al ikhshid the hamanids and the caliphate

Al-Ikhshīd, the Ḥamdānids and the Caliphate: The Numismatic EvidenceAuthor(s): Jere L. BacharachReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 94, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1974), pp. 360-370Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/600070 .Accessed: 20/12/2011 13:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos

http://www.jstor.org/stable/600070?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

AL-IKHSHID, THE HAMDANIDS AND THE CALIPHATE: THE NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE*

JERE L. BACHARACH

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

The numismatic evidence for the years A.I. 329-334 is particularly rich for illustrating the changing relationships between the Ikhshidids, Hamdanids, various amir al-umard' and the 'Abbasid caliphs for the area of Egypt, Greater Syria and northern Iraq. Besides confirming events already known from the chronicles, the numismatic data demonstrate Hamdanid military campaigns further south into Palestine than hitherto known, qualify subordinate relationships between the Hamdanids and the amir al-umard' Tfizfn, and indicate a reluctance on the part of the Ikhshidids and Hamdanids to accept the depositions of the caliphs al-Muttaqi and al-Mustakfi.

DURING THE FALL OF 1971 I WAS WORKING in

Cairo with Dr. Henri Amin Awad on a small hoard of Ikhshidid dirhams which he had acquired.1 While identifying and interpreting this hoard, a number of problems were discovered. For example, all the Ikhshidid issues for A.H. 333 had the name of the caliph al-Muttaqi (329-333) although he had been deposed during the second Muslim month of that year. After further examination of numerous published and unpublished Ikhshidid coins for 333, I failed to find any with the name of the new caliph al-Mustakfi or that of his amir al- umard' Tiuzun (d. 334). Tuzufin had never been west of the Euphrates nor had he sent expedition- ary forces into Syria, but a study of the available numismatic literature indicated the existence of al-Mustakfi-Tiiziun issues for Antioch (Antakiya), 333 (#39) and Tiberias (Tabariya), 333 (#50) as well as Homs (Hims), 333 (44),2 From these

* I wish to thank the American Philosophical Society and the American Research Center in Egypt for funding this project and S. Album, Berkeley, H. Awad, Cairo, M. Bates, New York, N. Lowick, London, G. Miles, New York, and M. Sharabany, Jerusalem, for supplying me with data.

1 Jere L. Bacharach and Henry A. Awad, "A Hoard of Ikhshidid Dirhams." Forthcoming.

2 A complete list of all the coins can be found in the appendix listed by mint, East to West, and then date, 329-334, caliph, additional political information, type of metal and reference. As the analysis is concerned with political rather than economic developments, one coin was deemed as sufficient for each example, and the references are limited to only one source.

specific problems a general study of all the rele- vant coins for the reign of al-Ikhshid (323-334) was undertaken, particularly as they shed light on his relations with the Hamdanids, the amir al-umara' and the caliphate.3

The general conclusion was that the numismatic evidence goes beyond merely confirming the available historical facts which can be found in a number of medieval chronicles and the few modern scholarly works.4 These coins, dinars (gold) and dirhams (silver), illustrated the increasing usurpa- tion of caliphal power or at least one facet of that power, the sikka or right to mint coins in one's own name. The inclusion of the names of various rulers such as al-Ikhshid and the amir al-umara'

Bajkam along with that of the 'Abbasid caliph

3 The most important work on this topic was Ulla S. Linder-Welin, "Sayf al-Dawlah's Reign in Syria and Diyarbekr in the Light of the Numismatic Evidence," Commentationes de niummis saecuilorium IX-XI in Suecia

repertis, Stockholm, 1961, pp. 17-106. Ramzi Jibran Bikhazi's very interesting study "IHamdanid Coins of Madinat al-Salam, 330-331 A.H.," in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of George C. liles, Beirut, forthcoming, includes more historical and numismatic evidence than the title

implies but is primarily concerned with the problem of the degree of purity in the dirhams of Baghdad. Ad- ditional numismatic references can be found in the appendix of this article while the most important modern historical study for the political events is Marius Canard, Histoire de la Dynastie des H'amdanides de Jazira et de

Syrie. Paris, 1953. 4 For example, Linder-Welin only analyzed twelve

coins for the years under study.

360

BACHARACH: Al-Ikhshid, the Hamdanids and the Caliphate

indicate a claim to certain prerogatives of rule. The coins are also evidence to prove a particular political relationship between the Hamdanids and the amir al-umari' Tuiziln. Finally, a few of the issues from the 330s were possible propaganda pieces and did not represent military control over the region which was identified on the coin by the name of the mint.

In reaching these conclusions, not all political changes in the Sunni world of the early third century were investigated nor were all coins for all the 'Abbasid mints interpreted. The political history concentrated on the careers of Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid (d. 334), Nasir al-Dawla (d. 358), Sayf al-Dawla (d. 356) and the various amir al-umari'. The geographical limitations were central and northern Iraq, Syria and Egypt: that is, the mints of Baghdad (Madinat al-Salam), Mosul (Mawsil), Nisibin (Nasibin), Harran (Har- ran), Raqqa (al-Raqqah) Antioch (Antakiya), Aleppo (Halab), Homs (Hims), Damascus (Di- mishq), Palestine (Filastin = Ramla) and Egypt (Misr = Fustat).

