03 Lyons & Mackay 1671 7/1/09 13:35 Page 38 THE LUNETTES COINAGE OF ALFRED THE GREAT ADRIAN W.LYONS AND WILLIAM A.MACKAY Introduction THE Lunettes coinage of Alfred (871–99) is generally viewed as a relatively straightforward, and final, adjunct to the substantial, and difficult to interpret, Lunettes coinage of the mid- ninth century kingdoms of Mercia and Wessex.Although produced at one of the most criti- cal times in English history by one of its most remarkable rulers, it has received limited coverage in four key studies: Pagan in his seminal work on the coinage of Burgred (c.852–73/4);1 Dolley and Blunt in their major review of Alfred’s coinage and hoards,2 Blackburn in his work on the London mint in the 880s3and his associated work with Keynes on the relationship between Lunettes coins and subsequent issues.4 None of these sought solely to assess this coinage in its own right. As a consequence Alfred’s Lunettes coinage, otherwise referred to as his first or Phase I coinage, is regarded as short-lived issue of little relevance to the reign as a whole. With a large number of new finds in recent years, the evidence relating to this coinage has grown substantially. The number of moneyers now known exceeds that for any English coinage type up to that date and is not surpassed for any subsequent phase of Alfred’s issues. This,along with a wide variety of stylistic variation,suggests this was a highly significant time in the development of the English coinage.Because of these issues we believe it merits closer analysis and reappraisal. Our recent study of the coinage of Æthelred I (865–71) noted that the Lunettes coinage, originally confined to the kingdom of Mercia,was adopted by the kingdom of Wessex some time around 866.5 This important monetary decision created a single design for all coins south of the Humber and marked the beginnings of the uniform English coinage.We identi- fied, from analysis of obverse dies, that Æthelred I’s Lunettes could be placed into two groups.The majority,the Wessex Regular Lunettes group (a category we designated Æthelred I Group 2:Pl.1,1–4) all have a distinctively Wessex obverse interpretation.This was without doubt a coinage struck using dies prepared at, or strongly influenced by, Canterbury. A second group, the Wessex Irregular Lunettes group (a category we designated Æthelred I Group 3: Pl. 1, 5–7) forms a smaller portion of the surviving coins. A diverse group influ- enced by Mercian Lunettes styles, it seems to have been produced at London, at other mints under Mercian control, or at locations in Wessex using dies prepared at London or possibly elsewhere.Previously these coins had been proposed as posthumous or unofficial issues.6Our conclusion, based essentially on the number of coins now known, was that these were issues almost certainly produced officially during the reign of Æthelred I and are the products of Acknowledgements:The authors would like to thank Dr Stewart Lyon,Mr Hugh Pagan and Lord Stewartby for their encouragement and comments at various stages in the drafting of this paper.Their exceptional knowledge of this period of English coinage has been invaluable in the preparation of this paper and Mr Hugh Pagan’s encyclopaedic scholarship of the material has allowed us,under his guidance,to avoid a number ofelementary errors.We are also grateful to the British Museum and the Fitzwilliam Museum,Cambridge for providing access to their collections,to Richard Ambrose for access to his records and to Andy Williams at Spink for his help with illustrations.However any omissions or misinterpretations in this paper lie entirely with the authors. 1 Pagan 1966. 2 Dolley and Blunt 1961 (chronology ofcoins) and Blunt and Dolley 1959 (hoards). 3 Blackburn 1998. 4 Blackburn and Keynes 1998. 5 Lyons and MacKay 2007. 6 Pagan 1966,15–18. 03 Lyons & Mackay 1671 7/1/09 13:35 Page 39 THE LUNETTES COINAGE OF ALFRED THE GREAT 39 coinage operations and processes under pressure at a time of considerable military,economic and political upheaval caused by the Danish incursions. We believe that we can demonstrate that under Alfred the Lunettes coinage of Wessex, shaped by the dramatic military and political situation in southern England in the early-mid 870s, developed further the patterns and trends we have already noted in the coinage of Æthelred I. Scope of paper and approach to the study This paper deals solely with the Lunettes coins struck in the name of Alfred. No Lunettes coins are known for Archbishop Æthelred of Canterbury,unlike his predecessor Archbishop Ceolnoth, who, amongst other types, struck Lunettes-style coins. The key issues that we investigate are to: determine how the Wessex Lunettes coinage and the monetary relationship with Mercia begun