https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110630961-002 Rory Naismith Reading Money: An Introduction to Numismatic Inscriptions in Anglo-Saxon England Abstract: Coin inscriptions are the most plentiful form of micro-text from Anglo- Saxon England. The many personal names they carry have been studied from a philological perspective. This contribution therefore takes a different approach, considering what coin inscriptions suggest about language, literacy and the structures of oral and written communication behind the coinage. 1 Introduction: Coin Inscriptions as Micro-Texts It is difficult to get more micro than the micro-texts on Anglo-Saxon coins. The letters on these struck metal disks are typically between one and three millime- tres in length (and the coins themselves between about 10 and 25 millimetres in diameter), and the total inscription will usually only run to one, two or three words per side, sometimes heavily abbreviated. These are micro in every sense of the word. Yet they also effectively reinforce why micro-texts matter. Coin inscriptions range in date from the early seventh century to 1066, cover- ing more than four centuries of Anglo-Saxon history, although they only became common after the mid-eighth century.1 Coin inscriptions were carefully engraved by manufacturers, as the information they conveyed was fundamental to the acceptability of a coin. It was through condensed and often abbreviated micro- texts – as on the penny of Æthelred II (978–1016) illustrated as Figure 1 – that one knew this was a coin issued under the auspices of a ruler, and that he was a ‘king of the English’: +æðelræd rex anglo[rum]. To reject the coin was thus to reject the king and to adulterate it was to undermine the king’s rule, and law-codes from the time of Æthelstan onwards described the heavy penalties that awaited those who did either (Screen 2007: 164–170). The reverse of the coin gives the 1 Images (sometimes of considerable symbolic complexity) were the key carriers of meaning in earlier times, and remained an important counterpart to inscriptions in and after the eighth century (Gannon 2003; Naismith 2012). The focus here, however, will be on the contents and contexts of coin inscriptions. Rory Naismith, University of Cambridge https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110630961-002 14   Rory Naismith name of the man who made the coin – and, to my knowledge, it was always a man (no female moneyers ever being named in England) – along with where he was based, in this case Ælfstan at Totnes in Devon. Figure 1: +æðelræd rex anglo[rum]/+ælfstan mωo tota. Æthelred II, silver penny, ‘Long Cross’-type, Totnes mint, moneyer Ælfstan (image: CNG). Coin inscriptions also matter in crude quantitative terms. They represent the most plentiful single source of inscriptions surviving from Anglo-Saxon England. At a conservative estimate, there are some 120,000 surviving specimens with an inscription of some sort. It is likely that they represent only a tiny fraction of the number of coins originally produced, which must have run into the millions.2 While use of gold and silver pieces was more common among the wealthy, as well as town-dwellers and merchants, most of the population would have come into contact with them at some stage in their day-to-day lives (Naismith 2014b). For the average Anglo-Saxon, therefore, coins would very probably have been the most familiar and frequently-encountered object bearing text. Of course, that is not to say that the bulk of the population was in a posi- tion to get much out of these inscriptions. The limitations of early medieval lit- eracy are widely known, and occasionally very apparent in relation to coinage: when coins were forged or imitated, for instance, the accuracy of inscriptions typically declined. This can be observed across the Anglo-Saxon period, from gold issues of the seventh century which borrowed the general look of Roman coins and the format of Merovingian ones, but not the literate inscriptions of either, to Anglo-Viking coins of the ninth and tenth centuries, and on into the late Anglo-Saxon period. The inscriptions on these coins run from the rec- ognisable but mangled through to just a meaningless series of strokes and circles. I will not dwell on such pseudo-inscriptions except to stress that they underscore the prominence of letters and literacy even among those who did 2 The scale of production is a hotly contested topic; see Allen (2012: 295–304). Numismatic Inscriptions in Anglo-Saxon England   15 not possess the requisite learning to comprehend them. There was an expec- tation that coins should carry something that looked broadly like script even if its content was meaningless. 