The pre-329 years offer very little numismatic data of value for a study concentrating on the relationship between Ibn Tughj, the I.Tamdanids and the amir al-umard'. Al-Ikhshid had been appointed governor of Egypt for the first time in 321 during the reign of al-Qahir (320-322). The selection of Ibn Tughj as governor was probably due to the influence of the eunuich Mu'nis (d. 321) who was the most powerful military leader in Baghdad. Mu'nis had aided al-Qahir in seizing power from al-Muqtadir (295-320). However, within a year, Mu'nis was seized by the Caliph al-Qahir who had him killed and then celebrated his victory over the eunuch by proclaiming it on his coinage.5

In Egypt al-Ikhshid's government had ended after 32 days when another military leader was appointed in his place. During the month his name was proclaimed from the minbars of Fustat, al-Ikhshid had remained in Damascus, never en- tering the Nile Valley. In Northern Iraq, the Hamdanid Nasir al-Dawla was beginning to establish his base of power at Mosul.6

5 George C. Miles, "Rare Islamic Coins," American Nulmismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs, No. 118, New York 1950, p. 101. Supporting textual evidence can be found in Ibn Taghr. Bird., Nujilm al- Zahira, Cairo, III, 239.

6 For details see Canard, pp. 386-497.

The Caliph al-Qahir was blinded and removed from office on 6 Jumada I, 322 and al-Radi (322- 329) was proclaimed the new caliph. As so often happens in Islamic history when there are two rulers controlling the same mint during one Mus- lim year, coins from that mint, for that year, can be found in the name of both caliphs. Therefore, it is not surprising that coins minted in Baghdad for the Muslim year 322 exist for both al-Qahir and al-Radi.7 Since al-Qahir's deposition occured in the fifth Muslim month and since it took no more that four months for news to reach Egypt from the 'Abbasid capital, there were at least three months, more than enough time, for Egyp- tian minters to engrave new dies and mint new coins.8

A symbolic change in the weakening political and military position of the 'Abbasid caliph took place when the increasing domination of the military commander in Baghdad was recognized by his acquisition of the title amir al-umara'. The first holder of this title (beginning in Dhu-l-Hijja 324) was Ibn Ra'iq (d. 330).9 This formalization of the power of Ibn Ra'iq was not reflected in the Baghdad coinage as long as he served as amir al- umar '.10

Ibn Ra'iq's power was undermined by his own lieutenant Bajkam (d. 329) who was able to force Ibn Ra'iq out of office and eventually out of Iraq. These events took place in 327. The situation in northern Iraq remained relatively stable although Nasir al-Dawla had been involved in power struggles with Ibn Ra'iq and then Bajkam. Syria and Egypt were under the governorship of al-Ikhshid but when Ibn Ra'iq, with troops, fled the 'Abbasid capital, he headed for Syria with the eventual result that al-Ikhshid remained in control of Egypt

7 Abd al-Rahman Fahmy, Fajr al-Sikka al-'Arabiya, Cairo, 1965. al-Qahir, Madinah al-Salam, 322 = #2586, p. 719. al-Radi, Madinah al Salam, 322 = #2613, p. 729.

8 The estimation of how long it took news to reach Fustat from Baghdad was calculated from historical references to when news of the appointment of a new caliph reached Egypt; see Ibn Taghri Birdi, III, 254, 255, 256. For an Egyptian coin for the year 322 in the name of al-Radi, see Miles, RIC, #201.

9 K. V. Zettersteen, "amir al-umara'," E.I., 2nd edition, I, 446.

10 Stanley Lane-Poole, Catalogue of Oriental Coins. IX (1889), #417m, p. 82. This is a trial piece or medal issued in Madinat al-Salam, 325 in honor of Ibn Raiiiq.

361

Journal of the American Oriental Society 94.3 (1974)

and southern Palestine while Ibn Ra'iq held the northern lands from Tiberias. Nasir al-Dawla's territories remained relatively stable.

The numismatic evidence for the Muslim years 323-328 for the mints surveyed included only the name of the caliph al-Radi. Therefore the coins do not reflect the military or political changes below the office of caliph for these years and, as an historical source are of very little value. With two exceptions (#2, 61) which will be analyzed below, the issues for al-Radi's last year, 329, (#1, 19, 27, 52, 60) are not noteworthy. When al-Muttaqi (329-333) succeeded to the caliphate on 20 Rabl' I, 329, the news was sent to various governors, and Islamic coins with only the name of the new caliph on the field are known from the mints of Baghdad (#4), Antioch (#37), Tiberias (#48), and Fustat (#62).11 There are also, beginning in 329, coins from the area under study with names in addition to that of the caliph. Specifically there are dirhams from Baghdad for 329 with the name of the amir al-umari' Bajkam in addition to that of al-Ridi (#2), as well as dinars and dirhams for the same mint and date with the names of al- Muttaqi and Bajkam (#3). Finally, there is an Egyptian issue for 329 without a caliph's name but which does include the name of Muhammad ibn Tughj. Before discussing these coins with their new data a few remarks on the limitations of Islamic numismatics must be made.

In many ways Islamic numismatic evidence is superior to the data available from the coinage of other civilizations. Islamic dinars and dirhams almost always include a date, mint and name of ruler which permits a complete identification of the piece. It is also assumed that the inclusion or absence of, specific political and/or religious information was a deliberate act on the part of the ruler who ordered the coin to be issued. One drawback, which is critical for this study, is that the date is only given in terms of a year. This means that reconstruction of the inter-relations between various coinages with same date must be based upon supporting textual evidence or inter- pretations of incomplete data. In a number of cases the latter is necessary and the relationship between the issues of Baghdad and those of Fustat for 329 with the names of Bajkam and al-Ikhshid, respectively, is a case in point.

11 Similar issues with only the caliph's name, al-Mut- taqi, are known for Baghdad, 330 (#6), Nisibin, 330 (#29), Egypt, 330 (#64) and Egypt, 331 (#65).

