Coinage of the Umayyads of Spain, Part 1

Miles, George Carpenter, 1904-1975
American Numismatic Society
New York
Worldcat Works




Open access edition funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities/Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Humanities Open Book Program.


Table of Contents




The following is a brief summary of the main trends of the coinage dealt with in this book. For details the reader is directed to the catalogue itself and to the various explanatory sections, such as mints, names, metrology , etc.


The earliest Arab coinage of Spain consisted of gold, and debased gold, one-third, one-half and full dinars of Byzantine type with Latin legends, resembling and derived from the earliest Arab coins of North Africa 1 . These issues extend from shortly after the conquest of southern Spain down through the year 97 A. H. (715/6 A. D.). For a particular reason I have chosen to omit these coins from the present volume and have begun with the bilingual issues of the year 98. The reason for this decision is the fact that Mr. John Walker has been engaged since before the recent war in the preparation of a catalogue of the Arab-Byzantine coinage in the British Museum. This volume, the second in the revised Catalogue of the Muhammadan Coins in the British Museum , to be entitled A Catalogue of the Arab-Byzantine and other Umaiyad Coins , will doubtless be along the lines of the first in the series, his excellent Catalogue of the Arab-Sassanian Coins; in other words, a comprehensive treatment not only of the specimens in the British national collection but of this phase of Arab numismatics as a whole. Mr. Walker writes me that his work, inevitably delayed by the exigencies of the war, is nearing completion and will probably be ready in 1950. There is every reason to believe that he will accord the same exhaustive and competent attention to the difficult problems presented by the Latin types of Arab Spain as that which he devoted to those of early Arab Persia , and since the Spanish issues are closely related to those of North Africa , and these in turn stand in a certain relationship with Byzantine and other Byzantine-Arab coinages further afield, I have retreated from the whole complex question while eagerly awaiting the appearance of Mr. Walker's book 1 .

There are some coppers of purely Arab type, associated with Spain , but which must be attributed to North Africa . These include mintless issues of the years 91 and 92 2 , and a type with لا الله | لا اله ا on the obverse, and a fish with image above and beneath on the reverse 3 . The latter might just possibly have been struck in Spain ; in any case, whether these coins were issued on the African or the European side of the Straits, the suggestion of a connection with the ancient types of Gades and other mintings of Hispania Ulterior is inescapable 4 . That the Arabs minted coppers at an early date in the extreme west of North Africa we know from specimens bearing the mint name of Tangier (طنجة): for example, the remarkable bilingual Visigothic types first illustrated and described by Lavoix 5 , and a number of dated (99, 100, 104 (?), 110, 113, 116 A. H.) and undated fulūs of purely Arab type 6 .

As stated above, bilingual gold types are introduced in Spain in the year 98, to be followed by purely Arabic gold in 102 A. H. Two years later the first authentic silver of al-Andalus makes its appearance 7 , beginning a sparsely represented series of dirhems extending down to 131 A. H., the year before the fall of the Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus . There are many lacunae in this series, but I believe we may assume that there were issues in each year from about the year 104 until 131. Maqrīzi is, of course, in error in stating that during the reign of Hishām b. 'Abd al-Malik (106–125 A. H.) the minting of dirhems was discontinued everywhere except at Wāsiṭ 8 . It is true that the number of Umayyad mints in 'Irāq and Irān is greatly reduced during this period, but aside from Wāsiṭ and Damascus , which are very active, the mints of al-Andalus and Qayrawān ( Ifrīqiyah ), as well as several others in the north-eastern reaches of the Empire, continue in sporadic operation. The fact is interesting, for it suggests that for a time at least a policy was adopted that restricted the minting of silver to a limited number of administrative centers at the heart, and in the western and eastern extremities, of the dominion 1 .

The minting of gold ceases in 106 A. H. and is not resumed until the time of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III , early in the 4th century of the Hijrah 2 .

During the period of the governors and the dependent emirate copper fulūs also were struck, mostly undated (nos. 25 to 36), and some dated (nos. 8 and 9).

End Notes

1 The best published discussions of these types are in C . and P .; cf. Cagigas, Al-Andalus .
1 Photographs of six purely Latin gold pieces of Spain , as well as of seven specimens of North Africa , in the Hispanic Society collection, have been entrusted to Mr. Walker for publication.
2 C. p. 60 and pl. II, 8.
3 ANS (19 mm.), C. pl. II, 9, p. 60 (crescent and star preserved beneath only), GT 5753–4.
4 Cf. Aloīs Heiss , Description Générale des Monnaies Antiques de l' Espagne ( Paris , 1870), pls. LI, LII, LIV, LV, LVI, LXIII.
5 H. Lavoix , "Monnaie Arabe au Type Visigoth," RNB , 1860, pp. 239–41; another Visigothic type(?), Paris I, 1487 (cf. Nützel's note to Berlin , I 2026).
6 Cf. C. pl. II, 7, BM i, p. 189, no. 75, Paris I, 1488, Berlin I, 2023–6, DR. 18, GT. 5752, and Ties . 474, 485, 553, 568, 2603–11.
7 My doubts about an alleged dirhem of 100 A. H. are expressed on p. 114 of the catalogue.
8 Kitāb al-nuqūd al-qadīmah al-islāmīyah (ed. P. Anastase-Marie de St. Elie , Cairo , 1936), pp. 44–5; cf. Bartholomaei à Soret , RNB , 1859, p. 345.


The question of the date of the first independent issues of ' Abd al-Raḥmān I , whose rule began in 138 A. H. (756 A. D.) must remain open. Until quite recently the earliest known dirhem of the independent emirate was of the year 148, but a specimen in a Turkish hoard has now pushed the date back to 146; it may be that there are earlier issues. Throughout the next century and a half, during all but the latter years of which dirhems were minted every year, there is no fundamental change in the original type copied from that which was adopted by the great Caliph ' Abd al-Malik at Damascus about the year 75 A. H. The coins are anonymous, and so far as I have been able to determine there is no way of distinguishing the dirhems of an expiring prince from those of his successor in the year in which the succession took place. As they must, for practical reasons, be placed in one or the other rule, I have assigned the coins of these years ( i. e ., 172, 180, 206, 238, 273 and 275 A. H.) to the rule ending in the given year. Some justification for this choice exists in that there is reason to suppose that some if not all the coins were struck in the first part of the year. In certain cases, to be sure, as for example the year 180, in the second month of which al-Ḥakam I began to reign, the majority of the coins may belong to him rather than to Hishām I . But in 206 A. H. almost certainly all belong to al-Ḥakam , for ' Abd al-Raḥmān II did not succeed to the rule until the 25th of Dhū'l-Ḥijjah (the last month of the year).

A glance at the index of issues will show that throughout this period preserved dirhems are fairly common except in the first half of the 2nd century, in the early 180's, and during the rules of al-Mundhir and ' Abdullāh . In the latter period the representation is very poor indeed, some years are missing altogether, and after 285 A. H. only two very doubtful specimens (both of the year 293) are known. Fabric and craftsmanship become more and more inferior, flans are increased in diameter and reduced in thickness, and finally there ensues a complete blank in the numismatic history which extends, with one or two copper exceptions (nos. 183 and 184 of the years 303 and 306), down to the resumption and reform of the coinage under ' Abd al-Raḥmān III in 316 A. H.

It is during this last quarter of the 3rd century and the first few years of the 4th that a poorly represented and inadequately studied copper coinage makes its appearance (nos. 178–184) 1 , an irregular and probably purely local coinage which has been attributed, rather vaguely, to the rebels, among them the most prominent of them all, ' Umar b. Ḥafṣūn .

There can be little doubt but that the cause of the dirhem scarcity and final absence of official silver issues altogether is connected with the almost fatal disintegration of the central authority resulting from the harassing tactics of rebellious leaders in various parts of the peninsula 1 . The exact relationship between the political scene and the dearth of the coinage is by no means clear, but a few lines of future inquiry which might lead toward clarification may be indicated. The success of this study will, I think, depend in very large measure, as I have suggested elsewhere in this book in other connections 2 , upon a thorough examination, in the field itself, of the evidence of hoards and provenance. These are some of the considerations: (a) was the mint of Cordoba cut off, by rebel action, from the requisite supplies of silver? (b) have we rather perhaps here evidence to support a hypothesis that Cordoba was not at this time, previous to ' Abd al-Raḥmān III's "establishment of the mint within the city of Cordoba ," 3 the principal mint, and that the main output flowed from some other city such as Seville , which during part of this time was in rebel hands? (c) what is the provenance of the copper? 4 and (d) is it possible that the apparent scarcity and final exhaustion of the coinage is due not so much to reduced output as to the calling-in, melting-down and reissue of the silver of al-Mundhir's and ' Abdullāh's periods by ' Abd al-Raḥmān III , when, concurrently with his assumption of the dignities and titles of the Caliphate, he reformed the mint and the style of the coinage? 5 Somewhere among these considerations should lie the solution.

End Notes

1 There appears to be some evidence that the Wāsiṭ mint struck coins for other mints, including al-Andalus , during the period of the Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus . M. Marcel Jungfleisch has written me that "l'atelier de Wasset ( Irak ) ... a frappé pour et au nom de l'Andalous des dirhems qu'il devient difficile de considérer purement espagnoles", and has drawn attention to this fact in a recent article ("Conjectures au sujet de certaines lettres isolées se recontrant sur les solidi Byzantins du VII e siècle", in Bulletin de l' Institut d'Égypte , XXXI, 1948–1949, p. 111): "... les fouilles de M. de Morgan à Ouasset ont exhumé l'atelier monétaire arabe de cette ville et avec lui un stock important de dirhems neufs prêts à être lancés dans la circulation avec les mentions ضرب بافريقية,ضرب بالاندلس et qui fabriqués en Irak ne furent jamais envoyés en Andalousie ni en Afrikiyah". Unfortunately I have not been able to locate de Morgan's account of this very interesting discovery, nor is the reference available to M. Jungfleisch . He has, however, kindly directed my attention to remarks by Queipo (II, pp. 165–6) suggesting that dirhems were not struck in Spain during the Damascus Caliphate. But these suggestions were based on incomplete evidence. I have often suspected that the manufacture of many Umayyad dies was centralized, but the actual striking of " al-Andalus " dirhems in southern ' Irāq would seem an extraordinary phenomenon. Cf. p. 36, footnote 1, below.
1 Some of these issues were attributed by Vives to the mid-third century.
2 The implications of this cessation of gold minting in Spain are discussed in the section on METROLOGY, pp. 88 ff.


The resumption of minting of both silver and gold under ' Abd al-Raḥmān III in 316 introduces a new phase of the numismatic history of Umayyad Spain 6 , the details of which are discussed else- where. Here we enter the most brilliant century of Muslim Spain. To quote Lévi-Provençal , "Le règne de ' Abd al-Raḥmān III marque, avec celui de son successeur al-Ḥakam II , et jusqu'à un certain point, l'époque où les deux premiers dictateurs 'āmirides, al-Manṣūr et al-Muẓaffar , prirent le pouvoir, le point culminant de l'occupation musulmane de la Péninsule. Jamais, par la suite, l'Espagne ne put recouvrer au regard de la Chrétienté et du monde musulman la grandeur politique et l'éclat de civilisation auxquels elle parvint à l'époque de ses grands princes umaiyades, ni jouer sur la scène de l'Occident, aussi bien en Europe qu'en Afrique, pareil rôle de premier plan." 1

From 316 until 406 A. H., under the Caliphs ' Abd al-Raḥmān III , al-Ḥakam II , Hishām II and his short-lived rivals and successors, there is no break in the annual coinage of silver, first at al-Andalus , then for thirty years (336–366 A. H., and also in two later years) at Madīnat al-Zahrā', and again thereafter at al-Andalus. The issues of 316–330 are in some respects experimental, but from the latter year onward the dirhems are of a fixed style which alters very little in its essential traits (except for the changes in names and occasional deterioration or improvement in artisanship) during the ensuing years. Other mints, the only important one of which is Fās, make their appearance in the latter part of the century. A few years at al-Andalus are rare, notably the early 370's; but otherwise the production of dirhems is enormous, to judge by the number of specimens that have been preserved and particularly by the quite amazing number of varieties 2 . Appropriately prominent on the coinage throughout the years 356 until his death in 392 A. H. is the name (in the guise of 'Āmir ) of the great " Almanzor ", al-Manṣūr Muḥammad b. abī-'Āmir , whose energies and abilities dominate the whole history of Spain in the second half of the 10th Christian century 3 .

The preserved gold is not nearly so plentiful as the silver, but doubtless the proportion between dinars struck and dinars preserved is much lower than in the case of the dirhems, for the great preponderance of the gold must have been melted down in subsequent times. Although there are some lacunae in the annual representation of gold (especially in the 370's – roughly the same years in which silver is rare), I see no reason to believe that dinars were not minted every year.

The political instability and rivalry of the closing days of the Umayyad Caliphate is reflected in the coinage. In 399 A. H. there are issues of both Hishām II and of Muḥammad II ; in 400 of Muḥammad , Sulaymān and Hishām in his second reign; in 401–403 of Hishām and Sulaymān; in 404–406 of Sulaymān; in 414 and 415 of Muḥammad III ; and in 422 of Hishām III, the intervening "Caliphs" being unrepreseted. There are many confusing coins of this revolutionary period from 399 down to about 426 A. H., overlapping with the final Umayyad issues and with the first of the regular series of the Ḥammūdids . In general I have followed Prieto y Vives in excluding the coins struck by "personajes desconocido" 1 and the "monedas falsas" 2 of the early 5th century, from the Umayyad corpus, although in the latter category there are some whose authenticity I see no reason for doubting and which therefore have been included. The "unknown persons" of this period properly belong to the Mulūk al-Ṭawā'if or "Reyes de Taifas", whose coinage follows that of the Umayyads in the numismatic history of Spain. The petty kingdoms are quite well represented in the collections of the Hispanic Society of America and the American Numismatic Society, and these coins will, I hope, form the subject of a later publication in this series.

End Notes

1 For the history of this confusing and depressing period, see Dozy , especially II, pp. 1–114, Lévi-Provençal , Histoire , I, pp. 210–98; brief summary, Lévi-Provençal , EI, s. v. Umaiyads , II.
1 EI , s. v. Umaiyads, II.
1 Prieto , pp. 157–60; but not Vives ' "príncipes independientes", except where excluded by Prieto .
2 Particularly in the matter of the possible multiple significance of the mint-name " al-Andalus "; see pp. 34–8.
2 The year 400 shows the greatest number of recorded dirhems: 628 specimens from the mints of al-Andalus and Madīnat al-Zahrā' ; and in this year I have had to break the silver coinage down into over eighty separate categories.
2 Ibid. , pp. 160–1.
3 Cf. p. 41.
3 The significance and incidence of the name on the coinage is discussed in detail on pp. 67–9.
4 Surely there must be more of these fulūs preserved than I have been able to list; the few specimens described are inadequate for a competent analysis, and I have seen so few myself that I have had to fall back largely on the not very satisfactory groupings of Codera and Vives. The latter devotes an inconclusive page (V., p. XIII) to the subject, and Codera a few paragraphs (C., pp. 69f.).
5 Codera hinted at this latter possibility: cf. Cuenca , p. 436. ' Abd al-Raḥmān III might quite understandably have wished to see all the coins lacking the title of amīr al-mu'minīn withdrawn from circulation. But I imagine this is not the full explanation; quantities of the silver would have failed to find its way back to the mint and should turn up in hoards.
6 See especially the section on Metrology (p. 89), the article devoted to the Caliph himself (p. 72), the discussion of the mint of al-Andalus (p. 41), and the pertinent part of the section dealing with the Conventional Inscriptions (pp. 28–30).


In this section only the standardized, legends of obverse and reverse are dealt with. For the names of individuals see the section on Names . Technical aspects of the inscriptions are discussed under Epigraphy and Minting Technique .

A. Gold .

The early bilingual dinars bear the simple inscription, محمد رسول الله " Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allāh ," in the center, with the mintdate formula, lacking the basmalah , in the margin. Beginning with the year 102 and continuing until 106, when gold disappears from the coinage to reappear again only under ' Abd al-Raḥmān III early in the 4th century of the Hijrah, the obverse carries in the area the first part of the declaration of faith, لا اله الا الله وحده, "There is no God but Allāh , He is One"; and the full basmalah , بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم, "In the name of Allāh , the Compassionate, the Merciful," appears on the reverse. The margins bear respectively the verse Qur'ān IX, 33 (or LXI, 9): محمد رسول الله ارسله بالهدي و دين الحق ليظهره على الدين كله ولو كره المشركون " Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allāh ; He sent him with guidance and the religion of truth, that he may make it victorious over every other religion, even though the infidels abhor it"; 1 and the mint-date formula without the basmalah. The basmalah is not really lacking, however, for the reverse area is to be read as the introduction to the mint-date formula, and for this reason بسم الله is lacking in the margin.

These legends, while thoroughly conventional, differ in several respected from those on the contemporary and earlier dinars in the East: on the latter the first part of the declaration of faith is supplemented by لا شريك له, "There is no partner with Him," a phrase which remained customary on the coinage of most Islamic dynasties for hundreds of years; and the reverse area carries in the area sūrah Qur'ān CXII: الله احد الله الصمد لم يلد ولم يولد (lacking the first two words (قل هو, "Say: He...") and the fourth verse, which always appears on the silver), "He is God alone; God the Eternal. He begetteth not, and He is not begotten; (and there is none like unto Him)"; while in the reverse margin of the eastern dinars the mintdate formula is introduced by بسم الله. These differeness may be viewed as an early manifestation of that independence of the emirs in the West which was later to become a political fact of great significance.

When two hundred years later gold again makes its appearance in the coinage of the Umayyads of Spain the inscriptions are altered to reflect ' Abd al-Raḥmān's assumption of new political dignities and in general conformance with the accompanying changes in the dirhem types. The phrase, لا شريك له, as at all times on the silver, completes the first part of the declaration of faith on the obverse. A radical innovation, however, is introduced into the reverse with the appearance of the Caliph's name and titles. In ' Abd al-Raḥmān's early gold issues there is considerable variation in these reverse legends. The first known dinar, of the year 317, has محمد رسول الله, followed by امير المؤمنين عبد الرحمن "Commander of the Believers, ' Abd al-Raḥmān ," introduced by the preposition li , "to" or "for". In the following year محمد رسول الله is relegated to the obverse, and room is made for the addition of the Caliph's other title الامام, "Al-Imām," and his honorific الناصر لدين الله, "Al-Nāṣir li-dīn Allāh" ("the Aider – or Defender – of the Religion of Allāh), on the reverse. Thenceforth, until about the year 330, there are minor changes in the distribution of the various elements, the fractional dinars as a rule retaining the formulae of the year 317. From 330 forward the three-line inscription الامام الناصر لدين الله عبد الرحمن امير المؤمنين, becomes the general rule. At first, and for some time, the mint-date formula is found in the reverse margin, Qur'ān IX, 33, being in the obverse. Later in ' Abd al-Raḥmān's rule, and under his successors, the functions of the margins are generally interchanged, just as in the East under the ' Abbāsids , a hundred years earlier, the mint-date formula had moved from the reverse to the obverse.

Throughout the catalogue, in view of the variability of the dinar legends with respect not only to protocol but to distribution of words and position of the marginal legends, all the gold coins are described in full, and resort is not had to the expedient of abbreviated descriptions, which has been deemed desirable in dealing with the more standardized silver.

After ' Abd al-Raḥmān III and throughout the remainder of the life of the dynasty, the only significant changes in the conventional inscriptions are those of the succeeding Caliphs' protocols, and these with few variations conform with the silver (see below).

End Notes

1 Actually the verse in the Qur'ān begins: هو الذي ارسل رسوله, and the beginning of the numismatic formula is an adaptation which exactly expresses the meaning.

B. Silver.

The pattern of the conventional legends on the silver coinage for nearly two hundred years is set with the very first dirhem known, that of the year 104. In every respect (except, of course, the name of the mint) the legends are identical with those on the reformed dirhems of the great Umayyad Caliphate struck at Damascus and at numerous other mints in ' Irāq and Irān . The fall of the Umayyad Caliphate in the East in 132 A. H. (750 A. D.) brought about numerous changes in the content of the inscriptions carried by the dirhems, but no such alteration occurred in Spain in the long period between the beginning of the 2nd and the end of the 3rd (8th to early 10th) centuries. These legends are given in full in the catalogue under no. 4 (b): the first part of the declaration of faith لا اله الا الله وحده لا شريك له in the obverse area, and all of Qur'ān CXII 1 in the reverse area. The margins bear respectively the mint-date formula and Qur'ān IX, 33. These inscriptions not being repeated in the catalogue, the reader is to understand that they are always present on the dirhems down to the end of the 3rd century of the Hijrah. The position of any supplementary legends or symbols with reference to the conventional area inscriptions is indicated by a horizontal line. Thus ∴ / معاذ at the left side of the page indicates a symbol of pyramided pellets above, and the name معاذ beneath, the obverse area.

