the coinage of the mamlūk sultan baybars i : additions and corrections / michael l. bates

8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates

1/25

THE AMERICAN NUMISMATIC

SOCIETY

MUSEUM

NOTES

22

'

NU/AIStt

TIC-'

WM f

J

'50CIETY /

THE

AMERICAN

NUMISMATIC

SOCIETY

NEW

YORK

1977

This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:39:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


2/25


3/25

THE

COINAGE

OF THE MAMLŪK SULTAN

BAYBARS

I:

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS

(Plate 23)

Michael L.

Bates

It is the fate of

corpuses,

ven

those as

magisterial

s

Paul

Balog's

Coinage

of

theMamlūk

Sultans

of Egypt

nd

Syria

*

to

begin

the

process

of

obsolescence n the

day

of their

publication.

One

might

better

ay

even before

publication,

for the author

himself

will

inevitably

earn

of

new

coins n

the nterval etween

he

final

proofs

nd the

appearance

of

the

work. Once

the

corpus

s in

print,

ollectors,

ealers,

nd scholars

immediately egin making special note of specimens not in Balog.

Thus,

only

six

years

after

his

original orpus

Balog

was able

to

publish

a

long

article

cataloguing

Additions

and

Corrections

o

the work.2

Of

more

significance

han

the

mere

addition

of new

varieties,

uch a

corpus especially

n the

present

tate of

knowledge

f Islamic

numis-

matics

and

monetary istory)

timulates

nd facilitates

urther

esearch

which an result

n

wholesale

revisions

f

parts

of the

work,

ven

though

the

corpus

s

a wholemust

remain he

standard

eference

or

enerations.

Such a revision

s offered

y

the

present

tudy,

which

attempts

to

clarify ur understanding f the coinage of the greatMamlūk sultan

Baybars

I

(658-76

H./A.D.

1260-77),

who

is

justly

described

as the

founder

f the Mamlūk state3.

In

MSES

the

coinage

of

Baybars

seems

rather

haotic

n

comparison

with that

of other

Mamlūks.

Indeed,

t is

1

P.

Balog,

oinagef

he

Mamlūk

ultans

fEgypt

nd

Syria

NS

12

New ork,

1964).

Cited

ereafter

s MSES

2

P.

Balog,

The

Coinage

f

the

Mamlūk

ultans:Additions

nd

Corrections,

ANSMN

16

1970), p.

113-71.

Cited ereafter

s

MSESAdd.

3 M.M.Ziyada, TheMamluk ultans o 1293, hap.22inM. Setton,d.,A

History

f

he

rusades2:

The aterCrusades1189-1311

ed. R. L.

WolffndH.

W.

Hazard

Philadelphia,

962),

.

746.

161



4/25

162 Michael L. Bates

an

unusually

complicated

eries because of

the

variety

of

styles

and

legends

which t

displays.

Balog

classified

t

by

metal,

style,

reverse

legend

that

s,

with

ither

f

wo

caliphs'

namesor with

religious

egend),

and

Baybars's

titulature

with

or without

the title

al-Sutyan),

n that

order,

nd then within

hese

categories

y

mint nd

date. At

the

time,

such a

procedure

was

unavoidable,

given

the

many

issues of

Baybars

known

only

from

ne

or two

specimens

with

llegible

date or

mint or

both.4 Now, thanks to the sound foundation aid downbyBalog and

to new

discoveries,

t is

possible

to

reclassify

he

coinage

to

reflect he

sequence

of events in

Baybars's

reign

and the

different

uccession

of

issues

in each

region

and mint. The

new

organization,

impler

and

more

ntelligible

han

that in

MSES,

helps

to

revise the

attribution

f

some of

Baybars's

coins

and

provides

ome new

historical

vidence,

or

at

least raises

some

interesting

istorical

uestions.

The

first

tep

in

reclassifications

to

separate

the issues

of the two

regions,

Egypt

and

Syria.

There

are

important

differences

n

the

numismatic istory ftheseregions nderBaybarsas underhisAyyübid

and Mamlūk

predecessors.

Whether r not the

coinage

ofthe

two

regions

was made

more

uniform

nder

the later

Mamlūks s

a

question

which

further esearch

will

need to

answer,

but

the

possibility

f differences

between

hem s

one which

ought

to be

borne

n

mind

n

any

study

of

Mamlūk

coinage.

The second

step

s

to

arrange

he

issues

of

each

mint n

chronological

order,

o far as

possible, using

the

sequence

of

historical

vents as a

guide

wheremore

than

one

variety

s

known

with the

same date. For

the metropolitanmints,Cairo (al-Qāhira) and Damascus (Dimashq),

this is

easy enough,

and a

nearly

complete sequence

can

be formed

for each. In

Egypt,

the

sequence

at Alexandria

(al-Iskandariyya)

is

sufficientlyomplete

to show that

that mint conformed

losely

to

the

practice

at

Cairo,

except

in

details

of

ornamentation,

rrangement

of

legends,

nd in

striking nly gold,

not

silver.

In

Syria,

the

known

representation

f the

minor mints Hamāh and

Aleppo

(Halab)

is

so

sparse

as

to

make

generalization

unwise,

but the

available

evidence

from

these mints does

not

display

any

inconformity

ith

that from

Damascus.

Possibly

herewere

other

yrianmints,

s

yet

not

dentified.

4

See

Balog's xplanation

f

his

procedure,

SES

pp.

2-3.



5/25

Mamlük Sultan Baybars I 163

Certain of

Baybars's

issues

are excluded from

he discussion

here:

his

Armenian

tyle

coinage (.

MSES

40-41),

which

deserves a

special

study

in

itselfwhen additional

examples

are

found;

and

his

copper,

which eldom

bears a mintor date

and is

hardly

usceptible

o historical

and

geographical

arrangement.

The discussion of

the

coinage

as

a

whole s followed

y

a

catalogue

of ANS and

other oins not

in

Balog's

corpus

and additions.

EGYPT

It is

possible

to treat

the issues of Cairo

and

Alexandria

together.

Baybars's

Egyptian coinage

can be divided nto four

uccessive ssues.

MSES

nos:

al-Qãhira

al-Iskandariyya

Mint

Issue

Date

Al

AL

Al

Illegible

1.

Ayyûbidtyle

658

H.

39A

2.

Mamlūk

tyle,

658

H.

69

27(

)

title

l-Malik

659H.

70

28

3. al-Sultānl-Malik

659

H.

37

with

l-Mustansir

660

H.

46

38

4.

al-Sultān l-Malik

with

eligiousegend

660-76

H.

35-36 72-92

30-33

Baybars's earliestcoinage, in the traditionalAyyûbid style,must

have

been

issued

only very briefly;

or

Baybars

came

to

power

on

17

Dhu'l-Qa'da

658,

six

weeks before he end

of the

year,

and introduced

his

new

style

heraldic

oinage

within hat

same

six

weeks. It is

probably

for

that

reason

that

Baybars's

Ayyûbid

coinage

is

excessively

rare,

6

Ibn

Abd

al-zāhir,

l-Rawd

l-zãhir

i

sirat

l-Malik l-Zãhir

ed. and tr. F.