Three years earlier, in 326, Muhammad ibn Tughj had written to the caliph al-Radi asking for the laqab (honorific title) al-Ikhshid.12 Ibn Tughj officially received the title in Ramadan 327 when he had it proclaimed from all the minbars and used on all his correspondence.l3 How- ever he did not apply it to his coinage until 329 which might have meant that he believed he did not have the right to infringe on the caliph's theoretical right of sikka.14 There is no evidence that al-Ikhshid was not powerful enough in Egypt to have put his new laqab or even his other names on his coinage from 323 if he had wished. In Baghdad Bajkam was powerful enough that, had he wished, he could have put his name on the coinage from the time he seized power in 326. Since there appears to be no fundamental change in the politico-military power of Bajkam or al- Ikhshid in 329, why did they order issues with new inscriptions ?

Unfortunately our historical sources are of very little help at this point. To take the case of Bajkam first, there is no indication in the major chronicles of specific troubles between Bajkam and al-Radi which would have led the former to issue dirhams with his own name on them. The one possibility centers around the period from the death of al-Radi on 15 Rabl' 329 until five days later when al-Muttaqi (329-333) was proclaimed caliph. Bajkam was in Wasit and by having his name on the coinage (#2) he might have been publicly declaring that his rule was to continue even if the actual caliph had died.

The next logical step would be for Bajkam to have issued coins in the name of the new caliph al-Muttaqi keeping his own name on them as well. Such coins do exist (#3). Bajkam was killed on 14 Rajab 329 and the ensuing political struggles culminated in the return of Ibn Ra'iq as amir al- umara' during the last month of the Muslim year. The death of Bajkam and the apparent reluctance of his immediate successors to claim the right of sikka would explain the Baghdad dirhams of 329 (#4) and 330 (#5) which bear only the name of al-Muttaqi. Again this interpretation is only

12 Ibn Sa'id, K. al-muglirib fi hulla al-Maghrib, IV, ed. Tallqvist, Helsingfors-Leyde, 1899, p. 16.

13 Ibn Sa'id, 23. 14 I am placing Dr. Balog's questionable issue for A.H.

328 under A.H. 329 for historical, not numismatic, reasons; Balog, 117.

362


speculative as the coinage cannot be tied to specific months, let alone days.

The Ikhshidid coin creates even more problems (#61). First, there is no mint indicated although one would assume it came from Misr which was the most active Ikhshidid mint at this time. Second, the coin does not bear the name of the caliph. All that is inscribed is "Muhammad ibn Tughj" on one side and "mawla al-amir al-Ikhshid" on the other.'5 The absence of a caliph's name might imply that al-Ikhshid was prepared to declare his complete independence from the 'Ab- basid caliphate but there is no textual evidence that he contemplated this action at this time.16 A second possibility is that the appearance of Bajkam's coins triggered Muhammad ibn Tughj to follow suit (#61). If this was the case than al- Ikhshid's issues should have included both the name of the caliph and the governor of Egypt. As they do not, it is unlikely that the Ikhshidid coins are a copy of Bajkam's. The most interesting hypothesis is that al-Muttaqi hoped to develop a stronger bond between himself and his Egyptian governor by reviving an older "clientship" (mawli) type relationship.17 If this were the case, then the dirhams for 330 (#63) were minted in Baghdad and sent to al-Ikhshid to re-enforce this bond. Finally, al-Muttaqi's request for aid and counsel from al-Ikhshid in late 332 would be the natural consequence of this type of relationship. As with many of the problems discussed, the absence of supporting textual evidence prevents a definitive answer.

Returning to the political history of Baghdad, the arrival of Ibn Ra'iq in late 329 only brought al-Muttaqi a new master. The caliph schemed to get rid of his amir al-umnara'. On 1 Sha'ban 330 Ibn Ra'iq was killed by the Hamdanid al- HFasan who received the laqab Nasir al-Dawla for

15 I was not able to examine the coin. It might read "mawla amir al-mu'minin", as is the case for coin $63.

16 Al-Ikhshid did threaten to recognize the Fatimid caliphate in North Africa but this threat came to naught; Ibn Sacid, p. 23.

17 The whole question of caliph-mawla relationships is currently under investigation by Professor David Biddle, University of Massachusetts. The use of title "mnawla amir al-mu'minin" pre-dates 329 as Muhammad ibn Tughj used that title for himself in a letter to the Byzantine emperor Romanus Lacapene, probably in 325; see M. Canard, "Lettre d'un emir d'i:gypte A Romain Lacapene," Byzantion, XI (1936), 718.

his service to the caliph. Four months later, in Dhu-l Hijja, Nasir al-Dawla's brother 'Ali received his laqab Sayf al-Dawla for fighting the Baridi in the name of the caliph. As the new amir al-umari' Nisir al-Dawla laid claim to the territories from Diyair Mudar through Syria. lie began to indicate his new position of power by adding his laqab to the dirhams of Baghdad ($7).18 After Nasir al-Dawla's brother received his laqab, both honorific titles, Nasir al-Dawla and Sayf al-Dawla, became common to the Htamdfanid-al- Muttaqi issues.19

Before the end of 330 news of Nasir al-Dawla's killing of Ibn Ri'iq and his acquisition of the position of amir al-umarai' probably reached Fustat. It is also possible that coins with the Hamdanid laqab on them also reached Egypt at the same time. Al-Ikhshid had been as politically powerful as Nasir al-Dawla, had ruled longer and was in a more secure military and political position. There- fore, if the new amir al-umardi' usurped the right of sikka, there was no reason that the Egyptian governor would not follow the same policy ($63).20 The following Muslim year, 331, al-Ikhshid began to issue all his gold and silver coins with his laqab on them.21 This policy was not only en- forced at Fustat but at Ramla, the hitherto in- active mint for Palestine ($54-58).

The Arab chronicles do not give any indication why al-Ikhshid began to mint coins regularly at Ramla nor why he included his name on them. There is the theoretical possibility that increased economic activity created a sudden demand for more coins and that the Palestine issues were primarily minted for their economic rather than political reasons. While the coins did play an important

18 Bikhazi analyzed the dirhams issued in Baghdad in 330 ($7) by Nisir al-Dawla before his brother received the kunya Sayf al-Dawla.

