|
Date: |
|
Description: | DescriptionThe object is a piedfort or piéfort striking of the coin-type known as the double parisis of Charles IV the Fair, King of France (1322-1328). This version of the type was originally introduced in 1323. The reference to the coin is J. Duplessy, Les monnaies françaises royales (1988) no. 244b; an alternative reference work, J. Lafaurie, Les monnaies des rois de France (1951), no. 248b, records piedfort strikings from the Bibliothèque Nationale collection, as well as coins, and in it there are listed three piedforts of this general denomination. The weight of the currency coin was something around 1.4g, The piedforts listed by Lafaurie weigh 4.88g, 6.45g and 7.93g - the latter was the same sub-type as the Thurlaston find. Another example of the denomination has also been discovered in England, Treasure case 2010 T107, which weighed 8.03g. This newly-found example object is in fair condition, is 21.5mm in diameter and 3mm thick, with a weight of 7.27grams.The fineness of the original coin was about 48% silver. The fineness of the piedfort of this type reported in 2010 was tested in the British Museum's Department of Conservation and Scientific Research, where it was found to be about 46% silver, broadly in line with the fineness of the currency coin. The Thurlaston coin is likely to be of the same fineness.DiscussionA number of ideas have been put forward to explain piedforts. It is very unlikely that they are pattern (experimental) coins, since they are made with currency dies (in some cases the same die has been identified as being used both for normal coins and for a piedfort). Nor is it likely that they were created as guides for mint workers - the presence of several French piedforts as English finds makes this seem implausible. Perhaps the likeliest idea is that they were made for the use of important officials, who might utilise them as reckoning counters. This would certainly account for them turning up far from home and away from any context of currency. It is in fact possible that piedforts as a class fulfilled different purposes across time.Guidance for the Treasure Act defines a coin as 'any metal token that was, or can reasonably be assumed to have been, used or intended for use as or instead of money'.The argument for piedforts being eligible to be considered as Treasure is similar to that employed for coin jewellery, i.e. that they are not usable coins but are in fact something else. The case for piedforts is potentially stronger, in that coins turned into jewellery were undoubtedly made originally to be used as money and may indeed have served this purpose for a while. Piedforts, whatever their purpose, were not intended to be used as coins in any meaningful sense and probably could not have been so used (any more than, say, a silver spoon could have). In a world where coins were generally under a millimetre thick, piedforts would have stuck out very obviously as a different sort of object. If this argument is accepted, then there is a case for this item, being substantially of silver (over 40%), to be considered as Treasure under the terms of the Act.Wendy ScottFinds Liaison OfficerDr Barrie CookCurator of Medieval and Early Modern Coinage, British Museum
Original Image | Publisher: | http://finds.org.uk | Source: | Portable Antiquities | Identifier: | http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/r... | Go to resource |
|
More Like this...
-
TOKEN
I have examined a silver…
-
-
TOKEN
A silver object reported found…
-
TOKEN
The following record was written…
-
-
TOKEN
A silver piedfort striking of…
-
COIN
TREASURE CASE : 2006 T354.…
-
-
COIN
A pierced medieval silver groat…
-
COIN
A medieval silver groat of…
|