The coinages of Pippin I and II of Aquitaine, Revue numismatique6 31 (1989), pp. 194-222

Simon Coupland

The coinages of Pippin I and II of AquitaineIn: Revue numismatique, 6e série - Tome 31, année 1989 pp. 194-222.

AbstractSummary. — Of the coins produced in the name of a King Pippin of Aquitaine in the ninth century, only portrait deniers with thelegend Aquitaniorum should be attributed to Pippin I; all others are of Pippin II. The latter can only have minted in Aquitainebetween 845 and 848, except at Toulouse, where production perhaps continued from 844 to 849. Stylistic considerations permitthe attribution to Bordeaux of Pippin II 's Aquitaniorum deniers, his Aquitania oboles and some Christiana religio issues, whichwere also struck at Dax and above all at Melle. As for the Aquitanian economy under Pippin II, the numismatic evidence revealsthe fragmentation of the kingdom and the weakness of royal power.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Coupland Simon. The coinages of Pippin I and II of Aquitaine. In: Revue numismatique, 6e série - Tome 31, année 1989 pp.194-222.

doi : 10.3406/numi.1989.1945

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/numi_0484-8942_1989_num_6_31_1945

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_numi_308

http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/numi.1989.1945

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/numi_0484-8942_1989_num_6_31_1945

Simon COUPLAND*

THE COINAGES OF PIPPIN I AND II OF AQUITAINE**

(PL XX)

Résumé. — Des monnaies émises au nom d'un roi Pépin d'Aquitaine au ixe siècle, seuls les deniers au portrait à la légende Aquitaniorum doivent être attribués à Pépin Ier; les autres sont toutes de Pépin II. Celui-ci n'a pu frapper en Aquitaine qu'entre 845 et 848, sauf à Toulouse, où la frappe a peut-être duré de 844 à 849. Des considérations stylistiques permettent d'attribuer à Bordeaux les deniers de Pépin II Aquitaniorum, les oboles d Aquilania et quelques-unes des monnaies Christiana religio, qui étaient aussi fabriquées à Dax et surtout à Melle. Quant à l'économie de l'Aquitaine sous Pépin II, les données numismatiques révèlent la désintégration du royaume et la faiblesse du pouvoir royal.

Summary. — Of the coins produced in the name of a King Pippin of Aquitaine in the ninth century, only portrait deniers with the legend Aquitaniorum should be attributed to Pippin I; all others are of Pippin II. The latter can only have minted in Aquitaine between 845 and 848, except at Toulouse, where production perhaps continued from 844 to 849. Stylistic considerations permit the attribution to Bordeaux of Pippin II 's Aquitaniorum deniers, his Aquitania oboles and some Christiana religio issues, which were also struck at Dax and above all at Melle. As for the Aquitanian economy under Pippin II, the numismatic evidence reveals the fragmentation of the kingdom and the weakness of royal power.

The Aquitanian coinages struck by Pippin I (817-838) and his son Pippin II (whose regnal dates are usually given as 839-852) have not previously been the subject of a detailed study in print. A paper on the subject which Duplessy delivered to the Belgian Numismatic

* Ridley Hall, Cambridge CB 3 9HG. ** I would like to express my gratitude to the Leverhulme Trust for the grant of a scholarship enabling me to spend a year studying Carolingian coinage at the Cabinet des Médailles in Paris, to the staff there for their assistance during my stay, and to Mark Blackburn for commenting on an earlier draft of this article.

Revue numismatique, 1989, 6e série, XXXI, p. 194-222.

THE COINAGES OF PIPPIN I AND II 195

Society in 1978 was never published in full, but summarised in a note which was not even written by Duplessy himself.1 The present article aims to put right this deficiency by examining the coinages in depth, with particular reference to:

i) the question of the attribution of the coinages to Pippin I or Pippin II;

ii) the chronology of minting; iii) the identification of the mints producing the Christiana religio

and Aquitania issues; iv) the scale of production at the various mints; v) the nature of the economy under Pippin II.

Pippin I or Pippin II?

The coins which were minted in the name of a King Pippin of Aquitaine survive in a remarkable number of types. On the majority of coins the obverse bears the royal title PIP(P)INVSREX, sometimes with the additional qualification EQ, for Equitaniorum, around a cross. However, all coins of Pippin from Bourges and some of those with the mint-name AQVITANIORVM bear a royal portrait on the obverse, while the obverse field of oboles (half-deniers) from Melle is filled by a monogram of PIPINVSR. There are also a variety of reverse designs. The Bourges portrait coinage and most oboles depict the mint-name in field in two or three lines; coins from Aquitaniorum (both the portrait coinage and other issues with a pelleted cross on the obverse) portray a temple on the reverse, as do deniers and oboles from Dax, and the anonymous Christiana religio issues. Deniers and oboles from Toulouse and deniers from Melle have the mint-name around a monogram of PIPINVS, while the mint- name encircles a cross on deniers and some oboles from Limoges, as well as on oboles from Melle.

There has been widespread disagreement and confusion among numismatists concerning the attribution of these different types to Pippin I or Pippin II. Fougères and Combrouse, writing in the 1830s, left the matter open by simply listing the coins as minted by "Pépin d'Aquitaine".2 Some fifty years later, Gariel cited the evidence of two recently discovered hoards to show that coins of Pippin bearing a monogram were in circulation at the same time as coins of Charles the Bald, and should therefore be attributed to

1. J. Duplessy, Numismatique de Pépin II, roi d'Aquitaine (839-864), RBN 1978, p. 217.

2. F. Fougères and G. Combrouse, Description complète et raisonnée des monnaies de la deuxième race royale de France, Paris, 1837, p. 16.

196 SIMON COUPLAND

Pippin II. Gariel also ascribed the Bourges portrait coinage to Pippin II, although without explanation, and presumed that all other types were minted by Pippin I.3

Engel and Serrure concurred with Gariel's attribution of the monogram coinage to Pippin II, and adduced stylistic and hoard evidence to argue that coins bearing a temple or the mint-name in field on the reverse should be ascribed to Pippin I.4 The arguments put forward by Engel and Serrure have long been recognised as flawed, in particular because of their mistaken belief that the temple coinage of Carolus in the same hoards as the coins of Pippin was struck by Charlemagne, rather than Charles the Bald. Even so, their attributions were repeated by Frère in his recent monograph on Carolingian coinage, where the author also ascribed the Limoges issues and portrait coinage, which Engel and Serrure omitted, to Pippin I and Pippin II respectively, though without any explanation.5

Prou repeated several of the stylistic arguments advanced by Gariel and Engel and Serrure, adding only that coins bearing the longer title PIPINVSREXEQ were probably minted by Pippin II, because this legend appeared on many of the monogram issues. This meant that Prou ascribed all temple types to Pippin II, as well as oboles reading EQVITANIORVM.6 The publication in 1906 of a hoard containing coins of Pippin found at Lauzès, in Lot, convinced Béchade of the truth of Prou's arguments. The following year he argued in the Revue Numismatique that the wear on the coins proved that those issues reading PIPINVSREXEQ could be ascribed to Pippin II, whereas the Aquitania oboles and portrait coins from Bourges should be attributed to Pippin I.7

In their 1967 catalogue of Carolingian coinage, Morrison and Grunthal took a great step backwards in professing themselves unable to make any distinction between the coins of Pippin I and Pippin II. They even went so far as to state that coin hoards did not allow any such distinction to be made.8 Duplessy was fortunately unconvinced by this assertion, and in his address to the Belgian Numismatic Society in 1978 contended that all the coinage minted in Pippin's name should be ascribed to Pippin II, on the very reasonable

3. Gariel vol. 1, p. 80; vol. 2, p. 189-191, 254-256. 4. A. Engel and R. Serrure, Traité de numismatique du moyen âge, Paris, 1891-

1905, vol. 1, p. 232-234. 5. H. Frère, Le Denier carolingien, spécialement en Belgique, Louvain, 1977, p. 27-

28. 6. Prou, Carol., p. xiv-xv. 7. J.-L. Béchade, Notes de numismatique carolingienne, RN 1907, p. 278-279. 8. MG, p. 21.


grounds that none of the hoards deposited during the reign of Louis the Pious (814-840) contained any coins of a King Pippin.9 Grierson has recently nailed his colours to the same mast, stating that "There is no reason to suppose that any of Louis' sons exercised minting rights during his lifetime".10 At the same time, however, Grierson expressed surprise that the Emperor had not struck a token coinage for Pippin I on the latter's accession to the throne of Aquitaine in 817.11

In spite of this recent trend towards attributing all coinage minted in the name of a King Pippin of Aquitaine to Pippin II, I believe that one type, and one type alone, can be ascribed to Pippin I, namely the Aquitaniorum portrait coinage (MG 597; Prou, Carol., 665; Gariel, pi. XX, 6). All other coins should indeed be regarded as issues of Pippin II, as is clear from the discovery of a whole string of hoards containing Pippin's temple types, monogram issues and Aquitania oboles alongside issues of Lothar I (840-855) or Charles the Bald (840- 877). It must be acknowledged that these finds give the modern numismatist a considerable advantage over his illustrious predecessors when it comes to determining which types were struck by Pippin II. There are, however, three issues which cannot readily be classified on the basis of hoard evidence: the rare deniers from Limoges with a cross on both faces, and the portrait coinages from Bourges and Aquitaniorum.