19 Numerous examples of al-Muttaqi-Hamdanid coins are known. See appendix, numbers 3, 9, 11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36,38, 41 and 57.

20 As in the case of Hamdinid issues, Ikhshidid issues include the name of an 'Abbasid but not always the one who was currently caliph as will be demonstrated below.

21 There are two exceptions. Dr. Paul Balog has a dinar for Misr, 331 in the name of al-Muttaqi ($66) which may represent a time lag between changes on the gold and silver coins. A similar dinar for Misr, 333 ($70) from the British Museum (not examined by this author) makes no sense in terms of all the other issues for 332, 333 and 334.

363


part in economic transactions, there is no evidence to indicate a sudden economic expansion large enough to necessitate the activation of this mint. Of greater importance was the propaganda value of issuing Palestine coins. By including his own name on them, al-Ikhshid was laying claim to control of, at least, this area of Greater Syria.22 The territorial ambitions of the Hamdanids in Greater Syria may also have been expressed in concrete terms as there are THamdanid dirhams for 331 from Palestine (#53) and Antioch (#38), although there were no Hamdanid forces in Syria that year.23 These coins are most likely propaganda pieces rather than proof of an actual oc- cupation of territory.

Whatever theoretical claims the Hamdanids might have had in Greater Syria, Nasir al-Dawla's position as amir al-umard' weakened before a new military force centered around the mamluk Tfzuin. By Ramadan 331 Tiuzn's power had become so great that Nasir al-Dawla was forced to flee the 'Abbasid capital and Tuizin became the new amir al-umard'. Tuzin does not appear to have added any of his names to the coinage he controlled until 333 when he deposed al-Mut- t aqi and replaced him with al-Mustakfi. Sur- prisingly few coins have been published with only the name of al-Muttaqi on them.24 For example, there is a dindr for Baghdad, 333 ($12) probably issued by Tfizun; while the Mosul coin for 33? (#24) might have been issued by Tufizn when he captured Mosul in 332 during his pursuit of the ITamdanids and al-Muttaqi.

There are also two other coins in the name of al-Muttaqi, one from Hims (#42) and the other from Tiberias (#49), which could have been issued in 331, 332 or 333. For reasons that will become apparent below the date 332 is most likely. The natural assumption would be that al- Ikhshid, who normally held these mint cities,

22 A full discussion of al-Ikhshid foreign policy will be found in this author's forthcoming study of "The Career of Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid."

23 An examination by Mr. Bikhazi of a similar specimen from the British Museum led him to reread the mint as Wasit. This particular coin (#53) was located and identified for me by Mr. Steve Album and I am grateful for his help.

24 The dirham for Tarsus, 333 (#40) makes no sense in terms of the contemporary historical and numismatic evidence and I believe the description is inadequate and may be inaccurate.

issued the coins, and that he sent them to Tiizin or the caliph as a show of loyalty. The problem is that all the Ikhshidid issues have Muhammad ibn Tughj's laqab on them. Another, and more likely possibility is that they were issued by a member of the Hamdanid family, HIusayn ibn Sa'Id, while he was in Syria in 332 as will be de- scribed below.

On 1 Shawwal 332 Nisir al-Dawla and Tiizin came to an agreement by which the Hamdanid ruler gave up his claim to the central lands of Iraq but was granted northern Iraq and Syria. This agreement was to run for three years and Nasir al-Dawla was to pay Tiuzun an annual tribute of 3,600,000 dirhams.25 NSsir al-Dawla sent a military force to Syria under his cousin Husayn ibn Sa'id.26 According to the Arab chronicles Husayn took Aleppo and northern Syria in 332, marched south as far as Homs and then returned to the capital of northern Syria. Perhaps the previously mentioned coins for Homs and Tiberias were issued by tIusayn and were sent to Tiuzun to show the lands which had been taken by the Hamdanids without breaking the spirit of the truce. In this case the numismatic evidence would suggest that Husayn marched as far south as Tiberias, not Horns as in the textual sources.

Even before the truce of Shawwal 332 had been arranged between Nasir al-Dawla and Tiuzn, the caliph al-Muttaqi had become concerned about his personal safety and had fled to the Hamdanid court. The truce undermined al-Muttaqi's position with the HIamdanids, but war soon broke out between Tfizun and Nasir al-Dawla, and the latter was forced to retreat from Mosul.27 Finally, the caliph, accompanied by Sayf al-Dawla, reached Raqqa and al-Muttaqi wrote to his Egyptian governor, al-Ikhshid, asking him to join him.

Leaving Fustiat on 6 Ramadan 332, al-Ikhshid marched through Syria retaking the cities which Husayn had occupied in the name of the Hamda- nids. Therefore the Ikhshidid issue for Homs, 332 (#43) commemorates the retaking of the city. jHusayn, in the meantime, was unwilling to engage al-Ikhshid in battle and retreated to Raqqa.28

25 Canard, p. 451. 26 Canard, pp. 494-6. 27 These events and the related coinage were analyzed

by both Linder-Welin, pp. 40-41 and Bikhazi, who discovered the HamdSnid dirham from the unknown mint of al-Jazirah (#36).

28 Linder-Welin, pp. 42-3.

364


Muhammad ibn Tughj was unwilling to enter Raqqa until Sayf al-Dawla and Husayn had left, as the Egyptian governor remembered what had happened to Ibn Ra'iq when he met with the Hamdanids.