2 Numismatic Epigraphy The script in which these micro-texts were engraved has received surprisingly little attention in scholarship (Naismith 2017: 372–379). Partly this is a result of the relatively brief nature of most such texts, but it is also a consequence of dis- ciplinary divides: with the important exception of coins carrying runes, which are well known to runologists (Blackburn 1991; Page 1999: 117–129), numismatic inscriptions have not usually been seen as within the purview of epigraphists or palaeographers. This is not the case with other contemporary coinages elsewhere in Europe: there is a strong tradition of epigraphic study of Visigothic coinage in Spain, for instance (Pliego Vázquez 2009). In England, unfortunately, the single largest body of epigraphic material from the Anglo-Saxon period has received only scant attention, and is a subject crying out for more detailed work. Some initial observations can be offered, however, based in large part on having recently worked through nearly 3,000 Anglo-Saxon coins from across the period while preparing the Fitzwilliam Museum’s collection for publication (Naismith 2017). The first thing to stress is that the large majority of Anglo-Saxon inscriptions are executed in capitals, although as with many display scripts there is a significant degree of eclecticism in letter-forms. Non-classical letter-forms found on Anglo-Saxon coins include top-barred A, or A with a chevron-shaped cross-bar; angular C, G and S; lozenge-shaped O; uncial D; and an M made up of three vertical strokes crossed by a horizontal. Elisabeth Okasha has described this form of script as “Anglo-Saxon capitals”, and identified a similar admixture of letter-forms on many other inscribed objects of Anglo-Saxon date (Okasha 1968: 321), although broadly similar scripts were also used elsewhere in western Europe, including on coins. The highest degree of diversity in the lettering of coin inscriptions came in the eighth and ninth centuries. Pennies of Offa, king of the Mercians (757–796), gamely mix several variants of the same letter in the same word, as seen in Figures 2a and b with D and E, while an uncial form of M became established as the preferred shorthand for Merciorum, persisting into the 870s. The specifically Old English letter ð is always cast in lower case on Offa’s coinage, although the capital form had probably been used on coins since the early seventh century, appearing on one of the first inscribed Anglo-Saxon gold coins of King Eadbald of 16   Rory Naismith Kent (616×618–640) (Shaw 2013: 128–134). But in the later eighth century, a gener- ation of moneyers avoided capital Ð quite scrupulously – a practice that seems to have been largely numismatic, with only one parallel I have been able to find in the inscription on a later gold ring (Okasha 1971: no. 156). Figure 2a: offa rex/+dud. Offa of Mercia, silver penny, London (?) mint, moneyer Dud (British Museum; image: SCBI; Naismith 2016: no. 62). Figure 2b: of[fa] r[ex] m[erciorum]/eadberht ep[iscopus]. Offa with Eadberht, bishop of London, silver penny, London mint (British Museum; image: SCBI; Naismith 2016: no. 735). In the eighth and ninth centuries there was wider admixture of uncial and even minuscule letter-forms with capitals in coin inscriptions. Uncial U is found on coins of Offa and minuscule G on some coins of Coenwulf, probably from London (Naismith 2016: no. 130), but the most eclectic coinage of the period was that of Northumbria. From about 700 until around 870, the moneyers of this kingdom used letters from several different scripts: uncial D, and half-uncial or minuscule G, H, S and T. These are encountered most often in the early part of the coinage, and in the work of certain ninth-century moneyers who had a greater tolerance, or even preference, for variation (see Figures 3a–c). Numismatic Inscriptions in Anglo-Saxon England   17 Figure 3a: +aldfridus. Aldfrith of Northumbria (685–704), silver penny (image: CNG). Figure 3b: eadberhtvs. Eadberht of Northumbria (737–758), silver penny (image: CNG). Figure 3c: +edelred rex/+leofdegn monet. Æthelred II of Northumbria (c. 840/841–844, 844–848), base metal penny, moneyer Leofthegn (image: CNG). Over time, and especially after about 900, Anglo-Saxon numismatic inscriptions became less heterogeneous, at the same time as the