The Limoges deniers (MG 612; Prou, Carol., 775; Gariel, pi. XX, 9) have not been found in any hoards at all, but the similarity of the obverse to Pippin's monogram coinage suggests that they, too, were produced by Pippin II. Although Louis the Pious struck coinage with a cross on both sides at Melle and Toulouse circa 818, 12 the type was also minted by Charles the Bald at Toulouse at the beginning of his reign,13 which is consistent with the attribution of the Limoges coinage to Pippin II.

In the same way, it is primarily considerations of style which indicate that the Bourges portrait coinage (MG 609; Gariel, pi. XXXVII, I)14 should likewise be ascribed to Pippin II. The

9. As n. l. 10. MEC 1, p. 218. 11. MEC 1, p. 213. 12. MG 400, 419; Prou, Carol., 720, 805; Gariel, pi. XVI, 70, pi. XIX, 125. On the

date of emission, see MEC 1, p. 215. 13. MG 1100; the early date of emission can be deduced from the composition of the

Auzeville hoard, which contained just twelve coins of this type and over three hundred of Charles's Toulousan monogram issues: J. Duplessy, Les Trésors monétaires médiévaux et modernes découverts en France 751-1223 (TM, Supplément 1), Paris, 1985, no. 26.

14. Prou, Carol. 735 is a coin of the type issued by Charles the Bald: see "The scale of production" below.

198 SIMON COUPLAND

coins are unmistakeably similar to portrait issues of Charles the Bald from the same mint, particularly in the depiction of the neck.15 This suggests that the two types were minted consecutively, and the fact that the portrait on Pippin's coinage faces right, the traditional direction on Carolingian coinage, whereas that on Charles's faces left, suggests that Pippin's was probably the first to be coined. Given that Charles did not become King and begin minting until 840, a year and a half after the death of Pippin I, it is clear that the Bourges portrait coins should be ascribed to Pippin II. Additional confirmation of this is provided by the presence of the type in the Lauzès hoard alongside other coins of Pippin II. The precise date of emission will be discussed below.

In contrast to the Bourges portrait coinage, stylistic criteria imply that the Aquitaniorum portrait coins were issued during the reign of Pippin I. In particular, the extremely crude temple on the reverse, which is little more than a rectangle surmounted by a triangle, is unlikely to have been produced after Louis the Pious's Christiana religio coinage, with its consistently more sophisticated temple, had been circulating in massive numbers throughout the Empire for nearly twenty years.16 In addition, the bust on the obverse displays a remarkable affinity to the portrait of Louis the Pious on an unusual and unattributable obole now in Grenoble.17 The coin in question has a bust on the obverse, but on the reverse the mint-name in two lines, VISTA-fEDCI, which has so far defied interpretation. The obole is unique among Louis's portrait coinage, since all other issues depict a symbol on the reverse, such as a temple, city gate, ship or coining implements. It thus appears to be a transitional issue between the portrait type, which was minted by Louis between 814 and 818, and the coinage type which succeeded it from 818 until 822 or 823, which bore the mint-name in field. The obole was therefore presumably coined in 818, the year of the change of type. The similarity of the portrait on Pippin's Aquitaniorum coinage, primarily in the unusual form of the neck, suggests that these coins, too, were minted circa 818, and thus reinforces the impression that they should be ascribed to Pippin I. As for the hoard evidence, the absence of any of Pippin's Aquitaniorum portrait coins in the hoards of Louis the Pious can be explained by the fact that it was minted on a small scale

15. MG 1068-1069; Prou, Carol., 735-738; Gariel, pi. XXII, 44 (see plate). MG 1068 is incorrectly listed as having a bust to right.

16. On the dates of the various coinage types issued by Louis the Pious, see S.C. Coupland, La chronologie des émissions monétaires de Louis le Pieux (814-840), BSFN 1988, p. 431-433.

17. MG 465; Gariel, pi. XVI, 62; Monnaies de la Bibliothèque municipale de Grenoble (Journées numismatiques, 1976), Grenoble, 1976, pi. III, 22 (see plate).


(see "The chronology of minting" below), and the effectiveness of the recoinage carried out in &18, which removed virtually all of Louis's own portrait coins from circulation. It is nonetheless noteworthy that the two specimens of the Aquitaniorum portrait coinage which have turned up in hoards were both found together with portrait coins of Louis the Pious. In the Hon hoard from Norway, the coin was found, looped and gilt, with a gold cast of one of Louis's portrait deniers from Aries, two imitation solidi, and a portrait coin of Lothar I. In a hoard found somewhere in Frisia in 1853, the coin of Pippin I was accompanied by a Christiana religio portrait issue of Louis the Pious, two portrait coins of Lothar and one of Pippin II from Bourges.18 The hoard evidence is thus consistent with the attribution of the portrait coinage of Aquitaniorum to Pippin I.

The chronology of minting

Given that the single coinage type issued by Pippin I appears to have been minted circa 818, it seems likely that it was coined to commemorate Pippin's accession to the throne of Aquitaine in 817. The issue cannot have been minted for long, however, because Louis the Pious introduced a new coinage type in 818 and, as has been noted, demonetised all previous issues. A clear indication of the very limited scale of production of Pippin's Aquitaniorum coinage is the fact that five of the six known coins were struck from the same obverse die.19 This was therefore only a token coinage, similar in nature to that minted by Charlemagne to mark Louis the Pious's accession as ruler of Aquitaine in 781. 20

In the case of the coinage struck by Pippin II, however, it is essential to know something of the history of the King's turbulent reign before any attempt can be made to establish the chronology of minting.

18. Hon: H. Holst, On the Coins of the Hon Find (Minor Publications of the Norwegian Numismatic Society no. 4), Oslo, 1931, p. 3-4; "Frisia": P.C. J. A. Boeles, Les trouvailles de monnaies carolingiennes dans les Pays-Bas, spécialement celles des trois provinces septentrionales, Jaarboek voor Muni- en Penningkunde 2, 1915, p. 1-100, no. II.

19. The listing in MG 597 is misleading: the coins in the Grierson collection and from the Zelzate hoard should be included under MG 599, not 597, and KPK De Man 604 ("The Hague 604") is also correctly included under MG 621. This leaves the coins in Berlin (ex Gariel collection), Paris, Oslo (ex Hon hoard) and Brussels, together with the coins from the Rousseau and Meyer collections, whose current whereabouts I do not know. The Rousseau coin is illustrated in RN 1839, pi. IV, no. 16; the Meyer coin is evidently from the "Frisia" find.

20. On this coinage see D. M. Metcalf, Pre-Reform Coins of Charlemagne from the Grave-find at Breuvery, NCirc 76, 1968, p. 152.

200 SIMON COUPLAND

According to the charters issued by his chancery, Pippin succeeded his father as King of Aquitaine in December 838. 21 Louis the Pious refused to recognise Pippin II's claim to the throne, however, and in the autumn of 839 the Emperor led an army into Aquitaine in order to punish his wayward grandson.22 The Empress Judith was sent to Poitiers, which was therefore safely under Louis's control, while the army besieged and captured the fortress at Carlat, near Aurillac, then advanced into the region around Turenne, in Corrèze. Pippin's forces were unable to offer effective resistance, but Louis's troops began to be stricken by illness, and with the onset of winter Louis withdrew to Poitiers. After spending the winter months there, Louis left Aquitaine in February, forced to return to the north by the rebellion of his son Louis the German. He died near Ingelheim in June 840, leaving another son, Charles the Bald, to oppose Pippin's claims in Aquitaine.23

By July Charles was in Bourges,24 and towards the beginning of August he divided his army into three and stationed garrisons at Clermont, Limoges and Angoulême.25 The whole of northern Aquitaine was thus evidently under Charles's control, while Pippin appears to have been confined to the south. From Pippin's charters we know that he was in Figeac in 839, and that deputations from Solignac, south of Limoges, and Arnac, in Corrèze, recognised his kingship in 839 and July 840 respectively.26 It is significant that all of these places lie to the south of the line Angoulême-Limoges- Clermont.

After setting up this defensive line across Aquitaine, Charles the Bald left the region, and in September Pippin sought to take advantage of Charles's absence by advancing towards Poitiers. As soon as Charles received news of this development, however, he returned to Aquitaine, putting Pippin's forces to flight before they even reached Poitiers.27 It has been suggested that the man who became Archbishop of Bourges towards the end of 840, Rodulf, was installed by Pippin during this autumn offensive, since two Aquita- nian charters refer to Rodulf as Pippin's fidelis.28 This hypothesis

21. L. Levillain (éd.), Recueil des actes de Pépin Ier et de Pépin II, Paris, 1926, p. clix-clx.

22. The campaign is described in Annales Berliniani 839: F. Grat, J. Vielliard and S. Clémencet (eds.), Annales de Saint-Bertin, Paris, 1964, p. 34-35.

23. Ann. Bert. 840: Grat, Vielliard and Clémencet, p. 36. 24. Nithard II, 2: P. Lauer (éd.), Nithard. Histoire des fils de Louis le Pieux, Paris,

1926, p. 40. 25. L. Levillain (éd.), Loup de Ferrières. Correspondance, Paris, 1927-1935,

no. 17: vol. 1, p. 98. 26. Levillain, Actes de Pépin, nos. XLIX-L: p. 185-200. 27. Nithard II, 3: Lauer, p. 42, 46. 28. Levillain, Actes de Pépin, p. clxxvii; MEC 1, p. 231.


overlooks three important points, however. Firstly, it is explicitly reported in the sources that Pippin's thrust was aimed at Poitiers, and implied that this goal was not even attained. There is no indication that Pippin either headed into Berry or advanced as far as Bourges. Secondly, Charles repulsed Pippin's forces so swiftly that he was able to return to Orléans by November, where he held talks with his brother Lothar.29 Thirdly, past historians, and Levillain in particular, have painted a very one-sided picture of Rodulf's allegiances, emphasising his links with Pippin but ignoring his consistently good relationship with Charles the Bald. The latter is known to have issued a charter to Rodulf as Abbot of Fleury in October 846,30 and there is no suggestion in the contemporary sources that Charles opposed Rodulf's appointment as Archbishop of Bourges in 840, either when he was present in Bourges in January 841, almost immediately after the event, or when Rodulf attended the West Frankish synod of Meaux in June 845.31 In short, Rodulf appears to have been a skilled politician and diplomat, able to retain the protection and patronage of both Charles and Pippin despite the bitter conflict between them.