In Muh.arram 333, the caliph and his Egyptian governor met in Raqqa. Al-Ikhshid, for his part, was unwilling to march to Iraq against Tfiuzn. The caliph, finding himself without allies, accepted the promises of Tfiziin that the latter would be a loyal servant. Thus the caliph met the amir al-umara' by the banks of the Euphrates on the road to Baghdad on 20 Safar 333. After kissing the ground before the caliph, Tuzufin had him seized and, with drums beating to hide the noise, had him blinded. The caliphate of al-Muttaqi came to an end and al-Mustakfi was proclaimed the new caliph.

The power of Tiizin in Baghdad was so great that he began adding his kunya, Abfu-l-Waffa', to the local coinage (;13). The Hamdinids also recognized Tuzuin's power and made no attempt to challenge it. According to the historical sources, by Rajab 333 the treaty between Nasir al-Dawla and Tiiziin was renewed.29

After leaving the former caliph al-Muttaqi in Raqqa, al-Ikhshid returned to Egypt without fortifying his Syrian holdings. Sayf al-Dawla saw this as an excellent opportunity to advance his own career and seized Syria while it was militarily weak. The Hamdanid entered Aleppo on 8 Rabi' I, 333 and then set about capturing all of northern and central Syria. According to the Arabic sources Sayf al-Dawla took control of territories as far south as Horns. Al-Ikhshid reacted to this increasing threat to his Syrian holdings by sending a relatively small expedition under the command of the famous IKafur. The Egyptian forces were defeated and Kaffir fled in retreat. Sayf al-Dawla then marched further south to Damascus with the intention of heading for Egypt.

The victory of Sayf al-Dawla and his campaign toward Egypt became a serious enough threat for al-Ikhshid that he left Egypt on 25 Sha'ban 333 to stop the Hamdanid. Eventually a battle took place between the Hamdanid and Ikhshidid forces near Aleppo in Shalwwal 333. Al-Ikhshid won. Alleppo was reconquered by Ibn Tughj but lie was still willing to make peace with Sayf al- Dawla.

29 Canard, pp. 508. 30 Linder-Welin, pp. 46-49. Ibn Taghri Birdi, III, 255.

At first glance the existing coins for 333 are very confusing for they include Ikhshidid coins in the name of al-Muttaqi (#46, 56, 69 for Damas- cus, Palestine and Egypt) although al-Muttaqi had been deposed in the second Muslim month and the mint masters of Egypt had known this by the sixth month.30 There are also coins in the name of Tizun for mints in Syria (#39, 44, 50) which he neither conquered nor claimed and even a Hamdanid coin for Palestine (g57) which they had never occupied.

As mentioned previously, Nasir al-Dawla had not entirely objected to the deposition of al-Mut- taqi by Tuizun as Nasir al-Dawla had renewed the treaty with Tiuzun after the deposition. Thus when Sayf al-Dawla moved into Syria he must have been aware of that agreement and probably saw no reason to renounce it as he was not in a position to establish a base of power in his own name.31 Therefore, it is not surprising that there are coins from Antioch (#39), Hims (#44) and Tiberias (#50) with the name of Tfizfin on them although he was never in the area nor did he au- thorize Sayf al-Dawla's military expedition.32

The numismatic evidence suggests that Sayf al- Dawla got as far south as Tiberias although supporting textual evidence is lacking. The chronicles rarely report who held Tiberias during the years under study and it is possible, based on the coinage, that Sayf al-Dawla did take it. The parallel situation existed in 332 when it was argued above that, based on numismatic evidence, Husayn ibn Sa'idl took Tiberias. The Arabic chronicles give a clear impression that Sayf al-Dawla did not oc- cupy Ramla. However there is a Hamdanid dirham for 333 (#57) but it differs significantly from the ones just analyzed. This dirham, inscribed with the name of the two Iamdanids, includes the name of the deposed caliph al-Muttaqi rather than al-Mustakfi. It is possible that this coin represents Sayf al-Dawla's own goals. The coin would then be a propaganda piece indicating that Sayf al-Dawla planned to rule Palestine. It also indicates that Tuzfn's seizure of al-Muttaqi and his subsequent deposition was considered il-

31 Sayf al-Dawla wrote to the Caliph al-Mustakfi profes- sing his loyalty to him and indicating how quickly he had recognized his rule; Ibn SaCid, p. 40.

32 This explanation does not explain why there is a coin from Tarsus, 333 (#40) with only al-Muttaqi's name; see note 24.

365

Journal of the American Orienall Society 94.3 (1974)

legal by Sayf al-Dawla and the new caliph was not recognized, at least for propaganda purposes.

The issuance of a Hamdanid coin for I'alestine, with the name of the deposed cahlph is similar to the Ikhshidid issues for 333. As mentioned, news of the deposition of al-Muttaqi reached

Egypt by Jumiad II and there was plenty of time for Ibn Tughj to issue coins in the name of al- Mustakfi if he had wished. Al-Ikhshid took this opportunity to re-assert his relative independence from the amir al-umarci' in Baghdad by not recog- nizing the new caliph on the coinage of Egypt or Palestine. Unfortunately the relationship between Fustat and Baghdad was not limited to al-Ikhshid's refusal to recognize the new caliph. According to the Arab historian Ibn Sa 'd, al-Ikhshid had written to al-Mustakfi informing him how quickly he had had the caliph's name proclaimed from the minbars and how he had taken an oath of recognition (bay'a) to the new caliph. Al-Ikhshid also com- plained about Sayf al-Dawla's military activities in Syria in the same letter.33 Unless we are to dis- count the report of the Arab historian, we must accept the fact that the khutba was said in the name of one caliph which the sikka was inscribed with the name of another.

