The Coinage of William I in Kent

59 THE COINAGE OF WILLIAM I IN KENT peter bagwell purefoy As primary evidence for history, coins have a particular, fortunate, characteristic which is that more of them keep turning up. Many are not in public collections and the methods that are used for recording them vary considerably. The collective evidence provided by the whole body of coinage is significant and so it is important that the record should be understood and reviewed from time to time, taking account of not only coins in public collections but also as far as possible coins in private or commercial hands. These two groups are not usually studied together as they should be; the public collections are usually published but those in other hands present more of a problem even if a library of all the dealers’ catalogues is available. Nevertheless the work must be done if the whole body of coinage is to yield all its evidence. To cover the whole kingdom in this way is a huge task and it is better to take one county at a time. The aim of this paper is to present the evidence of the Conqueror’s coinage in Kent, that is to say of the coins known from the Kent mints and the non-Kent coins that have been, and still are being, found here, including everything known to the writer (as at April 2007). It is hoped that others will add to this record as time goes on so that it has a better claim to be comprehensive. To put the coins into context a brief historical background is given first. There will then be an overview of all the coins now known to exist from which it will be seen that three hoards in particular have a significant influence on the totals. Accompanying this paper, the full catalogue of all the known coins is published on the KAS website: kentarchaeology.ac. This provides sufficient detail to allow the reader to follow up the references if necessary and in one or two cases more information is given; for example, there is, or was, a coin of the Sandwich Mint which was apparently unique but before it was catalogued it disappeared along with its records, probably as a result of war damage. This paper and the website catalogue will provide the main record of that coin for the future.1 The Historical Setting Late Saxon Kent was a relatively prosperous county with a number of PETER BAGWELL PUREFOY 60 trading ports and a renowned cathedral city as its capital. Canterbury had been one of the main centres for minting the Anglo-Saxon coinage since the rule of Offa (790s). Rochester had acquired a mint by 810 and, together with London, these two Kentish mints produced much of the coinage for the South of England up to the 890s. London took over from Canterbury as the most important mint town and Canterbury was badly damaged by the Vikings in 892. The Canterbury mint reopened soon after 910 and under Aethelstan (924-939) there were Kentish mints in production at Canterbury, Rochester and Dover, identified from surviving coins. In c.973 King Eadgar reformed the coinage. He demonetized all previous issues of pennies, the only denomination, and imposed an entirely new system under which the obverse design of coins was to be standard throughout the kingdom while the reverse, also standard, was to bear the names of the moneyer and of the mint that produced the coin. All the dies were to be produced centrally and at the end of a fixed period the dies would be changed so that one ‘type’ would be replaced by another. All current old coins would then have to be changed for new and this was an opportunity for controlling the quality of coin in circulation and for collecting taxes. Initially the life of one type was set at six years but later this was shortened to, probably, two-three years. The use of foreign coin in England was not permitted; any such coin was melted down and re-minted into English coin. In this way the Anglo-Saxon silver coinage reached a high standard and was well respected internationally – so much so that the Normans made no attempt to alter the system during the reigns of William I and his sons. New mints opened all over the country during Eadgar’s reign (959- 975), with moneyers having to collect their dies from a central workshop, almost certainly in London, before producing their coin locally. In Kent, coins of this period have survived from two new mints – Lympne and Romney. Lympne had long since ceased to be a seaport but it continued as an administrative centre until c.1035, the last year for which coins have been found. It was replaced as a mint town, and as a port, by Hythe which features in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for 1052; also another mint opened at Sandwich under Edward the Confessor, c.1043. All the Kentish ports must have seen much Continental traffic, with foreign coin to be exchanged and processed. Hence the mints, apart from Canterbury, are found along the coast