1.Silver penny of Cnut, Short Cross type (N790), Wulfwine of Lincoln.

Obv:+CNVT/·RECX:Diademed bust left, in front sceptre

Rev:+PVLFPINEONLIN Short cross voided, annulet in centre.

Weight: 1.06g.Die axis: 270

2.Silver penny of Cnut, Short Cross type (N790), Brihtmær of London

Obv:+CNVT/·RECX:Diademed bust left, in front sceptre

Rev:+BR___MÆRONLV:Short cross voided, annulet in centre.

Weight: 1.08g Die axis: 90

3.Silver penny of Cnut, Short Cross type (N790), probably Brihtric of Lincoln, fragmentary

Obv:+CNV·/[TREC]X Diademed bust left, in front sceptre.

Rev: +B______ONLIN: Short cross voided, annulet in centre.

Weight: 0.63g Die axis: 0

4.Silver cut halfpenny of Edward the Confessor, Expanding Cross type (Heavy sub-type) (N823), moneyer probably Wulfwig of Bedford.

Obv:___[P]ER·/D____Diademed bust left, in front sceptre

Rev:_____[P]IONBED[E]__Short cross voided with expanding limbs, joined at the base by two circles

Weight: 0.81g Die axis:Uncertain

Discussion: All of the coins were found in close proximity during a metal detecting rally. The four reported coins all date from the eleventh century, but while three of the coins are of the same type, the fourth is of another type dating from 15-20 years later than the others. Coins hoards of this period typically contain a single type, or more rarely coins of consecutive types. Given the small size of the hoard it would be most unusual to find a single coin of the 1050s as part of a hoard otherwise dating from the 1030s, although the chances of finding three unrelated coins of the same type which were not from same hoard in close proximity are slight. It is possible that all four coins come from a larger multi-type hoard, in which intervening types were also re-presented. However, on the current evidence it seems more likely that the three Cnut coins represent part or all of a single dispersed hoard, and should thus be considered together as associated finds, but that coin no. 4, being of later date, is unassociated with the others, and should therefore be considered separately.

Conclusions: The metal content of the coins has not been analysed, but coins of this period typically have a silver content well in excess of 50%, and certainly far in excess of the 10% threshold required for Treasure. Consequently, in terms of age and precious metal content, all four coins potentially qualify as Treasure under the stipulations of the Treasure Act (1996). However, if coin no. 4 is not associated with the other coins, which on current evidence seems the most likely interpretation, then as a single coin it would not qualify as Treasure, whereas coins nos. 1-3 appear to represent a single group, and therefore would qualify as Treasure. It is therefore my recommendation that coins 1-3 do constitute Treasure under the terms of the Treasure Act (1996), but that coin no. 4 does not. Given the lack of complete certainty, should any further missing coins discovered at the same time be located, they may potentially also be considered Treasure by association either with coins 1-3 in the current case, or with coin 4, or with both.

Gareth Williams

Curator of Early Medieval Coins

The British Museum

23.10.2014