Available online at http://britnumsoc.org/publications/Digital%20BNJ/2010.

shtml

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

RORY NAISMITH

OFFA, king of the Mercians, came to the throne in 757 an eventful year, which began with
the murder of the long-lived King thelbald (71657), and the succession to the Mercian
throne of an obscure king named Beornred. But Beornred, as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle put
it, held [the kingdom] for but a little while and unhappily,1 and was put to flight by Offa
before the end of the year. The events of Offas reign between then and his death on 29 July
796 can be reconstructed on the basis of some forty charters, a series of entries in the AngloSaxon Chronicle and related historical texts and from an important group of letters associated with the expatriate Northumbrian scholar Alcuin (d. 804).2 From these a great deal can
be learned: about the expansion of Mercian power across all England south of the Humber
save Wessex; about the displacement of old local dynasties which this process necessitated;
about interaction between the Mercian court and that of Charlemagne (768814); and about
the practical and ideological foundations of kingship within Offas kingdom.
In all this the coinage of Offas reign looms unusually large as an historical source, above
all because of its departure from earlier monetary norms and its artistic richness,3 but also
because of the relative scarcity of written sources pertaining to southern England at this time.
Where charters, chronicles and archaeological sources fail, Offas pennies potentially provide
an important window onto a dynamic and elaborate aspect of the regime.
A major step forward in the understanding of Offas coinage has recently been taken with the
publication of Derek Chicks volume The Coinage of Offa and His Contemporaries.4 This benefits from Mr Chicks detailed knowledge of the series and offers important insights, including
a new typology which covers all surviving specimens known down to late 2006, and will allow
future analyses to proceed with considerable confidence. This paper is intended to complement
Chicks volume in two ways. First, it publishes sixty-three new coins of Offa. These are listed
(with Chick type numbers) in an Appendix to this article that includes all new specimens which
came to light after the Chick catalogue was closed in 2006 (see Pls 78). Second, it presents
the state of knowledge of Offas coinage from a numismatic point of view, highlighting certain
areas in which the availability of Chicks catalogue has already allowed new conclusions to be
reached or fresh questions put forward, particularly with regard to the Light coinage. After
a brief outline of the current understanding of Offas coinage, the debates surrounding mint
and moneyer attribution will be examined, followed by an exploration of the different types
and presentation of some stylistic subgroups which can be identified within the Light coinage.
Finally, the relative and absolute chronology of the coinage will be examined in detail.
Numismatic and chronological outline
The coinage of Offa is distinguished from that of the preceding period in two major respects.
Most obviously, his silver pennies are substantially broader and thinner than the early pennies
Acknowledgements. Gareth Williams generously provided scans of no. 7 in the Appendix (p. 98), and details of further new
finds and acquisitions were given by Keith Chapman, John Cross, Stewart Lyon, William MacKay and others, to all of whom I
extend my thanks.
1
Lytle hwile heold ond ungefealice, A[nglo-]S[axon] C[hronicle] s.a. 755(=757), ed. Plummer 1892 I, 4850; trans.
Whitelock 1979, 176. For the possible identification of this Beornred with the East Anglian ruler Beonna, see Archibald 2005,
12930.
2
Keynes 2005 provides an up-to-date survey of Offas reign and the sources behind it; also important are Campbell et al.
1982, 10128, Stenton 1971, 20624, Kirby 2000, 13450 and Story 2003.
3
On the artistic dimensions of Offas coinage see Gannon 2003.
4
Chick 2010. All type-references to this catalogue here take the form Chick.

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

77

or sceattas of the early eighth century, and were modelled on the reformed coinages of Pippin
III (75168) in the kingdom of the Franks and of Beonna (c.749760?) in East Anglia.5 The
increased surface area of the new pennies fostered the other key development of Offas reign:
the standard adoption of legends naming king and moneyer. This new information allows
much more confident and precise attributions of the coinage than was possible for the largely
uninscribed earlier sceattas or pennies.
Minting probably took place at three locations under Offa: London, Canterbury and somewhere in East Anglia, possibly Ipswich.6 None of these, however, is named, and the emphasis
rather seems to have been on the moneyer responsible for production. About forty moneyers
are named on the first broad silver pennies struck in the decades down to Offas death in 796.
Most of these worked solely for Offa, but a few other rulers are named on the first new pennies, among them Egbert II (c.764784?) and Heaberht (fl. c.765), two of the last independent
kings of Kent; thelberht II (d. 794), king of East Anglia; two archbishops of Canterbury
(Jnberht (76592) and thelheard (792805)); one bishop of London (Eadberht (77282
78789)) and, perhaps most surprisingly, Offas queen, Cynethryth (d. after 798).7
The extant output of these kings and moneyers comprises about 800 southern English
pennies produced before 796;8 a surprisingly high figure given that only one small hoard
deposited in Britain during the reign of Offa has ever been recorded.9 These 800 include a
high proportion of coins which have come to light as single-finds, most of them quite recently
thanks to the expansion of metal-detecting. This wealth of single-finds is invaluable material
for the study of monetary history,10 and demonstrates that, through fits and starts, a large and
dynamic currency, approaching that of the earlier eighth century in scale, revived in southern
England under Offa.11 This data has also provided the raw material for fresh assessment of the
numismatic background to the coinage. Answers to such questions as when and where certain
types were produced are naturally fundamental to the interpretation of the coinage by other
specialists, but are elusive and often debatable in the case of Offas coinage. In many particulars
this and all other outlines must be taken as provisional rather than definitive.
Offas coinage began in the 760s and 770s with the Light coinage,11a based probably on a
target weight of c.1.30 g: the same as that of contemporary Frankish coinage. The Light coinage can be sub-divided into two main phases (early and substantive here designated phases I
and II: see Figs 1a and b) and five sub-phases. A second major reform occurred in 792/3 which
established a uniform design at all three mints and a new weight standard of c.1.45 g.12 This
last phase of the coinage is consequently known as the Heavy coinage; it constituted the third
main phase of Offas coinage (here designated phase III: see Fig. 1c).

Fig. 1ac. Chick 6a, 10p and 203a. The three main phases of Offas coinage: the early issues (c.760/75c.784/5),
the substantive Light coinage (c.784/5792/3) and the Heavy coinage (792/36).
5
See Archibald 1985 and MEC I, 190266. On the new physical technique used to make Pippin and Offas pennies, see
Blackburn 1995, 548.
6
On the mints of Offas reign, and alternative suggestions as to their number, see below, pp. 7880.
7
On Cynethryths political standing see Stafford 2001, 3740.
8
There are also three associated gold coins: Chick 2010, types 13 and Blackburn 2007.
9
This hoard was found over several years at Aiskew, North Yorkshire, in the 1990s and 2000s, and comprised fourteen
pennies of Offa and his contemporaries. Its deposition probably occurred a little after the inception of the substantive Light
coinage in c.784/5. Some mini-hoards of two or three pennies of Offa may also have been found in modern times, though these
can be difficult to identify with certainty: Metcalf 2009, 10 and 27. It is probable that at least one further hoard of pennies of
Offa was discovered at some point before the eighteenth century: Blunt 1961, 52.
10
On these aspects of the coinage see especially Chick 2005 and Metcalf 2009.
11
Metcalf 2009, 46.
11a
It has been proposed that Offas coinage began with sceattas in his name, though these should probably be seen as late
Merovingian issues: see Chick 2010.
12
See below, pp. 889.

78

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

The earliest part of Offas coinage was very small in scale, and has only come to prominence in the last two decades (phase Ia). Yet thanks largely to the research of Derek Chick
and Michael Metcalf it has come to provide a relatively fixed point of clarity which, with the
Heavy coinage (phase III), serves to sandwich the much more problematic substantive Light
coinage.13 This first segment of the Light coinage was followed by an obscure phase of intermediate coinage (phase Ib) struck probably in the late 770s and early 780s. At some point after
this initial stage of small-scale production the coinage expanded, probably quite swiftly (if not
overnight),14 into a much more considerable enterprise which, following Derek Chicks usage,
I shall term the substantive Light coinage (phase II).
The advent of the famous and attractive portrait issues marked the beginning of this substantive Light coinage (though these were produced alongside non-portrait coins throughout
phase II). Its emergence is difficult to date and, as will be argued below, probably occurred
roughly simultaneously at Canterbury and London in the mid-780s. It can be tentatively divided
into three sub-phases: a small initial group characterised by the placement of the moneyers
name on the obverse alongside the portrait (with the kings name, often in abbreviated form,
on the reverse) (phase IIa); a more substantial group (represented by the Aiskew hoard) which
combined the striking artistic quality of the first phase with the placement of the kings name
alongside the bust and the relocation of the moneyers to the reverse (phase IIb); and finally
a more obscure later phase in which more diverse and often poorer-quality die-cutting styles
emerged (phase IIc). This threefold division applies in full only to Canterbury and London;
the East Anglian mint probably began to produce the substantive Light coinage slightly later,
and its products cannot be confidently sub-divided within the substantive Light coinage.
Moneyers and mints in the coinage of Offa
Mints in late eighth-century England
No mints are named on Offas pennies, but the widely accepted outline of minting under Offa
is that his coins belong to three centres: London, Canterbury and somewhere in East Anglia.15
This bald statement papers over a number of uncertainties, however, the most fundamental of
which is what one actually means by mint in the context of eighth-century England. Mint
at this stage should be understood as shorthand for minting town a location at which one
or more moneyers were based. To all intents and purposes it appears that each of these
moneyers was essentially a mint unto himself. There was probably no centralised mint-building
in any of these towns, and every moneyer operated his own separate forge and minting workshop. Although this arrangement is not documented until the eleventh century,16 it seems to
have been widely used in earlier Anglo-Saxon England, and explains many features of the
coinage. Just one inter-moneyer die-link has been noted from Offas reign,17 for example, and
the complex manner in which moneyers interacted with die-cutters suggests that the moneyer
not the mint was the key unit on which production was based in late eighth-century
England.
Nonetheless, it still appears probable that the three minting centres named above were home
to most or all of Offas moneyers. The location of mints at Canterbury and London under
Offa is attested by coins naming the bishops of those cities,18 but dividing Offas money13

Chick 1997. Cf. now Metcalf 2009, esp. 811.

Ibid., 9, who stresses a more gradual recovery from recession in the period down to this time.
15
For further recent comments on the number of mints under Offa see ibid., 3 (suggesting the existence of four to five
mints); and Williams 2001, 21315.
16
Metcalf 2001.
17
Chick 31a and 43a.
18
There has in the past been some uncertainty over the attribution of Bishop Eadberhts coins (Lockett 1920, 12; Blunt
1961, 445; Metcalf 1988, 2412; and Williams 2001, 217). But the similarity of the episcopus monogram to that used for the
same title in bishops attestations of contemporary documentation strongly suggests that this is the correct interpretation (e.g.,
Webster and Backhouse 1991, no. 158). The extended reading episcopus Merciorum might also be possible (Metcalf 2009, 1112),
though London was at this time associated with the East Saxons, not the Mercians; the description episcopus (provinciae)
Merciorum normally did not function as an honorific and belonged as a matter of course to the bishops of Leicester and Lichfield
14

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

79

ers between them is difficult, and it cannot be ruled out that there were additional mints
located elsewhere in the kingdom. Pinning these down is exceedingly problematic, if they existed at all. One might compare the situation in the decades after Offas death, by which time
the pattern of minting activity at a small number of comparatively large east-coast centres
is somewhat clearer, thanks in part to occasional mint-signed issues which reveal the locations of mints and the numerous moneyers associated with them. By the early ninth century
Canterbury, London and the East Anglian mint had been joined by subsidiary new mints at
Rochester and in Wessex, all of which are distinguishable in style and typology.19 Smaller
mints, if they existed, cannot be traced as easily in the time of Offa. This could be explained
if their dies were being supplied from workshops elsewhere, and there are certainly precedents
for die-cutters from London sometimes supplying moneyers in Canterbury.20 But dies made
within the local mint-town remained the norm for most moneyers, and the inconsistency of
inter-mint die-movement in Offas Light coinage meant that dies from London never became
a universal feature at Canterbury: locally-made dies of distinct style often had to be used.
Occasional local production might have been expected at other mints, but strong traces of this
cannot be found.
In the case of the East Anglian mint, however, there are no known episcopal or mint-signed
coins, and so even the location or locations of minting remain debatable. In the preceding
coinages of early pennies or sceattas and of the reign of Beonna (749c.760) there had been
multiple mints in East Anglia one, the largest, was probably at Ipswich, and two or three
smaller ones were in the vicinity of Thetford, northwest Norfolk and on the Norfolk coast.21
The diverse East Anglian coinage of Offa may preserve traces of the last gasps of one or
more of these subsidiary mints, though these were probably in the process of being phased
out in favour of a single bigger mint (Ipswich?) around this time.22 Even quite early in Offas
reign links were already emerging between the styles and designs used by most East Anglian
moneyers, which on the model of London and Canterbury probably suggests a single relatively large mint.23 There may have been a subsidiary mint-place associated with the moneyer
Lul, who was solely responsible for thelberht IIs coinage. Yet Lul was generally associated
with a prolific East Anglian die-cutter,24 and there are precedents for complex power-sharing
arrangements within larger mint-towns.25 The circumstances of thelberhts reign and the
coinage by Lul must therefore remain obscure.
By 796 the number of East Anglian moneyers seems to have shrunk slightly, and greater
homogeneity prevailed among them in the coinages of Eadwald, Coenwulf and later kings.
The East Anglian moneyers at this stage were consistently being supplied by one die-cutter
and followed one weight and metal standard,26 and so were most probably based in a single
location. There was already substantial consistency between East Anglian moneyers in the