by Æthelred I evolved under his brother and successor Alfred; define a classification, using the same obverse-based assessment as applied to the coinage of Æthelred I, for the Alfredian Lunettes pennies; and to investigate in parallel whether there is any linkage between the obverse classifications and the use of various Lunettesreversetypesandtoseektoprovideanexplanationof thepurposeof thevarious reverse types; investigate the development of the Wessex coinage under Alfred in the 870s, examining how the production of the coinage evolved in terms of moneyers, mints, weight, metallic content and flan size; explore when the Wessex Lunettes coinage ceased to be both minted and in circulation. As with our work on Æthelred I we have constructed a corpus of surviving coins, which has been considered in light of the coinage of Æthelred I as well as Burgred.The Corpus has been subjected to a stylistic analysis focused on the obverse but also taking into account reverse characteristics of Lunettes A-D.7 From this analysis the coinage is classified into a hierarchy of groups, variants and styles. Historical context of the coinage The Lunettes coinage of Alfred was struck during a period of extreme and continuing crises for the kingdom of Wessex. The historical narrative of campaigns, truces and tributes is the backdrop against which this coinage was produced and is crucial to explaining many aspects of it.According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicleand other sources the years 871–8 were marked by periods of intensive warfare with the Danish armies interspersed with periods of respite, usually initiated by the payment of tribute by the English.8 Warfare, centred in central and western Wessex, dominated the years 870–1, 875–7 and 878. The years 872–5, whilst the Danish armies were occupied elsewhere,seem to have been a time of relative peace in Wessex, as was the period from mid 877 to early 878, after Guthrum moved from Exeter to Gloucester, but before the final campaign that culminated with the Treaty of Wedmore in late 878. With warfare concentrated in central and western Wessex the established centre of Wessex monetary production at Canterbury was free from raiding and distant from the principal areas of military activity.The status of London is less well understood.For both Wessex and Mercia, London was a key strategic location. At the border of the two kingdoms it was a centre of monetary production and of trade. Although historically a Mercian city, Wessex 7 Lunettes E coins are not known for Alfred;see also Williams 2008. 8 Swanton 2000,70–9.The Anglo-Saxon Chroniclepresents both a highly truncated version of events and,being written some time afterwards,benefits from the hindsight that Wessex survived and prospered from the crisis.For selected sources from the period see Whitelock 1979. 03 Lyons & Mackay 1671 7/1/09 13:35 Page 40 40 THE LUNETTES COINAGE OF ALFRED THE GREAT influence there had grown as the kingdom asserted control over southern England.Given this background, it is probable that Alfred sought to maintain and further increase Wessex influ- ence in the city, taking advantage of increasing Mercian weakness as the 870s progressed. It is highly probable that Wessex interests in southern and eastern Mercia grew at this time for the same reasons. With the exception of the occupation of London in the winter of 871/2, evidence of Danish involvement is more tentative, but the concept of a Danish presence in the city throughout this period, even if only on a trading basis, is credible. These events had an undoubted impact on the coinage. In particular the issues of paying tribute,the dispersed production of coinage,the increasing involvement in Mercian affairs by Alfred and the final demonetisation of the coinage all need to be considered from the wider strategic and political viewpoint. The numismatic evidence Hoards A full list of hoards is presented in Appendix 1,Table 1A.Fourteen hoards definitely contain coins of Alfred.9 A further ten post-1850 hoards may possibly contain coins of Alfred. In view of the turbulence of the times the number of hoards from this period is, not unsurpris- ingly,higher in comparison with the period before the Danish invasions and subsequent years after the Treaty of Wedmore. Overall, the hoard record shows the patterns we identified in our paper on Æthelred I continuing: Lunettes coins of Mercia and Wessex circulated freely between the two kingdoms. The Lunettes coinage was the principal coinage with earlier types almost completely absent. Hoards comprise a mix of coins of other contemporary, or near contemporary, arch- bishops and monarchs. Coins of Alfred tend not to predominate although in some hoards they are the largest