and many people will have had to travel long distances to change their money. The theory that mints were sited so that no customer would have to go more than fifteen miles to visit one does not hold good in Kent. Into this county, in October 1066 and after Hastings, came Duke William with his victorious army. He was not crowned king until Christmas Day and the first issue of his coinage must have begun soon after this. THE COINAGE OF WILLIAM I IN KENT 61 An Overview of the Coinage of William I in Kent Over the first two reigns of the Norman kings coins of thirteen successive types were issued, the first seven at least being those of William I (Table 1). They do not carry dates and there was no identifiable change in the representation of the ruler on the obverse when William II succeeded his father in 1087. They were both referred to in the legend as ‘King William’. Therefore although we can be sure that the first type did not begin until after Christmas Day in 1066 there is no certainty about the state of the coinage in 1087 and about which of the types was the last issue of William I. The reverses consisted of the legend naming the moneyer and the mint with a central design of a decorative nature incorporating a cross which would serve as a guide for cutting the coin into halves or quarters to make small change. With one possible exception the reverses do not seem to have any other meaning and George Brooke, the author of the British Museum Catalogue, thought that the designs could have come from a central stock of general patterns. The exception, the PAXS type, is discussed below. There will have been a call for much minting activity on the accession, calling in the coinage of Harold II and re-minting it for the new king. The moneyers who were responsible for this work appear to have been members of the business community, burgesses of the middle class, who may have been occupied not just in the manufacture of coins but in the provision of financial services generally – as moneylenders, money changers, even possibly as tax collectors. Their mints were not necessarily static; apart from a furnace for the preparation and heating of blank flans all the equipment was portable. Their work required skill and experience, to convert bullion into large quantities of coin quickly, producing the coin to the standard of weight and fineness specified by the king. This Table 1. A summary of the surviving coins of William I from the Kent mints I II III IV V VI VII VIII* Total Canterbury 24 3 4 10 23 4 6 106 180 Rochester 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 11 17 Sandwich 0 1 0 2 11 5 3 28 50 Dover 4 1 2 1 8 0 5 48 69 Hythe 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 16 20 Romney 57 0 0 0 5 2 1 26 91 Total 85 6 6 14 55 11 15 235 427 * Possibly William II or both reigns (see below the discussion of the PAXS reverse). PETER BAGWELL PUREFOY 62 seems to have been closely monitored and controlled. William needed the skills of the Anglo-Saxon moneyers, many of whom continued in office. One wonders if a significant number of Kentish moneyers were casualties at the Battle of Hastings; this may have a bearing on the generally low number of coins of the first four types that survive from the Kent mints apart from the Romney coins attributed to the Denge Marsh hoard – see below. Hoards of William I coins Of the over 400 surviving coins of William I minted in Kent, 120 have been recovered in hoards, the three most significant of which are described below. The Denge Marsh Hoard (Type I) This was discovered in June 1739 by a man digging a hole for a fence post near Dungeness. The record of the find is contained in the minute books of the Society of Antiquaries and in other contemporary works which have been discussed and re-presented by Metcalf.2 The hoard consisted of about 500 coins of Harold II and William I, all with profile heads and so all the coins of William I must have been of Type I. Their reverse legend showed that they were all struck by Wulfmaer at the Romney Mint. The position of the findspot is given as ‘a mile and a half from Dungeness Lighthouse . . . on the land late Payn’s, now Samuel Jeaks of Rye Esq’. The position is also given as 50.56 N., 0.57 E.; NGR TR 0519. These two map locations are separated by some 2,000m, which might be thought insignificant were it not for the archaeological study of the development of the coastline in that area which is carried on by the Romney Marsh Research Trust. In his paper ‘Romney Marsh in the Early Middle Ages’,3 Nicholas Brooks considered the changing composition and shape of the Dungeness headland and suggested the position of the coastline as it might have been in 774 and in 1287. Of the two map locations the more westerly one, TR 0519, is inland and would have been on soil of a reasonable quality in the eleventh century. The other spot probably