire; BM1) to the late 1060s simply because they had Yorkshire findspots, but our sole record of both finds provides no evidence whatsoever to narrow their dating beyond the broad window of 1066-1100 (Thoresby and Whitaker 1816, 60). While it is clear that high-quality data does not vindicate the Thompson-Dolley thesis, it is not unreasonable to query the extent to which the inclusion of slightly lower-quality hoard data may affect our assessment of its validity. Figures 4.34-4.35 plot the temporal distribution of 58 coin hoards with grade 2-4 (‘fair’, ‘good’, and ‘excellent’) numismatic data quality ratings whose latest coins belong to Edward the Confessor, Harold II, or William I; as previously, Figure 4.34 separates hoards from Hampshire and Sussex from those deposited elsewhere in England and Wales, while Figure 4.35 does the same for hoards from Yorkshire. Applying Fisher’s exact test to these datasets slightly modifies our conclusions; while there remains no statistically significant deviation in the distribution of hoard closing dates in Yorkshire, the evidence from Hampshire and Sussex is consistent with the Thompson-Dolley thesis insofar as the distributions are both significantly different and exhibit a peak in hoards closing with coin types dated c.1066.14

Statistical hypothesis testing provides a valuable toolkit for assessing the validity of the Thompson-Dolley thesis as it relates to the south coast and Yorkshire groups. If the events of 1066 and 1069-1070 were indeed responsible for an upsurge in the rate of hoard deposition or nonrecovery in these locations, they should be manifested in the hoard record in two ways. Firstly, the chronological distribution of coin hoards in the south coast – understood here as meaning Hampshire and Sussex – and in Yorkshire should be significantly different from the pattern observed elsewhere in England and Wales. Secondly, these distinctions should be most pronounced at the relevant chronological period, with peaks in the south coast coalescing around 1066 and in Yorkshire in the late 1060s and early 1070s. The distribution of hoard closing dates is a critical source of information in this respect. Figures 4.32-4.33 plot the temporal distribution of 40 coin hoards with grade 3 or 4 (‘good’ and ‘excellent’) numismatic data quality ratings whose latest coins belong to Edward the Confessor, Harold II, or William I; in Figure 4.32 hoards from Hampshire and Sussex are separated from those deposited elsewhere in England and Wales, while Figure 4.33 does the same for hoards from Yorkshire. Three of the grade 3-4 hoards from Hampshire and Sussex close in coin types conventionally dated to the years around 1066 (‘Pyramids’, ‘Pax’, and ‘Profile/Cross Fleury’), while in Yorkshire just one grade 3-4 hoard closes in a type dated to the late 1060s (‘Bonnet’); this latter peculiarity reflects data quality problems, and is addressed below. It is possible to evaluate whether or not these frequency distributions are significantly different from those observed elsewhere in England and Wales through the application of Fisher’s exact test, a formal statistical test well-suited to the analysis of contingency tables with small overall sample sizes (VanPool and Leonard 2011, 250-53); in each case test results confirm that there is no statistically significant deviation in the distribution of hoard closing dates between Hampshire and Sussex and the rest of England and Wales, and between Yorkshire and the rest of England and Wales. As such, there is no firm evidence to support either of the hypotheses derived from the Thompson-Dolley thesis.13

The validity of this second result, however, hinges on our interpretation of the hoards from Arundel Castle (West Sussex; ARU) and near Offham (West Sussex; OFF). The first of these hoards was brought to numismatic attention in the late 1980s, and consisted of pennies of Edward the Confessor and Harold II found at or near Arundel Castle, seat of the Duke of Norfolk, at an unspecified date in the eighteenth century (Pagan 1990, 189); the second, which also consisted of pennies of Edward the Confessor and Harold II, has been known since the nineteenth century, and was found ‘near Offham’ in 1796 (Lucas 1869, 219). While these are usually assumed to represent two separate finds (e.g. Allen 2012, nos. 62 and 64), they exhibit remarkably similar compositions and dates of discovery that are only amplified by the spatial proximity and close tenurial associations of their findspots; a small hamlet of 106 inhabitants at the time of the 1801 census, Offham lies just 1.7km northeast of Arundel Castle in the parish of South Stoke, and the 1843 tithe map (The National Archives, Kew (TNA), IR 30/35/249) confirms that extensive tracts of land in the parish belonged to the Duke

It is important to note that the Thompson-Dolley thesis was built, for the most part, on low quality data. Many of the hoards cited as evidence for conflict-related upsurges  Hampshire and Sussex: Two-sample Fisher’s exact test, H0 = no difference between distribution of closing types in Hampshire/Sussex (n=6) and non-Hampshire/Sussex (n=34) hoards. p-value=0.670; therefore, cannot reject H0 at α=0.05. Yorkshire: Two-sample Fisher’s exact test, H0 = no difference between distribution of closing types in Yorkshire (n=7) and non-Yorkshire (n=33) hoards. p-value=0.505; therefore, cannot reject H0 at α=0.05.

  Hampshire/Sussex: Two-sample Fisher’s exact test, H0 = no difference between distribution of closing types in Hampshire/Sussex (n=12) and non-Hampshire/Sussex (n=46) hoards. p-value=0.025; therefore, reject H0 at α=0.05. Yorkshire: Two-sample Fisher’s exact test, H0 = no difference between distribution of closing types in Yorkshire (n=12) and non-Yorkshire (n=46) hoards. p-value=0.125; therefore, cannot reject H0 at α=0.05.

13

14

54

Andrews.indd 54

27/11/2019 11:15

Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544

Figure 4.32. Distribution of closing types of grade 3-4 coin hoards of the reigns of Edward the Confessor, Harold II, and William I from Hampshire and Sussex, compared to the rest of England and Wales.

Figure 4.33. Distribution of closing types of grade 3-4 coin hoards of the reigns of Edward the Confessor, Harold II, and William I from Yorkshire, compared to the rest of England and Wales.

55

Andrews.indd 55

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 4.34. Distribution of closing types of grade 2-4 coin hoards of the reigns of Edward the Confessor, Harold II, and William I from Hampshire and Sussex, compared to the rest of England and Wales.

Figure 4.35. Distribution of closing types of grade 2-4 coin hoards of the reigns of Edward the Confessor, Harold II, and William I from Yorkshire, compared to the rest of England and Wales.

56

Andrews.indd 56

27/11/2019 11:15

Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544 of Norfolk, including the 1,100 acre ‘Modern Park’ built less than 500m west of Offham between 1786 and c.1810. On balance of probabilities, it seems more likely than not that the ‘Arundel Castle’ and ‘near Offham’ hoards are in fact one and the same hoard, most probably found during the construction of the ‘Modern Park’ – which was both ‘near Offham’, and closely linked with the adjoining, newly-rebuilt, Arundel Castle – in 1796. By removing one Sussex hoard closing in Harold II’s sole type from the dataset and re-running Fisher’s exact test, we find that the distribution of hoard closing dates in Hampshire and Sussex can no longer be demonstrated to be significantly different to the pattern observed in the rest of England and Wales.15

rate in 1066-1100 (1.76 hoards/year). While the finergrain decadal per-annum values (Figure 4.2) do indeed show a ‘peak’ in the 1140s compared to the 1130s, it is neither particularly large in absolute terms nor without parallel in a wider twelfth and thirteenth century context. Similarly, distributional analysis (Figure 4.5) has shown that the spatial incidence of hoarding in 1135-1158 has a considerable degree of overlap with the pattern of 10661100, with no coherent indication of the western bias suggested by Blackburn or Creighton and Wright. As previously, however, it is possible to provide a more thorough assessment of the Blackburn-Thomas thesis through the application of statistical hypothesis testing. If the events of the Anarchy were indeed responsible for a localised upsurge in the rate of hoard deposition or non-recovery in either the East Midlands (Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Rutland) or South West (Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Wiltshire), we should expect the chronological distributions of coin hoards in either region to both significantly differ from the pattern observed elsewhere in England and Wales, and to be reflected by a pronounced ‘peak’ in hoards closing with coin types broadly dated to the 1140s (Stephen types 1 and 2, and Irregular/Baronial issues). Figures 4.36-4.37 plot the temporal distribution of 26 coin hoards with grade 2-4 numismatic data quality ratings deposited in 1135-1158; Figure 4.36 separates hoards from the East Midlands from those deposited elsewhere in England and Wales, while Figure 4.37 does the same for hoards from the South West. The application of Fisher’s exact test to both paired datasets conclusively shows that the distribution of hoard closing dates in both the East Midlands and the South West are in no way significantly different to the patterns observed in the rest of England and Wales, and therefore do not support the Blackburn-Thomas thesis of an identifiable upsurge in hoarding in either region connected with the events of the Anarchy.17

As such, contrary to the Thompson-Dolley thesis, statistical hypothesis testing shows that the hoard dataset currently provides no clear evidence for an upsurge in the rate of deposition or non-recovery connected with the political and military unrest of 1066 in southern England, or the ‘Harrying of the North’ of 1069-1070 in Yorkshire.16 4.4.2 The twelfth century ‘Anarchy’ Like the Norman Conquest, the twelfth century civil war or ‘Anarchy’ (1135-1153) has been frequently cited as an instance of historic conflict that affected the pattern of hoarding. In his study of the coinage of Stephen, Mark Blackburn (1994, 149-51) argued that an apparent peak in the incidence of hoarding in the East Midlands and South West during the 1140s might be attributed to violence and civil unrest in these areas, a suggestion subsequently developed by Thomas (2008, 142), who also linked the substantial increase in the per-annum rate of hoard deposition compared to the reign of Henry I to patterns of violent disorder during the Anarchy. These conclusions have been approvingly cited by archaeologists (Creighton and Wright 2016, 149-50) and numismatists (Allen 2015a, 147; Fairbairn 2017, 49-52) alike as evidence for a link between hoarding and violence during the high middle ages.

4.4.3 The Scottish Wars of Independence

However, there are considerable flaws with the argument formulated by Blackburn and Thomas. While Thomas is correct to note a considerable increase in the per-annum rate of hoard deposition in 1135-1158 compared to 11001135, a longer view of the hoard evidence (Figure 4.1) shows that this is a by-product of the unusually low rate of hoard deposition in 1100-1135; as previously noted, the per-annum rate of deposition for 1135-1158 (1.26 hoards/ year) is only slightly higher than the figure for 11581180 (1.18 hoards/year), and is noticeably lower than the

Most numismatic accounts of hoarding in medieval England and Wales directly link the observed expansion in the incidence of hoarding in northern England in 12791351 with the events of the fourteenth century Scottish Wars of Independence, a claim at least partly reflecting the conflict’s prominence in historical and modern political narratives of Anglo-Scottish relations. Although suggested on an ad-hoc basis since at least the mid-nineteenth century (Charlton 1855, 105), the thesis was first systematically expounded by Thompson (1956, xxxvi-xxxvii), who drew attention to several hoards deposited c.1280-1330 in

  Hampshire/Sussex: Two-sample Fisher’s exact test, H0 = no difference between distribution of closing types in Hampshire/Sussex (n=11) and non-Hampshire/Sussex (n=46) hoards. p-value=0.057; therefore, cannot reject H0 at α=0.05. 16  Re-running Fisher’s exact test on the Yorkshire evidence while omitting one Sussex hoard closing in Harold II’s sole type (i.e. nonYorkshire hoards: n=25) yields a p-value of 0.130, and therefore is still insufficient to reject H0 at α=0.05. 15

 East Midlands: Two-sample Fisher’s exact test, H0 = no difference between distribution of closing types in East Midlands (n=5) and nonEast Midlands (n=21) hoards. p-value=0.489; therefore, cannot reject H0 at α=0.05. South West: Two-sample Fisher’s exact test, H0 = no difference between distribution of closing types in South West (n=4) and non-South West (n=22) hoards. p-value=0.868; therefore, cannot reject H0 at α=0.05. 17

57

Andrews.indd 57

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 4.36. Distribution of closing types of grade 2-4 coin hoards of Period 5 (1135-1158) from the East Midlands, compared to the rest of England and Wales.

Figure 4.37. Distribution of closing types of grade 2-4 coin hoards of Period 5 (1135-1158) from the South West, compared to the rest of England and Wales.

highlighted an early to mid-fourteenth century peak that was with ‘little doubt… [related to] the insecurity and warfare of the times’ (Metcalf 1977, 11). By this date the argument appears to have entered numismatic canon, and indeed all subsequent commentators have accepted the

northern England and southern Scotland that he believed reflected an imperative to ‘hoard money against the risk of military operations’. Supporting evidence was provided by Thompson’s successor at the Ashmolean, Michael Metcalf, whose systematic review of Scottish hoards 58

Andrews.indd 58

27/11/2019 11:15

Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544 Thompson-Metcalf thesis without substantive complaint (Allen 2002, 36; Allen 2015a, 158; Kelleher 2012, 122; Cook 2015, 170).

conduct this analysis solely on the basis of high-quality data. Figure 4.38 plots the temporal distribution of 79 georeferenced coin hoards with grade 3-4 numismatic data quality ratings deposited between 1279 and 1351 – 20 from northern England, and 59 from elsewhere in England and Wales – by the latest English coin type represented in each hoard. While the graph does indeed show clear peaks in northern English hoards closing in Classes 11 and 15, the first of which accounts for a higher proportion of finds in northern England than in the rest of England and Wales, the application of Fisher’s exact test confirms that the variations between the observed distributions of closing dates of hoards from northern England and elsewhere are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level.18 As such, the available hoard evidence does not support the ThompsonMetcalf thesis.

However, there are significant objections to this thesis that have not yet been raised, the most obvious of which relates to the imprecise parameters used to tie any given ‘northern hoard’ to the historical narrative. Though Thompson (1956, xxxvi) was willing to attribute all finds deposited c.1280-1330 – a fifty-year term spanning more than two-thirds of the circulation period 1279-1351 – to the impact of Anglo-Scottish conflict, historical evidence argues for a more refined chronological framework on the English side of the border. While the English sacking of Berwick-upon-Tweed in March 1296 is conventionally considered the starting point of the Anglo-Scottish wars, Scottish incursions into England were limited and relatively infrequent during the late 1290s and 1300s (Summerson 1993, 193); systematic large-scale raiding by Scots in northern England is primarily a phenomenon of the years after 1311 (Tuck 1985, 35), and particularly after the Scottish victory at Bannockburn in 1314 (Barrow 1988, 236; Campbell and Bartley 2006, 44-45). After the conclusion of a thirteen-year truce at Bishopthorpe in May 1323, the extent and severity of raiding diminished, and a range of sources indicate that the borderland economy had entered recovery by the end of the decade (Tuck 1985, 42; Summerson 1993, 260). Subsequent incursions after the collapse of the Peace of Northampton in 1332 were on a much reduced scale, and noticeably declined in scope and effectiveness between the English victory at Neville’s Cross in 1346 and the formal cessation of conflict under the terms of the 1357 Treaty of Berwick (Tuck 1985, 38). From the English perspective, therefore, Thompson’s chronological window is far too wide, and should be more reasonably restricted to hoards deposited in the 1310s and early 1320s or, less reliably, the 1330s and early 1340s. Similarly, it is clear that not all of northern England was equally affected by the conflicts; though Scottish forays struck as far south as Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire by the end of the 1310s (Kershaw 1981, 231), the principal conflict zone always lay in the immediate hinterland of the border in Cumbria and Northumberland (McNamee 1997, 114).

4.5 Discussion: interpreting macro-scale patterning in coin hoards Evidence presented in this chapter allows us to track temporal and spatial trends in the incidence and scale of coin hoarding in England and Wales across the medieval period. As has been shown, the volume and spatial extent of hoard deposition and/or non-recovery during the late Anglo-Saxon period (Phase A) was rather modest, and the comparatively small number of known hoards occur most frequently in a core zone located to the south-east of a line drawn between the Severn estuary and the Wash. While some of these key attributes – most notably the small median face values and the presence of a ‘core’ hoarding zone in southeast England – persisted for roughly a century after the Norman Conquest (Phase B), the AngloNorman period oversaw a considerable expansion in the spatial extent of hoarding, which, with the exception of a contraction in the reign of Henry I, penetrated much further into northern and western Britain than it did in the preceding phase. Notwithstanding a moderate eastern shift in distribution patterns during the period 1158-1180, these developments carried through on a slightly larger scale into the high medieval period (Phase C). The expansionary trend reached a late medieval (Phase D) peak in 12791351, when hoards were more numerous, more widely distributed, and generally larger than in any preceding period; subsequently, the per-annum rate of hoarding ebbed slightly in 1351-1412, although the upwards trend in median face values continued as a result of the introduction of a permanent gold coinage into domestic currency. In 1412-1464 reductions in the per-annum rate of hoarding and median face values accompanied a contraction in the spatial extent of hoarding which, as in the Anglo-Norman and high medieval periods, primarily occurred south of a line between the Humber and Severn estuaries; distributions shifted slightly towards the southwest in 1465-1544 as the per-annum rate of hoarding increased, although median face values were much lower

By acknowledging these more precise parameters, we can establish formal hypotheses for the relationship between hoarding and conflict in northern England at these dates. If Anglo-Scottish conflict was indeed responsible for an upsurge in the rate of hoard deposition or non-recovery in northern England (County Durham, Cumbria, Lancashire, Northumberland, Yorkshire, and Tyne and Wear), we should expect the chronological distributions of coin hoards in this region to both significantly differ from the pattern observed elsewhere in England and Wales, and to be reflected by a pronounced ‘peak’ in hoards closing with coin types dated to the 1310s and 1320s or 1330s and early 1340s (Edwardian Classes 11-15, and Edward III’s second and third coinages). As the sample of hoards in 1279-1351 is considerably larger than earlier periods, it is possible to

 Two-sample Fisher’s exact test, H0 = no difference between distribution of closing types in northern (n=20) and non-northern (n=59) hoards. p-value=0.510; therefore, cannot reject H0 at α=0.05. 18

59

Andrews.indd 59

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 4.38. Distribution of closing types of Grade 3-4 coin hoards of Period 9 (1279-1351) from Northern England, compared to the rest of England and Wales.

than in the preceding period. At a fundamental level, then, the pattern of hoarding can be said to exhibit a general, albeit not unfettered, expansionary trajectory across the medieval period, developing from a comparatively modest and spatially-restricted phenomenon in the late AngloSaxon period to a much more widespread practice by the late middle ages.

period. While this does not necessarily mean that all, or even most, coin hoards were deposited for ‘economic’ reasons, it certainly suggests that the processes of hoard formation and deposition cannot be readily decoupled from the broader context of coin production and use, and these latter factors must subsequently be acknowledged as exerting a tremendously significant influence on the temporal and spatial incidence of hoarding.

