Big Vikings, Little Coins

[Nicholas 51]

My turn for a silly question. I've always wondered why the York Viking money (and I suppose most Anglo Saxon money) comprised mostly of very small silver pennies??

[HistoricCoinage 146]

It is to do with the weight standard. Alfred the Great had set the weight standard for pennies at 1.6g with many continental deniers being heavier at about 1.75g but the Viking coinage of York (at least the Regal/Royal coinage) was about 1.3g with the earlier Danelaw issues being about 1.35g. These low weights, which probably correspond to their lesser diameter, are completely in line with the East Anglian and Northumbrian issues prior to the Viking invasion.

My take is that the weight, and therefore size to some degree, is noticeably different in order to separate the Viking coinage as independent from the other 'English' issues. These issues were also different in terms of value and design, showing that there were different priorities and levels of organisation between the Scandinavian settlers and the so called Saxons.

[HistoricCoinage 146]

I notice that your question also relates to other Anglo-Saxon coinage, too. I suppose the size would be limited by the weight standard adopted by the Kings. There's probably only so large you could get a 1.6g bit of silver with the technology provided.

[Nicholas 51]

Very interesting! I guess though my question is more about how much you could buy with a penny and no larger denominations. How would you buy a boat or house with single pennies?

[HistoricCoinage 146]

Very interesting! I guess though my question is more about how much you could buy with a penny and no larger denominations. How would you buy a boat or house with single pennies?

Don't forget that the economy was not purely coinage-based, though. The hacksilver and associated ingots formed a large part of the silver economy but there were also other things traded by the Scandinavians, from furs to butter. Commodities formed a major portion of any large purchase during the Viking period and much of the subsequent centuries.

[Nicholas 51]

Ok! Makes sense. So pennies were used for smaller specific transactions?

[TomGoodheart 403]

I have to say I'd not really thought about this before in those terms.

So would the later introduction of additional denominations like farthings and groats suggest an increasingly monetary based economy Clive?

And despite that, I'm guessing that barter still played a major part in most people's lives through to the end of the mediaeval period (or possibly later), yes?

[HistoricCoinage 146]

Ok! Makes sense. So pennies were used for smaller specific transactions?

Potentially, but also for more official uses. If one looks at the extreme rise of money in the late 10th and 11th centuries it can be attributed to the Danegeld payments, much of which was in coin.

I would also imagine that the coins represented a way of storing wealth. Probably longer-lasting than a chicken and easier to maintain, provided you safely stashed it.

[HistoricCoinage 146]

I have to say I'd not really thought about this before in those terms.

So would the later introduction of additional denominations like farthings and groats suggest an increasingly monetary based economy Clive?

And despite that, I'm guessing that barter still played a major part in most people's lives through to the end of the mediaeval period (or possibly later), yes?

Very much so. It probably also explains why the halfpenny issues of the Late Saxon and Norman periods never really took off, whereas the 13th and 14th centuries represents a much more politically-organised and complex society & economy.

With regard to barter, yes. The later medieval period would still very much have relied upon barter and exchange for day-to-day workings.

[Peckris 579]

Very interesting! I guess though my question is more about how much you could buy with a penny and no larger denominations. How would you buy a boat or house with single pennies?

I don't think you bought much in Saxon times, not on a village level anyway. Houses (huts) were built specifically for the incoming population, and boats would have been a shared resource, particularly longboats which your average villager inland wouldn't have seen anyway. Military service to the ruling earl was required, and in return you got citizenship which gave you a voice in the councils. For your daily requirements you farmed your own little patch and also farmed for the whole village; you'd have kept a pig and maybe a few chickens if you were lucky. You made your own furniture, and maybe traded your surplus for the occasional piece of jewellery, which would have been VERY rare!

I imagine that silver coins were mostly used by higher level Saxons & Vikings in return for large transactions, such as building longboats and equipping an army, or building large communal structures like bridges and churches.

[HistoricCoinage 146]

I imagine that silver coins were mostly used by higher level Saxons & Vikings in return for large transactions, such as building longboats and equipping an army, or building large communal structures like bridges and churches.

Indeed. Very large projects would have been paid for by weights of silver, often in coin. Other transactions, like the sale of farms, are noted down as having been paid in commodities:

"On 4 January 1346, in Våle, Vestfold, four witnesses testified that Kolbein Simonsson had sold Torleiv Eiriksson a share in the farm Olumstad worth 32 kyrlag. The following payment was made (the document’s value assessments in brackets): 1 red horse (4 kyrlag), 2 bulls (5 kyrlag), 7 cows, 1 bullock (1 kyrlag), various types of cloth (9 kfrlag), 8 laupa butter (4 kfrlag), 2 pounds grain and 2 laupa butter (2 kyrlag)".

Gift giving and commodity trading still made up a large part of transactions, at least in the late Viking Age. Money often acts as a unit of account or storage.

Edited December 29, 2013 by HistoricCoinage

[Coinery 1,156]

Really interesting post! Great stuff!

[azda 979]

I assume that the more variety denominations was Party to do with a larger population and for those who did'nt have anything to Barter with. Not all peasants had land or animals to exchange and had to work for the local boss. Is this a fair assumption?

[HistoricCoinage 146]

...the 13th and 14th centuries represents a much more politically-organised and complex society & economy.