S.

Sadeque

s

Baybars of Egypt

Dacca,

1956),

ext,

p.

16-17, rans.,

p.

96-

97;

Maqrizi,

itãb l-sulük

i-ma'rifat

uwal

l-mjalūk

1,

ed.

M.

M.

Ziyâda,

nd

ed. Cairo, 956-57),p.435-36.Atfirstaybarsook he aqab l-Malikl-Qāhir,

but

only

few

ays

ater

Maqrizi,

. 437)

he

changed

t

to

al-Malik l-Zāhir.

s

it

possible

hat

ny

oinswere

truck

ith

hefirst itle



6/25


with

only

four

published

specimens

from

the

Cairo mint. This

also

may

well

explain

why

no

gold

coinage by

Baybars

in

the

Ayyûbid

tyle

has

yet

been

recorded.

The

fact

is,

however,

that there

is

little

di-

ference etween

Baybars's

gold

coinage

n

the Mamlūk

style

and

that

of his

predecessors

n

the

Ayyûbid

style,

aside from

the addition

of

his

heraldic

ymbol,

he lion

passant

to

left.

Possibly

this

symbol

was

used on

his

gold coinage

from

he

very

beginning.

Furthermore,

here

is a markedstylistic esemblance etweenBaybars's heraldicgold and

and

silver

coinage,

so

that

one

might

well

say

that

the

introduction

of the Mamlūk

style

consisted

mainly

n, first,

he

use of

a

heraldic

symbol

on

the

gold,

and

secondly,

the

adoption

of

the

style

of the

Ayyûbidgold

for

use on silver ssues

as well.

The new

coinage

of

Baybars,

with

his

heraldic

emblem,

s

strictly

speaking,

he

first

Mamlūk

coinage,

for the

coinage

of his

predecessors

was

Ayyûbid

n

everything

ut

the

sovereign's

name. That the new

style

was

introduced

s

early

s

658

is

demonstrated

y

only

two extant

coins,a dirham fCairo MSES 69) and a dinarofAlexandria MSES

27;

but see

catalogue

below).

The Mamlūk

style

was henceforth

har-

acteristic

of

Baybars's

gold

and silver

coinage;

this earliest

issue is

differentiated

y

the use of the title al-Malik

only

for

Baybars

had not

yet

been

officially

nvested with

the

sultanate)

and

by

the

religious

legend

of the

reverse

for

there was at

this

time no 'Abbāsid

caliph6).

The second ssue

of

Baybars,

then,

an

be

assigned

o a

periodbeginning

sometime

n the last

six

weeks

of

658

and

lasting

until

13

Raj

ab

659,

when

Abu'l-Qäsim

Ahmad was invested as

caliph.7

The second issue

is distinguished rom he fourth,whichbegan in 660 and whichalso

has a

religious

egend

on

the

reverse,

by

the absence of

the

title

al-

Sulļ/ān;

but this earlier

type

ought

not

to

be confused

with

certain

issues of

the

period

after

6608 on which

the

title

al-Sulķān

s

omitted

merely

for

ack

of

space.

6

The

Abbāsid

aliphate

f

Baghdad

ad

been

xtinguishedy

the

Mongols,

and

no

member

f

he

family

asknown

o

have urvived

ntil he

ppearance

f

al-Amir

bu'l-Qäsim

hmad,

on

of

he

aliph

l-Zāhir,

n 659.

7

Ibn Abdal-Zāhir,ext, . 35;trans., . 124;Maqrizi, . 449.8 For

example,

fractionalinar,MSES 29,of663H. and he

Aleppo

ssuede-

scribed

n

the

catalogue

elow,

o.

49.



7/25

Mamlük Sultan Baybars 1 165

The

'Abbasid

prince

Abu'l-Qäsim

Ahmad

appeared

first

n

Damascus,

with

followers

ho vouchedfor he

authenticity

f his descent.

Baybars

ordered

that

he

be

sent on to

Cairo,

where he arrived

9

Rajab

659.

Four

days

later,

at a

great

assembly,

he

chief

qādī,

Baybars,

and all

the notables

of the court swore

llegiance

to

Abu

l-Qasim

as

the

caliph

al-Mustansir

billāh. The

caliph

then

granted

authority qallada)

to

Baybars

over all

the

Islamic lands.

Letters were sent out to

Muslim

rulers nstructinghem to recognize he new caliph and sultan in the

khutba

nd to

place

the two names

on theircoins.9

Given

the

sequence

of

events the accession

on

the

same

day

of

Abu

l-Qasim

s

caliph

and of

Baybars

as

sultan it

is difficulto

explain

a

recorded

ssue

of this

year

with

the title al-sultan

but without

the

caliph's

name.

Only

one such coin

is

recorded,

lthough

another

s

falsely

so attributed.

The latter is

a dirham

(

MSESAdd

77A)

first

published

by

Bacharach,10

aid

to

have the

date

legend

sana

tise

wa-l

khamsīn

wa-sittamťa.

In

reality,

the left

segment

of the

marginal

legend,which ncludesthe digit, s not visible at all on the coin,being

entirely

ff he

flan,

nd the bottom

egment

eads

wa-sittîn,

ritten

n

the fashion

ypical

of dirhams f 665-69.11

A

second

coin, however,

s

not

so

easily

gainsaid:

a

dinar,

MSES

34,

pl.

2.

Although

he coin

is

ascribed

to

Cairo,

the mint is

entirely

nvisible;

but

the date 659

is

indisputable.

One

might rgue

on the evidence

f

his

ointhat

Baybars's

new

titlewas recorded

n the

coinage

before

l-Mustansir' name

began

to

appear,

but this

s

hardly

ikely.

On

the

very day

of al-Mustansir'

accession

Baybars

wrote to

other rulers to ask

them

to

acknowledge

himas sultan and al-Mustansirs caliphon their oins. Onemustthere-

fore ssume that the same

orderswere

given

to

Baybars's

own mints.

MSES

34 must be

regarded

s a

mule,

with

the

new

obverse

but with

an old reversedie

from he

period

before

l-Mustansirwas

recognized.

9

Ibn fAbd

l-Zāhir,

ext,

.

36;

trans.,

.

125;

Maqrizî,

p.

448-50. Such

oins

were truck

nly

y

the

Atabeg

f

al-Mawçil,

smā'il

b.

Lu'lu',

n

659

1.

and

G.

Artuk,

stanbul

rkeoloji

iizeleri

e§hirdeki

slâmî

ikkeler

ataloģu

1

[Istanbul,

1971], p.

415-16,

os.

1274-75)

nd

660

W.

Tiesenhausen,

Mélanges

e

numis-

matique

rientale,

BN

[1875], p.

356-57,

o.

131;

n

the

Hermitage).

10J.Bacharach,A FewUnpublishedamlūk irhems, NSMN14 (1968),

p.

166,

no.

4,

pl.

24.

11

See

for

xample,

SES

81,

pl.

3.