geographical network of minting expanded. Certain idiosyncrasies became particular to regions or mints, such as a form of capital Ð with the line running through the hoop rather than the upright that was characteristic of the West Midlands in the early tenth century, and which can be used to help pin down the attribution of a coin. Ligatures, on the other hand, became more common, perhaps in part because inscriptions 18   Rory Naismith were typically longer, especially once it became common to include the name of the mint-place, temporarily under Æthelstan (924–939) and then permanently under Edgar (959–975) and his successors. The ethnic component of the royal style – an abbreviated form of Anglorum – was very often cut short, often with the same or ligature used for contractions of -orum in manuscript contexts. This ligature, used only rarely before on coins, was adopted on the Reform coinage of Edgar, issued at the height of the influence of Æthelwold and Dunstan in the early 970s, and may be a result of the involvement of these learned bishops in setting policy at the heart of the kingdom (Naismith 2014a: 80–83; Molyneaux 2015: 189–192). All of this is to say that there was not a single or distinct tradition of numis- matic epigraphy in Anglo-Saxon England, and not simply because preferences varied between regions, periods and individual craftsmen. Rather, those who engraved coin inscriptions were closely integrated into the broader usage of capital and other scripts in epigraphic contexts, which was itself related to the display scripts sometimes used in manuscripts. Indeed, there is some reason to think that numismatic epigraphy had significant influence. Coin-like objects intended as brooches or for other ornamental purposes were common, espe- cially from the ninth century onwards (Leahy 2006). Some used actual Roman or Anglo-Saxon coins; others imitated the general layout and look of a coin, includ- ing its epigraphy. A few examples are meaningful, like the Ashmolean brooch bearing the words +eadward rex anglorvm (Hinton 1974: no. 39) or the remark- able pewter disc inscribed ælfwold+me fec[it] from the Thames waterfront in London which looks essentially like an enlarged coin from the time of Cnut to Edward the Confessor (Lyon 2017: no. 1072); others, like a lead brooch recorded by the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS: SF3885),3 seem to be meaningless, though still replicate the semblance of an inscription. The very plentiful micro-texts on coins were an inspiration in themselves, as well as a sponge soaking up practices from other media. Script is just one dimension of the texts on coins. What they communicated would only make sense to those who were literate in the language and script of the text. Roman letters were the norm, but runes were used on some coins between the seventh and ninth centuries (Blackburn 1991; Page 1999: 117–129). They were more popular in some coinages and kingdoms than others, and had particular staying power in East Anglia. Early moneyers’ names were cast entirely in runes, and the first issues of an East Anglian king – Beonna in the mid-eighth 3 PAS = . https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/18443 Numismatic Inscriptions in Anglo-Saxon England   19 century – mixed Roman and runic letters (Figure 4).4 Interestingly, when Offa of Mercia imposed his rule on East Anglia and was named on coins minted by local moneyers, the king’s name and title were almost always represented in Roman script, while the name of the moneyer was mostly still cast in runes (Figure 5). Offa may have stipulated this treatment of his own details, and left the rest of the inscription open to individual tastes, which perhaps reflected a local predilec- tion for runes on coins. Figure 4: +beonna rex/efe. Beonna of East Anglia (fl. 749–758), silver penny, moneyer Efe (British Museum; image: SCBI; Gannon 2013: no. 805). Figure 5: offa rex/botred. Offa of Mercia, silver penny, East Anglian mint, moneyer Botræd (British Museum; image: SCBI; Naismith 2016: no. 40). Runes generally fell out of use on coins over the ninth century, only being used for individual letters on a few specimens of East Anglian and Northumbrian coinage. There are a small number of instances of other forms of script on coins: Greek letters, specifically alpha and omega, are used in some Christian iconography from the ninth century onwards (Figure 6), and Arabic appears on the famous 4 Transliterations of runic inscriptions are given in bold type. 20   Rory Naismith Offa dinar, which carefully replicates the original, although it is highly doubtful that its meaning was known to the Anglo-Saxons (Naismith 2012: 113–114). 