(cf. Page 1966, 37). It has not apparently been noted that a second bishop named Eadberht was active at this time, of Leicester
(76478185). But Leicester was remote from other known centres of minting and coin-use at this time, and while of considerable
prominence (Keynes 1993, 245) the see was associated with and secondary to that of Lichfield, for which no coins are known.
The presence of a mint at London in the early ninth century and the relatively strong southern distribution of the nine known
single-finds of Eadberht pennies (seven from Essex or further south) also point towards a more southerly minting place.
19
Blunt, Lyon and Stewart 1963.
20
And vice versa in the case of the gold mancus of Coenwulf (EMC 2004.0167) minted c.80510 with Canterbury-made
dies but bearing a London mint-signature. Mobile moneyers who derived most of their dies from these main centres but moved
between Canterbury and London, or perhaps other locations, may also be a possibility.
21
Metcalf 2000; Archibald 1985, 2731; and Archibald et al. 1995, 47.
22
It should be noted that the one moneyer to survive from Beonnas reign into Offas was associated in the earlier reign with
the larger southeastern mint (Ipswich?).
23
Metcalf 2009, 3 n.9 suggested that Botrd, Eadnoth and Ecbald might represent the moneyers of a second East Anglian
mint. The average weight of these moneyers coins is slightly below average for Offas Light coinage (a mean and median of 1.14 g
and 1.12 g respectively), but the workable sample is extremely small just five suitable coins, including none of Botrd. For
stylistic connections which link these moneyers to other East Anglian moneyers, see below, pp. 868; and for further discussion
of metrology, p. 82.
24
For Luls coinage for Offa and thelberht see Chick 1713 and 186. He survived through the reign of Eadwald into the
reign of Coenwulf. For discussion see Blunt 1961, 4950; and MEC I, 281.
25
Blunt, Lyon and Stewart 1963, 1011; and MEC I, 288.
26
Naismith forthcoming b.

80

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

physical features of weight and fineness under Offa, though these standards were also adhered
to by the moneyers of contemporary Canterbury and London.27
In short, definitive conclusions are still lacking on important questions surrounding the
number, nature and location of minting towns in Offas kingdom. The basic problem is reconciling the substantially larger number of mints active earlier in the eighth century with the
smaller number probably just five, including two recently opened mints evident by c.810.28
Offas coinage lies at the crux of this transition, and emerged from the aftermath of a major
monetary recession in the middle of the eighth century.29 This temporarily decimated the currency, especially in southern England, and helped precipitate several important developments
in the form and organisation of minting.30 A contraction in the number of mints to only the
leading centres would be more consistent with these changes than with silent re-expansion and
closure between c.76596 as the coinage went from strength to strength.
After c.765, minting was based probably on production in just a few major mint-towns
along the eastern seaboard of England, taking full advantage of incoming foreign bullion
(the likely source of most silver under Offa).31 It was in part for this reason that coinage in
general had a relatively slight impact on the western heartland of Mercia itself: its production
and circulation were dictated primarily by economic forces rather than the concentration of
political power, and hence most coin-use and apparently all mints were situated in the east.32
No coins exist, for example, in the name of Hygeberht, archbishop of Lichfield between 787
and 803,33 whereas pennies were produced in the names of Bishop Eadberht at London and
Offas erstwhile enemy Archbishop Jnberht at Canterbury, who were presumably reaping
the benefit of their cities importance in economic life.
Mint attributions under Offa
The next and more treacherous step is the division of Offas moneyers between these three
mints. Until the early 1960s all the coins of Offa were thought to have been struck at Canterbury.34
Christopher Blunt then identified the East Anglian group by its distinctive stylistic features
and the presence of moneyers who were securely attributed to East Anglia under other rulers.35
It was this moneyer-based approach which would, in the 1980s, allow Lord Stewartby to distinguish the coins of London from those of Canterbury.36 In an important article on the mint
attribution of Offas moneyers,37 he saw that the way forward was to begin by isolating those
individuals who could be decisively linked to a specific mint by activity under other rulers
whose power was restricted to just one known mint. The moneyers who can be attributed in
this way are provisionally listed as very probable in Table 1 below. These, however, only
account for a portion of Offas moneyers, and other moneyers must be attributed by different
means. In the case of East Anglia, strong characteristics such as more localised circulation
and the use of runes make attribution of the relevant moneyers comparatively straightforward.38

27

See below, p. 82.

Metcalf 1993 III, 300 suggests twenty mints for the sceattas. However, it should be noted that a small group of leading
mints probably accounted for a high proportion of the currency, among them the mints which can be traced with confidence after
Offas reform (Metcalf 2009, 4).
29
Metcalf 2009, 1222.
30
Cf. Naismith forthcoming c.
31
Metcalf and Northover 1989, 1056. Cf. now Metcalf 2009, 18.
32
Naismith forthcoming d.
33
Notwithstanding some earlier efforts to identify the issues of the moneyer Heaberht as his: Blunt 1961, 46. For a possible
explanation of Bishop Eadberhts exceptional coinage from around this time as an attempt by Offa to win his favour, see Metcalf
1963, 39.
34
E.g., Lockett 1920, 667 and BMC II, xxii.
35
Blunt 1961, 4950.
36
Note that Blunt, Lyon and Stewart 1963, 67 and Lyon 1967, 21921 had already proposed the existence of a London
mint under Offa.
37
Stewart 1986.
38
Others besides the five linked moneyers who can be associated with East Anglia include Eadberht, Ecbald, Ecghun and
Oethelred (Chick 163, 1667, 16870, 1747 and 250).
28

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

81

At London and Canterbury, however, it is not so easy to separate the products of the two
mints, which share many affinities of circulation as well as weight and fineness.39
Consequently, in assigning moneyers to London and Canterbury, one must rely almost
solely on the evidence of type and style, with all their concomitant ambiguities. These are
very pronounced in the Light coinage, where close correspondences sometimes exist between
moneyers who were probably active at different mints.40 Some apparently diagnostic types and
features have been suggested, but few can be made to stick in every case. For example, Lord
Stewartby pointed out an unusual form of R that seemed to be associated with London moneyers in the Heavy coinage, and thus added Beaghard, Ealhmund and Wulfhath to the London
complement.41 However, the appearance of new coins in subsequent years has altered the situation. Not only did several London moneyers also use a regular R, but some specimens of the
Heavy coinage of the moneyer Osmod (who is strongly associated with Canterbury by other
evidence) also use the unusual form of R, while Beaghard, one of the moneyers who struck
coins of this variety of Heavy coinage, shared an identical Light obverse design with a coin of
Archbishop Jnberht.42 Hence he was very probably a Canterbury moneyer, or at least in very
close contact with minting at Canterbury.
It is easier to perceive stronger stylistic and typological links binding small groups of
moneyers together than universal trends at each mint-town; Figs 212 present eleven such
groups of moneyers (Groups AJ, pp. 868 below). Fig. 5, for example, illustrates an identical light obverse type which was shared by Ealred, Eoba, Osmod and Udd (Fig. 5, Group D).43
Eoba and Udd were very probably Canterbury moneyers, and so it is reasonable to associate
Ealred and Osmod with Canterbury as well. Eadhun and Ealhmund are also closely associated: they used an identical design on certain coins (Group C, Fig. 4), and are the only two
moneyers of Offa to share an inter-moneyer die link.44 Although their attribution cannot be
described as secure, Ealhmund was the only moneyer besides Bishop Eadberht of London
to use the obverse legend OFRa,45 which suggests that Ealhmund and Eadhun were possibly
associated with London. thelwald and Dud are very closely linked to each other but do not
betray any features to attribute them decisively to either mint.46 The most that can be said is
that Dud was one of a small group of moneyers who used the extended form of ethnic on the
obverse (MERCIORVM or similar), among them Ealhmund and Eadhun, so the balance of
probability suggests London.
By processes of this kind, most of the moneyers of Offa can be tentatively attributed to one
mint or another. There remain only a few for whom there is no appreciable evidence either
way. Tirwald, for example, used a serpent torque reverse very similar to that of Ealhmund
and also another reverse type shared only by Dud (Group J, Fig. 11),47 suggesting London;
but he also employed a celtic cross obverse design and other reverse designs more akin to
those used by Archbishop Jnberht and other secure Canterbury moneyers.48
All the moneyers have been arranged in Table 1 below to show roughly how likely the attributions to each mint are: very probable moneyers struck in other periods, allowing fairly
secure attributions; probable moneyers can be convincingly linked to them and thus to a
mint; possible moneyers are more likely to be linked to the mint in question, but the attribution remains flexible; and uncertain moneyers cannot be confidently attributed to London or
39

See below, pp. 824.

Stewart 1988, 401.
41
Ibid., 368.
42
Chick 16 and 158. A similar (but not identical) type was also used by Eoba, Heaberht and Pehtwald (Chick 11618,
1224 and 130).
43
Chick 99100, 115, 125 and 137.
44
Chick 313 and 43.
45
Chick 3941 and 83. Metcalf 1963, 401 saw the moneyer Ealhmund/Alhmund as distinct from another moneyer named
Ealmund. Since this difference seems to coincide with the work of different die-cutters, it is also possible that this reflects the
different orthographical preferences of two individuals or workshops charged with composing and inscribing coin inscriptions
for the same moneyer. For further discussion see Naismith forthcoming d.
46
Chick 813, 1920 and 278.
47
Chick 37 and 132 for the serpent torque types and group J, below.
48
Chick 91, 129, 1324 and 1501. Cf. group E below.
40

82

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

Canterbury. It should be noted that this table differs in some respects from the attributions in
Derek Chicks recent volume.
TABLE 1.

Mint attributions of Offas moneyers.

LONDON
Bishop Eadberht
Ciolhard
Diola
Eama
Ibba
Ludoman
Wilhun
Winoth

CANTERBURY
Archbishop Jnberht
Babba
Eoba
Ethelmod
Ethelnoth
Udd

EAST ANGLIA
Botred
Eadnoth
Lul
Wihtred
Wilred

Probable

Eadhun
Ealhmund
Wulfhath

Osmod
Ealred
Deimund
Heaberht

Eadberht
Ecbald
Ecghun
Oethelred

Possible

thelwald
Cuthberht
Dud
Lulla
Mang

Beagheard
Pehtwald

Wita (=Wihtred?)

Very probable

Uncertain

Tirwald
Pendrd
Ealdnod

Attempts to differentiate Canterbury, London and other mints on the basis of moneyers careers,
typology and stylistic affiliations are not helped by the coinages relatively homogeneous metal
content and metrology. Metallurgical analysis has so far been carried out on too few coins to
offer the detail necessary to distinguish the different practices of individual mints or moneyers,
if these existed at all.49 In terms of metrology, comparative consistency prevailed even in the
Light coinage, and working on the mint attributions suggested above, all three probable mints
produce extremely similar overall average weights of approximately 1.18 g. These figures, as well
as the average weights for each individual moneyers products, are laid out in Table 2.
Most moneyers thus correspond closely to the averages of the coinage as a whole, and
many of the outliers (Heaberht, Lul, Osmod, Pendred and Tirwald) are known from so few
usable weights that the results are not conclusive. This is less true in the case of one moneyer:
Babba. The average weight of his coins is lower than usual, but is based on a relatively large
sample. This might indicate a different minting location certainly somewhere within Kent,
as Babba struck coins for Egbert II and later Eadberht Prn (7968) as well as Offa but, in
light of the general consistency between known mints, could just as readily be explained as a
peculiarity of Babbas own workshop: another manifestation of the individual moneyer being
the basis of production. It should also be noted that in the Heavy coinage and thereafter the
weights of Babbas coins conform much more closely to the overall mean and median for the
coinage.50
Find-distributions can be used effectively to distinguish only the East Anglian mint (or
mints). Among 39 known single-finds associated with moneyers of very probable or probable East Anglian attribution, 17 (44%) were found within modern East Anglia.51 London

49

Metcalf and Northover 1989.

I.e., 1.31 g mean and 1.30 g median based on six specimens in Offas Heavy coinage, when the overall mean and median
(at Canterbury and for the coinage as a whole) were both 1.30 g.
51
Within the reign of Offa the finds of each moneyer within East Anglia are too few to permit confident discussion of
possible mint location(s) within the region. Most moneyers are known from a fairly even mix of Norfolk and Suffolk finds (e.g.,
three from each in the case of Wihtred), though East Anglian finds of Lul from the reign of Offa come entirely from Suffolk.
50

83

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

TABLE 2. Metrology of the light coinage by moneyer and mint.