group.10 Find locations for hoards containing Lunettes coins of Alfred,compared to Æthelred I, tend to be slightly more widespread. This may demonstrate the dispersal of tribute payments within the Danish war-bands. There are two possible hoards from outside modern-day England: ‘Burgred’, Ireland and Tolstrup, Denmark, but the evidence for these is not absolutely certain.11 Overall the pattern is that of a coinage that largely circulated within the area of modern-day England. Gainford, Beeston Tor, Repton, Walmsgate Lincoln, Duddington and North- Yorkshire, all hoards from locations distant from the south east of England, tend to contain a higher proportion of Lunettes B to D coins (although the small Lower Dunsforth hoard 1861 is an exception to this pattern). The Lunettes coinage completely disappears from the hoard record after the mid 870s both in English controlled areas and further afield.12 Blunt and Dolley’s analysis of the hoard evidence for Alfred made the important point that Lunettes hoards are a distinct 9 Nine Lunettes period hoards (Beeston Tor 1924, Cheltenham 1924, Croydon No 2 1862, Lower Dunsforth 1861, Gainford 1864,Gravesend 1838,Hook Norton 1848,London,Waterloo Bridge 1883 and Trewhiddle 1774) were defined as a distinctivegroupandassignedasAlfredgroup1byBluntandDolley1959,220–47.TothesecanbeaddedAbbeyOrchard, StAlbans 1968,Duddington 1994–5,Leckhampton 1924,Walmsgate,Lincoln 1985,North Yorkshire,2004 and Suffolk 2008. 10 Alfred’s coins seem to predominate in Hook Norton 1848 and Repton 1982 and 1985,though the former is a somewhat anomalous group as it is found at the mass burial site thus is not really a true hoard.Lower Dunsforth 1861,Beeston Tor 1924, Abbey Orchard,St Albans 1968,Walmsgate,Lincoln 1985,and Duddington 1994–5 are hoards where Alfred’s coins form the largest single group. 11 The provenance of the ‘Burgred’Ireland hoard (c.1870) is discussed in Dolley 1967 and the Irish location can only be considered tentative.The coins could be from English finds that acquired a local hoard provenance for a variety ofreasons. 12 The latter is the more surprising as obsolete English coinage is often found in areas such as Ireland, Scotland and Scandinavia where no local currency existed at the time.The authors believe that the relatively poor quality of the Lunettes coinage (especially in comparison with contemporary Carolingian and Islamic silver issues) may have restricted its currency and circulation to the area ofmodern-day England. 03 Lyons & Mackay 1671 7/1/09 13:35 Page 41 THE LUNETTES COINAGE OF ALFRED THE GREAT 41 group and are not found with coins of later types.13There are two possible exceptions to this but they do not provide irrefutable evidence of Lunettes coinage in circulation after the mid 870s. The Alfred type xiv attributed to the Trewhiddle hoard was considered by Wilson and Blunt, who came to a view that this was a misattribution that had occurred while the coin was in the Rashleigh family cabinet.14This was a contention later strongly supported by Pagan when he acquired what is almost certainly the coin in question.15The later London Monogram coin (Verulamium Museum, St Albans: SCBI 42, no. 758) associated with the Abbey Orchard, St Albans hoard is also noted and the range of possibilities arising from its context in relation to this find must await the hoard’s publication by Marion Archibald. If there is one difference it is that the number of small hoards (c.10 coins) increases from the five known containing Æthelred I’s coins16to at least eleven for Alfred.Their location,largely in Danish controlled areas where the raiding army was resident, most probably represents tribute payments paid out to junior members of war-bands indicating wide circulation of the coinage. The hoard evidence has been interpreted to seek to explain the sequence of reverse types. Traditionally Lunettes B,C and D have been regarded as being later,probably after 873,with any hoard solely containing Lunettes A being from before this date. The position is further complicated by the view that Burgred’s Lunettes B to D should be dated to the 860s.17We are reluctant to accept the contention that sole presence of Lunettes A should limit the dating of a hoard to before 873 and believe that other explanations for such hoards must be sought. Single finds The Early Medieval Corpus and other sources record thirty-four single finds of coins, three timesasmanyasthoserecordedforÆthelredI.AfulllistispresentedinAppendix1,Table1B. The single finds can be placed into four geographical groups. Lindsey (Group 1) and Cambridgeshire/Bedfordshire (Group 2) can probably be aligned to the presence of Danish armies in 872–3 and 875. These coins would seem to be casual losses associated, in the