consisted of nothing but damp shingle and would hardly have been selected as a place for the safe deposit of 500 coins. The debate continues and the ownership of the land has not yet been confirmed although Samuel Jeaks or Jeake is known as a barrister, the son of a trader in Romney Marsh wool, in the eighteenth century. It will be seen from Table 1 that at least 57 coins of Type I are known from the Romney Mint. All these coins were struck from the same pair of dies. Several scholars who have inspected groups of them have suspected THE COINAGE OF WILLIAM I IN KENT 63 that many will have come from this hoard, although only one coin has a provenance as ‘Found in Romney Marsh’. This is in the Ashmolean Museum; it was collected in the eighteenth century and it shares its dies with all the others. It is reasonable to suppose that all 57 of these coins came originally from the Denge Marsh hoard. Thirty of them are still in private hands, appearing in the market occasionally, and each year two or three more are revealed. None has ever been clearly shown to be of nonhoard provenance. The tentative conclusion to be drawn is that this hoard represented the savings of one individual who had recently visited the Romney Mint to change his old coin for new and had received what was due to him in a lump sum all from the same batch of a striking of Type I. Those were nervous times for Romney after the first violent visit by Duke William in 1066 and it would not have taken much to persuade the owner that the safest place for his spare money was out of the way in the ground, especially when more trouble blew up along the coast, first from Eustace and then from Swein. Seven hundred years later the spot that he had chosen was on the line of a fence and this could well have been so in the eleventh century also, providing him with the landmark that he needed when visiting his cache, until eventually he did not come back. The Scaldwell Hoard (Type V) In 1916 a paper was published in the British Numismatic Journal entitled ‘A Hoard of Coins of William the Conqueror found in a trench in the War Area’.4 The opening passage was: During the autumn of 1914 a party of men whilst engaged in digging a trench were fortunate enough to discover a hoard of 264 silver pennies ... With but one exception the coins are of the Two Star type of William I. The author then gave what he called a ‘complete list’ of the coins but only 168 coins are listed (of Type V – Two Stars). No indication was given of the findspot or of the whereabouts of the coins in 1916. This became known as the War Area Hoard and for some time it was thought that it came from Flanders, although nobody tried to explain why such a group of coins would have found its way there. Another report was made of a hoard found at Scaldwell in Northamptonshire, which appeared to be similar but as recently as 1981 it was reported as having escaped the treasure trove net with no list of its contents having been made.5 However a connection between the two had been made by Michael Dolley in 1957. He deduced that the author had deliberately concealed the findspot to avoid any treasure trove enquiry during the war but had published the details of the coins in the interest of numismatics. He thought that the 96 coins that were not listed must have been die duplicates of others in the list. His explanation has been accepted and PETER BAGWELL PUREFOY 64 the hoard which used to be named for the ‘War Area’ is now called after Scaldwell. Table 1 shows that 55 coins of Type V from the Kent mints have been identified. Of these, 18 have ‘War Area’ or Scaldwell as their provenance and 14 could not have come from that source, having been recorded elsewhere before the date of Scaldwell or from single finds later. This leaves a balance of 23 coins unattributed. Some or all of these might have originated from Scaldwell, but overall it does appear that even without that hoard the level of minting activity in Kent in Type V was higher than usual. The presence of products from all six Kentish mints at Scaldwell probably indicates that these coins came from a central or treasury source, having been collected by taxation and were then used for royal purposes during the strife-torn period after the earls’ revolt of 1075. The PAXS reverse of Type VIII and the Beauworth Hoard The PAXS reverse of Type VIII did not come from a stock design. It consisted of the usual cross with the letters P A X S in the four quadrants, forming that word if they are read clockwise starting from P – which was not always placed in the first quadrant. The word is of course correctly spelt as PAX but a fourth letter was needed to fill the fourth quadrant, as when a similar design was used by Edward the Confessor (PACX). This had been Edward’s first issue, and PAX appears again on the first and only issue of Harold II – this time as a three