Comparative analysis does much to contextualise these trends, and has demonstrated a particularly close correspondence between the pattern of hoarding and broader patterns in coin production and use as indicated by fixed-date estimates of currency size and, more importantly, the pattern of single coin finds; contrary to Kelleher’s (2012, 96) suggestion that there is no correlation between the frequency of hoards and the density of single finds, analysis has shown a strong positive correlation between both datasets in all four phases. Given these extensive similarities, it seems highly likely that most of the observed macro-scale patterns in the incidence and spatial extent of hoarding relate in the first instance to historic monetary phenomena, and particularly historic variations in the availability and extent of coin use during the medieval period. This conclusion finds support in the similarly close associations between hoards and towns, overland roads, and navigable inland rivers, all of which imply a strong link between hoarding and the temporal and spatial configuration of monetised commerce from the late Anglo-Saxon period through to the later medieval

In view of the close links between hoarding and coin production and use, the complex spatial relationship between hoarding and assessed wealth in England is of considerable interest. While one might expect the wealthiest areas to yield the most hoards, this only holds for the pattern of hoarding in 1465-1544, which has a strong positive correlation with the geographical patterns of wealth indicated by the 1524-1525 lay subsidy. By contrast, there is no correlation between the geographical patterns of wealth indicated by Domesday valuations and the 1334 lay subsidy and the spatial incidence of contemporary hoards. Commenting on the non-relationship between hoards and the pattern of assessed wealth in the 1334 lay subsidy, Allen (2015, 158) has suggested that the discrepancies between the two datasets may reflect differences in the relative share of cash reserves as a proportion of wealth between English regions. Although it is difficult to test this theory, it is of no little interest to note that the dataset that exhibits the closest fit with the hoard record, the 1524-1525 lay subsidy, had the widest 60

Andrews.indd 60

27/11/2019 11:15

Seeing the bigger picture: the pattern of hoarding in England and Wales, c.973-1544 assessment remit, being levied on wealth derived from landed income, wages, or movable goods including coin, credit, and plate (Schofield 2004, 102-04). By contrast, the assessment criteria for the fourteenth century lay subsidies was theoretically restricted to the value of moveable goods only, and in practice a significant subset of the latter – including coin, credit, and wool stocks – were routinely excluded from assessment (Nightingale 2004, 27-29). Similarly, the Domesday valuations record a highly restricted class of wealth in the form of manorial incomes derived from agrarian production (Sawyer 2013, 12). One might well question the extent to which these particular sources provide an adequate measure of wealth in general when certain forms of wealth – most obviously coin – are missing from the picture, and therefore the results of the analysis should be viewed with healthy scepticism. A similarly equivocal relationship between historical and archaeological data was noted in the case of population, which could only be shown to have a coherent and significant relationship to the pattern of hoarding in 1086. However, if historical evidence for assessed wealth and population geographies exhibit a varied relationship to the pattern of hoarding, the same cannot be said for historic conflict which, contrary to many earlier statements, consistently appears to exert little, if any, influence on the pattern of hoarding. At the macro-scale, then, the temporal and spatial incidence of hoarding in medieval England and Wales follows a coherent pattern that essentially reflects wider trends in the development of coin production and use evidenced from archaeological, historical and numismatic sources. How far such monetary factors influenced the process of hoard formation and deposition at the level of individual hoarders, however, remains to be seen, and it is to this evidence that we will now turn.

61

Andrews.indd 61

27/11/2019 11:15

5 Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards While the preceding chapter explored background patterning in the spatial and temporal incidence of coin hoarding at a macro-scale, the present chapter refocuses attention towards the compositional dimensions of hoard deposits, seeking to identify, characterise, and interpret patterns in the contents of hoards as a means of advancing our understanding of the process of thesaurisation as a whole. Analysis first centres on the numismatic elements of coin hoards, whose nominal, age, and regional structures are assessed as primary evidence for the subjective considerations, external influences, and technical processes that resulted in the production of hoard deposits. Attention then shifts towards the non-numismatic elements of coin hoards, a hitherto unexplored body of evidence with considerable potential for advancing our understanding of hoarding behaviour. Insights from this second layer of analysis are then reapplied to the numismatic evidence through a textually-informed discussion of possible nonmonetary influences on the selection of coins by medieval hoarders.

that are reproducible by any analyst using the same dataset and techniques (Lockyear 2000, 399). Cluster analysis has been successfully applied to the study of Roman coin hoards and single finds (Lockyear 1996, 285-302; 2007, 179-203; Walton 2012, 24-25) and to early medieval object hoards (Curta 2001, 211-26), but in a high and late medieval context has remained the preserve of archaeometrists (e.g. Rauret et al. 1987; Redford and Blackman 1997) and palaeoecologists and environmental historians (e.g. Power and Campbell 1992; Kaniewski et al. 2010). As such, the present study represents a pioneering attempt to apply the method to a medieval numismatic dataset. To maximise data potential, two separate varieties of cluster analysis have been used to address different dimensions of hoard patterning: one technique, using the Euclidean distance coefficient and Ward’s method as the clustering procedure (Shennan 1989, 198-220), was employed to analyse the nominal and regional structures of hoards, while, following Lockyear (2007, 180-83), average-link Dmax-based cluster analysis was used to analyse their age structures.1 To mitigate against problems introduced by small sample sizes (cf. Lockyear 1996, 149), only those hoards that contained a minimum of 12 identifiable coins were subjected to cluster analysis. This value was derived on the basis of trial and error; though smaller than the 30 and 20 coin thresholds adopted by Lockyear (2007, 29) and Walton (2012, 20) for studies of Roman hoards and single find assemblages, it is larger than the six coin threshold used in Kelleher’s (2012, 290) study of medieval single find assemblages, and has been previously noted as an acceptable threshold by specialists in Romano-British applied numismatics (Reece, cited by Walton 2012, 20).

5.1 The numismatic elements of coin hoards, c.9731544 By definition, coins constitute the single largest artefact class represented in coin hoards throughout the medieval period. For this reason, any attempt to characterise medieval coin hoards, or to assess the factors influencing their formation and deposition, must rest on numismatic foundations. This section presents the results of a largescale analysis of the numismatic elements of medieval coin hoards which, following Kluge (2007, 31), seeks to identify, characterise, and interpret compositional patterns in hoards through the lenses of their nominal, age, and regional structures.

5.1.1 Nominal structures The nominal structures of coin hoards are of singular importance to any study of the hoarding process, offering primary evidence for the selection criteria adopted by individual hoarders removing coins from circulation. Before analysing this evidence, it is prudent to outline some of the core denominational characteristics of coin production and circulation in England and Wales between the late tenth and mid-sixteenth centuries, derived in the first instance from die studies, single finds, and textual sources.

In contrast to most studies of the internal patterning of coin hoards, which employ deductive methodologies involving the manual comparison of deposits grouped according to criteria subjectively defined by the analyst (e.g. Guest 1994, 59-109; Allen 2002, 29), the present study uses formal statistical methods to interrogate the hoard dataset. Particular use is made of hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis, a multivariate technique that uses specified rulesets to group together hoards with similar compositions on the basis of a defined similarity/dissimilarity coefficient (Orton 1980, 47-55). This approach has certain advantages over traditional methods insofar as it can be conducted with great speed – visually discerning groups of similar hoards within the present dataset would involve as many as 331,705 pairwise comparisons, a process that would take months to manually pursue but can be completed in seconds using computer software – and produces results

Between c.973 and 1279 coinage in England and Wales was essentially monometallic and largely monodenominational, dominated by a single silver coin, the   All cluster analyses presented in this study were undertaken in the R software environment using the packages cluster and stats. Dmax-based cluster analyses use a bespoke algorithm written by Kris Lockyear. 1

62

Andrews.indd 62

27/11/2019 11:15

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards penny, struck at multiple mints to a standardised design at a high degree of fineness, although its weight standard fluctuated over time (Allen 2012, 134) and, during the late Anglo-Saxon period, varied between mints (Petersson 1969, 140-56). Fractions of the penny, the halfpenny (½d.) and farthing (¼d.), were also available. Between c.973 and 1279 these usually took the form of literal halved or quartered pennies, most of which were probably divided within mint workshops (Metcalf 1998, 78). Abortive attempts to introduce round halfpennies were undertaken in the reigns of Edward the Confessor (Lyon 1965), Henry I (Grierson and Brooke 1951), and Henry III (Mayhew and Smith 1990); however, after the recoinage of 1279, round halfpennies and farthings became the standard from of domestic fractional coinage (Allen 2012, 352).

into the domestic coinage pool, albeit on a limited scale; production was abandoned after 1281 (Allen 2004a, 28-29), and just one specimen is recorded among single finds of the period 1279-1351 (Kelleher 2012, 131). The denomination was, however, reintroduced by Edward III in 1351 alongside its fraction, the halfgroat (2d.), and thereafter formed a significant component of late medieval silver coinage. Although mint records offer few insights into the relative share of denominations in silver output after 1351, indentures of the mid-fourteenth to early fifteenth centuries suggest that the share of groats and halfgroats in domestic output contracted from 13.5 per cent and 27 per cent in 1355-1361 to 8.6 per cent and 22.9 per cent in 1361-c.1409 (Allen 2012, 361); die studies and single finds, however, suggest that these figures understate the contribution of larger silver denominations to the late fourteenth century currency (Allen 2007, 200; Kelleher 2012, 349). Parallel discrepancies between indenture statistics and die studies are observed throughout the fifteenth century (Allen 2007, 201-02), and single finds tend to better resemble the die evidence than historical records; 22 per cent of single finds of silver coins dated to 1412-1464 are groats, and 10 per cent are halfgroats, and by 1465-1544 the figure shifts to 22 per cent groats and 27 per cent halfgroats (Kelleher 2012, 350-52). By the early sixteenth century historical sources better resemble the numismatic evidence, and by 1523 groats, halfgroats, and pennies were produced in a ratio of 5:2:2 (Challis 1978, 202).

Estimates of the relative share of each denomination in the global coinage pool before 1279 depend primarily on single find evidence. Metcalf’s (1998) national survey of coin finds minted between c.973 and the late 1080s suggests that the ratios of pennies, halfpennies, and farthings measured at 20:4:1, and more recent figures collated by Kelleher (2012, 288-324) show a dramatic contraction in the dominance of the penny from a ratio of 21:3:1 in 1066-1100 to 9:4:1 in 1135-1158, gradually declining to a historic low of 2:3:1 in 1247-1279. Allowing for the tendency of single finds to overrepresent lower denomination coins (Casey 1988, 40), these statistics suggest that fractions – primarily in the form of halfpennies – constituted perhaps 10-15 per cent of the circulating currency in the late Anglo-Saxon period, rising to c.25-30 per cent by the end of the Anglo-Norman period and peaking at c.35-40 per cent in the mid to late thirteenth century.

Before the mid-fourteenth century the domestic production of gold coin was negligible. Two gold mancuses (30d.) of Aethelred II and Edward the Confessor are known, both struck from regular penny dies (Blackburn 2007, 6465), and probably represent sporadic production directed towards constrained social functions like major church offerings, large bequests, and land purchases (Allen 2012, 346). A more systematic attempt to issue gold ‘pennies’ valued at 20d. was pursued by Henry III in August 1257, but was abandoned within a few months (Carpenter 1987, 110-12). There is some evidence for the circulation of imported Christian and Islamic gold coins from mainland Europe, North Africa, and the Near East during the tenth to thirteenth centuries (Carpenter 1987, 107-10; Cook 1999; Archibald 2014), although their rarity as single finds presumably reflects the limited extent of gold circulation in a period otherwise characterised as a ‘Silver Age’ (Blackburn 2007). Domestic gold production resumed in January 1344 with the issuance of the florin (3s. 0d.) and its half and quarter, although by the summer these were withdrawn from circulation and replaced by the noble (6s. 8d.) and its half and quarter (Mayhew 1992, 148-49; Allen 2012, 359). Indentures suggest that nobles, half nobles and quarter nobles were struck at a ratio of 1:3:2 until the early fifteenth century (Allen 2007, 208), and while single finds support the general model of a fraction-dominated gold currency they nonetheless suggest that quarter nobles were produced on a larger scale than indentures indicate (Andrews 2017a, 1042); after 1412, however, both indentures and single finds evidence a shift away from fractional gold towards whole nobles.

Following the 1279 recoinage, the nominal structure of domestic currency reverted to a penny-dominated system (Kelleher 2012, 346), and mint records indicate that the production of fractions only once exceeded 10 per cent of the value of mint output between 1279 and 1344 (Allen 2012, 309-12). The ensuing lack of ‘small change’ was the impetus behind the production of an exceptionally large volume of debased halfpennies and farthings between 1335 and 1343 (Allen 2012, 354), but thereafter fractional production continued to decline, and from the mid-fourteenth to early fifteenth centuries no more than c.20 per cent of silver coins minted in England and Wales were halfpennies or, less frequently, farthings (Allen 2007, 208; Kelleher 2012, 349). Efforts to alleviate the shortfall in ‘small change’ during the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (Bolton 2012, 239) may be reflected in an upswing in the proportion of fractional coins – principally halfpennies – among single finds of 1412-1464 (Kelleher 2012, 350), but production was short-lived; fractions, overwhelmingly halfpennies, constitute just 13 per cent of single finds of 1465-1544 (Kelleher 2012, 352), and by 1523 just 10 per cent of silver output took the form of halfpennies and farthings, in a ratio of 2:1 (Challis 1978, 202). The 1279 recoinage was the first to systematically introduce a denomination larger than the penny, the groat (4d.), 63

Andrews.indd 63

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 In 1465 the production of nobles and their fractions terminated, and five new gold coins – the ryal (10s. 0d.) and its half and quarter, and the angel (6s. 8d.) and its half – were introduced. Not all were successful, and, notwithstanding a brief issue of ryals in the late 1480s, the angel and half angel were the sole domestic gold coins produced between 1470 and 1489; die studies and single finds suggest that angels outnumbered their halves during this period (Allen 2007, 201; Andrews 2017a, 1042). Under Henry VII a new gold coin, the sovereign (£1 0s. 0d.), was introduced, although production was extremely limited and none are known as single finds (Stewartby 2009, 344; Andrews 2017a, 1042). Sovereigns, ryals, angels, and half-angels were issued between 1509 and 1526, although once again the number of angels and halfangels were the dominant element of mint output. In 1526 the face values of existing gold coins were increased and new denominations – the george noble (6s. 8d.) and its half, and the crown (4s. 6d. in August-November 1526; 5s. 0d. from November 1526) and its half (2s. 6d.) – were introduced, and single finds again reinforce the impression of a coinage weighted heavily against the production of fractional gold (Andrews 2017a, 1042). Unusually, pre1465 nobles are known to have remained in circulation throughout the period, with specimens attested in currency contexts as late as the 1560s (Allen 2012, 342).

the use of Burgundian double patards and Portuguese chinfroes as groat and halfgroat equivalents in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries (Spufford 1963; Allen 2012, 367), and the circulation of Venetian soldini as halfpennies in the early fifteenth century and again in the early sixteenth century (Daubney 2009, 187-94). Single finds of coins (Kelleher 2007) and coin-weights (Biggs 1990, 75-78) evidence incursions of continental gold during the early sixteenth century, whose values were fixed by a series of royal proclamations in the 1520s and 1530s (Allen 2012, 368); there is also evidence for the circulation of Portuguese copper ceitis at this date, although their assigned face values are unknown (Allen 2012, 367-68). 5.1.1.1 Phase A: Late Anglo-Saxon coin hoards, c.973-1066 Of the 73 periodised coin hoards deposited in the late AngloSaxon period, 69 hoards – 35 dated to c.973-1016 and 34 to 1016-1066 – possess quantifiable information concerning their nominal structures. Just 33, however, contain 12 or more coins, and consequently analysis proceeds on the basis of an aggregated Phase A dataset. Denominational data has been tabulated and subjected to cluster analysis, with the resulting dendrogram plotted in Figure 5.1. This has been cut at k=5 and k=8, resulting in five supergroups and eight clusters whose memberships are summarised in Table 5.1. The compositions of clustered hoards are summarised in Figure 5.2. Three of the 33 hoards cannot be localised, and the spatial distributions of the remaining 30 hoards are plotted by cluster in Figure 5.3.

