This article was downloaded by: [Uniwersytet Warszawski]
On: 24 January 2014, At: 05:34
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

Scandinavian Journal of
History

Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/shis20

Money Economy in
Medieval Norway

Kare Lunden
Published online: 05 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Kare Lunden (1999) Money Economy in Medieval
Norway, Scandinavian Journal of History, 24:3-4, 245-265, DOI:

10.1080/03468759950115683

To link to this article:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03468759950115683

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor
& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any

form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

Money Economy in Medieval Norway

Ka

º

re Lunden

From the 12th century on the economy of Medieval Norway was to some extent
integrated with the economy of the Baltic and the North Sea area. This integration

was mainly brought about by the export of dried fish. Correlated with this
integration was a certain monetization of the Norwegian economy, as the export
trade brought bullion to the country. The basic elements behind this development
were the character of the Norwegian landscape and resources: the neighbourhood
of rich fishing grounds and the scarcity of arable land. The rise in population was

another main force behind the development of the export trade.

Striking as these fundamental facts are, it is nevertheless my opinion – and that

expressed in this paper – that it is easier to overrate than to underrate the degree of
this commercial integration, and of the associated monetization. After all, modern
readers and students are accustomed to a highly commercial economy. One can
easily fail to realize that even the Norwegian Medieval economy always stayed

mainly agrarian, with a subsistence character.

Whatever opinion one may arrive at, it is obvious that a clear and complete

picture of the economic system of the entire North European region cannot be
drawn if it does not include an understanding of the character of the Norwegian
economy at the time.

There is a considerable body of literature about the medieval economy of

Norway.

1

But unfortunately very little of it is written in other languages than

Norwegian. The general aim of the present paper is to elucidate for readers of
English what is thought to be known, especially about the degree of monetization of
this economy. In particular, my goal is to discuss the findings of a recent article on

this last subject, by Svein H. Gullbekk.

2

Even though I find myself in disagreement

with Gullbekk on some of the main points, I am obligated to him for affording me a
useful point of departure for my own present investigation, and probably for
subsequent studies.

Ka

º

re Lunden, born 1930, Professor Emeritus, Oslo University. His published works include Korn og kaup.

Studiar over prisar og jordbruk pa

º

Vestlandet i mellomalderen (Universitetsforlaget Oslo, 1978); Norges

historie 3. Norge under Sverreætten 1177–1319 (Cappelens Forlag Oslo, 1976). Other published works include

books and articles, mostly on Medieval Norway. He is currently engaged in research on the agrarian history of Norway AD

1350–1814.

Address: Odvar Solbergs vei 75E, 0973 Oslo, Norway.

1

S. H. Gullbekk, “Medieval Law and Money in Norway”, The Numismat Chronicle, 158 (1998), p. 173;

note 1 lists some of the major works. Some others are mentioned below.

2

Op. cit.

Scand. J. History 24

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

My discussion of monetization – to some extent like the article by Gullbekk – will

have to be somewhat thematically wide-ranging. The character of the sources is
such that the degree of monetization cannot be fully discussed independently of a
study of the system of fines, as revealed in the laws and other judicial documents.
This latter system is in itself an extremely “knotty” field, but also potentially very
rewarding.

The payment of fines, then, forms a main part of the following study, like that of

my precursor Gullbekk. In the Norwegian medieval case, however, I find it

impossible to form a credible opinion of the degree of monetization, without
sketching the main features of the whole economy. These features include the
dealings between town and country, the character of the tax system, the extent of
the export trade, with the associated problems of the sources of bullion and prices of
silver. Finally, the character of transactions in the Medieval Norwegian taverns may

also, perhaps unexpectedly, throw some light on the degree of monetization. These
general economic problems must be treated summarily in this paper.

1. The problem of monetization

The problem must be split into a qualitative and a quantitative question: i.e. Were
coins struck and in circulation at all? If so, in what amounts?

This distinction is hardly clear enough in Gullbekk. He mentions what he calls

“anti-monetarian historians”, and lists some of them, “none of whom believe
Norway was monetized until the 16th century, or even later”.

3

This may perhaps

lead some readers to believe that the answer to the mentioned, qualitative question
is in doubt, and contested. But knotty though the sources are, they make it clear
and uncontested that coins of varying weight and intrinsic value were struck, more

or less intermittently, from the days of King Olafr Tryggvason (AD 995–1000) and
for as long as separate Norwegian kings existed, into the 14th century.

4

Foreign

coins such as English and German, the latter particularly of Lu¨beck, also circulated
and from the 15th century Danish coins became more common.

5

The last

mentioned were associated with the union of the two crowns, Norway and

Denmark.

There are no “anti-monetarian historians” who do not expressly recognize these

undeniable facts.

6

And it must be refuted as erroneous, what Gullbekk writes:

“Their case against a money economy is based primarily on studies of taxes and
land rents in the 15th and 16th centuries.”

7

What, for example, Asgaut Steinnes

wrote about money and other means of payment in the earlier medieval centuries is

3

Op. cit., p. 173.

4

E.g. K. Skaare, Coins and coinage in Viking-Age Norway (Lund, 1976); K. Skaare, Mynt i Norge (Oslo,

1978); A. Steinnes, “Ma

º

l, vekt og verdirekning i Noreg i millomalderen og ei tid etter”, Nordisk

Kultur, XXX (1936).

5

Steinnes, “Ma

º

l, vekt og verdirekning”, pp. 132 ff.

6

E.g. Steinnes, op. cit., K. Lunden, Korn og kaup. Studiar over prisar og jordbruk pa

º

Vestlandet i mellomalderen

(Oslo, 1978) pp. 38–55, 95–100.

7

Gullbekk, “Medieval Law”, p. 173.

Scand. J. History 24

246 Ka

º

re Lunden

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

of course based on the contemporary sources.

8

The present author is mentioned by

Gullbekk as another chief “anti-monetarianist”. My main work on the subject is
limited to the period c. AD 1280–1350, and is based on the sources from that time.

9

My work is not based on “taxes and land rent”, but on transactions including sales
of land, payments of fines, assessments of moveables and properties in connection
with dowries, wills and other occasions, in addition to the paying of land rents and
debts.

10

The date and place of the transaction is given in each single case in fully

annotated tables. The tables give the relative values of different minted coins, units

of burnt silver, units of account, and commodities used as means of payment and
measure of value, such as cows and other cattle, hides, butter, grain and meal, fish,
cloth and iron, in addition to land. The results include: In 193 sales or assessments
of land in Vestlandet (western Norway) in AD 1282–1349, the value was expressed
in minted coins in 6% of the cases, in burnt silver in 31% and in commodities in the

remaining 63%. In the 43 cases of the period AD 1350–1399 the value was
expressed in coins in 7% of the cases, in burnt silver in 5% and in commodities in
the remaining 88%.

11

The documents usually stipulate, in the cases of sales, the

price of the land, but also in many cases what was actually paid. It can be said that

the land was more generally paid for with commodities than the price was indicated
in this way.

On the basis of this and other studies I concluded that “coins were a rather

unimportant element in the money system of the time, which shall be called a
system of commodity-money (vare-pengesystem).”

12

Similarly, Steinnes summarized

his very extensive studies thus: “Coins existed only in small amounts in Norway in
the old days.”

13

In this limited and precise sense there exist “anti-monetarian” historians of

Norwegian medieval economy who more or less radically stress its character as a
natural economy. Gullbekk finds himself in opposition to these historians, finding
“strong evidence for a money economy.”

14

Again, it is not quite clear what this

means. The extreme interpretation would be that the people of the land carried out

all their economic transactions with minted coins, not only used as measures of
value, but as means of payment.