letter word when there was no cross on the reverse. Why should these two kings have chosen ‘peace’ as the motif of their first coinage? Marion Archibald has suggested that the word stands for the King’s Peace, which died with him and was re-proclaimed at his successor’s coronation. If this argument is accepted, the type VIII issue of William might be the first issue of William II, by reference to his coronation oath, just as with Edward and Harold. His father William I took that oath but he seems to have preferred a neutral design in 1066. Arguments for the dating of Type VIII tend to be coloured by the large numbers of coins that have survived from this issue. The Beauworth Hoard has a major influence here. 235 coins of Type VIII from Kent have survived, far more than of any other type, but some of them could not have come from Beauworth and this type would have appeared as a large issue even if that hoard had not been found. Beauworth is seven miles east of Winchester. In 1833 some children there discovered a lead canister in the ground containing thousands of coins. The owner of the land took charge of about 6,500 coins all of which were examined by Edward Hawkins, Keeper of Antiquities at the British Museum. He published a full account of his findings in Archaeologia, xxvi, and his full text was repeated in Ruding’s Annals of the Coinage of Great Britain (3rd edition 1840). THE COINAGE OF WILLIAM I IN KENT 65 Hawkins listed over 6,000 coins by mint and by moneyer. A representative selection of about 800 of these coins then entered the British Museum collection. They are noted there as having come from this hoard and one might think that any other coin that did not match the description given by Hawkins could not have come from the hoard. But soon after the original examination more coins started to turn up. In his book The Silver Coins of England, published in 1841,6 Hawkins described how ‘Some thousands more, in packages of various magnitudes, which had been dishonestly withheld from the proprietor, afterwards found their way to London and were examined by the author or his friends’. But he did not publish the details of this second group beyond saying that it was similar to the first and that the hoard consisted in all of scarcely less than 12,000 coins. We must conclude that, since the hoard was so large and was dispersed, any Type VIII coin that cannot be shown to have come from elsewhere probably came out of the ground at Beauworth. Of the 235 Type VIII coins that are known from Kent 82 were recorded as from Beauworth and another 13 have other provenances; 140 are unattributed. Their dates are problematical; it is unlikely that the issue opened before 1086 and William I died in September 1087; in the hoard as a whole 66 mints were represented and from the six Kent mints the names of 20 moneyers appear on the coins. In Brooke’s interpretation Type VIII is dated 1086-1087 with the issue being cut short by the Conqueror’s death. But there is a strong argument against this. Even after discounting Beauworth, from which thousands of coins were dispersed, there are more coins surviving from Type VIII with different provenances than from any other type. More moneyers than usual were employed in Type VIII; there must have been a demand for extra coin when minting began and the rate of production must have risen. Would this extra quantity have been produced in half the usual time, as Brooke’s dating would imply? Overall, this PAXS type does not look like an issue that was cut short by the king’s death. It is even possible that it overlapped the two reigns; there is nothing to show that it did not. In 1966 Michael Dolley preferred to place this issue in the calendar at a time when we know that there would have been a high demand for coin, 1083-1086. The hoard appeared to have come from royal revenues and this period would have covered the six shilling geld of 1083/84 and the Danish threat of 1085 which resulted in the employment of many foreign mercenaries, so explaining the numbers of Type VIII coins that have been found in Scandinavia. But more recent discoveries of coins from Wales support the view of Marion Archibald already mentioned, that Type VIII was the first issue of William II and should be dated 1087-1090. The Type VIII coins from Kent do not throw any light on this discussion but there has to be a decision about whether to include Type VIII with the Conqueror’s coinage or to attribute it to his son. In all the published PETER BAGWELL PUREFOY 66 catalogues and dealers’ lists the type is attributed to William I, following Brooke, and the same treatment will be given to it here. Kentish finds of William I coins minted outside the County Only five coins of William I from non-Kent mints have been recorded as having been found in the county since the present recording process was established: TABLE 2. THE KENTISH FINDS OF WILL IAM I COINS MINTE D EL SEW HERE Type Mint and Moneyer 1 IV Warwick - Thorketill Found at Darenth, TQ 57 72, in 1989 during excavations for gravel. New type for this moneyer. 