Throughout 841 Charles was occupied by events outside Aquitaine, of which the most significant was undoubtedly the victory which he and Louis the German won over Lothar and Pippin at Fontenoy on 25 June. This defeat did not deter Pippin from pursuing his cause, however, and in the summer of 842 Charles once again entered Aquitaine at the head of his army. His charters record his presence at Agen on 23 August and at Castillon on the Dordogne eight days later.32 Other than this we have no indication of the King's itinerary or of the outcome of the campaign. Charles once again led his troops into Aquitaine early in 843, but unfortunately a brief reference in Nithard's history of the civil war is all that has survived concerning this expedition.33 It is clear that events at this time did not go entirely Charles's way, however, since in late 842 or in 843 Pippin managed to capture the strategically important town of Toulouse, which had formerly remained loyal to Charles the Bald.34

In 844 Charles penetrated deep into Aquitaine in an attempt to recapture this prize, passing through Limoges in February and

29. Nithard II, 4: Lauer, p. 46. 30. G. Tessier (éd.), Recueil des actes de Charles II le Chauve, Paris, 1943-1955,

no. 89: vol. 1, p. 241-242. 31. Tessier no. 2: vol. 1, p. 3-8; J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et

amplissima collectif), Florence and Venice, 1759-1798, vol. 14, col. 814. 32. Tessier nos. 10-11: vol. 1, p. 25-28. 33. Nithard IV, 6: Lauer, p. 142. 34. Levillain, Actes de Pépin, p. clxxviii.

202 SIMON COUPLAND

Castelferrus in April, and reaching Toulouse itself in May.35 The siege of the city dragged on for many weeks, but was brought to an end by events elsewhere. In June Pippin's forces won a decisive victory over an army coming to reinforce Charles and his men, and the King was compelled to abandon the siege soon afterwards and to return to the north.36

This defeat at the hands of Pippin in 844, and doubtless also the even more humiliating defeat inflicted on Charles's army by a Viking band on the Seine the following March, produced a radical transformation in the King's attitude towards his rebellious nephew. In June 845 he signed the treaty of Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire, conceding control of Aquitaine to Pippin. Even though Prudentius claimed in the Annals of Saint-Bertin that Charles retained Poitou, Saintonge and Aunis,37 this may only have been an attempt to save face on the part of one of the King's loyal counsellors. The numismatic evidence demonstrates that Pippin struck coinage at Melle in Poitou and possibly also at Poitiers itself. He also minted at Bourges, although no ateliers are known from this period in Aunis or Saintonge. His charters reveal that monasteries such as Vertou and Saint-Florent on the lower Loire sought his protection and favour, and that Bourges was on his itinerary.38 In the east his influence extended as far as Clermont and Brioude, though not perhaps to the upper reaches of the Loire, as Manglieu (Puy-de-Dôme) is the eastern most place known to have recognised his authority.39

Pippin's unchallenged rule over Aquitaine was brief, ending in June 848 when Charles the Bald had himself crowned King of the Franks and Aquitanians at Orléans.40 It is therefore significant that the last known charter issued by Pippin II was drawn up in March 848, for the monastery of Saint-Maixent, near Poitiers.41 After Charles's coronation it appears that Pippin's fortunes suffered a swift and dramatic reversal, and that only in the south was he able to operate freely. Even here he was pursued by Charles, however, and in 849 his one remaining power base, Toulouse, fell to Charles's army. From this time on Pippin was effectively a man on the run, "un aventurier, sans chancellerie et sans cour, condamné à mener une

35. Tessier nos. 32, 34, 36: vol. 1, p. 82-87, 91-93, 96-98. 36. On the ending of the siege and the chronology of events, see F. Lot and

L. Halphen, Le Règne de Charles le Chauve, Paris, 1909, p. 120, n. 1. 37. Ann. Bert. 845: Grat, Vielliard and Clémencet, p. 50. 38. Levillain, Actes de Pépin, nos. LUI, LV, LVI: p. 207-214, 217-222. 39. Levillain, Actes de Pépin, nos. LU, LVIII: p. 204-207, 227-242. 40. Ann. Bert. 848: Grat, Vielliard and Clémencet, p. 55. 41. Levillain, Actes de Pépin, no. LXI: p. 248-268.


vie errante et périlleuse", in Auzias's memorable words.42 There is consequently little reason to believe that Pippin was able to continue striking coinage in northern Aquitaine after 848, or in the south after 849. Just as his chancery appears to have ceased to function in the summer of 848, so it seems likely that his moneyers would also have been forced to stop work at about the same time, unless of course they changed masters.

It can therefore be assumed that the overwhelming majority of Pippin H's coinage was minted between 845 and 848, although minting at Toulouse and elsewhere in the south may have begun rather earlier and continued a little longer.

Confirmation that minting did indeed commence at Bordeaux before 845 is provided by the existence of a number of deniers bearing the mint-name BVRDIGALA issued in the name of the Emperor Lothar I.43 These coins are of the mint-signed temple type struck at many mints by Lothar, Charles the Bald and Pippin II in the 840s and 850s, and the presence of two such coins in the Roermond hoard, deposited circa 850,44 confirms that they were in circulation at this time. The Roermond find also contained an obole of Aquiiania struck in Lothar's name,45 and presumably both of these coinages were minted during the civil war of 840-843. Given that it is extremely unlikely that Lothar ever reached Bordeaux during this period, it was almost certainly Pippin who produced this coinage in the name of his ally Lothar, whose claim to the Empire he supported. An interesting parallel to this numismatic evidence is provided by a charter drawn up by Pippin H's chancery on 29 July 840, which bears the date: "anno I régnante Lothario impr. et anni secundi régnante Philippo [recte Pippino] rege".46

It is difficult to judge when these two coinages were first struck and how long production continued. Contemporary sources record next to nothing about events in the south-west of Aquitaine during the early 840s, but the movements of Pippin and Charles cited above suggest that the area was sympathetic to Pippin II for most if not all

42. L. Auzias, L'Aquitaine carolingienne (778-987), Paris and Toulouse, 1937, p. 268.

43. MG 555; Prou, Carol., 790; Gariel, pi. LIX, 13 (see plate). 44. H.E. Van Gelder, De Karolingische muntvondst Roermond, Jaarboek uoor

Muni- en Penningkunde 72, 1985, p. 13-49, no. 16. Contrary to van Gelder, I regard the absence of Charles the Bald's Gratia Dei rex coinage, introduced in 864, and of Lothar H's coinage, minted from 855, and the presence of only one of Lothar I's later coins with the mint-name in field, probably struck from circa 850, as evidence that the Roermond hoard was deposited circa 850.

45. Van Gelder, Roermond, no. 26. 46. Levillain, Actes de Pépin, no. L: p. 200. The inaccurate reproduction of

Pippin's name is doubtless due to a misreading by a later scribe rather than the ineptitude of Pippin's chancery.

204 SIMON COUPLAND

of the period. This was not necessarily enough to guarantee coin production, however, and two factors offer guidance as to the duration of minting. First, all five known specimens of the Bordeaux coinage and both Aquitania oboles were struck from different dies.47 The small number of coins implies a limited output, but the high proportion of different dies implies that production was nonetheless not on a very small scale. Second, there is an evident stylistic discontinuity between the Aquitania oboles minted for Lothar and those minted in Pippin's own name. If the two issues were the products of the same mint, which seems a reasonable assumption, this suggests an interruption in production between the two coinages. In the light of the historical situation, we can therefore tentatively propose that minting of Lothar's Bordeaux and Aquitania coinages began in 840, when hopes were high that the supporters of the imperial cause would emerge victorious, but then ceased in 841, when this scenario began to look less likely. This would to a certain extent match the charter evidence, which indicates that Pippin's chancery was active in 839 and 840, but then apparently lapsed until after the signing of the treaty of Saint-Benoît in 845.

Unidentified mints

Three issues minted by Pippin II do not bear an identifiable place- name: (i) deniers reading AQVITANIORVM; (ii) oboles with the mint- name AQVITANIA or EQVITANIORVM, and (iii) deniers and oboles bearing the legend XPISTIANA RELIGIO

There are three factors which permit the attribution of Pippin II's Aquilaniorum deniers (MG 599; Gariel, pi. XX, 4) to Bordeaux. The primary consideration is that the coins show a marked resemblance to the coinage issued in Lothar's name at Bordeaux which was discussed above. The large, unsplayed obverse cross and the sprawling lettering of the legends are comparable on both coinages, as is the small temple on the reverse, often high up in the field, with a ninety- degree roof and projecting steps. Second, if Pippin struck coinage in Lothar's name at Bordeaux in 840-841, it is reasonable to suppose

47. The five deniers are: Prou 790 (ex Rousseau coll.); Berlin (ex Gariel coll.); Cahn sale 79, 14.xii.1932, no. 1344 (this is presumably the same coin as in Cahn fixed pricelist 31, II, April 1934, no. 2241, though the latter is not depicted), and two coins from Roermond (I am indebted to M. J. Lafaurie for lending me photographs of almost the entire Roermond hoard for study, and to Arent Pol of the KPK for access to the full record of the find). The ANS coin (ex Kricheldorf sale 9, 12.vi.1961, no. 328) is almost certainly a forgery by Farigault. The two oboles are the coin from Roermond and BN 658a (see plate).


that he would also have minted there in his own name, particularly between 845 and 848. Third, the mint-name AQVITANIORVM suggests that the coinage was probably produced at a political centre, presumably either Bourges, which was the capital of northern Aquitaine, or Bordeaux, capital of southern Aquitaine. However, the coinage which is known to have been struck by Pippin II at Bourges was of a very different type, bearing a portrait on the obverse and the mint-name in field on the reverse. In addition, the style of the Aquitaniorum deniers of Pippin II is quite unlike that of the rare temple types coined by Charles the Bald at Bourges soon after 840.48 In short, all the evidence points to Pippin II's Aquilaniorum deniers having been minted at Bordeaux.