Note that this table is based only on coins which are not apparently damaged in any respect. Some moneyers are
not represented by any such coins and are not included.

LONDON
thelwald
Dud
Ealhmund
Winoth
Ciolhard
Bp Eadberht
Eadhun
Ibba
Lulla
Mang
UNCERTAIN
Ealdnod
Pendred
Tirwald

No. of
specimens
155
33
22
38
11
7
10
6
16
11
1
1
6
5

Mean
(g)
1.18
1.19
1.17
1.18
1.17
1.19
1.16
1.18
1.19
1.19

Median
(g)
1.19
1.20
1.19
1.19
1.16
1.19
1.18
1.19
1.19
1.19

1.12
1.11

1.12
1.09

CANTERBURY
Babba
Beaghard
Ealred
Eoba
Ethelnoth
Heaberht
Osmod
Pehtwald
Udd
Abp Jnberht

No. of
specimens
140
13
5
18
57
6
4
3
7
14
13

Mean
(g)
1.17
1.11
1.20
1.21
1.18
1.18
1.14
1.22
1.16
1.15
1.17

Median
(g)
1.18
1.13
1.22
1.23
1.18
1.19
1.14
1.22
1.15
1.17
1.19

EAST ANGLIA
Eadberht
Eadnoth
Ecbald
Ecghun
Lul
Oethelred
Wilred
Wihtred

25
1
2
1
2
5
4
1
9

1.18

1.15

1.17
1.22
1.17

1.16

1.17

1.15

1.17
1.22
1.17

1.16

and Canterbury show much less variation. Even several decades of new finds have failed to
break the status quo. This remains the case even if one examines only finds of coins associated
with the moneyers of very probable attribution. Table 3 shows the proportional breakdown
of these finds into ten regions, with East Anglia included for comparative purposes.
TABLE 3. Breakdown of distribution of single-finds of Offas coinage struck by moneyers
most firmly associated with the London, Canterbury and East Anglian mints.
No. of Kent/ Essex Sussex East Middle Mercia East
West Lincoln- North
finds Surrey
Anglia Anglia
Wessex Wessex shire umbria
LONDON
106
23
14
5
12
18
10
8
6
9
1
(very probable)
%
22
13
5
11
17
9
8
6
8
1
CANTERBURY
88
25
9
1
12
15
4
11
2
8
1
(very probable)
%
28
10
1
14
17
5
13
2
9
1
EAST ANGLIA
28
3
6
0
13
2
1
0
2
1
0
(very probable)
%
11
21
0
46
7
4
0
7
4
0

The similarity of the find-distributions associated with London and Canterbury reiterates the
conclusions of other studies,52 although there have been some more promising results of unexpected concentrations of finds associated with specific moneyers.53 For example, the possible
London moneyers thelwald and Dud are both unusually well represented by finds from
Kent and Surrey (8 out of 25 (32%) and 12 out of 28 (43%) respectively).54 Presumably these
moneyers had especially good connections among traders or travellers from specific areas. But
such concentrations occur in only a few cases and the results cannot be mapped on to the mint
as a whole: they again serve to emphasise that moneyers, even within the same mint-town,
could work in quite different ways.

52

Chick 2005, 11318.

Metcalf 2009, 279 (on the coinages of Archbishop Jnberht and Udd for Egbert II).
54
To these might be added coins of the East Anglian moneyer Eadnoth, which (taking into account coins of him minted for
later kings) include a high proportion of finds from western Mercia. For further discussion see Naismith forthcoming d.
53

84

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

In sum, the fact that a coin was minted by a moneyer associated with Canterbury or London
had no substantial effect on its likely trajectory of circulation. Even major barriers such as the
Thames had little impact: some 40% of pennies minted by very probable London moneyers
were found south of the Thames, in comparison with 44% of those minted by very probable Canterbury moneyers. On one level this speaks volumes for the integrated and dynamic
monetary economy which revived over the course of Offas reign. But it also means that, even
in those few cases of moneyers who are known from a substantial number of finds,55 one can
only follow their evidence back to southeast England: Canterbury and London cannot be
distinguished with confidence.
Despite the Gordian knot of problems presented by the issue of mint attributions under Offa
a few general conclusions may be ventured. Prime among them is the closeness of Canterbury
and London. Economically they seem to have worked in harmony, the style and designs used
at both mints were similar and at times it looks as though dies were actually transferred from
London to Canterbury, especially high-quality portrait dies.56 A troubling corollary of this
is that even die-links or exact typological connections might not always confirm the mintattribution of a moneyer to London or Canterbury: repeated connections are probably still
reliable, but on the whole the associations made above which are not very probable or
probable should be considered very tentative and provisional.
The underlying difficulty is that the pattern of die-production in Offas Light coinage was
complex, and was not normally based on anything so straightforward as standardised types or
monopolistic die-cutting workshops dominating all the moneyers at Canterbury or London.
Moneyers within each mint-town moved in and out of association with different local and
sometimes non-local die-cutting workshops. This mirrors the generally devolved nature of
mint organisation in early and middle Anglo-Saxon England. Both moneyers and die-cutters
could be entrusted with a relatively high degree of initiative and independence, especially at
this formative stage in the Anglo-Saxon broad penny coinage.57 Die-cutters clearly enjoyed
an important say in the selection of new designs,58 and moneyers sometimes received dies of
a specific house style from die-cutters over an extended period, implying that moneyers had
some involvement in the process of die-production.59 Even kings may have dealt with specific
moneyers rather than mints as a whole.60 In many ways, therefore, it is more helpful to focus
on the die-cutters and their short- or long-term affiliations with moneyers as the basis of the
coinage, rather than on mints as a whole. This will be the approach taken here.
Moneyers, die-cutters and common types in the Light coinage
A central problem of the Light coinage is determining what significance should be assigned to
the many permutations in design and style among the surviving coins. Some must be the result
of chronological developments, others of differences in organisation at the level of moneyer,
die-cutter or perhaps mint-town. This is particularly contentious with the famous portrait
coinage associated with London and Canterbury, which offers broad scope for examination
of style and type. However, these issues remain highly complex and the portrait coinage resists
the easy imposition of well-defined styles or phases. Even the two die-cutters of the finest
portrait dies discerned by Derek Chick (in phase IIa and to a lesser extent IIb) are very similar
in several ways,61 and it is probably best to view their products as the work of one larger workshop rather than of individuals with entirely distinct styles. Several features were common to
both die-cutters, and even dies which have some typological or stylistic differences can usually
be linked by very close similarities in other areas, such as the design of the drapery, the sunken
55
56
57
58
59
60
61

Twenty of Offas moneyers are known from fewer than six English single-finds, and only eleven from fifteen or more.
See below, p. 85.
For further exploration of this topic see Naismith forthcoming d.
Naismith 2008, 221; and Naismith 2010a.
Cf. Metcalf 2009, 9 n.35; and Naismith forthcoming d.
Naismith 2010a and b.
Naismith 2010a.

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

85

62

eye or distinctive execution of the ear or hair. Likewise in the epigraphy of the inscriptions,
it should be noted that the exact layout, arrangement of pellets (normally between OFFa and
REX, and between the R and E of REX) and even some unusual letter forms (such as the curvedlimbed X and the pelleted and/or lozenge-shaped O) are found more or less throughout the
portrait dies of the Light coinage, and delicate serifs are also very common.
This large die-cutting workshop should probably be associated with London, as portrait
dies from other sources are predominantly (though not exclusively) found in the hands of
Canterbury moneyers.63 Why London dies were only used by some Canterbury moneyers is
unclear, though the prominence among them of Eoba, who was uniquely favoured by the
royal house, hints that preferment and/or initiative associated with specific individuals
may lie behind this phenomenon.64 Some local portrait dies of distinctive style were made
in Canterbury (sometimes probably as substitutes for unavailable London dies), and most
non-portrait Canterbury dies seem to be local, with a few possible exceptions.65
London-school portrait dies of fine style shade into a large group of similar but less accomplished workmanship. Among these are some dies close to those of the London school in style
though with somewhat thicker lettering, which should probably be seen as issues of phase
IIc.66 A number of new hands and practices can be discerned among these later portrait dies,
but separating them out into the work of specific individuals with consistent and definable
styles is much more problematic. Also, the appearance of coarse portrait dies does not necessarily mean that other die-cutters had stopped producing dies of finer style. Ibba, for example,
a probable London moneyer, survived from phase IIa into the Heavy coinage, yet seemingly
produced only portrait pennies of fine style throughout the Light coinage. Either he enjoyed a
hiatus in his stint as a moneyer, or he had constant access to dies of fine style. In other words,
greater diversity in die-production emerged as the substantive Light coinage progressed into
phase IIc. Dies of the best London style probably remained available alongside an expanding
array of competitors.
The diversity of the Light coinage is magnified if the non-portrait types are taken into account.
Although Chick was right to point out that Christopher Blunts chronological separation of
the Light coinage into portrait (class I) and non-portrait (class II) phases was overly simplistic,67 it does not follow that all moneyers struck portrait coins that can be closely linked
stylistically with their non-portrait issues. While there are examples of close affinities between
the lettering and reverse designs of portrait and non-portrait coins, in many cases a moneyers
portrait and non-portrait coins seem to have been kept distinct.68 In fact, there were relatively few moneyers who used identical reverse designs on portrait and non-portrait pennies;
among them were Winoth, Ealred, Pehtwald, some rarer types of Dud, and Eobas pennies
for Cynethryth.69 In the case of Dud and thelwalds main portrait and non-portrait types,
on the other hand, there is no typological relationship.70 A number of other moneyers who

62
For instance, one die-cutter was thought by Derek Chick to have been responsible for the dies supplied to Ciolhard,
Pendred and Pehtwald (Chick 18, 6770 and 128). However, most of their distinctive features can be paralleled individually (if
not in the same combination) on coins that are associated with the other main die-cutter by Chick: cf. Chick 24, 34 and 126 for
the drapery; Chick 10 and many others for the legend; and Chick 367 and 64 for the hair.
63
For examples of portrait dies probably from other sources see Chick 20gh, 37 ip, 47, 48 bd, 73, 114, 129 ce (very
similar to 48 bd), 1356,139 and 147.
64
Naismith 2010b.
65
Cf. Chick 30 and 112.
66
See (for example) some specimens of Chick 18 (Ciolhard), 20 (Dud), 37, 48 (Ealhmund), 70 (Pendred) and 1289
(Pehtwald).
67
Chick 1997, 48; a conclusion already anticipated in Lyon 1967, 21821.
68
This seems to be the case with the coins of Ealhmund: his main portrait type (Chick 37) has a reverse design that is only
found on one non-portrait coin (Chick 40) of unusual style. His main non-portrait type (Chick 389) has a reverse design that is
only vaguely similar to that of Chick 37 and 40, and is marked out by the addition of a cross and by the lack of a wreath or
serpent enclosing the legend.
69
See for Winoth Chick 72 and 746; for Ealred Chick 958 and 100; for Pehtwald Chick 1269 and 130; for Dud Chick
235 and 2930; and for Cynethryth Chick 13847 and 148. It should be noted that the design used for the reverse of Eobas
non-portrait pennies for Cynethryth is almost exactly the same as a reverse design used on two portrait coins of Ealhmund
(Chick 445 and 148).
70
Chick 810, 1114, 1921 and 278.

86

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

struck portrait coins did not produce any non-portrait coins at all, among them Ciolhard,
Eadhun, Ealdnod (who is only known from one coin), Ibba, Lulla and Pendred and vice
versa in the case of Babba, Ethelnoth, Heaberht, Osmod at Canterbury and Wilred, Botred,
Ecbald, Ecghun and Wita in East Anglia. The implication seems to be that some sort of distinction was often made between sets of dies used for portrait coins and sets of dies used for
non-portrait coins, but that the rules could be flexible. Just as in the early ninth century,71 it is
likely that some moneyers had access to portrait and non-portrait dies more or less simultaneously, often from different sources.72 That is to say, although the London-school portrait dies
were especially dominant in the beginning and early part of the substantive Light coinage (IIa
and IIb), they probably never held a total monopoly in either London or Canterbury. At any
one time there were probably at least two more or less distinct sources of dies in each town.
A possible way round these complexities is to identify groups of specific types linking multiple moneyers. A number of such clusters can be picked out within the bulk of the substantive Light coinage, even if they are sometimes difficult to place into a chronological sequence.
These stylistic and typological connections bound small groups of moneyers together, rather
than the whole body of moneyers at a mint, and never spanned the whole of a moneyers
career. These associations represent temporary aberrations from the general rule of diversity
and individualism. Inter-moneyer stylistic and typological clusters within phase II are shown
below in Figs 212. Group B (Fig. 3), for example, is based on a distinct two-line epigraphic
design on the obverse and reverse using quite spindly, elongated lettering. Group D (Fig. 5),
on the other hand, is characterised by thicker, shorter lettering and by the specific forms of
cross on obverse and reverse.
There is little to show why die-cutters sometimes resorted to the same design for certain
groups of moneyers, or why those particular moneyers operated together. Also, not all
moneyers bought into these associated groups. Some retained the same design for a long
period, implying that die-cutters recognised a house style for them, as in the case of Ibba.
Only one other moneyer, Winoth, used the same reverse design as Ibba (Fig. 7, Group F), and
on the whole Ibbas coinage remained distinct. In contrast, there were some groups of moneyers who received dies of the same design on multiple occasions, such as Dud and thelwald
at London (Figs. 23: Groups A and B) and Ealrd and Eoba at Canterbury (Figs 45 and 8:
Groups C, D and G). It is possible that they were contemporaries who shared in production
of the same tranche of silver, or who were associated for some other now lost reason.
It should be noted that groups B and H (Figs 3 and 9) include both Canterbury and London
moneyers. Many dies flowed between these two centres, though normally only from London
to Canterbury, and London dies seem to have been concentrated in the hands of only a few
Canterbury moneyers: Eoba, Ealrd and perhaps Pehtweald. The East Anglian mint remained more distinct, but in the earliest period of coinage and again in the heavy coinage
(phases Ia and III) it used a standardised type, and even in the substantive light coinage (phase
II) East Anglian die-cutters adopted a few designs that probably originated at Canterbury or
London.73
The East Anglian mint was also marked out by the activity of a distinctive die-cutter, who
used characteristic forms of spindly lettering with pellets at the end of each line (Fig. 13).
He was responsible for a substantial proportion of the East Anglian output, though interestingly he never or rarely supplied some moneyers (Ecbald and Wihtrd), and there were no
moneyers who used his dies exclusively. Among the products of this die-cutter is a sub-set of
coins which share a very similar design of a lozenge surrounded by roundels, sometimes on
the obverse, sometimes on the reverse. These were presumably made around the same time,

71

Blunt, Lyon and Stewart 1963, 1618.