2 V Thetford - Coenric Found on Denge Marsh, TR 05 20 3 VIII Thetford - Aelfwine Found at Bekesbourne in 1991 on farmland. Pierced at 1 o’c. 4 VIII London - Edric Found at Seasalter, TR 09 65, in 1987. Canterbury museum. 5 VIII Lincoln - Siferth Found under the pews of St Mary’s Church, Bexley, in 1883. Bexley museum. The fifth item calls for comment. A church at Bexley is mentioned in the Domesday Book but the present church authorities believe that the Saxon church was replaced by a new one in the twelfth or thirteenth century. St Mary’s was drastically restored in 1883 to the extent that ‘evidence that might have contributed to the formation of a coherent architectural history has been almost entirely obliterated’.7 However this PAXS coin of Lincoln was found there under the pews during the restoration work. Unless it was lost there by a Victorian collector the coin probably found its way there in the eleventh century and fell through a crack. The latest date for its minting would have been 1090, per Archibald, and even if it did not arrive in Bexley for some time afterwards it must show that the church was open in the last decade of the eleventh century. So it seems that this is not a replacement for the original Saxon church, but the original church itself. Another PAXS coin by Siferth has been found in London. THE COINAGE OF WILLIAM I IN KENT 67 The Kent mints – Moneyers and Findspots Canterbury It does not seem likely that William would have allowed the coins of the ‘usurper’ Harold to remain as legal tender for long. The mint must have been especially busy at the start of the first issue, with coins to be produced for the new ruler promptly. This may explain the survival of a few more coins than usual from that issue for Canterbury but only three moneyers can be identified with certainty (see Table 3). At least two others are possible; a moneyer called Aelfred had been active until Edward’s last two issues and an Aelfred strikes from Type IV onwards. An Alfred who might be of the same family features in Urry’s ‘Earliest Table 3. Moneyers at the KENT Mint S and their coins EC* H* I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI CANTERBURY Aelfred y 2 9 2 1 19 y y Aethelric (Ielrei) y Aethelwine 1 Beorhtwold 16 y y y Burnod 2 Brunman Eadweard y y 9 Godric 2 7 Gyldwine y 1 Manna y y 5 3 1 5 11 Sigemaer (Simier) 1 1 18 y Winedaeg 1 21 y y y Wulbold 1 10 y Wulfraed ? 10 1 Wulfric 2 3 13 Wulfwine 1 1 Total coins per type 24 3 4 10 23 4 6 106 ROCHESTER Leofstan y 1 1 7 Leofwine Horn y 3 4 Total coins per type 1 1 3 11 PETER BAGWELL PUREFOY 68 EC* H* I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI SANDWICH Adalbot 1 Aelfgeat 1 11 2 7 Aelfheah 2 9 Aebe..ne (Aethelwine?) 1 Godwine 1 1 12 Wulfword 1 Total coins per type 1 2 11 4 3 28 DOVER Brunman 1 3 Cinstan y y 1 Edword 1 2 Godwine y 3 Goldwine 12 Leofwine 2 19 Leofstan (1) Lufic Lulfric/Lufric/ Wulfric Manwine y 4 1 1 1 4 Total coins per type 4 1 2 1 7 6 49 (50 HYTHE Edred (Eadraed) 4 16 Total coins per type 4 16 ROMNEY Wulfmaer 57 10 Aelmaer 5 1 Winedi 1 14 Wulfnoth 1 Total coins per Type 57 5 2 1 24 GRAND TOTAL COINS 85 6 6 14 53 10 16 235 [Total active moneyers] [5] [4] [6] [8] [9] [8] [13] [22] * EC = Last issue of Edward the Confessor; H = Harold II. THE COINAGE OF WILLIAM I IN KENT 69 list of the citizens of Canterbury’.8 He would be of suitable standing to be a moneyer, and the list also includes a Wulfraed and a Wulfric. Gyldwine had struck in every issue and the name is in Canterbury again for Type III. Without more coins we can only speculate about others but it is clear that in Canterbury the Anglo-Saxon moneyers carried on and stayed in office for several subsequent issues. Of the twelve Canterbury ‘unknowns’ in Type V (Table 4) only four Table 4. Findspots of the coins from KENTISH MINTS I II III IV V VI VII VIII CANTERBURY York – Jubbergate Hoard 1 – Monkgate Hoard 2 Scaldwell Hoard 5 London – St Mary Hill Hoard 1 – Thames Exchange 1 – Billingsgate 2 Surrey – Beddington Park 1 Beauworth Hoard 1 1 42 Kent – St George’s St, Cby 1 Sweden 1 1 1 4 Denmark 2 Poland 1 Unknown provenance 23 2 3 8 12 2 3 44 Total 23 3 4 9 21 4 5 96 ROCHESTER York – Bishophill II Hoard 1 Scaldwell Hoard 2 Beauworth Hoard 4 Sweden 1 Unknown provenance 1 1 6 Total 1 1 3 11 SANDWICH York – Monkgate Hoard 1 Scaldwell Hoard 7 Beauworth Hoard 4 Kent – Canterbury – Marlowe 1 Sweden 2 1 Unknown provenance 1 2 3 3 1 23 Total 1 2 11 4 3 28 PETER BAGWELL PUREFOY 70 could match ‘War Area Scaldwell’ records but at present they are not considered to be duplicates. Canterbury has therefore produced at least a dozen Type V coins that were not in the Scaldwell Hoard. In Type VIII