8/25

166 Michael Lu Bates

Baybars's

third

Egyptian

ssue, then,

s

that with his

title

al-Sulļān

al-Malik and

with the

name of

the

caliph

al-Mustansir

n the

reverse

field n

place

of the

shahãda.

Baybars

also

acquired

the title

Qaslm

Amīr

al-Mu'minïn,

which

he and his immediate successors

placed

on

the

coins.12 The obverse

invocation

bism Allāh

al-rahmān

al-raķīm

is

henceforth

ropped

from

the

dirhams,

probably

to

provide space

for

the

expansion

of the

horizontal

field

legends

to include

the new

titles. Thisthird ssue s substantiated rom oth 659 and 660. Baybars

provided

l-Mustansirwith

troops

nd funds o

reconquer raq,

whither

the

caliph departed

n

late 659.

He met the

Mongol

rmy

from

aghdad

probably

n

3

Muharram 60 and

was eitherkilled

n the

battle

or died

of

his

wounds

shortly

fterward;

n

any

case,

according

to

Maqrîzî,

within

he first

hird

f

al-Muharram.13

mong

those

with

al-Mustansir

in

the finalbattle was another

Abbāsid,

al-Amïr

Abu'l-fAbbās

Ahmad,

who

escaped

death and

arrived at

Damascus

12

Safar 660. It

would

have taken

only

a few

days

more forthe news

of

al-Mustansir's eath

to reach Cairo, if it had not alreadycome. This providesa terminus

ante

quem

for

he

end

of

Baybars's

third ssue and the

beginning

f the

fourth.

With al-Mustansir's

death,

the

caliphate

was

again

vacant. The

Egyptian

mints

herefore everted o the

use

of

religious egends

n

the

reverse

ield nd continued

o do so until676 when

Baybars

died,

despite

the fact

that on 8

Muharram

61

the Amīr Abu'l-cAbbās Ahmad was

proclaimed

caliph,

as

al-Hākim bi-Amr

Allāh,

in

a

ceremony

n the

Cairo

citadel.

Neither

l-Hākim nor

any

of

his

successors n the cali-

phate of Cairowereacknowledged n the coinage of Egypt.14This is

perhaps

not

too

remarkable,

considering

he

insignificance

f these

figures

whose main functionwas to

providepurely

formal

egitimization

for the

authority

f the

sultans;

but

there has not as

yet

been

any

specific

explanation

of

the

change

in

Baybars's

attitude

toward

the

caliph

which

ed himto omit l-Hākim's name from he

coinage, hereby

setting

he

precedent

for

subsequent

sultans.

Equally

in

need

of

ex-

12

MSES,

p.

14.

13

Maqrizi,

.

467.

14Thesoleexceptions al-Mustaein,15/1412,ho ppearsn thecoinage ot

because

e was

caliph

ut

because e was

emporarily

nd

nominally

ultan

uring

an

interregnum.



9/25

Mamlūk Sultan Baybars I 167

planation

s

the

surprising

act

that

Syrian

practice

differed:l-Hākim's

name

appears

on the

coinage

of

all

Syrian

mints

during

Baybars's

life-

time,

at least from

66.

The

Cairo

dirhams

f this fourth ssue

are divided

by

Balog

into

three

groups,

ccording

o

the

beginning

f

the reverse

marginal egend

the

mint-date

ormula)

t the left

side,

the

right,

r at

the

top.

Probably

this distinction

has no

significance, xcept

as

a

rough chronological

guide. Dirhams with the legend beginning t the left were struck

660-63,

those

with he

beginning

n the

right

rom 62 to

664,

and

those

with the

beginning

t the

top

from

6515 n

every

year

(except,

as so

far

recorded,

73)

until the end

of

Baybars's reign.

SYRIA

The

sequence

of

issues

in

Syria

differed rom

hat in

Egypt.

The

table

here shows

only

the issues

of

Damascus;

only

a

few coins

are

known fromotherSyrianmints,but their ssues seem to follow the

same course

as those

of Damascus.

There is also a

series

of

dirhams

with

no mint name

which are

probablySyrian.

MSES

nos.

Issue

Date

(Damascus

only)

1.

Ayyûbid

tyle,

ith

aybars

658-59

H.

39

and

local

governor

2.

Mamlūk

tyle,

ith

itle

659

H.

71,

71A

al-Maliknly

3. al-Sultān

l-Malik

ith

659-60H.

47

al-Mustansir

lacuna?

660-66H.

no

Syrian

oins?

4.

al-Sultān

l-Malik

ith

a)

666-69H.

56-63

withmonth)

al-Hākim

b)

670-76H.

51-54

without onth)

According

to

Maqrîzî,

Baybars's

accession

in

Dhu'l-Qa'da

658

was

accepted

by

all the amirs

except

the

governor

f

Damascus,

eAlam

15

MSES

78-80,

irhams

f this

variety

ated

62-64,

re

to be

disregarded;

see

catalogue

elow.



10/25


al-Dïn

Sanjar

al-Halabï.16

Sanjar

claimed

authority

or

himself17nd

adopted

the

title

al-Malik

al-Mujāhid.

Still,

he does

not

seem at

first

to have

completely ejected Baybars's authority,

ut

rather

only

as-

serted

autonomy

for himself n his own

domain

while

recognizing

he

nominal

sovereignty

f

Baybars;

for in

the

khutba

MaqrizI

says,

the

name

of

Baybars

was

mentioned irst ollowed

y Sanjar,

and coins

were truck

earing

both

theirnames.

Later,

however,

anjar

expanded

his claim to includethe sultanate,but MaqrizI does not say whether

he ever struck oins

with

his name alone.

A

coin such

as that mentioned

by

MaqrizI

has been

known since

the

publication

of

M

SES,

but until

recently

t

has not been

correctly

read.

On

the hitherto

nique

example,

a dirhamof

Ayyûbid tyle

n

the

Ashmolean

Museum,

Baybars's

name

on the obverse and

Sanjaťs

title

al-Mujāhid

on the reverse are

entirely

bliterated,

nd

only

the

first etterof

Sanjaťs

name

is

visible.18

t will be noted that this first

letter,

ïn

very

much resembles he

first etters of

Baybars's

name,

leadingBalog to assumethatBaybars was named on both sides of the

coin

and that

'Alam al-Dïn was used as an additional

title

by Baybars

in the

early

days

of

his

reign.

A

second

example

of this ssue

has

recently

een discovered

by

Ariel

Berman

in a Jerusalem

hoard.10

The

legends (see catalogue

below,

no.

39)

are as

would be

expected

from

Maqrïzï's

statement,

with

Baybars's

name

and full title

on one side and

Sanjaťs

on

the other.

According

o

Berman,

his coin bears the

digit

tis'

nine

not legible

n

the

illustration),

o

the

coin must have

been struck n the six weeks of

thatyearbefore11 Safar659, whena force oyal to Baybars occupied

16

Maqrizi,

.

438.

anjar's

ull

ame

nd

aqab

re

given

n

p.

433

and

again

n

p.

439.