After the strange lapse in the coinage during the rule of ' Abdullāh (275–300 A. H. = 888–912 A. D.), ' Abd al-Raḥmān III introduces new elements in the legends on the dirhems paralleling those on the dinars described above. On the first issue known, that of the year 316 (no. 185), no change is made on the reverse; but on the obverse the declaration of faith is rendered in two lines and لامير المؤمنين عبد الرحمن is added in two further lines beneath. In the same year at " Sikkat al-Andalus " (no. 186) محمد رسول الله is appended to the obverse, and the reverse introduces the full style and titles of the Caliph الامام الناصر لدين الله عبد الرحمن امير المؤمنين. On one issue of 317 the reverse carries two marginal legends, the mint-date formula and Qur'ān XXX, 3–4, an 'Abbāsid convention (on the obverse beginning early in the 3rd century). Also in the year 317 we find the phrase ايده الله beneath the reverse, an invocation which incidentally occurs following the Caliph's name and titles in a building inscription of ' Abd al-Raḥmān's dated 333 A. H. 1

In the immediately ensuing years Qur'ān CXII disappears entirely, while various experiments are made in the distribution of the religious and political legends on obverse and reverse. Throughout this transitional period the inscriptions on the dirhems are rendered in full in the catalogue lest the reader be in doubt as to the exact type in question. Finally, after the year 336, when the manner of presenting ' Abd al-Raḥmān's titles and name is stereotyped thus:

الامام الناصر

لدين الله عبد الرحمن

امير المؤمنين

the conventional area inscriptions of both obverse and reverse are no longer given in the catalogue, it being understood that they are always present. The position of supplementary symbols and names is indicated as before.

With the succeeding Caliphs the fundamental inscriptions of the obverse remain constant (with the exception naturally of mint and date) and the only change is in the reverse area. The usual protocols of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III 's successors are:

Al-Ḥakam II الامام الحكم Sulaymān الامام سليمن
امير المؤمنين امير المؤمنين
المستنصر بالله المستعين بالله
Hishām II الامام هشام Muḥammad III الامام محمد
امير المؤمنين امير المؤمنين
المؤيد بالله المستكفى بالله
Muḥammad II الامام محمد Hishām III الامام هشام
امير المؤمنين امير المؤمنين
المهدي بالله المعتد بالله

As before, the above protocols on dirhems are not usually repeated in the catalogue after their first appearance. However, any alteration in the arrangement of words or lines is invariably noted: as, for example, with Hishām's earlier issues at Fās where the second and third lines are interchanged, or when the usual three-line legend is increased to four or five by placing the words الامام or المؤيد, etc. on separate lines. And also, as before, unless otherwise noted, the obverse margin is understood to bear the mint and date, the reverse Qur'ān IX, 33. It should be remarked that in the latter fourth and early fifth centuries these marginal legends are seldom complete. This lack of completeness with respect to the date, while annoying enough, is rarely a serious hazard to correct attribution. The century, of course, is easily deduced. When the decade is abbreviated or lacking altogether, there is cause for some embarrassment, but the correct figure can usually be arrived at by a combination of various criteria, such as the Caliphal protocol, the auxiliary names and the type of ornament. Obviously when one works with a large mass of material the difficulties of attribution diminish; the collector with a few specimens only is handicapped, but he should find that the compilation and indices in the present catalogue will furnish him with the necessary guides to precise identification. For obvious reasons the degree of completeness of marginal legends is not indicated in the descriptions.

End Notes

1 Less the introductory words قل هو, as with the gold.
1 Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions no. 86.

C. Copper .

The conventional legends on the insignificant copper call for no particular comment. The early issues are, like most Umayyad fulūs in the East, irregular in the content and style of their inscriptions, but they are simple and are transcribed in full throughout the catalogue. Those assigned to the latter part of the 3rd century of the Hijrah bear, for the most part, the conventional (' Abbāsid ) type of obverse and reverse area legends: i. e ., the first part of the shahadah on the obverse, and محمد رسول الله on the reverse. Supplementary names which appear above and beneath the areas are dealt with elsewhere. Marginal legends are usually lacking in this class. The remainder of the copper (or billon) issues are mostly probable forgeries and their legends in general are similar to those of the silver.


1. Al-Andalus (الاندلس).

The only mint name on the coinage down to the year 336 A. H. is al-Andalus 1 , i. e. "Andalusia" or "Spain." The identification of this name, which is that of a province and later of an independent state, rather than that of a city, has been the subject of much discussion. Almost universally it has been accepted to signify Cordoba ( Qurṭubah ), the capital 2 . While it was the predominant practice of the Arabs in the early days of Islam to name their mints on the coinage by the city in which they were located, the designation of the capital by the name of the province is not without parallel. We have, for example, in Umayyad times, Ifrīqiyah ( Africa ) 3 , representing the capital Qayrawān , and Maghrib 4 , a more embracing appellation including all of north-west Africa , also for Qayrawān ; Armīnīyah ( Armenia ), for Dabīl 5 ; Adharbayjān , for Ardabīl 6 ; Sijistān , for Zaranj 7 ; and, of course, Miṣr , for Fusṭāṭ and later Cairo . In most cases (except the last named) the practice was later discontinued, but in Spain it persisted for four hundred years; and, to the embarrassment of numismatists, for well over two hundred years al-Andalus was the only mint-name, if not the only mint, in the whole peninsula, a very remarkable fact especially if we consider the large number of Visigothic mints which were in operation in Spain down to the time of Wittiza, and the very numerous Umayyad and ' Abbāsid mints in the eastern provinces.

That the name al-Andalus on the coins did not in later days always signify Cordoba is a matter which I shall shortly discuss, but there can be little doubt that this was the location of the principal mint after the capital was established in that city, probably about the year 100 (719 A. D.), when the governor al-Ḥurr b. ' Abd al-Raḥmān al-Thakafi and his successor al-Samḥ b. Mālik al-Khawlāni fixed their residence there 1 . Previously the provincial capital of the governors had been Seville 2 , and we must assume that the early Latin types and (unless the chroniclers are in error by two years in the date of the establishment of the capital at Cordoba ) the bilingual issues of 98 A. H., were struck at Seville 3 , although it has been suggested that it was at Toledo that the earliest dinars were minted 4 . With the appearance of Madīnat al-Zahrā' in 336, the disappearance and reappearance later of al-Andalus , and the emergence of several other mints at later dates in the 4th century, it is self-evident that at certain times from 336 onward there was more than one mint. Vives has argued – and the evidence, while by no means conclusive, is persuasive – that the name al-Andalus was sometimes used on dirhems of Fās 5 . Finally, there can be no doubt that in the confusing period of the collapse of the Umayyad Caliphate at the beginning of the 5th century of the Hijrah, and thereafter in the early days of the Mulūk al-Ṭawā'īf , the name al-Andalus was frequently employed on the coinage for reasons of political pretence or prestige by sundry princes who were not in possession of Cordoba , and whose mints were obviously located in other provincial cities, such as Ceuta , Seville , Saragossa , Badajoz , etc 1 .

Thus, while accepting the almost incontravertible primary identification of the mint-name al-Andalus with Cordoba throughout most of the period during which that name appears on the coins, we must acknowledge that at times, both early and late in the history of the Umayyad state, the name " al-Andalus " indisputably served as an appellation for other cities. This being so, there can be no escaping a corollary possibility: i. e ., that even during the relatively stable 2nd and 3rd centuries, when al-Andalus is the only mint-name, and during the 4th when it alternates and sometimes coincides with the occurrence of other names, al-Andalus may signify not only the mint of Cordoba but also one or more other mints located elsewhere in the peninsula. The question is not a new one. Vives , recognizing in characteristics of the coins themselves the possibility that more than one mint was represented by the name of al-Andalus , proposed a classification by acuñaciones , of which he distinguished four with distinct traits and others unclassfiable 2 . These categories of Vives ' are examined more fully in the discussion of mint techniques 3 . He did not attempt to locate the different "mintings" or mints. Codera examined the question in several articles, notably in his important treatment of the Alhama hoard; and the matter is one which has troubled me greatly in the preparation of the present study. Let me say at the outset that the question has not been resolved and that I seem to have made no perceptible advance toward its solution.

A priori , as I have suggested above, one would expect more than one mint to have been established in Spain after the conquest was consolidated 4 . The coinage itself would seem to bear out this hypothesis. Aside from some slight differences of flan and engraving tech- niques 1 , there is the matter of multiplicity of dies. The number of varieties of dirhems in given years is, as I have remarked elsewhere 2 , almost incredible. To cite only a few of many examples: in the year 379, all the 18 HSA specimens (with one possible exception) are different in their ornamentation, and so also are the 34 specimens in the Madrid collection; in the year 389, among 297 specimens recorded, there are more than fifty varieties; and in 391, of 323 specimens, over sixty varieties. By varieties I mean different combinations of obverse and reverse types, without reference to different dies of the same type, which by and large (for obvious reasons) I have not attempted to record. In each of these instances the number of varieties mentioned is only a fraction of what must have been the total of varieties, for: (a) dies are not considered, (b) a large proportion of the specimens recorded from the literature is not described in detail, so that their attribution to this or that variety is impossible, and (c) the total of specimens recorded is only a fraction of those preserved but unpublished, and a minute fraction of those originally struck. Codera observed that he had seen 73 varieties of the year 379 and 69 of the year 380 3 , and remarked that it was difficult to suppose that all these had been struck at one mint; on another occasion he pointed out that it was a very rare occurrence to find two dirhems struck from the same set of dies, and this has been my experience too, although I readily acknowledge that I have not submitted each "duplicate" to the exhaustive scrutiny necessary to substantiate this impression.

Any arguments, however, based exclusively on the multiplicity of varieties loses its force when the same criterion is applied to the only other well-represented mint of the Umayyads of Spain , that is, Madīnat al-Zahrā ', which cannot signify any other place than the famous city of that name. For example, of the year 356 at Madīnat al-Zahrā ' I have recorded more than 35 varieties; and here again, if the same limitations in recording as those mentioned above are observed, it can readily be seen that the total of varieties issued must have been several times this number. One concludes therefore that the occurrence of many varieties does not imply many mints, or, for that matter, more than one mint.

Codera , enjoying the advantage of examining many thousands of specimens, including those from some large hoards the provenances of which were known, made use of additional and more cogent arguments in support of the hypothesis that the name " al-Andalus " represented more than one mint. In his study of the Alhama hoard 1 he arrived at the following conclusions based upon the application of Vives ' system of acuñaciones to the coins in question: that there were three mints in the period represented by the hoard (153–262 A. H.), and that Vives ' second acuñación (my style B) was located in the region of Granada. At the same time he made some tentative deductions, based on the provenance of collections, with regard to the al-Andalus mint-name in the period of Hishām II 2 . It appears that most of the ornaments on the dirhems of the second half of the 4th century in the Madrid Museum differ from those in Codera's collection 3 , and that most of the Museum's coins of this period (at that time) were from a find of more than 3000 pieces, from which the Museum acquired, "in Cordoba ," some 700, whereas more than 900 specimens in Codera's private collection came from a hoard found in the province of Cuenca . The lack of duplication in the mass of the two collections suggested to Codera that most of the Museum's pieces were of Andalusian provenance, and that most of his own had been struck in the Frontera Superior , perhaps at Saragossa . This quite plausible argumentation was put forward more as an example of the nature of conclusions that might be drawn from the examination of large bodies of material than as the basis for definitive attributions.

The suggestion of Codera with regard to striking differences in the ornaments on the coins in two large collections of different provenance is in harmony with my own observations in the course of cataloguing the Hispanic Society and American Numismatic Society collections: in some instances where a given year is represented by a large number of specimens in the former collection and there is a general similarity in the character of the ornaments on those specimens, one or more pieces of the same year in the American Numismatic Society collection show quite a different type of ornament 1 . The same is true occasionally with illustrated specimens from other collections. One is tempted, therefore, to conclude that certain types circulated in different parts of the country. It does not necessarily follow, of course, that the different types were the products of different mints (all named al-Andalus ); they might all have been struck at Cordoba (with the exception of some issued at Fās and those of the revolutionary period which must have been minted elsewhere), but with distinguishing characteristics for various administrative districts. There is in any case no doubt whatever that the only way in which the problem can be solved, if indeed there is a problem with regard to the significance of the name " al-Andalus " on the coins, is by a systematic study of hoards, provenance and distribution. However extensive the material, such a study cannot be made on the basis of information available at present. In the absence of any quantity of published data on provenance it can only be made in the provincial museums, antique shops and private collections of Spain.

As previously noted, al-Andalus is the only mint-name until the appearance of Madīnat al-Zahrā ' in 336 A. H., in which year there are specimens from both mints. In the year 337, al-Andalus disappears and, with one exception, does not reappear as a mint until 365 when it resumes activity, continuing uninterruptedly as an Umayyad mint down to 406 and thereafter alternately in the control of the Umayyads and their successors. The exception to the period of inactivity is the year 343, when there are several specimens (including one in the Hispanic Society collection) of an anomalous, semi-barbaric issue, which Vives and Codera attributed to Fās , but which may be a contemporary counterfeit of African origin 2 . The mint of al-Andalus issued gold under the governors in 98, 102–104, and 106 A. H., and under the Caliphate for many years beginning with the year 317. Although there are numerous lacunae in the chronological list of preserved gold issues from 317 to 422, I believe it is not unlikely that dinars were minted in every year from 316 (?) forward 3 . The bulk of the coinage, of course, was silver. Copper was issued in various years (see table).

There are very few historical references to the mint at Cordoba . According to a puzzling report, repeated by several Muslim historians and later by European writers, ' Abd al-Raḥmān II was the first to establish a mint at Cordoba . Like so much other information furnished by Arab writers relating to aspects of archaeology, this tradition is undoubtedly compounded of a certain modicum of truth with generous quantities of misinformed interpretation. Lévi-Provençal , in his L'Espagne musulmane au X ème Siècle 1 , gives us the most exhaustive rendering of the tradition as found in a short anonymous work entitled Kitāb al-Zahrāt al-manthūrah fi'l-akhbār al-ma'thūrah 2 . According to the author:

"les habitants de l'Espagne musulmane n'eurent pas, depuis l'époque de la conquête jusqu'au règne de l'émir ' Abd ar-Raḥmān II , de véritable monnaie nationale. Ils se servaient des pièces, dīnārs et dirhems, apportées en petit nombre dans le pays par les voyageurs musulmanes. La monnaie était dès lors très rare et presque toutes les transactions se faisaient simplement par voie d'échange. Cette situation se prolongea pendant cent vingt-cinq ans, jusqu'au moment où, sur le conseil de Ḥāriṯ b. Abi'š-Šibl , ' Abd ar-Raḥmān II fit frapper des pièces à son nom à Cordoue . Mais les émissions en furent d'un nombre très réduit, et la plupart des dīnārs et des dirhems qui circulaient en Espagne sous le règne de ce prince demeurèrent de frappe maġribine ou orientale."

I do not know the date of this anonymous treatise, but a less elaborate, and probably the fundamental, version is to be found in Ibn 'Idhāri 3 , who says simply واتّخذ السكة بقرطبة, a phrase which has been the basis of statements to the effect that ' Abd al-Raḥmān II was the first to strike coins at Cordoba 4 , and further carelessly extended to signify that he was the first to issue coinage in Spain . It would seem to me that what Ibn 'Idhāri intended was only that ' Abd al-Raḥmān II took over, or took possession of, the mint at Cordoba ; that is, that the existing mint, which had not formerly been under direct governmental supervision was transferred to the administration in line with other executive reforms accomplished under that prince's rule. With so much of the report, and so interpreted, there is no problem. If we look for some reflection of the event in the coinage itself, it may be that we can find it in the reform that created style B in the year 229 A. H. 1 .

As for the more elaborate tradition that there was no true national coinage until the period of ' Abd al-Raḥmān II and that currency was very scarce in the country until after his time, I would suggest that we have here an example of that compounding of truth and error to which I have alluded. A true national coinage was introduced, not under ' Abd al-Raḥmān II , but under ' Abd al-Raḥmān III . It was the latter who "struck pieces in his own name." Until that time the style was in every respect, except for inevitable change in the character of the epigraphy, that of the Umayyad Caliphs of Damascus , i. e. , not a "national" coinage. And except for the early issues under the governors there was no gold (the fundamental monetary sign of sovereignty) until ' Abd al-Raḥmān III . Have we not simply a confusion of two individuals by the same name, and was not the specific lapse of years made up to suit the mistaken identity? Finally, to use the relative rarity of specimens of the 2nd and 3rd centuries as a gauge, there was a scarcity of coin until well after the middle of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III 's reign. More specifically, and making a not unreasonable allowance for still further confusion, there was an even greater scarcity down to about the year 150 A. H.; in this respect the tradition about the dearth of coin and the use of dinars and dirhems from overseas may well apply not to ' Abd al-Raḥmān II or III, but rather to the first ' Abd al-Raḥmān , the founder of the dynasty. Somewhere among these speculations lies the truth. At all events, except insofar as these traditions may bear on the location of the mint, the matter is of secondary importance, for in other respects the prime evidence is the preserved coinage itself.

There is another report in Ibn 'Idhāri which is quite interesting and intelligible 2 . Speaking of the year 316:

و فيها امر الناصر باقامة دار السكّة داخل مدينة قرطبة لضرب الدنانير والدراهم

يوم الثلثا لثلث عشرة ليلة بقيت من[حدير]وولى الخطة احمد بن موسى بن جدير

شهر رمضان و اقام الضرب فيها من هذا التاريخ من خالص الذهب و الفضة و صحح

فى ذلك احمد بن موسى و تحفّظ و كانت مثاقيله و دراهمه عيارا محضا

"And in this year al-Nāṣir [' Abd al-Raḥmān III ] ordered the establishment of the mint within the city of Cordoba for the striking of dinars and dirhems. He appointed to the office Aḥmad b. Mūsā b. Ḥudair on Tuesday, thirteen days before the end of Ramaḍān [Sept. 6 (?), 928 A. D.] 1 . From this date the strikings in the mint were of pure gold and silver. Aḥmad b. Mūsā was rigorous in accuracy and care, and his mithqāls and dirhems were of the highest purity."

The date conforms perfectly with the preserved numismatic evidence: in the year 316 appear the first issues of the reformed, national coinage of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III 2 . The implication would be that in connection with ' Abd al-Raḥmān's assumption of new titles and the reform of the coinage, he undertook a complete reorganization of the mint, including perhaps the consolidation of the establishment, which may have consisted of several atéliers or officinae scattered around the city, within the confines of the administrative capital itself 3 . In any case the mint, or the workshops of the mint, of al-Andalus must have been in a very run-down state (if indeed they were functioning at all) after the long period of inactivity, so far as silver (and, of course, gold) was concerned, lasting from ca . 293 to 316 A. H., and consequently the use of the word iqāmah , "establishment," may be taken quite literally; that is, ' Abd al-Raḥmān's mint was perhaps to all intents and purposes a new one. This interpretation would do away with the necessity of any speculation regarding the centralization of the mint within the administrative district.

The troublesome but interesting question of the etymology of the name al-Andalus (= Andalusia ) is not of primary concern in the present monograph. Dozy in 1881 summed up the research and theory to that date in his Recherches 4 . Convenient modern statements of the problem are to be found in C. F. Seybold's article in the Encyclopaedia of Islām 5 , and in Cagigas' monograph entitled " al-Andalus " in the journal by the same name 1 . The heretofore commonly accepted derivation, Vandalicia, a hypothetical name presumed to have been given to the peninsula by the Vandals, is now discredited. Certainly we have our earliest documentary evidence of the use of the name in the Arabic legends (not the Latin legends, where Spania is the name) of the bilingual coins of the year 98 A. H. As for the Arab historians 2 , they say that al-Andalus was the name of the peninsula 3 , later called the peninsula of Ṭarīf ( Ṭarīfah ,) opposite Tangier , where the Muslims first landed. The later geographers' pseudo-etymologizing ( Andalus , son of Tubal , son of Japhet ) follows in due course. But the fact remains that there is a void behind the sudden appearance of the name on the dinars of 98 A. H. Cagigas ' recently proposed theory is ingenious but certainly inconclusive. He argues that the many errors in the epigraphy as well as in the chronological indications 4 of the early Latin and bilingual types of Muslim Spain 5 suggest ignorance on the part of the die-engravers with respect to both the Arabic language and to Christian chronology. Were these artisans then Jews? 6 And were they the translators of "Spania" into " al-Andalus "? Very tentatively Cagigas suggests on the basis of some indications in Biblical neolithic toponymy that the root of the name al-Andalus might lie in Adna or Anda ( Eden ); or else that, as an exotic, perhaps bookish or pedantic, name it was brought into Spain across Africa from the East, whence came the first eminent ( i. e. , "literate) Muslims 7 . I should imagine that the explanation is to be found somewhere in the latter direction.