most of the ‘unknowns’ could be extra Beauworth coins. The presence of a few coins in York probably reflects normal circulation through taxation and then payment to soldiers. The finds at Thames Exchange and Billingsgate were finds by metal detector in the spoil from recent development sites and may represent casual losses of coins or hoards that were dispersed during building works. The find in Canterbury was a casual loss.9 The Beddington Park find is a particularly interesting one. This coin was found with two pennies of the Thetford Mint and one cut halfpenny I II III IV V VI VII VIII DOVER York – Jubbergate Hoard 1 Midlands – Tamworth Hoard 1 Scaldwell Hoard 2 Beauworth Hoard 18 London – Thames Exchange 2 Kent – Bekesbourne 1 Sweden 1 Denmark 1 Unknown provenance 4 1 2 1 5 3 27 Total 4 1 2 1 7 6 49 HYTHE Scaldwell Hoard 1 Cambs. – Yelling 1 Beauworth Hoard 4 Lympne 1 Unknown Provenance 1 12 Total 4 16 ROMNEY Scaldwell Hoard 3 Beauworth Hoard 8 Denge Marsh Hoard 1/56 Kent – Barham 1 Sweden 1 Unknown Provenance 2 1 16 Total 57 5 2 1 24 GRAND TOTAL 84 6 6 13 51 10 15 224 THE COINAGE OF WILLIAM I IN KENT 71 of London, on land that may have belonged to Bishop Odo of Bayeux. Marion Archibald has pointed out that Odo had taken a force to the Thetford area to deal with the rebellion of the earls in 1075 and this coin could have come back in a soldier’s pocket. Two other coins of the Thetford Mint have been found, in Kent, and are included in Table 2. The Type III coin found at St Mary Hill Church is likely to have been in somebody’s savings originally. A good number of coins were found in that hoard, in 1774, of Types I, II, III and IV, from various mints but only a few of them were described. Rochester So few coins have been recovered that it is not possible to come to many firm conclusions about Rochester. Leofstan and Leofwine Horn both feature as moneyers during Edward’s reign in some issues. Neither of these two appears to have struck for William II; the moneyers recorded in the British Museum Catalogue for first three issues of the latter are Guthred and Aelfstan. Sandwich Anthony Freeman has pointed out that the mint at Sandwich was unusually close to its neighbours at Canterbury and Dover and this may account for the apparent lack of activity in the early part of William’s reign. There cannot have been a regular demand for the product of all three mints. The first four types are represented by only three records and the surviving coins themselves are elusive; the Type II of Aethelwine was sold (and illustrated) by Baldwin in May 2005 (sale number 40 Lot 119); the Type IV of Adalbot was apparently seen by Brooke but the coin itself is not known and the Type IV of Alfgeat was held by the museum at Liverpool before 1941 but was lost, probably in a fire or subsequent looting in that year. Consequently it escaped publication in SCBI 29 (Merseyside County Museums 1982) and, apart from a handwritten record made by the Museum before 1941,10 the only record and illustration now is the entry in BNJ VII , plate XXI, published in 1911. As the coin is or would be unique this is an important record. The British Museum has a cast of a Type VI coin by Aelfheah but the origin is not known and the coin is not included here. Dover The Dover moneyers were able to keep going despite the looting and burning of the town in 1066, the raid by Eustace of Boulogne in 1067 and the attack by the sons of Swein in 1069. It seems likely that the mint would have been safely in the castle so that Manwine could keep on PETER BAGWELL PUREFOY 72 striking, possibly with Brunman throughout. As with Canterbury, there is a marked increase in the number of moneyers for Types VII and VIII. The name Brunman comes up in certain other contexts. There was a moneyer of that name at Canterbury in the first part of Edward the Confessor’s reign but we have nothing from him for the Confessor’s last six issues. At Canterbury also, Brunman features in a charter dated between 1093 and 1109 as one of the knights of the Chapmangild who exchanged certain land with the convent of Christ Church. In Domesday Book for Canterbury: A reeve, named Brunman, took the customs from foreign merchants before 1066 in the land of Holy Trinity and of St Augustine’s; after 1066 he acknowledged before Archbishop Lanfranc and the Bishop of Bayeux that he had received them wrongfully; he swore on the Sacrament that these churches had their customs exempt before 1066. From then on both churches had their customs in their land by the judgement of the King’s barons, who tried the case. If this was Brunman, the Dover moneyer, he would seem to have held that office in a part time capacity combining it with, at least, the collection of customs dues at Canterbury and the duties of a reeve there. Maybe his trial brought his work as a moneyer to an abrupt end during or after Type V. Other