Find Spot record MDO1447 - Carolingian coin found at Pin's Knoll, Litton Cheney

<1> Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, 1964, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society for 1963, 122-123 (Serial). SDO63.

'A unique 9th century Carolingian coin from Litton Cheney
During excavation of the Romano-British Farm site at Pin's Knoll, Litton Cheney, in August 1963, a small silver coin was found about six inches above the fall layer of a fourth century Romano-British building and two feet below present ground level. Identified by Mr. R. H. M. Dolley as a ninth-century French obol, this coin is apparently unique. Its occurrence at Pin's Knoll, albeit casual, must therefore give rise to considerable speculation.
The knoll bears evidence of extensive ploughing in mediaeval times and the S.E. slope is terraced with a series of well defined lynchets. During excavation the topmost lynchet was cut by an exploratory trench at right angles to the riser. The section thus obtained showed a considerable build-up of soil above an old turf line which no doubt represents the upper limit of the natural accumulation between the end of the R.-B. occupation and the beginning of the early mediaeval ploughing. The coin itself was found just below this turf line.
We are indebted to Mr. Dolley for his expert opinion and for the note which follows. For the second note our thanks are due to the Rev. Michael Dewar.
Note 1
The coin found by Mr. Bailey at Pin's Knoll is beyond all question a Carolingian obol. The silver obol was the Carolingian equivalent of the contemporary English halfpenny, and is only less rare. The obverse legend is somewhat blundered and retrograde but reads + IOTAHVSIEIX which can only be for + LOTARIVS REX.
The type is a cross pattee within a beaded circle. The reverse is entirely plain, the field being occupied by the legend PAIA = THIA in two lines. This would be quite a normal blundering at this period for Palatina, and indicates that the coin was struck at "The Palace", presumptively, but not quite indubitably, Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle). The interpretation of the mint-signature, however, must take into account the attribution of the particular coin.
In this case there are four Lothars who are possible - Lothar I, son of Louis the Pious, who was Emperor from 840-855, Lothar II, King of Lotharingia from 855-869, Lothar of France (954-986) and Lothar of Italy (947-950). There are solid numismatic considerations which preclude the two tenth-century candidates, and a further argument in support of a ninth-century dating is the apparently very effective ban on the circulation of foreign coins which figures in so much of tenth-century English legislation. The outstanding question, therefore, seems to be whether the coin should be given to Lothar I during his Italian kingship (834-840) or to Lothar II. …’

<2> Werner, A E and Organ R M, 1965, Scientific examination of a Carolingian coin from Litton Cheney, Dorset (Article in serial). SWX837.

‘The examination of this coin was undertaken at the British Museum Research Laboratory at the request of the Curator of the Dorset County Museum because some doubt had been expressed about its authenticity. It had been found in an unsealed layer near Litton Cheney (see above) and was in a clean condition when received for examination. The coin was regarded as being probably of Lothar II (855-869) and was alleged to be made of tin.
The present examination was directed to discovering how the coin was made and to determining the composition of the metal, but it was limited by a request that the coin should not suffer any visible defacement.
Examination under a low power microscope revealed that the coin was covered in certain areas with a pale green earthy material, and that in other areas the surface had been damaged by loss of the original surface skin. The presence of such a surface skin suggested that the surface had been heavily worked, as one would expect to happen if a blank had been struck. The general appearance of the surface showed that the metal had been somewhat weakened as the result of mineralisation.’

<2> Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, 1966, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society for 1965, 92-93 (Serial). SDO65.

Record last edited

May 4 2023 11:30AM