main, with the Danes themselves.This suggests that tribute payments were widely distributed within Danish war-bands and the large numbers of coins, linked to frequent movement, resulted in a steady number of accidental losses. Finds in London/Kent (Group 3) and else- where (Group 4) are much more random and cannot be easily explained by a single cause but Group 3 might be linked to the Danish presence at London in 871–2.This analysis,although useful in defining loss patterns, must be made with two caveats. Firstly, it cannot be over- looked that find location clusters can reflect the activities of modern-day detectorists who have been particularly active in Lincolnshire, East Anglia and Kent. Secondly, the link with specific war-bands must be tentative for the precise circumstances of each loss cannot, of course, be established. The only single find recorded outside the boundaries of modern-day England is the coin found at Burghead, Morayshire, formerly in the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, and now missing.18 The coin is noted as having been pierced twice indicating that it was probably in use as jewellery rather than as currency.19 13 Blunt and Dolley 1959, 220. Also the proposal by Blunt (Blunt 1952) that BM 1950–2–1–1 was a mule of Alfred’s Lunettes and Alfred’s BMC type v was re-evaluated by Blackburn and Keynes 1998 and this very badly worn coin was re-designated as Two Emperors or Portait Quatrefoil/Cross and Lozenge mule (see Blackburn and Keynes 1998, 133 and illustration 7*). 14 Wilson and Blunt 1961,112:‘Both (also referring to a coin ofOffa) would be unexpected in the context ofthis hoard.’ 15 Pagan 2000,where he notes that the Franbald coin from the Stack (1999) sale,and almost certainly the coin formerly owned by the Rashleigh family,does not have the same patination as other Trewhiddle hoard coins. 16 Lyons and MacKay 2007,75,Table 2. 17 Pagan 1987,17.In Lyons and MacKay 2007,we noted that Lunettes D coins were struck for Æthelred I before the end ofhis reign,with an obverse bust style not found on the Lunettes coins ofAlfred. 18 SCBI 6,no.81.Noted in PSASiv (1860–2),377–8. 19 One ofthe four Burgred coins in the Talnotrie,Kirkcudbrightshire (1912) hoard is also pierced (SCBI 6,no.60). 03 Lyons & Mackay 1671 7/1/09 13:35 Page 42 42 THE LUNETTES COINAGE OF ALFRED THE GREAT The Corpus of the Lunettes coinage of Alfred the Great A comprehensive review of the Sylloge of the Coins of the British Isles, the Early Medieval Corpus, the British Museum collection, auction catalogues and dealers’ fixed price lists as well as a wide range of other sources has produced a Corpus (appended to this article) of 197 coins.20We believe our corpus contains the majority of recorded coins but we also list details for another fifteen to twenty untraced coins. These are principally listed in unillustrated auction catalogues from before 1950 and cannot be linked to modern records. There are, in addition, a number of forgeries.21 There is a discrepancy in the reconciliation of recorded coins with the hoard and single find records.With 197 coins set against some 150 find records there are,in broad terms,forty more coins than there should be. We believe this discrepancy might be explained by three reasons: Before the discovery of the Croydon No.2 hoard in 1862,coins of Alfred’s Lunettes type were relatively scarce.22 Ruding’s 1840 list23 only includes sixteen moneyers, although he misses four others that definitely have a pre-1840 provenance.24 Lindsay adds a further moneyer.25 This total of twenty-one moneyers is only a third of those known today. There can thus be few additional coins with pre-1860 provenances.26 Coins removed without record from Croydon and subsequent hoards because of the attractiveness of their Alfredian pedigree. This raises the possibility that major hoards, particularly Croydon No. 2 hoard (1862),27 may understate the number and variety of Alfred’s coins. Additionally several finds in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are poorly recorded and may have contained coins of Alfred, e.g. Hitchin, Wandsworth and London, Wood Street. Other unrecorded hoards and single finds.28 There is some suspicion that the appear- ance of a significant number of unprovenanced coins in the late 1980s and early 1990s may represent a find dispersed on the market piecemeal.29 Finally there is a supposition that there is at least one unrecorded nineteenth-century hoard from the 1850s or 1860s.30 20 Thereareinadditionthreecoinweightswithcoinsattached,orwithimpressionsof coins,andfourcoinswherethe moneyer is unidentified. 