coins named for Brunman have been found at Chichester for Types I, IV, V, VI, VIII and the first four types of William II, but this looks like a different person. Leofstan has been included because Hawkins noted one coin of his for Dover in the Beauworth Hoard, but the coin itself has not been traced and is not included here. A Leofstan struck at Rochester in Type VIII, some distance from Dover, but this was probably a different man. Of the Type V coins, three, by Brunman, were not listed by Carlyon- Britton as being ‘War Area’ coins. One other was probably bequeathed to Christ Church, Oxford, in 1765 and so was found before the Scaldwell or War Area find. Thus from Dover there are four Type V coins that probably did not come from Scaldwell and only one other that might match a Scaldwell record. The Tamworth Hoard coin struck by Goldwine is the only representative there from Kent. The hoard contained coins of Type VIII and of the first two types of William II and so one might conjecture that the Type VIII coins were struck late in the issue and that therefore Goldwine was working at Dover late in the issue. But after Type VIII he disappears until the first issue of Henry I. Hythe Coins of the reign of Edward the Confessor from Hythe have only been THE COINAGE OF WILLIAM I IN KENT 73 found for alternate issues, each issue being struck by a different moneyer. For William I we have no coins until Type V for which there are four coins by Edred, who also strikes Type VIII and the first three issues of William II. For Type VIII he shares at least one obverse die with Godric of Canterbury. At Yelling, where one Type V coin was found on the surface, the coin shares its reverse die with a Scaldwell coin. For the moment it appears that Hythe played only a minor role in the provision of coin in Kent, at least until the second half of the Conqueror’s reign. The mint may only have opened when a particular need arose, using a visiting moneyer. It was evidently founded when the Lympne mint closed down after 1035, and the port was active before 1052. Perhaps the function of the mint in its early years was merely to exchange foreign coin. Romney Wulfmaer struck at Romney throughout the reign of Edward the Confessor – there are only two issues for which no coins are known – and for Harold II. Throughout this time Romney was busy as a port and as a single moneyer mint. The mint must have been in what is now known as Old Romney. For William I, apart from Type I with the Denge Marsh Hoard, we have no knowledge of minting activity here before Type V. Wulfnoth has emerged as a moneyer for Romney (Type VI) from a single find by metal detector in 1998. Winedi may provide a link with Canterbury. A moneyer of the same name struck Type VIII there. According to Hawkins the ‘Winedi’ contribution to the Beauworth Hoard was 14 coins from Romney using at least four reverse dies and 58 coins from Canterbury from at least seven reverse dies. Winedi may have visited Canterbury for a spell during Type VIII, striking at Romney also and also striking there in Type VII and during the next reign. We have 35 Winedi Type VIII coins in all from the two mints. Links of this nature may eventually help to solve the problem of the dating of the PAXS issue. Conclusions In studying the Conqueror’s coinage in Kent one of the main difficulties for the modern numismatist is the lack of coordination in the older records of existing coins but this is being overcome with modern database techniques. Another outstanding difficulty is the dating of the successive issues of the coinage. Generally, the picture as it can be seen today is of a well organised and busy coinage system that was taken over from the Anglo-Saxons and continued with very little interruption. In turn any new evidence of dates would be helpful in supporting studies of other aspects of the social history of the times. PETER BAGWELL PUREFOY 74 endn otes 1 For readers who do not have easy access to the internet a printed copy of the catalogue can be supplied on application to the Editor. 2 M. Metcalf, ‘Find Records of Medieval Coins from Gough’s ‘Camden’s Britannia’, Numismatic Chronicle, XVII, 1957, 181 ff. 3 Romney Marsh – Evolution, Occupation, Reclamation, Jill Eddison and Christopher Green (eds), Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monograph No. 24, 1988. 4 British Numismatic Journal, XII, 1916. 5 Coin Hoards, VI, 1981, No. 375. 6 See 3rd (1887) edition, p. 168. 7 F.C. Elliston-Erwood, ‘Plans and Brief Architectural Notes on Kent Churches’, Archaeologia Cantiana, lxv (1952), 140-43. 8 W.G. Urry Canterbury under the Angevin Kings, University of London, 1967. 9 P. Blockley, ‘Excavations at No. 41 St George’s Street, Canterbury, 1985’, Archaeologia Cantiana, cv (1988), 109, 176. 10 Information from Margaret Warhurst, Head of Humanities, World Museum, Liverpool (author of SCBI 29).