I assume that the more variety denominations was Party to do with a larger population and for those who did'nt have anything to Barter with. Not all peasants had land or animals to exchange and had to work for the local boss. Is this a fair assumption?

Indeed. That's what I was getting at as a part of a more complex economy - moving slightly further away from barter to a centralised control that, let's not forget, could be more easily taxed and controlled by the monarch and his government.

[Nicholas 51]

Ok so the use of liver pennies may have have been used more frequently by the higher class Vikings/Saxons. Still does not answer why there weren't larger denomination coins. How many pennies would be needed to buy a longboat or pay for larger projects..Hundreds and hundreds?

[Nicholas 51]

Sorry, silver pennies.

[HistoricCoinage 146]

Still does not answer why there weren't larger denomination coins. How many pennies would be needed to buy a longboat or pay for larger projects..Hundreds and hundreds?

As I said earlier, such a thing might have been paid for in terms of raw silver - either as ingots, hacksilver or coin - alternatively there are other commodities to be used for payment/trade. If the sale of a farm did not involve any coin then I'm doubtful that a longboat would have been much different.

Edited December 30, 2013 by HistoricCoinage

[Peckris 579]

Still does not answer why there weren't larger denomination coins. How many pennies would be needed to buy a longboat or pay for larger projects..Hundreds and hundreds?

As I said earlier, such a thing might have been paid for in terms of raw silver - either as ingots, hacksilver or coin - alternatively there are other commodities to be used for payment/trade. If the sale of a farm did not involve any coin then I'm doubtful that a longboat would have been much different.

Exactly. Money was not the be-all and end-all of economic activity in Anglo Saxon times. Far less in fact, than it was in Roman times. I imagine that one powerful reason for the existence of the silver penny was its political statement with the name or even effigy of the king on one side - what more efficacious way would there be for someone like Offa to have his subjects see that he was the ruler and commanded the sources of wealth?

Also, bear in mind that longboats weren't built or owned by individuals, just as tanks and aircraft carriers aren't today. No bars of gold or banknotes or even cheques are handed over when a warship is built today - it's simply a deficit in the Ministry of Defence's budget, no actual money changes hands.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Peckris

[Accumulator 52]

Also, bear in mind that longboats weren't built or owned by individuals, just as tanks and aircraft carriers aren't today. No bars of gold or banknotes or even cheques are handed over when a warship is built today - it's simply a deficit in the Ministry of Defence's budget, no actual money changes hands.

You mean the South Koreans accept bank transfers then?

[Peckris 579]

Also, bear in mind that longboats weren't built or owned by individuals, just as tanks and aircraft carriers aren't today. No bars of gold or banknotes or even cheques are handed over when a warship is built today - it's simply a deficit in the Ministry of Defence's budget, no actual money changes hands.

You mean the South Koreans accept bank transfers then?

I meant OUR building warships for OURSELVES!

[Accumulator 52]

Also, bear in mind that longboats weren't built or owned by individuals, just as tanks and aircraft carriers aren't today. No bars of gold or banknotes or even cheques are handed over when a warship is built today - it's simply a deficit in the Ministry of Defence's budget, no actual money changes hands.

You mean the South Koreans accept bank transfers then?

I meant OUR building warships for OURSELVES!

But wouldn't we need a shipyard for that?

[Peckris 579]

Also, bear in mind that longboats weren't built or owned by individuals, just as tanks and aircraft carriers aren't today. No bars of gold or banknotes or even cheques are handed over when a warship is built today - it's simply a deficit in the Ministry of Defence's budget, no actual money changes hands.

You mean the South Koreans accept bank transfers then?

I meant OUR building warships for OURSELVES!

But wouldn't we need a shipyard for that?

Precisely - I'm assuming the Clyde or similar would be used is which an existing asset. (If built in S Korea, it would be part of our balance of payments deficit - eventually we would have to pay up but not in the form of coins, banknotes or cheques!). Money is of course involved in the not inconsiderable costs of materials, fees, and salaries, but they were not exactly a big consideration in Anglo-Saxon times. You were a warleader - you wanted a longboat - you got your serfs to cut down a few trees on your land - you might have paid an expert shipbuilder but that might have been an ingot of gold or silver, or a prime farm, or your daughter's hand in marriage, or an oxen or two - then your ship would have been crewed by your own indentured warriors who were paid handsomely by not having their heads lopped off

Ok, some jesting there, but in truth there was only fractional use for money back then compared to now. It was the rise of towns and the middle classes that stimulated the money economy.

[davidrj 194]

. It was the rise of towns and the middle classes that stimulated the money economy.

True! The lack of coins and the return to a barter economy, has been postulated for the demise of towns after the Romans left

[copper123 1,487]

A few viking hoards have been found and most have contained silver ingots so it is very probable these were their prefered method of exchange .

They might have had little use for coins themselves as silver ingots would be easier to transport and take back with them - probably the ingots were made in the uk out of coins and any other valueables they might have picked up .

Also silver is really heavy and the only metal close to it is lead which would be to soft to pass off as silver with any sort of ease , silver being very shiny and lead tarnishing so fast.

[Rob 3,152]

Silver isn't that dense. It's only 15% denser than copper and about same amount less dense than lead. Gold is a different matter being 80%+ denser than silver. Far more likely is copper or bronze with a silver dip.