Despite extensive efforts to police the currency and prohibit the circulation of foreign coin, there is evidence for the occasional circulation of non-English coins – sometimes more frequent, sometimes less so – throughout the middle ages. Continental deniers and other penny-type coins from France, Germany, Ireland, Scotland, and Scandinavia are attested among single finds of the period c.973-1180, and presumably found some acceptance as substitutes for English pennies (Kelleher 2012, 155-56). From the late twelfth century Irish and Scottish pennies circulated in moderate numbers in England and Wales, sometimes with official sanction, and from the early thirteenth century were joined by smaller numbers of French deniers, German pfennige, and continental imitations of English – and later Anglo-Irish – pennies (Allen 2012, 349-50). While Irish and Scottish coins persisted in circulation until the end of the middle ages, the fortunes of continental coins after 1279 were more circuitous. By the end of the thirteenth century continental coins imitating English pennies had re-entered domestic circulation, and despite official proscriptions remained a persistent element of English and Welsh currency throughout the first half of the fourteenth century; single finds also testify to a limited circulation of French gros tournois, Aquitanian sterlings and deniers, and some other continental coins at this date, which were presumably treated as multiples or fractions of the penny (Kelleher 2012, 176-79). Further influxes of continental coin occurred throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, most notably the appearance of Low Countries imitations of the English gold noble between the late fourteenth and mid-fifteenth centuries (Allen 2012, 365), the circulation of Anglo-Gallic saluts as half noble equivalents in the mid-fifteenth century (Cook 2001, 303),

The results demonstrate that most coin hoards deposited in the late Anglo-Saxon period have comparatively homogenous nominal structures. Twenty-seven of the 33 hoards analysed belong to supergroup 2, whose constituent clusters comprise hoards composed exclusively of pennies (cluster B) or of a majority of pennies supplemented by a very small number of cut halfpennies (cluster C). Three hoards belong to singleton clusters (F, G, H) within supergroup 5, and have nominal structures dominated by pennies and supplemented by cut halfpennies, the latter of which are more numerous than in cluster C. The three remaining supergroups all consist of singleton clusters. Supergroup 3 (cluster D) consists of the hoard from ‘Campsey Ash’/Thwaite (Suffolk; CAS), in which pennies were supplemented by moderate numbers of cut halfpennies and a few cut farthings. Supergroup 4 (cluster E) consists of the hoard from Halton Moor (Lancashire; HML), which contained several hundred Pointed Helmet type pennies supplemented by a few ‘Group A’ deniers of Dukes Richard II-III of Normandy (996-1026, 10261027) (Dumas 1979, 91-92); supergroup 1 (cluster A), meanwhile, consists of the hoard from Southampton (Hampshire; SOH), which exclusively comprised ‘Group A’ Norman deniers. Norman deniers are among the most common foreign coins encountered among single finds of the period c.973-1087, and are particularly numerous along the south coast of England (Metcalf 1998, 86); though struck at a slightly lower weight standard – and markedly 64

Andrews.indd 64

27/11/2019 11:15

Figure 5.1. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the nominal structures of coin hoards deposited c.973-1066, based on 33 hoards containing 12+ coins. Join heights indicate the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between hoards; low joins therefore indicate a greater degree of similarity between hoards than high joins.

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards

65

Andrews.indd 65

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 Table 5.1. Nominal structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, c.973-1066. Supergroup (k=5)

Cluster (k=8)

Members

No. members

1

A

SOH

1

2

B

BBL; BGN; BRA; BRY; BS2; BSF; CNU; DRW; EAM; GBA; GRA; IBM; ISL; KHG; LAU; LDW; LEN; MSE; OAK; PRC; SED; SHA; SMG; SMI; UL1

25

2

C

PPC; WED

2

3

D

CAS

1

4

E

HML

1

5

F

NMO

1

5

G

CRL

1

5

H

APP

1

Figure 5.2. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards, c.973-1066. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.1.

lower fineness – than Pointed Helmet type pennies (Dumas 1979, 103; Metcalf 1998, 140; Naismith 2017, 252), these coins were probably accepted as broadly equivalent in size and weight to a worn English penny, and were presumably hoarded on this basis. In this sense, both the Halton Moor and Southampton finds might be considered as relatives of the penny-only hoards of cluster B.

all types during this phase, and therefore the distributional bias may not be significant. Repeating the analysis to include the hoards containing fewer than 12 coins is of interest insofar as it reiterates the patterns observed in the analysis of larger hoards; 31 of the 36 smaller hoards consist exclusively of pennies, while the remaining five hoards either combine pennies with cut fractions (CBL, CHT, NLS, WLB) or combine a Pointed Helmet type penny with a Norman denier (CHM).

Owing to the relative homogeneity of coin hoards in this phase, the extent to which meaningful archaeological conclusions can be deduced from the spatial distribution of clusters is questionable. However, it is of interest to note that four of the six hoards containing fractional coin (i.e. clusters C-D and F-H) occur to the southeast of a line between the Severn and the Wash, an area notable for its abundant coin finds and developed urban network (Astill 1991, 112-13). However, as has previously been shown (chapter four), this region yields the majority of hoards of

5.1.1.2 Phase B: Anglo-Norman coin hoards, 1066-1158 The nominal structures of 94 periodised Anglo-Norman hoards are quantifiable, 44 of which consist of 12 or more coins; 23 were deposited in 1066-1100, 8 in 11001135, and 13 in 1135-1158. These small samples preclude detailed periodised analysis, although are sufficient to make general observations at the phase level. Figure 5.4 66

Andrews.indd 66

27/11/2019 11:15

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards

Figure 5.3. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=30) by nominal structure cluster, c.973-1066.

plots the results of a cluster analysis of the 44 hoards as a dendrogram which, when cut at k=5 and k=10, results in five supergroups and ten clusters. As previously, cluster memberships are summarised in Table 5.2, and the compositions of clustered hoards are summarised in Figures 5.5-5.6. Two hoards subjected to cluster analysis are not localised; the spatial distribution of the remaining 42 hoards are plotted in Figure 5.7.

supergroup 2 hoards are attested in all three periods of this phase, and comprise hoards of pennies supplemented by a small number of halfpennies. Hoards in supergroups 3-5 principally date to 1135-1158, and consist of pennies supplemented by small (supergroup 3, clusters D-F) or moderate (supergroup 5, clusters H-J) fractional elements, usually in the form of cut halfpennies but occasionally also cut farthings. These two supergroups have exclusive spatial distributions; hoards belonging to supergroup 3 all occur to the northwest, and those of supergroup 5 the southeast, of the Humber-Severn line. The singleton supergroup 4 (cluster G) reverses the proportions of fractions towards a profile dominated by farthings and supplemented by a moderate proportion of pennies and cut halfpennies.

As in the preceding phase, cluster analysis demonstrates a strong degree of homogeneity in the nominal structures of coin hoards. Thirty-two of the 44 hoards analysed belong to supergroup 1, whose clusters consist of penny-only hoards (cluster A) and penny-dominated hoards that otherwise contain a smattering of cut halfpennies and, in one case (CHL), Danish penninge and a pfennig of the Holy Roman Empire. Like the Norman deniers observed in hoards of the preceding phase, both of these denominations are recorded among single finds (Kelleher 2012, 146-8), and were presumably hoarded as penny equivalents. The share of supergroup 1 in the overall sample of Anglo-Norman hoards (73 per cent) is slightly smaller than the equivalent supergroup in late Anglo-Saxon hoards (supergroup 2; 82 per cent), evidencing a modest diversification in the nominal structures of hoards compared to the preceding phase. This relates to a growing tendency to include fractions in hoards, whose proportional shares are defining characteristics of supergroups 2-5. Like supergroup 1,

As previously, extending the coverage of the analysis to include the 50 hoards containing fewer than 12 coins shows that both small and large hoards possess similar nominal structures. Forty small hoards consist exclusively of pennies, and a further seven combine pennies with small to moderate proportions of fractions, typically in the form of cut halfpennies or, in one case, a cut farthing (RAY). The remaining three hoards are slightly aberrant, although are of questionable archaeological significance in view of their small sample sizes; two hoards combine a single penny with a single cut halfpenny (CGW, SFN), and one hoard combines a single penny with two cut halfpennies and one cut farthing (GRE). 67

Andrews.indd 67

27/11/2019 11:15

Figure 5.4. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the nominal structures of coin hoards deposited 1066-1158, based on 44 hoards containing 12+ coins.

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

68

Andrews.indd 68

27/11/2019 11:15

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards Table 5.2. Nominal structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, 1066-1158. Supergroup (k=5)

Cluster (k=10)

Members

No. members

1

A

ABE; BAT; BEE; BER; BH2; BOU; CHA; COL; CST; CUF; DGK; JB1; LCL; LOW; MAL; MGY; MWN; OUL; RTH; SHI; SMH; SOB; SUT; TAM; UL2; WAO; YRK

27

1

B

BH1; BWH; CHL; NT1; SKL

5

2

C

KNA; PHH; SCA; WAT

4

3

D

ADZ

1

3

E

HAR

1

3

F

COE; SHD

2

4

G

KEN

1

5

H

WLW

1

5

I

BOX

1

5

J

LIN

1

5.1.1.3 Phase C: High medieval coin hoards, 1158-1279

(supergroup 1; cluster A), although the relative share of these deposits in the overall phased sample (44.9 per cent) is considerably smaller than in either of the preceding phases. The second and third largest clusters (B and C) both belong to supergroup 2, and are distinguished by their slightly reduced, albeit still dominant, penny component. The magnitude of non-penny elements distinguishes the two clusters; in cluster B hoards non-pennies – generally halfpennies, although in one case (WCP) continental penny-type coins – account for an average of 3.9 per cent of total coins in hoards, while in cluster C hoards non-pennies – again, typically halfpennies, although in two instances (STP; WRX) halfpennies and continental penny-type coins – account for nearly double this share. From a spatial perspective both supergroups A and B are widely distributed, and there is no compelling evidence for regional patterning in the spatial incidences of the three constituent clusters.

A total of 156 high medieval coin hoards possess quantifiable denominational information, 98 of which contain 12 or more coins; 19 of the latter were deposited in 1158-1180, 52 in 1180-1247, and 27 in 1247-1279. As only one of these periods contains a reasonable number of hoards, analysis proceeds as previously on the basis of an aggregated phase-level dataset. The 98 hoards have been subjected to cluster analysis, cutting the dendrogram (Figure 5.8) at k=7 and k=15 to produce seven supergroups and 15 clusters, whose memberships are summarised in Table 5.3.2 The compositions of clustered hoards are summarised in Figures 5.9-5.14. Four of the hoards subjected to cluster analysis cannot be localised, and the spatial distribution of the remaining 94 hoards is plotted in Figure 5.15.

A further 31 hoards belong to four supergroups (clusters D-N) whose nominal structures are distinguished by the presence of fractional coins in greater quantities. Hoards in supergroups 3 and 4 (clusters D-H) contain large penny elements supplemented by small (supergroup 4, clusters F-H) to moderate (supergroup 3, clusters D-E) proportions of fractions. The nature of the fractional element differs between clusters; fractions in hoards belonging to clusters E and G-H are exclusively halfpennies, while two hoards in cluster D (THL; WIC) and all three hoards in cluster F (LAR; LBR; WEN) contain halfpennies and a small number of farthings. Supergroup 5 (clusters I-K) hoards possess a moderate to large fractional element, typically in the form of halfpennies; the singleton K, comprising the Belbroughton area (Worcestershire; BEL) hoard, is exceptional for its high proportion of farthings, which are either absent (CLS; MMO, WLO) or considerably outnumbered by halfpennies (CLY, DOD, OLB) in other supergroup 5 hoards. In the five hoards belonging to supergroup 6 (clusters L-N) fractions outnumber whole pennies; as previously, the fractional element of these

Hoards of pennies, sometimes supplemented by a handful of their continental equivalents (e.g. CLL; HRN; UL5), constitute the single largest class of hoards during this phase  The widespread circulation of non-English coins during this phase poses practical issues for the quantification of nominal structures. For ease of analysis the underlying data tables do not distinguish between pennies, halfpennies, and farthings struck in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, which were struck to similar standards and circulated almost interchangeably as part of a thirteenth century British and Irish ‘sterling area’ (Allen 2017a). Continental coins pose more significant challenges, and can be divided into three groups: 1) coins whose designs and standards of weight and fineness substantially diverge from English coins (e.g. Low Countries brabantini), 2) coins whose designs and standards largely resemble English coins, but can be distinguished by close scrutiny of coin legends (e.g. long cross sterlings of Bernhard III of Lippe or ‘Videkind Rex’), and 3) close imitations of English Short Cross and Long Cross coins that faithfully reproduce the names of English issuers, mints, and moneyers. Early hoard reports may erroneously treat specimens of this last type as authentic English coins; one cannot presume, however, that medieval coin users were as discerning as modern numismatists where these coins were concerned. As such, a pragmatic approach to this problem has been adopted; coins of groups 1 and 2 are treated as ‘continental silver’, while those of group 3 are not distinguished from genuine English coins. 2

69

Andrews.indd 69

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 5.5. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 1 (clusters A-B), 1066-1158. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.2.

Figure 5.6. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 2-5 (clusters C-J), 1066-1158. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.2.

70

Andrews.indd 70

27/11/2019 11:15

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards

Figure 5.7. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=42) by nominal structure cluster, 1066-1158.

hoards consists mainly of halfpennies, although in three cases (OKH, SBH, TYR) halfpennies are supplemented by a smaller quantity of farthings. Taken as a whole, these four supergroups appear to represent two distinct tiers of fractional hoarding, one in which the proportion of fractions is small (supergroup 4) to moderate (supergroup 3), and another in which the proportion is moderate (supergroup 5) to large (supergroup 6). This observation acquires further significance when considering the spatial distribution of supergroup members, as there is a clear divide between the spatial distribution of hoards within and between tiers (Figure 5.15); hoards belonging to supergroups 4 and 5, and therefore at the least fractional end of both tiers of fractional hoarding, are usually encountered to the west of a north-south line between Portsmouth and York, while hoards belonging to supergroups 3 and 6 – the most fractional ends of the two tiers – exclusively occur to the east of this line. The final two hoards sampled (CWM; HWC) belong to supergroup 7 (cluster O), whose nominal structures are characterised by the exclusive presence of thirteenth century deniers of Aquitaine and France.

emphasises the similarities between large and small hoards. Most of the latter consist exclusively of pennies; five hoards (LLH; MRS; WPW; WSK; WWL) contain small to moderate halfpenny components and thereby resemble supergroups 3 and 4, while in a further three hoards (GSA; HAM; IVI) fractions outnumber whole pennies as in supergroup 6. A few peculiarities are represented among the remaining hoards; three contain halfpennies only (EWN; OS1; OXB), one farthings only (SIW), and another of halfpennies and farthings in equal proportions (SKD). None of these five hoards contains more than three coins.)

As previously, re-running the cluster analysis to include the 58 quantifiable hoards containing fewer than 12 coins

The 76 hoards deposited in 1279-1351 have been subjected to cluster analysis, and the resulting dendrogram

5.1.1.4 Phase D: Late medieval coin hoards, 1279-1544 Some 367 late medieval coin hoards possess quantifiable denominational information, 204 of which contain 12 or more coins; 76 of the latter were deposited in 1279-1351, 45 in 1351-1412, 35 in 1412-1464, and 48 in 1465-1544. As these samples are considerably larger than those of preceding phases, this material can be scrutinised on a period-by-period basis.

71

Andrews.indd 71

27/11/2019 11:15

Figure 5.8. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the nominal structures of coin hoards deposited 1158-1279, based on 98 hoards containing 12+ coins.

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

72

Andrews.indd 72

27/11/2019 11:15

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards Table 5.3. Nominal structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, 1158-1279. Supergroup (k=7)

Cluster (k=15)

Members

No. members

1

A

AAD; AMP; AWB; BCK; BGL; BHK; BM2; CAW; CBW; CHR; CHW; CLG; CLL; CO1; CO2; DER; DOK; DUF; ECC; ELL; ELT; GAY; HCW; HHL; HIC; HRN; LEI; LLY; LOX; NAC; NEN; PGK; SHE; SME; SMS; STC; STH; TEA; TES; TRT; UL5; UYS; WAA; YM2

44

2

B

BAI; BAS; FIL; LEC; NCA; NSN; OUT; SPX; UL3; UL4; WCP; WMH

12

2

C

BWL; CLX; GDL; LD2; NCY; SLA; SP1; STP; WRX

9

3

D

CAH; NWK; RFC; THL; WIC

5

3

E

SP2; THW; WGC

3

4

F

LAR; LBR; WEN

3

4

G

CAN; CRO; GRY; TOC

4

4

H

BNY; CLE; KIL; SLE

4

5

I

CLY; DOD

2

5

J

CLS; MMO; OLB; WLO

4

5

K

BEL

1

6

L

SBH; SSK

2

6

M

MOR; OKH

2

6

N

TYR

1

7

O

CWM; HWC

2

Figure 5.9. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 1 (cluster A), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.3.

73

Andrews.indd 73

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 5.10. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 2 (clusters B-C), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.3.

Figure 5.11. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 3 (clusters D-E), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.3.

74

Andrews.indd 74

27/11/2019 11:15

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards

Figure 5.12. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 4 (clusters F-H), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.3.

Figure 5.13. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 5 (clusters I-K), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.3.

75

Andrews.indd 75

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 5.14. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 6-7 (clusters L-O), 1158-1279. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.3.

Figure 5.15. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=94) by nominal structure cluster, 1158-1279.

76

Andrews.indd 76

27/11/2019 11:15

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards (Figure 5.16) has been cut at k=8 and k=16 to produce eight supergroups and 16 clusters whose memberships are summarised in Table 5.4.3 The compositions of clustered hoards are summarised in Figures 5.17-5.21. Two hoards lack findspot information; Figure 5.22 plots of the spatial distribution of the remaining 74 deposits.

Thirty-two of these consist exclusively of pennies, and most of the remainder combine a majority penny element with smaller numbers of continental sterlings or halfpennies. Nonetheless, there are some novelties; two hoards (HAT; MDL) consist exclusively of farthings, one (OTH) exclusively of continental sterlings, and one (RTY) exclusively of English gold florins, although none of these contains more than three coins.

In contrast to the preceding phase, hoards of 1279-1351 show a striking homogeneity in their nominal structures. Approximately 70 per cent of sampled hoards belong to supergroups 1 and 2, whose members are characterised as hoards of exclusively pennies (cluster D) or pennies supplemented by a handful of other coins, which are nearly always continental sterlings modelled directly on English pennies (clusters A-C). The nominal structures of hoards in supergroups 3 (clusters E-G) and 7 (clusters N-O) are similarly penny-dominated, but are supplemented by small numbers of continental sterlings, whose contribution is most marked in clusters G and O. Neither supergroup is, however, entirely homogenous. In supergroup 3 cluster E is distinguished by the presence of a small number of halfpennies and farthings, and in supergroup 7 the singleton cluster N (KLY) is similarly marked by a small halfpenny element. The singleton cluster F (DOV) is further notable for including small numbers of English groats and continental coins, the latter consisting of French and Low Countries gros, mailles tierces, and sterlings and a Brescian grosso. The singleton supergroup 5 (cluster K) consists of a hoard from an uncertain location in England (UL6); though distinguished by its unusually large continental sterling element, it is obviously related to the penny-dominated hoards of supergroups 1, 2, 3, and 7.