End Notes

1 With the minor exception of the variation, Sikkat al-Andalus , in 316–318 A. H. See below.
1 Akhbār Majmū'ah , pp. –, 33–35, 240; cf. Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, p. 28; Zambaur , p. 53; EI, s. v. Córdoba .
1 The evidence of the coinage is assembled and most easily comprehended in Prieto y Vives ' Los Reyes de Taifas . Cf. Codera , Çecas , pp. 211–3; P. , pp. XIX–XX.
1 Marked differences of style or technique would not be prerequisite to the hypothesis that coins bearing the name al-Andalus were struck at more than one mint. As evidence of the remarkable uniformity which the supervisor of the coinage was able to achieve in the early days of the Arab empire we need only point out the striking similarity of most Umayyad (and to a lesser degree ' Abbāsid ) dirhems in the East, issued by mints separated from each other by many hundreds of miles. Frequently the only recognizable difference is the name of the mint. Cf. p. 22, footnote 1, above. Centralized control of the general design and character of the coinage is abundantly apparent in late Muslim times as well: viz ., the extraordinary similarity of the silver from many mints under the Ilkhānid Abū-Sa'īd in Persia in the 14th century.
1 Codera , Alhama , pp. 443ff.
1 But, as observed above, it is not only at " al-Andalus " that this phenomenon is apparent. Note, for example, the year 339 at Madīnat al-Zahrā ': all the HSA specimens (and other published specimens) have ornaments, but there is one ANS specimen without any ornament whatever.
1 P. 75; cf. the same author, Histoire , I, p. 180.
1 See p. 99.
1 The day of the month and the weekday do not agree.
2 This identification was established in the early days of the study of Islamic numismatics: see, for example, in 1794, Tychsen , pp. 59–60, and Hallenberg , pp. 3–7.
2 Cf. EI, s. v. Seville .
2 V. pp. IXff.
2 See p. 97.
2 He refers to the period of al-Ḥakam II and Hishām II , but the rule of the former cannot be taken into consideration, for all his coins (with the exception of some of the year 365 and those of the year 366) were struck at Madīnat al-Zahrā '.
2 If the mint were Fās, the date would be in error.
2 M. Lévi-Provençal writes me, in response to my request for further information about the source, that the passage as quoted herewith is complete; that is, the opuscule contains no further report on the coinage. The "recueil anonyme" contains other matter (cf. Lévi-Provençal , Histoire , I, p. 409, footnote 2).
2 II, p. 211; cf. Sauvaire, Matériaux , I, pp. 327–8; P. , p. XXV; Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne , pp. 75–6.
2 See p. 72. The date 300 A. H., given by some writers ( e. g. , Gayangos apud Maqqari , II, p. 424, Sauvaire, Matériaux , I, p. 327) is incorrect and is probably chosen simply because it was the first year of the prince's reign.
3 Specifically Tunis, or the eastern part of "Barbary"; cf. EI, s. v. Ifrīḳiya.
3 Cf. Paris , I, pp. XLIff; Codera , Cecas , pp. 196–7; and especially the discussion in Cagigas , al-Andalus , pp. 208ff. Codera ( Alhama , pp. 443ff.) remarked on the striking differences in the metal and epigraphy of the early gold of Latin type and on the varieties of early coppers, suggesting more than one mint at the very beginning of the Arab occupation. Prieto y Vives ( Prieto , p. 96) suggested that the only mint was Seville until the year 229 when Vives' 2nd "acuñación" (my Style B) made its appearance, and that this new style emanated from Cordoba (cf. DR., Monetario, p. 10). But this argument is based on a tradition (misunderstood, I believe) to the effect that there was no mint at Cordoba until the time of ' Abd al-Raḥmān II . See below, p. 39.
3 See below, pp. 98ff.
3 Cuenca , p. 437.
3 I. e. , a part of the present Hispanic Society collection; see the foreword.
3 See the discussion of METROLOGY, p. 89.
3 II, p. 93.
3 Cf. Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne , p. 75.
4 On 'Abbāsid dinars.
4 Cf. Lévi-Provençal , Histoire , I, p. 20; Codera ( Alhama ) also mentions Elbira as a possibility.
4 Lavoix ( P. , pp. XVIII–XIX) to the contrary notwithstanding. Until the transfer to Madīnat al-Zahrā ', he recognized only Seville , at first, and then Cordoba , adducing arguments based on Byzantine analogies which are only partially convincing. That Damascus was the only gold mint in the East in Umayyad and early ' Abbāsid days is disputable. Cf. Miles , Arab Dinars , pp. 93–6.
4 E. g. , Sauvarie, Matériaux I, p. 326; Prieto , p. 96; al-Suyūṭi , Ta'rīkh al-Khulafā' , p. 539.
4 Dozy , Recherches , I, pp. 301–3.
5 Cf. (for the identity of the capital) G. Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate (Cambridge, 1930), p. 182. The evidence of the coinage is abundant and need not be cited.
5 V. p. XXIV. I have in some instances followed Vives in attributing certain " al-Andalus " coins to Fās. An example of a probable Fās issue bearing " al-Andalus " as the mint name is no. 286 (ii), a dirhem of typically crude Fās fabric and execution, with the inverted second and third lines of the reverse, which is characteristic of the Fās mint in its early years. But it is curious that there are Fās issues (with the true mint name) of the same year.
5 S. v. Al-Andalus. Cf. also Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne , pp. 5–6, Histoire , I, pp. 51–2; al-Ḥimyari , pp. 3–4 and 245 ( al-Bakri ).
6 Ibid. , p. 159.
7 Ibid. , pp. 21, 335.

2. Sikkat al-Andalus (سكّة الاندلس).

This name, "the mint of al-Andalus ," occurs only in the years 316, 317 and 318 A. H., simultaneously with the usual name al-Andalus . I doubt that the variant designation indicates a different locality; both al-Andalus and Sikkat al-Andalus at this period signified 'Abd al-Raḥmān III's new mint at Cordoba 1 . The Arabic word sikkah (originally "a piece of iron," later "die," "coin," "mint," etc.) is, of course, the origin of the Spanish çeca or ceca , and of our word "sequin" and many European cognates 2 .

End Notes

1 The entire article is devoted to the question.
2 E. g. , Ibn 'Idhāri , II, p. 6: نزل فى ساحل البحر بالاندلس فيما يحاذي طنجة وهو... ...المعروف اليوم بجزيرة طريف سميت باسمه
3 Not an island, as sometimes translated.
4 Especially lack of conformity of indiction and Hijrah years.
5 See, for example, with respect to the Arabic legends, nos. 1(e) an (f).
6 Recalling Vasquez Queipo's hypothesis (II, p. 397) based on a putative Hebrew inscription on a dinar of Delgado's . Cf. V., p. VIII and C., pp. 51–2. I doubt that this legend exists.
7 Cagigas , al-Andalus , pp. 214–5.

3. Madīnat al-Andalus (مدينة الاندلس).

This variant occurs only once, in the year 381 A. H. (no. 290), on a dinar which Lavoix (and Vives after him) described as an imitation. To judge by Lavoix's indication that his transcriptions are "rectified" or normalized, it would seem that barbarous epigraphy is the basis for designating the coin an imitation, but there may have been other reasons. Unless the dinar is patently and imitation or counter­feit, I would be inclined to accept it as another irregular issue of this year in which there are two other remarkable issues: i.e., of Madīnat al-Zahrā' and Madīnat Qurṭubah.

4. Madīnat al-Zahrā ' (مدينة الزهراء).

Madīnat al-Zahrā ' was the famous residence and capital built by ' Abd al-Raḥmān III and supposedly named after a concubine by the name of Zahrā' (meaning "bright," "serene," "blooming", and an epithet given to Fatima ). It was situated five miles west of Cordoba in the foot-hills of the Sierra Morena overlooking the Guadalquivír . The construction of the magnificent city, begun early in the year 325 (936 A. D.) 3 , continued over many years – as many as twenty-five or forty, according to some repors 4 . So far as the mint is concerned, the evidence of the coins and the testimony of the chroniclers are in complete agreement. Ibn 'Idhāri writes 1 , under the year 336 A. H.: [sic] و نقل السكّة من مدينة قرطبة الى الصحراء, "And he[' Abdal-Raḥmān III ] transferred the mint from the city of Cordoba to al-Ṣaḥrā' [read al-Zahrā ']". It is exactly in that year that the name of Madīnat al-Zahrā ' first appears on the coinage. If the proportion of coins preserved from each of the two mints is a dependabee measure, the transfer must have taken place late in the year, for there are many more specimens from al-Andalus than from the new mint. For the next twenty-nine years Madīnat al-Zahrā ' is the sole mint in operation 2 , but early (?) in 365 A. H. al-Andalus again appears, and in the same year Madīnat al-Zahrā ', after issuing a dirhem with a curiously confused legend 3 , closes down.

The historians throw no direct light upon this removal of the mint from Madīnat al-Zahrā ' to (presumably) Cordoba again, but I believe there can be little doubt that the event is connected with the increasing independenee of the great ḥājib Muḥammad b. abi-'Āmir and his gradual withdrawal from the company of the Caliph 4 . His earlier appointment as director of the mint is discussed elsewhere 5 ; by this time his control of the treasury as well as the mint was becoming absolute, and doubtless it was he who arranged to separate the latter establishment from the Caliph's ménage at Madīnat al-Zahrā ' to Cordoba where he was complete master. The construction of his own residential capital at al-Madīnat al-Zāhirah only three years later is an indication of a trend that had already set in 6 .

The reappearanee of the name of Madīnat al-Zahrā ' on the coinage in four later years, 366, 381, 388 and 400, requires comment. There is a unique dirhem of al-Ḥakam's of 366 7 , a unique dinar of 381 in the British Museum 8 , an equally unique dirhem of 388, also in the British Museum 9 , and numerous dirhems together with a few dinars of 400 1 . The first is possibly a misattribution, but if it is not, the solution may lie in the slip of a die-engraver. The next two are "freaks" which I am unable to explain, but for which there must be some explanation. As remarked in section 3 above, there are several numismatic aberrations in the year 381 ( Madīnat al-Andalus and Madīnat Qurṭubah , as well as the coin in question here); for these we can only speculate that there was some abortive administrative reform in the mint, but I am aware of no documenation 2 . Madīnat al-Zahrā ' was by this date already declining 3 , and a suggestion of a revival of its importance as a center of governmental affairs is surprising 4 . By the same token the plentiful coinage struck at the Caliphal residence in the year 400 is the more remarkable. But in this latter instance, in spite of the decline and imminent total destruction of the famous city, there is an adequate explanation ready to hand. Sulaymānal-Musta'īn was proclaimed Caliph in Cordoba on 17 Rabī' I, 400. The coins of al-Andalus bearing his name 5 must have been struck at the Cordoba mint immediately thereafter. His hold on the Cordoban populace was never secure 6 , and his Ṣanhājian leader Zāwi b. al-Zīri with his Berber following found themselves so unpopular that they chose in the ensuing months to remove themselves to Madīnat al-Zahrā '. As a result of Sulaymān's defeat at the battle of ' Aqabat al-Baqar , Muḥammad al-Mahdi reentered Cordoba and was raised again to the "Caliphate" on 6 Shawwāl, 400, that is, only a little more than six months after Sulaymān's original success. In flight Zāwi and his followers paused to pick up their families at Madīnat al-Zahrā ' 7 . Thus Sulaymān's coins issued at Madīnat al-Zahrā ' 8 must have been struck between roughly Rabī' II and Ramaḍān, during the period when the hostility of the natives in Cordoba made it seem wise to Sulaymān's faction to remove the mint to a safer or more congenial atmosphere. These issues of Madīnat al-Zahrā ' are valuable documentary evidence to the effect that that city had not yet been abandoned, an implication sometimes met with in the historical literature.

There remains a unique dirhem of Madīnat al-Zahrā ' of the year 400, struck by Hishām 1 . I suspect that the attribution although deliberate is mistaken, but it is just barely possible that some dirhems were minted there before the transfer of the mint back to Cordoba.

End Notes

1 I do not grasp the logic (although the intent is clear) of Lavoix's argument for a single mint until the establishment of Madīnat al-Zahrā ', based on the appearance of the name " Sikkat al-Andalus " ( P ., p. XIX).
1 II, p. 231; cf. Sauvaire, Matériaux, I, p. 330, P ., p. XXV, Codera , Çecas, pp. 211–2 (confused), 214.
1 No. 343, infra.
2 Cf. the Arabic lexicons and especially Dozy , Supplément, I, p. 666; also Vasmer's excellent article "sikka" in Schrötter's Wörterbuch der Münzkunde ( Berlin - Leipzig , 1930).
2 With one possible exception in the year 343. See above, p. 38.
2 Cf. p. 48, below.
3 Ibn 'Idhāri , II, p. 225. The exact date of 1 Muḥarram, 325, is given by Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, p. 370.
3 See the discussion under no. 259 (b). A unique dirhem of 366 of Madīnat al-Zahrā ' is discussed below.
3 Cf. Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, p. 372.
4 Cf. the full account in Maqqari , I, pp. 232–40, Ibn Khallikān , III, p. 188, Dozy , II, p. 174, etc., etc. The principal sources, as well as modern archaeological literature, are cited by Lévi-Provençal in his article on Madīnat al-Zahrā ' in EI. See also Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne , pp. 225ff., Histoire, I, pp. 370ff., and for the most recent archaeological findings, R. Castejón in al-Andalus , 1945, pp. 147–54, and L. Torres Balbás in the same journal, 1946, pp. 439—42. For inscriptions from Madīnat al-Zahrā ', supporting the historical reports relating to the years during which the capital was under construction, see M. Ocaña Jiménez in al-Andalus , 1945, pp. 154–9, and the references given there.
4 Adequately documented in the Arab histories; cf. also Dozy's and Lévi-Provnçal's writings, including the latter's article in EI, s. v. al-Manṣūr Ibn Abi 'Āmir .
4 One is tempted to look for evidence of a mint at the rival 'Āmirid capital of al-Madīnat al-Zāhirah in these days. It was founded in 368 A. H. But there can be no confusion of orthography between مدينة الزهرا and المدينة الزاهرة.
5 See p. 68 below.
5 Nos. 342 (f), (g), and (mm)–(uuu), infra .
6 Cf. Lévi-Provençal , s. v. Al-Madīnat al-Zāhirah in EI .
6 Cf. Karabacek , WNM, 1868, p. 48.
7 No.260 (a) in the catalogue, infra.
7 The succession of events is conveniently related in Dozy , II, pp. 296–8, Lévi-Provençal , Histoire , I, pp. 483–5.
8 No. 291, infra.
8 Nos. 343 (a)–(p), infra.
9 No. 314, infra. See the note there regarding the reading of the mint-name.

5 Sijilmāsah (سجلماسة).

Sijilmāsah was the well-known city in Morocco , capital of the Midrārids , located about 200 miles south-south-east of Fās 2 . A mint was located there well before the temporary allegiance of the city to the Umayyads of Spain 3 . The years, so far as we know, in which coins (all dinars) were struck at Sijilmāsah in the name of Hishām II were 378, 381, 383, 384 and, with the name written Madīnat Sijilmāsah (and of very doubtful date) 395. It is probably safe to assume that there were issues in 379, 380 and 382 as well, but no specimens have come to light. All but one of these issues is represented by unique specimens, and there are only two of the remaining issue. In addition there are eleven inadequately described dinars of Sijilmāsah with dates lacking (see the note following no. 353 in the catalogue).

The pertinent historical facts are scanty: in 366 (976/7 A. D.), or in 369, according to another account, a Maghrāwi chief by the name of Khazrūn b. Falfūl b. Khazar besieged and captured the city of Sijilmāsah from the Midrārids . He had acted upon the instigation of the ḥājib al-Manṣūr , and the latter thereupon appointed him as governor of the city. Khazrūn of course acknowledged Hishām II as sovereign, and in the words of Ibn Khaldūn , the authority of the Umayyads was for the first time recognized in Maghrib al-Aqṣa (extreme north-west Africa ) 4 . Recognition on the coinage naturally followed that in the prayes. We know also that the region remained intermittently under the control of Khazrūn and his son Wānūdīn , the latter also acknowledging Umayyad sovereignty and confirmed as governor by Umayyad authority, until the collapse of the dynasty in Spain 5 . These events account adequately for the issues of coinage in question, even for that of the very doubtful one of 395 (the date ending with the digit). Actually the name on the obverse of this last coin may be that of Wānūdīn 1 , in which case the date 395 is not unlikely. Perhaps future discoveries will bring to light issues dating between 366 (or 369) and 378, and after 384.

The subsequent history of the mint of Sijilmāsah under the Murābiṭs , Marīnids , etc., does not concern us here.

End Notes

1 No. 343 (q), infra.
2 See Yāqūt , III, pp. 45–6; Georges S. Colin , s. v., in EI (and the literature cited there).
3 Fāṭimid issues between 347 and 365 A. H., and those of Muḥammad b. al-Fath in P ., pp. 401–2, B., pp. 208–9, etc. A statement by Ibn 'Idhāri (II, p. 246) to the effect that ' Abd al-Raḥmān III paid for the marble used in the building of Madīnat al-Zahrā ' (325 A. H.) in "dinars of Sijilmāsah" is puzzling. Whose coins were these?
4 Ibn Khaldūn , VI, p. 132: فكانت اوّل دعوة أقيمت لهم بالامصار في المغرب الاقصى
5 Ibn Khaldūn , VI, p. 132, VII, pp. 37–9 (Berbères, I, p. 265, III, pp. 254–8); Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, p. 449; and s. v. Sidjilmāsa and Māghrawa in EI .

6. Madīnat Sijilmāsah (مدينة سجلماسة).

Two issues only, of the years 384 and 395, bear the mintname Madīnat Sijilmāsah. There is no reason to believe that they are the products of a different mint from that simply named Sijilmāsah.

7. Safāqus (Sfax) (سفاقس).

There are only two dinars 2 of this mint (one of them with Madīnat ), one dated 384 and the other lacking the date but also struck under Hishām II . The name Safāqus 3 is doubtful on both specimens, although Prieto y Vives was fairly certain of the name on the piece in the Badajoz hoard. This scant evidence of a mint at Sfax in Umayyad times scarcely justifies further speculation. It is possible that the complex exigencies of Maghribian politics in the latter 10th century brought part of Tunisia temporarily under Umayyad sovereignty, but the connection could only have been nominal or fictitious 4 .

8. Madīnat Safāqus (مدينة سفاقس).

See the paragraph above.

9. Madīnat Ṭarīfah (مدينة طريفة).

Only one specimen of this mint 5 has come to my attention: a dirhem of the year 380, in the possession of Mr. Philip Thorburn 6 . The place, named after the leader of the first Muslim forces who crossed the straits and landed there in 91 A. H., and originally known as Jazīrah Ṭarīf , is located at very nearly the southernmost point in the Iberian peninsula , not far from Algeciras 1 . Its location naturally caused it to be a place of prominence in maritime and commercial affairs, but aside from its frequent mention in the Arabic chronicles in connection with the history of the conquest, it receives scant notice in later Umayyad days. An interesting archaeological remain is the castle at Ṭarīfah where the foundation inscription, dated in Ṣafar, 349 (April, 960 A. D.) is preserved 2 . It is believed that this fortress was built in anticipation of a possible Fāṭimid invasion across the straits 3 .

There appears to be no ready explanation of this unique appearance of a mint at Ṭarīfah in the year 380 4 . As suggested in the discussion of other exceptional issues of 381 A. H. ( Madīnat al-Andalus , Madīnat al-Zahrā ', and (below) Madīnat Qurṭubah ), there would appear to have been an attempt to decentralize the activities of the mint at about this time. Apparently the reform, if such is the explanation, did not continue long in effect. I can only hint at the possibility that there is some connection between these unusual issues and al-Manṣūr Ibn abī-'Āmir's military reforms which were put into effect about this date and which evidently provided for the dissolution of the fiefs and a distribution of the troops into corps made up of recruits from different areas and different racial or tribal groups 5 . It might also be suggested that Ṭarīfah was a convenient location for a mint serving extreme north-west Africa where at the time the great ḥājib was very active.