Cf. the presence of both portrait and non-portrait coins of thelwald and Ealhmund (possible and probable London
moneyers respectively) in the Aiskew hoard.
73
Chick 160, 172, 177A and arguably many of the portrait types.
72

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

87

Fig. 2. Chick 10p. Group A: Chick 810 (thelwald),

19 (Dud) [and 37 (Alhmund)]. A relatively early type
(phases IIa and b), related to some of the first moneyerobverse portrait coins.

Fig. 3. Chick 13c. Group B: Chick 13 (thelwald),

18A (Cuthberht), 27 (Dud) and 11920 (Ethelnoth)
[756 (Winoth) and 101 (Ealrd) (Obverse only)].
Apparently another early type (phases IIa and b),
found in the Aiskew hoard.

Fig. 4. Chick 32a. Group C: Chick 313 (Eadhun)

and 43 (Ealhmund). Also relatively early (phase IIb),
on the evidence of specimens in the Aiskew hoard.

Fig. 5. Chick 99a. Group D: Chick 99 (Ealrd), 115

(Eoba), 125 (Osmod) and 137 (Udd). A mid- to latesubstantive Light coinage type (probably phase IIc).

Fig. 6. Chick 117c. Group E: Chick 11617 (Eoba),

1223 (Heaberht) and 130 (Pehtwald) [and, for celtic
cross design only, Chick 91B (Babba), 1223
(Ethelnoth), 1269 (Pehtwald) and 1324 (Tirwald)].
More difficult to date, and probably extending across
most of the substantive Light coinage (probably phases
IIbc).

Fig. 7. Chick 55a. Group F: Chick 55 (Ibba) and 72

(Winoth). (Reverse only) Difficult to date precisely
because this was the primary mainstream type of Ibba,
while the related obverse of Winoth approximates a
less fine version of Group A. Probably post-Aiskew
and mid-substantive Light coinage (late phase IIb and
phase IIc).

Fig. 8. Chick 92a. Group G: Chick 92 (Ealrd) and

112 (Eoba). (Obverse only) One of the earliest varieties
of the substantive Light coinage (phase IIa).

Fig. 9. Chick 30a. Group H: Chick 30 (Dud), 112

(Eoba) [and, for reverse design only, 131 (Tirwald)].
(Dud obverse/Eoba and Tirwald reverse only) A
relatively early type, through association with a
moneyer-obverse portrait coin of Eoba (phases IIab).

Fig. 10. Chick 49a. Group I: Chick 49 (Ealhmund)

and 62 [and (for reverse) 5861 and 626 (Lulla)].
Probably a mid- and/or late-substantive Light coinage
group (phase IIc).

Fig. 11. Chick 24a. Group J: Chick 235, 30 (Dud),

131 (Tirwald) and 148 (Eoba) (reverse only). Probably
a type from relatively early in the substantive Light
coinage (phase IIb).

Figs 211. Inter-moneyer types in Phase II of the Light coinage. Similarities of bust have not been included here
unless there are very close features in other aspects of the design. Partial connections (often of only obverse or
reverse design) are indicated by square brackets.

88

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

Fig. 12. Chick 177b. Group K: Chick 15 (thelwald), 166 (Eadnoth), 173 (Lul) and 177 (thelrd). Phase II.

Fig. 13. Chick 166a. East Anglian die-cutter: Chick 1612 (Botred), 1646 (Eadnoth), 16870 (Ecghun), 173
(Lul) and 1747 (thelrd). Phase II.

and indicate a group of contemporaneous moneyers who drew on the same source for their
dies (Eadnoth, Lul and thelred; Group K, Fig. 12). Also associated with this group is an
enigmatic coin that combines an obverse die of this design with a reverse die in the name of
the London moneyer thelweald.74 However, there are oddities in the design of the reverse
die which indicate that it is not a product of the main London die-cutter, and is probably an
unofficial (East Anglian?) issue.75 This die-cutter could theoretically have been behind most
or all die-production during a certain period. Currently these coins are very rare and thus
some of the gaps in his supply of East Anglian moneyers may one day be filled through new
finds; but it is more probable that heterogeneous die-cutting applied in East Anglia as well as
Canterbury and London.
These islands of unity in a sea of diversity show that moneyers were not necessarily averse
to the sharing of types, but bring home the general variation of the Light coinage at three
levels mint, die-cutter and moneyer. Several die-cutters worked at any one time, though
sometimes they collaborated with or drew inspiration from their fellows, and they as well as
the moneyers possessed considerable freedom in the design and distribution of dies. Often this
was exercised within a general pattern of continuity that was established for each moneyer,
manifested (for obvious reasons) on reverse dies in particular. It is this diversity and loose
organisation which hampers any attempt to fit these groups and the rest of the Light coinage
into any very exact chronology.
Relative chronology of the Light coinage
During the years prior to the establishment of the Heavy coinage in 792/3 (phase III), any
standardisation among Offas pennies was largely dependent on the interaction between diecutters and moneyers, resulting in a coinage that was diverse and dynamic yet also the despair
of numismatic organisation. Determining when the coinage of Offa began, and when the
justly-famed portrait element of the Light coinage was produced, is a particularly complex
matter because of the scarcity of background events with which it can be associated. Absolute
dates have deliberately been avoided so far, as it is the assignment of specific dates which is
particularly difficult and which will be discussed in detail below. It is preferable to discuss the
coinage separately and arrive at a relative chronology before attempting to associate it with
the historical background before 792/3.
This, the most important date within the coinage of Offa, was identified by Christopher
Blunt in 1961.76 Blunt noted that the three-line inscriptional obverse design characteristic of
74

Chick 15. For another interpretation of this group cf. Metcalf 2009, 3.
Alternatively, it could be the sole survivor of the output of an East Anglian moneyer also named thelweald, or possibly
of an errant East Anglian die which was used in London.
76
Blunt 1961, 534.
75

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

89

one part of Offas coinage was also associated with coins of higher weight, and that the coinage struck in the name of Archbishop thelheard and Offa used only this weight and mostly
this design. He deduced that this class III (or Heavy) coinage of Offa was instituted around
the time of the death of Archbishop Jnberht and the accession of thelheard in 792/3.77
Another major advance in chronological understanding of Offas coinage came in the 1990s,
when Derek Chick pinned down a very small early group within the Light coinage (here phase
Ia).78 This group was dominated by non-portrait issues which used an abbreviated form of
royal title: OF[fa] R[ex] [erciorum].79 The early coinage was struck by only a few moneyers
and is known from fewer than twenty surviving specimens. One of the moneyers, Wilred,
was based at the East Anglian mint, and had previously worked for the East Anglian ruler
Beonna, clinching his early date and East Anglian attribution. Another moneyer of this phase,
Man[nin]g, was unknown until a series of detector finds in the late 1980s at the productive site
of East Tilbury. Tilbury was dominated, in the time of the sceattas, by products of London
and Essex, which led Chick to attribute Man[nin]g to London.80 A third moneyer (Odd) is
known only from a fragmentary coin found at Flixborough in North Lincolnshire, and cannot
be named or attributed with any confidence. Finally, Eoba, who was to enjoy an exceptionally long and prominent career, seems to have produced the earliest coinage of the period at
Canterbury for Heaberht, the local ruler, and for Offa.81
In many respects this early series stands out quite clearly from the substantive Light coinage which immediately followed. There was considerable unity of design among all the early
issues, based on an epigraphic obverse design featuring an abbreviated form of the royal name
and title (which persisted only to a limited extent into the rest of the light coinage). The average weight was noticeably higher, as was often the case at the inception of a new coinage,
with a mean of 1.23 g and a median of 1.26 g based on twelve well-preserved specimens, as
opposed to an overall mean and median for the light coinage of 1.18 g.82 The early coinage
was also marked out by general discontinuity of moneyers careers into the later phases of the
coinage.83 Only Eoba, who probably started latest of the four known moneyers of phase Ia,
survived into later coinages.
To this early group one can possibly add certain other rare coins that span the period between the earliest issues and the main part of the Light coinage, forming an intermediate
phase datable to c.775c.785 (phase Ib). At Canterbury the coins of Egbert II by the moneyers
Eoba, Babba and Udd belong to this period.84 One coin by the otherwise unknown moneyer
Wita is of curious appearance and bears the title OFFa REX; it probably belongs to the transitional period at the end of the early coinage, and although the unusual style is not diagnostic of any particular mint, the rare moneyers name may be a hypocoristic variant of the
well-known East Anglian moneyer Wihtred.85 A more probable but still uncertain specimen
of intermediate East Anglian coinage recently came to light in the form of a fragment which
appears to combine an abbreviated royal title on the (non-portrait) obverse with the moneyers
name [Wiht]red on the reverse.86 At London, possible candidates for issues struck at this time
are some types of Bishop Eadberht and the associated non-portrait coins of Ealhmund,87
w

77
It is possible that the movement toward this design actually began before Jnberhts death on 12 August 792: Christopher
Blunt (Blunt 1961, 478; Chick 1501) drew attention to a transitional penny of the archbishop, which places his name into a
three-line legend much like that used for Offa after 792/3.
78
Chick 1997 and 2005.
79
Chick 1997 and 2005. Chick 2010 types 57, 102 and 160.
80
Though it should be noted that in the time of Offa and in the early ninth century there was a significant East Anglian
element among the finds from Tilbury. Man[nin]g stands at the head of this period, so may have had more in common with the
earlier eighth century, but nevertheless his attribution to London should remain tentative.
81
Chick 84 and 102 (and possibly 103). Cf. Naismith 2010b.
82
Naismith forthcoming d.
83
Metcalf 2009, 10.
84
Chick 85 and 878.
85
Chick 185.
86
Chick 177A.
87
Chick 3842 and 7883. For the relatively early stylistic dating of (at least some of) Eadberhts coinage, see Chick 1997,
53. Eadberhts episcopal dates are, unfortunately, too broad to permit any additional precision in dating.

London
thelwald
Dud
Ealhmund
Winoth
Ciolhard
Cuthberht
Diola
Bp Eadberht
Eama
Eadhun
Ibba
Ludoman
Lulla
Mang
OddWilhun
Wulfhath
Uncertain moneyers
Ealdnod
Pendred
Tirwald
Wita

Moneyer

Early
coinage
(ph. Ia)

Intermediate
coinage
(ph. Ib)

(c.760/592/3)
Substantive light coinage
Substantive portrait & related
Later(?) portrait & related coinage (ph. IIc)
coinage (ph. IIb)

LIGHT COINAGE

Relative moneyer chronology in the coinage of Offa.

Early portrait &

related coinage
(ph. IIa)

TABLE 4.

(ph.III)
(792/36)

COINAGE

HEAVY

90
THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

Canterbury
Babba
Beaghard
Deimund
Ealred
Eoba
Ethelmod
Ethelnoth
Heaberht
Osmod
Pehtwald
Udd
East Anglia
Botred
Eadberht
Eadnoth
Ecbald
Ecghun
Lul
Oethelred
Wilred
Wihtred
?

