Читать книгу Money in History - Karl Walker - Страница 9

THE BRACTEATES

While one line of development of coinage can be seen predominantly in the area that is limited through the rivers Danube and Rhine in the Southwestern part of Europe by copying Roman coins and a slow independence of the art of minting and stamp designing, we have to do with a second line of development with a different technique of copying and new designing of coinage in the North German area. This line of development also originated from the goldsmith trade and had its beginning in the design of jewelry. We are dealing here with the technique that raised ornamental line structures, runes and the like on the averse of gold, silver or copper sheet metal while they are recessed on the reverse. Such works were firstly worn as brooches and pendants and there are finds from 400 to 1000 B.C.

In post Roman times this technique of coining a picture into thin silver or gold sheet metal was also used to easily copy coinage. There are pieces in this form with an eyelet, which are meant as jewelry only, which are made from two imprints, averse and reverse of a coin and held together at the rim. Such a jewelry pendant consisting of two thin golden sheet metals over a Roman coin from 215 B.C. and held together by a golden ring is shown in Schwarzkopf’s treatise (Germanische Schmuckbrakteaten, Volume: Das Erbe unserer Ahnen, page 476).

Manufacturing such imprints was an easy process compared with the difficulties of minting. It was just necessary to make the imprint on a soft basis like for example lead. With gradually increased demand for means of exchange there came naturally also in the North German region a development of coinage into being. Finally, it became moot to add eyelets as the coins went from hand to hand instead of being worn as jewelry. Around the middle of the 12th century the first single side minted silver sheet metal coins appeared that were later called bracteates (Latin: bractea = thin sheet metal). Nevertheless, the real development of bracteates based economy is purely a German occurrence as the Nordic beginnings disappeared without getting any meaning.

First such coins were minted in the city of Magdeburg in Germany. According to recent research of Prof. Dr. Arthur Suhle, it was Archbishop Hartwig of Magdeburg, who reigned between 1079 and 1102 A.D., who started to have one sided, large and wide silver pennies in order to contain a large picture on the coin. However, only under Archbishop Wichmann of Seeburg, whom the Emperor Barbarossa invested in 1152, this specific mintage of the abbey blossomed in unexpectedly. When this procedure of manufacturing coins spread over Germany, the coinage laws of Charlemagne were already 300 years old. During this time the privilege to coin was given through successors of Charlemagne, beginning with Louis the pious, to innumerable kings, princes, counts, abbeys and cities. Naturally, the result was a very mixed picture especially in as much as from the 11th century on the owner of the mint privilege could change name, coinage and picture on the coins.

Already during those times, although before the bracteates came into existence, the award of the mint privilege was connected to fiscal considerations. Those awardees of the mint privilege had to pay taxes for it, which they in turn collected after coining by a manufacturing and issuance fee and also by exchange fees. With emergence of the bracteates during the times of the Hohenstaufen Emperors, the technique of minting was simplified on one hand. “Thin pennies” had been already coined, which bore pictures on both sides and they got blurred quite often as the stamp from below would press through and vice versa and therefore also disturbing the front side. Now this stamping from below became obsolete.

The manufacture of coins was still done by moneyers who wandered and came to the courts of princes, bishops and lower holders of the mint privileges in order to offer their arts. Additionally, there were a big number of Imperial mints who also used coinage techniques of their times. Barbarossa for example had his splendid bracteates minted in the Imperial mints in Saalfeld, Altenburg, Mühlhausen and Nordhausen. The non-privileged issuance of coinage was untouched by the generosity with which the privilege was given – still dealt with according to draconic medieval law codices, which meant punishment by cutting the hand.

On the other hand were those slim silver sheet metal coins that were manufactured according to the bracteates technique less endurable in use than the stronger coins that were stamped on both sides. In order to consider value the individual coin was made bigger. There are bracteates with 5 cm diameter. If indicated, they could be cut or broken in half. Due to those circumstances and the higher wear and tear that was suffered by such money in circulation there was necessity to permanent re-issuance. The moneyers had their “work program” as we would say today. The reissuance of coins was not only covered by income of the new silver mines in the Harz Mountains, the Alsace, in the Tyrol Mountains and in Bohemia but also by re-coining of called back coins.