17

The

phrase

sed

by Maqrizi

s

dafã

li-nafsihi

a

phrase

more

commonly

employed

or

claim o

the

mamate

ut

n

this

ontext,

learly,mplying

much

lesser ssertion.

18

MS

ES

39;

a

fuller

escription

nd

llustrationre

provided

n

MSES Add

nder

the ame

umber

p.

117,

l.

28).

The

therwo irhams

entioned

yBalog

nder

this

number

re

n

fact

ike MSESAdd

39A,

f

Cairo. See

catalogue

elow.

19A.Berman,TheTurbulentventsnSyrian 658-59 ./1260 .D.Reflected

by

Three

Hitherto

npublished

irhams,

Circ

4

1976),

p.

315-16,

o. 3.

A

full

escription

f

he

oin

s

provided

n the

atalogue

elow.



11/25


Damascus;20

ut such coins

wereno doubt also struck

n

658.

Inasmuch

as

Maqrïzî

says

that

Sanjar's coinage

also bore the name

of

Baybars,

there s

no reason to

believe,

as

Berman

suggests,

hat the

issue was

produced

during

the

period

of

reconciliation

etween the two

which

followed

ot

long

after

anjar's

arrest.

A second

discovery y

Berman

provides

new

evidencefor

he

political

situationelsewhere

n

Syria

at

the accession

of

Baybars.

The

coin in

question s a dirhamofAyyûbid tyle,much like the coins of Sanjar,

with

Baybars's

name

and

titles

on one

side

and

those

of al-Mansūr

Muhammad,

the

Ayyûbid

ruler

of

Hamāh,

on the

other.21

According

to certain

historians,

anjar

called

upon

the

Ayyûbid

rulers

of

Hamāh

and

Hims to

recognize

him

as

sultan,

but

they

refused nd

remained

loyal

to

Baybars.22

This new

dirham shows that

at

Hamāh,

at

least,

the situationwas more

complicated.

Al-MansūrMuhammad

may

not

have

recognized anjar

as

sultan,

but he

evidently

ook a

position

with

regard

to

Baybars very

similarto that

initially

aken

by Sanjar,

ac-

knowledging aybars's nominalsupremacy ut asserting is autonomy

in

his own

territory.

uch a

position

would be natural for

al-Mansūr,

who

had

governed

Hamāh

since642

as a

subordinate

o

variousmembers

of his

own

family

nd

had

been restored

by

Qu^uz

to

his

position

n

Hamāh

after

he

Mongol occupation

of the

city

n 658.

It is not

clear

whether

is

ssuanceof

coinage

withhis own name at

Baybars's

accession

indicates

an assertion f

ncreased

ndependence.

His

presently

nown

silver

oinage

t

Hamāh

in

the

Ayyûbid

eriod

neverbears his own

name,

but

only

that of his

sovereigns.23

owever,

no coin*

of

Hamāh from 55

20

Maqrizi,

.

444.

21

Berman,

.

315,

no.

2;

see

catalogue

elow,

o. 39M.

22

Sadeque,

n

her

ntroduction

o Ibn

fAbd

l-Zāhir,

.

42,

citing

bu'1-Fidā'.

23

A coin

ttributedo

this uler

y

Lavoix

ndCasanova

H.

Lavoix,

atalogue

des

monnaies

usulmanese la

Bibliothèque

ationale

Égypte

t

Syrie

rev.

P.

Casanova

Paris,

896], .

270,

no.

698,

pl. 6)

is

wrongly

ttributed;

t

s

clearly

Mamlūk

oin,

robably

f

Qalâ'ûn,

nd

hereforeo be

dated

(8)5,

ot 50.

Because

the

coin

bears

he

itles l-Mansür

ayf...al-Din,

avoix

or

Casanova

rroneously

assigned

he

itle

ayf

l-Din o

al-Mansūrf

Hamāh,

nd

his

has

been

epeated

n

such tandardeferencess E. deZambaur, anuel egenealogietdechronologie

pour

'histoiree

'Islam

Hanover,

927),

.

98. Thecorrectitle

s Nāsir

l-Din,

as shown

y

Berman's

oin

nd

by

Maqrizi,

.

318.

Anotheroin ttributedo al-



12/25


to

the

Mongol occupation

of the

city

in

658

are as

yet

known;

coins

were

struckthere under

the

Mongols,

but no

coins are known of the

period

mmediately

fter l-Mansūrwas restored o the

city by

Qutuz.

One

cannot, therefore,

ay

whether

l-Mansūr

placed

his

name on

the

coinage

beforehis

issue with

Baybars's

name.

Similarly,

t is

not

pos-

sible to

say

with

certainty

when this

latter

ssue

came

to an

end,

for

the

next

known

issue of

Hamāh,

an

ordinary

Mamlūk

dirham

with

Baybarsand al-Mustansirnly, s dated 660. The historiansay nothing

about

the

imposition

f

Baybars's authority

n

Hamāh,

suggesting

hat

al-Mansūr

at some

point

accepted

the situation without

resistance.

In

late 659

he

paid

homage

n

person

o

Baybars

in

Damascus and was

confirmed

n his

position,

which he

retained

until his death in

68S.24

One

can

therefore

nly

say

that the

issue

in

question began

almost

certainly

n

658

and

possibly

continued nto

659.

It

perhaps

ended

at

about

the same

time

that

Baybars's authority

was established

n

Da-

mascus.25

With the installationof Baybars's authority, he Damascus mint

began

striking

is new

Mamlūk

coinage,

with

the

title

al-Malik

and

religious

egends

n the reversefield.

Then,

sometime

n the

seventh

month

of

659,

the Damascus mint

responded

to

the accession of

al-

Mustansir nd

the investiture

f

Baybars

as

sultan,

by

striking

oins

Mansūr uhammad

s a

copper

ais,

BMCOriental

,

Suppl.

68c,

.

230,

bearing

onone

ide

l-Malik

l-Mansūr

nd

onthe

therl-Malik

l-Nāsir,

hich

s

probably

the ame oin

llustrated

y

W.

Marsden,

umismata

rientalia

llustrata

1

(Lon-

don,

823),

l.

13,

no.

237,

ttributed

y

him

o

al-Mansūr uhammad

.

Stephen

Album asrecentlyointedut to theauthorheexistenceftwo other opper

issues,

pparently

npublished,earing

he

names l-Malik

l-Mançûr

n one

ide

and

l-Malik

l-Çâlih

n

the other.On one

ssue,

he names re

enclosed

n

a

beaded

quare

within

tangent

eaded

ircle;

n

the

ther,

he

names re

within

triple

exagram

f

hefamiliar

leppoAyyûbid

tyle.

As Album

uggests,

hese

coppers

lso are

most

robably

o be

regarded

s

issues

f

l-Mansūr

n

Hamāh,

acknowledging

he

overeignty

fthe

Ayyûbid

l-Sālih

Ayyûb

d.

647/1249).

ne

example

f

ach

ssuehas

been

onated

o

theANS

by

Album.

24

bn

Abd

l-Zãhir,

ext,

.

45;

trans.,

.