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

91

92

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

many of which carry an abbreviated royal title (sometimes O[f]F[a] R[ex] a[nglorum]) and
designs similar to early issues from Kent and East Anglia. No portrait pennies were issued in
phases Ia and Ib.
It is the chronology of the next period, that of the substantive (phase II) Light coinage, that
remains most problematic. It was probably struck from c.784/5 right down to the institution
of the Heavy coinage in 792/3: several moneyers came and went over its course, coins could be
overstruck88 and there are typological connections and even die-links with the Heavy coinage
of 792/3. The earliest specimens of it, however, are probably those which bear the moneyers
name on the obverse that is, alongside the portrait and the kings name (often in abbreviated form) on the reverse (phase IIa).89 This odd feature was presumably a hangover from the
preceding non-portrait coinage, which universally allotted one face of the coin to the kings
name and title. These coins are very rare now, represented by only five moneyers, some of
whom used two or three varieties of royal title at this time, implying experimentation and swift
adoption of new forms. This movement away from the style OF[fa] R[ex] [erciorum] was one
of the defining features of the main Light coinage, although complete uniformity in this area
was not to emerge until the Heavy coinage of 792/3 and after.90
The substantive part of the Light coinage was broken down by Derek Chick into a primary
and a secondary phase roughly corresponding to the phases labelled IIa/b and IIc here
with the Aiskew hoard providing a convenient snapshot of the primary phase (IIa and b).
This consisted of portrait pennies of very fine quality along with contemporary non-portrait
pennies. But it is also important to define more closely what Chick labelled the secondary
phase: a period which he described as one of slowed production and stylistic deterioration.91
Few coins were advanced as examples, and several potential cases such as the crude portrait
coins of Eoba and Udd92 may represent difficulty in obtaining London-school portrait dies
at Canterbury, rather than any change over time.
These specimens thus make a limited contribution to understanding of the overall chronology. More useful from this point of view are the products of moneyers at Canterbury and
London which were struck with portrait dies close in appearance to those of the London
school, but which are not of so fine a style as those found in the early Aiskew hoard. This
criterion is subjective to a certain extent, of course, and has been discussed already in the
context of die-cutting practices.93 The later phase of the substantive Light coinage (phase IIc)
was characterised by a tendency among some moneyers towards features not seen among earlier portrait types such as a large and pointed nose, overly rounded features and exaggerated
musculature. Moneyers whose coins all or mostly fall into phase IIc group include Winoth,
Ciolhard, Lulla and Tirwald; other long-established moneyers such as Ealhmund also produced some coins answering to the same description (see for example Fig. 10). The appearance of several new moneyers at or around this point, when some of their predecessors such
as Eadhun seem to have retired, suggests a chronological difference. Beaghard, for example,
probably began to operate during phase IIc. He is only known from a single and very recently
discovered fragment of a portrait coin (no. 7 in the Appendix, p. 98); otherwise Beaghards
work is characterised by non-portrait coins, which seem to have become more prevalent
among the issues of moneyers who emerged in phase IIc. Osmod is the best example of this
tendency, but Heaberht and Ethelnoth (all three probable or possible Canterbury moneyers)
are also mostly or entirely known from non-portrait issues with comparable styles of lettering.
This suggestion of a movement towards non-portrait types towards the end of the Light
coinage must remain very tentative, and applies most clearly to Canterbury, where several of
the moneyers shared types associated with groups D and E (Figs. 56 above) and survived into
the Heavy coinage. The best evidence for a similar development in London is provided by a
w

88
89
90
91
92
93

Chick 183b.
Chick 1997, 501. See Chick 8 (thelweald), 35 (Ealhmund), 513 (Ibba), 92 and 94 (Ealrd) and 112 and 13847 (Eoba).
On Offas numismatic titulature see Naismith 2006. Cf. no. 1 in Appendix (below).
Chick 1997, 55.
Chick 114, 136 and 147.
See above, pp. 845.

93

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

die-link between a non-portrait Light coin and a Heavy coin among the coins of the moneyer
Winoth.94 This must belong to the very end of phase IIc.
So, despite the continuing complexity presented by the Light coinage, a few points of its
internal chronology seem to be emerging. The two earliest phases IIa and b of the substantive Light coinage at London and Canterbury are revealed by the Aiskew hoard. Thereafter it is
more difficult but still possible to identify certain trends: a common but by no means universal
tendency towards non-portrait issues in the later stages of the Light coinage (late phase IIc);
and hints that after the initial burst of portrait dies of exceptional artistic merit, portrait dies
of more variable quality could be produced for some moneyers all the way through the Light
coinage.
These conclusions are summarised in Table 4 (see pp. 901). It should be noted that all of
the chronologies assigned for individual moneyers remain provisional, and are subject to
reinterpretation in light of new finds.
Absolute chronology
Thus the relative chronology of the coinage: it still remains to fit this around actual dates
within Offas reign. A simplified representation of the chronology most recently offered by
Chick is as follows:
TABLE 5.
c.76076

Derek Chicks reading of the absolute chronology of Offas coinage.

LONDON
Earliest coinage of
Offa by Mang and
Odd

CANTERBURY

c.770
?
c.7746
?

c.77985
c.78392/3
792/36

c.77680

Primary Light
coinage of Offa
Secondary Light
coinage of Offa

c.7805

Heavy coinage of
Offa

792/36

c.78392/3

Coinage of Heaberht
?
Coinage of Offa by
Eoba (?)
Coinage of Egbert II
Primary Light coinage
of Offa
Secondary Light
coinage of Offa
Heavy coinage of Offa

EAST ANGLIA
c.760
Coinage of Beonna
c.76575
Earliest coinage
of Offa by Wilred
?
c.782
?
c.78392/3
792/36

?
Coinage of Offa by
Wita?
?
Secondary Light
coinage of Offa
(and thelberht)
Heavy coinage of
Offa

The relationship between Offas coinage and the events in contemporary Kent the bestrecorded region of England at this point and home to the mint of Canterbury is crucial to
any discussion of the chronology.95 These events, which are recorded in the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle and contemporary charters, are summarised below:
7645: Charters show a complex political situation emerging in Kent after the death of
King thelberht in 762: two new local kings, Heaberht and Egbert II, (who may have
come to power under Offas patronage),96 sometimes granted land to recipients who also
sought Offas consent, implying recognition of both rulers authority. In other cases these
local kings issued charters alone.

94
Chick 75b and 213a. Winoth was also responsible for portrait pennies (Chick 72) that used a reverse design similar to that
of Chick 75, which hints that he may have been issuing pennies with different obverse designs around the same time.
95
Important discussions of the problem include Lockett 1920, 5765; and Blunt 1961, 3941 and 534.
96
S 34 and 105. For the classic statement on Offas relationships with subordinate or soon-to-be subordinate local rulers, see
Stenton 1971, 20610. For more recent views, with references to intervening literature, see Keynes 2005, 1013; Kelly 1995, 201;
and Brooks and Kelly forthcoming, no. 21.

94

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

776: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records a battle between the Mercians and the men of
Kent at Otford.97 Neither the cause nor outcome are stated, nor indeed exactly who led
the two sides, though the evidence of subsequent charters issued without Offas consent
suggests that Offa was defeated and excluded from rule in Kent.98
778/9c.784?: Kentish kings issue charters without any reference to Offa, first Egbert II
(and possibly Heaberht) in 778/999 followed by a gap of some years and lastly a charter
probably of 784 in the name of an enigmatic King Ealhmund.100
785: The sequence of Offas charters dealing with Kentish lands resumes, and continues
uninterrupted for the rest of his reign.101 A reference in a charter from a few years after his
death shows the dim view Offa took of Egbert II usurping his status as rightful king and
grantor of lands.102
This presents several conflicts with Chicks chronology outlined above, particularly for the
period 776c.784/5 when Offa is usually supposed to have been excluded from Kent. Chick
reduced the length of Offas exclusion from Kent to the bare minimum indicated by the charters of Egbert, but there remains a strong case for Kentish independence persisting until the
mid-780s.103 Elsewhere Chick circumvented this difficulty by suggesting that the important
Canterbury moneyer Eoba may have defected to Mercia after the battle of Otford.104 If so, his
coins for Egbert II would presumably represent either an earlier issue, struck during the period
before 776, or more probably one from the period after the battle but before Eobas supposed
reversal of loyalties.
Ongoing historical analysis and the insights given by additional finds and Chicks complete
catalogue suggest caution, however. There is no compelling reason to reject the chronological
framework of the charters and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and neither is there any evidence for
Eobas temporary departure from Canterbury other than his access to London-made early
portrait dies. No other obvious break or lacuna in Eobas contribution to the Light coinage
presents itself, and the division in the coinage of Kent is best placed between the earliest phase
of Offas coins (phase Ia), which extended down to about 776, and the subsequent substantive Light coinage.105 If Eoba was based in Canterbury throughout the 770s and 780s, it seems
very unlikely that the substantive Light coinage of phase II began at London substantially
earlier than at Canterbury. The most reasonable conclusion is that this main part of the Light
coinage began at a time when Offa had control over Kent as well as London and, on present
evidence, these conditions most likely came about in or after 784/5: hence the substantive Light
coinage of London and Canterbury was probably produced over less than a decade.106 There
is no secure evidence to date the sub-phases of the substantive Light coinage: on the basis of
surviving quantities of coin and projections of original output one might estimate c.784/5 for
phase IIa of portrait and related coins with the moneyers name on the obverse; c.785787/8
for phase IIb the Aiskew hoard phase of the Light coinage, which was distinguished by the
highest quality portrait coins; and c.787/892/3 for the final post-Aiskew phase IIc.
The East Anglian mint is even more obscure. The coins of Wilred are undoubtedly Offas
earliest issue from this mint, representing all of its output in phase Ia; others may belong to
97

ASC s.a. 776 (ed. Plummer 1892 I, 501; trans. Whitelock 1979, 178).
Stenton 1971, 207.
99
S 35 and 36. S 37 bears no date, but is in the name of Egbert II and Heaberht alone and is presumably associated with this
period.
100
S 38. On the evidence for Ealhmund, see Naismith forthcoming a.
101
S 123. For later charters see S 12438.
102
S 155.
103
Cf. Metcalf 2009, 11.
104
Chick 1997, 50. For Eoba as a possibly peripatetic moneyer, see Metcalf 2009, 11.
105
Cf. Chick 2005, 119. Canterbury coins struck before Offas resumption of control c.784/5 (i.e., phase Iab) are probably
Chick 84 (Eoba), 85 (Babba), 86 (Eoba), 87 (Udd) and 102 and possibly 103 (Eoba for Offa).
106
This chronology is similar to those of Metcalf 1963, 39, Metcalf 1988, 2412 and Blunt 1961, 534, who connected the
new coinage with the synod of Chelsea and consecration of Ecgfrith in 787.
98

95

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

107

the intermediate phase Ib. There follows a more easily definable substantive phase of the
East Anglian Light coinage, which possibly began somewhat later than at Canterbury and
London (between the years c.78590?), as no East Anglian coins were found in the Aiskew
hoard.108 Portraits were scarce on the East Anglian Light coinage, and for whatever reason
seem not to have appealed to the main Offa die-cutter of the phase (see Fig. 13). thelberht
of East Anglias rare coins are of uncertain date: they must have come after Wilreds coins for
Offa, and before perhaps around the inception of Offas Heavy coinage.109 Beyond that it is
impossible to determine conclusively how they fit in with Offas Light coinage: the most likely
possibility is that thelberht usurped or was granted the services of one moneyer, while other
moneyers continued to work for Offa around him.110
As is apparent, problems and uncertainties (historical and numismatic) still lurk, but it is
now possible to offer an overview of the chronology of Offas coinage. The early coinage of phase I began c.760/5 at London and East Anglia, and probably a few years later at
Canterbury (c.765/70). While the former two mints sank back into abeyance and restarted
on a low level c.775/80 (i.e., phase Ib), Canterbury gradually increased its output, first with
a coinage for Heaberht and Offa by Eoba, which probably belongs to the years before the
battle of Otford in 776. The outcome of this battle left Offa without control over Canterbury,
and coins of Egbert II were minted there for the next few years, quite probably until Mercian
control was re-established, probably c.784/5. It was only after Offas rule was secure at both
Canterbury and London that minting began once again with phase II, apparently on a muchexpanded scale, but based on a substantially devolved system of administration, which was
extended to the East Anglian mint sometime soon after. Phase III, the Heavy coinage, began
presumably around the same time at all mints in 792/3. This scheme is summarised in
Table 6 below:
TABLE 6.
c.76070

?
c.780?
c. 785?

Revised absolute chronology of Offas coinage. Phases are given in parentheses.

LONDON
Earliest coinage of
Offa by Mang (Ia)

?
Early coins of
Bishop Eadberht and
Ealhmund? (Ib)
c.784/5
Substantive Light
coinage (IIa)
c.78587/8
Substantive Light
coinage (IIb)
c.787/8 92/3 Substantive Light
coinage (IIc)
792/36
Heavy coinage of
Offa (III)

CANTERBURY
?
Coinage of Heaberht
(Ia)
c.77076
Earliest coinage of
Offa by Eoba (Ia)
?
c.765/70

776c.784
c.784/5

Coinage of Egbert
II (Ib)

Substantive Light
coinage (IIa)
c.78587/8
Substantive Light
coinage (IIb)
c.787/8 92/3 Substantive Light
coinage (IIc)
792/36
Heavy coinage of
Offa (III)

c.760

EAST ANGLIA
Coinage of Beonna

c.765
?
c.780?
?
c.785/90?
92/3
792/36

Earliest coinage of
Offa by Wilred (Ia)
?
Coinage of Offa by
Wihtred? (Ib)
?
Substantive Light
coinage (and
coinage of
thelberht) (II)
Heavy coinage of
Offa (III)

Conclusions
Offas reign was a generally fluid and experimental period for Anglo-Saxon coinage. In many
respects its earlier portions looked back to the early pennies or sceattas and the issues of
Beonna and Eadberht, though by the end of the reign in 796 the trends for much of the next
century were beginning to emerge. Types and die-production were becoming increasingly
107

See above, p. 89.