2. The system of fines
As I have already indicated, Gullbekk rests his case for a “money economy” chiefly
on a study of the system of fines. His material includes 18 diplomas, all issued in
1295–1349 – 11 of them from the years 1295–1319.

15

The diplomas record

8

Steinnes, “Ma

º

l, vekt”; Steinnes, “Gamal myntrekning enda

º

ein gong”, Historisk Tidsskrift, 5.R.7

(1929); Steinnes, “Gamal myntrekning enda

º

ein gong”, Historisk Tidsskrift, 5.R.7, (1929).

9

Lunden, Korn og kaup, p. 19, and list of tables, pp. 11–13.

10

Op. cit., column “Art transaksjon” (kind of transaction) in the tables.

11

Op. cit., pp. 24 f.

12

Op. cit., p. 27.

13

Steinnes, “Ma

º

l, vekt”, p. 129. All translations by KL.

14

Gullbekk, “Medieval Law”, pp. 179 f.

15

Op. cit., p. 173.

Scand. J. History 24

Money Economy in Medieval Norway 247

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

“judicial decisions” and “court orders” concerning fines, compensations and other

court orders of payments.

My main issue in this part of my paper is to show that it is necessary to study

these diplomas much more closely. In particular, it is necessary to distinguish more
clearly between expressing the value of a fine in coins on the one hand, and actual
payment in coins on the other. It is also necessary to distinguish more clearly
between transactions of different kinds.

Gullbekk’s results are expressed in a differing, one might say, self-contradictory

manner. In what seems clear wording, he says: “This continuous use of coins as
payments of fines in court orders throughout our period makes it clear that coins
were not only used, but used widely, within the judicial system.”

16

This can only be

taken to mean that Gullbekk has observed coins being used – and widely used –
when fines and the like were actually paid. This is also the implication, as he opposes

his results to the interpretation other scholars have given of the Law of Gulating
223. This clause, and the discussion about it, concerns in what species the fines
(blood money) were paid, not in what species the value of the fine may have been
expressed at the verdict.

17

Gullbekk expresses the results of his investigation of the 18 diplomas somewhat

differently, when he writes: “There is not one decade when court orders given in

‘monete usualis’; i.e. ‘gagns peninga’, i.e. valid coins, are not recorded in the Norwegian
diplomas.”

18

The wording here leaves it open how far the fines were actually paid

in coins, not only the size indicated in that manner by the court. But Gullbekk at
least makes it expressly clear that he has been able to determine in what cases the
fines were paid in coins: “In some cases we are told that the payments were in fact

made, or were authorized to be made, in barterable goods, such as hides,
butter…”

19

It is then necessary to state: Out of all the 18 diplomas only 4 (one of these

provisional) show what was actually paid. And of these four only the one records
that a minor part of the payment was offered in coins, but was refused. Some of the

other diplomas indicate, however, that the payment was not made in coins.

The rest of the 18 diplomas either do not mention anything about money at all (5

diplomas), or they record only in what species the size of the fine or compensation
were expressed at the sentence. But even then it is not always clear what kind of

units of value the court had in mind at the verdict.

To show that Gullbekk does not prove his point, it is necessary to say something

in general about the system of fines, and a little more about the system of money –
each of them among the most complicated themes in medieval history.

The district laws of the Gulating (G) and the Frostating (F) were the laws in force

until the “national” Law of the Land of 1274. In the G most fines are expressed as
numbers of merkr or aurar, without any further specification.

20

In the F the fines are

16

Op. cit., p. 180.

17

Gulatingslovi. Umsett fra

º

gamalnorsk av Knut Robberstad (Oslo, 1969) K. Lunden, “Træl og a

º

rmann”,

Historisk Tidsskrift (1983), pp. 449 ff.

18

Gullbekk, “Medieval Law”, p. 180.

19

Ibid.

20

Gulatingslovi (hereafter G). Umsett Robberstad, many places, and p. 313.

Scand. J. History 24

248 Ka

º

re Lunden

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

sometimes expressed in the same way as those mentioned in G,

21

sometimes as merkr

or aurar “measured in burnt silver”, and at other times as merkr “gold”,

22

or merkr

“weighed gold”

23

, or “burnt silver or gold”.

24

These terms refer to the units of

value, where 1 peningr (originally) = 1/10 ertog = 1/30 eyrir = 1/240 mo¨rk, and where
only the peningr was ever a minted coin. The others were units of weight, the mo¨rk
calculated as having been 214.32 g.

25

With the minting, these units of weight also

came to denote numbers or weight units of coins.

At the start of Norwegian minting in about AD 1000, coinage was struck from

burnt silver, and 1 mo¨rk by weight and a mo¨rk by tale were of the same value.

26

Originally, “1 mo¨rk gold” was understood as value of 8 merkr burnt silver, in the

oldest laws 8 merkr of weighed coins (less value than 8 merk burnt silver), and in the
14th century 8 merkr forngildar.

27

The last value did not correspond to any coins that

existed then at all, but was a unit of account, defined in kind, which for a few years

had the value of 1/3 mo¨rk burnt silver by weight.

28

There is no reason to doubt that

the terms in F and G originally referred to weight units of burnt silver, or the
equivalent amounts of gold.

It is easy to see why a uniform system of denoting the relative value of fines was

chosen. F states that the law “stipulates lawful fines for everyone according to birth
and rank.”

29

If a man, for example wounds another, he has to pay 72 aurar to the

King if he is a hauld (good farmer), 48 aurar if he is an a`rborinn maðr, 36 aurar if he is a

reksþegn, and 24 aurar if he is a freedman.

30

Correspondingly, a wound on the foot is

to be paid by 4 aurar, but 6 aurar if it is on the knee, etc.

31

It is understood that these

latter fines apply to a man of “normal”, free rank, but are reduced or augmented
for different ranks. Such a complicated system of fines needed a uniform scale for

relative values, whatever kind of coins or commodities were actually paid.

But as time passed, precious metals increased in value. The coins struck differed

in purity of alloy and in weight. It is neither necessary nor possible to go into detail
here. But already king Haraldr Harðra´ði (1047–1066) struck coins with about 50%
of copper, and by the 12th century the weight of the peningr was so reduced that they

counted 480 peningar to a mo¨rk by weight, not 240.

32

The nominal size of the fines was not altered by the changes in alloy, weight of

coins, or purchasing power of precious metals or coins.

33

This would mean that the

size of the fines rose sharply with the price of silver, if they were to be paid in that

21

Frostatingslova. Omsett av Jan Ragnar Hagland og Jørn Sandnes (Oslo, 1994), (hereafter F), e.g. II 2, 5, 6, 7,

IV 7, 9, 15.

22

F, e.g. I 7, VI 1.

23

F, e.g. VI 3.

24

F, e.g. XII 2.

25

Steinnes, “Ma

º

l, vekt”, p. 151.

26

Ibid., pp. 130, 152.

27

Ibid., p. 152.

28

Ibid., pp. 131 f., 152; Lunden, Korn og kaup, pp. 48–52, 94.

29

F VI 1.

30

F IV 53.

31

F IV 45.

32

Steinnes, “Ma

º

l, vekt”, p. 130.

33

Compare P. Meyer, “Bøter”, Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middelalder (hereafter KL), II (Oslo,

1957), p. 530.

Scand. J. History 24

Money Economy in Medieval Norway 249

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

metal. Or the size would vary, or generally fall strongly with the devaluation of the

currency, if paid in cash.

34

3. The commodity money system
Another problem in payments of fines, as in most other transactions, was that there
was simply not enough silver or coins (not to mention gold) for fines or other
obligations to be paid exclusively or mostly in those species.

35

The solution to the

latter problem was to pay the fines – like other obligations – in kind, whatever was
prescribed in the laws.