There must have been sense that the khutba and tlie sikka were different in terms of the religious value attached to them although that difference is not made clear by the Arabic sources. By placing his own name on the coinage al-Ikhshid was arguing for his own right of sikka equal to that of any amir al-umaar' who had undertaken the same policy. By excluding the name of al- Mustakfi, al-Ikhshid indicated that there was some question as the legality of blinding and deposing al-Muttaqi. However, by having the khutba said in the name of the ruling caliph, irrespective of how he came to that office, there is an indication that al-Ikhshid may have been making a distinc- tion between the religious and political supremacy of the caliph. For the 'ulam'i', the caliph in power was the one in whose name the khutba was to be said.

The coinage for 334 also illustrates the dichot- omy betweeni the khutba and the sikka. In Muhar- ram 334 Tuizuin died and the caliph issued coins in his own name (#15). He then gave himself a new laqab "Imam al-Haqq" which he had inscribed on his coinage (#16). In fact the coinage for Baghdad for 334 is a mirror of the political

33 Ibn Saeid, p. 41.

history of the city and the 'Abbasid caliphate.34 There are coins in the name of both Tfuzun and al-Mustakfi (#14), al-Mustakfi by himself (#15), and al-Mustakfi with his new laqab, "Imam al- lHaqq" (#16). Then a new political force appeared in Baghdad and on 17 Jumiad I, 334 the Biyids entered Baghdad. Not surprisingly there are coins for that year with the name of al-Mustakfi and the Buyid ruler of Baghdad Mu'izz al-Dawla ($17). Unfortunately for al-Mustakfi, the Biuyid amir al-umar(' had the caliph seized, blinded, deposed and put Muti' in his place as caliph. There are also coins reflecting this change (#18).

Nasir al-Dawla, in Mosul, did not accept the political changes which had taken place in Bagh- dad and became involved in a series of military campaigns against the Buyids. Eventually Nasir al-Dawla found himself alligned to enter into a peace treaty with Mu'izz al-Dawla in Muharram 335. The Hamd5nid coins of 334 for Mosul (#25), Harran (#34), Aleppo (#41) and Homs (#45) all have the name of al-Mustakfi on them rather than the name of the new caliph al-MutI'.35 Had the Hamdanids wished, the mint masters had enough time to mint coins in the name of the new caliph al-MutI' but the evidence from Syria and Iraq indicates that the t.tamdanids deliberately held back recognition of the Biuyid appointed caliph.36 Only after the peace in early 335 do all Hamdanid coins have the name of al-Mut'.

If the Hamdanids were unwilling to recognize the deposition of al-Mustakfi on their coins, it is even less surprising that the Ikhshidid coins for 334 do not include the name of al-Muti.37 While the coins indicate that al-lkhshid continued to recognize al-Mustakfi, the textual evidence gives a different impression. The historian Ibn Taghri

34 The historian Miskawayh wrote that in 334 the Hamn- danid Nisir al-Dawla struck dindrs and dirhams in Bagh- dad but used dies for the year 331; Miskawayh, The Eclipse of the Abbasid Caliphate, English translation, V, 95. Mr. Bikhazi investigated the problem of isolating and identifying the dirhams on the basis of their degree of fineness.

35 One exception is a coin from Mosul in the name of al- Mutl' dated 332 (#26). As the date on the coin is inaccurate, this is possibly an example of the type of coin referred to by the historian Miskawayh in note 34 or a temporary recognition of al-M.utl' by the Hamdanids who, in the rush to issue new dirhams, used an old die.

36 Canard, pp. 511-516. 37 See coins #47, 51, 58 and 71.

366

BACHARACH: Al-Ikhshid, the Hanmdcnids and the Caciplate

Birdi recorded that in Shawwil the bay'a was taken in the name of al-Muti' and it is reasonable to assume that his name was also mentioned in the khufba.38

Al-Ikhshid died on 21 Dhui-l-Hijja 334 in Damas- cus and the coins of his son and successor, UJnujar (334-349) beginning with 335 have the name of al-Mutl' on them.39 The fact that al-Mutl' was the caliph and that the Ikhshidids were in no position to do anything about it was finally recognized.

CONCLUSI(ON

Numismatists date the appearance of distinctly Ikhshidid and Hamdanid coinage from the years under study without suggesting why. A close examination of the available evidence indicates an explanation external to the political, military and economic histories of these two dynasties. It was the inclusion of the amir al-umari' Baj- kam's name on the Baghdad coinage which acted as the catalyst. It is theoretically possible that if 3ajkam had not acted as he did, the coinage for the area under study would have continued to include only the caliph's name as it had done for the preceeding decades. In any case the appear- anlce of distinctly Hamdanid and Ikhshidid coins is not proof that these dynasties were suddenly independent. The more complicated question of their relationship with the 'Abbasid caliphate will be summarized below.

Numismatic evidence has also been used to confirm existing textual evidence. The Baghdad issues for 334, although there are five different types, play this role. The appearance of caliphal titles or the names of various amir al-umara' only confirms that which had already been well known from the many chronicles. However, the investigation of the coinage for the years 329-334 for northern Iraq, Syria and Egypt indicates that numismatic evidence can illuminate relationships and developments which the texts do not mention.

A number of the coins analyzed were noted for their commemorative rather than economic role.

38 Ibn Taghri Birdi, III, 256. 39 Samir Shamma lists a coin for Filastin, 335 in the

name of al-Ikhshid and the Caliph al-Mustakfi. It is possible that the die master had produced new dies for 335 and they had been accidentally used as al-Ikhshid did not die until the last month of the Muslim year 334 and word might not have reached Rainla until after new coins were already minted; Samir Shamma, p. 35.

The taking or retaking a number of cities by IHamdanids and Ikhshidids, such as Homs (#42- 45), was duly recorded on the coinage. In two cases, the campaigns of Husayn ibn Sa'id in 332 and Sayf al-Dawla in 333, the numismatic evidence for Tiberius (#49, 50) proved a more southerly advance than recorded in the texts. The silence of the chronicles on the fate of Tiberias for these years eliminates a direct conflict between numismatic and textual evidence. However, such con- flicts of source material do exist.