3 Names and Titles As names were a key element of coin inscriptions, Old English, Old Norse and other languages which fed into the onomastics of Anglo-Saxon England are well represented. Numismatic names are especially important to philologists (Smart 1968 and 1986; Colman 1992 and 2014). They have the distinct advantage of being strictly contemporary and also closely datable and placeable, with some caveats that will be revisited later. Furthermore, the names of mints and moneyers on coins constitute a distinct tradition of recording, separate from and parallel to the testimony of manuscript sources. It has been remarked that moneyers’ names reveal linguistic developments which only become apparent in other sources later, such as lenition of the intervocalic fricative in the eleventh century, which made the name-element Æthel into ægel or æiel (Colman 1981). This is just one among many examples of how moneyers’ names can be, and have been, explored from a philological perspective. Besides names, the content and language of coin inscriptions was fairly limited. Certain words and letters form part of the religious iconography of coinage: alpha and omega, the words crvx ‘cross’ and pax ‘peace’, and in one case a label dexte[ra] for the ‘right [hand of God]’ (Naismith 2017: no. 1406). The most ubiquitous elements on numismatic inscriptions were the cross that introduced most inscriptions, and the title of the king, normally the Latin rex. Sometimes the name of the people over whom the king ruled was given too, again in Latin, as with rex anglorvm, which became popular under Edgar and his successors. This portion of the royal style could show a surprising degree of Figure 6: +vvlfredi archiepiscopi/+doroverniae civitatis. Wulfred, archbishop of Canterbury (805–832), silver penny, Canterbury mint (British Museum; image: SCBI; Naismith 2016: no. 742). Numismatic Inscriptions in Anglo-Saxon England   21 variation. Offa, for instance, was sometimes rex m or rex merciorvm, while on a few enigmatic coins the abbreviated royal style o f r a probably stands for Offa rex Anglorum (Naismith 2012: 81–82). Pennies of Alfred the Great minted at London in the 870s endow him with the title rex anglo[rum] as well, perhaps to emphasise his power over a city that had traditionally been Mercian (Naismith 2016: no. 1417). In the early tenth century, Æthelstan’s coinage presented a signif- icant departure from the fairly staid situation under his father Edward the Elder (899–924). A royal style rex to brit or similar, for rex totius Britanniae ‘king of all Britain’ appeared after he took control of York and received the ceremo- nial submission of other kings from various parts of Britain in 927 (Keynes 2015: 78–79; Molyneaux 2011). This same title (sometimes complementing rex Anglo- rum) was also used in contemporary charters, manuscript donation inscriptions and poems. It must reflect a buzzword that was doing the rounds of the royal court at this time, and which was imposed in all sorts of contexts by an authority with control over many aspects of royal representation. These intersections of the coinage with other media underscore how flexible and responsive the currency could be when taken in hand. Titles and other material besides names were only occasionally cast in any- thing other than Latin. A famous group of coins minted at York by Viking rulers in the years around 940 made extensive use of Old English (Blackburn 2004). Olaf Guthfrithsson was called anlaf cvnvng, using the preferred Old English form of Ólafr and probably the Old English word for king,5 while the moneyer’s position was also put into Old English as minetri or similar. This unusual move formed part of an effort to distance the York coinage from that of the English kings, which also involved reverting to an older weight standard and in some cases using inno- vative and distinct iconography (Blackburn 2004: 340; Naismith 2017: 300). The only other cases come from early in the eleventh century. Æthelred II’s unusual ‘Agnus Dei’-type, probably minted in 1009 and (in a departure from traditional iconography) showing the Lamb of God and the Holy Dove, introduced the Old English preposition on in the reverse legend, and the next type (‘Last Small Cross’-type) marked the start of a move towards the Old English forms of place- names like London which had an alternative Latinate form (Keynes and Naismith 5 anlaf does not display the loss of nasal and lengthening of the resultant vowel which pro- duced ON Ólafr. cvnvng should probably be understood as cynyng, a variant on the normal Old English word for king, cyning. While use of u in place of y or i would be suggestive of Old Norse, there is ambiguity in the representation of u and y (and c and g) in numismatic epigraphy, and the coin inscription does not display the nominal r which would be expected by this time (cf., for example, the inscription on the tenth-century ‘Gorm’ stone at Jelling, which describes the king as kunukr; Jacobsen and Moltke 1941–1942: no. 41). 