21 Nineteenth-century forgeries,most likely produced by Emery,are known ofAlfred Lunettes coins,with ten known to the authors.The inspiration for these coins seems to be the Higgs’Tata coin (AfL2.50/BMC172) that was acquired by the British Museum in 1830.Forgeries include coins in the names ofLude,Oeamer,Osric,otherwise unknown as moneyers for this coinage, and for Tata.A list of Tata forgeries is included as footnote 139 in that part of the corpus that lists his genuine coins.For the other ‘moneyers’,see Blunt and Thompson 1958,and Pagan 1972. 22 The relative scarcity ofAlfredian Lunettes before 1860 is indicated by the absence ofan example ofthis type in the three largest sales of the mid-nineteenth century,Devonshire (1844),Cuff (1854) and Chaffers (1857).Conversely,coins of Burgred were present in very large quantities, most likely due to an influx of material from the Gravesend hoard, with Devonshire recording 41,Cuff,43 and Chaffers,11.Each collection also had at least one coin ofÆthelred I. 23 Ruding 1840,125 where moneyers of all types of Alfred’s coins are listed together.From this list the following sixteen moneyers can be identified as referring to Lunettes coins known at that time:Biarnwulf,Bosa,Cialmod,Cialwulf,Dudd,Duinc, Dunn,I(B)iarnred,Ethelwulf,Manningsic,Oshere,Sefred,Sigestef,Tidbald,TilefeineandWulfheard.Aseventeenthmoneyer, Ethelstan,was almost certainly not known to be a Lunettes moneyer in the 1840s but was probably known for a Two Line coin. 24 Curiously Ruding seems to have missed two coins in the BM:Hebeca (AfL1.58) and Tata (AfL2.50).The latter was illus- trated in Hawkins 1841,published contemporaneously.However he was clearly unaware of the Herebald (AfL1.65) known to have been bought by Durrant from Young the dealer in 1821.We are also grateful to Dr Lyon for pointing out an illustration of a coin ofcurrently unlocated coin ofTirwulfdrawn into an early edition ofRuding by a Mr Barratt and now listed as AfL2.58. 25 Lindsay 1842,86.Deigmund,undoubtedly a record ofAfl2.17/BMC162. 26 Coinswithapre-GravesendprovenancearelistedasafootnoteinAppendix1A.Tworecordedinthenineteenthcentury cannot now be traced. 27 We have already noted the absence of Alfred’s Lunettes in the major mid-nineteenth century sales so Gravesend 1838 is probably not a source. Croydon No. 2 1862 looks more likely in view of the circumstances of the uncontrolled dispersal described in Corbet Anderson 1877,115–17,Blunt and Dolley 1959 and the supporting evidence that the Rev.Samuel Lewis was able to acquire a number ofspecimens (now in the Corpus Christi College,Cambridge collection and recorded in MEC) from a dealer in Tunbridge Wells as late as July 1872. 28 Hugh Pagan notes that two coins,Diarelm (AfL1.14/Blunt 342) and Hebeca (AfL1.60/Blunt 344),may come from the same hoard having a similar patination.As there are no unaccounted hoard coins for Hebeca,this might point to these coins being part ofa larger ‘unknown’hoard. 29 A full list is given in Appendix IA as a footnote to the Barkby Thorpe hoard (1987) at Appendix 1,Table 1A. 30 A possible mid-nineteenth century hoard was also identified for Æthelred I,see Lyons and MacKay 2007,74. 03 Lyons & Mackay 1671 7/1/09 13:35 Page 43 THE LUNETTES COINAGE OF ALFRED THE GREAT 43 Distribution of coins since discovery The British Museum Collection has by far the largest holding, totalling forty-seven coins (nearly a quarter of those currently recorded). The next largest holding, nineteen coins, is in the St Albans Museum, which derives from the 1968 St. Albans, Abbey Orchard hoard. The holdings at Cambridge in the Fitzwilliam Museum, including the Blunt collection, Corpus Christi College and Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in total comprise fourteen coins. Lincolnshire County Museum has six coins from the Walmsgate, Lincoln hoard. All other institutions have fewer than five specimens, most with one or two. In all, around two thirds of all known Alfred Lunettes pennies are held in public collections. Over the last 150 years most of the major private collections have contained an example of an Alfred Lunettes penny. Among the major collections of the last century Burstal, Maish, Elmore Jones and Thorburn each had one example.31 Bliss32 had two examples. Mack33 and Stack34 each had three. The largest groupings were Montagu (8),35 Murdoch (6),36 Lockett (7),37Grantley (6),38Carlyon Britton (5),39and Drabble (4).40Unfortunately many collections, most notably Murdoch, formed in the century to 1950, were tainted by the presence of false coins.41 The structure of the Lunettes coinage of Alfred the Great The Corpus splits into two groups defined by distinctive obverse styles:Group 1,the ‘Wessex’ group (Pl. 1, 11–19) and Group 2, the ‘Mercian’group (Pls 1 and 2, 20–43). In our study of Æthelred I’s coinage we designated the latter group as Wessex Irregular Lunettes on the grounds