If the Aquitaniorum deniers can thus be attributed to Bordeaux, were the oboles struck by Pippin II reading AQVITANIA (MG 598, 601-604; Prou, Carol., 659-664; Gariel, pi. XX, 1-3) or EQVITANIORVM (MG 600; Prou, Carol, 666-667; Gariel, pi. XX, 5) also produced there? The fact that a number of similar oboles were struck in Lothar's name obviously supports such a hypothesis, since Bordeaux is the only Aquitanian mint known to have minted in Lothar's name. It is also clear from the history of the period 840-843 that the Aquitania mint which was producing oboles in Lothar's name must have been situated south of the line Angoulême-Limoges-Clermont. As in the case of the Aquitaniorum deniers, the very use of the title AQVITANIA on the oboles suggests a site of administrative importance, making Bordeaux the obvious candidate. Nevertheless, it is apparent from Table One that Aquilania oboles are the most commonly found of all Pippin II's coinage, far more common than the Aquitaniorum deniers. Is it not therefore possible that, under Pippin, Aquitania oboles were minted not only at Bordeaux, but at all Aquitanian mints? In particular, it seems clear that the Bourges mint was producing Aquitania 'oboles in Charles the Bald's name in the early 840s. The evidence for this is the presence of a sizeable number, fifteen, among eighty-seven coins of Charles the Bald in the hoard deposited at Chaumoux-Marcilly, near Bourges, before 845.49 It is highly unlikely that these oboles were from Bordeaux, since not only is there no evidence that Charles was in control of the Bordeaux region at this time, but also the bulk of the mint-signed issues in the Chaumoux hoard, twenty coins, were local issues from Bourges, together with only one coin from Orléans and two from Melle.50 If Charles was minting Aquitania oboles at Bourges, it

48. Illustrated in Gariel, pi. XXI, 3, and Chenu, pi. I, no. 3 (see following note). 49. P. Chenu, Un dépôt de monnaies carolingiennes dans le département du Cher,

Mémoires de la Société historique, littéraire et scientifique du Cher, 39, 1932, p. 103-126. 50. The remainder of the coins of Charles the Bald were Christiana religio issues.

206 SIMON COUPLAND

seems likely that, Pippin would have continued minting them there at the same time as he was striking the mint-signed portrait coinage.

This may well have been the case at Bourges, where the city's political significance matched that of Bordeaux and fully justified the AQVITANIA legend. But there are good reasons for believing that other mints outside Bordeaux and Bourges did not strike Aquitania oboles. Firstly, mint-signed oboles of Pippin II are known from almost all his other mints: Cahors, Dax, Limoges, Melle and Toulouse. The one exception is Poitiers, whose oboles are forged, as Duplessy has demonstrated.51 However, Poitiers was an extremely minor mint, and its coinage may even have been produced at nearby Melle, as will be argued below. Secondly, the great majority of Aquitania oboles bear the obverse legend PIPPINVSREX, with a double P,52 whereas the deniers and oboles of Cahors, Dax, Limoges, Melle and Poitiers all read PIPINVS with a single P. In the case of Toulouse, both forms are attested, but the complete absence of any Aquitania oboles of Pippin or Charles in the large Auzeville hoard, which was almost entirely composed of Toulousan coins,53 makes it unlikely that Aquitania oboles were produced there. The only other coins on which the form PIPPINVS is found are the Aquitaniorum deniers, which sometimes read PIPINVS, but more commonly PIPPINVS.54 The rare oboles bearing the reverse legend EQVITA- NIORVM in three lines also read PIPPINVSREX, and may likewise have been minted at Bordeaux. They were evidently minted on a very small scale, however, since of the three coins I have been able to study, two were struck from the same reverse die (BN 666 and 667) and two from the same obverse die (BN 666 and MG 600). As for the oboles reading PIPINVS, were they perhaps coined at Bourges?

51. Personal communication from J. Duplessy, who presented his case in the paper delivered to the Belgian Numismatic Society in 1978. The oboles in question are listed under MG 605a and described in ft/V 1927, procès-verbaux, p. xlii.

52. The listings of Aquilania oboles under MG 598, 600-602 are completely unreliable in this respect. There are few PIPINVS issues: I know of only Prou 659, 664; MG 386 (pi. XIII), presumably in Vienna; Brussels (see plate); Rousseau coll. catalogue no. 326 (ref. as n. 69), and the coin from Brioux (ref. as n. 65). Coins with PIPPINVS include Gariel, pi. XX, 3; Lockett coll. 337; the other two oboles in the Rousseau collection, and those found at Fontaines and Lauzès. Kricheldorf sale 8, 2.xi.l960, no. 314 is probably another Farigault forgery, as is the obole in the Můnzen und Medaillen A.G. sale of 9.V.1969 (Grunthal coll.), no. 399.

53. Duplessy, Trésors, no. 26. 54. One coin with a single P was found at Roermond (see plate), and another is in

Berlin (illustrated MG 599, ex Gariel coll.). Those with double P are from Roermond (Van Gelder, Roermond, no. 30); Wagenborgen (Boeles, Trouvailles, no. 136, now KPK inv. 17599); Zelzate (P. N aster, Trouvaille de monnaies carolingiennes à Zelzate [1949], FtBN 1950, p. 208-224, no. 316), and Pilligerheck, where two were present (Kress sale 140, 7.viii.l967, no. 274; Kôlner Miinzkabinett sale 41, 7.iv.l986, no. 573). MEC 1.811 (ex Kricheldorf sale 8, 2.xi.l960, no. 311) is yet another probable forgery by Farigault.


Pippin II's Bourges portrait coinage is similarly uncommon (see "The scale of production" below), and its obverse legend is written with a single P. In addition, these Aquitania oboles reading PIPINVS are generally of poorer quality than the PIPPINVS coins, and in this respect they are matched, and indeed surpassed, by the similar oboles of Charles the Bald found at Chaumoux. These bear obverse legends such as CARLVSREXR, CALVSREXFR, CARVSFRIXFR, etc. Any attribution of the PIPINVS oboles to Bourges must remain tentative, however, given that Aquilaniorum deniers from Bordeaux are also known which read PIPINVS.

The Christiana religio issues struck by Pippin II (MG 621; Prou, Carol., 1056; Gariel, p. XX, 13) form three stylistic groups. Although these coins could theoretically have been produced at otherwise unknown mints, which struck only Christiana religio issues, the evidence from Lotharingia and the West Frankish kingdom suggests that established mints struck Christiana religio coinage as well as mint-signed issues. This can be seen in the case of mints such as Maastricht,55 Metz,56 Quentovic57 or Saint-Martin of Tours,58 to name but four. With regard to Pippin II's coinage, all three Christiana religio groups can be ascribed to known mints on the basis of stylistic considerations.

Group A is the most common: the three Christiana religio issues of Pippin found at Pilligerheck, the two present at Roermond and the coins in the Achlum and Auzeville hoards all belong to this group.59 The coin now in Paris likewise belongs to the same group, as do two of those at Berlin and the two deniers which once formed part of the collections owned by Bordeaux and Meyer.60 The obverse legend reads PIPINVSREXEQ, often with a pellet in the letter Q. The reverse legend is correct; the temple is generally compact, with short

55. Boeles, Trouvailles, p. 84-5. 56. J. Lafaurie, Les frappes monétaires de Metz et de sa région aux vie-ixe siècles,

Actes du colloque "Autour ď H ildegarde" , Paris, 1987, p. 89-103, fig. U. 57. Prou, Carol., 189-190. 58. The mint at Saint Martin consistently inverted the standard temple type by

placing CARLVSREX around the temple and the mint-name around a cross. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Charles the Bald's Christiana religio issues of the same inverted design were similarly struck at Tours: Van Gelder, Roermond, no. 52 and Kress sale 140, 7.viii.l967 (Pilligerheck hoard), no. 326.

59. Two of the Pilligerheck coins are illustrated in Kress sale 140, 7.viii.l967, nos. 275-276; I am grateful to M. Lafaurie for showing me a photograph of the other coin. One of the Roermond coins is Van Gelder, Roermond, no. 32; the Achlum denier is Gariel, pi. XX, 13, and for the Auzeville coin see P.C. Robert, Numismatique de la province de Languedoc, Toulouse, 1876-1880, vol. 3, p. 23, pi. XI ("Castanet hoard").

60. Prou, Carol., 1056; for the Berlin coins, see the plate; Rollin and Feuardent, sale of 26.iv.1926 (Bordeaax coll.), no. 238; Rollin and Feuardent, sale of 26.V.1902 (Meyer coll.), no. 193.