22   Rory Naismith 2011: 190). ‘Agnus Dei’ was also the only type regularly to give the whole of the ethnic or national portion of the royal title in full. A few pennies of the subse- quent type give mtr for the moneyer’s job title, which could be mynetere as well as monetarius (Hildebrand 1881: no. 2477). On the whole, however, names aside, Anglo-Saxon coin inscriptions were in Latin. 4 The Making of Coin Inscriptions How, then, were these inscriptions created? Physically, the process was quick but required technical expertise and access to specialist tools. It was a matter of carving the inscription into a stamp or die, so that when it hit the coin, the letters would be left standing in relief. This meant, of course, that the inscription on the die would run backwards, as seen on the few examples of surviving coin- dies from the early Middle Ages (e.g. Pirie 1986: 33–41). The inscription could be carved directly into the die by hand. The coin of Offa illustrated as Figure 5, with linear letters drawn between dots or pellets, may have been engraved that way. But from about 800 onwards, it was much more common to create the inscription using what are usually called punches in modern scholarship: pieces of metal which could be used to impress the same recurring element of a letter, such as an upright, a wedge or a curve (Sellwood 1962). No surviving specimens have as yet been identified, though their traces are clear on surviving coins. Figure 7, for example, shows a close-up of a well-preserved penny of Æthelred II. The punch marks are readily apparent. One can see how they were applied in sequence to create letters and crosses, with the same punch sometimes being used multiple times. The same technique can also be detected in other objects of similar fabric, such as a recently discovered seal matrix of late-tenth- or eleventh-century date (Kershaw and Naismith 2013). Figure 7: Magnified image of a silver penny of Æthelred II, ‘Crux’-type, Canterbury mint, moneyer Leofric (private collection). Numismatic Inscriptions in Anglo-Saxon England   23 The importance of the use of punches is that the practical process of making inscriptions on coins and similar objects was very different from that which applied to stone, wood or bone. Coin and seal inscriptions would probably have been made by craftsmen with a distinct set of tools and skills. This raises the important question of whether those craftsmen were actually responsible for composing the inscription or, if not, how the content was communicated to them. In other epigraphic contexts, composition, layout and incision could all be carried out by separate individuals (Okasha 1995: 69–70). There is a high chance that coin inscriptions were composed by the craftsmen responsible for making the dies. One factor pointing in this direction is that the volume of work required by minting, or even just to manufacture dies, was very substantial. Estimates are inevitably imprecise, but might run to several thousand dies per year in England at peak output in the early eleventh century (Allen 2012: 295–304). Aspects of the orthography of coin inscriptions from various periods give further clues to who was responsible for their composition. In the opening decades of the ninth century at Canterbury, a mint-name was – unusually at this time – placed on the pennies of Archbishop Wulfred (805–832). This took the form doroverniae civitatis ‘of the city of Canterbury’. But on a few dies, civitatis is spelt cifitatis (Naismith 2011: C36.1–2). Substitution of f for v was not common in Latin charters of this period from Canterbury (Lapidge 1996: 446–454; Brooks and Kelly 2013: 123–126), and makes most sense in a context where the craftsman was more comfortable with the vernacular, in which f could signify a voiced labiodental spirant when used medially (Naismith 2012: 77–78). In other words, someone who was used to a different, possibly more Old English-oriented, orthography was responsible for inscribing these dies, and let that background show when composing a less familiar word. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, as the scale of the minting network grew, a new layer of complexity emerged: how would a moneyer’s name and its spelling be communicated to the agents responsible for producing dies? In the time of Wulfred it is likely that the die-cutters were identical with the moneyers, or closely associated with them, as mint-places tended to be few and large. The key individuals could have easily been in direct contact. But already in the years around 900, it is clear that there were numerous moneyers based some distance from where their dies were made (Blunt, Stewart and Lyon 1989: 29–34). Domesday Book reveals that in 1066 moneyers from Hereford and Worcester received their dies from London; the coins suggest that a compa- rable system had been in place for most of the kingdom for several decades (Naismith 2017: 243–248). The die-cutters seem to have been sovereign in these conditions, suggesting that their own preference was what counted. This becomes apparent when one 24   Rory Naismith examines the handling of moneyers with unusual names, and who worked at various times with die-cutters in different locations. One moneyer at Lincoln in the time of Æthelred II illustrates how interactions with die-cutters could work in practice. In the last coin-type of this reign, production of dies was relatively decentralised, and Lincoln was one of several places making them (Lyon 1998). A local moneyer was generally named ivstan or gvstin on reverse dies from this source (Mossop 1970: pl. XXIV.5). His name is normalised as Old Norse Iosteinn. But for whatever reason, a pair of dies was on one occasion made and sent from London, and on these the name of the moneyer is rendered as iosedan (Lyon 2017: no. 884, with comment on p. 148). It is very probably the same actual indi- vidual, but his name is represented so differently that one strongly suspects the name was relayed orally to a London die-cutter, who inscribed it without direct reference to either the moneyer’s own preference or that of northern die-cutters. He did his best under the circumstances, but this case raises the possibility that die-cutters managed the process on the basis of information passed on by word of mouth via moneyers or agents working on their behalf. One can see the same thing occur again a few years later, again at Lincoln. The normalised Old Norse name-form of one moneyer under Cnut was Áslakr. In the first issue of the reign, which was also very decentralised, dies were made in Lincoln itself, and name him aslac. In the next type of the reign, in which a mix of local and central (prob- ably London) dies were employed, one finds both aslac and oslac. In the final type of the reign, struck only from central dies, just oslac occurs on the coins (Mossop 1970: pl. XXXIII, no. 4, XLII, no. 19 and LIII, no. 28). These issues could affect royal names as well, although not in quite the same way. In the ninth century rulers’ names were sometimes represented in slightly dif- ferent ways depending on the local dialect: thus the final diphthong of Æthelberht of Wessex (858x860–865) was represented as æðelbearht on coins of Canterbury and Rochester, reflecting a specifically Kentish treatment of the name (Naismith 2011: C160–210 and R42–43). Æthelberht’s name would have been known in Kent for many years by this stage, and it is unlikely that the die-cutters depended on a written model sent from the royal court; rather, they created a local adaptation of the king’s name in conformance with local dialectic and orthographic norms. At the end of the Anglo-Saxon period, in the 1050s, one coin-type of Edward the Confessor points more strongly towards use of written instructions by die-cutters. The elegant ‘Sovereign/Eagles’-type was exceptional in a number of ways. It was the first to show an enthroned, full-length image of the king rather than a bust, inspired by representations on mainland European coins and seals (Naismith 2017: 373). In addition, coins of this type occasionally render the king’s name in a highly unusual form: eadvveardvs (Figure 8). This seems to have been restricted to the early part of the coinage, though dies with this name-form were Numismatic Inscriptions in Anglo-Saxon England   25 used at a number of mints across the country. It was probably a brief initial quirk