that they were a relatively small group (largely following Mercian styles) not con- forming to Wessex standards. Following our examination of the much larger group of non- Wessex style coins of Alfred that seem to have a Mercian influence we believe designating these coins as Mercian style is a better description of this group. Finally a small number of coins are classified as Irregular (Pl. 2, 44–52), as although they have affinities to Group 1 or 2 they cannot readily be placed in either group.Both Group 1 and 2 are a continuation of the structure we defined for the Lunettes coinage of Æthelred I. The majority of Æthelred I’s coins (96%) have the Lunettes A reverse with 4%, almost cer- tainly of Mercian origin, using the Lunettes D reverse. Under Alfred, Lunettes B and C were used in addition to D.All occur in both the Wessex and the Mercian style groups.In all 27% of surviving Alfredian Lunettes coins have reverses B, C and D, with a much higher proportion (49%) found in Group 2 (Mercian style) than in Group 1 (Wessex style) (12%). The Irregular group,largely Mercian linked,is predominantly Lunettes B to D (70%). 31 Burstal (1912),lot 51 (AfL1.49):Ethered;Maish (1918),lot 24 (not currently traced):Herewulf;Elmore Jones (1971),lot 43 (AfL1.83):Herewulf;Thorburn (1887),lot 52 (not currently traced):Etheleah. 32 Lot 86,Bosa (AfL1.7),Ethered (not currently traced). 33 Mack,SCBI 20,nos 727–9:Bureel,Hebeca,Heremod.All from the Lower Dunsforth hoard (1861). 34 Lots 415–17:Diarel (AfL1.13),Ethered (AfL1.45),Heremod (AfL1.73). 35 1895 sale,lots 546–52:Sigestef (AfL2.48),Etheleah (almost certainly AfL2.32),Tata (a forgery:either coin 1,3 or 4 in the footnote to the Tata coins listing forgeries),Dudd (AfL2.22),Heremod (not currently traced),Liabinc (not currently traced), Osric (a forgery),Lude (a forgery).Die duplicates ofthe Lude and Osric forgeries were lots 35 and 36 in the 1888 duplicates sale along with a coin ofBosa (lot 34 – not currently traced). 36 Lots 83–8:Iaia (Tata) (2 forged coins:either coins 1,3 or 4 in the footnote to the Tata coins listing forgeries),Lvde,Osric, Oeamer,Herewulf.All false except for the Herewulf(not currently traced). 37 1955 sale,lots 485–7,Bosa (AfL1.7),Heremod (AfL1.70),Oeamer (a forgery).1958 sale,lot 2701,Dunn (AfL1.21).1960 sale,lot 3630,Sigestef(AfL2.48).False coins ofLudig and Tata owned by Lockett never appeared in the sales. 38 Lots 996–9:Iaia (Tata) (a forgery:coin 3 in the footnote to the Tata coins listing forgeries),Osric (a forgery),Sigestef (AfL2.48),Diarelm (AfL1.14),Hebeca (AfL1.60),Wulfheard (AfL2.64). 39 1913 sale, lots 336–7: Biarnred (AfL2.5), Herewulf (AfL1.84). 1916 sale, lots 927–8: Dudd (AfL2.20), Sefreth (not currently located).1918 sale,lot 1644,Heremod (AfL1.70). 40 1939 sale,lots 382–3:Bosa (AfL1.10),Denemund (AfLIr1).1943 sale,lots 836–7:Dunn (AfL1.21) and Tata (a forgery: coin 4 in the footnote to the Tata coins listing forgeries). 41 Pagan 1972. 03 Lyons & Mackay 1671 7/1/09 13:35 Page 44 44 THE LUNETTES COINAGE OF ALFRED THE GREAT TABLE 1. The Lunettes coinage of Alfred:classification by reverse type. Note:Unverified coin AfL2.7 allocated to Group 2,Lunettes D.Unknown moneyers and coin weights (less AfL1.26) excluded.Percentage figures in the rows refer to the proportion by type within each group. Percentage figures in the far right column refer to proportion by group of all coins. Lunettes A Lunettes B Lunettes C Lunettes D Total % all Group 1, 108 (88%) 11 (9%) 1 (1%) 2 (2%) 122 (62%) ‘Wessex’ Group 2, 33 (51%) 11 (17%) 6 (9%) 15 (23%) 65 (33%) ‘Mercian’ Irregular 3 (30%) 1 (10%) 3 (30%) 3 (30%) 10 (5%) TOTAL 144 23 10 20 197 % of recorded corpus 73% 12% 5% 10% 100% Illustrations Image sources:Lunettes A,Ashmolean Museum,AfL1.72/SCBI 9,no.245;Lunettes B,AfL2.49/BMC175,copy- right,The Trustees of the British Museum;Lunettes C,MacKay,AfL2.53;Lunettes D,AfL2.12/EMC 1997.0126, copyright,The Fitzwilliam Museum. Classification of the Lunettes coinage of Alfred the Great The Lunettes coinage of Alfred is a direct continuation of that of his brother and predeces- sor,Æthelred I,which we have already noted can be split into two groups.The first,Æthelred I Group 2 (with Group 1 being his Four Line issue which preceded the Lunettes), is of con- sistent style using Canterbury-produced dies and comprises four variants,with variants i and ii representing the Standard Bonnet types (Pl. 1, 1 and 2) and variants iii and iv, the Bold Head types (Pl. 1, 3 and 4). The second, Group 3, a smaller group (17% of Æthelred I’s Lunettes coins), is diverse with a variety of styles, and is produced from dies that show Mercian influence and which were almost certainly cut at London or other locations within Mercia. This group comprises variants v, vi and vii (Pl. 1, 5–7). Alfred’s coinage continues this pattern with a large group of Wessex coins (Group 1,Pl.1, 11–19) and a smaller group (Group 2, Pls 1 and 2, 20–43) showing Mercian influence. The concordance in Table 2 below demonstrates the linkage between the types of the two kings. 