End Notes

1 See the discussion on p. 84.
1 Al-Himyari , text pp. 8,127, transl.pp. 12, 154; Lévi-Provnçal , s.v. Tarifa in EI. Cf. Palacios , Toponimia, p. 136; Maqqari , I, pp. 60, 265, 318, 517–8. Jazīrah Ṭarīf is not, of course, an island, as it has frequently been described.
2 Nos. 303 and 354, infra.
2 فى شهر صفر من ... ببنيا هذا البرح فتمّ ... امر عبد الله عبد الرحمن امير المؤمنين....مولاه [⸮] سنة تسع و اربعين و ثلث مائة على يدي وزيره عبد الرحمن بن خير Lévi-Provençal , Inscripitons , p. 47. The vizier under whose supervision the castle was built is otherwise unknown.
3 I have adopted the vocalization in Yāqūt , III, p. 96.
3 There is a photograph of the castle in Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne, pl. III.
4 Perhaps as a result of the manoeuvers of Zīri b. 'Aṭiyah : cf. Ibn Khal-dūn , Berbères, III, pp. 235–48; Lévi-Provnçal , Histoire, I, pp. 451–6.
4 It is, of course, scarcely credible that other specimens of the same mint, possibly of other dates, have not survived.
5 It occurs to me that there may be three other specimens of the same year on which the mint-name was not deciphered and was assumed to be al-Andalus : no. 286 (kk). On this anomalous issue there are the same area legends as those on the present specimen: i. e., Abū-Shuhayd and al-ḥājib 'Āmir . Codera , speaking presumably of the coins cited under no. 286 (kk), remarked that the mint-name was very obscure (Títulos, p. 86).
5 Cf. Maqqari , II, p. 187, Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne, pp. 136–8, Histoire, I, p. 430. Note the discrepancy with regard to the date of the military reform in the latter two references.
6 The notation "Spanish Umayyad" in O. Codrington's Manual of Musal-man Numismatics ( London , 1904), p. 170, opposite the name طريفة, is almost certainly based on GT. 5033, an 'Āmirid coin, wrongly attributed to the Umayyads of Spain . Cf.Codera , çecas, p. 343. For a long time this entry troubled me, for I imagined that Codrington may have noted the publication of an authentic Umayyad specimen. I am indebted to Mr. John Walker of the British Museum for the suggestion that the Gaillard catalogue was the source of Codrington's information.

10. Madīnat Fās (Fez) (مدينة فاس).

After al-Andalus and Madīnat al-Zahrā ', Fās , the modern Fez in north-west Morocco , is the next in importance of the mints of the Umayyads of Spain . The complicated political history of Fās is well documented, and there is extensive Arabic and European literature bearing on the city 1 . The existence of a mint there in the 3rd century of the Hijrah under the Idrīsids is attested by coins bearing the mint-name al-'Alīyah , and there has recently been published a dinar of Fās dated 348 A. H., struck during one of the periods of Fāṭimid occupation 2 . Codera suggested that there may have been an Umayyad mint at Fās before the name begins to appear on the coins 3 .

The preserved dates of Umayyad dirhems struck at Fās are 367, 370, 371, 377 to 400 inclusive, and 403 4 . Of these the first is doubtful (see the note after no. 265 in the catalogue), but historically there appears to be no objection 5 . A Fāṭimid dirhem of Fās of the year 369 is testimony to the success of the expedition of Buluggīn b. Zīri , the Ṣanhājian Fāṭimid vassal 6 , against the city. This is not the place to follow the intricacies of Berber and Umayyad politics in the Maghrib during the period, nor have we enough of the coinage preserved to write a full numismatic history, but it is sufficiently clear from both historical and numismatic evidence (witness the dirhems of 370 and 371) that Umayyad control was soon restored. There follows a period of six years in which we have no representation, and during which Buluggīn died 7 and al-Manṣūr withdrew for a time from active intervention in the area, maintaining headquarters only at Sabtah ( Ceuta ) 8 .

In 377 begins an unbroken series of Fās dirhems continuing until the year 400, the numismatic evidence again conforming with record- ed historical events 1 . A more detailed discussion of the political implications of this coinage will be found in the relevant places in the section on names . The final issue, of the year 403 and struck in Hishām's name, is of doubtful date, and speculation with regard to the political connotation, while historically supportable, would be fruitless.

For the most part the craftsmanship in the Fās mint ranks certainly with the worst in any part of the Muslim world at any time 2 . The fabric is poor, the epigraphy and ornamentation crude and almost barbaric. In consequence a very large proportion of specimens are virtually illegible and often the date is exceedingly doubtful. The relative rarity of coins of Fās is probably more apparent than real: the numismatic "market" in Morocco has been restricted, Fās itself has long been inimical to Europeans, and few collectors have cared to acquire or to attempt to read such miserable specimens as have come their way 3 .

Vives suggested that the Fās mint sometimes issued dirhems in the name of al-Andalus 4 , and Codera believed that there were two mints at Fās , one for each of the two quite distinct sections of the city, perhaps at times operating simultaneously 5 . But until many more pieces have been properly studied a confident history of the mint in the Umayyad period, embracing these and other questions, cannot be written. The mint of Fās has a long and active history under the numerous dynasties ruling in Morocco subsequent to the collapse of the Umayyad Caliphate 6 .

End Notes

1 For a competent and convenient summary and a full bibliography, see G. Yver , s. v. Fās in EI.
2 J. Farrugia de Candia , "Monnaies Fātimites du Musée du Bardo (Premier supplément)", Revue Tunisienne, nos. 3–4, 1948, no. 14.
3 Títulos, p. 64.
4 When Codera wrote his Çecas (1874), the earliest date for Fās was 383 A. H. (p. 376); in his Títulos (1878) he gives 377 as the earliest certain year known (p. 68).
5 Ibn Khaldūn , Berbères, III, pp. 216–8, 235–6; cf. Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, p. 408.
6 Antonio Prieto y Vives , "Numismatica Africana, Los Fatimitas en Fez", Homenaje a D. Francisco Codera ( Zaragoza , 1904), pp. 99–103; cf. Lévi-Provençal , Histoire , I, pp. 449–50.
7 In 373, not in 372 or 374, as elsewhere reported. See René Basset , s. v. Bulukkīn in EI, where full authority is cited, and cf. Ibn Khaldūn , Berbères , III, p. 237, and Prieto y Vives , loc. cit.
8 Ibn Khaldūn , Berbères, III, p. 237.

11. Madīnat Qurṭubah ( Cordoba ) (مدينة قرطبة).

The remarkable single specimen bearing the mint-name " Madīnat Qurṭubah ," and dated 381 A. H., has been mentioned in the discussion of al-Andalus and in connection with other unusual issues of the years 380 and 381 7 . Little can be added to illuminate the question here. The occurrence of the name is tantalizing in that it suggests a solution to an aspect of the " al-Andaus " mint problem, but the unique example leaves me completely puzzled. Was it simply a new and short-lived atelier within the city, or was the " al-Andaus " mint at this time no longer in Cordoba proper? I do not know.

The name (without Madīnat) reappears under the Bani Jahwar in 439–442, and (with Madīnat) under the Dhū'l-Nūnids in 467 and the ' Abbādids in 461–480 A. H. 1 ; and later, of course, under the Murābiṭs .

I have little hesitation in asserting that the piece in the Hispanic Society collection was Codera's (although there is no published illustration to make the identification positive), and that this is the same one cited by Vives 2 . In other words the HSA specimen is the only one known.

End Notes

1 Cf. Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, pp. 450ff., and the article Maghrāwa in EI.
2 An exception, which must be only one of a number, is no. 296 (b).
3 The proportionately large number of coins from Fās in Brethes' extraordinary catalogue is some indication of the local resources, hitherto mostly unexploited.
4 V. pp. XVII, XXIV; cf. the discussion on p. 34 above.
5 C., pp. 98–7; Codera , Títulos, pp. 65, 69; cf. Dozy , I, p. 301, and EI, s. v. Fās.
6 See, for example, the indices in P . and BM, X.
7 See pp. 43, 44, 45, 48.

12. Al-Manṣūrah (المنصورة).

Only two specimens of this mint are known. One has an obscurely preserved date, perhaps 395, and on this piece the mint-name is not at all clear. It appears to be written المنصوة, and as this is unintelligible I have assumed the letter ra to be omitted. In fact there is a very faint trace of what may be the tail of the ra. The other specimen (no. 356) lacks the date, but is again an issue of Hishām II 's, and there appears to be no question about the spelling of the name. I have not succeeded in identifying the place. We may be certain that it is not the Fāṭimid capital at Qayrawān (formerly Ṣabrah ), founded in 336 or 337 A. H. by the third Fāṭimid Caliph al-Manṣūr , known to some of the geographers as al-Manṣūrah and well represented as al-Manṣūrīyah on coins of that dynasty 3 . Nor can it be the al-Manṣūrah a few miles west of Tlemcen , founded by the Marīnids between 698 and 702 A. H. 4 . There is no trace of a Manṣūrah in Spain , nor of a suitable one in Africa , and I suspect that we have in these rare coins representatives of a temporary mint, established perhaps in a siege encampment preparatory to or following a victory 1 . With this in mind, and with all reserve, especially in view of the dubious date of no. 331, I can only suggest the possibility that the Manṣūrah in question is the title given to an encampment of the ḥājib ' Abd al-Malik during his campaign of 395 (1005 A. D.) in Leon or the frontier of Galicia , perhaps at Zamora , or before the fortress of Luna 2 .

End Notes

1 Cf. Prieto , pp. 218, 220–1, 234–5; Codera , Çecas, p. 227.
2 V. 523. Vives (p. XXVIII) refers to the coin as exceptional, but does not comment further. Cf. Prieto , p. 98.
3 Yāqūt (IV, p. 664) says that the Manṣūrah near Qayrawān was commonly called al-Manṣūrīyah . Cf. E. von Zambaur , "Nouvelles contributions à la numismatique orientale", NZ, 1914, pp. 159–61, and the literature cited there; Georges Marçais , s. v. al-Manṣūr Ismā'īl in EI; J. Farrugia de Candia , "Monnaies Fatimites du Musée du Bardo", Revue Tunisienne, 1936, p. 2 of reprint; Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, p. 371. Other towns named al-Manṣūrah (in Egypt , etc.; cf. Yāqūt , index, and EI ) are of course out of the question.
4 Georges Marçais , s. v. al-Manṣūra , EI; cf. Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne , p. 127, footnote 1.

13. Al-Nākūr (الناكور).

Al-Nākūr 3 , located in the Rif a little to the south of the bay now called Alhucemas , near the present Ajdir (or Axdir ), on the Mediterranean coast of Morocco , had been the prosperous sea-port capital of a princely Arab family, the Sāliḥids , since the early days of the conquest 4 . The place figures in a piratical Norman invasion of 245 A. H. 5 and also in the history of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III 6 , but we meet with no coins until the latter part of the 4th century of the Hijrah, the years I have recorded being 372, 387, 396 and 397. The first date is given only by Codera in his Çecas , and is questioned. The 387 issue is represented by four specimens, one of Codera's and one of Vives ' (the date questioned by Vives ), and two in the Cuenca hoard, apparently of certain date. There are several specimens of the year 396 and 397, including a doubtful one of the latter year in the Hispanic Society collection. Obviously more evidence is needed to reconstruct the numismatic history of Umayyad influence in the little principality. The princes appear usually to have been loyal to the Umayyads, but early in the year 387 Nākūr must have been under the control of Zīri b. 'Aṭiyah , for in that year Wāḍiḥ , the Umayyad general, occupied the town in the course of his campaign against the former 1 . The specimens of that year, then, seem well documented; and the latter issues would suggest that active Umayyad intervention in the affairs of Nākūr continued thereafter until near the close of the century 2 .

One stray fact bearing on the coinage at Nākūr in the 5th century has come to my attention: dirhems were counted, not weighed there 3 . This would imply that the coinage was of a high and consistent standard – or else that the populace was of an exceptionally trusting nature.

End Notes

1 The remarks of Lévi-Provençal in the reference last cited with respect to city epithets (anent Madīnat al-Zahrā ') are pertinent.
2 Cf. Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, p. 466.
3 Codera's earlier spelling, Nākūz ( Çecas , p. 377, for example), is of course mistaken. Later he remarks that the spelling نكور as well as ناكور appears in the histories ( Títulos , p. 75).
4 Dozy , II, p. 138, and footnote 1, where the sources are cited, and Lévi-Provençal , Histoire I, p. 173. Cf. Dozy , Recherches, II, p. 279, footnote 2: 14 leagues west–south–west of Cape Tres Forcas , later known as Mezemma [in Ibn Khaldūn's days, that is ( Berbères , II, p. 138)].
5 Ibn 'Idhāri , II, p. 99; cf. Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, p. 341 (= "La Política Africana de ' Abd al-Raḥmān III ," al-Andalus , XI (1946), p. 362). Ibn Khaldūn (Berbères, II, p. 139) places the event in the wrong century (cf. Dozy , Rechèrches, II, p. 281).
6 Ibn 'Idhāri , I, pp. 177ff.; Dozy , II, pp. 138–40.

14. " Elota " (الوطة).

Non liquet . This mint is represented by only two Umayyad issues, of the years 402 and 403 (three specimens althogether), and a few more of 405 and 406, issued apparently by the 'Āmirid slave "king," Mujāhid 4 . Vives at first rendered the name " al-Waṭah ," but suggested that it might be either "la antigua Elota de la época visigoda , cuya situación es desconocida," or a city in Mallorca spelled والوطة, mentioned by Qazwīni , although he admitted that the missing initial wa was an embarrassment 5 . The latter proposal was originally Codera's 6 , but the latter had also suggested " Huete ?," 7 adopted by Codrington and others, which it certainly cannot have been, because the Arabic form of this name was وبذة 8 . Nor, to my mind, can it be the town in Mallorca , which is too feebly documented in any sense 9 . It is impossible for me to say whether the letters themselves are perfectly clear on the few specimens preserved; I have myself seen only one product of the mint, a dirhem of the year 406 in the Hispanic Society collection 1 , on which there appear to be two, or perhaps three, letters after the word "al-dirhem" and before bi-al, and where furthermore the letter following the lām might possibly be, not wāw, but hā. A careful examination of more specimens is prerequisite to a solution of the problem.

End Notes

1 Ibn Khaldūn , Berbères, III, p. 244; cf. Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, p. 454.
2 Codera , Títulos, p. 75, abstains from historical comment in view of the absence of detailed knowledge of the city during the period in question.
3 Cf. Sauvaire , Matériaux, I, pp. 95–6.
4 Prieto , pp. 35, 119, 181.
5 V., p. XXVII.
6 Cf. Prieto , p. 105. Prieto himself was undecided, for he spelled the name " Elota " but referred to the supposed place in Mallorca , which surely cannot be read " Elota ."
7 C., p. 255.
8 Al-Ḥimyari , text p. 194, transl. p. 236. Cf. Palacios , Toponimia, p. 112, who gives the origin as wādi .
9 It is in order, however, to seek for the location in the Balearic Islands or on the coast of the mainland opposite, for Mujāhid , whose name appears on the issue of " Elota " of 405, was governor and later "lord" of Denia and the islands. Cf. V., pp. XXXII–XXXIII, and Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, pp. 461, 492, 499.

15. No Mint Name.

Aside from the early 2nd century and late 3rd century (H.) coppers, there are several groups of issues which bear no mint-name: gold of 319–322, of 324–328 (or perhaps down to 330, cf. no. 218), and of ca . 332–334; some dubious dateless gold fractions and dirhems of Hishām II 's (no. 351), including a dirhem with Qur'ān IX, 33, in both margins; and a doubtful dirhem of 385 (no. 307). Most of these belong to the transitional period of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III 's coinage and were issued simultaneously with similar coins carrying the name of al-Andalus . The omission of the mint-name in these series is surely not an inadvertence (as it probably was in the miscellaneous coins of Hishām II ), and in the absence of any helpful clue I can only suggest that the mintless, and the " al-Andaus " dinars of the period in question are the products of two separate workshops at Cordoba.

In Codrington's Manual five other towns 2 are listed as mints of the Umayyads of Spain: المرية, الانديقارو, بياسة, تطيلة and جيان. The second is non-existent 3 . The rest are to be rejected, not as mints, but as mints under the Umayyads.

End Notes

1 HSA 15718.
2 In addition to Ṭarīfah ; see p. 47 above.
3 See the note under no. 1 (f) in the catalogue, infra.


The identification of most of the names of individuals on the coinage of the Umayyads of Spain is far more difficult than on that of the ' Abbāsids and tributary or successor dynasties in the East, chiefly because of the lack of the patronymic. There are a few entirely satisfactory identifications, but it will be observed that many of the names in the following list are identified only tentatively or not at all. Another inherent difficulty is our lack of understanding of the governmental function which the isolated names on the coinage are in each case supposed to represent; in some instances there is no doubt whatever about the office that the individual filled, but in others we do not know whether his name is represented as ḥājib, mint-master, lesser mint official, assayer, or what 1 . A few other words, groups of letters or single letters, which may or may not represent names, are included in the following section for convenience of reference.

1. ابراهيم ( Ibrāhīm ).

The name occurs on an undated, mintless fals of the late 3rd century. There is no clue to his identity, but a possible suggestion is Ibrāhīm ( b. 'Abdullāh ) b. Ḥajjāj , sovereign lord of Seville in the time of the Amīr ' Abdullāh 2 .

2. ابن (Ibn).

See Bahlūl , Jahwar , Ḥudayr , Dhakwān , Shuhayd , ' Abbās , Fahd and Maslamah .

3. ابو ( Abū ).

See Shuhayd .

4. احمد ( Aḥmad ).

Dates: 346–350. The name also occurs on a probable counterfeit of 343 A. H. (no. 233) and on two other completely anomalous coins bearing apparently fictitious dates (nos. 261–2). Codera did not identify the man 1 . Among six possible Aḥmad's whom I have recorded, the most likely candidate is Aḥmad b. Naṣr b. Khalīd , one of ' Abd al Raḥmān III's prefects of police (ṣāḥib al-shurṭah), whose name occurs on three inscriptions dated 354 A. H. in the great mosque at Cordoba . Born in 288 A. H., he held a number of public offices, including that of inspector of markets, during his long career; his death occurred in 370 2 . Another not unlikely possibility is Aḥmad b. 'Abd al-Malik b. Shuhayd , the first to bear the title of Dhū'l-Wizāratayn in Spain , the title having been conferred upon him by ' Abd al-Raḥmān III in 327 A. H. 3 , but I do not know the date of his death.

End Notes

1 Codera was unable to solve these questions: cf. Títulos throughout, but especially pp. 41, 50, 52–4, 85.
2 See the indices of Dozy and Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I; cf. Maqqari , II, p. 439 ( Ibn Hayyān ).

5. ادم.

A very uncertain name(?) on a single dirhem of the year 265 A. H. (no. 158(f)).

6. الامام ( Al-Imām ).

See al-Ḥakam , Sulaymān , ' Abd al-Raḥmān , Muhammad and Hishām . The title, of course, reflects the claims of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III and his successors to the Caliphate. The best discussion of the title, together with a rich bibliography, is still Van Berchem's 4 .

7. امير المؤمنين ( Amīr al-Mu'minīn ).

See the same names as those listed under no. 6 above. The title of "Commander of the Believers," adopted along with " al-Imām " by ' Abd al-Raḥmān III , was also an adjunct of the Caliphate 5 .

8. بدر or بكر ( Badr or Bakr ).

On a dirhem of 414 and a fractional dinar of 415, both of Muḥammad III (nos. 365–6). Vives ' original reading of Bakr was changed by Prieto to the equally possible Badr . Codera had no suggestion for Bakr , nor Prieto for Badr 6 , nor have I any for either.

End Notes

1 Títulos, p. 51.
2 Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions, nos. 10, 12, 13, and pp. 11–12, with the sources cited there.
3 Maqqari , II, pp. 150ff.; cf. Dozy , Supplément , II, s. v. وزير; Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne , p. 68.
4 Titres Califiens, pp. 19ff.; see also Cl. Huart , s. v. Imām in EI, and Arnold , Caliphate , pp. 39–41.
5 The same references. The article in EI, s. v. Amīr al-Mu'minīn , adds nothing to Van Berchem .
6 Títulos, p. 81, Prieto , p. 107.

9. برد ( Burd ?).

On a dinar of Hishām II , date 399 (no. 340(a)). Codera 1 proposed that the word should perhaps be read برك, "bendito sea," but I consider this unlikely. Is there any possiblity of a connection with Aḥmad b. Burd , Secretary of State at the time when Sulaymān b. 'Abd al-Raḥmān IV was thought to be the likely candidate to succeed to the Caliphate (414 A. H.)? 2

10. بسيل ( Basīl ).