of the central London die-cutters. Both the replacement of wynn with vv and the Latinisation of the ending were highly unusual, and can only be paralleled a century or more before these coins were minted. These coins betray the influence of an agency grounded in different traditions of orthography, which is hardly surprising in the context of a coinage which was also such a departure visually. That agency could have been the same one responsible for Edward’s seal, which featured the same name-form (eadvveardi) as well as very similar iconography, drawn from a range of German and Roman precedents (Keynes 2018: 78–80). A non-Anglo-Saxon craftsman, that is, probably created a model closely related to the new seal, which was copied by the die-cutters and moneyers before being adapted to suit existing tastes. Figure 8: eadvveardvs rex anglo/+lifinc on wincest. Edward the Confessor (1042–1066), silver penny, ‘Sovereign/Eagles’-type, Winchester mint, moneyer Leofing (image: CNG). Edward’s coinage is an important reminder that there was no one pattern for how names and other content could be conveyed between the king and those who selected designs, moneyers and the craftsmen responsible for implement- ing them. Written models could be used, but oral communication also seems to have played a large part, transmitted either from mint to die-cutter, or perhaps via gatherings of moneyers such as those called by Charles the Bald in 864 and Henry I in 1125 (Grierson 1990; Allen 2012: 27–29). Importantly, this presupposes a pragmatic form of literacy among those responsible for making dies, from the eighth century onwards. They were able to spell out names, a criterion used to define functional literacy in many contexts, and largely avoided significant errors in the reproduction of names or titles. As the philological interest of names on coins highlights, the literacy of moneyers and die-cutters was a distinct phenom- enon, parallel to rather than dependent on that of ecclesiastical scribes. These most micro of micro-texts bear witness to a whole world of talk and literacy that underpinned the making of coined money. 26   Rory Naismith Works Cited Allen, Martin. 2012. Mints and Money in Medieval England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blackburn, Mark. 1991. “A Survey of Anglo-Saxon and Frisian Coins with Runic Inscriptions”. In: Alfred Bammesberger (ed.). Old English Runes and their Continental Background. Heidelberg: Winter. 137–189. Blackburn, Mark. 2004. “The Coinage of Scandinavian York”. In: R. A. Hall (ed.). Aspects of Anglo-Scandinavian York. London: Council for British Archaeology. 325–349. Blunt, Christopher E., B. H. I. H. Stewart and C. S. S. Lyon. 1989. Coinage in Tenth-Century England from Edward the Elder to Edgar’s Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brooks, Nicholas P. and Susan E. Kelly. 2013. Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury. 2 parts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CNG = Classical Numismatic Group. . Colman, Fran. 1981. “The Name-Element Æðel- and Related Problems”. Notes & Queries 28: 295–301. Colman, Fran. 1992. Money Talks: Reconstructing Old English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Colman, Fran. 2014. The Grammar of Names in Anglo-Saxon England: The Linguistics and Culture of the Old English Onomasticon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gannon, Anna. 2003. The Iconography of Early Anglo-Saxon Coinage: Sixth to Eighth Centuries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gannon, Anna. 2013. Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles 63. British Museum, Anglo-Saxon Coins I: Early Anglo-Saxon Gold and Anglo-Saxon and Continental Silver Coinage of the North Sea Area, c. 600–760. London: British Museum Press. Grierson, Philip. 1990. “The Gratia Dei Rex Coinage of Charles the Bald”. In: Margaret Gibson and Janet L. Nelson (eds.). Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom. 2nd ed. Aldershot: Variorum. 52–64. Hildebrand, Bror E. 1881. Anglosachsiska mynt i Svenska kongl. myntkabinettet funna i Sveriges jord. 2nd ed. Stockholm: Kongl. Vitterhets Historie och Antiqvitets Akademiens Förlag. Hinton, David A. 1974. Catalogue of the Anglo-Saxon Ornamental Metalwork 700–1100 in the Department of Antiquities, Ashmolean Museum. Oxford: Clarendon. Jacobsen, Lis and Erik Moltke. 1941–1942. Danmarks runeindskrifter. 3 vols. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Kershaw, Jane and Rory Naismith. 