208 SIMON COUPLAND

columns and a tall roof and no projection of the roof or steps, which are of equal length. The central cross is not distinct, but rather has the form of a fifth column with a small bar across it. On one of the Berlin coins the temple is considerably larger, however, with larger columns and projecting roof and steps, but the same minimal central cross. The significance of this variant will become clear shortly.

A number of factors permit the attribution of this group to the important Carolingian mint of Melle. Firstly, the coins bear a very clear resemblance to Christiana religio issues of Charles the Bald, particularly those in the Paris collection and in the hoards from Roermond, Pilligerheck and Achlum.61 Some of these coins of Charles the Bald bear the regular obverse legend CARLVSREXFR, others the less common CARLVSREXFRA, and a few the highly unusual CARLVSREXFRANCO.62 It is striking that several of these CARLVSREXFRANCO coins have the same narrow, compact temple as the majority of the issues of Pippin, but that a few bear a larger temple comparable to that on the coin of Pippin in Berlin. The only mint known to have struck mint-signed coinage bearing the obverse legend CARLVSREXFRANCO is Melle: the piece was illustrated by Fillon in 1856,63 though I have not been able to track down any surviving examples. One was signalled in the museum at Autun in 1977,64 but the staff were unfortunately unable to locate the coin for me in their collection. It is nonetheless evident that the style of the coin depicted in Fillon's drawing is similar to that of the majority of the Christiana religio issues of Pippin's group A. A second factor which supports this attribution to Melle is the insertion of a pellet in the letter Q of the obverse legend of many of the group A coins. This is matched only on Pippin's mint-signed coinage from Melle, where the pellet is usually placed in the letter Q, as on the Christiana religio issues, or occasionally in the letter О of the reverse legend, METVLLO.65 The style of the two coinages is also similar in other respects, notably the thick, chunky lettering of the inscriptions on both faces. A third reason for attributing group A to Melle is the presence of group A coins at Achlum, Roermond and Pilligerheck,

61. Prou, Carol., 1060-1061, 1066; Van Gelder, Roermond, nos. 50a, 50b, 50f; Kress sale 140, 7.viii.l967, no. 325; Gariel, pi. XXI, 23.

62. CARLVSREXFR: Van Gelder, Roermond, no. 50b. CARLVSREXFRANCO: Prou, Carol., 1066; Van Gelder, Roermond, no. 50a and see plate. All the others read CARLVSREXFRA.

63. B. Fillon, Etudes numismatiques, Paris, 1856, p. 40; Gariel, pi. XXI, 8. 64. Numismatique autunoise (Journées numismatiques, 1977), Autun, 1977, p. 23,

no. 5. 65. The obverse pellet is common: see e.g. A. Bardonnet, Sur un trésor

carlovingien provenant de Brioux, Bulletin de la Société de Statistique, Sciences, Lettres et Arts du département des Deux-Sèvres 5, 1882-1884, p. 14-21, esp. p. 18. The reverse pellet is rarer: e.g. Kricheldorf sale 8, 2.xi.l960, no. 316.


where one of the issues was a unique Christiana religio obole. These finds suggest that group A was produced at a sizeable Aquitanian mint, and Melle is undoubtedly the most likely candidate. It is also worth pointing out that all three hoards contained mint-signed coins of Melle struck by Charles the Bald.

This attribution does raise one problem, however: how to explain the absence of any Christiana religio issues of either Pippin or Charles in the hoard found at Brioux, near Melle, which contained 143 coins of Melle struck by one or other of these two rulers?66 Perhaps the solution is that Pippin only struck Christiana religio coinage at Melle at the beginning of his three-year reign there, and that Charles did not resume minting of the type after 848. Certainly Charles's CARLVSREXFRANCO METVLLO coinage appears to have been produced soon after 840, implying that his Christiana religio coins with the longer title were probably also struck at an early date. Even so, the complete lack of Christiana religio coins at Brioux remains puzzling, and may simply reflect a particular preference for mint- signed coins on the part of the hoard's ninth-century owner.

In contrast to the large number of Christiana religio issues attributable to Melle, group В is represented by only one coin, which was found in the Lauzès hoard.67 The piece is more neatly engraved than the group A issues, and its most unusual feature is the obverse legend PIPINVSRE+EO. The temple is compact, as on the group A coinage, but has clearly defined gables on the roof and capitals on the columns. These features are paralleled on Pippin's mint-signed issues from Dax, and it seems likely that the group В coin was minted there, too. The obverse legend is particularly similar to that on a Dax issue found at Ide, while the temple is matched on coins of Dax from Kimswerd-Pingjum and Pilligerheck.68 The find-spot, Lauzès in southern Aquitaine, is also consistent with the attribution of this Christiana religio issue to Dax.

The third group is represented by only two coins, one in the Berlin collection and the other in the Koninklijk Penningkabinet (KPK) in Leiden. The Leiden coin originally formed part of the collection built up by Marie de Man, and may therefore have been found at Domburg. The obverse reads PIPPINNVSRE+, while that of the Berlin coin is more blundered: PIPPIIIIVVHVSRE+ (see plate). The

66. The original publication was cited in the previous note; see also Duplessy, Trésors, no. 59.

67. J.-L. Béchade, Une trouvaille de monnaies carolingiennes, fí/V 1906, p. 302- 305, no. 18 (see plate).

68. H.E. Van Geldeb, Le trésor carolingien d'Ide, ft/V 1965, p. 241-261, no. 102; Boeles, Trouvailles, no. 54; the Pilligerheck coin is unpublished, and a photograph was kindly shown to me by M. Lafaurie.

210 SIMON COUPLAND

reverse legends are -fPISTIAHARELICIO and + PI2TIAIIAPELICIO respectively. The temples on the two coins are similar, being relatively small, with projecting steps and lopsided roof, capitals on the columns and gables on the roof. Both obverse and reverse are nonetheless cruder than the group В coin, and an attribution to Dax is improbable. The blundered obverse legend of the Berlin coin is particularly reminiscent of that on an Aquitania obole of Pippin in Paris (BN 662: see plate), and the reverse design of both deniers is closest to that of the Aquitaniorum deniers, especially those from Roermond. The double P in the obverse legend also points in the same direction, and when all these factors are taken into account, Bordeaux seems the mint most likely to have produced this group.

To summarise: Pippin II's Aquitaniorum deniers were probably struck at Bordeaux, where Aquitania oboles and some Christiana religio issues were also coined in Pippin's name. Aquilania oboles were probably also minted at Bourges during Pippin's rule over the area, though in smaller quantities than at Bordeaux. Another mint producing a limited number of Christiana religio issues was Dax, but the biggest producer of this coinage was undoubtedly Melle, where Christiana religio oboles were also minted. The minting of Christiana religio coinage at Melle was started by Charles the Bald soon after 840, but may have ceased during Pippin's reign, circa 846-847, when the mint reverted to striking only mint-signed coinage.

Finally, as for the Aquitaniorum portrait coinage of Pippin I, this was presumably minted at one of the regional capitals, Bourges or Bordeaux, and comparison with Pippin II's coinage obviously favours Bordeaux. Unfortunately, the mint-name on the stylistically similar obole of Louis the Pious to which reference was made earlier, VISTA-fEDCI, cannot satisfactorily be interpreted as either BVRDIGALA or BITVRIGES, even using a considerable amount of imagination. The portrait coinage of Pippin I cannot therefore be attributed with any certainty unless more conclusive evidence becomes available.

The scale of production

As has already been mentioned, Pippin I's Aquitaniorum coinage appears to have been struck on a very limited scale. This is not particularly surprising, given that it was only a token issue to mark Pippin's accession as subking over Aquitaine. More unexpected is the fact that Pippin II's portrait coinage from Bourges likewise seems to have been minted in very small numbers. Only three coins of the type are known, two of them in Berlin and the third found in the


Lauzès hoard, struck from the same reverse die as one of the Berlin pieces. The coin in the Paris collection which is attributed to Pippin (Prou, Carol. 735) is in fact an issue of Charles the Bald, as de Longpérier observed as long ago as 1847.69 The blundered obverse legend, / IIU^TAO, does not settle the question either way, but a close inspection of the neck of the bust reveals that it is facing left, indicating that the coin is of the type minted by Charles the Bald, rather than Pippin II. Having said this, the extremely crude nature of the coin, which is quite unlike Charles's other Bourges portrait issues in this respect, raises the suspicion that it might be a contemporary forgery. In contrast to the scarcity of Pippin's portrait issues, I have been able to track down over twenty of these portrait coins struck by Charles the Bald at Bourges. Among the twenty which I have examined there was only one pair sharing the same obverse and reverse dies and one pair struck from the same obverse die.70

It will be recalled that Pippin's Bourges portrait coinage can be dated to the period 845-848, and that Charles the Bald's comparable issue was minted immediately after Pippin's. Yet the very small number of surviving coins minted by Pippin makes it unlikely that the type was being produced over fully three years, from 845 until 848. Bearing in mind that Pippin's only attested visit to Bourges took place in January 848, and taking into account Bourges's location in the far north of Aquitaine, is it possible that the city was not in fact part of the territory ceded to Pippin under the terms of the treaty of Saint-Benoît, and that Pippin's presence there was thus a provocation to Charles the Bald? Such a suggestion is entirely hypothetical, but would explain why Pippin's coinage was struck on such a limited scale, and why Charles the Bald abrogated the treaty of Saint-Benoît and had himself crowned at Orléans in the early summer of 848. If this were the case, then we can assume that the Bourges mint went on producing Charles the Bald's monogram coinage until the end of 847, that Pippin then minted his portrait issue for a few months only in early 848, and that Charles then struck his own portrait coinage from June 848 until some time in the early 850s.