03 Lyons & Mackay 1671 7/1/09 13:35 Page 45 THE LUNETTES COINAGE OF ALFRED THE GREAT 45 TABLE 2. Concordance of the types of Æthelred I and Alfred. Type Æthelred I Alfred Remarks Wessex bonneted bust Group 2,variant i Group 1,variant I Alfred’s coins have a in good style (Pl.1,1) (Pl.1,11–15) single-banded diadem in place of the double-banded diadem of Æthelred I. Wessex bonneted bust in Group 2,variant ii Group 1,variant II Alfred’s coins have a cruder style (Pl.1,2) (Pl.1,16–19) single-banded diadem as variant I. Wessex unbonneted bust Group 2,variant iii Not known (bold head) in good style (Pl.1,3) Wessex unbonneted bust Group 2,variant iv Not known,except Irregular type (a) (bold head) in cruder style (Pl.1,4) as an irregular coin Mercian neat style bust Group 3,variant v Not known (Pl.1,5) Mercian bonneted bust Group 3,variant vi Group 2,variant III (Pl.1,6) (Pl.1,20–28) Mercian ‘horizontal’bust Group 3,variant vii Group 2,variant IV One coin noted in this style in (Pls 1 and 2,29–40) the Æthelred I corpus (Ae3.12). Mercian ‘vertical’bust Group 3,variant vii Group 2,variant V (Pl.1,7) (Pl.2,41–43) Irregular group Not known Irregular Group (Pl.1,44–52) Group 2, the Alfredian Mercian-style Lunettes, is a continuation of Æthelred I’s Group 3. Under Alfred the scale of this Mercian-style group is much more significant, accounting for 33% of all coins, as opposed to 17% for Æthelred I. The Mercian models for these are Burgred’s Horizontal and Vertical style coins (Pl. 1, 9 and 10). In addition there is a cluster of ten irregular and barbarous coins, comprising 5% of the total (Pl. 2, 44–52), that although largely associated with the Mercian group are best con- sidered separately. Consideration must be given as to whether all the coins in this cluster are official issues.Our view is that they are.As we have already observed in our consideration of the coinage of Æthelred I, that is not to say that some coins may be regarded as imitative inasmuch as they were locally-sanctioned, inexpertly-produced emergency issues of the Anglo-Saxon territories.However the intermingling in hoards of coins of varying production quality seems to indicate that crudely produced or anomalously designed coinage was widely accepted.Additionally,looking at the issue from another direction it is difficult to see why the Danes,or some other unofficial agency,would have set out to producesuch a complex series of anomalous coins rather than just produce straightforward copies.42 Setting aside the fact that the Danes had little need to mint coins as the English were handing over large quantities in tributes, local copying would surely have concentrated on replicating a few existing coins rather than setting out to produce a wide variety of new interpretations of the coinage sometimes in good quality silver by the standards of the issue.43 Whilst the pattern is one of continuity on the obverse, the major change between the Lunettes coinage of Æthelred I (where Lunettes A predominates with only a few Lunettes D non-Wessex coins) and Alfred is the adoption of Lunettes reverses B to D into the main- stream of the Wessex coinage.This seems to reflect some deliberate purpose.In parallel there 42 As happened to the London Monogram,Osnaforda and Two Line types.Also none ofthe moneyers’names are Danish in style or reflect the range ofcontinental names seen on the St Edmund Memorial coinage ofa decade later. 43 See Irregular AfLIr9,a coin ofHerewulfof‘quarter-fine’(i.e.around 25% silver). 03 Lyons & Mackay 1671 7/1/09 13:35 Page 46 46 THE LUNETTES COINAGE OF ALFRED THE GREAT is a deterioration in the silver content, from an already low starting point of a ‘quarter fine’ standard (i.e. around 25% silver), to a figure not much more than half of this. But other aspects of the coinage such as die-cutting, flan size and weight present inconsistent patterns that do not demonstrate a consistent decline in standards. Finally,a subjective assessment of the variety of die-cutting styles indicates that there was die-cutting capacity far in excess of the coinage output actually produced.Overall we believe that this,linked to the large number of moneyers and a wide variety of obverse styles and four different Lunettes reverses, indicates that in addition to production at Canterbury and London much of this coinage may have been produced on a sporadic and dispersed basis to meet needs for coin as required. Classification of the Wessex Lunettes coins of Alfred