Dates: 222–226. This is the first fully written-out name on the coinage; the person, however, is unidentified. The obscure, interlinear, position of the name would suggest that the individual was a functionary, perhaps an engraver, in the mint rather than a man of high political office. Basīl is not an Arabic name but appears rather to be of Roman-Spanish or of Greek origin. Individuals by this name are known in Spain both before and after the Arab invasion: e.g., Basile , a noted bandit leader of the 5th century A. D. 3 , and a number of Muslims whose fathers were named Basīl , but whose dates are considerably later than the issues in question 4 .

11. البكري ( Al-Bakri ).

The name occurs on dinars and dirhems of Hishām's dated 401, and on a doubtful dirhem of 402, possibly an imitation (no. 346 (n)); also on another imitation or forgery of incomplete date, probably 402 (no. 358). The man's identity is uncertain, but it has been suggested that he was one of the Bakri tribe , perhaps Abū-Zayd ' Abd al-'Azīz , lord of Onuba and Xaltes ( Saltes ), and father of the famous geographer al-Bakri ; or else the latter's grandfather, Abū-Zayd Muḥammad b. Ayyūb , first king of Huelva 5 .

End Notes

1 Títulos, p. 63.
2 Dozy II, pp. 321–2.
3 Dozy , I, p. 259.
4 Codera assembled a number of names of sons, nephews, etc. of Basīl's , bat no purpose would be served in repeating them here. See Títulos, pp. 44–5. There was a possible grandson, Ḥafṣ b. Muḥammad b. Basīl who was a vizier and wāli al-madīnah under the Amīr 'Abdullāh (cf. Maqqari , II, p. 459). And a vizier under ' Abd al-Raḥmān III was ' Abd al-Ḥumayd b. Basīl (e. g.. Ibn 'Idhāri , II, p. 203).
5 Codera , Títulos, pp. 77–8; cf. Prieto , p. 268, A. Cour , s. v. al-Bakrī in EI , Zambaur , p. 54.

12. ابن بهلول ( Ibn Bahlūl ).

On coppers of 303 and 306 A. H., and on others undated but of the turn of the century (nos. 181 (i) (j) (k), 183 and 184). The person in question is quite possibly Aḥmad b. Ḥabīb b. Bahlūl , appointed inspector of markets in Shawwāl 302 1 and relieved of that post in 313 2 ; also probably, but not certainly, identifiable with the Aḥmad b. Bahlūl who built a mosque in 333 A. H., the completion of which is recorded in an inscription preserved in the provincial museum of Murcia 3 . If the Ibn Bahlūl on the coins is in fact the inspector of markets, then these fulūs are not the issues of a "rebel," and the undated specimens should be removed from that category; but I do not know that the wāli al-sūq had the authority to issue copper coinage, although the fact that there were certain revenues collectable in the market might suggest such a possibility 4 .

13. تمليح ( Tamlīḥ ).

Dates 391–2 (and an imitation or forgery spuriously dated 388, no. 313 (aaa)). This name has been discussed by a number of writers, including Fraehn , Karabacek , Stickel , Codera , Tiesenhauenn and Dozy . The suggestions of Karabacek and Stickel were fanciful. Fraehn recognized the name, and Dozy later supported him and devoted a brief monograph to the subject 5 . While the man whose name appears on the coins is otherwise unknown the rare "family" name, i. e., Tamlīḥ , is well documented. A certain Muḥammad b. Tamlīḥ , a ṣāḥib al-shurṭah of the Caliph al-Ḥakam II , has left his name on three inscriptions dated 354 A. H. in the great mosque of Cordoba 6 , of which mention has been made in connection with another name 7 . He was a well-known public servant, and a doctor as well, according to Ibn al-Faraḍi 8 and Ṣā'id al-Andalusi ; and his connection with the en- largement of the mosque at Cordoba was known to the latter. His death occurred in 361, so he cannot of course be the person whose name is on the coins of 391 and 392, but Dozy suggested that Muḥammad b. Tamlīḥ may well have been our man's father. There are other examples of the use of a patronymic alone on the coinage 1 .

There is a problem with respect to the spelling, and hence the pronunciation, of the name. In the Kufic inscriptions there are of course no diacritical points, so one cannot say whether the final letter is jīm, ḥā, or khā. Codera read jīm. Dozy , relying on the best of several manuscripts of Ibn abī-Uṣaybī'ah , read ḥā 2 . Lévi-Provençal , however, basing his choice on the writing of the name in Ibn al-Faraḍi and Ṣā'id , transcribes khā, i. e. , Tamlīkh . I have chosen to retain Dozy's spelling Tamlīḥ for two reasons. In the first place, in spite of Lévi-Provençal 's authoritative testimony, I am not in a position to verify the pointing on MSS of Ibn al-Faraḍi and Ṣā'id ; and secondly, there are specimens of the coinage 3 which are clearly pointed (a most remarkable exception to the general rule), with two dots over the and two under the yā, a fact which Codera had observed (C., p. 95). The pellet which appears frequently after the name is not a diacritical point: it is larger, and in some cases there are two pellets instead of one. Furthermore, the stem ملح seems to be a more likely one than ملخ for the derivation of the name, if indeed it has an Arabic origin. If, on the other hand, the name is of foreign derivation, the orthography may not have been fixed and it could have been written either Tamlīkh or Tamlīḥ 4 .

End Notes

1 Ibn 'Idhāri , II, p. 173: وولى السوق احمد بن حبيب بن بهلول وذلك يوم السبت لاثنتي عشرة ليلة بقيت من شوال
2 Ibn 'Idhāri , II, p. 203. Here he is called simply Aḥmad b. Bahlūl . Cf. Codera , Títulos, pp. 48–9.
3 Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions, no. 95, pp. 93–4.
4 Cf. Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne , p. 77.
5 For a summary of the discussion (with bibliography) up to 1881 and Dozy's own views see the latter's Recherches, II, pp. 432–6. Cf. Codera , Títulos, pp. 60–1, 63.
6 Recognized first by Fraehn . The full texts, bibliography and critical notes in Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions, nos. 10, 12, 13, and pp. 11–12.
7 Aḥmad , no. 4 above.
8 Ibn al-Faraḍi , I, pp. 366–7.

14. جعفر ( Ja'far ).

A doubtful name on an irregular billon issue of doubtful date, probably 390 (no. 318 (ss)). Speculation would be unprofitable in view of the dubious nature of both name and date.

15. الحاجب جعفر ( Al-ḥājib Ja'far ).

Dates: 357–359. There can be little doubt but that al- ḥājib Ja'far is the noted secretary, vizier and ṣāḥib al-shurṭah of al-Ḥakam II and Hishām II , Abū'l-Ḥasan Ja'far b. ' Uthmān al-Muṣḥafi , predecessor, later rival and eventual victim of the still more famous al-Manṣūr . His career is well documented and need not be reviewed here 1 . The occurrence of the names of the two viziers on the same issues, and with that of the later dictator in the inferior capacity of master of the mint in the early apprenticeship of his career, is an interesting and ironical souvenir of the times.

End Notes

1 See the discussion of the names Muḥammad and ' Āmir , below.
2 Loc. cit., p. 435, footnote 3.
3 E. g., nos. 320 (ppp) and (ttt).
4 Fraehn (Inedita Bose) stated that in the Cordoba mosque inscription the name is written يمليخ ("Jemlich"), but of course no such pointing (or any pointing, the inscription being in Kufic characters) exists. See Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions (Planches), pl. IV, (a) and (b).

16. جهور ( Jahwar ).

Dates: 398–400 under Muḥammad II , and 406 under Sulaymān . While the identification cannot be certain, the name is probably that of ( Abū'l-Ḥazm ) Jahwar b. Muḥammad b. Jahwar , a vizier under the ' Āmirids in the days of Hishām II , the "president of the republic" after the collapse of the Umayyad dynasty, and later (422–435) the independent ruler of Cordoba 2 .

17. ابن جهور ( Ibn Jahwar ).

Probably on a fractional dateless dinar of Hishām II I (no. 369). See ابن ذكوان. If Ibn Jahwar is the proper reading, the individual would doubtless be the same as that suggested under no. 16 above.

18. حـ or ح.

A letter appearing on dirhems of the years 215, 216, 217, 226 and 235. There is no clue to its meaning, but in all probability this and other similar isolated letters were mint-masters' or die-engravers' initials 3 .

19. الحاجب (Al-ḥājib).

The title occurs without accompanying name on dirhems of Fās dated 390, 392, and 394–397. In these instances one supposes that the ' Āmirid 'Abd al-Malik is understood, especially as his name is frequently in the opposite area. This practice of inscribing a title without a name would be strange anywhere but at Fās where the semi-barbarous coinage presents many anomalies and eccentricities.

" Al-ḥājib " also occurs in conjunction with the following names, q. v .: Ja'far , ' Āmir , ' Abdullāh , ' Abd al-'Azīz , ' Abd al-Malik , ' Umar, Mu'izz and al-Mu'izz .

As for the title itself, it was, in Arab Spain , the supreme dignity of the Umayyad governmental hierarchy. In other parts of the Muslim world the office developed in different ways. Originally it signified simply the functionary who, by controlling the curtain separating the leader from the public, prevented or permitted the entry of petitioners; in other words, a chamberlain 1 . But in Spain the ḥājib became in time the head of the entire administration, immediately under the Caliph (over him, in the end), the senior vizier 2 , the prime minister in charge of the three principal divisions of government, i. e ., the court and royal monopolies, the chancellery, and the public finances; finally, also, the minister of war and the commander-in-chief 3 . The ḥājib par excellence was the famous Muḥammad b. abī-'Āmir, al-Manṣūr . The prestige which he brought to the office carried over into the days of the reyes de taifas with the result that independent princes were inclined to prefer the title of ḥājib to any other, including that of malik, "king" 4 . Theoretically the name of the ḥājib always appeared on the coinage from the time of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III forward (according to Ibn Ḥayyān ), but there appears to have been no fixed tradition with regard to the specific position of his name on the coins 5 .

End Notes

1 Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne , p. 109, with the sources given there; Histoire, I, p. 394 and passim to his destitution and death, p. 422; Dozy , II, p. 180; Maqqari , index; Codera , Títulos, pp. 54–5, 85.
2 Ibn 'Idhāri , III, index; cf. Dozy , II, pp. 315, 338, 342, 346, III, pp. 4–5, 16, 236; Maqqari , I, pp. 245, 507, II, pp. 249–50; Codera , Títulos, p. 76; Prieto , p. 105; Zambaur , p. 55. His name is preserved epigraphically in an epitaph of a freedman of his ( Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions , no. 66).
3 Cf. V. p. XII.

20. حبيب (Ḥabīb).

The name appears very dubiously on a few coins of Sulaymān's in 402, 403 and 404. There are one or two possible identifications 6 , but as these are pure guesses and the name is not at all certain on the coins, further speculation is futile.

End Notes

1 See the interesting discussion of the function of the ḥājib in the early days of Islam in Jean Sauvaget's brilliant La Mosquée Omeyyade de Médine (Paris, 1947), p. 131.
2 In Spain , in contrast to the East, the title vizier eventually became more honorary than functional; there were many viziers bearing the title simultaneously. Cf. Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne , p. 67.
3 The most interesting Arab discussion of the function of ḥājib is Ibn Khaldūn's ( Muqaddamah , II, pp. 11–15; Prolégomènes, II, pp. 13–18); but the best critical study, especially with reference to the development of the office in Spain , is the excellent one in Lévi-Provençal 's L'Espagne , pp. 62–6. Cf. M. Sobernheim's brief and general article s. v. Ḥ ādjib in EI.
4 Cf. Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions, p. 54, and Ibn Khaldūn , loc. cit.
5 Cf. Codera , Títulos, pp. 52ff., 85; and my remarks at the beginning of this section on names .
6 Dozy , III, p. 10, Maqqari , II, p. 258.

21. حدير (Ḥudayr).

The name occurs on a dinar and dirhem of Sulaymān's , dated 404. This is probably the same individual as Ibn Ḥudayr whose name appears on another dirhem of the same date. He is not identified, and one can only suggest that he was a member of the distinguished family by that name who occupied many high offices during the previous century.

22. ابن حدير ( Ibn Ḥudayr ).

See no. 21 above.

23. حسن ( Ḥasan ).

A reading by Østrup on a dirhem of the year 216; probably a mis-interpretation of an initial or symbol which appears on other coins of the same year, possibly an initial ḥā.

24. حسين ( Ḥusayn ).

On rare dirhems of the year 279. Is this perhaps the same person as Ḥusayn b . ' Āṣim (see below)?

25. حسين بن عاصم ( Ḥusayn b. 'Āṣim ).

On several fulūs of the period of the Amīr 'Abdullāh , late 3rd century of the Hijrah (no. 180). If we take ' Āṣim in this instance to be a "family" name, rather than that of the individual's father (and there is evidence to suggest that it was an ancestral name of distinction), we may accept the identification with the Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. 'Āṣim , later, in 314 A. H., in charge of the arsenal under ' Abd al-Raḥmān III 1 .

26. حكم ( Ḥakam ).

A very doubtful name on some dirhems of the year 267, seen by Codera (no. 160(i)).

27. الامام الحكم امير المؤمنين المستنصر بالله ( Al-Imām al-Ḥakam Amīr al-Mu'minīn al-Mustanṣir bi'llāh ).

The name and titles of the Caliph al-Ḥakam II as they appear on the coins and in inscriptions. In the latter the usual epithet of Caliphs, ' Abdullāh , is included, and the more common order of the protocol is: الامام المستنصر بالله عبد الله الحكم امير المؤمنين 1 . His kunyah was Abū'l-Muṭarrif 2 .

End Notes

1 Ibn 'Idhāri , II, p. 205: وولى خزانة السلاح حسين بن محمد بن عاصم. Cf. C., pp. 72–3, and Títulos, p. 47.

28. ابن حكير ( Ibn Ḥukayr ).

Codera read this name tentatively on a dirhem of 403 A. H. See Ḥudayr and Ibn Ḥudayr , above. There would be virtually no difference in the Kufic.

29. خلد (for خالد ?, Khālid ).

A doubtful name on some dirhems of the year 211 (no. 102(b)).

30. خلف ( Khalaf ).

On a single dirhem of 267 (no. 160(g)) and on some coppers attributed to the period of Muḥammad I and to the rebels during ' Abdullāh's rule (nos. 179(i) and 181(c)). Codera proposed that these fulūs (and others) were struck by ' Umar b. Ḥafṣūn and his allies 3 . I suggest one possible candidate, a man named Khalaf who was a treasurer of Ibn Ḥafṣūn and one of four hostages sent by the latter to Cordoba upon the conclusion of peace in 289 A. H. 4 .

31. ابن ذكوان ( Ibn Dhakwān ).

On a dinar of Hishām II I, dated 422, and (perhaps) on a dateless fractional dinar of the same Caliph (nos. 368–9). This man cannot be the well-known chief qāḍi , Abū'l-'Abbās Aḥmad b. ' Abdullāh b. Harthamah b. Dhakwān (sometimes referred to simply as Aḥmad ibn Dhakwān ), for he died in 413 5 ; but he may well have been a member of the same family who was named qāḍi in 429 and died in 430 6 . There must be some doubt about the existence of the name on the coins, for the dateless fractional dinar was read by Lavoix as "b. Juhūr " 1 ; and the other specimen I have not seen represented, See Jahwar and Ibn Jahwar , above.

End Notes

1 Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions , nos. 10–13. Other arrangements of the titles, ibid ., nos. 14, 150, 191, 196 and 201. In one instance the title al-khalīfah precedes al-imām , ibid ., no. 215.
2 Ibn 'Idhāri , II, p. 249.
3 Títulos , p. 85.
4 Cf. Dozy , II, p. 86.
5 Dozy II, pp. 225, 282–3, 296, III, 214; Lévi-Provençal , Histoire , I, pp. 471 ff. passim ; Maqqari , II, pp. 221, 492.
6 Cf. Prieto , p. 107, footnote 1. Would this be Abū-Ḥātim ibn Dhakwān , a ṣāḥib al-mazālim mentioned in Ibn 'Idhāri , III, p. 32 (cf. Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne , p. 95)?

32. بن الرسك

On a copper of the late 3rd century (no. 182(f)). The name is unintelligible.

33. زيري ( Zīri ).

The name appears on dirhems of Fās dated 388. There can be no doubt but that this is the Maghrāwi chief Zīri b. 'Aṭīyah , ruler of Fās and viceroy of the Maghrib , who in 386 revolted against al-Manṣūr , declaring that he would no longer allow the legitimate sovereign ( Hishām ) to be held captive by a too powerful minister. The coins bearing his name are a reflection of the political situation resulting from Zīri's declaration and of the struggle in 388 between the Maghrāwi and the Umayyad general Wāḍiḥ whom al-Manṣūr sent to bring him to submission 2 . In the same year Zīri was defeated and al-Manṣūr's son ' Abd al-Malik was installed as governor of the Maghrib . Zīri's coining is mentioned by the chroniclers 3 . It is interesting to follow the course of events at Fās in this year as told by the coins, there being separate issues with the names of all three of the principal actors, ' Āmir (for al-Manṣūr ), Zīri , and Wāḍiḥ .

34. سا.

An unintelligible word (?) on one of the coppers of 268 A. H. (no. 161(w)).

35. سعدة.

A doubtful reading on an apparently independent issue of the year 263 (no. 156 (i)). See the note following the description of the coin in the catalogue.

End Notes

1 See the note under no. 369 in the catalogue.
2 Cf. Dozy , II, pp. 253–6, 261–2; Lévi-Provençal , Histoire , I, pp. 454–5; Maqqari , II, pp. 188, 190–2. Codera discussed the chronology in Títulos , pp. 69–71, and found the coins to support Ibn Khaldūn's account ( Berbères , III, pp. 244–6). See also Lévi-Provençal , s. v . Maghrāwa in EI .
3 Cf. Dozy , Supplément , I, p. 666.

36. سعيد (Sa'īd).

Dates: 322–329, and (possibly) 330. For the identification of this person, who is so well documented numismatically, 'Arīb ( apud Ibn 'Idhāri ) unfortunately gives us no unmistakable clue. The appointment of a ṣaḥib al-sikkah in 320 is mentioned, but this was Yaḥyā b. Yūnus 1 , and no other appointment to that post is recorded in the immediately ensuing years. However, there was a functionary by the name of Sa'īd b. Sa'īd b. Ḥudayr , who was appointed in 317 to the newly created office of shurṭah al-wusṭā , a post supplementary to those of the great and little shurṭah 2 , and it may well be that this is our man, but whether in the same capacity or not it is difficult to say. Codera was unable to identify Sa'īd 3 .

37. سعيد بن يوسف ( Sa'īd b. Yūsuf ).

On dinars and dirhems of 402 and 403 issued by Hishām II , and on some "posthumous" dirhems with the name of the same ruler dated 404 A. H. The same name appears later on a Ḥammūdid dinar of 411 4 . He is unidentified 5 .

38. سليمن ( Sulaymān ).

On a single dirhem of the Caliph Sulaymān's , dated 400 A. H. (no. 342 (ooo)). As observed in the catalogue, the date of this coin might be 404, in which case it would be a specimen of one of the issues of the unknown Sulaymān who struck independently during the revolution 6 . In any event, speculation regarding his identity is futile. There are several possible Sulaymān's , including the son of ' Abd al-Raḥmān IV , who was a candidate for the Caliphate in 414 7 .

39. الامام سليمن امير المؤمنين المستعين بالله ( Al-Imām Sulaymān Amīr al-Mu'minīn al-Musta'īn bi'llāh).

The name and titles of the Caliph Sulaymān as they appear on the coins. No inscription of his in any other medium has been published, but his laqab , al-Musta'īn , is known from the written histories, and the rest of the protocol is what one would expect. His kunyah was Abū-Ayyūb 1 . His coinage, in gold and silver, extends from 400 to 406 and includes issues of Madīnat al-Zahrā '. 2

End Notes

1 Ibn 'Idhāri, II, p. 224.
2 Ibid ., II, p. 216. Cf. Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne , p. 93.
3 Títulos , p. 50.
4 Cf. Prieto , no. 66, p. 165.
5 Cf. Codera , Títulos , p. 78; Prieto , pp. 106, 110.
6 Cf. Prieto , p. 107, and no. 28, p. 157.
7 Dozy , II, pp. 321–3; cf. Lévi-Provençal , Histoire , I, p. 497.

40. شعيب ( Shu'ayb ).

A doubtful name on a single copper attributed to the rebels toward the end of the 3rd century (no. 181(g)). See Muḥammad b. Shu'ayb , below 3 .

41. شهيد ( Shuhayd ).