Cf. Blunt 1961, 4950.
109
The high weight of one of the surviving specimens (Chick 186c: 1.41 g) may suggest they were minted after the adoption
of the Heavy coinage weight standard.
110
See above, p. 79.
108

96

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

standardised, at least within each mint and sometimes more widely, as in Offas final Heavy
coinage. It is also possible to exaggerate the diversity of the preceding Light coinage. Unity in
weight, fineness and use of some form of royal name and title prevailed throughout Offas
reign, and foreign coinage was excluded from circulation after the early 780s.111 The complexities that applied to design, style and die-production should not be allowed to overshadow
these basic elements of uniformity.
At the same time, these complexities are in themselves an intrinsic part of the coinage, and
a reflection of the emergent minting organisation that produced it. No silver bullet has yet
appeared with which to overcome these problems posed by Offas coinage, or at least the
Light coinage. There is no cause to doubt the date or nature of the change from Light to Heavy
coinage in 792/3, and the issues of Offas last years are much less problematic. Despite
fuzziness over the exact date of the inception of the Light coinage, the earliest phase of Offas
coinage (phase I) is also relatively clear. It is the large and artistically vibrant intervening
period of the substantive Light coinage that still remains enigmatic, mainly because of its generally loose organisation of minting and die-production and its lack of standardised types
within or between mints. Indeed, it is generally more helpful to focus on moneyers rather than
minting towns as a whole, in the same way as was probably done by Offa and others in the
eighth century. Sporadic groupings of type or style among these moneyers appear from time
to time, as presented in Figs 212, but while helpful for purposes of mint attribution and relative
chronology these fleeting associations also serve to demonstrate the flexible relationships that
prevailed between moneyers and die-cutters. Several of the latter probably worked within each
town at any one time. London was host to an especially accomplished die-cutting school during the substantive Light coinage. Only a few Canterbury moneyers had access to these dies
depending on their own or the die-cutters needs and wishes. Sometimes this access may have
been dictated by political factors, though doubtless other (now invisible) forces played a part.
These conclusions remain subject, as with all others on the problematic coinage of Offa, to
changes necessitated by new discoveries. The pennies listed in the Appendix have already filled
in some blanks, and even a single new coin might force substantial revision of the chronology,
while further hoards would prove invaluable. Yet Derek Chicks new book with its detailed
corpus has brought us an important step closer to definitive conclusions, and to full appreciation
of a coinage that presents a unique cocktail of numismatic challenges, aesthetic qualities and
historical and economic significance.
REFERENCES
Archibald, M., 1985. The Coinage of Beonna in the Light of the Middle Harling Hoard, BNJ 55, 1054.
Archibald, M., et al., 1995. A Sceat of Ethelbert I of East Anglia and Recent Finds of Coins of Beonna, BNJ 65,
131.
Archibald, M., 2005. Beonna and Alberht: Coinage and Historical Context, in D.H. Hill and C. Worthington
(eds), thelbald and Offa: Two Eighth-Century Kings of Mercia, BAR British Series 383 (Oxford), 12332.
Blackburn, M.A.S., 1995. Money and Coinage, in R. McKitterick (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History II:
c. 700c. 900 (Cambridge), 53859.
Blackburn, M.A.S., 2007. Gold in England During the Age of Silver (EighthEleventh Centuries), in
J. Graham-Campbell and G. Williams (eds), Silver Economy in the Viking Age (Walnut Creek, CA), 5598.
Blunt, C.E., 1961. The Coinage of Offa, in R.H.M. Dolley (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Coins: Studies Presented to Sir
Frank Stenton on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday (London), 3962.
Blunt, C.E., Lyon, C.S.S., and Stewart, B.H.I.H., 1963. The Coinage of Southern England, 796840, BNJ 32,
174.
Brooks, N., 1984. The Early History of the Church of Canterbury. Christ Church from 597 to 1066 (Leicester).
Campbell, J., et al. 1982. The Anglo-Saxons (London).
Chick. See type numbers in Chick 2010.
Chick, D., 1997. Towards a Chronology for Offas Coinage: an Interim Study, The Yorkshire Numismatist 3,
4764.

111

Metcalf 2009, 1718.

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

97

Chick, D., 2005. The Coinage of Offa in the Light of Recent Discoveries, in D.H. Hill and C. Worthington (eds),
thelbald and Offa: Two Eighth-Century Kings of Mercia, BAR British Series 383 (Oxford), 11122.
Chick, D., 2010. The Coinage of Offa and His Contemporaries, BNS Special Publication 6 (London).
Gannon, A., 2003. The Iconography of Early Anglo-Saxon Coinage: Sixth to Eighth Centuries (Oxford).
Kelly, S.E., 1995. Charters of St Augustines Abbey, Canterbury, and Minster-in-Thanet, Anglo-Saxon Charters 4
(Oxford).
Kelly, S.E, and Brooks, N., forthcoming. Charters of Christ Church, Canterbury, Anglo-Saxon Charters (Oxford).
Keynes, S., 1993. The Councils of Clofesho, Vaughan Paper 38 (Leicester).
Keynes, S., 2005. The Kingdom of the Mercians in the Eighth Century, in D. Hill and M. Worthington (eds),
thelbald and Offa: Two Eighth-Century Kings of Mercia, BAR British Series 383 (Oxford), 126.
Kirby, D., 2000. The Earliest English Kings, 2nd ed. (London).
Lockett, R.C., 1920. The Coinage of Offa, NC4 20, 5789.
Lyon, C.S.S., 1967. Historical Problems of Anglo-Saxon Coinage (1), BNJ 36, 21521.
Metcalf, D.M., 1963. Offas Pence Reconsidered, Cunobelin 9 (1963), 3752.
Metcalf, D.M., 1988. Monetary Expansion and Recession: Interpreting the Distribution-Patterns of Seventh- and
Eighth-Century Coins, in J. Casey and R. Reece (eds), Coins and the Archaeologist, 2nd ed. (London), 23053.
Metcalf, D.M., 19934. Thrymsas and Sceattas in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 3 vols. (London).
Metcalf, D.M., 2000. Determining the Mint-Attribution of East Anglian Sceattas through Regression Analysis,
BNJ 70, 111.
Metcalf, D.M., 2001. The Premises of Early Medieval Mints: the Case of Eleventh-Century Winchester, in
R. La Guardia (ed.), I luoghi della moneta: le sedi delle zecche dellantichit allet moderna: atti del convegno
internazionale 2223 Ottobre 1999, Milano (Milan), pp. 5967.
Metcalf, D.M., 2005. Coins, in V. Birbeck (ed.), The Origins of Mid-Saxon Southampton. Excavations at the
Friends Provident St Marys Stadium, 19982000, (Salisbury), 1306.
Metcalf, D.M., 2009. Betwixt Sceattas and Offas Pence. Mint Attributions, and the Chronology of a Recession,
BNJ 79, 133.
Naismith, R., 2006. An Offa You Cant Refuse? Eighth-Century Mercian Titulature on Coins and in Charters,
Quaestio Insularis 7, 71100.
Naismith, R., 2008. Tribrach Pennies of Eadberht Prn and Eadwald, BNJ 78, 21622.
Naismith, R., 2010a. Kingship and Learning in the Broad Penny Coinage of the Mercian Supremacy, in
T. Abramson (ed.), Studies in Early Medieval Coinage, vol. 2: Currency and Cultural Exchange (Woodbridge).
Naismith, R., 2010b. Eoba of Canterbury: monetarius regis?, Person of the Month article for Prosopography of
Anglo-Saxon England (www.pase.ac.uk).
Naismith, R., forthcoming a: The Origins of the Line of Egbert, King of the West Saxons (80239), EHR.
Naismith, R., forthcoming b: The Coinage of Southern England 796c. 865 (London).
Naismith, R., forthcoming c: Kings, Crisis and Coinage Reforms in Mid Eighth-Century Northern Europe, Early
Medieval Europe.
Naismith, R., forthcoming d. Money and Power in Anglo-Saxon England: the Southern English Kingdoms 757865
(Cambridge).
Page, R. I., 1966. Anglo-Saxon Episcopal Lists, Part III, Nottingham Medieval Studies 10, 224.
Plummer, C., ed., 1892. Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel, 2 vols. (Oxford).
S See Sawyer 1968.
Sawyer, P.H., 1968. Anglo-Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography (London). [cited by document
number]
Stafford, P., 2001. Political Women in Mercia, Eighth to Early Tenth Centuries, in M.P. Brown and C.A. Farr
(eds), Mercia: an Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in Europe (London), 3549.
Stenton, F.M., 1971. Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd ed. (Oxford).
Stewart, B.H.I.H., 1986. The London Mint and the Coinage of Offa, in M.A.S. Blackburn (ed.), Anglo-Saxon
Monetary History: Essays in Memory of Michael Dolley (Leicester), 2744.
Story, J., 2003. Carolingian Connections: Anglo-Saxon England and Carolingian Francia, c.750870 (Aldershot).
Webster, L., and Backhouse, J., 1991. The Making of England: Anglo-Saxon Art and Culture A.D. 600900
(London).
Whitelock, D., transl., 1979. English Historical Documents, vol. I: c.5001042, 2nd ed. (London).
Williams, G., 2001. Mercian Coinage and Authority, in M.P. Brown and C.A. Farr (eds), Mercia: an Anglo-Saxon
Kingdom in Europe (London), 21028.

APPENDIX: RECENT FINDS OF COINS OF OFFA AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES

This appendix lists 63 coins discovered between the closure of the catalogue in Chick 2010 in 2006 and May 2010.
All are illustrated on Pls 78. Coins which have changed hands since 2006 but are already included in Chicks
catalogue are not listed.

98

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

1.

Chick 8A (new type)8[Offa: London, thelweald]

Obv. +aEILUUEaL around an undraped diademed bust right, breaking a beaded inner circle.
Rev. OF / F / aR / EX divided by four jewel-like lobes; the inner circles contains a cross botonne with four
petals in saltire.
EMC 2007.0225/PAS LIN-FD5751. Coin Register 2008, no. 213.
1.24 g.
Found near Empingham, Rutland, 2007.
Note: the obverse moneyers name is here combined with a new form of royal title, indicating that the
abbreviated title was not universal even at the earliest stage of the substantive Light coinage.

2.

Chick 10 [Offa: London, thelweald]

Obv. +OFFa REX+ (lozenge-shaped O) around a diademed and heart-shaped bust right, breaking an inner
circle.
8
Rev. / IL / Va / L divided by four jewel-like lobes; the inner circle contains a cross botonne with four
petals in saltire.
Ex Baldwins catalogue Winter 2008, no. BH061.
No wt.
Same dies as Chick 10 (k).
Same obverse die as Chick 10 (j) and (l).

3.

Chick 10 [Offa: London, thelweald]

Obv. +\FF0 REX+ around
a diademed and heart-shaped bust right, breaking a beaded inner circle.
8
Rev. E / EL / V` / L divided by four jewel-like lobes; the inner circle contains a cross botonne with four
petals in saltire.
EMC 2009.0231.
No wt (chipped and bent), 330.
Found near Lincoln, Lincolnshire, July 2009.

4.

Chick 10 [Offa: London, thelweald]

Obv. +OFF0 REX+ (lozenge-shaped O) around a diademed and heart-shaped bust right, breaking a beaded
inner circle.
8
Rev. / IL / Va / L divided by four jewel-like lobes; the inner circle contains a cross botonne with four
petals in saltire.
PAS SUR-00E794.
1.31 g, 17 mm.
Same dies as Chick 10 (k).
Found near Guildford, Surrey, January 2006.

5.

Chick 14A (new type) [Offa: London, thelweald]

Obv. OFF` || REX8in two lines divided by beaded bar with triangles or forks at each end.
Rev. EEL || V`L in two lines divided by beaded bar with triangles or forks at each end.
No wt.
Found on Biggleswade Common, Biggleswade, Hertfordshire, by April 2009.

6.

Chick 17 [Offa: London, Beagheard]

Obv. +\ / FF / 0 R / EX in angles of cross of lobes over a smaller saltire cross of lobes, with a trefoil-headed
sceptre in all lobes.
Rev. +BaH || HaRD in two lunettes divided by a beaded bar with cross at either end.
EMC 2009.0115.
1.20 g, 90.
Same dies as Chick 17 (a).
Found near Little Walden, Essex, September 2008.

7.

Chick 17A (new type) [Offa: London, Beagheard]

Obv. uncertain inscription
around draped and diademed bust right.
8
Rev. +baH || HaR in two lines divided by a plain bar, with further indistinct ornamentation on either side.
Personal communication, Gareth Williams, January 2009.
0.57 g (small fragment), 90.
Note: the only portrait type of Beagheard, on the authority of which it is possible to date his activity somewhat earlier than would otherwise be possible.