138;

Maqrizi,

p.

460,

62.

25

Berman

ssigns

he

ate

59

ohis

pecimen,

rguing

hat he ssuewas

probably

struck

fter

brief

econquest

f

Hamāh

y

he

Mongols

t

the

ery

nd

f

58 and

beginningf659. However,heMongolsidnot akeHamāh t this ime; hey

only eseiged

t

Maqrizi,

.

442).

In

any

ase,

he oin ould ave

een truckefore

the

Mongols

rrived

s well

s afterward.



13/25

Mamlük Sultan Baybars I 171

like those

of the third

Egyptian

issue. The

unique

example

of

this

issue

with the mint

Dimashq

bears

no

legible

date

and

may

have been

struck

n 659

or

early

n

660;

a dirham

of Hamāh

(MSES 48)

confirms

that such

dirhamswere

still

being

struck

n

Syria

n the first

ix weeks

of

the latter

year.

Since al-Mustansir

was killed

in

early

660,

leaving

the

caliphate

vacant for about

a

year,

one

would

expect

Damascus

to have

issued

coins like the fourthEgyptian issue,with the title al-Sul^ān al-Malik

combinedwith

the

reverse

religious egend;

but no

Syrian

dirhamsof

this

type

are

recorded.26

ndeed,

no

Syrian

dirhamsare

recorded

for

nearly

even

years,

from

arly

660

(the

latest

possible

date for

he third

issue,

with

al-Mustansir)

o late

in

666

(the

earliestknown

coin of

the

fourth

Syrian

issue

is

dated

Dhu'l-Qa'da,

the eleventh

month,

666).

There

s

no

obvious

explanation

or his

acuna

in

the

series,

which

eems

unlikely

o be

the result

of

chance.

When

minting

f dirhams

was resumed

n

Damascus,

the

type

ssued

therediffered rom hat standard n Egypt in havingthe name of the

caliph

al-Hākim on the

reverse.

Why

al-Hākim was

recognized

on

the

coinage

of

Syria

and

not that of

Egypt

s

perplexing.

At

Damascus,

this fourth

yrian

ssue

is

divided

into two subseries.

The

first,

with

dates from

666 to

669,

7

has the

honorific

l-maķrūsa

following

he

mint-name,

nd is

dated

by

month

as

well

as

by year.

Coins

of

this

subseries

re not

rare,

but few

are

fully

egible,

o that therehas

been

recorded

at

present

only

one

example

of

each of

eight month-year

combinations.

Future

discoveries

may help

to

clarify

whether

we can

expecteventually o record verymonth n each year,orwhethermint

activity

was intermittent.

26

There

s,

however,

copper

ssue

f

Damascus

ith

he itle

l-sultan

nd

the

shahãda n he

everse,

ated

xl

MSES

100;

MSES 98-99 renot

rom

amascus,

as

Balog

noted

n MSESAdd

p.

130).

There re lso

copper

ssues,

MSES 96

and

97,

with he

aliph

l-Hākim.

t seems easonableo

assign

hese

atterothe

eriod

when

irhams

ith l-Hākim

ere

truck,

hat

s, 666-76,

n which

ssumption

MSES 100

would

more

robably

e

661,

not

671.

If

so,

t would

ppear

hat l-

Hākimwas t

first ot

ecognized

n the

oinage

f

Syria,

ust

s

in

Egypt;

or

e

wascaliph uringllbut he irstwodays f661.

27

The

date

74

ssigned

o a

coin

f

his

ariety

MSES

63)

s

ncorrect;

he

oin

is

dated 67. See

catalogue

elow,

o. 58M.



14/25


The second subseries acks both the mint honorific nd

the

month,

but is otherwise imilar o the first.

It

spans

the

years

670-76,

although

671

and

672

have not

yet

been

recorded,

nd

676 is known

nlythrough

coins

with the

digit

alone

visible. When

Baybars

died

(28

Muharram

676)

the

caliph's

name was

dropped

rom he reverse n

his

son's

coinage,

and

replaced by

religious egends.

Of the

two

other

Syrian

mints

recorded,

Hamāh

and

Aleppo (Halab)

onlyHamāh seemsto have had any importance.From it there s now

recorded the issue of al-MansūrMuhammad with

Baybars,

discussed

above;

a dirham of

660

(

MSES

48)

which s similarto the third Da-

mascus

type,

with the

caliph

al-Mustansir;

nd

coins

of 666-74 which

parallel

the

fourth

Damascus

type,

with

al-Hākim.

There

is then no

distinction o be made

between

the

coinage

of

Hamāh

and

that

of

the

Syrian

capital, except

that Hamāh issues

do

not have

the

mint-date

formula

n

a

circular

marginal

egend,

but

rather

n

horizontal

ines

above and

below

the

reverse ield.

The attribution

f

one

coin,

MSES

67, to Hamāh is dubious see below and the catalogue).

Aleppo

is

sparsely epresented.

One

issue,

knownfrom

wo

examples

only

(see catalogue

below,

no.

49), corresponds

o the

fourth

ssue of

Damascus,

with the

caliph

al-Hākim,

but

Baybars's

title is al-Malik

only,

without

l-Sultān.

This,

no

doubt,

s an abbreviation

or

ack of

space,

for this

Aleppo

issue

is

distinguished

y

an

unusually

broad

border,

consisting

f a linear octalobe

surrounded

by

an

octalobe

of

dots;

a circular

marginal egend;

and outer

linear

and

dotted

circles.

As

a

result,

he

space

remaining

or the central

field

egend

s rather

limited. No date is legibleon the coins,but there s no objectionto

making

the issue

contemporary

ith

the fourth

Damascus

issue,

that

is,

some time

in

the

period

666-76;

the

Aleppo

coins

could,

however,

have

been

ssued

as

early

s

661,

when

al-Hākim

was

installed

s

caliph.

A third

Aleppo

coin,

entatively

ssigned

o

675,

is mentioned

y

Mayer.28

It

is said to be like the

ast

issue

of

Damascus,

with

he

caliph

al-Hākim.

Harrān

may tentatively

be

proposed

as a

third

Syrian

mint.

At

least

that name

seems to fit betterthe

visible

portion

of the

mint

on

MSES

67,

which

Balog

ascribed to Hamāh.

The

arrangement

f

the

28

L.

A.

Mayer,

A

Hoard

f

Mamluk

oins,

DAP

3

(1934),

.

169,

no.

7a.



15/25


legends

on the

coin is

atypical

of

Hamāh and similarto that

of Da-

mascus;

but

the mint name is

definitely

ot

Dimashq.

DIRHAMS

WITHOUT MINT

OR DATE

Another

group

of issues which

are

most

probably

to be

assigned

to

Syria

are the dirhams nd

half-dirhams hich

bear no

mint

name

or

date. These coinsmaybe arrangednthefollowinghronologicalrder:

1.

MSES

68,

a

unique

half-dirham

ithout he title

al-Sul^ān

and

with

the

religious

egend

in

the reverse

field. Note that the lion is full-

face,

a featurewhich

Bacharach29has

observed as a characteristic

f

Damascus but

which

s

also found

on Hamāh

issues;

it is

at

any

rate

typically

Syrian

rather than

Egyptian.