'1'here ar coins for Ramla (#53) and Antioch (#38) for 331 and another for Ramla, 333 (#57) in the name of the Hamdanids while all the chronicles clearly state that these mint cities were in Ikhshi- did hands for these dates. There is no simple rule that says one type of source is correct while the other is not, even, as in this case, when the coins are the evidence most contemporary to the events. The argument that the Hamdinid dirham for 333 is a propaganda piece is relatively easy. It does not include any of the data, e.g., the name of the reigning caliph and amir al-umarl', which are found on all the other coins from the other mint cities of Syria held by Sayf al-Dawla. There- fore the relative uniqueness of the inscription makes it suspect. The reasons for the issuance of the earlier propaganda pieces for 331 is more dif- ficult to establish and may reflect the idealized goals of Sayf al-Dawla or some other member of the Hamdinid family.

The previous examples illustrate inscriptions which duplicate previously known data, add to it or appear to contradict it. There are even coins for which an adequate explanation is still not available.40 The continuing discovery of new mints, dates and variant inscriptions will con- tinually force the historian to re-examine all the available evidence. The following is an example where a more complex political relationship emerges from such a study.

For the Hamdanid invasion of Syria in 333 by Sayf-al-Dawla, the coinage indicates a subservient relationship to Tfizin as the name of amir al- umard' was publicly displayed on the issues. This also meant the acceptance of Tizfin's candidate for the caliphate, al-Mustakfi. However when the Buyids seized control of Baghdad and the caliphate, this relationship was broken and neither the Buyid amir al-umard' nor his candidate as caliph was recognized on the Hamdanid coinage.

40 See notes 21 and 24.

367


The Ikhshidids were even more independent. They did not initially accept the deposition of al-Muttaqi nor that of al-Mustakfi on their coinage. Only after the death of al-Ikhshid and a peace treaty between Nasir al-Dawla and Mu'lzz al- Dawla do the dinars and dirhams of both dynasties have the name of the actual caliph.

The coinage also indicates a more complicated concept of loyalty to the caliphate than has hither- to been suspected. Neglecting the two issues of al-Ikhshid where there is no caliph mentioned, every one of the coins indicated a continuing participation in the 'Abbasid caliphate with at

least a nominal loyalty to the caliphate in Bagh- dad. The Ikhshidid issues of 333 and 334 as well as those of the Hamdanids for 334 recognized a deposed caliph. At the same time, the chronicles stated that the khutba was being said in the name of the caliph who was actually holding the office in Baghdad. In order to reconcile these two acts it must be assumed that the khufba and the sikka had different values. By dividing and hence limiting the sovereignty of the caliph, the com- munity was taking another step along the road to the survival of Islam without a caliphate.

APPENDIX

TABLE OF ISSUES BY MINT

Miit Baghdad (Madinat al-Salam)

Number 1 2 3

Year 329 329 329

4 329 5 330 6 330 7 330 8 330 9 331

10 331 11 332 12 333 13 333

Caliph al-Radi al-Radi al-Muttaqi

al-Muttaqi al-Radi al-Muttaqi al-Muttaqi al-Muttaqi al-Muttaqi

al-Muttaqi al-Muttaqi al-Muttaqi al-Mustakfi

14 334 al-Mustakfi 15 334 al-Mustakfi 16 334 al-Mustakfi

Other Names

Bajkam Bajkam

Nasir al-Dawla Hamdanids IHamdanids

Nasir al-Dawla HIamdanids

Tuiziin

Tfiziin

Imam al-Haqq

17 334 al-Mustakfi Biyids 18 334 al-Muti' Bfyids

19 329 20 330 21 331 22 332

23 333 24 33? 25 334 26 332

41 A muling. Miles, RIC, #357. 42 A possible muling.

al-Radi al-Muttaqi al-Muttaqi al-Muttaqi

al-Muttaqi al-Muttaqi al-Mustakfi al-Mut '

Hamdanids HIamdanids Hamdanids

Hamdanids

Hlamdanids IHamdanids

Sources and Metal AV- RIC, #202. AR- Fahmy, #2629. AV - Artuk, *495 AR - Fahmy, #2656. AR - Bikhazi, #54. AR- RIC, #357.41 AR- Fahmy, #2657. AR - Bikhazi, #1. AR - Bikhazi, #3. AV - Artuk, #926. AR - Bikhazi, #11. AV- al-Sarraf, $431. AR- ANS Unpub. AV - Artuk, #496. AV - Artuk, #500. AR - Artuk, #502. AR- Fahmy, #2703. AR- Fahmy, #2702. AV - Artuk, $501. AR - Fahmy, #2704. AR- ANS Unpub. AV- RAM, #59. AR- Rahmy, #2723. AR - Fahmy, #2631. AR - BMC, III, 3. AR - Bikhazi, #45. AV - Artuk, #928. AR - Bikhazi, #46. AR- Bikhazi, #47. AR- ANS Unpub. AR - BMC, III, 7. AR - Fahmy, #273242

Mosul (Mawsil)

368

BACHAIRACHI: Al-Ikhshid, the I.-Iamdatnids and the Caliphate39

Mint Nisibin (Nasibin)

Harran (Hjarrdin)

Raqqa al-Jazira Antioch

Tarsus Aleppo (Ijalab) Hornis (Hjims)

Dam-ascus (Dimishq)

Tiberias (Tabariya)

Ramla (FilastIn)

Number 27 28

129 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Year 329 329 330 330 333 331 ? 332 334 332 332 329 331 333 333 334