The name occurs on dirhems of 356 and 397, and on dinars and dirhems of 398, as well as on a dinar which has been designated an imitation, dated 381 4 . Obviously different individuals are involved, but no specific identification can be made 5 . The one who figures in 397 and 398 is perhaps the same person as the Ibn Shuhayd whose name appears in 400 and 404 6 . There is a good precedent for the use of a family name and the omission of "ibn": viz ., ' Āmir for ibn abī-' Āmir . Furthermore the name of the Banū Shuhayd was a distinguished one in Umayyad Spain 7 : there was Shuhayd b. 'Isā b. Shuhayd, a vizier of ' Abd al-Raḥmān I 8 , Muḥammad b. Shuhayd , governor of Ecija in 318 A. H. 9 , Aḥmad b. 'Abd al-Malik b. Shuhayd , the first dhū'l-Wizāratayn 10 , and Abū-'Āmir b. Shuhayd , a councillor of ' Abd al-Raḥmān V 11 . This last might perhaps be the statesman in question, but there is no proof.

There is also an Abū-Shuhayd , q . v .

42. ابن شهيد ( Ibn Shuhayd ).

On an imitation (?) of the year 390 (no. 318 (ww)), a single dirhem of 400 struck at al-Andalus , and many of the same year at Madīnat al-Zahrā ', and a dirhem of 404 (no. 360 (j)). See the article, Shuhayd , above.

End Notes

1 Ibn 'Idhāri , III, p. 91.
2 See the discussion of that mint, p. 45 above.
3 If Shu'ayb is a patronymic, a possible ancestor is Shu'ayb b. Mūsā , an ' āmil of ' Abd al-Raḥmān II , whose name is preserved on an inscription at Mérida ( Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions , no. 40).
4 No. 290; cf. the note on Madīnat al-Andalus , p. 43 above.
5 Cf. Codera , Títulos , pp. 58, 61.
6 I do not know why Rada and Prieto y Vives call the issue of al-Andalus of 400 A. H. with " Ibn Shuhayd " (no. 342 (qqq)) "false".
7 Cf. Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions , p. 37.
8 Cf. Maqqari , II, p. 91.
9 Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions , no. 29; cf. Ibn 'Idhāri , II, p. 211.
10 See the discussion of Aḥmad , p. 56 above.
11 Lévi-Provençal , Histoire , I, p. 498. Codera , Títulos , p. 76, seems to have confused the last two, unless indeed their full names were the same.

43. ابو شهيد ( Abū-Shuhayd ).

On a doubtful issue of al-Andalus of the year 380 (no. 286 (kk)), and on the remarkable unique dirhem of Ṭarīfah of the same year (no. 287). In the discussion of the Ṭarīfah mint I have pointed out the possibility that, in view of the identity of the area legends ( Abū-Shuhayd and the unusual " al-ḥājib ' Āmir "), the three specimens of no. 286 (kk) may be from Ṭarīfah also. I can propose no identification for Abū-Shuhayd and can make only the obvious suggestion that he was a member of the same family to which reference has been made under the name " Shuhayd ".

44. ع, ء.

A die-engraver's or workshop (?) initial on dirhems of 214, 215, 234, 235 and 285.

45. عامر (' Āmir ).

Dates: 356–361, 362(?), 363–372, 374–392 at all mints; 393–398 at African mints; 399 at al-Andalus 1 . From 356 to 392 the person represented by the name ' Āmir is the famous " Almanzor " ( al-Manṣūr ), Abū-'Āmir Muḥammad b. ' Abdullāh b. Muḥammad ibn abī-'Āmir , the great ḥājib of Hishām II and eventual dictator of all Arab Spain . Born in 327 and died in Ramaḍān, 392 (August, 1002 A. D.), his life and career are too well known to require general review here 2 . We must, however, concern ourselves with the connotations of his name on the coinage. For a long time writers on Arab-Spanish numismatics were in doubt as to the significance of the name "' Āmir " on the coins, and it was only during the course of Codera's studies that the latter became completely satisfied that "' Āmir " was al-Manṣūr 3 . It is to be admitted that the use of the simple name ' Āmir for the patronymic Ibn abī-'Āmir , or for Muḥammad's own kunyah Abū-'Āmir , is curious; but the family name was one of much prestige, and no doubt Muḥammad felt not only that it was distinctive but also that he would in the end bring to it even greater distinction 1 .

The name first appears on the coins in 356, the very year in which Ibn abī-'Āmir received his appointment as master of the mint 2 . At the beginning of the year there are other names on the coins, those of ' Abd al-Raḥmān and Shuhayd ( q . v .), but both of these disappear in the following year. The young official took full advantage of the power which his appointment gave him to "win friends and influence people," and we have a charming picture of him in an anecdote – probably basically authentic – relating to this early phase of his career. It is worth quoting in part, for we seldom meet with so intimate a picture of a mint-master, whose name is preserved on the coins, portrayed against the back-drop of the mint itself: Muḥammad b. Aflaḥ , a client of al-Ḥakam's , went to the mint to sell some silver ornaments which he possessed.

"I had spent at my daughter's wedding more money than I could well afford, so that I was actually reduced to poverty, and had nothing left save a bit and bridle ornamented with silver, which I took to the mint, in order to obtain its value in money. Being introduced to Muḥammad b. abi-'Āmir , who was at that time master of the mint, and whom I found sitting behind piles of coined dirhems, I made known to him my errand, and told him how I had been reduced to poverty by my daughter's wedding. Having listened attentively to my account...... and having weighed bridle, iron, leather, and all, he gave me the weight in dirhems, with which he filled my cap. I could hardly believe my senses..... I need not add, that, upon counting down the money, I found there was enough to pay my daughter's dowry; which I did, and had besides a large sum left for my own private use." 3

One wonders what sort of auditing system there was under al-Manṣūr's administration of the mint. Certainly one may assume that it was more efficient in later days when the master of the mint was his servant.

The fact of Ibn abī-'Āmir's name appearing on the coinage is recorded in the literature 4 as evidence of his claims to virtual sov- ereignty, and it is as ḥājib rather than as master of the mint that his name occurs on the bulk of the coins. Until 361 (and perhaps until 367) the name appears doubtless in the latter capacity, or as Treasurer. In the latter year he was elevated to the position of "Chief of the Middle Shurṭah ," and in the following year we note that, with one dubious exception, his name disappears from the coinage; but during that year only. Whatever the reason for this apparent break in the series of coins bearing his name, in the following year the name ' Āmir is restored and continues, with only one possible interruption (the year 373, of which only two specimens, details lacking, are preserved) until al-Manṣūr's death in 392 A. H. From 13 Sha'bān, 367, onward there can be no doubt that his name figures on the coinage as ḥājib 1 , for it was on that date that al-Manṣūr's predecessor al-Muṣḥafi , was deposed and arrested 2 .

Between 393 and 398 the name 'Āmir continues to appear occasionally on coins of Fās , Sijilmāsah and Nākūr (also at al-Manṣūrah in 395 (?)). One assumes that the reference is to the second powerful ' Āmirid, Muḥammad b. abī-'Āmir's son and successor, ' Abd al-Malik . Finally, in the year 399, there are a number of dirhems of al-Andalus with the name ' Āmir , issued in the name of Hishām . If, as seems reasonable, the name here also refers to ' Abd al-Malik , then these coins were struck in the first two months of the year, for al-Manṣūr's son died on 16 Ṣafar, 399. See ' Abd al-Malik .

End Notes

1 A specimen of 402 A. H. (no. 346 (m)), supposedly with ' Āmir , is probably wrongly described.
1 There may also have been some intended implication of the meaning of the name itself, i . e ., the "abiding" or the "long-living" one.
2 See especially Lévi-Provençal , s . v . Al-Manṣūr Ibn abī 'Āmir in EI , and Histoire , I, p. 409, with full bibliographies. A single inscription of his is preserved on an ablution bowl dated 377: al-Manṣūr abī-' Āmir Muḥammad b. abī-'Āmir ( Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions , no. 216).
2 In Shawwāl, 356. Ibn 'Idhāri , II, p. 267: و كان قد تقدم للنظر فى امانة دار السكة
3 Codera , Títulos , pp. 54, 58, 59–60, 75, 85–6.
3 Maqqari , II, p. 179; cf. Dozy , II, p. 191.
4 Ibn 'Idhāri , II, p. 274. Cf. Maqqari , II, p. 187. Gayangos ' note on this latter passage (p. 477) is inaccurate in several respects. His reference to a very rare copper bearing on one side " al-Manṣūr " and on the other a "churchbell reversed" is curious and interesting. I have never seen such a coin. Gayangos imagined that it was struck after the expedition of 384 A. H. which "ended in the destruction of the cathedral church of Santiago , the bells of which were carried to Cordova on the shoulders of Christian captives."

46. الحاجب عامر ( Al-ḥājib 'Āmir ).

On the Ṭarīfah coin of 380 and a few specimens of the same year which may be of the Ṭarīfah mint (no. 286 (kk)) 3 ; on an "imitation" of 390 (no. 318 (ww)); and (doubtfully) on a single dirhem of 397 at Nākūr (no. 337(d)). See the discussion of ' Āmir . No especial signifi- cance can be attached to the presence of the title in conjunction with the name on these exceptional coins; it was probably rather a whim of the die-engraver.

End Notes

1 Despite the specific report that as early as 381 Ibn abī-'Āmir , laying the foundations of a perpetuating ' Āmirid regency, gave up the title of al-ḥājib to his son ' Abd al-Malik ( Ibn 'Idhāri , II, p. 315, lines 15ff.; cf. Dozy , II, p. 251, Lévi-Provençal , Histoire , I, p. 430). Al-Manṣūr , as he thenceforth preferred to be called, continued to be de facto if not de jure ḥājib , as the coins testify. ' Abd al-Malik was not formally appointed ḥājib by the Caliph until after the death of his father.
2 Cf. the notice under Ja'far above, p. 59.
3 See p. 47, above.

47. ابن عباس ( Ibn 'Abbās ),

On rare dirhems of Hishām's of 402 and 403. There is no clue to his identity, but a possibility is Aḥmad b. 'Abbās , vizier of Zuhayr of Almeria , who died in 429 1 .

48. عبد ('Abd).

A doubtful word on a dubious dirhem of Fās , 396 A. H., and on another dirhem of Hishām II 's, mint and date effaced. I doubt that the readings are correct. There is also .... عبد الله on two imperfectly preserved coins of Fās (nos. 336(g) and 355(c)).

49. عبد الله (' Abdullāh ).

Dates: 329 (one specimen), 335–336, 365 (one specimen), 389 and 390 at Fās, 401–402. Probably three or four different individuals are represented.

The first (329?, 335–336) is in all probability that ' Abdullāh b. Muḥammad whom ' Abd al-Raḥmān III removed from the directorship of the mint and imprisoned in 336, the same year as the transfer of the mint to Madīnat al-Zahā ' 2 . The second is too poorly represented to warrant speculation. The third (389–390 at Fās ) is certainly ' Abdullāh b. Yaḥyā b. abī-'Āmir , a nephew of al-Manṣūr's who succeeded the general Wāḍiḥ as governor of Fās in 389, and who was in turn relieved by Ismā'īl b. al-Būri 3 . The last (401–402) might be the same as the third, but there is no evidence to support the identification 4 .

50. الحاجب عبد الله ( Al-ḥājib 'Abdullāh).

On two exceptional issues, a fractional dateless and mintless dirhem (no. 351 (e)), and a dinar of al-Andalus , lacking the date (no. 352(a)), both of al-Hishām. I suspect that these may be coins of the Reyes de Taifas .

End Notes

1 Ibn 'Idhāri , III, pp. 169–172, 191, 293; cf. Dozy , III, pp. 17, 22–9, 217; Codera , Títulos , p. 78.
2 Ibn 'Idhāri , II, pp. 230–1; cf. Codera , Títulos , p. 56.
3 Ibn Khaldūn , VII, p. 33, has ' Ubaydullāh b. Yaḥyā (cf. Berbères , III, p. 246), but Codera ( Títulos , p. 71) and Lévi-Provençal ( Histoire , I, p. 455), presumably on the basis of another MS or on other authority, name him ' Abdullāh .
4 Cf. Codera , Títulos , p. 78, Prieto , p. 106.

51. عبد البر (' Abd al-Barr ?).

On a fals of the late 3rd century (no. 181(e)). 'Abd al-Barr is a possible name 1 , but I can propose no identification.

52. عبد الرحمن ('Abd al-Raḥmān).

Dates: coppers assigned to the period of Muḥammad I (nos. 179 (e)–(g)); dirhems of 351–356; dirhems of Fās of 398 (no. 339(l)). The name on the coppers cannot be that of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III , unless indeed the attribution to the period is in error, which it may well be 2 . For the identification of the name on the well-defined series of 351–356 there is unfortunately no leading evidence in the written sources, and attribution to one or another of the many possible candidates of the name is pure speculation. Perhaps the most likely is ' Abd al-Raḥmān b. ' Ubaydullāh b . ' Abd al-Raḥmān III , who was later (368 A. H.) proposed in a revolt as substitute for the young Caliph Hishām II 3 . But then there is an equal possibility (especially as we do not know what function is represented on the coins) that it might be ' Abd al-Raḥmān b. Khayr (?), a vizier of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III 4 , or ' Abd al-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad , a public servant of the same Caliph 5 , or some other. As for the individual on the Fās issue of 398, Codera was satisfied that this was ' Abd al-Raḥmān "Sanchuelo," son of Muḥammad b. abī-'Āmir , and brother, successor (and perhaps the murderer) of the ḥājib ' Abd al-Malik 6 . This identification is posited on the date of ' Abd al-Malik 's death, which Codera places in 398 A. H., and the brother's subsequent appointment as ḥājib . But 399 is now the accepted date 7 , and the argument breaks down. Codera had proposed another ' Abd al-Raḥmān for a dirhem of Fās on which the date was effaced 8 , ' Abd al-Raḥmān b. ' Abd al-Karīm , governor of Fās in 382, but the dates are too far removed to lend support to this identification.

End Notes

1 Cf. Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions , no. 28 bis , p. 198.
2 Codera's description of these coppers ( Títulos , p. 48) is confusing and at least in part mistaken.
3 Cf. Dozy , II, p. 222, Lévi-Provençal , Historie , I, p. 422.
4 Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions , no. 34, p. 48.
5 Ibid ., no. 86, p. 84.
6 Títulos , p. 74.
7 Ibn 'Idhāri , III, pp. 36–7; Dozy , III, pp. 213–4; cf. Lévi-Provençal , Histoire , I, pp. 462–3. Maqqari (II, p. 222) gives both dates (398 and 399), but prefers the latter.
8 Títulos , p. 71.

53. الامام الناصر لدين الله عبد الرحمن امير المؤمنين

( Al-Imām al-Nāṣir li-dīn Allāh ' Abd al-Raḥmān Amīr al-Mu'minīn ).

The full name and titles of the Caliph ' Abd al-Raḥmān III as they appear most commonly on the coins from 316 to 350 A. H. There are variations as follows:

316–319, 321–322, 324–328: امير المؤمنين عبد الرحمن (preceded by the preposition li )

319–320: عبد الرحمن امير المؤمنين

318: الامام الناصر لدين الله امير المؤمنين عبد الرحمن

The form of the protocol in inscriptions on stone and other media is usually: عبد الله عبد الرحمن امير المؤمنين 1 , but the following also occur: امير المؤمنين عبد الرحمن بن محمد, and عبد الله عبد الرحمن امير المؤمنين الناصر لدين الله 2 .

These honorifics of course are symbolical of the most important development in the entire history of the Umayyads of Spain , for with the adoption of the titles imām and amīr al-mu'minīn , together with the laqab or epithet al-nāṣir li-dīn Allāh (roughly "Defender of the Faith"), ' Abd al-Raḥmān III arrogated to himself the style, dignity and prerogatives of the Caliphate. The event, its background and its consequences, have been much discussed and need not be entered into in detail here 3 . The date, Dhū'l-Ḥijjah, 316, is established by Ibn 'Idhāri 4 and is supported conclusively by the coins. It was thus sixteen years after his accession as Amīr of the Umayyad principate of Spain that ' Abd al-Raḥmān felt himself strong enough to declare to his own people and to the world in general that he was the most powerful of Muslim rulers and the evident defender of the faith against Christian foes without and Shī'ite enemies within the Dār al-Islām. The 'Abbāsid Caliph in Baghdad, who since the collapse of the Umayyad kingdom of Damascus had been recognized as the leader of Islam, was now so feeble that he had become the puppet of his Turkish slaves, and across the deserts of North Africa there was reaching the arm of the Fāṭimid heresy. ' Abd al-Raḥmān's pronounce­ment in effect restored the "true" faith and the "legitimate" Umay­yad political heritage, and initiated a renaissane of Islam in the far West. The reformed coinage, bearing the outward symbols of these claims and inherent power, is tangible testimony of the event.

End Notes

1 Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions , nos. 34, 86–7, 193–5.
2 Ibid ., nos. 9 and 29.
3 For the best discussions and assemblage of sources, see Van Berchem , Titres Califiens , pp. 26ff., Codera , Títulos , pp. 6–11, Dozy , II, p. 146, Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne , pp. 45–7, Histoire , pp. 354–9. Cf. also Arnold , Caliphate , pp. 57–8.
4 Other authorities give this and later dates. Ibn 'Idhāri , II, pp. 162 (هو اول من تسمَّى منهم بامير المؤمنين و تلقّب باحد الالقاب السلطانية وهو الناصر), 212, with the text of the circular which the Caliph dispatched to governors and prefects instructing them that he was thenceforth to be addressed as "Commander of the Believers" and al-Nāṣir.

54. عبد الرحمن بن مطرف ('Abd al-Raḥmān b. Muṭarrif).

A doubtful name on a fals of the late 3rd century, attributed to the rebels (no. 181(a)). There was a governor by this name in northern Spain a century later 1 , but I know of no one in the relevant period.

55. الحاجب عبد العزيز ( Al-ḥājib 'Abd al-'Azīz).

On a few dinars and dirhems of Hishām II 's, dated 399. Positive identification is not possible but a very likely candidate is a grandson of al-Manṣūr , 'Abd al-'Azīz b. ' Abd al-Raḥmān "Sanchuelo," later king of Valenia 2 .

56. عبد الملك (' Abd al-Malik ).

Dates: 392–398, Fās 400 (very doubtful), and a doubtful dirhem, date and mint effaced (no. 357(d)). As the name occurs commonly on the same coins with al-ḥājib ' Abd al-Malik , it cannot represent the same individual 3 . Positive identification is furnished by a chance remark of Ibn 'Idhāri , who in recounting the history of the plot and death of the vizier 'Isā b. Sa'īd, mentions the presence at a meeting near Madīnat al-Zāhirah of 'Isā's son ' Abd al-Malik , adding after the latter's name the phrase, ṣāḥib al-sikkah, "master of the mint" 4 . The event took place in Rabī' I, 397 5 ; hence there can be no doubt what­ever that this is our man, director of the mint from 392 until a year or two after the death of 'Isā b. Sa'īd.

End Notes

1 Cf. Dozy , index, and Lévi-Provençal , Histoire , I, index.
2 Cf. Ibn 'Idhāri , III, index, Dozy , III, index, Codera , Títulos , p. 63, Zambaur, p. 55.
3 Cf. Codera , Títulos , pp. 61, 63.
4 Ibn 'Idhāri , III, p. 31, Cf. Dozy , III, p. 208.
5 Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, p. 462.

57. الحاجب عبد الملك ( Al-ḥājib ' Abd al-Malik ).

Dates: 392–398. There is no difficulty over the identity of al-ḥājib ' Abd al-Malik , son and successor of al-Manṣūr Muḥammad b. abī-'Āmir. On his father's death in 392 A. H., his name, with the title ( al-ḥājib to which office he was appointed by Hishām 1 , begins to appear on the coins 2 ; and with the year before his own death 3 the series comes to an end. His life and career are of course well known 4 . Like his father he was the possessor of several honorifics, the principal ones being Sayf al-Dawlah ("Sword of the State"), and al-Muẓaffar bi'llāh ("The Victorious in Allāh") 5 . A number of inscriptions preserve his name and titles on small objects of ivory, stone and wood, the fullest protocol being:

الحاجب سيف الدولة ناصر الدين وقامع المشركين ابن مرون عبد الملك بن المنصور 6 ابى عامر

At Fās, during this period, the title al-ḥājib and the name ' Abd al-Malik are sometimes on separate faces of the coin but are assumed to belong together. See article no. 19 on p. 60, above 7 .

58. العدة.

See سعدة.

59. على ('Ali).

A mint functionary or die-engraver in 219, 220, 222 and 260 8 . The "monogram" image may represent 'Ali.

60. عمـ.

Dates: 210–211. The letters possibly stand for 'Umar, but this probably minor official is unidentifiable.