There is

no

corresponding

dirham ssue with

no mint name and

with

religious egends.

Therefore

this

half-dirham

mightequally

well be

assigned

to a

later

period,

for

the absence of hetitle l-Sul^ān s noguidetothedating fhalf-dirhams,

as

shown

by

MSES

43

and 50

(of

ssues 2

and 4

below).

2. MSES

42,

dirhamswithout

he title

al-Sultān

but with the

caliph

al-Mustansir

n

the

reverse

ield,

nd

a

corresponding

alf-dirham

ssue,

MSES 43

and

43A.

One

of

the atter

has the

ion

facing ight,

feature

otherwise

known

only

on a

dirham

attributed

o

Hamāh

(MSESAdd

66A).

3.

MSES

44,

dirhams with

the titulature al-Sultān...

Qasîm

Amir

al-Mu minin and on the reverse he caliph al-Mustansir; ne of these

(see

catalogue below)

has,

clearly,

he lion

full-face.

MSES

45

is

the

corresponding

alf-dirham ssue.

4.

MSESAdd

49A,

a dirham with the

same

titulature

s

MSES

44

but

with the

caliph

al-Hākim;

the lion is

full-face.The

analogous

half-

dirham

type

is

MSES

50, which,

however,

acks

the

title al-Sultān.

Issues

1, 3,

and 4

without

mint

may

be

regarded

s

the

analogues

of

Damascene ssues

2,

3,

and 4

respectively.

ssue

2,

which nachronistical-

ly has Baybars with the title al-Malik only,but with the caliph al-

29

Bacharach,

.

167.



16/25


Mustansir,

an most

plausibly

be

explained

by

the

carelessreuse

of

old

obverse

dies

with new reverses.

If these ssues wereknownfrom

alf-dirhams

nly,

no

problem

would

be

raised,

for t is

easy

to

imagine

that the die

cutters

would have

omitted

he

mint

nd date

from

hese ittle

dies for

ack

of

room

which

would

also

explain

the

prevalent

omission

of the

title

al-Sul^ān).

The

half-dirhams

ould then be

regarded

as

products

of the Damascus or

Hamāh mints. It is moredifficult, owever, o fit the dirhams nto a

relevant

ontext. Are

they

to be

regarded

s

the

product

of an other-

wise

unrepresented

mint,

perhaps

of

a

mobile

camp

mint which ac-

companied

Baybars

in

his

Syrian

campaigns?

Or

are

they merely

anomalous

issues of Damascus or

Hamāh,

possibly

n

part

from the

period

from

arly

660 to

late

666

which is not

represented

y

dated

coins

Perhaps

a

closer

tudy

of

details of

epigraphical

tyle

and

orna-

mentation,

r the

discovery

f a die link

between

the mintless ssues

and the

corresponding

ssues with mint

name,

will solve the

problem.

CATALOGUE

The

catalogue

which follows ists a number

of

unpublished

oins in

the

ANS

collection

nd,

for

he sake

of

completeness,

ome coins which

have

been

published

elsewhere

ince

the

appearance

of

MSESAdd

or

which

were overlooked

by Balog.

Coins

which

merely

duplicate

those

already catalogued by

Balog

are

generally

omitted

here,

aside from

certain

rarities.

For

example,

the

ANS

has

114

Cairo

dirhams and

halves (including hose mentionedby Balog), 29 ofDamascus, and 17

of

Hamāh,

but

most of these

do not

add

to

our

knowledge xcept

as

material

for

studies of

metrology,

ineness,

r die

linkage,

ll

of which

lie

outside

the

scope

of the

present

rticle.

A

comparison

f the

ANS

coins

to their

descriptions

y Balog

has

revealed some

minor rrors

f

detail,

which

are

corrected,

nd some ANS

coins

mentioned

by Balog

are here

llustrated

orthe first ime.

It

seems

more convenient o follow

Balog's

classification

nd enu-

meration f

the ssues than

to

attempt

o

reassign atalogue

numbers

o

the entirebody ofBaybars's coinage. WhereasBalog, in MSESAdd ,

assigned

o

new varieties

number ollowed

y

capital

A,

new varieties

in

this

isting

have been

given

a number

followed

by

M

(or,

in

two

in-



17/25


stances,

K

and

P).

This will

help

to

distinguish

itations f this

isting

from

itations f

Balog's corpus

and

its

supplement,

nd also

leaves

the

letters

preceding

and

following

M

available for

enumeration f

new

varieties

n their

proper sequence

in future

publications.

Balog's pre-

cedent

n

designating

he

side of the coin with

the ruler'sname as the

obverse

has also

been

followed. Those coins

marked

by

an asterisk

*)

are illustrated.

27. AL-ISKANDARIYYA, 658. It should be noted that the sole

coin cited

to

substantiate this

date-mint

combination

s Karabacek

no.

909,

0

which n

the latter

publication

s

listed with a

query

after

he

date and

is

compared

with

Khediu.

1470,

1

dinar

of 661 or 671 with

the

title

al-Sul^ān.

So the

existence

f an

Alexandria

ssue of

Baybars

in

this

year

must

remain somewhat

problematic.

28.

AL-ISKANDARIYYA,

659. Of

the

three

coins cited

by Balog

under this

number,

two

(his

own,

illustrated

MSES

,

pl.

2,

and

the

ANS

example)

have no

visible mint

name.

The

entry

s

supported

nly

bytheBritishMuseumexample BMCOriental4, no. 473). MSES does

not

note that

the ANS coin is

pierced.

30.

AL-ISKANDARIYYA,

661.

The

ANS coin

is

pierced.

34.

Mint

llegible,

59.

Although

his

unique

coin

s listedunder

Cairo,

the mint s

completely

ff

lan;

see

MSES

,

pl.

2.

35.

AL-QÄHIRA,

660. A

third

example

of this issue

was

acquired

by

the

ANS

in

1965

5.854

g;

25

mm);

the mint

nd

date

are

completely

legible.

36K.

AL-QÃHIRA,

667. A

dinar of this

mint

and

date

has

been

pub-

lished by Ilisch.32Like MSES 31 (see correcteddescription,MSES

Add

p.

117),

of

the same

year

but

from

Alexandria,

the coin has

the

mint

at the

top

of the

reversefield

as well as

in

the

margin.

36P.

AL-QÄHIRA,

359

or

360. None

ofthe

three

xamples

f

Egyptian

issue 3

listed

by

Balog,

MSES

37-38,

bears a mint

name;

but Karabacek

30

J.

Schulman

18

November

907).

31

S.

Lane-Poole,

atalogue f

the

Collection

f

Arabic

oinsPreserved

n

the

Khediuial

ibrary

n

Cairo

London, 897).

32L. Ilisch, Beiträgeurmamlukischenumismatik, iinsterscheumisma-

tische

eitungin

Holger

ombrowski

ünzenhandlung

agerkatalog

5/66

No-

vember

975]), p.