When new coins were issued, the old ones were declared invalid but accepted for their metal content and exchanged minus a corresponding coinage fee, which has a long tradition. In his dictionary of Numismatics Baron F. von Schrötter mentions that this has been made already in the Rome of antiquity and Professor A. Suhle explains in his treatise “Die deutschen Münzen des Mittelalters” that Charlemagne outlawed the acceptance of old pennies in his decree issued in Mantua in 781, which ordered minting anew.

According to the Medieval Coin Constitution it was legal to re-issue coins “… if new masters came” and that was especially canonized in the “Saxony Mirror”; it was the oldest and most important German Law Book written in 1220 by Eike von Reppkow in Latin language, later written in Lower Saxonian Dialect. Later on, the “Suebia Mirror” for South West Germany took it over. Therefore, in case of a change of rule through succession after the death of a prince or a Count, or after fights for power among the powerful, it was in line with the law “Renovatio Monetarum” and therefore, a legal custom to rescind current coins and re-issue them for a fee.

After the introduction of the less durable Bracteate coins, such rescinding and re-issuance rendered themselves useful even without a change in government and therefore served to be useful at more occasions. Mr Kulischer reports in his book “Allgemeine Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Mittelalters und der neuen Zeit”, published in Munich in 1928 that in Poland these “revocations = rescinding”, “innovationes = renewals” or “mutationes = exchanges” took place four times per year and that there were regulations, which prescribed re-issuances at any new trade fair. Bernhard von Anhalt, son of Albrecht the Bear, who obtained the Havel land through war and inheritance, and who called himself Marquis of Brandenburg, had issued nearly 100 coinages within 32 years of rule. In 150 years, Vienna had nearly as much different Vienna pennies. After the last scion of the House of Babenberg died, Emperor Frederic II, grandchild of Emperor Barbarossa, issued imperial bracteates coins when he incorporated the Duchy of Austria into his Stauffer Empire.

We know of over 70 coinages of Archbishop Wichmann of Magdeburg. Archbishop Wichmann seems to be the first one who rescinded his own coinage while, according to the Saxony Mirror, rescinding should only take place in case of change of rule. Under his rule, rescinding took place two times a year, on the 4th Sunday of Lent before the Easter festival and on the occasion of the Assumption of Mary on 15th of August. Probably these dates were also market dates. For 12 old pennies, one would receive 9 new pennies. One is able to get a picture of the income when learning that Archbishop Wichmann was bound for some years to give 236 marks of silver annually from the Magdeburg money (moneta Magdeburgensis) – which is the Cologne Mark with 233 gram or about 240 Denarii to the Cathedral’s treasure. Therefore those were more than 56,000 silver pennies on each occasion!

Archbishop Wichmann’s process spread and soon the bishops of Halberstadt and Hildesheim, the Ascanians and Guelfs, (who were Viscounts of Thuringia at the time when Wartburg castle was built) issued such coins in concert with various abbeys and cities. Among the nicest coinages of that time are the Stephan’s Pennies from Halberstadt, which certainly contributed a lot to the famous 12th Century choir stalls in the Halberstadt Church. Also the Imperial Mint of Barbarossa coined those easily breakable and dividable coins that were only afterwards called “bracteates”.

According to Luschin von Ebengreuth (Grundriss der Münzkunde, page 62), in the lands of Brandenburg it was a common practice to spread the renewal fees during the whole time of the coin’s circulation to prevent it from becoming “tangible”. So, during the first quarter, they calculated 12 pennies onto the shilling, in the second quarter it was 13 pennies, 14 pennies in the third quarter, and 15 pennies in the fourth quarter; after the fourth quarter ran out, the old penny had to be exchanged for a rate of 16 pennies per new shilling. The new penny, however, came into circulation once again at an initial rate of 12 new pennies for one new shilling, therefore at the old rate.