42 33 ? 43 332 44 333 45"D 334 46 333

Caliph al-Rdidi al-Muttaqi al-Muttaqi- al-Muttaqi al-Muttaqi al-Muttaq-i al-Muttaq-i al-MustakfI al-Muttaqi al-MuttaqI al-Muttaqi al-MuttaqI al-Mustakfi al-Mustakfi al-Muistakfi

al-MuttaqI al-MuttaqI al-Mustakf-i al-Mustakfl al-MuttaqI

417 334 al-Mustakfi 48 329 al-Muttaqi

49 33?2 50 333 51 334 52 329

al-Muttaqi al-Mustakfi al-Mustakfi al-Rildi

53 331 al-Muttaqi 54 331 al-Muttaqi 55 332 al-Muttaqi

Other Names

Hamd&tnids Ujamdilnids H1amdiinids HIamddtnids Hamdd'nids Hlamdainids Hamdiinids

Haiid,qnids Tiiziln

H~amdainids

al-lkhshid TiIziin kjamd&inids al-Ikhshid

al-Ikhshid

Tiiziin al-lkhshid

Ijamd&inids al-lkhshid al-Ikhshid

56 333 al-Muttaqi al-Ikhshid

Egypt (Misr)

57 333 58 334 59 335 60 329 61 329 62 329 63 330 64 330 65' 330 66 331 67 331 68 332

al-Muttaqi al-Mustakfi al-Mustakfi- al-R&idi

al-Muttaqi

al-Muttaqi al-Muttaqi al-Muttaqi al-MuttaqI al-MuttaqI

69 333 al-MuttaqI 70 333 al-Muttaqi 71 334 al-Mustakfi

Ujamdiinids al-lkhshid al-Ikhshid

al-Ikhshid

al-Ikhshid

al-lkhshid

al-lkhshid al-lkhshid

al-lkhshid

al-lkhshid

Sources and Metal AR - Fahmny, #2633. AR - Khedieval, #728. AR - Fahmy, #2785. AR - BMC, III, 4. AR - Bikhazi, #51. AR - Linder-Welin, #1. AR - Linder-Welin, #2. AR - Linder-Welin, #11. AR - Linder-Welin, #3. AR - Bikhazi, #48. AR - Gosset, P. 44. AR - Bikhazi, #52. AR - BMC, II, 617. AR - Linder-Welin, #7. AV - Linder-Welin, #9.

AR - Rockefeller, II, 65. AR - Awad, #3. AR - Awad, #12. AR - Linder-Welin, #12. AR - Linder-Welin, #5.

AR - Awad, #11. AR - Rockefeller, II, 66.

AR - Rockefeller, II, 67. AR - BM 1949-8-3-338. AR - Shama, #23. AV - BMC, I, 456. AR - Kmietowicz, #16. AR - Paris. AVT - Shamna, 1 AV - Shama, 4 AR - Shama, #11. AV - Shama, #16. AR - Shama, #21a. AR - Linder-Welin, #6. AR - Shama, #22. AV - Shamna, #27.30 AV - Khedieval, #706. AR - Paris, #50. AV - Khedieval, #725. AR - Artuk, #195. AV - Fahmy, #2631. AR - BM 1957-6-2-3. AV - Balog Unpub. AY - Balog, p. 113. AV - Balog, p. 113. AR - Bikhazi, #67. AV - Balog, p. 113. AV - BMC, I, 473. AV - Balog, p. 113.

369


SOURCES

ANS American Numismatic Society, New York Artuk Ibrahim Artuk & Cevriye Artuk. Istanbul

Arkeoloji Muzeleri Teshirdeki Islami Sik- keler Katalogu. Istanbul, 1971.

Awad Private collection of Dr. Henri Amin Awad, Cairo.

Balog Dr. Paul Balog. "Tables de references des monnaies ikhchidites." Revue beige de Nu-

mismatique. t. 103 (1957) 107-134. Bikhazi Ramzi Jibran Bikhazi, "Hamdanid Coins of

Madinat al-Salam, 330-331 A.H., "Near Eastern Studies in Honor of George C. Miles.

BM British Museum. London. BMC Stanley Lane-Poole. Catalogue of Oriental

Coins. 10 vols., London 1875.

Fahlny eAbd al-Rahman Fahmy. Fajr al-Sikka al-

'Arabiya. Cairy, 1965. Gosset Stanley Lane-Poole. Some Private Collec-

tions of Mohammadan Coins. London, 1892. Khedieval Stanley Lane-Poole. Catalogue of Arabic

Coins in the Khedivial Library, Cairo. Lon- don, 1897.

Kmietowicz Anna Kmietowicz. Wczesnoiredniowieczny Skarb Srebrny Z Zalesia, Powiat Slupca. I. Warsaw, 1969.

Linder-Welin Ulla S. Linder-Welin. "Sayf al-Dawlah's

Reign in Syria and Diyarbekr in the Light of the Numismatic Evidence," Conmmenta- tiones de nummis saeculorum IX-XI in Sue- cia Repertis. Stockholm, 1961, 17-106.

Paris H. Lavois. Catalogue des M1onnaies Musul- manes de la Biblioth&que Nationale. Paris, 1887-1896.

Rockefeller Rockefeller Museum. Jerusalem. RAM Christian Fraehn, Recensio numorum mu-

hammedanorum. Petropoli, 1826. RIC George C. Miles. "Rare Islamic Coins" A.N.S.

Numismatic Notes and Monographs, No. 118. New York. 1950.

al-Sarraf Dr. Muhammad Baqir al-Husayni, "A Guide to the as-$arraf Collection," al-Maskiikdt vol 1, #2, 1969. 48-81.

Shamma Samir Shamma. "The Ikhshidid Coins of Filastin," Al-Abhath 22 (3 & 4), 1970, 27-46.

370

al ikhshid the hamanids and the caliphate

Documents