Subjecting the 45 hoards deposited in 1351-1412 to cluster analysis results in the dendrogram shown in Figure 5.23, which has been cut at k=7 and k=14 to produce seven supergroups and 14 clusters whose memberships are summarised in Table 5.5. The compositions of clustered hoards are summarised in Figures 5.24-5.29. One hoard lacks findspot information; the spatial distributions of the remaining 44 are plotted in Figure 5.30. Unlike the situation in 1279-1351, the nominal structures of hoards of this period are quite varied, reflecting the complexities of the domestic currency in the post Black Death era. English gold coins, observed in just one hoard (RTY) before 1351, are relatively frequent in hoards of 1351-1412. Eighteen (40 per cent) of the sampled hoards contain at least one gold coin, and supergroups 5 and 6 are defined by the exclusive presence of gold. Of these, supergroup 5 (cluster I) hoards exclusively contain English gold nobles, supplemented in one instance (WES) by a small number of their Flemish counterparts. Supergroup 6 (clusters J-K) hoards, meanwhile, primarily consist of nobles with a moderate half noble element and a small (cluster K) to moderate (cluster J) quarter noble element, and are unique for their period in possessing a reasonably discrete spatial distribution centred on the Thames Estuary around London and Kent.

Supergroup 4 hoards are distinguished by their small fractional components, which account for anywhere from 6.3 per cent (SLV) to 14.2 per cent (SCL) of total coins in individual members. Supergroup 6 consists of the two singleton clusters L (ES2) and M (SSL), both of which have moderate fractional elements. Supergroup 8 – a singleton cluster (P) composed of a hoard from Hull Dock (East Riding of Yorkshire; HDK) – is remarkable for consisting entirely of halfpennies. There is little compelling evidence for patterning in the spatial distribution of clusters, although it is interesting to note that the two localisable hoards belonging to supergroup 6 and two of the three hoards belonging to supergroup 7 – two supergroups with distinctive fractional elements – occur in the east of England, a region previously noted for its numerous fractional hoards of the period c.9731279. As previously, the 46 hoards containing fewer than 12 coins hardly alter the results of the cluster analysis.

The newly reintroduced groat is the primary component of hoards in supergroup 7 (clusters L-N); in cluster M (LLD; NNS) groats are hoarded exclusively, while in cluster L they are hoarded in conjunction with a small to moderate halfgroat element and in all but one case (MLF) a small gold and penny element. In the singleton cluster N (WVG) groats are hoarded alongside a moderate number of fractional gold coins and a small quantity of halfgroats and pennies. Pennies, however, remain the primary component of hoards in supergroups 1, 2, and 3, where they are hoarded in conjunction with other denominations. Both members of supergroup 1 (cluster A) mainly supplement pennies with halfpennies, either exclusively (CRE) or in conjunction with small numbers of farthings, continental sterlings, and continental demisterlings (RIC). Supergroup 3 (clusters D-E) hoards combine pennies with moderate groat elements and small halfgroat elements, supplemented in individual members by small quantities of additional denominations; in cluster D these consist of one hoard (BAL) with a small noble and halfpenny element and another (WIN) with a small continental sterling element, and in cluster E these consist of one hoard (HAS) with a small halfpenny and continental sterling element and another (FRN) with a

 As in the preceding phase, Irish and Scottish pennies, halfpennies, and farthings are treated interchangeably with their English equivalents. However, continental coins of this phase are treated separately, as the vast majority – including coins imitating English pennies – are readily distinguished from domestic denominations by designs, named issuers and mints, fineness, weight, and size; for ease of quantification continental coins are grouped into seven broad denominational classes (‘continental gold’, ‘continental gros’, ‘continental halfgros’, ‘continental sterling’, ‘continental demi-sterling’, ‘other continental silver’, and ‘continental copper’). 3

77

Andrews.indd 77

27/11/2019 11:15

Figure 5.16. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the nominal structures of coin hoards deposited 1279-1351, based on 76 hoards containing 12+ coins.

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

78

Andrews.indd 78

27/11/2019 11:15

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards Table 5.4. Nominal structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, 1279-1351. Supergroup (k=8)

Cluster (k=16)

Members

No. members

1

A

AMB; BOO; BOY; KNP; LCS; LDA; LVS; MDR; NA1; NPT; NWB; THR; WYK

13

1

B

CAE; HAU; SWS; WHB

4

2

C

HES; LAP; MAY; NAN; SCO; WRN; WTS

7

2

D

BOS; BWN; CEF; CNR; CRM; DAD; DWW; EAG; ECS; ELA; GAS; GYN; HDD; HSC; HUG; ICK; LBC; LDL; LFD; MLM; NRT; PBD; RTN; SES; SKG; WGT; WIL; WSH; WTF

29

3

E

DBY; GOR; HCC; LSD

4

3

F

DOV

1

3

G

AST; CWH; GRI; NA2; TUT

5

4

H

BRO; MAC

2

4

I

SCL

1

4

J

PEP; SLV; WWR

3

5

K

UL6

1

6

L

ES2

1

6

M

SSL

1

7

N

KLY

1

7

O

SNA; WIG

2

8

P

HDK

1

Figure 5.17. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 1 (clusters A-B), 1279-1351. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.4.

79

Andrews.indd 79

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 5.18. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 2 (clusters C-D), 1279-1351. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.4.

Figure 5.19. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 3 (clusters E-G), 1279-1351. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.4.

80

Andrews.indd 80

27/11/2019 11:15

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards

Figure 5.20. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 4 (clusters H-J), 1279-1351. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.4.

Figure 5.21. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 5-8 (clusters K-P), 1279-1351. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.4.

81

Andrews.indd 81

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 5.22. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=74) by nominal structure cluster, 1279-1351.

small halfpenny element. Supergroup 2 hoards are similar insofar as they primarily supplement pennies with groats and halfgroats, although the contributions of these latter two denominations are smaller than in supergroup 3 and vary between constituent clusters. In cluster C groats and halfgroats account for a moderate combined share of total coins, with neither denomination consistently better represented than the other, and individual members supplement the three core denominations with small numbers of additional coins. In cluster B, however, groats and halfgroats are minor contributors to what are essentially hoards of pennies, and indeed two members (BOL; YM3) are penny-only hoards; other denominations represented in small numbers in cluster B hoards include nobles and half nobles (CLC), halfpennies (FEL, PID, ULB), and continental sterlings (BEM, CLC, PID, ULB).

two members of cluster F also contain other denominations, including nobles (DBL), halfpennies (DBL), and continental sterlings (FHC). Extending the analysis to include 40 hoards containing fewer than 12 coins tends to reiterate the patterns observed in larger hoards; eight small hoards, for example, resemble supergroup 5 as noble-only hoards (e.g. CHE; MOU; WMA), while a further six are cluster M style groat-only hoards (e.g. BEC; DRG; SNG) and another five hoards contain upwards of 80 per cent pennies akin to supergroup 2 (e.g. HAL; ORH; TIC). However, the small hoards do also contain some unusual characteristics. Hoards from Bodham (Norfolk; BOD) and Portskewett (Gwent; PSK) contain 75 per cent and 100 per cent halfgroats respectively, although are small deposits of just four and three coins; a similarly small hoard of three coins from Romney Marsh (Kent; RMK) is unique as a deposit dominated by halfpennies. A parcel from a hoard washed up on Chesil Beach near Abbotsbury (Dorset; ABB) comprised English and Continental gold in the form of a one noble and one Anglo-Gallic gueyennois, and is echoed in silver by a hoard from Monknash (South Glamorgan; MKN) that combines a single penny of Edward III with two cruzados and a real de ½ maravedis of Enrique II of Castile and León (1369-1379). The hoard from Myddle and Broughton (Shropshire; MYD) is unique as a hoard of

The constituent clusters (F-M) of supergroup 4 are uniformly small, and have particularly variable nominal structures. All three consist primarily of groats, halfgroats, and pennies, each denomination occurring in small to moderate proportions that vary between clusters; pennies are the primary component in cluster F hoards, groats dominate cluster G hoards, and the singleton cluster H comprises a hoard (EAD) dominated by halfgroats. The 82

Andrews.indd 82

27/11/2019 11:15

Figure 5.23. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the nominal structures of coin hoards deposited 1351-1412, based on 45 hoards containing 12+ coins.

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards

83

Andrews.indd 83

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 Table 5.5. Nominal structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, 1351-1412. Supergroup (k=7)

Cluster (k=14)

Members

No. members

1

A

CRE; RIC

2

2

B

BEM; BOL; CLC; FEL; PID; SOS; ULB; YM3

8

2

C

BCD; CRG; GRN; SBY

4

3

D

BAL; KSC; NLA; WIN

4

3

E

CHC; FRN; HAS; NCD; SLK

5

4

F

DBL; FHC

2

4

G

CPH; ROG

2

4

H

EAD

1

5

I

ERN; FEN; HEN; NEU; PIN; SKE; WES

7

6

J

RTW

1

6

K

BDG; MEO

2

7

L

BHL; HDW; MFN; MLF

4

7

M

LLD; NNS

2

7

N

WVG

1

Figure 5.24. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 1 (cluster A), 1351-1412. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.5.

84

Andrews.indd 84

27/11/2019 11:15

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards

Figure 5.25. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 2 (clusters B-C), 1351-1412. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.5.

Figure 5.26. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 3 (clusters D-E), 1351-1412. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.5.

85

Andrews.indd 85

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 5.27. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 4 (clusters F-H), 1351-1412. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.5.

Figure 5.28. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 5-6 (clusters I-K), 1351-1412. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.5.

86

Andrews.indd 86

27/11/2019 11:15

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards

Figure 5.29. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 7 (clusters L-N), 1351-1412. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.5.

Figure 5.30. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=44) by nominal structure cluster, 1351-1412.

87

Andrews.indd 87

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 exclusively continental gold, in this case taking the form of nine doblas of Pedro I of Castile, and is echoed in silver by a non-quantifiable hoard from Great Totham (Essex; GTO) consisting exclusively of French coins, at least one of which was a gros of Jean II le Bon (1350-1364).

by small numbers of halfgroats and, in individual cases, small numbers of nobles (DIS), halfpennies (BRN, CLI, HLW), and continental sterlings (BRN, CLI). Cluster J hoards, however, primarily contain pennies supplemented by small to mid-sized groat and halfgroat elements, and in individual members small numbers of halfpennies (EYE) and continental sterlings (ILA) are also represented. Hoards of this period are too few in number, and too spatially dispersed, to identify any clear patterns of regionality. As ever, repeating the cluster analysis to include a further 25 hoards containing fewer than 12 coins hardly alters the results; three hoards (DTN; WRK; WWK), for example, contain exclusively nobles, and a further nine (e.g. BMR; GLY; THO) are groat-only hoards. Nonetheless, some hoards are aberrant; one (BNB) exclusively contains half nobles, another (SPN) exclusively quarter nobles, and another (CNY) exclusively halfpennies.

Applying cluster analysis to the 35 hoards of 12 or more coins deposited in 1412-1464 results in a dendrogram (Figure 5.31) that has been cut at k=6 and k=12 to generate six supergroups and 14 clusters; cluster memberships are summarised in Table 5.6. The compositions of clustered hoards are summarised in Figures 5.32-5.36. One hoard cannot be localised, and the spatial distribution of the remaining 34 hoards is plotted by cluster in Figure 5.37. As previously, hoards of this period exhibit diverse nominal structures, although remain centred on three specific denominations: the noble, the groat, and the penny. Noble-dominated hoards are characteristic of supergroup 2 (clusters E-F), whose constituent clusters differ slightly in composition. Eight of the ten cluster F hoards exclusively contain nobles; one (PUL) supplements nobles with a small quantity of half nobles and quarter nobles, and another (HOR) supplements English nobles with a small number of Flemish imitations. In the singleton cluster E (FIS), however, nobles are combined with small numbers of half nobles, quarter nobles, and Anglo-Gallic saluts.

Running a cluster analysis on the 48 hoards of 12 or more coins deposited in 1465-1544 results in the dendrogram plotted in Figure 5.38, which has been cut at k=7 and k=14 to produce seven supergroups and fourteen clusters whose memberships are outlined in Table 5.7. The compositions of clustered hoards are summarised in Figures 5.395.44. Figure 5.45 plots the spatial distribution of cluster members, omitting five hoards that cannot be localised. As previously, there is a reasonable degree of variation in the nominal structures of hoards deposited between 1465 and 1544, although the relative proportions of hoard types differs noticeably from the preceding two periods. Supergroups 5 (cluster J) and 7 (cluster N) comprise gold-only hoards, the latter a singleton (UL8) consisting exclusively of ryals and the former a cluster of three hoards dominated by angels, sometimes in conjunction with half angels (ASH, PSH) and ryals (PSH); their proportional share in the period sample, however, is much smaller than the share of the equivalent gold-only supergroups in 13511412 and 1412-1464.

Groats are the only denomination present in supergroup 5 (cluster K), and dominate the nominal structures of supergroup 1, whose constituent clusters (A-D) vary in character. Most coins in cluster B hoards are groats, although small numbers of halfgroats and pennies are also present; two members (HMP; WLR) also contain a handful of continental sterlings, and one (WLR) a smattering of nobles and quarter nobles. The two cluster C hoards (IPS; OS2) also contain large numbers of groats, but have fewer halfgroats and correspondingly increased numbers of pennies. A similar pattern is observed in cluster D, whose members have reduced numbers of groats but increased numbers of pennies, although these hoards tend to have somewhat greater numbers of halfgroats than cluster C hoards. Cluster A slightly bucks the trend, consisting of two hoards (BRR; LWR) dominated by groats and supplemented by halfgroats, pennies, and gold coins; in one case (BRR) a small number of continental silver coins are also present. Like supergroup 1, the singleton supergroup 6 (cluster L) is dominated by groats, although is supplemented exclusively by halfgroats.

By contrast, the share of groat-dominated hoards in the overall sample is much larger than in preceding periods, occurring in different forms in supergroups 1 and 2. Nine of the 11 members of supergroup 1 (cluster A) are groatonly hoards, with the remainder dominated by groats but supplemented by small numbers of angels (EGL) or halfgroats (KLH). Supergroup 2 clusters are more diverse, but are united by their large groat elements. Cluster C hoards are groat-dominated but also contain a small to moderate number of continental gros – more specifically, Burgundian double patards – and sometimes a few halfgroats (LFN, UL9) and gold coins (UL9). Cluster D hoards similarly possess large groat elements, but are distinguished by their moderate halfgroat elements; one member (ULA) also contains Burgundian double patards, continental halfgros – specifically Portuguese chinfroes – and pennies. In cluster B hoards groats are offset by halfgroats, although in three out of four cases also include double patards; other denominations present include chinfroes (HRT, MGS), pennies (MGS), and gold crowns (CHN). In cluster E hoards pennies are usually

Pennies are the primary component of hoards in supergroup 3, and make up the bulk of coins in cluster G and H hoards. In cluster G pennies are supplemented by small numbers of groats, halfgroats, and sometimes coins of other denominations. In cluster H, however, pennies are exclusively supplemented by moderate quantities of groats. Moderate penny elements are the common thread uniting the two constituent clusters (I-J) of supergroup 4. Cluster I hoards contain moderate to large numbers of pennies and similarly sized groat elements, supplemented 88

Andrews.indd 88

27/11/2019 11:15

Figure 5.31. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the nominal structures of coin hoards deposited 1412-1464, based on 35 hoards containing 12+ coins.

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards

89

Andrews.indd 89

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Table 5.6. Nominal structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, 1412-1464. Supergroup (k=6)

Cluster (k=12)

Members

No. members

1

A

BRR; LWR

2

1

B

HMP; REC; WLR

3

1

C

IPS; OS2

2

1

D

BCC; FAE

2

2

E

FIS

1

2

F

BCE; BGW; BIS; HEX; HLS; HOR; MEH; PUL; SJG; STR

10

3

G

ATT; KRD; TSC

3

3

H

CNE; HUR

2

4

I

BRN; CLI; DIS; HLW

4

4

J

EYE; ILA; WKD

3

5

K

FAU; LD3

2

6

L

ARD

1

Figure 5.32. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 1 (clusters A-D), 1412-1464. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.6.

90

Andrews.indd 90

27/11/2019 11:15

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards

Figure 5.33. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 2 (clusters E-F), 1412-1464. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.6.

Figure 5.34. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 3 (clusters G-H), 1412-1464. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.6.

91

Andrews.indd 91

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 5.35. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 4 (clusters I-J), 1412-1464. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.6.

Figure 5.36. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 5-6 (clusters K-L), 1412-1464. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.6.

92

Andrews.indd 92

27/11/2019 11:15

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards

Figure 5.37. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=34) by nominal structure cluster, 1412-1464.

more common than halfgroats, although as ever groats remain the dominant element; individual members also contain halfpennies (PEC, SWA), double patards (SWA), continental sterlings (WYP), and a mixture of English gold coins (BRT, PEC, SWA).

also contain small numbers of halfgroats, and two contain very small numbers of halfpennies (PEN, TGB). Finally, supergroup 6 contains the three singleton clusters K-M, which are distinguished by the almost total absence of English gold, groats, or pennies. Cluster M is composed of a hoard (TAU) exclusively containing counterfeit French blancs, while cluster L contains a hoard (CAR) mixing one Portuguese silver real with 44 Portuguese copper ceitis and an indeterminate Spanish copper coin; finally, cluster K contains a hoard (SHR) dominated by halfpennies but supplemented by a small amount of continental gold – nine Portuguese cruzados and a Spanish excellente – and a single groat and penny. As in the preceding phase, there are few distinct spatial trends in the distribution of clusters, although there are possible indications of a West Country bias to supergroup 6 hoards and a concentration of supergroup 5 hoards in an area between the Chilterns and Cotswolds; neither concentration, however, is unequivocal. The pattern of hoards containing fewer than 12 coins is essentially the same as that observed for large hoards, although some peculiarities are worth noting. The hoard from Blakeney (Norfolk; BKN), for instance, consists entirely of Venetian soldini, while finds from Charing (Kent; CHK) and Deeping St James (Lincolnshire; DSJ) provide unique examples of two denominations – a half

By contrast, groats are only modestly represented in supergroup 3 (clusters F-H). Groats occur in moderate quantities in cluster F hoards, though are numerically outweighed by pennies; two of the three member hoards also contain small numbers of halfgroats (RYT, SWI), and one also contains double patards (RYT). A similar trend is observed in cluster G hoards, although these contain moderate halfgroat elements alongside moderate groat and large penny elements; individual members also include a range of gold coins (MAI), halfpennies (MAI), double patards (DNH, MAI), chinfroes (DNH, MAI) and continental demi-sterlings in the form of Venetian soldini (MAI). However, halfgroats dominate the nominal structure of the singleton cluster H (SPL), which also contains moderate numbers of pennies, groats, a double patard, and a chinfrao. Six of the seven supergroup 4 (cluster I) hoards also possess small to moderate groat elements, although all seven are immediately distinguished by a dominant penny element; five members 93

Andrews.indd 93

27/11/2019 11:15

Figure 5.38. Cluster analysis dendrogram of the nominal structures of coin hoards deposited 1465-1544, based on 48 hoards containing 12+ coins.