the Great – Group 1: the Wessex Standard Lunettes Two principal obverse variants are found in this Group.Both incorporate a bust with a bon- net. Variant I has a neat and generally well-proportioned style contrasting with variant II which is marked by a cruder or coarser treatment of the bust.The royal title +AELBRED REX,44 occurs in all cases, with a number of minor stylistic variations, but always starting at 10 o’clock on every coin.Obverse lettering on the Alfredian coins tends to be slightly larger than on Æthelred I’s,but mainly because there are fewer letters in the regnal title.The appearance of the bust on the Wessex Lunettes changes in one aspect as a single-banded diadem immediately replaces the double-band of Æthelred I. TABLE 3. The Lunettes coinage of Alfred the Great:Group 1 (Wessex Lunettes) variants. Group Variant Obverse Group 1.Wessex Variant I Lunettes,variant I; Well-proportioned but tall bust with clear bonnet with Standard Bonnet 1. single-banded diadem surmounted by a crescent and pellet. Distinctive hooknose ending in a serif.The nose is usually a single line linking the diadem and nose.Frog eye,usually with ‘eyelid’underneath.Two distinct crescents (curls of hair) in nape of neck with points that face upwards and to the left. Often with a clear attempt to show a chin using a boldly cut Variant IA, pellet (sub-variant A).Others understate or omit this Standard bonnet 1 appearing chinless (sub-variant B).Wessex style drapery in with bold pellet three panels with outer edges made up of curved lines,the chin. right and left panel containing two horizontal bars and a central panel,a horizontal bar above a ‘T’. (AfL1.40/BMA 466) Sub-variants A.With bold pellet for chin B.Without or weak pellet for chin. Die cutting stylistic variations i.Well-cut and balanced bust (Pl.1,11) ii.Heavily rendered dies similar to i (Pl.1,12) iii.Less confident style with eye rendered as a dot and without Variant IB, lower eyelid (Pl.1,13). Standard bonnet 1 with weak pellet chin. (AfL1.5/BMA 455) 44 Bibire1998,163statesthatthisistheKentishformof thename.ThisisborneoutbytheMercianuseof Elfredand similar forms on quite a number ofcoins ofnon-Wessex origin. 03 Lyons & Mackay 1671 7/1/09 13:35 Page 47 THE LUNETTES COINAGE OF ALFRED THE GREAT 47 TABLE 3. Cont. Group Variant Obverse Group 1.Wessex Variant II Lunettes,variant II, As last,but bust with poorer proportions and generally Standard Bonnet 2. elongated or thin bust.Sometimes with a smaller head. Exists as sub-variants A and B A.More coarsely cut version of variant I (Pl.1,16,17) B.Thin,elongated bust (Pl.1,18) Wide variation of die cutting styles suggests dispersed production away from Canterbury. Variant IIA, Standard bonnet 2, coarser version of variant I. (AfL1.101/BMC165) Variant IIB, Standard Bonnet 2, thin elongated bust. (AfL1.93/EMC 1996.200) Seven obverse legend styles are found with Group 1 Wessex Lunettes coins of Alfred.(All the recorded legends start at seven o’clock.Where a style is recorded for three moneyers or fewer, their names are shown.) Legend styles 2 and 4 are most commonly found. 1. REX+AEBBRED(Tidbald) 2. REX+AELBRED 3. RE++AELBRED 4. REX+AELBRED: 5. REX+AELBRED (Biarnred,Cialmod,Herebald) 6 REX+AELBREDá(Hebeca,Osgeard) 8. REX +AELBRED (Bosa,Liabinc) The coins are usually struck on slightly smaller diameter flans, typically reduced by 1 mm compared with those of Æthelred I. Lunettes B, and much more rarely C and D, are now found within the Wessex Lunettes coinage as well as Lunettes A,already noted for Æthelred I. However Lunettes B to D remain the exception, with Lunettes A still dominant and accounting for 88% of the surviving Corpus of Group 1 coins. Within variant I, standard bonnet 1, there are two distinctive sub-variants, perhaps the product of different die-cutting workshops.Sub-variant A has a bust with a boldly cut pellet above the drapery,looking like a goitre.On sub-variant B,the pellet is weakly cut and some- times omitted. In addition three different stylistic ‘hands’can be identified at work on both sub-variants. Overall, variant I shows a consistency in style and continuity with the coinage of Æthelred I, which suggests it was struck using Canterbury prepared-dies. Variant II,standard bonnet 2,is distinct from variant I,with a bust that is poorly propor- tioned. Busts can be quite crude (Pl. 1, 17–18) or rather better produced (Pl. 1, 16, 19) but closer examination shows irregularities and coarse production standards, notably the failure to make the lines of the lunettes parallel on the latter two coins. We believe that, as with Æthelred I’s variant ii and iv, these coins were struck from dies prepared away from Canterbury. However there seems to have been a more determined attempt to sustain