The opinions of scientist diverge regarding the material use of the renewal fees for the mint privileged.. It may well have been very different because it depended very much on the aptitude of the minter to get the most out of a given lot of metal while considering certain minimum weights of coinage. Luschin von Ebengreuth mentions (Grundriss der Münzkunde, page 62) that the Melk Abbey reported in its chronicles a loss 10% of the coinage content through renewal of coins, which the duke got from his whole province. This would have been a high loss, or better a very low gain for the mint privileged duke. Archbishop Wichmann of Magedeburg obviously gained more profits although in Magdeburg the minting took place as “al marco”/by the mark, which means that one pound of pennies (which equal 20 shillings at a rate of 12 pennies per shilling) had to have the weight of one Mark.

While technically well executed bracteates, which were valuable in the eyes of art history came primarily from the mints of Magdeburg, Halle, Erfurt, Halberstadt, Goslar and also from the mints of Frederic Barbarossa, Henry the Lion and the Wendic Prince Jaczko von Köpenick and existed up to the middle of the 14th Century, smaller bracteates were minted in Lower Saxony till the middle of the 16th Century.

Pennies from the coinage area of Nuremberg constitute a peculiarity. They were smaller than the middle German bracteates and coined on both sides, while one side usually showed strong damage. So, it is not too far-fetched to think that those coins were perhaps the respective reminting of pennies that were previously in circulation and that the alleged backside coinage may well be a deleted prior coinage. The large find of bracteates at Hersbruck, which is on display in the Hirtenmuseum in Hersbruck, contains such coins only and they come probably from the mints of Nuremberg, Regensburg, Donaueschingen and Ingolstadt. They have fabulously worked displays but the rims are obviously cut by hand, which was more difficult with thicker material than with the more thinly minted middle German bracteates.

One coin to be counted among the bracteates is also the Schüssel-Penny, which was named so based on the form of the raw base coin; it occurred mainly in the West, in the Rhinelands, in Lower Saxony, in Brunswick, and in Lueneburg. The prevalent distribution area of bracteates reached from Northern Germany in the West to the river Weser, in the North to the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. The core area was as mentioned before the Magdeburg area, Thuringia, the Harz area, the county of Brandenburg, the county of Meissen and connected to those areas came the Upper Lausitz area, Silesia, Poland and Bohemia.

A second area of diffusion, which was clearly separated by the style of coinage according to Professor Suhl and his book “Die deutschen Münzen des Mittelalters” started south of the river Main and contained Swabia, Wurttemberg, the area around Lake Constance with the city of Constance as center and the Swiss cities of Basle, Berne, St. Gallen etc. According to other sources, it reached into Austria, where they practiced a regular renewal of coinage in Vienna. And so it may be correct what Corragioni wrote in his “Die Münzgeschichte der Schweiz”, Geneva 1896: “Bracteates were the only kind of money that was valid in our land during the 12th–15th Century.”

There seems to be one fixed opinion in current consideration of history about this epoch: that the multitude and the regular change of coinage are perceived as unruly and as a token of a complete desolation of coinage regulations, such as “Babylonian” coin confusion, as Johannes Scherr wrote in his work “Deutsche Kultur- und Sittengeschichte”, page 246.

This evaluation of historical facts based on the over-evaluation of uniformity, equality, similarity, unity and unification in all things was unknown in the Medieval Age and came up during more modern times. Regarding the meaning of the facts, the exterior appearance does not display the decisive value and it is as much superficial as it is foolish if one wanted to judge based on this. During the Medieval times it was important to have order within a defined area; a traveler who came to unknown lands was served well enough when the order was basically similar on the outside, and when the order was based accordingly to the same principles.