2013. “A New Late Anglo-Saxon Seal Matrix”. Anglo-Saxon England 42: 291–298. Keynes, Simon. 2015. “The Henry Loyn Memorial Lecture for 2008: Welsh Kings at Anglo-Saxon Royal Assemblies (928–55)”. Haskins Society Journal 26: 69–122. Keynes, Simon. 2018. “The Use of Seals in Anglo-Saxon England”. In: John Cherry, Jessica Berenbeim and Lloyd de Beer (eds.). Seals and Status: The Power of Objects. London: British Museum Press. 73–83. Keynes, Simon and Rory Naismith. 2011. “The Agnus Dei Pennies of King Æthelred the Unready”. Anglo-Saxon England 40: 175–223. Lapidge, Michael. 1996. “Latin Learning in Ninth-Century England”. In his Anglo-Latin Literature 600–899. London: Hambledon. 409–454. Leahy, Kevin. 2006. “Anglo-Saxon Coin Brooches”. In: Barrie Cook and Gareth Williams (eds.). Coinage and History in the North Sea World c. 500–1250: Essays in Honour of Marion Archibald. Leiden: Brill. 267–285. https://www.cngcoins.com/ Numismatic Inscriptions in Anglo-Saxon England   27 Lyon, Stewart. 1998. “Die-Cutting Styles in the Last Small Cross Issue of c. 1009–1017 and some Problematic East Anglian Dies and Die-Links”. British Numismatic Journal 68: 21–41. Lyon, Stewart. 2017. Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles 69: The Lyon Collection of Anglo-Saxon Coins. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Molyneaux, George. 2011. “Why were some Tenth-Century English Kings Presented as Rulers of Britain?”. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 21: 59–91. Molyneaux, George. 2015. The Formation of the English Kingdom in the Tenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mossop, H. R. 1970. The Lincoln Mint c. 890–1279. Newcastle upon Tyne: Corbitt & Hunter. Naismith, Rory. 2011. The Coinage of Southern England, 796–865. 2 vols. London: Spink. Naismith, Rory. 2012. Money and Power in Anglo-Saxon England: The Southern English Kingdoms 757–865. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Naismith, Rory. 2014a. “Prelude to Reform: Tenth-Century English Coinage in Perspective”. In: Rory Naismith, Martin Allen and Elina Screen (eds.). Early Medieval Monetary History: Studies in Memory of Mark Blackburn. Aldershot: Ashgate. 39–83. Naismith, Rory. 2014b. “The Social Significance of Monetization in the Early Middle Ages”. Past & Present 223: 3–39. Naismith, Rory. 2016. Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles 67. British Museum, Anglo-Saxon Coins II: Southern English Coinage from Offa to Alfred c. 760–880. London: British Museum Press. Naismith, Rory. 2017. Medieval European Coinage, with a Catalogue of the Coins in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. 8: Britain and Ireland c. 400–1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Okasha, Elisabeth. 1968. “The Non-Runic Scripts of Anglo-Saxon Inscriptions”. Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 4: 321–338. Okasha, Elisabeth. 1971. Hand-List of Anglo-Saxon Non-Runic Inscriptions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Okasha, Elisabeth. 1995. “Literacy in Anglo-Saxon England: The Evidence from Inscriptions”. Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History 8: 69–74. Page, Raymond I. 1999. An Introduction to English Runes. 2nd ed. Woodbridge: Boydell. PAS = Portable Antiquities Scheme. . Pirie, Elizabeth J. E. 1986. Post-Roman Coins from York Excavations 1971–81. London: Council for British Archaeology. Pliego Vázquez, Ruth. 2009. La moneda visigoda. 2 vols. Seville: Secretariado de Publicaciones, Universidad de Sevilla. SCBI = Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles. Screen, Elina. 2007. “Anglo-Saxon Law and Numismatics: A Reassessment in the Light of Patrick Wormald’s The Making of English Law”. British Numismatic Journal 77: 150–172. Sellwood, David. 1962. “Medieval Minting Techniques”. British Numismatic Journal 31: 57–65. Shaw, Philip A. 2013. “Adapting the Roman Alphabet for Writing Old English: Evidence from Coin Epigraphy and Single-Sheet Charters”. Early Medieval Europe 21: 115–139. Smart, Veronica. 1968. “Moneyers of the Late Anglo-Saxon Coinage 973–1016”. In: Nils L. Rasmusson and Lars O. Lagerqvist (eds.). Commentationes de Nummis Saeculorum IX–XI in Suecia Repertis: Pars Prima. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 191–276. Smart, Veronica. 1986. “Scandinavians, Celts and Germans in Anglo-Saxon England: The Evidence of Moneyers’ Names”. In: Mark A. S. Blackburn (ed.). Anglo-Saxon Monetary History: Essays in Memory of Michael Dolley. Leicester: Leicester University Press. 171–184. http://www.finds.org.uk/