5-6,

no.

1,

pl.

1.



18/25


910,

illustrated

n

that

publication,

pl.

2,

is of

that issue

and

has

the

mint

name

al-Qāhira,

although

the date

is

not

legible.

38.

(Egypt),

360.

The

Paris

dinar cited under

MSES

38 with

the date

66x

must,

of

course,

be

dated

660,

for t

was

in

that

year

that al-Mus-

tansir

died;

also,

the

word

hijriyga

added to the

end

of

the

date

formula

s

probably

there

to take

up

the

space

left

by

the

absence

of

a

digit,

as on the

later

dinars

of

that

same

year

(

MSES

35)

and the

dirhamsof 670 (below,MSES 86). The ANS dinar cited under this

numberhas

no

portion

f

the date visible.

Anotherdinar of

this

ssue,

also

with neithermint

nor date

visible,

was

published

n

the

Artuk,

Istanbul

katalogu

no.

797,

pl.

28.

39. The

correct

ersion

of the

legends

on this

Ayyübid tyle

dirham f

Damascus,

as

shown

by

Berman's

newly

discovered

xample (see

note

19;

2.78

g;

20

mm),

is:

Obv.:

ytlkJI

¿1)11

Reu.:

dļ|AI

LjjJI ¿Sj j Ļi^JI pic-

i/jnj

j?**«

margin:

margin:

L

T R

L T

R

B

£ j*P¡

^

J/

1

¿JI

Vj/

B

Bermanargues hatthiscoinmayindicate legitimate haring fpower

between

Bay

bars and

Sanjar,

and that

it

was

therefore

truck

after

Sanjaťs independent

coinage;

but

Maqrîzï's

statement shows

that

Sanjaťs

coinage

from he

beginning

f his rebellion

bore both names.

If

Sanjar

ever

struck oins

with

his

name

only,

these

would

have

come

later,

when,

according

to

Maqrîzï,

he

expanded

his claim to

include

the sultanate.

However,

Berman's

coin,

if the date

is

correctly

ead

(65)9 (it

cannot

be

confirmed

rom the

illustration),

ndicates

that

Sanjar probably

never

dropped Baybars's

name

from he

coinage,

for

he heldpower n Damascus onlya short ime at the beginning f that

year.

Sanjaťs

issue differs rom he

ordinary

quare-in-circle

yyübid

and Mamlūk

ssues

n

having

the inear

quare

border utside

he

square



19/25


of

dots;

usually

the dots are outside.

The Ashmolean

and Jerusalem

specimens

were struck

from

different bverse and reverse

dies.

The two dirhams

mentioned

by Mayer

which are cited

under this

number

n

MSES

and

MSESAdd

ought

ratherto

be

assigned

to the

number

39A

(that

is,

to

Cairo);

for

Mayer says

that the

reverse

of his

coins

bore

the

Apostolic

Mission.

39M.

The coin

published

by

Berman

with the names of

al-Mansūr

Muhammadand Baybars (see note 21; 2.85 g; 20 mm) has legendsas

follows:

Obv

:

ytlkJI

¿Jill

Rev.:

UjJI

¿jSj

margin:

margin:

RBLT RBLT

3bķ~j/

/..../

I I...

J /


20/25


Whether

he dies

forthe

two

sides of the

coin

were struck

by

two

dif-

ferent

ngravers

s

not

evident,

although possible;

Berman must have

had

in

mind the

fact that the

lettering

f the

obverse

s

rather

thick

in

comparison

o

that of the

reverse.

Otherwise,

he

epigraphy

f

both

sides is the

usual

mid-thirteenth-century

yrian

Ayyübid tyle.

As

for

the

inscription

f the

top

reverse

marginal egment,

t is not

defective;

rather

t is

engraved

n

a

fashion

requently

ncountered n thirteenth-

century yriandirhams: he etterhď of lāh is formed s an undulating

curve,

with

a break at

the

highest

point

of the curve which causes

the

end of

the letter

o

appear

to

be a

separate

letter,

omething

ike rã'

Whether

or

not the

die

was reused

from

hypothetical

arlier

ssue,

there s

no

evidencethat

it was reçut.

43.

Withoutmint

name

or date.

The

ANS

example

of

this

half-dirham

issue

varies

slightly

rom

he two

examples

llustrated n MSES

,

pl.

3,

in

having

the

alif

of al-Zāhir

t the end of the first

ine,

ike MSES

68.

The lion

to leftwas

inadvertently

mittedfrom he

description

f this

issue in MSES .

*44. Without

mint

name

or date.

A

new ANS

example

of

this dirham

(2.75

g;

22

mm)

shows

the lion

clearly

full-face,

characteristic

f

Syrian

ssues.

46.

AL-QÄHIRA,

660. Two

specimens

n

the ANS have

the

word

amir

below,

not at

the

end

of,

the last line

of

the

reverse,

nd

have no

marginal

egend

at

the bottom

of the

field;

on

both,

the mint

name al-

Qähira

is visible.

It

should

be noted

that several of

the

specimens

cited

in MSES

under

this numberhave

no

legible

date

and

could as

well be 659 as 660.

*47.

DIMASHQ,

659

or 660.

The

unique

Paris

dirham

cited

under

this

number

n

MSES

has

the

word

amir

below

the reverse

field,

ike

certain

Cairo

dirhams

ust

described. An ANS

dirham

2.73 g;

23

mm)

also

has

this

feature,

nd

in

additionhas

the mint

formula

eginning

n

the

right

ide,

not

the

eft. The

mint

s

not

visible,

but the

full-face

ion

on

the

obverse

suggests

Damascus.

In

sum,

the

dirham

s

probably

a

duplicate

of

the

Paris

coin,

for the

original

catalogue

description

f

the latter

does

not

say,

as

Balog

does,

that the mint

formula

egins

on

the left.

*49.

HALAB,

date

missing.

The

only

example

of

this

issue cited

by

Balog,

an

ANS

dirham,

has

no trace

of

marginal

egends,

but a

second



21/25


example

acquired

by

the

ANS since

Balog

wrote

2.30 g;

22

mm)

shows

the

mint name

Halab,

Aleppo,

in the obverse

margin

followed

by

un-

certain etterswhich

may

be

the

beginning

f

al-maķrūsa

on

the reverse

the

words

lā ilāh

illa

Allah

are

visible.

50.

Withoutmint

or date.

The

ANS half-dirham

mentioned

nder his

number differs

rom

the

general

description

n

having

the obverse

marginal egend

begin

at the

top,

like

the

half-dirhams SES

43

and

68.

53.

DIMASHQ,

674.

Balog

lists

only

one

dirham

under this

number,

but the ANS dirham

3.01 g;

22

mm)

listed

under number54a

is

no

doubt also

of this

year.

54M.

DIMASHQ,

676.

Although

no dirham of

this

year

with

a

fully

legible

date has

been

recorded,

he

coins

with

only

the

digit

six

legible,

under number

54a,

are

no

doubt of

this

year.

*58M.