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

99

8. Chick 18 [Offa: London, Ciolhard]

Obv. +OFF0 REX+ around a Roman-style draped and cuirassed bust right with curly hair, breaking beaded
inner circle.
8
Rev. +6IOL || H0R (lozenge-shaped O) above and below serpent-like creature forming a lateral figure of
eight across the field.
Ex Lockdales auction 75, 15.11.2009, lot 565.
No wt (badly chipped).
Found in Suffolk, by 2009.
9. Chick 18 [Offa: London, Ciolhard]
Obv. +\FF` REX+ around a Roman-style draped and cuirassed bust right with curly hair, breaking beaded
inner circle.
8
Rev. +6IOL || HaR (lozenge-shaped O) above and below serpent-like creature forming a lateral figure of
eight across the field.
PAS BUC-7AB427.
No wt (slightly chipped), 17 mm.
Same reverse die as Chick 18 (c).
Found near Temple, Bisham, Berkshire, June 2006.
10. Chick 19A (new type) [Offa: London, Dud]
Obv. +OFF0+REX+ around an undraped diademed bust right, breaking a beaded inner circle, with ornamental
spray projecting in front of bust.
Rev. + / D / V / D divided by four enlosed and jewelled lobes, with four further lobes in outer angles; the inner
circle contains a cross botonne with four petals in saltire.
EMC 2008.0245.
1.21 g.
Found near Harston, Cambridgeshire, by 2008.
Note: the reverse includes additional lobes, producing an interesting floral effect.
11. Chick 20 [Offa: London, Dud]
Obv. +OFF0 REX+ around a diademed bust right breaking a beaded inner circle, with ornamental spray
projecting in front of bust.
Rev. + / D / V / D divided by four enclosed lobes containing trefoil-headed sceptres of linear variety; the inner
circle contains a linear cross botonne with four petals in saltire.
EMC 2008.0375.
0.97 g.
Found near Market Rasen, Lincolnshire, by 2008.
12. Chick 24 [Offa: London, Dud]
Obv. OFF0 REX in field before a large, elaborately draped and distinctive bust right, the head diademed with
ties.
Rev. + / d / U / d in angles of a large cross of lobes with trefoil-headed sceptres in each lobe over a saltire cross
botonne.
PAS KENT-1C89E2
1.1 g (to one decimal place), 16 mm.
Same dies as Chick 24 (a).
Found near Wingham, Kent, April 2007.
13. Chick 24 [Offa: London, Dud]
Obv. OFF0 REX in field before a large, elaborately draped and distinctive bust right, the head diademed with
ties.
Rev. + / d / U / d in angles of a large cross of lobes with trefoil-headed sceptres in each lobe over a saltire cross
botonne.
EMC 2007.0181/ PAS KENT-CE7AE1. Coin Register 2008, no. 211.
1.3 g (to one decimal place), 16 mm.
Same dies as Chick 24 (a).
Found near Allhallows, Medway, February 2007.
14. Chick 30 [Offa: London, Dud]
Obv. +O / FF / a R / EX (lozenge-shaped O) in the angles of a cross fourche over a smaller cross voided with
rounded8ends, containing
a beaded cross.
8
Rev. + / / U / in the angles of a large cross of lobes, each lobe containing a trefoil-headed sceptre; overlaid
by a saltire cross botonne.
EMC 2009.0413.
0.99 g.

100

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

Found near Herongate, Essex, December 2009.

Same dies as Chick 30(a); and same obverse die as Chick 29(a).
15. Chick 31 [Offa: London, Eadhun]
Obv. \FFa 8
in field before bust right with elaborate hairstyle.
Rev. + / a / HV / UN in the angles of a lozenge cross crosslet with small plain cross at centre.
EMC 2008.0374.
1.08 g.
Same dies as Chick 31 (c), (d) and (e).
Found near Chelmsford, Essex, by 2008.
16. Chick 31 [Offa: London, Eadhun]
Obv. \FFa 8
in field before bust right with elaborate hairstyle.
Rev. + / a / HV / UN in the angles of a lozenge cross crosslet with small plain cross at centre.
PAS BUC-D5B3E5.
0.99 g (chipped), 17 mm.
Same dies as Chick 31 (c), (d) and (e).
Found near Hardwick, Buckinghamshire, August 2005.
17. Chick 37 [Offa: London, Ealhmund]
Obv. +\FFa REX+ around bare-headed and undraped bust right with distinctive horned shoulders and
pendant with or without
chain at neck; the head within a broken, beaded inner circle.
8
Rev. 0LH || MUN || surrounded by a serpent torque, divided by line of pellets.
Baldwins catalogue Winter 2008, no. BH062.
No wt.
Same dies as Chick 37 (o).
18. Chick 37 [Offa: London, Ealhmund]
Obv. [+\FFa REX+] around bare-headed and undraped bust right with distinctive horned shoulders and
pendant with or without
chain at neck; the head within a broken, beaded inner circle.
8
Rev. 0LH || UN || in three lines, divided by beaded line, surrounded by serpent torque.
EMC 2009.0139/PAS SUSS-3CD791.
0.64 g (small fragment), 270.
Probably same obverse die as Chick 37 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
Found at Clapham, West Sussex, March 2008.
w

19. Chick 38 [Offa: London, Ealhmund]

Obv. O / F || R /
in
8 the angles of a lozenge cross fleury with pellet in annulet at centre.
8
Rev. aLH || MUN || in three lines, and divided by a beaded bar with fleury ends and below.
EMC 2008.0214.
No wt.
Found near Maidstone, Kent, 2008.
w

20. Chick 45A (new type) [Offa: London, Ealhmund]

Obv. OFFa REX
ER6IORV~
around inner circle containing diademed and cuirassed bust right.
8
Rev. +E / 0L || MV / N within four petals forming cross; annulet in each angle.
EMC 2007.0165/PAS LEIC-94EB56. Coin Register 2008, no. 212.
1.2 g (recorded to one decimal place).
Found near Kirkby Mallory, Leicestershire, 2007.
Note: a new combination of bust-type with this legend and reverse design.
w

21. Chick 55 [Offa: London, Ibba]

Obv. [O]FFa / [RE]X (downwards) divided by diademed bust right without diadem ties, with curved shoulders
and collar.
Rev. [+I] / B / B / ` in the angles of a lozenge cross fleury with plain cross in centre.
EMC 2007.0064/PAS SF-3144F8. Coin Register 2008, no. 214.
0.81 g (fragment), 90.
Probably same dies as Chick 55 (b) and (c).
Found near Aldeby, Norfolk, by 2007.
22. Chick 55 [Offa: London, Ibba]
Obv. OFFa / REX (downwards) divided by diademed bust right without diadem ties, with curved shoulders
and collar.
Rev. +I / B / B / a in the angles of a lozenge cross fleury with plain cross in centre.
PAS SUR-3017D5.

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

101

0.97 g (slightly chipped), 16mm.

Found near Broughton, Hampshire, March 2008.
23. Chick 55 [Offa: London, Ibba]
Obv. OFFa / REX (downwards) divided by diademed bust right without diadem ties, with curved shoulders
and collar.
Rev. +I / B / B / a in the angles of a lozenge cross fleury with plain cross in centre.
PAS BUC-BAE5D3.
No wt (slightly chipped), 17 mm.
Found near Cadmore End, Buckinghamshire, March 2006.
24. Chick 71A (new type) [Offa: London, Winoth]
Obv. +\FF0 REX+ around cuirassed and diademed bust right, breaking inner circle.
Rev. U / UI / N / O in angles of lozenge cross fleury containing annulet and four pellets.
Private collection; and ex Lockdales 2006.
1.05 g.
Note: a new layout for the reverse legend.
25. Chick 75 [Offa: London, Winoth]
Obv. OFF` || REX in two lines divided by a beaded bar with crossed terminals.
Rev. UU / IN / \ / (lozenge-shaped \) in the angles of a lozenge cross fleury with single pairs of fleurs; in
centre, a saltire cross with a pellet in each angle.
EMC 2007.0072. Coin Register 2008, no. 215.
1.07 g (slightly chipped), 90.
Found near Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire, by 2007.
26. Chick 76 [Offa: London, Winoth]
Obv. OFFa || REX in two lines divided by a beaded bar with floreate terminals.
Rev. UU / IN / \ / (lozenge-shaped \) in the angles of a lozenge cross fleury with single pairs of fleurs, with
long cross over saltire of petals in centre.
Offered for sale on www.ebay.co.uk, September 2009.
No wt.
Probably found in Wiltshire, September 2009.
Same dies as Chick 76 (b).
27. Chick 76 [Offa: London, Winoth]
Obv. OFFa || REX in two lines divided by a beaded bar with fleurs at each end.
Rev. UU / IN / \ / (lozenge-shaped \) in the angles of a lozenge cross fleury with single pairs of fleurs; saltire
cross with pellet in each angle in centre.
PAS BH-349AD7.
1.03 g (badly chipped), 14 mm.
Found in South Cambridgeshire, October 2008.
28. Chick 79 [Offa: London, Bishop Eadberht]
Obv. OF / Fa / RE / X+ around a large lozenge with incurved sides, and with a small, plain circle at the centre
containing a cross of four petals superimposed on a saltire with a trefoil of pellets at each terminal.
Rev. ADB || ER5 in two lines within a beaded rectangle, divided horizontally by a plain bar with forked finials;
a cross above and P below.
PAS YORYM-0AF1A5.
1.2 g (recorded to one decimal place).
Found near Tolleshunt Major, Essex, by 2009.
29. Chick 80 [Offa: London, Bishop Eadberht]
Obv. \ / F~ || R /
(four pellets in centre of \;
with extended and slashed central leg) in two lines, in the
angles of a long cross crosslet with a large annulet containing a rosette of pellets in centre.
Rev. `D || BERH || T P (P ligatured) in three lines divided by two beaded bars.
The Searcher 289 (September 2009), p. 69.
No wt (badly chipped).
Found near Burgess Hill, West Sussex, July 2009 (PAS SUSS-5492C0).
Same obverse die as Chick 80 (a) and (b).
Same reverse die as Chick 80 (c).
w

30. Chick 80 [Offa: London, Bishop Eadberht]

Obv. O / F~ || R /
(four pellets in centre of \;
with extended and slashed central leg) in two lines, in the
angles of a long cross crosslet with a large annulet containing a rosette of pellets in centre.
w

102

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

Rev. `D || BERH || T P (P ligatured) in three lines divided by two beaded bars.

Numismatik Lanz (Munich) auction 27.5.2008, lot 551.
1.08 g.
31. Chick 89 [Offa: Canterbury, Babba]
Obv. O / F / [ F / 0] in the angles of a long cross-crosslet over circle containing a lozenge with rosette in centre.
Rev. B / a / [ BB / a] in the angles of a lozenge with crossed finials, containing a rosette.
PAS KENT-F07B14.
1.05 g (fragment), 17 mm.
Same dies as Chick 89 (c).
Found at West Peckham, Kent, September 2006.
32. Chick 98 [Offa: Canterbury, Ealred]
Obv. OFF` in front of REX (REX retrograde) behind bust right; bare-headed and with curly hair and heavy,
squat bust with distinctive
decorative panels.
8
Rev. + / aL / R / E with fleurs composed of two pomme-headed lines in the angles; a lozenge in the centre
containing a cross or saltire with symbols in the angles.
Private collection; uncertain provenance.
No wt.
Same obverse die as Chick 98 (a), (b), (c) and (d).
33. Chick 101 [Offa: Canterbury, Ealred]
Obv. \FF0 || REX divided
by a beaded bar with fleur at each end and with cross in upper lunette.
8
Rev. +E / 0L / RE / in the angles of a long cross-crosslet with annulet at centre containing a rosette.
EMC 2009.0330.
No wt.
Found in Lincolnshire, by October 2009.
34. Chick 104 [Offa: Canterbury, Eoba]
Obv. \~ / F in beaded standard; R /
below, bisected by standard pole with cross at top; smaller crosses on
either side.
Rev. / \ || B / ` in the angles of a cross fleury (to be read as either a circular or two-line inscription) with a
large annulet containing a saltire of pellets at centre.
Ex Lockdales auctions 71, 22.3.2009, lot 438.
No wt.
Same obverse die as Chick 104 (c).
Found near Shotesham, Norfolk, November 2008 (EMC 2009.0014).
w

35. Chick 106 [Offa: Canterbury, Eoba]

Obv. \~ F~ in a square of pellets, with a line of pellets protruding diagonally from each corner; R
below,
cross above, ornaments in field.
Rev. / \ || B / ` (lozenge-shaped \) in angles of a cross fleury, with an annulet in the centre containing a
saltire of pellets.
EMC 2008.0372.
1.15 g.
Found near Monkton, Kent, September 2008.
Same dies as Chick 106 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (h).
w

36. Chick 111A (new type) [Offa: Canterbury, Eoba]

Obv. R / E || X /
around a square of pellets with a crosslet at each corner and reversed OF in centre.
Rev. / \ / B / ` in the angles of a cross fleury with annulet at centre containing a saltire of pellets.
Ex Spinks auction 25.3.2010, lot 11.
No wt.
Found in North Yorkshire by 2009.
Probably same reverse die as Chick 111 (a).
w

37. Chick 117 [Offa: Canterbury, Eoba]

Obv. +O / FF / 0 R / EX in the angles of a long cross botonne with a small lobe in each angle.
Rev. / \ / B / 0 in the angles of a Celtic cross with fleurs on limbs and a cross at centre, a pellet in each angle.
1.16 g (chipped).
Found near Royston, Hertfordshire, November 2009.
Same obverse die as Chick 117 (a) and (b).
38. Chick 122 [Offa: Canterbury, Heaberht]
Obv. +O / FF / 0 R / EX in the angles of a long cross botonne with small lobe at each angle.