36

A solution to all the problems was to define an eyrir or a

mo¨rk as the equivalent of a certain amount of goods. The definition could be given expressly
in the law, or it could be understood as a valid custom. In G170 we read that a fine
of 15 merkr, to be paid for killing an official (a`rmaðr) of the king, should be paid
according to the value of “money” that was laid down by the Law of the Gulating,
i.e. 6-alna aurar; an eyrir was defined as 6 ells of cloth (homespun). In reality, the fine

of “15 merkr” then meant and was paid by 720 ells of homespun, or presumably by
the equivalent in other lawful commodities.

As Knut Robberstad writes, “this resolution must have been done at a time when

it was not clear what was to be understood by 1 eyrir”.

37

But at a time that was then

not forgotten, the price of 6 ells of homespun must have been 1 eyrir burnt silver.
“All demands expressed in ‘silver’ were in this way liberated from the uncertainty

for the debtor that the creditor might demand burnt silver, and for the uncertainty
for the creditor that the currency might become of even less worth than it already
was.”

38

It was the 6 alna eyrir that was laid down as the eyrir according to the law (lov-

øyre) in Norway.”

39

In the plurality of cases in G where the fine or other obligation

was laid down in undefined aurar or merkir, we ought then to understand that the

eyrir meant 6 ells of cloth (homespun), or the equivalent in other species.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to differentiate between payments to the King, to the

Church or to private persons.

40

And in the last case there was a difference between

payment of, for example, blood money, and an obligation in ordinary trade. Aurar
of differing value were demanded and accepted in differing kinds of cases,

41

the

most important apparently being blood money and payment for land. One aspect
of this mode of thinking was that in these most important cases the “money”, i.e. the
commodities, used in payment had to satisfy particularly rigorous demands. G 223,
cited by Gullbekk, states that, as blood-money, sheep shall be paid, but not goats,
stallions, not mares or geldings, male, not female slaves…

42

It is expressly clear that

the qualifications concern what kind of items could lawfully be paid, as it is also said:

34

G ums. Robberstad, p. 307 ff.

35

Ibid., and Meyer, “Bøter”, p. 530, G. Hesselberg, “Bøter”, KL II, p. 522; P. Rasmussen, “Mark”,

KL XI (Oslo, 1966), p. 426.

36

Ibid.

37

G ums. Robberstad, p. 311.

38

Ibid.

39

Ibid.

40

Ibid.

41

Ibid., pp. 311–315; D. A. Seip, “Bøter”, KL II, pp. 534 f.

42

G ums. Robberstad, p. 207.

Scand. J. History 24

250 Ka

º

re Lunden

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

“Nothing shall be given as fine when the item has less worth than one eyrir …” The

same principles were applied in other Nordic laws. The Swedish Law of Uppland
differentiates between a mo¨rk acceptable as blood money (karlgill) and a mo¨rk
acceptable in trade, the first comprising 12 aurar, the latter 8 aurar. In any case, the
fines also there were generally paid in kind.

43

And as in G, the Swedish O¨stgo¨ta law

(Vap. 6:1). declares: “The fine must not include more than three pieces of weapons
(folkvapen): shield, sword and helmet (kittelhatt) …”, “and the cattle included must be
fully grown, etc.”

44

(It should be noted that these Swedish laws are preserved in

editions from the later years of the 13th century.)

What emerges from the G and the mentioned Swedish laws is first that it is not in

itself clear, nor always expressly defined in each case, what kind of merkr, aurar, etc.,
the laws refer to; they may be of differing value, to be determined in each case. (It
has eluded Gullbekk that G 223 is not about fines in general, but about blood

money.) What in particular clearly emerges from the G and the Swedish laws is that
the fines were not meant to be paid in units of coin or (exclusively) burnt silver, even
though the relative value of the fines was expressed in such units.

45

G 223 even

makes current coins illegal in payment of blood money by insisting that gold or

burnt silver be paid, as well as specified kinds of commodity. The reason must be
the difficulty in ascertaining the value of the coins.

Gullbekk speculates that, for example, G 223 may refer to a very early point of

time.

46

The fact remains that G was generally in force until 1274, in so far as it was

not altered on isolated points by statutes.

47

Note the age of the Swedish laws.

About the F, I shall here only say that there is no reason to think that it has been

understood and practised in any other way than the G, even if the value of the fines

is expressed as I have stated above (similar in most cases to that in the G), and even
if it does not say anything about what was actually to be paid. After all, it is the
general principle of these laws that they do not state expressly what is self-evident by
custom. And there is no reason to think that the money economy was any more
developed in the Tro¨ndelag of the F than in the Vestlandet of the G.

The “national” Law of the Land of 1274 is the law directly relevant for the

period of Gullbekk’s 18 diplomas, 1295–1349. In that law the value of fines and
other obligations is generally denoted as merkr or aurar of “silver” (silfrs). As, for
example, resolutions on units of weights and measures testify, the code is generally

an attempt at “national standardization.

48

(The history of weights and measures of

the following centuries proves the very limited success of that standardization.

49

As

has been proved for the years 1285–1350, 1 mo¨rk silfrs unspecified denoted coins
with a value differing from 1/3 to 1/9 mo¨rk burnt silver.

50

It is reasonable that silfr

in L generally is meant to denote the current coins. But the legality of changing the

43

Hesselberg, “Bøter”, pp. 522 ff.

44

Ibid.

45

Note 35 above.

46

Gullbekk, “Medieval Law”, p. 177.

47

Ibid., p. 178 refers to the statute of 1260, on fines paid to the King. Gullbekk fails to see that this

was not the same thing as the blood money of G223.

48

Steinnes, “Ma

º

l, vekt”, pp. 85 ff.

49

Ibid. pp. 88 ff.

50

Lunden, Korn og kaup (1978), pp. 39 f.

Scand. J. History 24

Money Economy in Medieval Norway 251

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

old law in those days was questionable.

51

It is therefore also very questionable

whether society accepted the same kind of merkr, with the same value, in all kinds of
situations. A royal concession to the old ways is to be found in the statute included
in L IV 13. It states that, concerning blood money, “the old law” ( fare sem adr vatta

log) shall apply.

52

This would reasonably include that the same kind of merkr was not

necessarily acceptable in blood money as in matters of less significance.

At least it is not only self-evident, but expressly said in L, that the merkr, aurar, etc.,

often (or perhaps generally) were actually paid in kind. L IV 2 states that “if land is

paid as þegngildi (fine to the King) …”

53

(the fine is regulated to be 13 merkr and 8

ertugar, a third of the old value, 40 merkr).

54

L VI 12 states generally “what kind of

money shall be paid for land”. “When allodial land is redeemed by judicial process,
it shall be paid in gold, burnt silver or current money (gagns pengar), cows or grain,
butter or hides/skins …, and 6 prudent men are to assess that these goods paid are

of no less value than what the land had been bought for.”

55

No doubt L VI 12, in

accordance with L IV 2, shows the kind of “money” (peningar) that was actually paid
in most or many cases, also for fines and other obligations formulated as merkr, aurar,
and so on. Peningar in the sources of the time often denoted anything of economic

value, used as payment, even if it originally referred to coins.

56

My interpretation, then, is that the merkr and aurar of L, and of the judicial

decisions in diplomas in the following decades, are units of account, leaving it open
what is actually to be paid, the understanding all the same being that the peningar
paid are mostly commodities. Certainly this interpretation is not independent of
what is known, or at least thought to be known, of the economic system and money
system in general. For example, the taxes of the King were generally levied and

paid in butter, meal and other commodities.

57

The main tax of the Church was

simply a tax in grain.

58

The land rent was, as far as we know, all but completely

paid in kind.