Pippin's coinages from Cahors, Limoges and Poitiers were minted on just as small a scale as the Bourges portrait coinage, albeit for

69. A. de Longpérier, Notice des monnaies françaises de M. Jean Rousseau, Paris, 1847, no. 330.

70. In addition to the coins listed under MG 1068-1069, a number are illustrated in the Mémoires de la Société des antiquaires du Centre, 14, 1886-1887, facing p. 330, and 22, 1897-1898, facing p. 240. The latter is a die duplicate of Florange sale 1 l.vi.1900 (Schoen-Lamblin coll.), no. 67.

212 SIMON COUPLAND

different reasons. A mint is not known to have been active at Cahors at any other time during the Carolingian era, and it was only the presence of a unique obole from Cahors (MG 620: "Indeterminate") in the Lauzès hoard which revealed that coinage was produced there under Pippin II. The number of coins that were minted was undoubtedly extremely small, and it is unlikely that they circulated outside the local region.

Limoges was another civitas where Louis the Pious is not known to have struck coinage, but where coins were minted by Pippin II. Here there was at least a tradition of minting under the Carolingians, since Charlemagne had issued coins at Limoges before the reform of 793/794, including some deniers in the name of Louis the Pious on the latter's accession as subking of Aquitaine in 781. 71 Only one denier of Pippin II is known from Limoges, bearing a cross on both faces; its attribution has already been discussed. In addition, there are two different types of obole from Limoges, both bearing the King's name, PIPINVSREX, around a cross on the obverse, but one with the mint- name in field on the reverse (MG 611; Gariel, pi. XX, 11), and the other with the mint-name around a cross (MG 613; Prou, Carol., 776; Gariel, pi. XX, 10). The obole bearing the mint-name in field is the only coinage type struck by Pippin known to have turned up in a hoard: one was found at Roermond.72 It is true that the discovery of a sizeable hoard from the late 840s in the Limousin might substantially alter our view of the local coinage, but at present the small number of surviving coins and scarcity of Limoges issues in contemporary hoards both imply that the mint's output was small.

This is also true in the case of the mint at Poitiers, whose coinage has likewise turned up in only one hoard, in this instance at Kàttilstorp in western Sweden.73 This find is invaluable in offering positive proof that deniers were coined by Pippin II bearing the name of Poitiers, for all the known oboles said to be of Pippin (MG 605a) and also some of the known deniers (MG 605) are forgeries manufactured at the beginning of this century. Fortunately the style of the forgeries is distinctive, however, and apart from the Kàttilstorp coin, of whose present whereabouts I am uncertain, the denier from Poitiers in the Paris collection (Prou, Carol., 677; Gariel, XX, 12) is clearly genuine. As in the case of the other small mints at Cahors and Limoges, Poitiers is not known to have struck coinage during the reign of Louis the Pious. Once again, the opening of a

71. Metcalf, Pre-Reform Coins from Breuvery, p. 152. 72. Van Gelder, Roermond, no. 33. 73. N.L. Rasmusson, Kring de vàsterlàndska mynten i Birka, Fràn stenàlder til

rokoko. Studier tillágnade Otto fíydbeck den 25 augusti 1937, Lund, 1937, p. 121.


mint there under Pippin II would therefore have been an innovation, although pre-reform deniers were coined by Charlemagne at Saint- Maixent and at a Sainte-Croix, perhaps the monastery at Poitiers.74 As in the case of Cahors and Limoges, production of coinage at Poitiers must also have been very limited, to judge from the number of surviving coins and the paucity of hoard finds. It is even conceivable that these Poitiers issues were struck at nearby Melle, which was such an important and productive mint. This theory is supported by the presence in the late ninth-century hoard from Bonnevaux of three mules, bearing the name of Poitiers on one face and that of Melle on the other.75 The fact that the hoard contained some 5000 other coins from Melle but not one from Poitiers strongly suggests that these mules, too, were coined at Melle. Although these particular issues were minted several decades after Pippin II's reign, it is possible that a similar practice was followed in the 840s. On the other hand, it is evident that Pippin did open up mints in towns where none had previously been active, such as at Cahors and Limoges, and it is therefore equally possible that a small atelier was likewise established in Poitiers.

By contrast, Dax, Bordeaux, Toulouse and Melle were all the sites of existing mints which had been active under Louis the Pious, and Pippin's mints in these locations appear to have been larger than the small, new mints at Cahors and Limoges. As Table One reveals, deniers from Dax (MG 614; Gariel, pi. XX, 7) have turned up in two northern hoards, as well as in the large recent finds at Roermond and Pilligerheck. Of these seven coins, however, one pair were a die duplicate (at Pilligerheck and Roermond), one pair was struck from the same reverse die (Ide 102 and one of the Roermond coins), and one coin shared an obverse die with the specimen in Berlin (Ide 102 and MG 614). This amounts to only six known obverse dies and six reverse dies, although the denier illustrated by Gariel (pi. XX, 7: incorrectly described as from the Apremont-Veuillin hoard) appears to have been struck from other dies. Gariel also depicted an obole from Dax (MG 615; Gariel, pi. XX, 8), which appears to be the sole known example. These figures suggest that output at Dax was not particularly large.

In the case of Bordeaux, the Aquitaniorum coinage of Pippin II does not represent the mint's total output, since Lothar's Bordeaux temple coinage was also produced there, and probably also a large percentage of Pippin's Aquitania oboles. As was noted earlier, the

74. MG 267, 285 (both "indeterminate"). 75. Fillon, Etudes numismatiques, p. 50.

214 SIMON COUPLAND

five known Bordeaux deniers of Lothar are all from different dies, as are the two surviving Aquitania oboles minted in his name. There are, moreover, no obverse die links among Pippin II's Aquitaniorum coins from Roermond, Pilligerheck and Wagenborgen, though the latter issue, now in the KPK, shares the same reverse die as the denier in Berlin (MG 599). As for the Aquitania oboles, it is not possible to ascribe individual issues to Bordeaux with any certainty. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that all of the twenty-two specimens which I have been able to study were struck from different dies, suggesting a relatively high level of production.

The case of the Toulouse mint demonstrates how difficult it is to form a realistic estimate of the output of Pippin's mints, however. The hoard discovered at Auzeville, near Toulouse, in 1878 contained sixty-seven coins of Pippin II from the Toulouse mint, and over three hundred comparable issues of Charles the Bald. The coins of Pippin were of the monogram type, in all sixty-five deniers (MG 616-618; Prou, Carol., 807-812; Gariel, pi. XXXVII, 5-7) and two oboles (MG 619; Gariel, pi. XXXVII, 8). Gariel distinguished twenty varieties among them,76 though it is unfortunately not possible to establish from his account how many dies were represented. As a result of this find, a relatively large number of Toulousan coins of Pippin have appeared in sale catalogues and in private and public collections over the years, giving the impression that Toulouse was an important and prolific mint. Yet apart from the Auzeville find, only one other Carolingian hoard is known to have included any issue of Pippin from Toulouse, namely the large hoard from Pilligerheck, which contained a single Toulousan denier.77 This suggests that the Auzeville hoard may give an exaggerated picture of the significance of the mint at Toulouse, whose productivity may not have been any greater than that of Bordeaux or even Dax. A large find from the vicinity of one of these mints might therefore radically alter our perception of the level of their output.

By contrast, the importance of the mint at Melle is beyond question. Even though a single local hoard, from Brioux, contained more than eight times as many of Pippin's Melle issues than all other finds combined, the fact that Melle also minted most of Pippin's Christiana religio coinage must also be taken into account. Melle, the site of the only known silver mine of any size in the Garolingian Empire, was undoubtedly the largest of Pippin's mints and an important economic asset. Yet its location in Poitou, in the

76. Gariel vol. 1, p. 78. 77. J. Lafaurie, Numismatique romaine et médiévale, AEPHE 1969-1970, p. 323-

326.


northern part of Aquitaine, means that Pippin could not have controlled the site before 845 or after 848. This is corroborated by the numismatic evidence, which indicates that Charles the Bald minted two different types before Pippin started coining. As was noted earlier, Charles's first type was a temple coinage, which was evidently minted for only á short time before being replaced by the much more common monogram coinage. This featured the King's name around a cross on the obverse and the mint-name METVLLO around a royal monogram on the reverse, though on the oboles the monogram filled the obverse field, while the mint-name on the reverse encircled a cross. Pippin's Melle deniers (MG 606-607; Prou, Carol., 689-690; Gariel, pi. XXXVII, 2-3) and oboles (MG 608; Prou, Carol., 691; Gariel, pi. XXXVII, 4) followed exactly the same pattern, and the two types would scarcely have been distinguishable to the illiterate. It may have been this consideration which prompted Charles to introduce a new coinage type in 848, with the mint-name in field, before reverting to the monogram coinage later, probably in the 850s.

It is consequently clear that Pippin II's mints differed widely in the size of their output and their economic significance. At one end of the scale was the prolific and important mint of Melle, at the other the small new ateliers of Cahors, Limoges and perhaps also Poitiers. Somewhere in between these two extremes lay the not insubstantial mints of Dax, Bordeaux and Toulouse, possibly in that order of size. However, it is equally clear that much remains to be determined about the productivity of Pippin's mints, and it is at present impossible to make any justifiable assessment of the amount of coinage that was being struck.

The economy of Aquitaine under Pippin II

Four kinds of numismatic evidence can help to shed light on the state of the Aquitanian economy during the reign of Pippin II: the fineness of the coinage, its weight, the pattern of minting and the pattern of circulation.