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

94

Andrews.indd 94

27/11/2019 11:15

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards Table 5.7. Nominal structure cluster memberships of sampled coin hoards, 1465-1544. Supergroup (k=7)

Cluster (k=14)

Members

No. members

1

A

BCL; CCW; CLA; EGL; EMB; KLH; MCH; NF2; SGC; UL0; WLG

11

2

B

CHN; CIL; HRT; MGS

4

2

C

HOU; LDS; LFN; NCN; UL9

5

2

D

MDB; OKE; ULA

3

2

E

BRT; PEC; SWA; WYP

4

3

F

PEL; RYT; SWI

3

3

G

DNH; MAI; WRM

3

3

H

SPL

1

4

I

DAM; GUI; MNK; PEN; QHL; SLY; TGB

7

5

J

ASH; PSH; WOB

3

6

K

SHR

1

6

L

CAR

1

6

M

TAU

1

7

N

UL8

1

Figure 5.39. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 1 (cluster A), 1465-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.7.

95

Andrews.indd 95

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 5.40. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 2 (clusters B-C), 1465-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.7.

Figure 5.41. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 2 (clusters D-E), 1465-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.7.

96

Andrews.indd 96

27/11/2019 11:15

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards

Figure 5.42. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 3 (clusters F-H), 1465-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.7.

Figure 5.43. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroup 4 (cluster I), 1465-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.7.

97

Andrews.indd 97

27/11/2019 11:15

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544

Figure 5.44. Nominal structures of sampled coin hoards in supergroups 5-7 (clusters J-N), 1465-1544. Cluster memberships outlined in Table 5.7.

Figure 5.45. Spatial distribution of localised hoards (n=43) by nominal structure cluster, 1465-1544.

98

Andrews.indd 98

27/11/2019 11:15

Treasured possessions? The contents of coin hoards ryal (CHK) and a Portuguese espadim (DSJ) – otherwise unrepresented in hoard contexts.

of five groats or one quarter noble. Random selection and high value selection do not, therefore, appear to be the only selection processes evidenced in the hoard record, and it is prudent to consider additional explanations for observed patterning.

5.1.1.5 Discussion It is evident from the preceding analyses that the nominal structures of medieval coin hoards do not resemble random samples of currency, but instead bear all the hallmarks of deliberate selection during the process of hoard formation. This observation is hardly novel; as discussed in chapter two, the idea that the contents of coin hoards consist of ‘a single selective sum of money’ (Blackburn 2005, 14) is a mainstay of archaeological and numismatic discussions of coin hoarding, as is the related claim that the nominal structures of hoards are biased towards high value coins – exploiting the functional capacity of money to serve as a store of value – and are concomitantly bereft of lower value denominations. Analysis of the nominal structures of medieval coin hoards provides qualified support to this second thesis; between c.973 and 1351, the heyday of the penny as the highest value coin in regular circulation, pennies are more common in hoards than would be predicted of a random sample of contemporary currency, and in the multidenominational currency context of 13511544 we begin to see overtly selective gold-only and silver-only hoards and a tendency for hoards to contain disproportionately large numbers of the largest gold or silver denominations available at the time of formation and deposition.

One explanation for hoard patterning commonly invoked in a medieval European context (e.g. Grinder-Hansen 1992, 30) relates to the typological dichotomy between large ‘savings hoards’ composed of high value coins and small ‘purse hoards’ composed of low value coins (chapter two). While we can easily identify hoards that match the diagnostic criteria of ‘savings hoards’, there are very few that match those of the ‘purse hoard’: the Guisborough hoard, for example, is a partial fit insofar as it is dominated by low value coins, yet contradicts the model through its large numerical size and high overall face value, whereas the Bracknell (Berkshire; BNB) hoard partially fits the model as numerically small hoard with a sub-median face value, but breaks with expectations insofar as it is exclusively comprised of high value gold coins. At the same time as preconceptions of what a ‘purse hoard’ should look like cannot be neatly mapped onto the dataset, we are unable to identify meaningful differences between the nominal structures of smaller (i.e. [Accessed 13 May 2015].

Hedeager, L. 1999. Sacred topography: depositions of wealth in the cultural landscape. In A. Gustafsson and H. Karlsson, eds. Glyfer och Arkeologiska Rum – en Vänbok till Jarl Nordblah. Stockholm: Goteborgs Universitet. pp. 229-52.

Hložek, J., Menšik, P., and Procházka, M. 2015. Bauopfer im mittelalterlichen Böhmen. Fines Transire. 24. pp. 271-80. HMSO. 1979. An inventory of the historical monuments in the county of Northamptonshire. Volume 2: archaeological sites in central Northamptonshire. London: HMSO.

Heighway, C. 1972. The erosion of history. Archaeology and planning in towns. London: Council for British Archaeology. Heighway, C. 1989. Excavations near the site of St George’s Church, King’s Stanley. Glevensis. 23. pp. 33-42.

Hobson, R. 1903. Catalogue of the collection of English pottery in the Department of British and Mediaeval Antiquities and Ethnography of the British Museum. London: British Museum.

Henig, M. 2008. The re-use and copying of ancient intaglios set in medieval personal seals, mainly found in England: an aspect of the Renaissance of the 12th century. In N. Adams, J. Cherry, and J. Robinson, eds. Good impressions: image and authority in medieval seals. London: The British Museum. pp. 25-34.

Hobbs, R. 2006. Late Roman precious metal deposits, AD 200-700: changes over time and space. Oxford: BAR. Hobbs, R. 2007. Mine’s bigger than yours: comparing values of late Roman hoards. In R. Hingley and S. Willis, eds. Roman finds: context and theory. Oxford: Oxbow. pp. 77-85.

Henriksen, M.B. 2016. Pløjelagsfund og formationsprocesser: Problemer ved fortolkning af detektorfund fra dyrket mark. In J. Martens and M. Ravn, eds. Pløyejord som kontekst: Nye utfordringer for forksning, forvaltning og formidling. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo. pp. 69-88.

Hodder, I. 1974. Regression analysis of some trade and marketing patterns. World Archaeology. 6:2. pp. 172-89. Hoggard, B. 2016. Evidence of unseen forces: apotropaic objects on the threshold of materiality. In J. Billingsley, J. Harte and B. Hoggard, eds. Hidden Charms. Hebden Bridge: Northern Earth. pp. 5-13.

Heslip, R.J. 1977. A gold hoard from Bedfordshire. Numismatic Circular. 85:9. p. 358. 220

Andrews.indd 220

27/11/2019 11:16

Bibliography Holbrook, N., and Thomas, A. 2005. An early medieval monastic cemetery at Llandough, Glamorgan: excavations in 1994. Medieval Archaeology. 49. pp. 1-92

Innes, M. 2001. Keeping it in the family: women and aristocratic memory, 700-1200. In E. van Houts, ed. Medieval memories. Men, women, and the past, 7001300. London: Routledge. pp. 17-35.

Holdsworth, J. 1978. Selected pottery groups AD 6501780. York: Council for British Archaeology.

James, N. 2011. People’s finds: context and control. Antiquity. 85. pp. 1068-72.

Holmes, S. 1896. The walls of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Archaeologia Aeliana. 26. pp. 1-25.

Janssen, W. 1988. Massenfunde mittelalterlicher Keramik: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen ihrer Interpretation. In A. Andersen et al., eds. Festskrift til Olaf Olsen på 60-års dagen den 7. Juni 1988. København: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab. pp. 231-46.

Holmes, N.M. McQ. 2004. The evidence of finds for the circulation and use of coins in medieval Scotland. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 134. pp. 241-80.

Jenkins, G.K. 1949. The Skipton treasure trove. Numismatic Chronicle. 9. pp. 253-57.

Holtorf, C. 1999. Megaliths ☹. In A. Gustafsson and H. Karlsson, eds. Glyfer och arkeologiska rum – en vänbok till Jarl Nordbladh. Göteborg: Göteborg University, Department of Archaeology. pp. 441-52.

Jenkins, P. 2000. Wales. In P. Clark, ed. The Cambridge Urban History of Britain. Volume II: 1540-1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 133-49. Jenks, S. 1998. The lay subsidies and the state of the English economy (1275-1334). Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte. 85. pp. 1-39.

Hooke, D. 2007. Uses of waterways in Anglo-Saxon England. In J. Blair, ed. Waterways and canal building in medieval England. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 37-54.

Jenning, C. 1974. Early chests in wood and iron. London: HMSO.

Horsnæs, H. 2002. Many coins from one site: towards a method to distinguish between single finds and hoards in detector material. Nordisk Numismatisk Årsskrift. pp. 100-08.

Jennings, S. 1992. Medieval pottery in the Yorkshire Museum. York: Yorkshire Museum. Jensen, J.S., et al. 1992a. Katalog over skattefundene 1-76 indtil ca. 1241. In J.S. Jensen et al., eds. Danmarks middelalderlige skattefund c.1050-c.1550. Del 1. Indledning. Fundkatalog c.1050-c.1241. København: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab. pp. 185-312.

Houlbrook, C. 2013. Ritual, recycling and recontextualization: putting the concealed shoe into context. Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 23:1. pp. 99-112. Houlbrook, C. 2018. Lessons from love-locks: the archaeology of the contemporary assemblage. Journal of Material Culture. 23:2. pp. 214-38. Howell, R. 2000. The demolition of the Roman tetrapylon in Caerleon: an erasure of memory? Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 19:4. pp. 387-95.

Jensen, J.S., et al. 1992b. Katalog til skattfundene 77327 indtil ca. 1241-ca. 1550. In J.S. Jensen et al., eds. Danmarks middelalderlige skattefund c.1050-c.1550. Del 2. Fundkatalog fra c.1241-c.1550. Registre. København: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab. pp. 13-288.

Hukantaival, S., and Bläuer, A. 2017. Ritual deposition of animals in late Iron Age Finland: a case-study of the Mulli settlement site in Raisio. Estonian Journal of Archaeology. 21:2. pp. 161-85.

Jervis, B., Briggs, C., and Tompkins, M. 2015. Exploring texts and objects: escheators’ inventories and material culture in medieval English rural households. Medieval Archaeology. 59:1. pp. 168-92.

Hunt, A.R. 1874. On some gold coins found at Blackpool, near Dartmouth, in 1869. Transactions of the Devonshire Association. 6. pp. 197-99.

Johns, C. 1996. The classification and interpretation of Romano-British treasures. Britannia. 27. pp. 1-16. Jones, E.L. 1968. The development of English agriculture 1815-1873. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Hurst, D., and Leins, I. 2013. The Pershore hoards and votive deposition in the Iron Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 79. pp. 297-325.

Jones, J.F. 1962. Llanllawddog coin-hoard. Carmarthenshire Antiquary. 4:1-2. pp. 105-06.

Hurst, J.D., and Wright, S.M. 2011. Midlands purple and Cistercian-type wares in the West Midlands in the 15th16th centuries. Medieval Ceramics. 32. pp. 55-64.

The

Jones, T.F.R. 1962. The discovery of seven Henry I silver pennies, including one of the Cardiff mint, during excavations in the Vale of Glamorgan. Morgannwg. 6. pp. 100-05.

Hutchinson, W. 1823. The history and antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham. Vol III. Durham: G. Walker.

Jones, E.T. 2000. River navigation in medieval England. Journal of Historical Geography. 26:1. pp. 60-75.

Hutton, R. 2011. How Pagan were medieval English peasants? Folklore. 122:3. pp. 235-49.

Jones, P.M., and Olsan, L.T. 2000. Middleham jewel: ritual, power, and devotion. Viator. 31. pp. 249-90. 221

Andrews.indd 221

27/11/2019 11:16

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 Jonsson, K. 1987. The new era: the reformation of the late Anglo-Saxon coinage. Stockholm: Kungl. Myntkabinettet.

Kibblewhite, M., Tóth, G., and Hermann, T. 2015. Predicting the preservation of cultural artefacts and buried materials in soil. Science of the Total Environment. 529. pp. 249-63.

Jonsson, K. 1995. Databearbetning av mynt vid Numismatiska forskningsgruppen. Nordisk Numismatisk Unions Medlemsblad. 5. pp. 80-85.

King, D.J.C. 1983. Castellarium Anglicanum. 2 vols. New York: Kraus International Publications.

Jonsson, K., and Östergren, M. 1990. The Gotland hoard project and the Stumle hoard – an insight into the affairs of a Gotlandic ‘farman’. In K. Jonsson and B. Malmer, eds. Sigtuna papers: Proceedings of the Sigtuna symposium on Viking-Age coinage 1-4 June 1989. Stockholm: Kunglige Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. pp. 145-58.

Klein, U. 1995. Fundmünzen aus Kirchengrabungen in Württemberg. Eine Bilanz der letzten 30 Jahre. In O.F. Dubuis and S. Frey-Kupper, eds. Trouvailles monétaires d’églises. Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre pp. 41-70.

Joyce, R., and Pollard, J. 2010. Archaeological assemblages and practices of deposition. In D. Hicks and M.C. Beaudry, eds. The Oxford handbook of material culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 291-309.

Krabath, S. 2007. Aussagemöglichkeiten spätmittelalterlicher Schatzfunde mit Edelmetallschmuck. In E. Vavra, K. Holzner-Tobisch, and T. Kühtreiber, eds. Vom Umgang mit Schätzen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. pp. 115-37.

Kluge, B. 2007. Numismatik des Mittelalters. Band I. Handbuch und Thesaurus Nummorum Medii Aevi. Wien: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Kaniewski, D., et al. 2010. Medieval coastal Syrian vegetation patterns in the principality of Antioch. The Holocene. 21:2. pp. 251-62.

Kristiansen, K. 1978. The application of source criticism to archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review. 11:1. pp. 1-5.

Keary, C.F. 1877. Discovery of coins of William I and William II at Tamworth. Numismatic Chronicle. 17. pp. 340-46.

Knowles, L. 1981. Seven Anglo-Saxon pennies from the Chancton (Sussex) hoard. Sussex Archaeological Collections. 119. pp. 216-17.

Kelleher, R. 2007. ‘Gold is the strength, the sinnewes of the world’: continental gold and Tudor England. British Numismatic Journal. 77. pp. 210-25.

Koch, E. 1999. Neolithic offerings from the wetlands of eastern Denmark. In B. Coles, J. Coles, and M.S. Jørgensen, eds. Bog bodies, sacred sites and wetland archaeology. Exeter: WARP. pp. 125-31.

Kelleher, R. 2011. Interpreting single finds in Medieval England: the secondary lives of coins. In N Holmes, ed. Proceedings of the XIVth International Numismatic Congress, Glasgow 2009. II. Glasgow: International Numismatic Council. pp 1492-99.

Kowaleski, M. 1995. Local markets and regional trade in medieval Exeter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kelleher, R. 2012. Coins, monetisation and re-use in medieval England and Wales: new interpretations made possible by the Portable Antiquities Scheme. Ph. D. Durham University.

Krüger, H. 1951. Erhard Etzlaub’s Romweg map and its dating in the Holy Year of 1500. Imago Mundi. 8:1. pp. 17-26.

Kelleher, R., and Williams, G. 2011. The Tutbury hoard. In M Hislop, M Kincey and G Williams, eds. Tutbury: ‘A castle firmly built’. Oxford: BAR. pp. 62-87.

Kumar, P., Kumar, S., and Joshi, L. 2015. Socioeconomic and environmental implications of agricultural residue burning. A case study of Punjab, India. New Delhi: Springer.

Kemmers, F., and Myrberg, N. 2011. Rethinking numismatics: the archaeology of coins. Archaeological Dialogues. 18. pp. 87-108.

Kuroda, A. 2009. The Eurasian silver century, 1276-1359: commensurability and multiplicity. Journal of Global History. 4. pp. 245-69.

Kent, J.P.C. 1988. Interpreting coin-finds. In J. Casey and R. Reece, eds. Coins and the archaeologist. 2nd ed. London: Seaby. pp. 201-17.

Krzepkowski, M. 2014. Depozyty monetarne z terenu wągrowca w świetle źródeł archiwalnych i odkryć archeologicznych. Wiadomości Numizmatyczne. 58. pp. 125-41.

Kershaw, I. 1981. A note on the Scots in the West Riding, 1318-1319. Northern History. 17:1. pp. 231-39.

Laing, L.R. 1969. Coins and archaeology. London: Weidenfield and Nicolson

Kershaw, J.F. 2008. The distribution of the ‘Winchester’ style in late Saxon England: metalwork finds from the Danelaw. Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History. 15. pp. 254-69.

Langdon, J. 1993. Inland water transport in medieval England. Journal of Historical Geography. 19:1. pp. 1-11. Latimer, P. 2003. The quantity of money in England 11801247: a model. Journal of European Economic History. 32:3. pp. 637-59.

Kershaw, J.F. 2013. Viking identities. Scandinavian jewellery in England. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 222

Andrews.indd 222

27/11/2019 11:16

Bibliography Lawrence, L.A. 1900. On a small hoard of groats of Henry VI to Henry VII. Numismatic Chronicle. 20. pp. 166-79.