59

In a royal regulation of wages for Opplanda in 1291, the wages are

stated in aurar, but it is defined that 1 eyrir in this case is to be understood as 1/4

hefselda (15 kg) of butter, or 5 ells of linen, or 12 ells of burlap.

60

All the same, the

eyrir might reasonably also be paid with the equivalent in other commodities, or in
currency, if the latter could be found.

Gullbekk draws attention to the attempt by Ha´kon V (1299–1319 in 1311 to

introduce a “monetary system based on the king’s own coinage”.

61

The wording is

somewhat misleading and anachronistic, neglecting that the real “monetary system”

51

E.g. K. Lunden, “Rett og realitet. Rettsreglane i norsk mellomalder, pa

º

ein kulturell og sosial

bakgrunn”, Forum Mediaevale (Oslo, 1998), pp. 1–51, and references there.

52

Magnus Lagabøters Landslov. Oversatt av Absalon Taranger (hereafter L) (Oslo, 1915), p. 53.

53

Ibid., p. 43.

54

Ibid.

55

Ibid., p. 105.

56

E. Hertzberg, “Glossarium”, Norges Gamle Love indtil 1387 (hereafter NGL) V (Christiania, 1895), p.

595.

57

A. Steinnes, Gamal skatteskipnad i Noreg I–II (Oslo, 1930–1933).

58

A. Steinnes, “Tienduppga

º

vone i Biskop é ysteins jordebok”, Festskrift til Halvdan Koht pa

º

60-a

º

rsdagen

(Oslo, 1933), pp. 144–53.

59

H. Bjørkvik, “Landskyld”, KL X (Oslo, 1965), p. 278.

60

NGL III 4.

61

Gullbekk, “Medieval Law”, p. 175.

Scand. J. History 24

252 Ka

º

re Lunden

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

of the time included the commodities used as money (peningar). What the king orders

in 1311 is that the people shall not refuse to accept also the royal coinage, which he
says they “never cease from doing”, thereby breaking the king’s statutes.

62

Another

statute, from the said Ha´kon’s time as duke over Eastern Norway in 1293, says that
the peasants have complained about the coinage, implying that they refused to
accept it, at least at its nominal value.

63

A royal statute from the time of his

successor as king (1320) in the same way imposes on the people to accept the royal
coinage.

64

According to the ordinary rules of source criticism, these statutes

primarily prove that the coinage had a very bad reputation, leaving it open how far
the king succeeded. And of course these statutes did not even attempt to exclude the
commodity money. On the contrary, Ha´kon V in 1311 states that in payment for
land (i jarðer) he does not demand coinage to be accepted. There, burnt silver is still
to be used. One might think that this only means that coinage as payment for land

is not to be accepted with its nominal value, only with its intrinsic value in silver.
But as we have seen in the preceding period, the real intention undoubtedly,
according to Norwegian and Swedish laws, in corresponding cases is to exclude
coinage as lawful payment. The reason is presumably the difficulty most people

would have with ascertaining the intrinsic value of the coins. I take it that the king’s
intention by demanding burnt silver for land is to exclude the currency, not to
exclude the lawful commodity money which earlier on, e.g. in L VI 12, was
accepted in similar cases.

It is known that around AD 1285–1300 better coins than before were struck, of a

kind that gave 1 mo¨rk by weight the value of 1/3 mo¨rk burnt silver.

65

This may be

connected with a greater influx of silver than usual, due to the comparatively high

export of fish. All of this seems reflected in a falling purchasing power of silver
toward the end of the 13th century, until about 1306.

66

This may be the

background to the attempts by Ha´kon V to make his coins more generally
accepted. All of this renders these decades unrepresentative, especially for the
subsequent period, when the price of silver again rose sharply, and more debased

coins were struck anew.

67

At any rate, even for the period 1280 to c. 1350 it is

shown that 1 mo¨rk Norwegian coins varied between the value of 1/3 and 1/9 mo¨rk
burnt silver.

68

This varying value of the currency made it very difficult to accent

payment of a conventional demand in coins. So by 1348 we find the King himself

demanding that his taxes be paid, not in currency, but in forngildan pening, saying that
all landowners in Norway in the same way demanded their land rent to be paid in

forngildan pening.

69

This forngild peningr or forngild mo¨rk is perhaps the central unit of the

real “monetary system” of the 14th century. As I have noted before, it was not, and
did not correspond to any unit of currency existing when the term forngild mo¨rk or

peningr was used. It was a unit defined in terms of commodities, with fixed rates of

62

NGL III 30.

63

NGL III 5.

64

NGL III, pp. 202 ff.

65

Steinnes, “Ma

º

l, vekt”, p. 131.

66

Lunden, Korn og kaup, pp. 90 f.

67

Ibid., Steinnes, ‘Ma

º

l, vekt’, p. 131.

68

Lunden, Korn og kaup, pp. 90 f.

69

NGL III, pp. 171 ff.

Scand. J. History 24

Money Economy in Medieval Norway 253

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

exchange within large areas for comparative long stretches of time. It has been

shown that in Western Norway during the years 1306–1337 the following exchange
rates applied without exception: 1 mo¨rk forgild = 1 (standard) cow = 3 laupar
butter = 3 cow-hides = 140 (standard) pieces of iron = 1/3 mo¨rk burnt silver.

70

(The

value expressed in burnt silver was changed with the rise in the price of silver in the
following period.) These fixed rates of exchange are found in the wide range of
transactions mentioned above.

71

The existence of such a widely used unit of value, based not on currency, but on

fixed rates of exchange between commodities, is of course in itself a powerful
testimony to the weak development of a money economy.

A point of special importance, reading the sources of the period, is that the

functional unit mo¨rk forngild was so widely used, that not only does mo¨rk unspecified
often mean mo¨rk forngild, but even mo¨rk peningar sometimes has the same meaning.

72

(As I have said, peningar does not always refer to coins, but sometimes to anything
having exchange value.) Meeting the term mo¨rk, or even mo¨rk peningar, in diplomas of
the 14th century, then, does not in itself prove that the reference is to coins. It may
be the commodity-based unit of account, the mo¨rk forngild. (The same of course

applies to the fractions of the mo¨rk: aurar, ertugar and peningar.) This being so, we
should expect fines and other obligations in diplomas of the period 1295–1349 in
reality to be paid in kind, whatever the units of value indicated at the judicial
decision. Gullbekk is right, however, in stating that my conclusion is invalidated if
“a look at the judicial decisions”

73

in the diplomas proves that the fines and other

obligations were actually paid in coins. To determine whether his diplomas prove
what he claims, it is not only necessary to know the background I have sketched.

First and foremost we will have to investigate each diploma much more thoroughly
than he does.

First, it would perhaps take an attentive reader to observe that while he says

there is “not one decade when court orders”, do not speak of “sentences given in

‘monete usualis’ or ‘gangs peninga’ ”, his diplomas are all from the years 1295–1349.

Next, the terms he cites, ‘monete usalis’ or ‘gangs peninga’, are very rarely used in his

diplomas, but are mostly Gullbekk’s conjectures based on terms that do not
necessarily have this meaning.

4. The diplomas AD 1295–1349

Before looking at each of his 18 diplomas, we will have to relegate 5 of them, as
they say nothing whatsoever about any kind of money.

74

Of the rest: DN III 36, AD 1295, states that the Archbishop of Nidaros has fined

some clerics “1000 marks” (m. marka) for a misdemeanour. The marka are not

70

Lunden, Korn og kaup, p. 94.

71

Note 9 above.

72

Steinnes, “Ma

º

l, vekt”, p. 132.

73

Gullbekk, “Medieval Law”, p. 179.

