Conclusion

The ‘third way’ we have been following in this study of the coins has of necessity been a collection of ‘cameos’, often diachronic. Whilst this approach has allowed imagery and themes to be examined, understood, and placed firmly within the visual culture of the time, it has also provided firm foundations for addressing a number of issues posed at the beginning of the work, concerning sources, context, and meaning. We can now proceed to draw some conclusions, which will broadly cover artistic, numismatic, and historical questions. The study of the iconography of the early coinage has highlighted the eclectic use of a great variety of sources beyond those of purely numismatic derivation, and indicated that the particular choice of idiom was symptomatic of the change in the perceived function of the coins. Within the period, distinctions can be made between the earlier and later coinages. Although a desire to conform to monetary types respected on the Continent, including Visigothic and Byzantine issues, suggests that commercial credibility was important at the inception of Anglo-Saxon coinage, an analysis of the iconography expands this picture. Early independent Anglo-Saxon coinage (c.630–700) appears to be relatively conservative, modelled on Roman prototypes via Merovingian issues showing busts on the obverse, and reverses with crosses. The classical bust, on account of its charisma and tradition, was clearly felt to be an important part of the iconography, and was reproduced on the majority of issues. Unlike classical prototypes, however, it was rarely accompanied by identifying legends. When these occur, they are reproduced in an increasingly degenerated manner, until they turn into patterns, perhaps pseudo-magical. Inscriptions may have been superfluous in an illiterate society, or perhaps it might have been considered more beneficial for all concerned for the bust to represent ‘authority’ in general, rather than a particular person. It is interesting to notice runic and Latin characters coexisting, and perhaps even challenging each other. Rigold’s scheme of the various elements derived from the gold coinage which eventually conflated in Series A shows the creative use of disparate elements, insignia, attributes, and details which, as with other ‘barbarian’ coinages, were selectively copied, and sometimes replaced with native equivalents.