Catalogus
| Uitgever | Kingdom of Denmark |
|---|---|
| Jaar | 1035-1042 |
| Type | Log in om details te zien |
| Waarde | Log in om details te zien |
| Valuta | Log in om details te zien |
| Samenstelling | Log in om details te zien |
| Gewicht | 1.15 g |
| Diameter | Log in om details te zien |
| Dikte | Log in om details te zien |
| Vorm | Log in om details te zien |
| Techniek | Log in om details te zien |
| Oriëntatie | Log in om details te zien |
| Graveur(s) | Log in om details te zien |
| In omloop tot | Log in om details te zien |
| Referentie(s) | Log in om details te zien |
| Beschrijving voorzijde | Log in om details te zien |
|---|---|
| Schrift voorzijde | Log in om details te zien |
| Opschrift voorzijde | Log in om details te zien |
| Beschrijving keerzijde | Central short voided cross with a raised annulet at its center, the arms extending to a plain inner circle that divides the field. The cross terminals are plain and the design is contained within a raised inner ring. Surrounding the inner circle is a Latin legend in angular, partly garbled characters, separated from the outer beaded border by a linear ring. The overall composition is characteristic of the Short Cross reverse type as adapted by Danish moneyers at the Lund mint during the reign of Harthacnut. |
| Schrift keerzijde | Log in om details te zien |
| Opschrift keerzijde | Log in om details te zien |
| Rand | Log in om details te zien |
| Muntplaats | Lund, Sweden (1014-1450) |
| Oplage | Log in om details te zien |
| Aanvullende informatie |
Harthacnut ruled Denmark and England simultaneously — one of the very few medieval rulers to manage two kingdoms across the North Sea — yet his reign was administratively chaotic on both sides. His Danish coinage borrowed heavily from contemporary Anglo-Saxon penny types, a direct consequence of the monetary influence England exerted over Scandinavian minting practices throughout the eleventh century. Danish moneyers were actively copying English dies during this period, and distinguishing indigenous production from imitation is still a matter of specialist debate.
Hauberg's classification remains the foundational reference, though it predates modern die-study methodology by over a century.