DIMASHQ,

DHITL-HIJJA 667. The ANS dirham o

which

alog

assigned

the

number

63

should nstead be

given

this number o

put

it

in itsproper lace inthesequence;for reexamination fthe coinshows

in

the

margin

at

bottom

and

right

the words

.

.

.ja

sana sab'

wa-/

sittīn wa

. .

.,

that

is,

Dhuťl-Hijja

667.

The

digit

could

as

well be

read

tis'

nine,

but the

point

visible below it

is

probably

sufficient

evidence for

the

reading suggested

here.

An

extraneous

mark above

the

decade

misleadinglyuggests

he

reading

ab'

ri. The coin s

pierced.

63.

To

be

deleted;

see no. 58M above.

63M.

HALAB,

675.

Mayer

mentions a dirham of this

mint

and,

tentatively,

his

date,

which

s

not recorded

by

Balog, perhaps

because

the description an no longerbe confirmed. f Mayer's nformations

correct,

he

coin

was

similar o the Damascus

issues

of the same

period.

64.

HAMĀH,

666.

On

the ANS coin

(2.82 g;

23

mm)

which

uniquely

supports

this

mint and

date,

the

mint name

is

not

visible,

although

the attribution

s

no

doubt correct.

The

description

iven

for

MSES

64

must

be

a

composite

fromnos.

64-66 and 66a.

Note the correction

made

by

Balog,

M

SE S

Add,

p.

119:

Ahmad,

not

bn in

the third ine of

the reverse.

According

o

Balog,

who followsLane-Poole on

this,

the

caliph's

title

on these coins s

al-Hākim billāh

instead

of the correct l-

Hākim bi-AmrAllāh. In fact,on the ANS coin (MSES 64) onlythe

first wo

letters,

bā'-alif,

of

the termination re

visible,

permitting

o

conclusion

n

the

reading.

On neither

f

the two

Paris

specimens

which



22/25

180 Michael Lu Bates

support

MSES 65 is the

caliph's

title

visible,

judging

by

Lavoix's

description.

On

the

British

Museum

dirham

under

MSES

66

(

BMC

Oriental

4,

no.

482,

pl. 6),

one can

read

either

form of

the

title,

despite

Lane-Poole's

categorical

assertionthat the

title is billäh. Of

the

17

ANS

dirhams f this

ssue,

only

2 show this

portion

f the

title;

on both it

is bi-Amr

Allah.

An

examination

of

the

illustrated

coin

(no.

66a;

3.30

g;

22

mm)

will

showthat the

alif

of

Allãh

is

written irect-

ly above and almosttouching he mīm of bi-Amr If these words are

only

faintly

isible,

s on the British

Museum

dirham,

t is

easy

to

imag-

ine

that

one could read

billāh

but

when

the

title s

fully

visible t is

always

bi-Amr

Allah

65K.

HAMĀH,

(66)9. Mayer33

mentions

coin of this mint

with

the

digit

tis*

visible.

Although

he also

says

the

mint-date ormulawas

in

the

margin,

which

does

not accord

with

his

ascription

o

Hamāh,

it

is more

ikely

that he

was

mistaken

s to the

margin

han

in

reading

the mint.

*65P. HAMĀH, (67)1. The ANS has a coin,similar o MSES 64-66,

with

the

digit

aljtad

visible

(2.72

g;

23

mm).

Another

was mentioned

by

Mayer,

with no. 65K

above.

66M.

HAMĀH,

(67)4.

A

dirham

with the

digit

arba' is mentioned

by

Mayer.34

n

this

nstance he

coin

is said to have

the mintand date

below

the

field.

*67.

HARRĀN

(

?),

date

missing.

Balog

read Hamāh

on the

unique

ANS coin of

this ssue

illustrated

ere

for he first

ime,

2.88

g;

21

mm),

but the

small visible

portion

of the

mint name does not

support

this

reading very

well.

Moreover,

he coin

differs

rom ll other

securely

recorded ssues

of Hamāh in

having

he mint-date ormula

n

the

margin,

not above and

belowthe reverse ield

egends.

Harrān

s

very entatively

proposed.

In the

description

n

MSES9

the name Ahmad should be

added at

the end of the third ine

of

the reversefield.

*68.

Withoutmint

or date. This

unique

ANS half-dirham as the full-

face lion

characteristic f

Syria.

33

Mayer, .

169,

no.

7b.

34

Mayer,

.

168,

no.3.



23/25

Mamlök Sultan Baybars I 181

77A.

AL-QÄH1RA,

659. The

unique

dirham

ublished

y

Bacharach

and recorded

n

MSESAdd

under his

number

s

to

be

reassigned

o the

period

665-69,

as

argued

above,

p.

165.

78-80.

AL-QÄHIRA,

662-64. These entries hould

be deleted

from

the

corpus.

They

are

supported

only by

dates

listed

by

Mayer,35

ut

in

fact

Mayer's description

s

deliberately mbiguous

so

as to

apply

to all

Cairo

dirhams f

660-76: He does not

ndicatewhere he

marginal

legendbegins, nd says that some of the dirhamsUsted underhis de-

scription

have

the

words

din

al-ķaqq (like

MSES

72-77)

and some

do

not

(like

MSES

78-92).

Thus

Mayer's

dirhams of

662 could

be,

and

probably

were,

ike

MSES

75;

those of 663 should

be

assigned

to

MSES

74 or

76,

and

those of 664 to

MSES

77. The

deletion f

MSES

78-80 eliminatesthe

chronological

verlap

of

Balog's

variety

C

with

the two earlier

varieties.

86.

AL-QÂHIRA,

670.

The ANS owns two

dirhams with this date

followed

y

the word

hijriyya.

Probably

all dirhamswith

this word at

theright,ikeMSES 92, shouldbe assigned o thisyear. See the dinars

of

660, above,

no. 38.

92.

Missing

ate,

with

hijriyya

To be

deleted

s

suggested

bove,

no.

86.

Dirhams with

hijriyya

annot be

assigned

to

660,

for n

that

year

the

arrangement

f

the

marginal

egend

was different.

95.

No mint

or

date. As

may

be

seen

on

MSES

,

pl.

4,

Baybars's

heraldic ion

should

appear

in

the

description

elow

the obverse

field

legends.

98.

Mint and date

missing,

f

any. Balog's

description

mitsthe words

Rukn al-DIn whichare found n the triangles o left and rightof the

central cartouche. As

he

noted in

MSESAdd

,

the attribution

f this

issue

and MSES

99

to

Damascus

is unfounded.

*102M.

No mint or

date.

The ANS owns

yet

another

variant

of the

type represented

y

MSES

101,

102,

and

102A

which

s

like

102

except

in

having

the

name

Baybars

at the end

of

the third

ine

oņ

the reverse.

The

name is

spelled

with

alif,

BĀBRS

,

instead of the

usual

BBRS

foundon all othercoins of

Baybars (1.91

g;

17

mm).

36

Mayer,

.

170,

no.

9.



24/25


25/25

23

Coinage

of

Baybars

I

the coinage of the mamlūk sultan baybars i : additions and corrections / michael l. bates

Documents