74

All of his diplomas are listed ibid., pp. 179 f. Three of them, Diplomatarium Norvegicum (hereafter DN)

I 157, III 234 and IV 110, must have been included in error. Two others, DN IV 41 and VI 64,

only add information to the topics of other diplomas that do not have a bearing on money.

Scand. J. History 24

254 Ka

º

re Lunden

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

specified. Gullbekk renders the sum as “1000 marks of silver”, which ought to mean

coins. And he says that “it is worth noting that the sum was specified in marks of
silver and not burnt silver or commodities”.

75

The fact is that we do not know with

any certainty what kind of merkr was intended. And if it was coins, we still do not
know anything whatsoever about what the clerics actually paid.

In DN II 50, AD 1299, two papal commissioners sentence Archbishop Jørund to

pay his chapter ad summam ducentarum marcharum et septuaginta sex usualis monete, 276
marks “of the usual money”. As monete in this Norwegian case can reasonably be a

translation of peningar, and as the term peningar, as we have seen, does not always
refer to coins, we can not be absolutely sure that the reference is to coins. I would
think it is. But the main point is that we do not know anything about what the
chapter paid, if anything.

In DN IV 25, AD 1298, two papal commissioners sentence Bishop Arne of

Stavanger to pay his chapter quindecim marcis denariorum usualis monete: “15 marks

peningar of the usual money.” Gullbekk translates this, as in the former case, as “15
marks of valid coins”. In both cases I would think it reasonable that he is correct.
But for the reason I have just given, we cannot be absolutely sure. And the main

thing is that we learn nothing about what was paid.

In DN IV 48, AD 1300, papal commissioners sentence four clerics to pay some

royal officials “VI mærkr bæztra penninga sem ny ganga”, “6 marks of the best money now
in circulation”. From the wording in this case there is no reasonable doubt that the
reference is to coins. But it is worth noting that even in 1300, at the end of a period
when the alloy is held to have been especially good and stable, it is presupposed that
different kinds of coinage were in circulation. The main thing here, as before, is that

nothing is said about what the clerics paid.

In DN I 109, AD 1307, a lady (husfreya) in Shetland owes a fine of 24 unspecified

marks (4 marka og 20) to the King. It seems that what is really meant here is merkr of
coins, each mo¨rk having the value of 1/4 mo¨rk burnt silver. In this case we are also
told something about what was actually paid. The lady pawned a farm for the

greater part of the fine. The farm she could, and should, redeem partly by paying

“III. mærkr brendar i Hiatlenzkum æyre”. This should be translated as “the worth of 3
marks burnt silver, paid in the kind of ‘money’ usual in Shetland”. And that kind of
“money” must be commodities, probably woollen cloth. Shetland was part of the

Norwegian kingdom, and no Shetlandish coin existed. Aurar (æyre) could, like peningar
and merkr, denote anything of exchange value.

Another part of the farm’s value was to be paid with 3 marks of gilldum fornum

peninge. This is expressly not the currency of 1307, and at this date there is no doubt
that the reference is to the mo¨rk forngild I have explained above. This was a unit of
value presuppose paid in commodities, within a system of fixed rates of exchange.
(We can see, also from adding up the parts of the total, that the mo¨rk forngild is

intended.)

The last part of the fine was offered as IX. merkr sylfrs af þui sylfre at III merkr varo

jamgodar sem æin mork forn. This means coins of a kind that made 9 merkr the value of 1

mo¨rk burnt silver. But this was not accepted by the representative of the King. He

75

Gullbekk, “Medieval Law”, p. 175.

Scand. J. History 24

Money Economy in Medieval Norway 255

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

demanded payment, sua sem han tok af odrum monnum par sem jord stod i vede, “of the

same kind as those taken from other men when land was pawned” (cf. G 266). We
do not know what was actually paid for this part of the fine.

This diploma, like all the others commented on here, is listed by Gullbekk as

evidence that fines were paid in coins. The facts of the matter are here, as in the
other cases, somewhat different, and in this case especially clear. The only thing we
can establish as actually being paid was the pawned farm. We do not know whether
it was ever redeemed: usually, land was not redeemed in such cases. What is

otherwise clear is that the husfreya, the title of a lady of some rank, could not find in
her own coffers or by borrowing, 24 merkr in coins. Furthermore, the diploma is
evidence that the King’s representative was offered and refused payment of part of
the fine in current coins, maintaining that such payment was not customary in
redeeming land.

The diploma also is evidence for what I have said generally, that the size of the

fine was indicated in merkr, even if it was not intended or accepted to be paid in
current coins. This diploma, then, is especially enlightening in several ways
regarding the problems concerning fines and money economy. But the light shed is

rather the opposite of Gullbekk’s conclusions.

In DN I 116, AD 1308, a man is awarded a compensation of Þriar mærkr fornar (“3

old marks”). These are not units of coins. It is specified that each mark shall be as
good as “4 hides, 3 laupar of butter or a cow on the spring day”. The term fornar and
the value make it quite clear that the reference is to the mo¨rk forngild, the central unit
of the system of commodity money.

76

The term “a cow on the spring day” is an

indication of the degree of sophistication and institutionalization of that system.

The cow or “standard cow” (kyrlag) was the main unit in the system, at least in land
transactions. There was a distinction between a greater and a smaller kyrlag,
reflecting the higher price of a cow in spring than in the autumn, and the
qualifications a cow had to satisfy if it was to count as a kyrlag, a unit of “money”,
were detailed.

77

It is quite wrong to list this diploma as an example of the use of coins, even in

indicating the value of the compensation. As in the other cases, nothing is said
about what was actually paid. But of course there is no reason to doubt that the
compensation was paid in the kind of units of commodity money indicating the

value.

DN I 199, AD 1328, says that one man owes another 8 merkr peningæ, “8 marks of

‘money’”. If it is not paid in any other way, it is to be paid with a unit of land, halfrær

merkr boll. As I have said, the term merkr peningæ in itself does not make it clear
whether coins are meant, or some other means of payment. In this particular case
the price of the piece of land makes it clear enough that the term merkr does not
mean current coins, but the merkr forngildar I have already mentioned. The usual

price of land at this time and in this area would be 3 merkr forngildar per eyrisbol.

78

As

half a merkr boll is 4 eyrisbol, the price is 2 marks per eyrisbol. If the 8 marks had been

76

Note 28 above. The price of hides is here somewhat lower than in Vestlandet.

77

Lunden, Korn og kaup, pp. 56–62.

78

J. Sandnes, Norges historie 4. Avfolkning og union (Oslo, 1977) p. 123.

Scand. J. History 24

256 Ka

º

re Lunden

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

current coins, the price would have been considerably higher than 3 per eyrisbol,

not lower.

So in this diploma, too, there is no reference to coins, not even a reference

indicating the value of the debt. As usual, we do not know what was actually paid,
but the indication is that compensation was possibly paid in land in the end.

DN II 113, AD 1312, records a quarrel between two clerical antagonists. If

anyone broke the agreement made, he was to pay fiortighi marka at gildum Noregs

peningi, “40 marks in good Norwegian ‘money’”. I shall not repeat what I have

already said about the interpretation of peningar. But the adjective gildr (valid) is
generally used in an idiomatic was in sources of this type and age, for example in
compounds like smærgild or bugild (“valid in terms of butter, or cattle”). What is
thought of, then, is the mo¨rk forngild. The most reasonable interpretation of the term
above would then be that the value of the fine is 40 merkr forngildat without any

reference to coins. This we cannot know for sure, but the main thing here, as
always, is that nothing whatsoever is told about what was paid, if anything.