With regard to the fineness of Pippin's coinage, the science of nondestructive analysis of silver coinage is unfortunately still in its infancy, and to my knowledge no analysis of any of Pippin's coins has yet been published. Even so, Metcalf has recently initiated the systematic analysis of a whole range of Carolingian coinage, and it is to be hoped that at some point issues of Pippin II will also be investigated.

It is similarly a lack of data which hinders any attempt to analyse the metrology of Pippin's coinage. In this instance a certain number

216 SIMON COUPLAND

of coins are of course available, but the figure falls far short of what is required for a reliable result to be obtained. It was for this reason that Morrison and Grunthal did not include Pippin's coinage in the series of metrological tables which they published in their catalogue of Carolingian coinage.78 Nevertheless, as long as it is borne in mind that the available data is insufficient for definitive conclusions to be drawn, there does appear to have been a difference between the weight standards in operation at Pippin's mints of Melle and Toulouse. Deniers from Melle consistently weigh more than 1.65 g,79 and appear to have been minted to the 1.70 g standard which was introduced by Charlemagne in 793/794 and maintained by succeeding West Frankish rulers until the late ninth century.80 By contrast, deniers from Toulouse are clustered around 1.55 g, and rarely pass 1.60 g.81 With regard to the deniers struck at Pippin's other mints, the number of recorded weights is too small and the disparity between them too large for any comparable distinctions to emerge. As for Pippin's oboles, these are generally struck to a lighter standard: very few weigh as much as 0.85 g, and the weights appear to cluster around 0.7 g and 0.8 g. There are, however, wide variations, particularly in the case of the Aquitania oboles, and it is not possible to observe any pattern related to mints.

The fact that so many of Pippin II's mints produced oboles is one particularly unusual feature of the pattern of minting during his reign. As has been mentioned, all but the Poitiers mint are known to have struck oboles, and this exception is by no means significant. This situation marks a definite change from the reign of Louis the Pious, when oboles were in circulation, but in smaller numbers. It also contrasts sharply with the pattern of minting in Lotharingia and the West Frankish kingdom in the 840s. Charles the Bald minted oboles in Aquitaine, of Bourges, Melle, and Aquiiania, together with a few Christiana religio oboles, but none of the West Frankish mints outside Aquitaine is known to have produced mint-signed oboles before 864. Under Lothar I oboles were even scarcer: the Aquitania issues discussed above can be discounted, since they were almost certainly struck by Pippin II, and apart from these only five Christiana religio oboles are recorded, none

78. MG, p. 40-56. 79. The figures are taken from Bardonnet, p. 18, and from the weights of ten other

deniers in public and private collections. 80. J. Lafaurie, Numismatique des Carolingiens aux Capétiens, Cahiers de

civilisation médiévale 1970, p. 126-128. 81. These figures are based on G-ariel, vol. 1, p. 77, and the weights of thirty-five

deniers in public and private collections.


of them from known hoards.82 It does not appear that any of Lothar's mints struck mint-signed oboles.

A second notable aspect of the pattern of minting under Pippin II is the opening of at least two, if not three, new mints, at Cahors, Limoges, and perhaps also Poitiers. This is particularly remarkable in view of the brevity and uncertainty of Pippin's rule.

It might at first sight be thought that such developments indicate an economic expansion in Aquitaine during Pippin's reign, with more mints striking more coinage, and in particular more low-denomination coinage, in more regions. However, the evidence in fact points in precisely the opposite direction, to a deterioration of the Aquitanian economy and a decline in the influence of the monarch. With regard to the opening of new mints, it is apparent that a tightening of royal control over the currency in the Carolingian period would be accompanied by a concentration of minting, and thus by a decrease, not a rise, in the number of mints. This can be observed in the case of Charlemagne's reform of 793/794, for instance, and in Charles the Bald's unsuccessful attempt to restrict the number of mints in his legislation of 864. 83 It was when royal power grew weak that small new mints sprang up, either because local counts wished to share in the profits from minting, or because there was a breakdown in circulation, leading to a shortage in the availability of coin. In the case of Pippin II 's reign, it is the latter explanation which appears to be correct, partly because this also explains the need for more mints to strike oboles, which were no longer circulating widely, but above all because it is the interpretation which is most consistent with the evidence of contemporary coin hoards.

The three hoards buried in Aquitaine during or just after Pippin II's reign all show that a dramatic change in the pattern of circulation had taken place since the reign of Louis the Pious. The principal evidence for the situation under Louis is provided by two large hoards deposited in the 820s, one at Apremont-Veuillin in Cher, just outside Aquitaine itself, and the other at Belvézet (Gard).84 These hoards both contained a wide range of coins from Aquitanian mints, including issues of Aquitania, Bourges, Dax, Melle, Toulouse and, in the case of Apremont, Bordeaux. At the same time they also included a remarkable mixture of coins from all other parts of the Empire: for instance, the mints of Barcelona, Cologne, Dorestad, Marseille, Nantes, Paris, Rouen and Venice were all represented in both hoards. Twenty-five years later the picture was radically

82. MG 567, 572, 574, 592a. 83. Edict of Pitres, с. 12: MGH, Capilularia II, p. 315. 84. Duplessy, Trésors, nos. 17, 40.

218 SIMON COUPLAND

different. The Auzeville hoard thus contained sixty-seven coins of Pippin from nearby Toulouse and only one other issue minted by him, probably at Melle. At Brioux, an Aquilania obole was the only other coin of Pippin found with sixty-one issues from the local mint of Melle. The third Aquitanian hoard from the relevant period, found at Lauzès (Lot), did not contain any issues of either Melle or Toulouse, but one obole of Cahors, a Christiana religio issue from Dax, a portrait coin of Bourges, and an Aquitania obole. Furthermore, it is important to note that at least two, and probably all three, of these hoards contained no contemporary issues minted outside Aquitaine. Apart from the coins of Pippin, the Auzeville and Brioux hoards contained only Aquitanian coinage of Charles the Bald and, in both instances, a single issue of Louis the Pious. At Lauzès, the bulk of the find consisted of earlier coins of Louis the Pious, and only one issue of Charles the Bald was present, a Christiana religio denier whose style suggests that it was probably struck at Melle.

If coinage from outside was thus not entering Aquitaine, it is equally clear from West Frankish and Lotharingian hoards that only a trickle of Aquitanian coinage was being taken out (see Table One). Although it is conceivable that some of Pippin's coins were exported but then reminted by Charles the Bald or Lothar, the fact that neither ruler appears to have sought to exclude the other's coinage from circulation makes it highly unlikely that they would have singled out Pippin's issues for reminting, except perhaps within Aquitaine itself after Pippin's downfall.

The division of the Empire into several autonomous kingdoms offers an obvious explanation for the breakdown in circulation between Aquitaine and the other Carolingian regna. Yet this does not explain the further fragmentation of Aquitaine into even smaller areas of circulation, each perhaps based around one of the major mints. It will be recalled that it is not only the coin hoards which attest to this development, but also the need for Pippin to open new mints at places such as Cahors and Limoges, and to coin oboles at all of his ateliers. The explanation which most readily comes to mind is that, just as Louis the Pious's Empire had split into a number of different kingdoms, so Aquitaine had fractured into a series of separate regions, each with its own local economy. It was no longer a cohesive economic unit — if indeed it ever had been — and Pippin had no overall control over the whole. This lack of unity is also evident from the variety of different coin types minted by Pippin. Temple types were produced at Bordeaux and Dax, and, in the form of Christiana religio coinage, alongside monogram issues at Melle. Toulouse likewise minted monogram coinage, whereas Limoges struck deniers with a cross on both faces and Bourges produced


portrait coins. Of course, the minting of a plethora of coinage types does not necessarily indicate a descent into anarchy, but it is clear that large-scale production of a single type is a sign of strong political control and a unified economy. It is significant that Louis the Pious introduced three coinage types during the course of his reign, each of which was struck throughout the Empire for the duration of its emission with minimal variation.

In sum, the evidence of coins and coin hoards alike suggests that Aquitaine was becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the former Empire, that internal cohesion was breaking down, and that Pippin II had little overall control of his kingdom. Given the brevity of Pippin's reign and the ever-present threat of intervention by Charles the Bald, it is hardly surprising that Pippin's hold over his realm appears to have been somewhat tenuous. In addition, Pippin was continually faced by a more immediate and more savage enemy than Charles the Bald: the Vikings.

Since the beginning of the ninth century, Scandinavian fleets had been harrassing the coast of Aquitaine from their bases in Ireland, and after the outbreak of the civil war in 840 their attacks increased in number, scale and scope. Contemporary texts record the sack of Nantes in 843, the capture of Toulouse in 844, and the occupation of the Saintonge in 845. Throughout the three years of Pippin's reign the invaders ranged across Aquitaine as if at will, plundering, burning and killing. In the autumn of 848 the mint at Melle itself was burned:85 the Vikings were always attracted by silver. It is possible that the Brioux hoard was concealed at this time by a panic-stricken local who was hoping to keep his money from the raiders but then became their victim. Certainly the hoard's composition is consistent with burial at the end of 848.

