Search

Nathan Sussman's criticism of Harry Miskimin's research into medieval coinage is flawed and inaccurate. Miskimin's research was not conclusive but strongly suggested patterns of coinage which were adversely affected by a bullion shortage. Sussman discredits Miskimin's approach to counting coins but fails to deal seriously with the matter of double counting. Sussman chooses to call Miskimin's findings useless because his own flawed statistical approach failed to find concurring evidence.

Contrary to the beliefs of Professor Harry A. Miskimin, the theory of a French bullion shortage in the late 14th-century is not supported by a statistical analysis of the records. Miskimin's reliance on the figures supplied by De Saulcy is unfortunate, for those figures are not supported by the Cremieu mint records from 1386-1418 that are located both in Paris and Grenoble, France. Even when accounting for missing documents, the available production figures for 1308-1343 have an equivalent mean to those of 1384-1419.

The mint in Agen, France was initially under church control when founded in 1040, but was monitored by the citizens to maintain the value of the coins produced, since there were many competitive mints. In 1340 the Crown assumed control, which became ownership during the Hundred Years War. The Crowns's monopoly in minting coins led to a decrease in the number of mints which led to recessions in Agenais in the 14th-century and inflation in the 17th and 18th-centuries. This centralization, now universal, was not economically desirable and medieval methods may have been superior.

An attempt made to put numbers to the quantity of money in England, the quantity of the coinage in England for the period from 1180 to 1247 is discussed. Recoinages of 1158 and 1279 and the quantity of the coinage at that time are described.