In DN II 182, AD 1331, a fine, due to the King, is paid in land, 1

1

2

eyrisbol. Next,

the value of another fine, for unlawful use of land, is given as fimtan merkr gagns

penings, “15 marks of current coins”. This last fine is also paid in land, 3 eyrisbol,
covering 12 marks of the fine. (Note that the price here is 4 marks per eyrisbol, as
against 2 marks in DN I 199 above. This indicates, as I said, that the units of
“money” were different, even if merkr peningar was used in both cases.) The last 3
merkr of the fine were paid in species, which are impossible to read in the diploma.

This diploma then proves that the value of a fine at least in some cases was

indicated in current coins. But the fine was paid in land, as far as can be

determined. As ever, this indicates that a sum of 15 marks of current money was not
easy to come by.

DN II 183, AD 1331, records fines and compensations for unlawful use and

neglect of two farms. For the one farm the fine and compensation have the value of
20 mærker gagnspeninga, “20 marks of current money”. About the payment, it is said:

“If ræidu peningar (cash, current coins) are not to be found (ero eighi þa till), the sum is
to be paid in adru baughghgildu fee æftir gangspeningum metet. The latter statement is to be
understood as other means of payments of the same value, of a kind that is
acceptable as payment for fines, originally as blood money (baughgild).

79

This means

of course commodities of an acceptable kind, and burnt silver.

The value of the fine and compensation for the other farm is given as 30 marka

gagnspeninga (current coins). This is to be paid in two instalments, æfter pui sem fyr segir

ef æighi ero Þa gagnspeningar till. That is, the payment shall be as indicated for the first
farm, if cash (coins) are not to be found.

This diploma of course shows, as does the former, that the size of fines and

compensations could be indicated in currency, and also might be paid in the same

kind, at least for unlawful use of land. But we do not know what was paid, even if it is
undeniable that the judges anticipated that currency might be difficult to find, and
that the fine most likely had to be paid in commodities.

79

Seip “Bøter”, pp. 534 f.

Scand. J. History 24

Money Economy in Medieval Norway 257

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

In DN III 256, AD 1348, the peasants of Jemtland are sentenced to pay 3 marker

gulz, “3 marks of gold”, to the official of the King, for false accusation. A mark of
“gold” at that time would, according to Steinnes, simply be 8 merkr forngildar, and no
reference to current coins would be given here.

80

Nevertheless, this source is

somewhat difficult to interpret. It says: Koma fram atta marker redho penninga norena ælla

swenska Þha ær lukin mark gulz, æn tha æn egh koma redho peninga fram Þha skal lukaz atta

marka boghgildar ok tho til forngilz at mæta. This should mean: “If 8 marks of cash
(current coins) are paid, Norwegian or Swedish, then that makes a gold mark. But if

cash is not paid, then 8 marks is to be paid in the kind acceptable as fines (boghgildar),
but in such a way that each mark is as good as a mo¨rk forngild.”

What is clear is that the fine shall be paid in kind (or possibly burnt silver) if it is

not paid in coins. But otherwise the passage is self-contradictory, given what is held
to be known. Eight marks of Norwegian or Swedish coins would not make a gold

mark at that time, the latter being 8 marks forngildar, in accordance with the latter
part of the statement.

I will not attempt to solve this riddle but conclude with what is certain. We do

not know what was actually paid, but the judges anticipated that the fine might be

paid in kind, not in currency. (It is expressly said that a mo¨rk as payment may be
something other than a mo¨rk coins, redho peninga.)

DN IV 312, AD 1347, states that at the partition of an estate, land rent for 2

years was assessed at the value of 20 merker penninghæ (20 marks of “money”), and an
inheritance apart from the former was assessed at the value of 20 merker (20 marks
unspecified) to each of the heirs. An heir who had earlier received too much was
sentenced to pay back halft merker boll iærder … ok tuæim aurum minna en tyttughu merker

penninghæ, “half of the markabol land … and 2 aurar less then 20 marks of ‘money’”.
As marks and aurar peningar at that time – as I have repeatedly said – might indicate
commodities, the reference in the assessment may here be to the mo¨rk forngild, and
not to current coins. We do not know in what species the division of the inheritance
was actually settled, apart from the only thing that is certain: a part was to be paid

back in land.

DN III 266, AD 1349, concerns the same affair as commented on in DN III 256,

above, and does not add anything about money.

We can now sum up the results of the investigation of the 12 diplomas that have

anything to say about the payments of fines and other obligations, and relate the
results to the assertions of Gullbekk. We must, as always, distinguish between
indicating the value of the fine and the actual payment.

On the subject of actual payment, there is not one single case where it is specified

that coins are to be paid, and are accepted.

In 7 of the 12 diplomas nothing whatsoever is stated about the means of actual

payment.

In three cases it is expressly said what was paid, namely land or units of

commodities, included the mo¨rk forngild.

In two cases it is left expressly open what is to be paid, coins or commodity

money.

80

Steinnes, “Ma

º

l, vekt”, p. 152.

Scand. J. History 24

258 Ka

º

re Lunden

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

In one case coins are expressly offered, but not accepted. Gullbekk’s maximum

formulation of the results of his investigation of the same diplomas was: “This
continuous use of coins as payments of fines in court orders throughout our period
makes it clear that coins were not only used, but used widely, in the judicial
system.”

81

(Italics KL.) These diplomas cannot prove such a use of coins as

payment. On the contrary, they indicate that coins might be difficult to come by,
and in some cases were not accepted. But two of the diplomas indicate that coins

might be used as payment, for some purposes.

Concerning an indication of the value of the fine or other obligation, the results

are: In four cases the unit of value is expressly, or without reasonable doubt, current
coins. In three cases the unit is most reasonably coins. In three cases the unit is
expressly or without reasonable doubt in commodities, including land and the mo¨rk

forngild. In two cases it is impossible to know whether the value is given in coins or

commodities.

Gullbekk’s less ambitious formulation of his results was that in every decade

(within this limited period) “court orders were given in ‘monete usualis’, i.e. ‘gagns

peningar’, i.e. valid coins”.

82

At least seven of the diplomas lend support to this

formulation, if we take it to mean that the value of the fine or obligation was
indicated in coins, regardless of what was actually paid. But 11 of the diplomas
listed by Gullbek give no such support. Furthermore, it is positively wrong to say
that the term monete usualis or its (supposed) synonym gagns peningar (current coins)
was used in every decade from 1295 to 1349 even as units of account. In fact monete

usualis is only used in two diplomas, both in the 1290s, and gagns pengar is used three
times in his diplomas, in 1300 and 1331. In the other cases it is Gullbekk’s

conjecture that gagns pengar is implied. Some of these conjectures are plausible, most
of them are wrong.

The main reason why Gullbekk has interpreted the sources wrongly, is that he

has not examined what in each case is meant by terms such as mo¨rk, peningar, aurar,

mo¨rk forngild, mo¨rk forn, Hiatlenzkum æyre, gildum Noregs peningi, marker gulz. To interpret

these and other terms out of hand as referring to current coins is completely
misleading.

Another major mistake is to conclude that if the value of the fine is indicated in

units from the monetary system (in the modern sense), it is also paid in current

coins. For reasons I have gone into already, it is easy to comprehend why a
traditionally very complex system of fines needed a uniform scale, at least of relative
values, a scale provided by a weight system, and by a monetary system originally
based on weight. This need remains, even if sundry commodities are needed in the
actual payment of the fines.

Of course it had to be a problem, not only for deciding the value of the fine, but

also for the payment, that the actual currency varied so much in value. On this

point I think we ought to remember the power of custom, and the part played by
the assessors. The Law of the Frostating VI 1 states: “But the Book of the Frostating
lays down what is a lawful fine for every man according to birth and rank, and not

81

Gullbekk, “Medieval Law”, p. 180.

82

Ibid.