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

103

Rev. 4 / ` / BE (ligatured) / R/ in the angles of a celtic cross with a long cross fleury on limbs and small cross
saltire in centre.
EMC 2009.0005.
1.06 g.
Found near Wingham, Kent, November 2007.
Same obverse die as Chick 122 (a).
39. Chick 126 [Offa: Canterbury, Pehtweald]
Obv. Ornately detailed
8 bust right with elaborate hairstyle; OFF0 RE in field before face; X behind.
Rev. PE / 5 / V0 / L in angles of celtic cross with a long cross fleury on limbs, over a small saltire cross of
petals in centre.
EMC 2009.0116.
No wt.
Same reverse die as Chick 130 (a) and (b).
Found near Wragby, Lincolnshire, January 2009.
40. Chick 128 [Offa: Canterbury, Pehtweald]
Obv. +OFF0 REX+8around bust right of Ciolhard style but with more elaborate hair; beaded inner circle.
Rev. PE / 5 / V0 / L in the angles of a celtic cross with a long cross fleury on limbs over small saltire cross of
petals in centre.
EMC 2010.0110.
1.15 g.
Found near Tilbury, Essex, 2007.
Note: this coin is of noticeably finer style than the other two surviving specimens of Chick 128.
41. Chick 129 [Offa: Canterbury, Pehtweald]
Obv. +\FF0 REX+8around cuirassed bust right, breaking beaded inner circle.
Rev. PE / 5 / V0 / L in the angles of a celtic cross with a long cross fleury on limbs over small saltire cross of
petals in centre.
EMC 2008.0160.
1.16 g.
Same obverse die as Chick 129 (c), (d) and (e).
Found near Linton, Cambridgeshire, by 2008.
42. Chick 130 [Offa: Canterbury, Pehtweald]
Obv. +\ / FF / 0R / 8
EX in the angles of a long cross botonne with small lobe in each angle.
Rev. PE / 5 / V0 / L in the angles of a voided cross with a long cross fleury on limbs over small saltire in
centre.
PAS BERK-2BABE0.
1.2 g (to one decimal place), 90, 17 mm.
Same dies as Chick 130 (g).
Found near Blewbury, Oxfordshire, April 2009.
43. Chick 131 [Offa: Canterbury, Tirwald]
Obv. +OFF0 REX around a central rosette, within a serpent wreath.
Rev. T / IR / VV / aI / D in the angles of a cross of lobes, with a trefoil-headed sceptre within each lobe and in
the angles of the cross.
Ex Dix, Noonan and Webb auction 85, 17.3.2010, lot 237.
1.2 g (recorded to one decimal place).
Same dies as Chick 131 (a).
Found near Newark, Nottinghamshire, November 2009 (EMC 2009.0368).
Note: a somewhat anomalous type, combining a reverse associated with Group H (Fig. 9) with an obverse of
unusual style. This is probably the earliest type associated with Tirwald.
44. Chick 143 [Cynethryth: Canterbury, Eoba]
Obv. female bust right with elaborate, curly hairstyle, inspired by Roman imperial coinage and with complex
drapery below; trefoil of pellets behind head; E\Ba in field before face (lozenge-shaped \).
Rev. 6FNERF REGINa around a beaded inner circle containing ~.
Ex Classical Numismatic Group auction 78, 14.5.2008, lot 2123; and ex Susan and Eddy Quinn collection.
1.29 g, 180.
Same dies as Chick 143 (d) and (e).
Same obverse die as Chick 143 (f) and (g).
w

104

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

45. Chick 143 [Cynethryth: Canterbury, Eoba]

Obv. female bust right with elaborate, curly hairstyle, inspired by Roman imperial coinage and with complex
drapery below; trefoil of pellets behind head; E\Ba in field before face (lozenge-shaped \).
Rev. 6YNERY REGIN~ around a beaded inner circle containing ~.
Ex Spink; and ex Mark Rasmussen (not in catalogue).
1.05 g, 0.
Same reverse die as Chick 143 (g), (h) and (i).
w

46. Chick 147 [Cynethryth: Canterbury, Eoba]

Obv. large, crude female bust right; EOBa in field before face (lozenge-shaped O).
Rev. +6YNERY REGINa around beaded inner circle containing ~.
Ex Morton & Eden auction 9.6.2009, lot 143.
0.98 g.
Found near Worthing, West Sussex, November 2008 (EMC 2009.0100/PAS SUSS-2E92D1).
Note: this cruder form of bust is not identical in style to those on other specimens of type 147, presumably
indicating that unavailability of fine portrait dies was not an isolated occurrence.
w

47. Chick 148 [Cynethryth: Canterbury, Eoba]

Obv. +6YNERY REGINa around beaded inner circle containing ~.
Rev. +E / \ || B / a (lozenge-shaped \) (intended to be read across the field in two lines), each letter on a limb
of a cross of lobes, with fleurs in angles.
EMC 2008.0332/PAS BERK-328187.
1.00 g, 45.
Found near Ewelme, Oxfordshire, by 2008.
w

48. Chick 152A (new type) [Offa and Archbishop Jnberht: Canterbury]
Obv. OFFa || REX in two lunettes, divided by two bars with crossed outer finials.
Rev. +I0ENBERHT 0RIEPI around plain inner circle containing cross botonne superimposed on saltire.
Ex Spinks auction 198, 19.3.2009, lot 165.
No wt.
Found near Claxby Pluckacre, Lincolnshire, January 2009.
Note: a new obverse type, with some minor differences in the central device on the reverse with respect to type
152.
49. Chick 152A (new type) [Offa and Archbishop Jnberht: Canterbury]
Obv. OFFa || REX in two lunettes, divided by two bars with crossed outer finials.
Rev. +I0ENBERHT 0~IEPI around plain inner circle containing cross botonne superimposed on saltire.
EMC 2009.0358.
No wt (chipped).
Found near Maidstone, Kent, October 2009.
50. Chick 181A (new type) [Offa: East Anglian mint, Wihtred]
Obv. OF / Fa / RE / X (lozenge-shaped O) between four pellet-encircled bosses at the points of a cross of petals
over a plain inner circle; a boss at centre with a pellet in each angle.
Rev. / IH / TR / E / D in the angles of a lozenge cross fleury; in the centre a small saltire with pellets at centre
and in angles.
Baldwins fixed price list, Winter 2009, no. BH077.
1.09 g (slightly chipped).
Same obverse die as Chick 181(a).
51. Chick 201 [Offa: London, Beagheard]
Obv. ~ with three pellets on either side || +OFF` (lozenge-shaped \) || REX in three lines across field; divided
by beaded bars.
8
Rev. +BEaX || HEaR in two curved lunettes divided by a beaded bar terminating at each end with small
wedges.
EMC 2009.0344.
No wt (badly chipped).
Same dies as Chick 201 (b) and (c).
Found near Ludford, Lincolnshire, 2008.
w

52. Chick 205 [Offa: London, Ealhmund]

Obv. ~ with three pellets on either side || +OFF` (lozenge-shaped O) || REX in three lines across field divided
by beaded bars.
w

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

105

Rev. E`LH VN around a small celtic cross in centre containing pellet.

Found in excavations at the Friends Provident St Marys Stadium, Southampton, 19982000 (Metcalf 2005,
no. C19).
No wt (chipped and mineralised).
Probably same dies as Chick 205 (a).
53. Chick 211A (new type) [Offa: London, Ludomon]
Obv. ~ with three pellets on either side || +OFF` (lozenge-shaped O) || REX in three lines across field divided
by beaded bars.
Rev. +LVD || OMON (lozenge-shaped O) in two lines divided by a beaded bar, all within a Boeotian shield-like
device.
1.41 g.
Found near Devizes, Wiltshire, by April 2010.
Note: a new arrangement of the reverse legend.
w

54. Chick 213 [Offa: London, Winoth]

Obv. ~ with three pellets on either side || +\FF` (lozenge-shaped \) || REX in three lines across field; no
dividing bars.
Rev. UU / IN / \ / (lozenge-shaped \) in the angles of a lozenge cross fleury with single pairs of fleurs; in
centre a plain cross with saltire superimposed.
1.25 g.
Same dies as Chick 213 (a).
Same reverse die as Chick 75 (b).
Found at Valkenburg, Netherlands (NUMIS no. 1029877).
w

55. Chick 214 [Offa: London, Winoth]

Obv. ~ with three pellets on either side || +OFF` (lozenge-shaped O) || REX in three lines divided by two
beaded bars.
Rev. VVI || 3O (lozenge-shaped O) in two lines divided by a bone-shaped device containing a row of pellets.
No wt.
EMC 2008.0215.
Same obverse die as Chick 214 (i).
Found near Harrietsham, Kent, 2008.
w

56. Chick 219 [Offa: Canterbury, Babba] [obv. only illustrated on Pl. 8]
Obv. +OFFa REX ~ (lozenge-shaped ) around plain inner circle containing rosette.
Rev. O O || BaBBa || two Xs joined by one leg, with five pellets arranged in four upper angles and in centre;
all in three lines, divided by two plain bars (?).
PAS NARC-DC37D2.
1.5 g (to one decimal place), 19 mm.
Same obverse die as Chick 219 (a) [images available of obverse only].
Found near Stowe Nine Churches, Northamptonshire, November 2007.
w

57. Chick 231 [Offa: Canterbury, thelnoth]

Obv. ~ with three pellets on either side || +OFF` (lozenge-shaped O) || REX in three lines divided by two
beaded bars.
Rev. EEL || NO (lozenge-shaped O) in two lines divided by a beaded bar with cross at each end, all within a
Boeotian shield-like device.
Private collection; and ex Lockdales auction 15.1.2006, lot 422.
1.36 g.
Same dies as Chick 231 (a).
w

58. Chick 235 [Offa: Canterbury, thelnoth]

Obv. ~ with three pellets on either side || +\FF0 (lozenge-shaped \) || REX in three lines, the upper and
lower elements within lunettes.
Rev. + || EEL || NO (lozenge-shaped O) in three lines, the upper and lower elements within lunettes.
1.22 g, 270.
Found on the Isle of Wight, by 2008.
w

59. Chick 237 [Offa: Canterbury, Osmod]

Obv. +OFF0 REX E (lozenge-shaped O) around plain inner circle.
Rev. OS / M / O / D
Ex Tom Cederlind auction 150, 2.3.2009, lot 316.
1.32 g.
Probably same reverse die as Chick 237 (c).
w

106

THE COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED

60. Chick 246 [Offa and Archbishop thelheard: Canterbury]

Obv. ~ with three pellets either side || +OFF0 (square-shaped O) || REX in three lines divided by two beaded
bars with crossed terminals.
Rev. +0EDILHE0RD POT around plain inner circle containing small saltire superimposed on long cross.
Private collection.
No wt.
Found near Devizes, Wiltshire, 2008.
w

61. Chick 247 [Offa and Archbishop thelheard: Canterbury]

Obv. ~ with three pellets either side || +OFF` (lozenge-shaped O)|| REX in three lines divided by two plain
bars.
Rev. 0EDIL || HE0RD || 0R~CE~PI in three lines divided by two plain bars.
PAS KENT-3CB7A7.
1.4 g (to one decimal place), 20 mm.
Same obverse die as Chick 247 (e).
Found near Otford, Kent, March 2009.
w

62. Chick 251 [Offa: East Anglian mint, Lul]

Obv. [ ~ with three pellets either side || +]OFF[a] (lozenge-shaped O) || RE[X] in three lines divided by two
beaded bars.
Rev. [+] / L / U / [L] on the leaves of a quatrefoil divided by a beaded cross, with trefoil of pellets in each spandrel.
EMC 2009.0313.
No wt (small fragment).
Found near Blythburgh, Suffolk, 2009.
w

63. Uncertain [Offa: uncertain mint]

Obv. ~ with three pellets either side || +OFFa (lozenge-shaped O) || REX in three lines divided by two beaded
bars.
Rev. uncertain.
PAS SWYOR-F33767.
1.2 g (to one decimal place; bent in half), 18 mm.
Found near Ludford, Lincolnshire, February 2007.
w

PLATE 7

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

NAISMITH: COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED (1)

PLATE 8

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

NAISMITH: COINAGE OF OFFA REVISITED (2)