Lindahl, F. 1992. Smykker, sølvgenstande og barrer. In J.S. Jensen et al, eds. Danmarks middelalderlige skattefund c.1050-c.1550. Del 1. Indledning. Fundkatalog c.1050-c.1241. København: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab. pp. 54-78.

Lawrence, L.A. 1902. A find of silver coins of Edward IVHenry VIII. Numismatic Chronicle. 2. pp. 35-54. Lawrence, L.A. 1911. A find of late Plantagenet groats. British Numismatic Journal. 8. pp. 149-78.

Lindsay, J. 1849. Notices of remarkable medieval coins, mostly unpublished, with engravings. Cork: John Crowe.

Lawrence, L.A. 1920. Further notes on the Ampthill find (early Henry II). Numismatic Chronicle. 20. pp 166-74.

Llewellyn Morgan, W. 1899. An antiquarian survey of East Gower, Glamorganshire. London: Charles Clark.

Lawrence, L.A. 1927. Leicester hoard of “Tealby” pennies of Henry II. Numismatic Chronicle. 7. pp. 244-60.

Llwyd, R. 1832. The history of Wales. Shrewsbury: John Eddowes.

Lawrence, L.A. 1928. A hoard of English and foreign sterlings found at Derby. Numismatic Chronicle. 8. pp. 47-60.

Lockyear, K. 1991. Simulating coin hoard formation. In K. Lockyear and S. Rahtz, eds. Computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology 1990. Oxford: BAR. pp. 195-206.

Lawrence, L.A. 1931. The Durham hoard of Edward I-III. Numismatic Chronicle. 11. pp. 201-28.

Lockyear, K. 1993. Coin hoard formation revisited. In J. Andresen, T. Madsen and I. Scollar, eds. Computing the past. Computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. pp. 367-76.

Lawrence, L.A., and Brooke, G.C. 1914. The Steppingley find of English coins. Numismatic Chronicle. 14. pp. 60-76. Leeds, E.T. 1940. A 15th century hoard from Thame, Oxon. Oxoniensia. 5. p. 169.

Lockyear, K. 1996. Multivariate money. A statistical analysis of Roman Republican coin hoards with special reference to material from Romania. Ph.D. University College London.

Lessen, M. 2007. A parcel of mid-eleventh century Saxon coins, mostly of the York mint. Numismatic Circular. 115. p. 310.

Lockyear, K. 2000. Site finds in Roman Britain: a comparison of techniques. Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 19:4. pp. 397-423.

Letters, S. 2013. Gazetteer of markets and fairs in England and Wales to 1516. [online] London: Centre for Metropolitan History. Available at: [Accessed 4 February 2018].

Lockyear, K. 2007. Patterns and process in late Roman Republican coin hoards, 157-2 BC. Oxford: BAR.

Levy, J. 1982. Social and religious organisation in Bronze Age Denmark: an analysis of ritual hoard finds. Oxford: BAR.

Lockyear, K. 2016. The Coin Hoards of the Roman Republic database: the history, the data, and the potential. American Journal of Numismatics. 28. pp. 159-84.

Lewis, J.M. 1970. A short cross hoard from Wrexham. British Numismatic Journal. 39. pp 19-23.

Longstaffe, W.H.D. 1865. Notice of a find of coins at the Shaw Moss, near Hesleyside. Archaeologia Aeliana. 6. pp. 238-43.

Lewis, J.M., Brownsword, R., and Pitt, E.E.H. 1987. Medieval ‘bronze’ tripod ewers from Wales. Medieval Archaeology. 31. pp. 80-93.

Longstaffe, W.H.D. 1872. Find of Groats at Embleton, in Northumberland, ranging from Edward III to Edward IV. Proceedings of the Berwickshire Naturalists’ Club. 6. pp. 121-27.

Lewis, R.E., et al. 1993. Middle English dictionary. T. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Lonsdale, A. 1966. Recent finds. Transactions of the Yorkshire Numismatic Society. 2:2. pp. 63-65.

Liebgott, N-K. 1992. Skattenes fundforhold. In J.S. Jensen et al., eds. Danmarks middelalderlige skattefund c.1050-c.1550. Del 1. Indledning. Fundkatalog c.1050-c.1241. København: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab. pp. 41-54.

Loscombe, C.W. 1837. Pennies of William the Conqueror. Numismatic Journal. 2. p. 106. Lucas, J.C. 1868. The hoard of Anglo-Saxon coins found at Chancton Farm, Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections. 20. pp. 212-21.

Lightbown, R.W. 1992. Medieval European jewellery. London: Victoria and Albert Museum. Lilley, K.D., Lloyd, C.D., and Campbell, B.M.S. 2009. Mapping the realm: a new look at the Gough map of Britain. Imago Mundi. 61:1. pp. 1-28.

Lucas, J.C. 1869. Anglo-Saxon coins found in Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections. 21. pp. 219-20. Lucassen, J. 2007. Introduction: wages and currency, 500 BCE – 2000 CE. In J. Lucassen, ed. Wages and currency. Global comparisons from antiquity to the twentieth century. Bern: Peter Lang. pp. 9-58.

Lillios, K.T. 1999. Objects of memory: the ethnography and archaeology of heirlooms. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. 6:3. pp. 235-62. 223

Andrews.indd 223

27/11/2019 11:16

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 Lucassen, J. 2014. Deep monetisation: the case of the Netherlands, 1200-1940. Tijdschrift voor Sociale en Economische Geschiedenis. 11:3. pp. 73-121.

Marsden, J.H. 1884. Note on the discovery of French coins at Harwich. Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society. 2. pp. 389-90.

Lund, J. 2010. At the water’s edge. In M. Carver, A. Sanmark, and S. Semple, eds. Signals of belief in early England. Anglo-Saxon paganism revisited. Oxford: Oxbow. pp. 49-66.

Martin, J.S. 1955. The supposed finds at Thwaite and Campsey Ash, 1832. British Numismatic Journal. 28. pp. 414-16. Martin, M. 1997. Wealth and treasure in the west, 4th7th century. In L. Webster and M. Brown, eds. The transformation of the Roman world AD 400-900. London: British Museum Press. pp. 48-66.

Lyon, C.S.S. 1965. A round halfpenny of Edward the Confessor. British Numismatic Journal. 34. pp. 42-45. Lyon, C.S.S. 1981. Some uses of scatter diagrams for demonstrating heterogeneity in Viking-Age coinage and coin hoards. In M.A.S. Blackburn and D.M. Metcalf, eds. Viking Age coinage in the Northern Lands. Part II. Oxford: BAR. pp. 383-89.

Marsh, J. 1997. A probable medieval coin hoard from near Natland, Kendal – SD 85 516901. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. 97. p. 254. Mason, P., and Soden, I. 2006. Report on the discovery of a medieval coin hoard at Far Gosford Street, Coventry, July 2006. Report 06/128. Northampton: Northamptonshire Archaeology.

MacDonald, G. 1903. Coin-finds and how to interpret them. Proceedings of the Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow. 34. pp. 282-300. Mahany, C.M. 1977. St Leonard’s Priory. South Lincolnshire Archaeology. 1. pp. 17-22.

Mass, J.P. 2001. Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles 56. The J.P. Mass collection. English short cross coins, 1180-1247. London: British Academy.

Manning, C. 1872. Coins found at Diss. Norfolk Archaeology. 7. pp. 341-48.

Masschaele, J. 1993. Transport costs in medieval England. Economic History Review. 46:2. pp. 266-79.

Manning, M.C. 2014. The material culture of ritual concealments in the United States. Historical Archaeology. 48:3. pp. 52-83.

Mauss, M. 1966. The gift. Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. Translated by I. Cunnison. London: Cohen & West.

Manton, J.O. 1928. A hoard of fourteenth century pennies and foreign sterlings found at Derby, September 1st, 1927. Derbyshire Archaeological Journal. 50. pp. 85-89.

Mayhew, N.[J]. 1983. Sterling imitations of Edwardian type. London: Royal Numismatic Society.

Manville, H. 1993. Additions and corrections to Thompson’s Inventory and Brown and Dolley’s Coin Hoards - Part 1. British Numismatic Journal. 63. pp. 91-113.

Mayhew, N.J. 1992. From regional to central minting, 1158-1464. In C.E. Challis, ed. A new history of the Royal Mint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 83-178.

Manville, H.E. 1995. Additions and corrections to Thompson’s Inventory and Brown and Dolley’s Coin Hoard - Part 2. British Numismatic Journal. 65. pp. 169-84.

Mayhew, N.[J]. 1995. Modelling medieval monetisation. In R.H. Britnell and B.M.S. Campbell, eds. A commercialising economy. England 1086 to c.1300. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 55-77.

Margary, I.D. 1930. The mystery mounds on Camp Hill and Stone Hill, Ashdown Forest. Sussex Notes and Queries. 3:4. pp. 101-06.

Mayhew, N.J. 2017. The mid-fourteenth century ‘Drayton’ hoard. British Numismatic Journal. 87. pp. 244-47.

Martin, E. 2014. The Wickham Skeith, Thwaite or Campsey Ash coin hoard – the true location and possible context of a major Late Sazon coin hoard. In S. Ashley and A. Marsden, eds. Landscapes and artefacts: studies in East Anglian archaeology presented to Andrew Rogerson. Oxford: Archaeopress. pp. 123-28.

Mayhew, N., and Smith, A. 1990. Another round Short Cross halfpenny. British Numismatic Journal. 60. p. 136. McAlpine, I. 1985. A hoard of Tudor groats from Manchester. Seaby’s Coin and Medal Bulletin. 797. pp. 23-24.

Martin, G.H., 1976. Road travel in the Middle Ages: some journeys by the warden and fellows of Merton College, Oxford, 1315-1470. Journal of Transport History. 3:3. pp. 159-78.

McCarthy, M.R., and Brooks, C.M. 1988. Medieval pottery in Britain AD 900-1600. Leicester: Leicester University Press.

Martin, T. 2012. Riveting biographies. The theoretical implications of early Anglo-Saxon brooch repair, customisation and use-adaptation. In B. Jervis and A. Kyle, eds. Make-do and mend: archaeologies of compromise, repair and reuse. Oxford: BAR Publishing, International Series S2408. pp. 54-65.

McCracken, J.S. 1978. Norman coins found in Beddington Park. Archaeological excavation: preliminary report. Unpublished. McDowall, S. 1905. Find of coins of Henry I. Numismatic Chronicle. 5. p. 112. 224

Andrews.indd 224

27/11/2019 11:16

Bibliography McLees, C. 1994. The late medieval mint workshops at the Archbishop’s Palace, Trondheim. Antiquity. 68. pp. 264-74.

Minnitt, S. 1993. A hoard of counterfeit Louis XI coins from Taunton, Somerset. In. M.M. Archibald and M.R. Cowell, eds. Metallurgy in Numismatics Volume 3. London: Royal Numismatic Society. pp. 99-107.

McNamee, C. 1997. The Wars of the Bruces: Scotland, England and Ireland 1306-1328. East Linton: Tuckwell Press.

Moesgaard, J.C. 2002. Single finds as evidence for coin circulation in the Middle Ages – status and perspectives. Nordisk Numismatisk Årsskrift. pp. 228-75.

McSloy, E.R. 2013. Medieval pottery. In V. Ridgeway and M. Watts, eds. Friars, Quakers, Industry and Urbanisation. The archaeology of the Broadmead expansion project, Cabot Circus, Bristol, 2005-2008. London: CAPCA. pp. 155-75.

Moesgaard, J.C. 2015. Les trésors monétaires médiévaux découverts en Haute-Normandie (754-1514). Wetteren: Moneta.

Mead, V.K. 1977. Evidence for the manufacture of amber beads in London in 14-15th century.Transactions of the London & Middlesex Archaeological Society. 28. pp. 211-14.

Molsdorf, W. 1984. Christliche Symbolik der Mittelalterlichen Kunst. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlangsanstalt. Mommsen, T. 1860. Geschichte des Römischen Münzwesens. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.

Mees, K. 2013. From the sublime to the Druidical: changing perceptions of prehistoric monuments in southern Anglesey in the post-medieval period. PostMedieval Archaeology. 47:1. pp. 222-46.

Montagu, H. 1892. Find of groats at Wallingford. Numismatic Chronicle. 12. pp. 220-26.

Merrey, W. 1794. Remarks on the coinage of England. 2nd ed. Nottingham: S. Tufman.

Moore, M. 1970. The Abberley spoons. Transactions of the Worcestershire Archaeological Society. 3. pp. 63-66.

Merrifield, R. 1987. The archaeology of ritual and magic. London: Guild Publishing.

Moore, W.R.G. 1987. Watford. Archaeology. 21. p. 158

Metcalf, D.M. 1957. Find records of medieval coins from Gough’s Camden’s Britannia. Numismatic Chronicle. 17. pp. 181-207.

Moorhead, S., Booth, A., and Bland, R. 2010. The Frome Hoard. London: British Museum Press.

Northamptonshire

Moorhouse, S. 1983. Documentary evidence and its potential for understanding the inland movement of medieval pottery. Medieval Ceramics. 7. pp. 45-87.

Metcalf, D.M. 1958. Eighteenth-century finds of medieval coins from the records of the Society of Antiquaries. Numismatic Chronicle. 18. pp. 73-96.

Moulden, J., and Tweddle, D. 1986. Anglo-Scandinavian settlement south-west of the Ouse. York: York Archaeological Trust.

Metcalf, D.M. 1960. Some finds of medieval coins from Scotland and the north of England. British Numismatic Journal. 30. pp. 88-123.

MPRG. 1998. A guide to the classification of medieval ceramic forms. London: Medieval Pottery Research Group.

Metcalf, D.M. 1964. A fourteenth-century deposit from Hull. British Numismatic Journal. 33. pp. 80-82.

Muir, R. 1997. The Yorkshire countryside: a landscape history. Edinburgh: Keele University Press.

Metcalf, D.M. 1977. The evidence of Scottish coin hoards for monetary history 1100-1600. In D.M. Metcalf, ed. Coinage in medieval Scotland (1100-1600). Oxford: BAR. pp. 1-64.

Murray, J. 1978. Elvet Moor, Lumphanan and Drumnadrochit finds of late fourteenth-century Scottish coins. British Numismatic Journal. 48. pp. 73-79.

Metcalf, D.M. 1981. Continuity and change in English monetary history c.973-1086, Part 2. British Numismatic Journal. 51. pp. 52-90.

Mutlow, T. 1785. Account of some antiquities found in Gloucestershire. Archaeologia. 7. pp. 379-81.

Metcalf, D.M. 1998. An atlas of Anglo-Saxon and Norman coin finds 973-1086. London: Royal Numismatic Society

Muzzarelli, M.G. 2009. Reconciling the privilege of a few with the common good: sumptuary laws in medieval and early modern Europe. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies. 39:3. pp. 597-617.

Metcalf, D. M., and Jonsson, K. 1980. A hoard from early in the reign of Æthelred II found at Spettisbury Rings Hill Fort, Dorset. British Numismatic Journal. 50. pp. 132-33.

Myles, F. 2014. Ireland’s first metal-detecting rally. Archaeology Ireland. 28:2. pp. 9-10.

Meurkens, L. 2010. The late medieval/early modern reuse of prehistoric barrows as execution sites in the southern part of the Netherlands. Journal of Archaeology in the Low Countries. 2:2. pp. 5-29.

Myrberg, N. 2009. The social identity of coin hoards: an example of theory and practice in the space between numismatics and archaeology. In H-M. Von Kaenel and F. Kemmers, eds. Coins in context I. New perspectives for the interpretation of coin finds. Mainz: Verlag Philipp Von Zabern. pp. 157-71.

Miller, P., and Saxby, D. 2007. The Augustinian Priory of St Mary Merton, Surrey. Excavations 1976-90. London: MoLAS. 225

Andrews.indd 225

27/11/2019 11:16

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 Noe, S.P. 1920. Coin hoards. New York: American Numismatic Society.

Naismith, R. 2013. The English monetary economy, c.973-1100: the contribution of single-finds. Economic History Review. 66:1. pp. 198-225.

Nord, A.G., et al. 2005. Environmental threats to buried archaeological remains. Ambio. 34:3. pp. 256-62.

Naismith, R. 2017. Medieval European Coinage. 8: Britain and Ireland c.400-1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nordeide, S.W. 2009. Cross monuments in north-western Europe. Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters. 37. pp. 163-78.

Nayling, N., and Jones, T. 2014. The Newport medieval ship, Wales, United Kingdom. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. 43:2. pp. 239-78.

North, J. 1966. The Broughton hoard. British Numismatic Journal. 35. pp 120-27.

Naylor, J. 2015. The deposition and hoarding of nonprecious metals in early medieval England. In J. Naylor and R. Bland, eds. Hoarding and the deposition of metalwork from the Bronze Age to the 20th century: a British perspective. Oxford: BAR. pp. 125-46.

North, J.J. 1975. An unpublished fourteenth century hoard. Numismatic Circular. 83. pp. 332-33. North, J.J. 1989. The Fox classification and recent refinements. In J.J. North, ed. Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles 39. The J.J. North collection. Edwardian English silver coins, 1279-1351. London: British Academy. pp. 4-41.

Neck, J.[F]. 1871. The silver coinage of Henry IV,V and VI. Numismatic Chronicle. 11. pp. 93-152. Neck, J.F. 1882. On a hoard of Edward I coins discovered at Northampton, with remarks on the coinage of Edward I, II, and III. Numismatic Chronicle. 2. pp. 108-24.

North, J.J. 1994. English hammered coinage Volume 1: early Anglo-Saxon to Henry III, c.600-1272. London: Spink.

Needham, S.P. 1988. Selective deposition in the British early Bronze Age. World Archaeology. 20:2. pp. 229-48.

Norwood, J.F.L. 1960. Coin finds in 1960. Transactions of the Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club. 36. pp. 364-70.

Nenk, B., Margeson, S., and Hurley, M. 1991. Medieval Britain and Ireland in 1990. Medieval Archaeology. 35. pp 126-238.