Scand. J. History 24

Money Economy in Medieval Norway 259

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

for fines of the kind that are squeezed up or down by those sitting in the court.”

83

The laws, particularly the Law of the Land of 1274, sought to standardize, but
there was a role for custom, for negotiators, for assessors. Every situation at the
court was complicated. It notoriously made a difference concerning what kind of
“money” was acceptable, what kind of case it was and what estate or rank the
persons involved had.

84

Every aspect of the case, including the quality and value of

the means of payment, was a matter of judgment and assessment.

85

It is reasonable

to suppose that it was clearer to the contemporaries, in the light of custom and the

proceedings at the court, what the different terms implied, than it can be to the
reader of the diploma today.

But in any case, we can see that the diplomas cited by Gullbekk and examined in

this paper concerned very different matters. There were fines paid to clerics, to the
King, to peasants, and there were payments for neglect of land, for redeeming

pawned land, for division of inheritance, and so on. There were no cases at all of
the kind of traditional blood money. In addition to the other misunderstandings,
Gullbekk lumps all these very different matters together, calls them “court orders”
or “payments of fines”, and thinks that their supposed payment in coins (according

to his unproven or disproven opinion) falsify results to the effect that blood money
in the Law of the Gulating 223 could only be paid in very restricted kinds of
“money”.

86

I concede that the topic of the interrelationship between the system of fines and

the monetary system is a very difficult one. And I can think of few subjects that
could be more revealing of the “mentality” of the age, if we were capable of
elucidating it more. Gullbekk’s study may therefore be a stimulant in the right

direction, and thus far valuable, even though I find most of his results unacceptable.

The “traditional” opinion, that payments of fines, like other payments, were to a

very great extent, perhaps mostly, paid in kind, is at least not disproved by
Gullbekk. Still less has he proved that Norway at the time had “a money economy”
more generally.

5. The general economic system

Gullbekk is quite right when he, citing Marc Bloch, writes: “Research into
payments must, if it wishes to achieve its goal, become a social study.”

87

And first of

all, the student of the monetary system has to place it within the economic system
generally. Gullbekk makes no attempt in this direction. Nor can I here give any
more than a sketch. But the literature is almost exclusively in Norwegian, and even
a sketch may be useful.

Speaking, like Gullbekk, when speaking of “strong evidence for a money

economy”, the first question concerns what this is supposed to mean. One possible
interpretation is that the people of the country, of whom c. 95% were peasants, used

83

F VI 1.

84

Note 40 above.

85

Lunden, “Træl og a

º

rmann”, pp. 450 f.

86

Gullbekk, p. 181.

87

Ibid., p. 174, Lunden, Korn og kaup, p. 260.

Scand. J. History 24

260 Ka

º

re Lunden

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

currency, minted coins, generally as their means of payment, more or less in the

modern manner. If the thesis is that this was more or less the situation, the next
question is: Where did the people, chiefly the peasants, get those coins from? And
where did the bullion, the silver struck into coins, come from? Where were the
markets, or other possible sources for the coins and the bullion?

We have to consider briefly both the internal and the external economy.
Surely the proportion between the number of peasants and the rest of the

population in itself gives the essential information we need about the domestic

market for agricultural products, the dominating part of the national product. The
entire town population of Norway in about AD 1300 is considered to have been in
the region of 20,000, as against a peasant population approaching 500,000, within
the limits of that time.

88

Only three of these towns had a population of 2000 or

more. The townsmen to some extent produced their own foodstuffs and other

articles of consumption. Furthermore, most of the limited supplies reaching the
towns took quite another form than sales from the peasants. Concerning the later
capital Oslo, one of the three biggest towns, the latest inquiry concludes: “Most of
the commodity flow into Oslo was in the form of taxes and dues throughout the

Middle Ages.”

89

These taxes and dues were almost totally paid by the peasants in

the form of commodities.

90

The institutions of King, Church and other landowners

form the mechanism for transferring these commodities to the townsmen, as
payment for work and services. The peasants’ payment of taxes and dues of course
did not bring any coins back to the countryside. The peasants sold some of their
produce to merchants in the towns. But the study of Oslo concludes what is also
well enough known about the other towns, such as Bergen: “Most of the retail trade

was carried out by means of a permanent account the customers had in the books of
a merchant. The peasants bartered hides or butter against imported goods. Money
was only an accounting unit.”

91

The transactions between the peasants and the towns, with their aristocracy and

budding merchants, then brought very limited amounts of coins back to the former,

as far as it is possible to know.

6. Export trade, and supply of bullion

Next we must examine the export trade, its size, forms and effects in developing a

money economy. It is generally agreed that the only “big” export commodity
before the 16th century was dried fish. The trade started about AD 1100. The total
annual amount of exported dried fish is calculated to have approached 3000 tons at
the medieval high water mark around AD 1300.

92

This is a maximum amount.

93

If

88

K. Helle, Norges historie 3. Under kirke og kongemakt 1130–1319 (Oslo, 1995), p. 87; K. Lunden,

“Gardar, bruk og menneske i høgmellomalderen”, Historisk Tidsskrift (1979), pp. 111–158.

89

A. Nedkvitne and P. G. Norseng, Oslo bys historie 1 (Oslo, 1991) p. 278.

90

Notes 57–59 above.

91

Nedkvitne & Norseng, Oslo bys historie, p. 375.

92

A. Nedkvitne, Utenrikshandelen fra det vestenfjellske Norge 1100–1600 (Bergen, 1983), p. 60.

93

Ibid., p. 58, P. Enemark, “Utenrikshandelen fradet vestafjellske Norge”, Historisk Tidsskrift (1986), p.

62; K. Lunden, “Tørrfiskeksporten fra

º

Bergen pa

º

1300-talet ein gong til”, Historisk Tidsskrift (1977),

pp. 247 ff.

Scand. J. History 24

Money Economy in Medieval Norway 261

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

3000 tons of dried fish were paid by burnt silver, this would have brought around

2200 kg bullion into the country.

94

But in fact very little of the exported goods were

paid for in bullion or coins. The sources and existing research demonstrate that
probably around 50% of the total export was paid for in grain and flour, needed
mostly in the towns and in the fishing districts of Northern Norway. Most of the
remainder was paid for by other commodities, lacking in Norwegian production,
for example quality textiles and wine.

95

There is considerable doubt whether as much as 10% of Norwegian export in

about AD 1300 was paid for in silver, as metal or in coins, e.g. English coins, held to
be pure silver. England was at that time a rather dominant partner. And the total
trade balance is hardly known to have been positive. A surplus of silver from, for
example, England may have been needed to pay, more or less, imports from other
areas. But let us suppose that 10% of the Norwegian fish export was paid for in

silver or silver coins, and did not disappear in order to buy other foreign products.
If so, this would represent an annual influx of 220 kg burnt silver, or 1027 marks
(merkr brendar). This amount of bullion can be compared with an estimate of the total
annual payments by the peasants. As I said, it is held to be known that these

payments were mostly in kind. But let us suppose that this is wrong and that what
Gullbekk writes is correct that it was “a money economy”, and the peasants made
their payments in coins.

It has been calculated that the total annual payments made by Norwegian

peasants around AD 1300 in the form of land rent to the King, Church and
aristocracy, main taxes to the King and Church, fines to the King and Church were
of the order of 432,700 laupar of butter.

96

That is c. 48,000 marks (merkr brendar), or c.

10,287 kg burnt silver.

These are not the complete payments, even in the form of taxes, dues and land

rent. And on the supposition that this was a “money economy”, not to any great
extent based on barter, the peasants of course needed some currency for purchases
in addition. And there is still the question of whether the total balance of trade was

positive at all, and the question about what mechanism brought the possible surplus in coins or

bullion back to the peasants. Anyhow, the 220 kg burnt silver, representing 10% of the
(maximum) value of the annual export of dried fish, made up around 2% of these
annual payments to King, Church and aristocracy.