Other numismatic evidence of the Viking raids on Poitou is provided by the discovery of coins of Pippin from Melle in hoards in Ireland, England and Sweden (see Table One). The restricted circulation of Pippin's coinage within Aquitaine means that these coins were almost certainly acquired from Poitou itself, either between 845 and 848 or soon afterwards, while Pippin's coinage was still current. At Kattilstorp the coins of Pippin were found together with a denier of Charles the Bald from Melle, two Christiana religio issues of Louis the Pious and thirty Arab dirhems, the most recent minted in 850/851. 86 It is somewhat surprising to find Carolingian coins in Sweden at this early date, as it is generally accepted that

85. Ann. Bert. 848: Grat, Viellard and Clémencet, p. 55. 86. As. n. 73.

220 SIMON COUPLAND

the Vikings who raided Western Europe in the ninth century originated from Denmark and Norway. However, one fleet which was active in Aquitaine in the 840s and 850s was reported to be composed of "Wesfaldingi": men from Vestfold in eastern Norway.87 Vastergôtland, where the hoard was found, lies to the south-east of Vestfold, on the other side of the Oslofjord.

The same fleet is also known to have been active in Ireland at this time, which almost certainly accounts for the passage of the coins of Pippin from Melle which ended up at Mullaghboden and Derrykeighan. The Mullaghboden hoard was exclusively composed of Carolingian coins, and like the Káttilstorp hoard it contained monogram issues of Charles the Bald from Melle and Christiana religio issues of Louis the Pious.88 The presence of Louis's Christiana religio coinage and the lack of any of Charles's two-line issues from Melle, introduced in 848, suggests that the Carolingian parcels in both of these hoards were removed from circulation before the deposition of the Brioux hoard, during Pippin's reign itself. By contrast, the fragment of one of Pippin's Melle issues in the Derrykeighan hoard was not found with other Carolingian coins, but had presumably been circulating in Ireland for over a hundred years before its deposition in the late tenth century.89 As for the English finds, the coin in the Dorking hoard and the denier of Pippin from Melle which was mentioned in the earliest description of the hoard unearthed at Trewhiddle in 1774,90 these were probably also brought to England by the Vikings. This can be deduced from the fact that foreign coin was effectively excluded from circulation in ninth-century England, yët these coins of Pippin were not deposited by their Anglo-Saxon owners until the 860s, some fifteen to twenty years after they had been minted.91 They had therefore probably passed through the hands of Scandinavians in the interval, perhaps in Ireland. In an ironic twist, the hoards which contained these coins were almost certainly concealed for fear that they would fall into the hands of the Vikings.

In short, it seems likely that all of these coins were taken by Scandinavian raiders active in Poitou in the late 840s or early

87. Annales Engolismenses 843: MGH, Scriptores XVI, p. 486. 88. R. H. M. Dolley, The 1871 Viking-Age Find of Silver Coins from Mullaghboden

as a Reflection of Westfalding Intervention in Ireland, Universitetets Oldsaksamlings Arbok, 1960-1961, p. 49-62.

89. R. H.M. Dolley, New Light on the 1843 Viking-Age Coin Hoard from Derrykeighan near Derrock, со. Antrim, BNJ 34, 1965, p. 32-36.

90. R.H.M. Dolley and K.F. Morrison, Finds of Carolingian Coins from Great Britain and Ireland, BNJ 32, 1963, p. 75-87, nos. 5, 9.

91. For the dates of deposit (Dorking circa 862, Trewhiddle circa 868), see M.A.S. Blackburn and H.E. Pagan, A revised check-list of coin hoards from the British Isles, с 500-1100, in M.A.S. Blackburn (éd.), Anglo-Saxon Monetary History, Leicester, 1986, p. 294.


850s. They provide a tangible reminder of the uphill struggle which Pippin II faced as he tried to gain control over his fragmented kingdom, and indeed of the cause of his eventual downfall. For according to one contemporary, it was Pippin's "desidia inertiaque" in the face of the Viking attacks which provoked the Aquitanian populace into abandoning him and rallying to Charles the Bald in the summer of 848. 92

92. Ann. Bert. 848: Grat, Vielliard and Clémencet, p. 55.

Key to plate XX

I am extremely grateful to the staff at the Cabinets des Médailles in Paris and Brussels and at the KPK in Leiden for granting me access to the coins in their collections, and to Dr. Kluge of the Berlin Munzkabinett and Mrs. Imbert of the Bibliothèque Municipale de Grenoble for sending five of the photographs reproduced here (nos. 3, 5, 6, 8, 11).

1. Pippin I, Aquitaniorum. Brussels. 2.78 g (mounted). 2. Pippin II, Bourges^ Lauzès hoard, reproduced from RN 1906, pi. XII.

1.52 g. 3. Louis the Pious, VlSTA-rEDCl obole. Grenoble. 4. Charles the Bald, Bourges. Collection С Côte 571, BN. 1.61 g. 5. Pippin II, Christiana religio (Melle). Berlin. 1.36 g. 6. Pippin II, Christiana religio (Melle). Berlin. 1.41 g. 7. Pippin II, Christiana religio (Dax). Lauzès hoard, RN 1906, pi. XII.

1.73 g. 8. Pippin II, Christiana religio (Bordeaux). Berlin. 1.29 g. 9. Pippin II, Aquitaniorum. Roermond hoard, unpublished. 1.44 g.

10. Charles the Bald, Christiana religio (Melle). Roermond hoard, unpublished. 1.65 g. 11. Lothar I, Bordeaux. Berlin. 1.48 g. 12. Lothar I, Aquitania obole. BN 658a. 0.60 g. 13. Pippin II, Aquitania obole. Brussels. 0.68 g. 14. Pippin II, Aquitania obole. Brussels. 0.76 g. 15. Pippin II, Aquitania obole. BN 662. 0.65 g.

93. In the second column, "Size" generally refers to the number of coins whose type is recorded, which may be less than the number of coins in the original discovery. However, in the cases of the Derrykeighan, Dorking and Trewhiddle finds the approximate hoard sizes given by Dolley and Morrison have been reproduced. In the third column, "XR" signifies Christiana religio issues, and all coins are deniers unless otherwise indicated.

94. H.H. Vólckers, Karolingische Můnzfunde der Frůhzeit (751-800), Abhandlun- gen der Akademie de Wissenschaften in Gôttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse III, 61, Gôttingen, 1965.

95. L. de Coster, Lettre à M. Hoffmann, Le Numismate 1862-1864, p. 57. 96. H. Roosens, Trouvaille de monnaies carolingiennes à Muizen-les-Malines (1906),

RBN 1950, p. 203-208. 97. L. de Coster, Restitution de quelques monnaies à Charlemagne, RBN 1852,

p. 400-401. The figures given by Vôlckers under no. Ill are flawed, as I hope to demonstrate in a forthcoming article on the Dorestad mint in the ninth century.

222 SIMON COUPLAND

Table I. — Finds of coins of Pippin II93

Location

Achlum, Frisia Angers, Maine-et-Loire Auzeville, Haute-Garonne . .

Ballon, Sarthe Brioux, Deux-Sèvres

Derrykeighan, со. Antrim . . Domburg, Zeeland

Dorking, Surrey Ekeren, Antwerp Fontaines, Saône-et-Loire . . "Frisia" Ide, Drenthe "Indre" Kimswerd II, Frisia Káttilstorp, Vástergótland . .

Lauzès, Lot

Méréville, Essonne Muizen, East Flanders Mullaghboden, со. Kildare . . Neuvy-au-Houlme, Orne . . . Pilligerheck, Rheinland-Pfalz .

Roermond, Limburg

Roswinkel, Drenthe Schouwen, Zeeland Thoiry, Yvelines Trewhiddle, Cornwall Wagenborgen, Groningen . . . Wijk-bij-Duurstede, Utrecht . Zelzate, East Flanders

Size

498 29

394

? 145

с 120 stray

с 1000 97

525

22 112 24 41 36

28

25 73 8

16 1859

1132

143 stray

? с 120

110 stray 462

Coins of Pippin

1 XR 1 Melle ob.

65 Toulouse 2 Toulouse ob. 1XR ? 1 Aquilania ob.

22 Melle 39 Melle ob.

1 Melle 2 Aquitania ob. 1XR 1 Melle 1 Aquitania ob. 2 Aquitania ob. 1 XR 1 Bourges 1 Dax 1 XR 1 Dax 2 Melle 1 Poitiers 1 Aquitania ob. 1 Bourges 1 Cahors ob. 1 XR 2 Aquitania ob. 4 Aquitania ob. 2 Melle 1 XR 2 Aquilaniorum 2 Dax 1 Toulouse 1XR 1 XR ob. 2 Aquilaniorum 6 Aquitania ob. 3Dax 1 Limoges ob. 2XR 1 Aquitania ob. 1 Melle ob.

1 Melle? 1 Aquitaniorum 1 Aquitania ob. 1 Aquitaniorum 3 Aquitania ob.

Source

Boeles no. Ill DUPLESSY ПО. 11 DUPLESSY ПО. 26

Duplessy no. 32 Duplessy no. 59

DOLLEY 1965 VÔLCKERS ПО. II94

Dolley & Morrison no. 5 De Coster 186295 Duplessy no. 147

Boeles no. II Van Gelder 1965 Duplessy no. 386 Boeles no. VI Rasmusson 1937

Duplessy no. 191

Duplessy no. 211 Roosens 195096 Dolley & Morrison no. 4 Duplessy no. 238 Lafaurie 1969-1970

Van Gelder 1985

Boeles no. XIV VÔLCKERS ПО. XIX Duplessy no. 353 Dolley & Morrison no. 9 Boeles no. XXI De Coster 185297 N ASTER 1950

The coinages of Pippin I and II of Aquitaine, Revue numismatique6 31 (1989), pp. 194-222

Documents

Transcript of The coinages of Pippin I and II of Aquitaine, Revue numismatique6 31 (1989), pp. 194-222