Östergren, M. 1989. Mellan stengrund och stenhus: Gotlands vikingatida silverskatter som boplatsindikation. Visby: RAGU.

Newman, E.I., and Harvey, P.D.A. 1997. Did soil fertility decline in medieval English farms? Evidence from Cuxham, Oxfordshire, 1320-1340. Agricultural History Review. 45. pp. 119-36.

Östergren, M. 2009. Spillings: the largest Viking Age silver hoard in the world. In A.M. Pettersson, ed. The Spillings hoard: Gotland’s role in Viking Age world trade. Visby: Gotlands Museum. pp. 11-40.

Newman, J. 1994. A late medieval jewellery and coin hoard from Holbrook. Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology & History. 38:2. pp. 193-95.

Oggins, R.S. 2004. Falconry in medieval England. New Haven: Yale University Press. Okasha, E. 2011. Women’s names in Old English. Farnham: Ashgate.

Newman, J. 2002. Local sources for numismatic studies. CCNB Newsletter. 31. pp. 6-7.

Oksanen, E., and Lewis, M. 2016. Exploring the Commercial Landscape of Medieval Saltfleetby and Skidbrooke, Lincolnshire, through PAS data. Medieval Archaeology. 59. pp. 362-67.

Nichols, J. 1811. The history and antiquities of the county of Leicester: Vol. 4, Part 2. London: John Nichols and Son. Nightingale, P. 1982. Some London moneyers and reflections on the organization of English mints in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Numismatic Chronicle. 142. pp. 34-50.

Oliver, R. 1993. Ordnance Survey maps: a concise guide for historians. London: Charles Close Society. Oman, C. 1957. English church plate, 597-1830. London: Oxford University Press.

Nightingale, P. 1984. The ora, the mark, and the mancus: weight-standards and the coinage in eleventh-century England. Part 2. Numismatic Chronicle. 144. pp. 234-48.

Orton, C. 1980. Mathematics in archaeology. London: Collins. Osborne, R. 2004. Hoards, votives, offerings: the archaeology of the dedicated object. World Archaeology. 36:1. pp. 1-10.

Nightingale, P. 2010. Gold, credit, and mortality: distinguishing deflationary pressures on the late medieval English economy. Economic History Review. 63:4. pp. 1081-1104.

Pagan, H.E. 1984. The Castor hoard of mid-eleventhcentury pence. British Numismatic Journal. 54. pp. 289-90.

Noble, G., et al. 2016. (Re)discovering the Gaulcross hoard. Antiquity. 90. pp. 726-41.

Pagan, H. 1990. The coinage of Harold II. In K. Jonsson, ed. Studies in late Anglo-Saxon coinage in memory of Bror Emil Hildebrand. Stockholm: Svenska Numismatiska Föreningen. pp. 179-205.

Noble, M. 1780. Two dissertations upon the mint and coins of the Episcopal-Palatines of Durham. Birmingham: Pearson and Rollason. 226

Andrews.indd 226

27/11/2019 11:16

Bibliography Painter, K.S., and Künzl, E. 1997. Two documented hoards of treasure. The Antiquaries Journal. 77. pp. 291-325.

Petrie, W.M.F. 1899. Sequences in prehistoric remains. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 39. pp. 295-301.

Palliser, D.M. 1993. Domesday Book and the ‘Harrying of the North’. Northern History. 29:1. pp. 1-23.

Pevsner, N. 1968. The buildings of England: Bedfordshire and the county of Huntingdon and Peterborough. London: Penguin.

Palliser, D.M. 2014. Medieval York, 600-1540. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Phillips, C.W. 1980. Archaeology in the Ordnance Survey, 1791-1965. London: Council for British Archaeology.

Palmer, N., and Seaby, W. 1984. An early thirteenth century hoard from Cross on the Hill, near Stratford-on-Avon. Transactions of the Birmingham and Warwickshire Archaeological Society. 93. pp. 105-10.

Pirie, E.J.E. 1975. Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles 21. Coins in Yorkshire Collections. London: British Academy.

Palmer, R.C. 2002. Selling the church. The English parish in law, commerce, and religion, 1350-1550. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Pirie, E.J.E. 1986. Post-Roman coins from York excavations 1971-81. London: York Archaeological Trust.

Parker, C.A. 1914. The Calder Abbey gold coins. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. 14. pp. 325-27.

Pirie, E.J.E, and Archibald, M.M. 1995. Post-Roman coins. In M.O.H. Carver, ed. Excavations at York Minster. Volume I: From Roman fortress to Norman cathedral. Part 2: the finds. London: HMSO. pp. 527-30.

Pearce, J. 2007. Pottery. In D. Bowsher et al., eds. The London Guildhall. An archaeological history of a neighbourhood from early medieval to modern times. Part II. London: MoLAS. pp. 438-46.

Platt, C. 1978. Medieval England. A social history and archaeology from the Conquest to AD 1600. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Plog, S., Plog, F., and Wait, W. 1978. Decision making in modern surveys. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. 1. pp. 373-421.

Pearce, J., and Vince, A. 1988. Surrey Whitewares. London: London and Middlesex Archaeological Society.

Poey d’Avant, F. 1858. Monnaies féodales de France. Vol. 1. Paris: Camille Rollin.

Pearce, J., et al. 1982. A dated type series of London medieval pottery: Part 1: Mill Green Ware. Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society. 33. pp. 266-98.

Pollard, A.M., et al. 2004. Assessing the influence of agrochemicals on the rate of copper corrosion in the vadose zone of arable land. Part 1: field experiments. Conservation and management of archaeological sites. 6. pp. 363-76.

Pearce, J., et al. 1985. A dated type-series of London medieval pottery. Part 2: London-type ware. London: London and Middlesex Archaeological Society.

Pomel, F. 2006. Clefs du cœur, du corps et du texte. In F. Pomel, ed. Les clefs des texts médiévaux. Pouvoir, savoir, et interprétation. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes. pp. 45-59.

Pedersen, A. 2011. Jewellery in hoards in southern Scandinavia. In J. Graham Campbell, S.M. Sindbæk and G. Williams, eds. Silver economies, monetisation and society in Scandinavia AD 800-1100. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. pp. 153-72.

Poole, H. 1985. A coin find at Sarratt. Hertfordshire’s Past. 19. p. 31.

Pemberton, H. 2005. The transformation of the economy. In. P. Addison and H. Jones, eds. A companion to contemporary Britain, 1939-2000. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 180-202.

Portable Antiquities Scheme. 2006. Advice for finders of archaeological objects, including Treasure. London: Portable Antiquities Scheme.

Perry, P.J. 1972. Where was the ‘great agricultural depression’? A geography of agricultural bankruptcy in late Victorian England and Wales. Agricultural History Review. 20. pp. 30-45.

Postan, M.M. 1966. England. In M.M. Postan, ed. The Cambridge Economic History of Europe. I. The agrarian life of the middle ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 548-632.

Petch, D.F. 1957. Archaeological notes for 1956. Lincolnshire Architectural and Archaeological Society Reports and Papers. 7:1. pp. 1-21.

Postan, M.M. 1973. Essays on medieval agriculture & general problems of the medieval economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Petch, D.F. 1961. Archaeological notes for 1959 and 1960. Lincolnshire Architectural and Archaeological Society Reports and Papers. 9:1. pp. 1-25.

Power, J.P., and Campbell, B.M.S. 1992. Cluster analysis and the classification of medieval demesne-farming systems. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 17:2. pp. 227-45.

Petersson, H.B.A. 1969. Anglo-Saxon currency. King Edgar’s Reform to the Norman Conquest. Lund: Gleerup.

Pownall, A. 1866. Find of fifteenth-century groats. Numismatic Chronicle. 6. pp. 136-51. 227

Andrews.indd 227

27/11/2019 11:16

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 Pownall, A. 1867. Account of coins found at Holwell, in the county of Leicester. Numismatic Chronicle. 7. pp. 8-19.

England. Internet Archaeology. 25. [online] Available at: [Accessed 10 July 2018].

Pulman, G.P.R. 1875. The Book of the Axe. 4th ed. London: Longman, Green, Reader, and Dyer.

Richardson, B., and Bayley, J. 2013. Metalworking. In K. Pitt et al., eds. Medieval to early post-medieval tenements and Middle Eastern imports. Excavations at Plantation Place, City of London, 1997-2003. London: MOLA. pp. 60-64.

Purefoy, P.B. 1996. Fifty pence from Romney. Numismatic Circular. 104:8. pp. 367-68. Raine, J.W. 1978. Summarizing point patterns with the standard deviational ellipse. Area. 10:5. pp. 328-33.

Rigold, S.E. 1951. A hoard of English groats and Flemish double patards from Norham Castle, Northumberland. British Numismatic Journal. 26. pp. 348-50.

Ramey, P. 2013. Writing speaks: oral poetics and writing technology in the Exeter Book riddles. Philological Quarterly. 92:3. pp. 335-56.

Rigold, S.E. 1977. Small change in the light of medieval site finds. In N.J. Mayhew, ed. Edwardian monetary affairs (1279-1344). Oxford: BAR. pp. 59-80.

Randsborg, K. 2002. Wetland hoards. Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 21:4. pp. 415-18.

Rivers Cofield, S. 2014. Keeping a crooked sixpence: coin magic and religion in the colonial Chesapeake. Historical Archaeology. 48:3. pp. 84-105.

Rapisarda, S. 2006. A ring on the little finger: Andreas Capellanus and medieval chiromancy. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. 69. pp. 175-91.

Robbins, K. 2014. Portable Antiquities Scheme. A guide for researchers. London: Portable Antiquities Scheme.

Rashleigh, J. 1850. Descriptive list of a collection of coins of Henry I and Stephen, discovered in Hertfordshire, in 1818. Numismatic Chronicle. 12. pp 138-64. Rattue, J. 1995. The living stream: holy wells in historical context. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.

Robertson, A.S. 1988. Romano-British coin hoards: their numismatic, archaeological and historical significance. In J. Casey and R. Reece, eds. Coins and the archaeologist. 2nd ed. London: Seaby. pp. 13-38.

Rawes, B. 1988. Archaeological review no. 12, 1987. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society. 106. pp. 219-24.

Robinson, P.H. 1969. The Stafford (1800) and Oulton (1795) Hoards. British Numismatic Journal. 38. pp. 22-30.

Rauret, G., et al. 1987. Cluster analysis applied to spectrochemical data of European mediaeval stained glasses. Archaeometry. 29:2. pp. 240-49.

Robinson, P.H. 1979. A further small parcel of coins from the Oulton hoard (1795). British Numismatic Journal. 49. pp. 125-27.

RCAHMW. 1964. An inventory of the ancient monuments in Caernarvonshire. Volume III: West. London: HMSO.

Rodwell, W. 1989. The archaeology of religious places. Churches and cemeteries in Britain. Revised ed. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press

Reece, R. 1981. The ‘normal’ hoard. In C. Carcassonne and T. Hackens, eds. Statistique et Numismatique. Strasbourg: Conseil de l’Europe. pp. 299-308.

Rodwell, W., and Archibald, M.M. 1977. A coin hoard from Peldon Churchyard. Essex Archaeology and History. 9. pp. 147-49.

Reece, R. 1988. Numerical aspects of Roman coin hoards in Britain. In J. Casey and R. Reece, eds. Coins and the archaeologist. 2nd ed. London: Seaby. pp. 86-101.

Röber, R. 1989. Die Bedeutung von Münzfunden für die Datierung mittelalterlicher Keramik. In T. Albrecht and A. Sander-Berke, eds. Festschrift für Peter Berghaus zum 70. Geburtstag. Münster: Scriptorium. pp. 107-11.

Reece, R. 2002. The coinage of Roman Britain. Stroud: Tempus.

Roesdahl, E., and Verhaeghe, F. 2011. Material culture – artefacts and daily life. In M. Carver and J. Klápště, eds. The archaeology of medieval Europe, Volume 2: twelfth to sixteenth centuries. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. pp. 189-227.

Redford, S., and Blackman, M.J. 1997. Luster and fritware production and distribution in medieval Syria. Journal of Field Archaeology. 24:2. pp. 233-47. Reynolds, A. 2009. Anglo-Saxon deviant burial customs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roffe, D. 2000. Domesday. The inquest and the book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reynolds, A., and Semple, S. 2011. Anglo-Saxon nonfunerary weapon depositions. In S. Brookes, S. Harrington and A. Reynolds, eds. Studies in early Anglo-Saxon art and archaeology: papers in honour of Martin G. Welch. Oxford: BAR. pp. 40-48.

Rogers, D.J. 1988. Two farthings. Newsletter: Journal of the London Numismatic Club. 7:13. pp. 38-40. Rogers, E. 1852. On the deposit of gold and silver coins in Wales. Archaeologia Cambrensis. 3. pp. 312-16.

Richards, J.D., Naylor, J., and Holas-Clark, C. 2009. Anglo-Saxon landscape and economy: using portable antiquities to study Anglo-Saxon and Viking Age

Rosewell, R. 2008. Medieval wall paintings in English & Welsh churches. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press. 228

Andrews.indd 228

27/11/2019 11:16

Bibliography Russell, J.C. 1948. British medieval population. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Scholz, A.K. 2013. Pest – Pogrome – Pfandleiherhorte. Ein standardisiertes Deutungsschema für spätmittelalterliche Schatzfunde. Mitteilungen der DGAMN. 25. pp. 189-202.

Russell, R.C. 1974. Parliamentary enclosure and the documents for its study. In A. Rogers and T. Rowley, eds. Landscapes and documents. London: National Council of Social Service. pp. 27-40.

Scholz, V., and Lentzsch, S. 2014. Bergbautechnologien und Betriebsabläufe in mittelalterlichen Bergwerken. In R. Smolnik, ed. Silberrausch und Berggeschrey. Archäologie des mittelalterlichen Bergbaus in Sachsen und Böhmen. Dresden: Beier & Beran. pp. 118-24.

Rutter, J.A. 1977a. Chester: Old Market Hall (1967-70) Pit Group (CHE/OMH). In P.J. Davies, ed. Medieval pottery from excavations in the North West. Liverpool: University of Liverpool. pp. 18-21.

Score, V. 2011. Hoards, hounds and helmets: a Conquestperiod ritual site at Hallaton, Leicestershire. Leicester: University of Leicester Archaeology Services

Rutter, J.A. 1977b. Chester: Upper Northgate Street hoard pot. In P.J. Davies, ed. Medieval pottery from excavations in the North West. Liverpool: University of Liverpool. pp. 22-23.

Seaby, P. 1957. The sequence of Anglo-Saxon coin types, 1030-50. British Numismatic Journal. 28. pp. 111-46.

Sansome, R.C. 1954. Aylesbury treasure trove. Records of Buckinghamshire. 16:1. pp. 33-39.

Seaby, P. 1988. Henry I coin types: design characteristics and chronology. Yorkshire Numismatist. 1. pp. 27-43.

Sarfatij, H. 1979. Münzschatzgefäße in den Niederlanden. I: Die Periode 1190-1566. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek. 29. pp. 491-526.

Seaby, W. 1966. A mid-fifteenth century hoard from Suffolk. British Numismatic Journal. 35. pp. 195-98. Seaby, W. 1990. Warwickshire coin hoards. Transactions of the Birmingham and Warwickshire Archaeological Society. 99. pp. 71-80.

Sarvas, P. 1967. De finska myntskatterna från 1700-talet. Nordisk Numismatisk Årsskrift. pp. 23-146.

Seaman, R., and Rigold, S. 1969. A find of Stephen coins at Rayleigh Mount. British Numismatic Journal. 38. pp. 186-88.

Sarvas, P. 1981. Schätze und Schatzfunde. In T. Fischer and P. Ilisch, eds. LAGOM: Festschrift für Peter Berghaus zum 60. Geburtstag am 20. November 1979. Münster: Numismatischer Verlag. pp. 3-10.

Semple, S. 1998. A fear of the past: the place of the prehistoric burial mound in the ideology of middle and later Anglo-Saxon England. World Archaeology. 30:1. pp. 109-26.

Saunders, C. 2010. Magic and the supernatural in medieval English Romance. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer. Savage, C. 2016. The Blencogo and Skinburness coin hoards. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. 16. pp. 203-14.

Semple, S. 2013. Perceptions of the prehistoric in AngloSaxon England: religion, ritual, and rulership in the landscape. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sharpe, F., and Haigh, D.H. 1839. An account of a large quantity of coins of Edward I and II discovered in February 1836, at Wyke, near Leeds, in Yorkshire. Archaeologia. 28. pp. 47-74.

Sawyer, P. 2013. The wealth of Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scarisbrick, D. 2015. The past made real. In S. Hindman and S. Miller, eds. Take this ring. Medieval and Renaissance rings from the Griffin collection. Turnhout: Brepols. pp. 9-185.

Sharpe, S. 1880. The Stamford mint - supplement. Numismatic Chronicle. 20. pp. 205-25.

Schiffer, M.B. 1996. Formation processes of the archaeological record. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Sheail, J. 1972. The distribution of taxable population and wealth in England during the early sixteenth century. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 55. pp. 111-26.

Schofield, J. 2013. The medieval port of London: publication and research access. London Archaeologist. 13:7. pp. 181-86.

Sheail, J. 1998. The regional distribution of wealth in England as indicated in the 1524/5 lay subsidy returns. Volume Two: the Gazetteer. Kew: List & Index Society.

Schofield, R. 1965. The geographical distribution of wealth in England, 1334-1649. Economic History Review. 18:3. pp. 483-510.

Sheehan, J. 2007. The form and structure of Viking-Age silver hoards: the evidence from Ireland. In J. GrahamCampbell and G. Williams, eds. Silver economy in the Viking Age. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. pp. 149-62.

Schofield, R. 2004. Taxation under the early Tudors 14851547. Oxford: Blackwell. Scholz, A.K. 2011. Schatzfunde als Archäologisch-Historische Quellengruppe. Forschungsstand und Perspektiven. Fundberichte aus Österreich. 50. pp. 191-95.

