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
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
2/25
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
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
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
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.
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
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
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
6/25
164 Michael L. Bates
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.
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
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.
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
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.
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
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.
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
10/25
168 Michael L. Bates
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.
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
11/25
Mamlūk Sultan Baybars I 169
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-
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
12/25
170 Michael L. Bates
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.
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
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.
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
14/25
172 Michael L. Bates
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.
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
15/25
Mamlūk Sultan Baybars I 173
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.
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
16/25
174 Michael L. Bates
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-
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
17/25
Mamlūk Sultan Baybars I 175
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.
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
18/25
176 Michael L. Bates
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
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
19/25
Mamlūk Sultan Baybars I 177
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 /
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
20/25
178 Michael L. Bates
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
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
21/25
Mamlūk Sultan Baybars I 179
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
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
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.
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
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.
This content downloaded from 83.85.149.119 on Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:40:14 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
24/25
8/19/2019 The coinage of the Mamlūk sultan Baybars I : additions and corrections / Michael L. Bates
25/25
23
Coinage
of
Baybars
I
Top Related