Moreover, we could say that during the medieval times economy was enacted purely based on intuition and this is more than our modern historical scientists could understand. It may have been thoroughly reasonable to prevent the inhabitants of the new areas of colonization to build up primitive hoards and to educate them instead toward the proper use of money as currency. In order to do so, permanently recurring strong impulses were necessary, which were indeed very effective in the form of regular coin renewals.

In the areas where more developed culture prevailed in the West and where workmanship, trade, arts, and education were more advanced, the normal regulation of the “renovation monetarum” was sufficient, which occurred only in times of change of the ruler. It is to be noted, however, that not all crowned persons followed this regulation. In France it was Philip the fair who developed quite profitable resources out of the repeated renewal of coinage.

In the West the monetary system was more developed with a larger variety of silver and gold coins, and renewal of coinage based upon wanton was perceived usually as harmful. It was also quite obvious that the masters of the mint were just interested in profit resulting from debasing the precious metal content, which is a motivation that originally did not exist with the bracteates.

In general, however, the regulations of the “renovation monetarum” were followed strictly. Only in cases where a change of a ruler occurred, a renewal of coinage was permitted, and in the meantime it was perhaps permissible before starting a crusade.

According to this we can see that there were only minor differences between the customs of a more developed West and the real bracteates currency system. In fact the “renovatio monetarum” had its validity and was efficient far beyond the boundaries of the original area, which had bracteates. Fritz Schwarz reports to us in his tractate “Vorwärts zur festen Kaufkraft des Geldes, page 54” that even in England such a tax was levied on money.

When evaluating these things one must therefore not be impressed that it is nearly without prospect to success to try neatly to compartmentalize the multitude of coinages with differences developed during 300 years within such a large economic area. Important alone is the unbelievable economic effect which came into being by “permanent renewal of money” that was managed everywhere in a similar way. Hoarding and building up of treasures was made impossible due to such circumstances and therefore transformed permanently into pulsing demand for products of industrious workmanship.

Nobody in the far realm of the Medieval ages would have been so naïve to keep longer than necessary for trade or even consciously hoard bracteates money or the others monies, which were also among the temporarily renewable trade currency coinages that could be called for renewal tomorrow or in some weeks called in for renewal by the bishop or prince and exchanged for a re-issuance fee.

Insofar we are talking about economic relationships; the logical root for this immense dynamics out of which, the whole performance of the Gothic Age developed is based on this very fact. This development is based on a compelling consistency. What started already with Emperor Charles’s Coinage Regulation by dissolving the treasures of the early medieval ages, by melting down the trophy pieces, and by incoming precious metal deliveries resulting from restarted silver mining operations, had fostered the beginning of a culture nurturing currency system; and now in the 12th Century the permanent renewal of coinage prevented for three full centuries renewed the hoarding, concentrating and freezing of money!

The aptitude of merchants, industriousness, artisanship and the gift of invention, which were fostered by mutual inspiration, could only create wealth and riches through the products and real designs of vocational industriousness itself. So it is true for these times that building capital, while capital were coins, was therefore rendered impossible, as money was only a means of exchange and could not be used at the same time as treasure (see L. von Ebengreut: “Allgemeine Münzkunde und Geldgeschichte des Mittelalters”, 1926). Compared with this, capital building had developed into another far more magnificent form.

But because everything has two sides, as it is said, “one’s owl is the other man’s nightingale”, there are understandable complaints about this periodical coinage invalidation. Bohemian Chronicler Cosmas finds the effect of this institution “harder than the plague, more devastating than invasion by enemies, famine and other pests” because in his mind the monetary generation of a treasure was more important than value increasing circulation.

As far as one understands the coinage embossed only on one side Bracteates were not the invention of Archbishop Wichmann. Wichmann introduced the semi-annual invalidation of coinage. This is also witnessed by the Magdeburg “Schöppen Chronicle: He firstly let the new pennies struck for two times per year; before that people struck new pennies only after a bishops life”. According to this the coinage invalidation in Magdeburg goes back to Archbishop Wichmann personally, as it did not exist before. (see A. Suhle: “Das Münzwesen Magdeburgs”, page 4).