Shennan, S. 1988. Quantifying archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 229

Andrews.indd 229

27/11/2019 11:16

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 Sheppard, T. 1925. Hoard of silver coins found at Scotton, Yorkshire. Transactions of the Yorkshire Numismatic Society. 2:5. pp. 183-87.

Steinberg, J.M. 1996. Ploughzone sampling in Denmark: isolating and interpreting site signatures from disturbed contexts. Antiquity. 70. pp. 368-92.

Shiel, N. 1985. The Loxbeare, 1980 hoard. Coin Hoards. 7. pp. 379-81.

Stewart, I. 1992. The English and Norman mints, c.6001158. In C.E. Challis, ed. A new history of the Royal Mint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-82.

Silvan Evans, D., ed. 1866. Gwaith y Parch. Walter Davies, A.C. (Gwallter Mechain). Vol. 3. Carmarthen: William Spurrell.

Stevenson, J. 1999a. The Court Farm coin hoard, Canon Pyon, Herefordshire. West Midlands Archaeology. 42. pp. 46-47.

Simpson, R. 1852. The history and antiquities of the town of Lancaster. Lancaster: T. Edmondson. Smallwood, T.M. 2009. The date of the Gough map. Imago Mundi. 62:1. pp. 3-29.

Stevenson, J. 1999b. Hereford Museum Acquisitions 1998-99. Transactions of the Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club. 49:3. pp. 479-81.

Smedley, N. 1946. Coins from Hickleton, Yorkshire. Numismatic Chronicle. 6. p. 152.

Stewart, I. 1977. The Bournemouth find (c.1901) of coins of Henry I. Numismatic Chronicle. 17. pp. 180-83.

Smith, R.A. 1937. Coventry treasure-trove. The British Museum Quarterly. 11:4. p. 167.

Stewart, I. 1990. Coinage and recoinage after Edgar’s reform. In K. Jonsson, ed. Studies in late Anglo-Saxon coinage in memory of Bror Emil Hildebrand. Stockholm: Svenska Numismatiska Föreningen. pp. 455-85.

Snelling, T. 1762. A view of the silver coin and coinage of England. London: T. Snelling.

Stewart, I. 1992. Coins of William II from the Shillington hoard. Numismatic Chronicle. 152. pp. 111-32.

Sørensen, M.L.S. 1997. Reading dress: the construction of social categories and identities in Bronze Age Europe. Journal of European Archaeology. 5:1. pp. 93-114.

Stewartby, Lord. 1993. English Short-Cross coins from the Eccles hoard. Numismatic Chronicle. 153. pp. 137-51.

Søvsø, M. 2017. Votive offerings in buildings from rural settlements. Folk beliefs with deeper roots. In BisWorch and C. Theune, eds. Religion, cults & rituals in the medieval rural environment. Leiden: Sidestone Press. pp. 337-45.

Stewartby, Lord. 1995. German imitations of English Short-Cross sterlings. Numismatic Chronicle. 155. pp. 209-60. Stewartby, Lord. 2009. English coins, 1180-1551. London: Spink

Sofield, C.M. 2015. Anglo-Saxon placed deposits before and during Christianization (5th-9th c.). In C. Ruhmann and V. Brieske, eds. Dying Gods – religious beliefs in northern and eastern Europe in the time of Christianisation. Hannover: Niedersächsisches Landesmuseum. pp. 111-20.

Stocker, D., and Everson, P. 2003. The straight and narrow way: Fenland causeways and the conversion of the landscape in the Witham Valley, Lincolnshire. In M. Carver, ed. The Cross goes north. Processes of conversion in northern Europe, AD 300-1300. York: York Medieval Press. pp. 271-88.

Sommer, U. 2014. Quellenkritik. In D. Mölders and S. Wolfram, eds. Schlüsselbegriffe der Prähistorischen Archäologie. Münster: Waxmann. pp. 239-41.

Stoll, H.J. 1985. Die Münzschatzgefässe auf dem Gebiet der DDR von Anfängen bis zum Jahre 1700. Weimar: Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Thüringens.

Spira, A. 2000. Ars sacra, c.1200-1527. In M. Kemp, ed. The Oxford History of Western Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 138-43.

Stott, P. 1991. Saxon and Norman coins from London. In A. Vince ed, Aspects of Saxo-Norman London 2. Finds and environmental evidence. London: London and Middlesex Archaeological Society. pp. 279-325.

Spufford, P. 1961. Some hoard evidence from a nineteenthcentury collection. British Numismatic Journal. 30. pp. 213-16.

Suchodolski, S. 1995. Coin hoards discovered in churches – a symptom of cult or economy? In I. Leimus, ed. Studia Numismatica. Festschrift Arkadi Molvõgin 65. Tallinn: Huma. pp. 172-77.

Spufford, P. 1963. Continental coins in late medieval England. British Numismatic Journal. 32. pp. 127-39. Spufford, P. 1970. Monetary problems and policies in the Burgundian Netherlands 1433-1496. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Steane, J. 1985. The archaeology of medieval England and Wales. London: Routledge.

Suchodolski, S. 1998. Coin finds and archaeological contexts. A tentative classification. In S. Tabaczyński, ed. Theory and practice of archaeological research volume III. Dialogue with the data: the archaeology of complex societies and its context in the ‘90s. Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences. pp. 367-79.

Steele, E. 1747. Of burial garlands. Gentleman’s Magazine. 17. pp. 264-65.

Sugden, K.F. 1979. Coins from the Chancton find. Numismatic Circular. 87:7-8. p. 336.

Spufford, P. 1988. Money and its use in medieval Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

230

Andrews.indd 230

27/11/2019 11:16

Bibliography Summerson, H. 1993. Medieval Carlisle: the city and the borders from the late eleventh to the midsixteenth century. Volume 1. Kendal: Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society.

by Alexander Keiller 1925-1929. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 178-79. Thordeman, B. 1948. The Lohe hoard: a contribution to the methodology of numismatics. Numismatic Chronicle. 8. pp. 188-204.

Svensson, R. 2017. The search for seignorage: periodic recoinage in medieval Sweden. Scandinavian Economic History Review. 65:2. pp. 189-205.

Thoresby, R. 1715. Ducatus Leodiensis: or, the topography of the ancient and populous town and parish of Leedes. London: Maurice Atkins.

Symons, D. 2014. An unpublished parcel from the Durham (Neville’s Cross) hoard, 1889. British Numismatic Journal. 84. pp. 240-43.

Thoresby, R., and Whitaker, T.D. 1816. Ducatus Leodiensis: or, the topography of the ancient and populous town and parish of Leedes. 2nd ed. Leeds: Robinson, Son and Holdworth.

Szilágyi, M. 2012. Medieval roads in Transdanubia – the methods and potentials of their historical and archaeological investigations. Hungarian Archaeology. 1:2. pp. 1-4.

Thorn, J.C. 1973. Two medieval pots from Friday Street. London Archaeologist. 2:3. pp. 62-63.

Taffs, H. 1951. Coins of Henry I from the Bournemouth district. British Numismatic Journal. 26. pp. 347-48.

Toda, O. 2013. Evidence on the engineering and upkeep of roads in late medieval Transylvania. Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Historica. 17:2. pp. 173-200.

Taylor, C. 1974. Fieldwork in medieval archaeology. London: B.T. Batsford.

Tollerton, L. 2011. Wills and will-making in Anglo-Saxon England. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.

Teasdill, G. 1961. Coin finds of the Huddersfield district. Huddersfield: The Tolston Memorial Museum.

Toplis, J. 1881. Coins of Stephen and others found at Nottingham. Numismatic Chronicle. 1. pp. 37-41.

Temple, R. 1859. Notes on treasure trove. Journal of the British Archaeological Association. 15. pp. 100-04.

Travaini, L. 2004. Saints and sinners: coins in medieval Italian graves. Numismatic Chronicle. 164. pp. 159-81.

Thane, P. 2005. Population and the family. In. P. Addison and H. Jones, eds. A companion to contemporary Britain, 1939-2000. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 42-58.

Travaini, L. 2015. Saints, sinners and…a cow: offerings, alms, and tokens of memory. In G.E.M. Gasper and S.H. Gullbekk, eds. Money and the church in medieval Europe, 1000-1200. Practice, morality and thought. Farnham: Ashgate. pp. 209-21.

Theune, C. 2010. Der Schmuck in dem mittelalterlichen Schatz aus der Judengasse in Salzburg. In P. Hustz and P. Laub, eds. Ars Sacra. Kunstschätze des Mittelalters aus dem Salzburg Museum. Salzburg: Salzburg Museum. pp. 291-300.

Tuck, J.A. 1985. War and society in the medieval North. Northern History. 21:1. pp. 33-52.

Thilderkvist, J. 2013. Ritual bones or common waste: a study of early medieval bone deposits in Northern Europe. Eelde: Barkhuis.

Turner, E. 1862. Ashdown Forest, or as it was sometimes called, Lancaster Great Park. Sussex Archaeological Collections. 14. pp. 35-64.

Thomas, H.M. 2008. Violent disorder in King Stephen’s England: a maximum argument. In P. Dalton and G.J. White, eds. King Stephen’s Reign (1135-1154). Woodbridge: The Boydell Press. pp. 139-70.

Turner, S. 2006. The Christian landscape: churches, chapels and crosses. In S. Turner, ed. Medieval Devon and Cornwall: shaping an ancient countryside. Macclesfield: Windgather Press. pp. 24-43.

Thompson, J. 1871. Notes on a discovery of ancient coins near to Hinckley, Leicestershire, in July, 1871. Reports and papers read at the meetings of the Architectural Societies of the Diocese of Lincoln, County of York, Archdeaconry of Northampton, County of Bedford, Diocese of Worcester, County of Leicester, and town of Sheffield. 11:1. pp. 179-82.

Turner, T.S. 2012. The social skin. Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory. 2:2. pp. 486-504.

Thompson, J.D.A. 1956. Inventory of British coin hoards AD 600-1500. London: Royal Numismatic Society

Upex, S.G. 2004. Surface scatters, rates of destruction and problems of ploughing and weathering in Cambridgeshire. Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society. 93. pp. 161-78.

Unwin, P.T.H. 1995. Towns and trade, 1066-1500. In R.A. Dodgshon and R.A. Butlin, eds. An historical geography of England and Wales. 2nd ed. London: Academic Press. pp. 123-49.

Thompson, J.D.A. 1959. Some additions and corrections to J.D.A. Thompson, Inventory of British Coin Hoards: a recension. Medieval Archaeology. 3. pp 280-82.

Van Heesch, J. 2005. Celtic coins and religious deposits in Belgium. In C. Haselgrove and D. Wigg-Wolf, eds. Iron Age coinage and ritual practices. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. pp. 247-63.

Thompson, J.D.A. 1965. The barber-surgeon’s coins. In I.F. Smith, ed. Windmill Hill and Avebury. Excavations 231

Andrews.indd 231

27/11/2019 11:16

Coin Hoarding in Medieval England and Wales, c.973–1544 Wamers, E. 1985. Insularer Metallschmuck in wikingerzeitlichen Gräbern Nordeuropas. Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz.

Van Hove, L. 2001. Optimal denominations for coins and bank notes: in defense of the principle of least effort. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking. 33:4. pp. 1015-21.

Wanostrocht, C.A. 1992. Discovery of a thirteenth-century hoard of silver coins in the chapel of St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Sandwich. Archaeologia Cantiana. 110. pp. 153-59.

Van Os, B.J.H., Huisman, D.J., and Meijers, R. 2009. Other metals (lead, tin, silver, gold). In D.J. Huisman, ed. Degradation of archaeological remains. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers. pp. 125-36.

Ward Perkins, J.B. 1993. London Museum medieval catalogue 1940. Ipswich: Anglia Publishing.

VanPool, T.L., and Leonard, R.D. 2011. Quantitative analysis in archaeology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Warhurst, A. 1952. A note on the Maidstone pot. British Numismatic Journal. 27. p 65.

Van Vilsteren, V.T. 2000. Hidden, and not intended to be recovered. An alternative approach to hoards of mediaeval coins. Jaarboek voor Munten Penningkunde. 87. pp. 51-65.

Warhurst, M. 1982. Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles 29. Merseyside County Museums. London: British Academy.

Vargha, M. 2015. Hoards, grave goods, jewellery. Objects in hoards and in burial contexts during the Mongol invasion of central-eastern Europe. Budapest: Archaeolingua.

Warren, J. 1862. Find of coins near Bury St Edmunds. Numismatic Chronicle. 2. pp. 148-51. Warren, J. 1864. Antiquities found in churchyards. The East Anglian. 1. p. 437.

Verhoeven, M. 2011. The many dimensions of ritual. In T. Insoll, ed. The Oxford handbook of the archaeology of ritual and religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 115-32.

Wentzel, H. 1953. Portraits ‘á l’antique’ on French mediaeval gems and seals. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes. 16:3/4. pp. 342-50.

Vitullo, J., and Wolfthal, D. 2010. Trading values: negotiating masculinity in late medieval and early modern Europe. In J. Vitullo and D. Wolfthal, eds. Money, morality, and culture in late medieval and early modern Europe. Farnham: Ashgate. pp. 155-96.

West, S. 1998. A corpus of Anglo-Saxon material from Suffolk. Ipswich: East Anglian Archaeology. West, T., and Close, W. 1805. The antiquities of Furness. Ulverston: George Ashburner.

Volk, T. 1987. Mint output and coin hoards. In G. Depeyrot, T. Hackens and G. Moucharte, eds. Rythmes de la production monétaire, de l’antiquité à nos jours. Louvain-la-Neuve: Publications d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie de l’université Catholique de Louvain. pp. 141-221.

Wetterlöv, T. 2011. Antinazistisk “världsstjärna” eller “rasist”? Kontinuitet och förändring i Sture Bolins politiska gärning och hur denna har värderats. Scandia. 77:2. pp. 72-100. Wheeler, M. 1954. Archaeology from the earth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Volk, T. 1992. Learning the hard way: 10 years of numismatics and computing. Nordisk Numismatisk Årsskrift. pp. 132-48.

Whetham, E.H. 1970. The mechanisation of British farming, 1910-1945. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 21:3. pp. 317-31.

Von Heijne, C. 2004. Särpräglat. Vikingatida och tidigmedeltida myntfynd från Danmark, Skåne, Blekinge och Halland (ca 800-1130). Stockholm: Stockholms universitet.

White, A. 1978. A mediaeval coin hoard from Wainfleet All Saints. Numismatic Circular. 86. pp. 475-76. White, A.J. 1986. Coin hoards from Lancaster and district. Contrebis. 12. pp. 73-74.

Wakeford, G. 1883. On a hoard of early English coins of Henry I and Stephen, 1135-40. Numismatic Chronicle. 3. pp. 108-16.

Whitton, C.A. 1934. A note on the East Raynham hoard. British Numismatic Journal. 22. pp. 187-88.

Walker, H. 1990. Pottery from a late medieval kiln dump at 77 High Road, Rayleigh. Essex Archaeology and History. 21. pp. 92-102.

Whyte, N. 2003. The deviant dead in the Norfolk landscape. Landscapes. 4:1. pp. 24-39.

Walsham, A. 2011. The Reformation of the landscape. Religion, identity, and memory in early modern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wigg-Wolf, D. 2009. Sites as context. In H-M. von Kaenel and F. Kemmers, ed. Coins in context I. New perspective for the interpretation of coin finds. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. pp. 109-25.

Walters, F.A. 1907. Groats from a presumed find in London. Numismatic Chronicle. 7. pp. 427-33.

Wilkins, B., and Lalonde, S. 2008. An early medieval settlement/cemetery at Carrowkeel, Co. Galway. Journal of Irish Archaeology. 17. pp. 57-83.

Walton, P. 2012. Rethinking Roman Britain: coinage and archaeology. Wetteren: Moneta. 232

Andrews.indd 232

27/11/2019 11:16

Bibliography Williams, D., and Orton, C. 1996. The 1990 Reigate coin hoard. Surrey Archaeological Collections. 83. pp. 91-96. Williams, D. 2007. Green Lane, Wanborough: excavations at the Roman religious site 1999. Surrey Archaeological Collections. 93. pp. 149-265. Williams, G. 1998a. A hoard of Aethelraed II ‘Long Cross’ pennies from Bramdean Common, Hampshire. British Numismatic Journal. 68. pp. 143-44. Williams, G. 1998b. A hoard of ‘Expanding Cross’ pennies from Appledore: preliminary report. Numismatic Circular. 106:4. pp. 152-53. Williams, G. 2015. A hoard from the reign of Cnut from Buckinghamshire: a preliminary report. Anglo-Saxon England. 44. pp. 287-305. Williams, G. 2018. Sincerity in medieval English language and literature. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Williams, G., and Ager, B. 2010. The Vale of York hoard. London: The British Museum Press. Williams, H. 1997. Ancient landscapes and the dead: the reuse of prehistoric and Roman monuments as early Anglo-Saxon burial sites. Medieval Archaeology. 41. pp. 1-32. Williams, J. 1859. The history of Radnorshire. Tenby: R. Mason. Wilson, D.M., and Hurst, D.G. 1965. Medieval Britain in 1964. Medieval Archaeology. 9. pp. 170-220. Winchester, A.J.L. 2003. A medieval coin hoard from Waverton. Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society. 3. pp. 237-39. Wise, P.J. 1999. The Fillongley hoard - a medieval coin and jewellery hoard from Warwickshire. British Numismatic Journal. 69. pp. 201-04. Woodhead, P. 1970. Two finds of Edward pennies: Caernarvon (1911) and Grittleton (1903?). British Numismatic Journal. 39. pp. 78-83. Woodhead, P. 1996. The Herbert Schneider Collection. I: English gold coins and their imitations, 1257-1603. London: Spink. Yates, D., and Bradley, R. 2010. The siting of metalwork hoards in the Bronze Age of south-east England. The Antiquaries Journal. 90. pp. 41-72. Yuill, R.S. 1971. The standard deviational ellipse: an updated tool for spatial description. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography. 53:1. pp. 28-39. Zarnecki, G. 1988. Romanesque Lincoln: the sculpture of the cathedral. Lincoln: The Honywood Press.

233

Andrews.indd 233

27/11/2019 11:16