End Notes

1 Ibn 'Idhāri, III, p. 3.
2 See the discussion under 'Āmir, above; and cf. Codera , Títulos , pp. 61, 63.
3 See the references in the discussion of 'Abd al-Raḥmān, no. 52 above.
4 Cf. Dozy , index, s. v. ' Abd al-Malik and al-Muḍaffar; Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, index, especially pp. 457–68; EI, s. v . al-Muẓaffar , with full bibliography.
5 See Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions, p. 194, footnote (4) for references to these titles. Ibn 'Idhāri (III, pp. 15–21) devotes a whole chapter to ' Abd al-Malik 's being named al-Muẓaffar.
6 Ibid ., nos. 203–5, 217–8, 221.
7 Cf. Codera , Títulos, pp. 70, 72.
8 Cf. Codera , Títulos, pp. 42, 85.

61. عمر ('Umar).

On some dirhems of the year 268 (nos. 161(f) and (g)), and fulūs attributed to the period of Muḥammad I (nos. 179(f) and (g)). The only possible suggestion is the famous rebel 'Umar b. Ḥafṣūn 1 , but there is no positive evidence to support this identification, and until a more controlled study of the 3rd century coppers can be made, further speculation is futile.

62. الحاجب عمر ( Al-ḥājib 'Umar).

On a single, doubtful dirhem of 397 at Nākūr. The name is not certain. Another dirhem of Nākūr, 397, bears, according to Vives, al-ḥājib 'Āmir (?), q. v.

63. غلب.

On coppers attributed to the rebels (nos. 181 (b)–(f), (i)–(j)). Codera 2 suggested that the word may be ghalaba and that it was copied from the slogan of the Aghlabids which appears so commonly on the coins of the latter dynasty. But it seems to me that both the reading and the hypothesis need further substantiation.

64. الفاحرة.

On a single dirhem of 335 A. H. (no. 224 (g)). I can offer no explanation of the meaning.

65. بن فهد ([I]bn Fahd).

Dates: 263–266. The name occurs beneath the obverse area, above the 3rd line of the obverse area, and in an unusual position amidst the annulets in the border. Codera remarked on the uncommon name, and mentioned possible ancestors 3 and a possible descendant, but could make no identification 4 . Nor can I.

66. قاسم (Qāsim).

Dates: 330–332. Only two possibilities suggest themselves 5 : the general and prefect of police, Qāsim b. Walīd al-Kalbi 6 , or the vizier Qāsim b. Muḥammad b. Ṭumlus, whom ' Abd al-Raḥmān III sent to Africa on an expedition in 333 A. H. 1 , but both these are mere guesses. While Qāsim's identity must remain unsolved, it is inter­esting to note that his name on the dirhems appears to have given rise to what one might call a "denomination" of coinage, or perhaps better, a sort of nick-name. We read in Ibn 'Idhāri that ' Abd al-Raḥmān III expended so-and-so many Qāsimi dirhems for the con­struction of the minaret and other improvements to the Cordoba mosque; and another sum in Qāsimi dirhems for the building of Madīnat al-Zahrā ' 2 .

End Notes

1 See his biography by Lévi-Provençal in EI, s. v. 'Omar b. Ḥafṣūn, and Histoire, I, pp. 210 ff.
2 Títulos, p. 48.
3 Ibn al-Qūṭīyah, p. 30.
4 Títulos, p. 46.
5 Codera , Títulos , p. 50, did not identify him.
6 Dozy II, pp. 84, 102–3, Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, p. 290.

67. محمد (Muḥammad).

Dates: 212, 222, 320–321, 330, 332–346 3 , 360(?), 374(?), 385–392, 400–404. There is certainly no more difficult name to identify when bereft of a patronymic or family name. Quite obviously there are several different individuals represented. The name on the coins of 212 and 222, being placed obscurely between the lines in the area, would be that of one of those unidentifiable mint officials or die-engravers such as 'Ali and Yaḥyā. The Muḥammad of 320 and 321 is probably a different person from the one whose series begins in 330, for the name of Sa'īd ( q. v. ) intervenes. Aside from integrating the evidence of the coinage with the numismatically unsupported testi­mony with regard to mint masters given by Ibn 'Idhāri 4 , Codera did not attempt to identify these two Muḥammad's 5 , nor can I make any profitable suggestion, although there are of course innumerable possible personages to whom one could hypothetically assign the office. The single issue of 360 (no. 253 (hh)) must be considered doubt­ful, that of 374 (no. 275) is probably a counterfeit or imitation, and those of 385 and 386 are represented by unique specimens (nos. 305 (v) and 308 (ee)), possibly misreadings by Lavoix.

Beginning with the year 387 we have a clear series running down to 391 (392 at Fās). Codera rightly argues that this Muḥammad cannot be Muḥammad b. abi-'Āmir, because the name 'Āmir is present on these issues and he would not be mentioned twice 1 . One possibility, perhaps far-fetched, comes to mind. Might not this Muḥammad be the same Tamlīḥ whose name occurs on the coins of 391 and 392 and whose identity has been discussed in article no. 13 above? At some time during the year 391 the name Muḥammad disappears from the coins and is replaced by Tamlīḥ, and I suggest that Muḥammad took a leaf from the ḥājib al-Manṣūr's book and began to call himself by his family name. He could not, of course, have been the Muḥammad b. Tamlīḥ who had a hand in the restoration of the mosque at Cor­doba (see the article referred to), but that Muḥammad may have had a son by the same name.

In the year 400, under the Caliph Muḥammad , another Muḥammad is quite well represented. Codera suggested 2 that he and Ibn Maslamah ( q. v. ) may have been the same person and that he is to be identified with Abū-'Āmir Muḥammad b. ' Abdullāh b. Muḥammad b. Masla­mah, a vizier under Hishām II , but this is pure guesswork. The other rare occurrences of the name on odd and doubtful coins of 400–404 are equally elusive 3 .

End Notes

1 Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, pp. 350–1.
2 Ibn 'Idhāri , II, p. 246: من الدراهم القاسمية. Sauvaire ( Matériaux , I, pp. 195–6) is certainly wrong in suggesting that the name derived from abū'l-Qāsim al-Qā'im, the Fāṭimid Caliph.
3 Probably not 347 and 348, the coins of those years with the name of Muḥammad probably being misattributions.
4 II, pp. 211, 230–1.
5 Títulos, pp. 51, 56–7.

68. الامام محمد امير المؤمنين المهدي بالله (Al-Imām Muḥammad Amīr al-Mu'minīn al-Mahdi bi'llāh).

The name and titles of the Caliph Muḥammad II as they appear on the coins in the years 398, 399 and 400. He has left no other epigraphical record, so far as I know. His kunyah was abū'l-Walīd 4 .

69. الامام محمد امير المؤمنين المستكفى بالله (Al-Imām Muḥammad Amīr al-Mu'minīn al-Mustakfi bi'llāh).

The name and titles of the Caliph Muḥammad III as preserved on the few coins of his (414, 415, and date lacking) that have come to light. As with Muḥammad II, I am aware of no other inscriptions bearing his name. His kunyah was Abū-'Abd al-Raḥmān 5 .

70. ولى العهد محمد (Wali al-'Ahd Muḥammad).

The legend, "Heir Apparent Muḥammad," appearing on coins of the Caliph Sulaymān dated 400–406, refers to his son Muḥammad who, according to Ibn al-Khaṭīb, who designated heir apparent on 15 Jumādā II, 400 1 . It was he apparently who had the distinction of arranging for the strangling of the Caliph Hishām II in 403.

End Notes

1 Títulos , p. 62.
2 Títulos , p. 76.
3 Cf. Prieto , p. 105.
4 Ibn 'Idhāri , III, p. 50.
5 Ibid., III, p. 140.

71. محمد بن شعيب (Muḥammad b. Shu'ayb).

On a single fals attributed to the rebels, late 3rd century (no. 181(h)). The name appears quite legible in the illustration of the coin in Codera's Tratado. The man's identity, however, remains unknown 2 . See also Shu'ayb, no. 40 above.

72. image = محـي(?).

The symbol appearing on dirhems of 199, 200, 207 and 209 may perhaps be equivalent to the name which has been transcribed محـي on dirhems of 230 and a single specimen of 242. It must be the name or mark of a mint official or die-engraver.

73. مدرك (Mudrik).

An unidentifiable name on dirhems of Sulaymān's of 404 and on a dinar and dirhem of 405 A. H. 3 .

74. مرسه.

An undecipherable name (?) on one of the fulūs of 268 A. H. (no. 161 (v)).

75. المستعين بالله (Al-Musta 'īn bi'llāh).

The laqab of the Caliph Sulaymān, q. v.

76. المستكفى بالله (Al-Mustakfi bi'llāh).

The laqab of the Caliph Muḥammad III, q. v.

77. المستنصر بالله (Al-Mustanṣir bi'llāh).

The laqab of the Caliph al-Ḥakam II , q. v.

End Notes

1 Cf. Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, p. 489, footnote (1), with the reference. Muḥammad receives scant mention elsewhere. Cf. Ibn 'Idhāri , III, p. 117; Codera , Títulos , pp. 76, 81.
2 Codera ( Títulos, pp. 49–50) suggested that a certain Muḥammad b. Sa'īd in Ibn 'Idhāri should perhaps be Muḥammad b. Shu'ayb, the name on the coin; but this is a last resort.
3 Cf. Codera , Títulos, p. 81, and Prieto , p. 106.

78. مسعود (Mas'ūd).

A possible name on a fals of the late 3rd century (no. 181(c)). See Mas'ūd b. 'Ali.

79. مسعود ابن على (Mas'ūd ibn 'Ali).

On fulūs of the late 3rd century (no. 181(b)). As observed in the catalogue, the name is certainly not clear in the one illustration available (Codera).

80. ابن مسلمة (Ibn Maslamah).

On dinars and dirhems of both Muḥammad II and Sulaymān in the year 400; also on two specimens of Hishām's of the same year. There is no clue to the identity of this representative of a distinguished family. Codera's suggestion has been mentioned above 1 ; Prieto 2 hinted at ' Abdullāh b. Muḥammad b. Maslamah the Afṭasid, later independent king of Badajoz 3 . The family was an old one, and Ibn 'Idhāri gives "Banū-Maslamah" as an alternative for "Banū'l-Afṭas." But there is no evidence that ' Abdullāh the Afṭasid was our man; it may as well have been a ṣāḥib al-madīnah of Madīnat al-Zāhirah by the name of ' Abdullāh b. Maslamah 4 , who in turn may be identical with a certain Ibn Maslamah, ṣāḥib al-shurṭah in the time of Sulay­mān 5 . In fact this latter individual would seem to me to be the best candidate.

81. معاذ (Mu'ādh).

On dirhems of 240–244. Codera 6 suggested an identification, the only one available: that Mu'ādh was the father of the faqīh abū-'Amru Sa'd b. Mu'ādh b. 'Uthmān, who died in the year 308 7 . In view of the unusual name, this attribution may be correct.

End Notes

1 Under the article Muḥammad , no. 67.
2 Pp. 105–6.
3 His epitaph, dated 437, is preserved. See Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions, nos. 43–4; also Ibn 'Idhāri , III, pp. 235–6. Cf. Maqqari , II, pp. 369, 505.
4 Ibn 'Idhāri , III, p. 58.
5 Ibid ., p. 93; cf. Maqqari , II, p. 493 (Nuwayri); also Karabacek, WNM, 1868, pp. 47–8.
6 Títulos, pp. 45–6.
7 Ibn 'Idhāri , II, pp. 189–90; Ibn al-Faraḍi, I, p. 153. Cf. Lévi-Provençal , Histoire , I, p. 161, footnote (3); Ibn al-Qūṭīyah, p. 59 (note Codera's correction of Ibn 'Idhāri on the basis of this passage).

82. المعتد بالله ( Al-Mu'tadd bi'llāh ).

The laqah of the Caliph Hishām II I, q. v.

83. معز ( Mu'izz ).

See al-Mu'izz .

84. المعز ( Al- Mu'izz ).

On a curious dirhem of " al-Andalus ," 343 A. H.; and on dirhems of Fās of the following years: 393, 394, 397, 398, 399, and 400 (?); also on two issues of Sulaymān's , date and mint lacking (nos. 364 (a) and (b)). A specimen of al-Andalus of the year 402 (no. 346 (p)) is probably to be rejected as a misattribution. The name also occurs as Mu'izz (390 (?) A. H.), al-ḥājib Mu'izz (397 A. H.), and al-ḥājib al-Mu'izz (398 A. H.), and wali al-'ahd al-Mu'izz (402 A. H. at al-Andalus , and date and mint lacking (no. 364(c)).

Codera and Vives 1 attributed the first, anomalous, coin to Fās in spite of the mint-name " al-Andalus ," because of the name al-Mu'izz ; my own view is that the coin is a counterfeit or imitation of later date. From 393 on, certainly, the individual in question is al-Mu'izz , son of Zīri b. 'Aṭīyah al-Maghrāwi to whom reference has been made in the discussion of Nākūr and in article 33, above. As for the issue of 390, Codera expressed doubts over the date 2 , and in view of the fact that Zīri b. 'Aṭīyah did not die until 391 3 , and it was only in that year that al-Mu'izz succeeded to the leadership of the Maghrāwa and to his father's position as vassal to the Umayyads , I am inclined to doubt that the issue of 390 exists. The coins of 397 and 398, with the title al-ḥājib, are interesting in that they may be taken to confirm the date, 396, given by Ibn Khaldūn for the letter from ' Abd al-Malik al-Muẓaffar to al-Mu'izz , announcing in very formal terms the latter's appointment as virtual viceroy of the Maghrib 4 . Other dates for the event have been given 5 . Finally, the curious issues under Sulaymān of " al-Andalus " (probably Fās) of 402, and of Fās (?) with date lacking, would appear to be a reflection of the troubled Caliph's attempt to keep the powerful leader of the Maghrāwa on his side by suggesting in Africa , at least, that he was the chosen heir apparent 1 .

End Notes

1 Títulos, pp. 51–2, 64; V., p. 54.
2 Títulos, pp. 66, 71.
3 Ibn Khaldūn , Berbères , III, p. 248.
4 Ibn Khaldūn , VII, pp. 33–4 (cf. Berbères, III, pp. 248–50), with full text of the letter which was occasioned by al-Mu'izz ' offer of a large sum for the appointment and his proposal to send his son to Cordoba as hostage in token of his loyalty to the Umayyad and 'Āmirid cause. See also Ibn Khaldūn , VII, p. 38, giving the same date for al-Mu'izz ' official appointment.
5 Cf. Codera , Títulos, p. 73. The earliest competent discussion of these events with reference to the coins is Longpérier's in RN, 1838, pp. 442–7.

85. الحاجب معز ( Al-ḥājib Mu'izz ).

See al-Mu'izz .

86. الحاجب المعز ( Al-ḥājib al-Mu'izz ).

See al-Mu'izz .

87. ولى العهد المعز ( Wali al-'ahd al-Mu'izz ).

See al-Mu'izz .

88. معز بن عبد الله ( Mu'izz b. 'Abdullāh ).

There are two dirhems of Fās of the year 389 apparently bearing this name; one of them, the ANS specimen, is not entirely clear. I can propose no identity, unless indeed ' Abdullāh b. Yaḥyā b. abī-'Āmir , governor of Fās in 389, had a son by the name of Mu'izz who was appointed to some office connected with the coinage 2 .

89. مفرج ( Mufarrij ).

On dinars and dirhems of 386 and 387 3 . There is one possible identification. At the time of the assassination of the vizier ' Isā b. Sa'īd and the imprisonment of the pretender Hishām b. 'Abd al-Jabbār in 397 A. H. 4 , there was a certain freedman of the ḥājib ' Abd al-Malik by the name of Mufarrij al-'Āmiri , prefect of police (or ṣāḥib al-madīnah ) of Madīnat al-Zāhirah , who took an active part in both these affairs 5 . It is not unlikely that this man was connected with the mint in 386–387.

90. مفويه.

An unintelligible word on a single doubtful dirhem attributed to Hishām II and lacking both date and mint (no. 351(f)).

End Notes

1 Cf. Codera , Títulos , pp. 80–1.
2 See p. 70 above.
3 Also doubtfully on a fractional dinar of Hishām II's , without mint or date (no. 351(b)).
4 See above, article 56.
5 Ibn 'Idhāri , III, pp. 34, 35; cf. Dozy , III, pp. 211, 212.

91. المهدي بالله (Al-Mahdi bi'llāh).

The laqab of the Caliph Muḥammad II , q. v.

92. موسى ( Mūsā ).

A name in the obverse border of dirhems of the year 275. The person, probably a mint official or die-engraver, is unidentified.

93. المؤيد بالله (Al-Mu'ayyad bi'llāh).

The laqab of the Caliph Hishām II , q. v.

94. المـ.

Letters above the reverse area of a single dirhem of 268 A. H., in conjunction with letters beneath the area (article no. 95 below). I do not know their meaning.

95. مى س.

See no. 94, above.

96. الناصر لدين الله ( Al-Nāṣir li-dīn Allāh ).

The laqab of the Caliph ' Abd al-Raḥmān III , q. v.

97. نصر ( Naṣr ).

On dirhems an fulūs of the year 268 and on a dinar of 361 A. H. Codera stated that the name in the latter instance might also be read Bakr 1 ; in any case, neither of the names is identifiable.

98. هشام ( Hishām ).

On dinars and dirhems of 334–335; and possibly on a dateless fractional dinar of Muḥammad III . Codera suggested 2 that the first individual might be a hypothetical second son of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III's . by the name of Hishām (the first by that name having died in the year 303), but this proposal is surely far-fetched. I have no solution. It is difficult to say even what office Hishām administered; it seems unlikely that it was the directorship of the mint, for in 336, only one year after the second of the well-represented series of coins, a certain ' Abdullāh b. Muḥammad was relieved of his duties as master of the mint 1 . As for the name on the 5th century coin, it is too uncertain to merit inquiry.

End Notes

1 Títulos, p. 85.
2 Títulos, pp. 57–8.

99. الامام هشام امير المؤمنين المؤيد بالله ( Al-Imām Hishām Amīr al-Mu'minīn al-Mu'ayyad bi'llāh ).

The name and titles of the Caliph Hishām II as they appear most commonly on the coins from 366 until his death (or "disappearance") in 403 A. H.; and later, as fictitious Caliph, or heir apparent, on coins of the mulūk al-ṭau'ā'if. There are also the following variations in the numismatic protocol:

Mint and date effaced: الامام هشام امير المؤمنين

Fās, 377–380; and Sijilmāsah, date lacking:

الامام هشام المؤيد بالله امير المؤمنين

391 (exceptional): الامام امير المؤمنين المؤيد بالله

No mint or date: الامام هشام المؤيد بالله

Mint and date effaced (obviously an error):

الامام هشام المؤمنين المؤيد بالله

In monumental and other inscriptions the following forms of the protocol occur: امير المؤمنين المؤيد بالله هشام بن الحكم 2 , and الخليفة الامام عبد الله هشام المؤيد بالله امير المؤمنين 3 . According to Ibn abī-Zar' , the inscription on the minbar of the Jāmi'al-Qarawīyīn at Fās (dated 395 A.H.), read: الخليفة المنصور سيف الاسلام عبد الله هشام المؤيد بالله 4 . There is also an inscription of Hishām as heir presumptive on a silvered box which reads: لابن الوليد هشام ولى عهد المسلمين 5 .

100. الامام هشام امير المؤمنين المعتد بالله

( Al-Imām Hishām Amīr al-Mu'minīn al-Mu'tadd bi'llāh ).

The name and titles of the Caliph Hishām II I as they appear on the two rare coins of his that are preserved (nos. 368–9. There are no other epigraphical remains of his, but his laqab ( al-Mu'tadd , "the Ready") and his kunyah, abū-Bakr , are known to the chroniclers 1 .

End Notes

1 Ibn 'Idhāri , II, pp. 230–1. Cf. the discussion of ' Abdullāh , article no. 49, above.
2 Lévi-Provençal , Inscriptions, no. 30.
3 Ibid., no. 211.
4 Ibid., no. 221.
5 Ibid., no. 191.

101. وازير [= Wānūdīn ?].

This legend is alleged to occur on a single dinar of Sijilmāsah , possibly dated 395 A. H. (no. 329). There are, furthermore, several dinars of the same mint, issued under Hishām II , and supposedly bearing such names as " Ouazir " and " Ben el Ouazir " (see the note after no. 353 in the catalogue). In discussing the mint of Sijilmāsah 2 , I have suggested the possibility that وازير may be a misreading for Wānūdīn , the son of Khazrūn b. Falfūl. Wānūdīn , we know from Ibn Khaldūn's account, was entrusted with the government of Sijilmāsah on behalf of the Umayyads in 390 A. H.; we are also told that in 396 Sijilmāsah was specifically omitted from al-Mu'izz b. Zīri's province because Wānūdīn was still charged with that city; and finally that he declared himself independent at Sijilmāsah upon the break-up of the Umayyad Caliphate 3 . Admittedly Wānūdīn (وانودين) does not look very much like وازير, but until I have seen a specimen myself (none is illustrated), or until some reader who has seen one categorically denies the possibility, the suggestion may be allowed to stand.

