The coinages of Pippin I and II of Aquitaine - article ; n°31 ; vol.6, pg 194-222

Simon Coupland

Description

Revue numismatique - Année 1989 - Volume 6 - Numéro 31 - Pages 194-222
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.
29 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Informations

• Publié par: REVUE_NUMISMATIQUE
• Publié le: 01 janvier 1989
• Nombre de lectures: 18
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 2 Mo

Extrait

Simon Coupland
The coinages of Pippin I and II of Aquitaine
In: Revue numismatique, 6e série - Tome 31, année 1989 pp. 194-222.
Abstract
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.
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_1945COUPLAND* Simon
THE COINAGES
OF PIPPIN I AND II
OF AQUITAINE**
(PL XX)
seuls Résumé. les deniers — Des au monnaies portrait émises à la au légende nom d'un Aquitaniorum roi Pépin doivent d'Aquitaine être au attribués ixe siècle, 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 I would Hall, like to Cambridge express my CB gratitude 3 9HG. 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. COINAGES OF PIPPIN I AND II 195 THE
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 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 explanat
ion.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 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. THE COINAGES OF PIPPIN I AND II 197
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 attri