How many coins were needed if transactions were to be based on coinage is also

a question of the velocity of circulation. Of course it is part of the (“traditional”)
thesis that this was not only chiefly a natural economy, but a “command
economy”

97

as well, that the velocity was very low. And, more importantly, that the

value flow in the main was one-sided, from the peasants to King, Church and
aristocracy. Very little came back to the peasants. This may be said to be a part of

94

Lunden, Korn og kaup, pp. 83, 94.

95

Lunden, “Hanseatane og norsk økonomi i seinmellomalderen. Nokre merknader”, Historisk

Tidsskrift (1967), p. 123; Nedkvitne, Utenrikshandelen (Bergen, 1983), pp. 77, 46, 31, 33.

96

K. Lunden, Norges historie 3. Norge under Sverreætten 1177–1319 (Oslo, 1976), p. 309. This estimate has

been somewhat discussed. But the doubt has been more about the proportion between these

payments and the total production than about the payments themselves.

97

K. Lunden, “Norsk bondeøkonomi i ‘førindustriell’ tid”, in Heimen (1996), pp. 239 f. The concept

“command economy” is taken from J. Hicks, A Theory of Economic History (Oxford, 1969).

Scand. J. History 24

262 Ka

º

re Lunden

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

the “traditional” thesis Gullbekk is out to contradict, and which needs to be proved.

But in any case, the proportion between possible influx of silver and the need for
means of payment seems to confirm the “traditional” picture: silver and coins struck
from silver were in very short supply, existing in all too small amounts to suffice,
when fines or other obligations were to be paid.

7. The price of silver

If silver was so scarce as implied here, we should expect the price of silver, in terms

of other commodities, to be extremely high, compared with the price of silver in
other eras. Note that: 13 g burnt silver could in AD 1500 buy a cow.

98

This means

that 1 kg burnt silver in AD 1500 would have a value of about 1 million NOK in
1999, or 83,000 English pounds in 1999. The price of silver seems to have been
only a fifth of this amount in the first years of the 14th century. Then 48–72 g silver

could buy a standard cow.

99

This relatively “low” price of silver then seems

connected with the medieval maximum of export, especially to England – moderate
as it also then was. This again means that if in any period fines in medieval Norway
were paid in coins, it was presumably in the years Gullbekk has investigated, 1295–
1349.

But even the price of silver a fifth of the price in AD 1500 was extremely high.

The purchasing power of silver in Norway is also shown to have been 2–3 times
higher in the first half of the 14th century than in contemporary England.

100

This is

independent evidence of the very limited integrating effect of the trade between
Norway and England, even at the medieval high water mark.

The extremely high price of the bullion used in coinage throughout the Medieval

period fits very well with what I venture to say is known from all other sources,
namely the very low degree of development of a “money economy”, not least in
Norway.

8. The natural economy of a Norwegian tavern?

My very last point may seem to some a curiosity. What is to be learnt from it may

nevertheless have wide implications.

The Middle Ages ought to be considered an exotic culture. Even the

investigation of the money system presupposes us, not only to be historians of
society, but historians of culture as well.

It must surely be correct to suppose that if a money economy had developed

anywhere in medieval Norway, it would have been in the towns. And if there was a
surplus of silver from commodity export, the coins made from it must primarily
have accumulated in the pockets of the servants of the King and the Church, who
to a great extent dwelt in the towns. Furthermore, if coins were the practical means
of payment anywhere, they must have been used to buy a pint of beer, such as

98

Lunden, Korn og kaup (1978), pp. 95–107.

99

Ibid.

100

K. Lunden, “Korntienda etter Biskop Eysteins Jordebok, i lys av norsk og engelske kornprisar”,

Historisk Tidsskrift (1968), pp. 209 f.

Scand. J. History 24

Money Economy in Medieval Norway 263

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

persons of this kind presumably did in the taverns in the towns. It would hardly

have been very practical to bring part of a cow or a hide, not to speak of a piece of
land, for such purposes.

On this background I will call attention to the regular name of a tavern in a

medieval Norwegian town. It was called a skytningastofa. This means a house where a

skytningr

101

takes place, i.e. a social gathering of the kind where the guests themselves

bring what they wish to drink or eat. Another name, especially with regard to
drinking, was a samburðaro¨l,

102

a “bringing together of beer”.

If the names mean what they seem to mean, they imply that the main

contribution of the host of the tavern was not the beer, but the stofa, the
accommodation. The regular thing, according to the name of the institution, ought
to have been that most of the guests, the bændr of the town – as they were called –
brought beer of their own brewing to drink in the tavern. If so, they probably

brought more than they drank themselves, as payment for the accommodation. In
such a manner the host may have gained a surplus of beer, so he, after all, might
have something to sell to the few clerics or hirðmenn of the King, who presumably had
some few peningar, and so did not have to bring their own beer to the tavern. Via the

products the hosts presumably bought from the peasants, some of these few peningar
might find their way to the countryside. There, a very large proportion of the

peningar seems to have ended up as religious offerings, placed deliberately through
the cracks of the church floors. When 13 g of silver could buy a cow, it is unlikely
that poor peasants lost very much of it, accidentally through holes in their pockets.
If the peasants did not very often experience that coins were needed for mundane
purposes, they certainly experienced regularly enough that it was necessary to

pacify God and the hosts of saints, to avert death and catastrophies on people, cattle
and crops. And as objects to place between the cracks in the church floor, cows,
sheep and the like were even less suited than as payments for a pint of beer.

So perhaps it was as religious offerings that the peasants of the period really

needed the precious coins? And perhaps most of the coins that ever existed in

medieval Norway have already been reclaimed by modern archaeologists? If so, we
will be coming to very wrong conclusions if we deal with coins found under church
floors as something of a random sample of an amount originally evenly distributed
over the Norwegian landscape. (Some of the coins were also used as adornment on

bridal crowns and festive gowns, another witness to their scarcity and preciousness.)

9. Conclusions

There exist no anti-monetarianists among Norwegian medievalists who do not

expressly recognize that some coins were struck and circulated from about AD
1000. The question is the degree to which a “money economy” had developed.

Those who find a relatively high degree of natural economy in the earlier

centuries, do not base their view “primarily on studies of taxes and land rents in the

fifteenth and sixteenth centuries”, but on contemporary sources.

102

Ibid. p. 168.

101

J. Fritzner, Ordbog over Det gamle norske Sprog. III (Oslo, 1954), pp. 413 f.

Scand. J. History 24

264 Ka

º

re Lunden

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014

It is a mistake to think that if the value of fines were indicated in units taken from

the weight system for precious metals, or from the currency system based on it, the
fines would also be paid in coins or bullion.

The diplomas Gullbekk cites, to prove that fines in the period 1295–1349 were

paid in coins, provide no such proof.

The interpretation of the sources concerning the system of money needs to be

carried out on a background of knowledge of the entire economic system, and
ultimately as a part of interpreting the whole culture. From present knowledge

there is every reason to conclude that fines mostly were paid in commodities, or in
land.

The interrelationship between the system of fines and the monetary system seems

a promising field for research projects, carried out in a comparative way within a
Nordic or wider context. Supposedly, such research might better clarify the

economy, the “mentality”, and the influences and cultural and social coherence
within wide areas – regardless of whether economic integration of a modern,
market kind was very limited.

The outcome of such projects would presumably be that the “past was different

from the present” – something not always easy to grasp.

Scand. J. History 24

Money Economy in Medieval Norway 265

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:34 24 January 2014