102. واضح ( Wāḍiḥ ).

At Fās , years 387, 388 and 389. Wāḍiḥ is well known as the great "slave" ( ṣaqlabi ) 4 general of al-Manṣūr ibn abī-'Āmir , whom the latter sent to Africa , with a title tantamount to that of viceroy of possessions overseas, to bring Zīri b. 'Aṭīyah to submission. The first year in which his name appears on the coins corresponds with Ibn Khaldūn's date for the arrival of Wāḍiḥ in Africa on this mission.

The succession of events is complicated and not altogether clear 1 , but it is evident from the coins that Wāḍiḥ gained control of Fās during part of 387, that he lost it for a time in 388 ( Zīri , in fact, is known to have returned temporarily to the city in this year), and that he was again there as governor in 389 2 . Meanwhile, ' Abd al-Malik al-Muẓaffar had been called to Africa in connection with the campaign against Zīri , and while he was there Wāḍiḥ was subordinate to him; but Ibn Khaldūn tells us that when ' Abd al-Malik returned to Spain in Jumādā I, 389, Wāḍiḥ was once more named governor of the Maghrib . Wāḍiḥ was even better known for his campaigns in Spain 3 .

End Notes

1 Ibn 'Idhāri , III, p. 145.
2 P. 47, above.
3 Ibn Khaldūn , VII, p. 38; cf. Berbères, III, p. 257.
4 On the exact meaning of this term (plural ṣaqālibah), applied to slaves of European origin in Spain , whether Slav or not, see the article by Lévi-Provençal in EI, s. v. ṣaḳāliba, and his L'Espagne , pp. 28–31, Histoire, I, pp. 362–7. Wāḍiḥ was known as al-fatā al-kabīr, "the great [eunuch] officer" (cf. Ibn 'Idhāri , III, index).

103. ولى العهد (Wali al-'ahd).

Heir apparent. See the articles " Wali al-'ahd Muḥammad " and " al-Mu'izz ." The title also appears independently on dirhems of 401 and 402 (nos. 345(ll) and 346 (r) and (s)), but here perhaps it is to be associated with the name Muḥammad on the opposite faces of the coins. The earliest numismatic use of the term "heir apparent", in the form wali 'ahd al-Muslimīn, is in reference to the 'Abbāsid Caliph al-Mahdi .

104. يحـي ( Yaḥyā ).

Dates: 219–221, 320, 350–351, 363. There are also the following in­stances: a single fals attributed to the period of ' Abd al-Raḥmān II (no. 178(b)), an imitation (?) of the year 364 (no. 257 (i)), and a unique coin of Madīnat al-Zahrā ' dated 366 (no. 260 (a)). The first occurrencess of the name are in the obscure interlinear position which suggests that the person in question was a mint official or die-engraver. In the year 320 we find both Yaḥyā and Yaḥyā b. Yūnus . This Yaḥyā is well identified; see the following article (no. 105). As for the name on the issues of 350 and 351, there is no certain identification and I can only suggest the possibility of Yaḥyā b. Muḥammad al-Tujībi , who was later governor of Saragossa , and thereafter held other distinguished offices 4 , but there is no direct supporting evidence. In 363 this Yaḥyā was acting in an important military capacity (against al-Ḥasan b. Gannūn ), and hence he can scarcely be the person whose name appears on the coins of that year. But it is possible that in the earlier years (350–351) he had reached the level of master of the mint in his rising career; although the curious alternation of the name Yaḥyā with that of (ibn abī-) ' Āmir , and the significance which this anomaly may imply, is one of those puzzling problems in connection with the coinage which may have a bearing on the location of the mints and which only a study of hoards and distribution can solve 1 .

Codera left Yaḥyā (except Yaḥyā b. Yūnus ) unidentified 2 .

End Notes

1 Cf. the article on Zīri , no. 33, above; and Codera , Tītulos, pp. 69–71.
2 Cf. Ibn Khaldūn , VII, pp. 32–3 (Berbères, III, pp. 244–6); Lévi-Provençal , Histoire , I, pp. 454–5.
3 See Dozy and Maqqari , indices.
4 Dozy , II, pp. 182, 197–8, Lévi-Provençal , Histoire, I, pp. 399, 402, 407–8, 418; Maqqari , II, pp. 158–9.

105. بن يونس [ا] يحـي ( Yaḥyā b. Yūnus ).

On dirhems of 320 A. H. and coppers of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III with mint and date effaced or lacking (nos. 194 and 199(e)?, (f) and (g)). See also the issues of 320 with the simple name Yaḥyā. Ibn 'Idhāri provides us with the certain identification of this name, Yaḥyā b. Yūnus ( al-Qubruṣi ?) 3 , appointed to the directorship of the mint on 4 Shawwāl, 320, and relieving a certain Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Mūsā b. Judayr 4 , whose name is not mentioned on the coinage, probably because that privilege had not yet been extended to the ṣāḥib al-sikkah.

We also know some other interesting facts relating to his career: that he was named chief of the lesser shurṭah in 311, relieved Aḥmad b. Bahlūl (q. v., p. 58 above) as Master of Markets in 313, was appointed ṣāḥib al-madīnah (chief civil authority) 5 at Cordoba in Jumādā I, 319, and was a few months later (in Shawwāl) relieved of the latter post, apparently because of a short temper and inability to get along with the women with whom he had to deal 6 .

106. image

An undeciphered name in the border of some rare dirhems of 276 and 279 A. H. Codera and Vives read ابو كرد, and the former transcribed "Abu Corad? ó cosa parecida." 7 But as I have remarked in the catalogue, such a reading is not possible in the one specimen which I have seen illustrated.

End Notes

1 See the discussion of "al-Andalus", p. 38 above.
2 Títulos, pp. 54, 58.
3 Dozy's text leaves the nisbah in doubt; Codera ( Títulos , p. 51) supplied "Kabrani"; Lévi-Provençal (cf. L'Espagne , p. 90) reads Qubruṣi.
4 Ibn 'Idhāri , II, p. 224.
5 Cf. Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne , pp. 90 ff., for the meaning of this term.
6 Ibn 'Idhāri , II, pp. 195, 203, 220–1. Cf. Codera , Títulos, pp. 51, 55.
7 Títulos , p. 42.


In view of the conflicting and often unintelligible statements of the Arab writers 1 , the only really reliable information with respect to Spanish-Umayadd metrology is to be derived from the coins them­selves. The tables of issues and weights at the end of this volume provide the figures on which the following summary is based 2 . While the bulk of the data has been arrived at by weighing all the speci­mens in the Hispanic Society and American Numismatic Society collections, all other reliable published weights (such as those in the British Museum, Paris and Berlin catalogues) have been averaged in. With due allowance for loss of weight resulting from wear, clipping, mutilation, etc., these figures probably give quite a fair representation of the average weights of dinars and dirhems in Spain from the be­ginning of the 8th to the beginning of the 11th Christian centuries.

There are four denominations of gold: full dinars, and one-half, one-third and one-quarter dinars. In the earliest years the one-quarter dinar appears not to have existed, but there are dinars of the years 98, 102, 103,104 and 106, and one-half and one-third dinars (actually so named, nisf and thulth, in the mint-date formula) 3 of the year 102. At the outset the weight of the dinar conforms quite closely with the standard in the Umayyad East, that is, 4.25 grams, a weight derived from that of the Byzantine solidus, from which the dinar evolved 4 . Actualy, most of the few specimens preserved from this early period are heavier than the general run of those in the East, the average weighing about 4.28 grams; and one dinar is as heavy as 4.34 grams 1 . During the next two hundred years no gold was struck in Spain. I have met with no attempt­ed explanation of this remarkable phenomenon, and as the matter is of some interest a brief digression will not be out of place.

During the period in question dinars were struck widely and in great quantities in North Africa and the East, not only by the Umayyads of Damascus until their downfall but by the ' Abbāsids , Ṭūlūnids , Aghlabids and other secondary dynasts in the 'Abbāsid dominion, not to mention the later Fāṭimids of Egypt and Syria 2 . Why did the coining of gold cease in Arab Spain ? We must remember that the question is primarily one of the disappearance of minted currency, for, as we know from the Arab literature, gold in theory and probably in the form of bullion, continued throughout this period to be the fundamental metal in which value was calculated and large commercial affairs were transacted. Was there an actual shortage of gold? If so, was it because the Arab and Berber conquerors were unable, or did not make the effort, to exploit the Iberian deposits which had already been neglected under the later Visigoths ? If this were the explanation, or part of it, we would have to assume that the early Spanish dinars were minted from imported gold, except perhaps for those very impure pieces which are quite common among the Latin types. Or did the cessation of gold-minting come about primarily because the Umayyad emirs, unlike many eastern princes, did not presume, for juridicial and theological reasons, to arrogate to themselves the prerogatives of gold coinage? 3 The absence of gold between 106 and 132 A. H., at least, may be the result of a decision of the supreme authority in Damascus . Subsequently, while entirely independent in fact of the 'Abbāsid dominion, the Umayyad emirs of Spain continued to recognize the caliphal authority of the ' Abbāsids (a psychological, rather than a substantial or political, allegiance) 4 .

Or, to continue the recital of possible contributing factors, were the conditions of internal economy in Umayyad Spain such that there was no need of minted gold? Or should we seek for some relationship between the complete withdrawal of coined gold from circulation in Muslim Spain and the universal dearth of indigenous minted gold in the Christian West during later Merovingian and in Carolingian times? This latter condition was due to a number of causes, including an unfavorable balance of trade with the East, hoarding motivated by insecurity, and the ecclesiastical freezing of gold in churches and monasteries 1 . These considerations are possible lines of inquiry, along which the proper explanation may lie. The subject is one deserving of special research by a competent student in the field of economc and commercial history.

The resumption of gold minting under ' Abd al-Raḥmān III is more easily explained than its discontinuation in the days of the governors two centuries before. The revival of the coinage, both silver and gold, in 316 A. H., after a generation of anarchy, is intimately associated, as I have pointed out elsewhere, with the political accomplishments and aspirations of the great Caliph. It is entirely in keeping with the nature of the circumstances that simultaneously with his assumption of the titles and dignities of the Caliphate he should revive the sov­ereign prerogative of gold minting. Dinars were being struck by his avowed rivals in the East, the ' Abbāsids and the Shī'ite Fāṭimids 2 , and it is to be expected that as the new defender of the true faith he would issue gold. Furthermore the task of internal pacification and consolidation of power which consumed the first years of his reign was now accomplished and ' Abd al-Raḥmān was then about to devote himself to a great program of building and public works within, and of military expansion and commercial activity beyond, the bor­ders of the kingdom of al-Andalus . Political theory and the new economy called for gold in circulation, and the mint produced it from reserves that must have been in being and which the ruler's military successes must have augmented.

When the dinars and fractions of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III make their appearane, although there appears to be a slight falling-off in weight, the same standard as that which had been established two hundred years before and which by and large had prevailed in other Muslim lands during the interval, was doubtless still in effect. I have the weights of only a few dinars dating between 317 and 350 A. H., but the more common thirds and quarters work out at a figure indicating an average of around 4.10 to 4.20 grams for the dinar 1 . Thereafter, during the rules of al-Ḥakam II and Hishām II and the latter's successors, the average weights are less constant, ranging between 3.79 and 4.42 grams, with individual dinars weighing as little as 3.43 and as much as 4.71 grams. Obviously in this later period, as so commonly elsewhere and in other times, gold payments in Spain were made by weight and not by number. There are in fact numerous references in the literature to purchases or payments bi'l-wāzanah , that is, "by weight" 2 .

As with the gold, the earliest silver of the dependent emirate, dating between 104 and 131 A. H., approximates the weight of Umayyad dirhems in the East 3 . The data are limited, as I have weights for only 13 dirhems of this period, but the few figures available show 2.96 grams as the maximum and 2.58 as the minimum, the average being 2.81 grams. Thereafter, until the end of the 3rd century, there is a diminution in dirhem weights; but with ' Abd al-Raḥmān III individual weights and the averages increase, and under Hishām II and his successors the average at al-Andalus and Madīnat al-Zahrā ' rises to 3.11, and at Fās to 3.13, grams. The following table shows the averages under the several princes and caliphs:

' Abd al-Raḥmān I 2.60 grams
Hishām I 2.27 grams
Al-Ḥakam I 2.59 grams
' Abd al-Raḥmān II 2.43 grams
Muḥammad I 2.51 grams
Al-Mundhir — (no weights recorded)
' Abdullāh 2.14 grams (few weights recorded)
' Abd al-Raḥmān III 2.83 grams (few weights recorded)
Al-Ḥakam II 2.77 grams (few weights recorded)
Hishām II and Successors 3.11 grams (few weights recorded)

Throughout the 3rd and 4th centuries there are striking deviations from the theoretical norm or the average, some specimens even though unclipped weighing less than two grams, many exceeding three, and some weighing over four grams. The heaviest dirhem I have recorded (a specimen of the year 389 A. H.) weighs 5.34 grams. One must conclude that after the mid-second century of the Hijrah the weight of the dirhem ceased to have any economic or metrological significance, and that all important commercial transactions were executed by weight. Clipping was a common practice, as elsewhere in the Middle Ages. In the catalogue I have noted, down to about the year 234 A. H., each clipped coin, and have omitted them from the calculation of averages, but thereafter so many specimens are either clipped or else originally struck on flans too small for the die, that except where they are very markedly reduced in size, I have omitted mention of clipping and have included all weighed specimens in the averaging.

I have made no independent study of the fineness of the gold and silver. The statements of Arab writers cast little light on the question, although occasional passing remarks give some indication of the relationship between pure and coined gold. For example, in the year 327 A. H., 400 pounds of virgin gold (dhahab al-tibr) were worth 45,000 dinars 1 . That the gold was sometimes adulterated is suggested by the stipulation that sums be paid in dinars that are ṣaḥīḥ ("pure"' or "whole") 2 . But the only pertinent scientific information is that given by Queipo, based on a few assays made in Paris and Madrid 3 . The following are the few figures available:

1 bilingual dinar (period of governors) 0.791 fine
1 dinar (period of governors) 0.850 fine
1 dinar (' Abd al-Raḥmān III ) 4 0.895 fine
1 dinar ( Al-Ḥakam II ) 0.979 fine
1/4 dinar (Hishām II) 0.458 fine

The debasement of the gold in the later quarter-dinars is noteworthy and is, incidentally, apparent to the eye.

1 dirhem (' Abd al-Raḥmān I ) 0.990 fine
1 dirhem ( Hishām I ) 0.970 fine
2 dirhems ( Al-Ḥakam I ) 0.958 fine
1 dirhem (' Abd al-Raḥmān II ) 0.958 fine
2 dirhems ( Muḥammad I ) 0.958 fine
1 dirhem (' Abd al-Raḥmān III , 331 A. H.) 0.301 fine
1 dirhem ( Al-Ḥakam II ) 0.778 fine
1 dirhem ( Hishām II ) 0.728 fine
1 dirhem ( Sulaymān ) 0.730 fine

Madrid assay figures are also given for a few unidentified dirhems prior to ' Abd al-Raḥmān III , which Queipo attributes, on the basis of the above data, as indicated:

4 dirhems of ' Abd al-Raḥmān I or Hishām I 0.972 fine
4 dirhems of Al-Ḥakam I – Muḥammad I 0.958 fine

I imagine that the cited fineness of the dirhem of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III is not typical and is much lower than the average (although the debasement in his earlier years is noticeable), but the figures for his successors are, to judge by appearanes, probably representative.

Mediaeval Arab writers have furnished a quantity of confusing and contradictory testimony with regard to the relationship of the dirhem to the dinar 1 , but in general it may be accepted that, as in other parts of the Islamic world, the traditional weight relation of 1 dirhem = 7/10 dinar (or mithqāl) applied 2 . As for the value of the dinar in terms of dirhems, this was a widely variable relationship: the scattered notices that have come to my attention, for the most part assembled by Sauvaire in his Matériaux , scarcely give us a systematic conception of the changing market prices of gold and silver throughout the years. Ten to one is a proportion frequently named in other parts of the Muslim world; Ibn 'Idhāri , writing of the year 303 (915/6 A. D.), mentions the price of wheat during a famine in terms of 3 dinars or 40 dirhems (about 13 to 1) 3 ; Ibn Ḥawqal (middle 10th century) reported an equivalence of 200,000 dinars = 3, 400,000 dirhems (17 to 1) 4 .

Some idea of the purchasing power of the dinar is furnished by occasional bits of information in the literature: for example, ' Abd al-Raḥmān I paid 80,000 dinars for the construction of the mosque at Cordoba 1 ; ' Abd al-Raḥmān III spent three dinars for each block of marble, and eight dinars for each column, transported from Africa for the building of Madīnat al-Zahrā ' 2 ; and the same prince expended five amdā' and 2 1/2 akyāl of dirhems for the construction of the minaret of the mosque at Cordoba ; and 25 amdā', 6 aqfizah and 3 1/2 akyāl of dirhems in the building of the palaces of al-Zahrā ' 3 . But the meanings of the qualifying phrases and measures that usually accompany these figures (as in the passage last cited) are usually confusing and obscure, so that we achieve only a very hazy idea of the true value of the currency.

The size of the early dinars is the same as that of the Eastern Umayyad dinar, about 19 or 20 mm.; and the halves and quarters are about 16 and 14 mm. respectively. The fourth century dinars are generally a little larger, some measuring as much as 24 mm., while the quarters of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III range between 12 and 14 mm. The silver varies considerably in size. In the period of the dependent Umayyad emirate the diameter of the dirhem is about 26 mm., but it increases under ' Abd al-Raḥmān I to 28 mm., thereafter decreasing to about 24 mm. in the early part of the reign of Muḥammad I. About 250 A. H., when several new styles of dirhems make their appearance, a very large flan begins to be used, some specimens measuring no less than 32 mm. ' Abd al-Raḥmān III's early dirhems are approximately 26 mm., but later in his reign the diameter is reduced to about 24 mm., which approximate size continues, with few exceptions, until the collapse of the dynasty.

As for the sources of metal for the coinage, Spain was rich in deposits of gold, silver and copper that had been worked since the earliest historical times. The mining industry in the peninsula probably reached its apogee in the first centuries before and after Christ, when Spain was "the most important metal-producing country of the world" 4 , but many of the old deposits were still being worked in Arab times. Unfortunately we are lacking specific information about the exploitation and administration of the mines by the Arabs, but the geographers make frequent mention of the location of deposits, particularly of gold and silver 1 . Maqqari tells us that gold was extracted in large quantities from the sands of the Darro , the Tagus near Lisbon , and the Lerida ; and that the richest gold mine in Spain , according to Ibn Sa'īd , was near Santiago 2 . The Segre was another river from which placer gold was obtained 3 . Silver was mined in the regions of Murcia , Alhama and Cordoba , near Hornachuelos , and at Totalica in the district of Beja 4 .

One other matter which may have some bearing on the metrology of the coinage must be discussed. Beginning with the reign of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III it will be observed that a very considerable number of the dirhems (not the dinars) in the collections to which I have had access (and in others where the fact is noted) are pierced, and that the piercing in the great majority of cases is double. Previous to ' Abd al-Raḥmān III , in the 3rd century, one occasionally sees a dirhem with a single piercing, and I have noted one coin dated 198 A.H. with a double piercing; but these are only scattered instances, and I imagine that these piercings are modern. In the 4th century, however, the practice becomes so common and the incidence of double piercing (although sometimes there are three or even four holes) so regular, that the observer cannot fail to suspect some significance. The holes are usually, but not always, toward the edge of the flan, and are irregularly spaced but most frequently about a half-inch apart; in some cases they are on opposite edges of the flan. Almost always the hole is jagged and irregular as though made with a nail or some similar not very sharp instrument, but sometimes the piercing appears more like a slit caused by a knife blade. One thing is clear, that the intention was not to remove metal from the coin either to standardize its weight (which is out of the question anyway in view of the extreme irregularity of the weights) or to amass bits of silver for melting down and sale, for in most instances no metal has been taken away. Around the edges of the hole the metal usually protrudes on the opposite face of the coin from the one on which it was struck; sometimes the protruding edges have been hammered down flat, and on some specimens the piercing has virtually been closed up again either by beating back the pressed-out metal or by filling with a plug.

What was the purpose of these holes? I confess that I have discovered no satisfactory explanation. The first thought that comes to mind is that the coins were pierced in post-Arab, perhaps relatively modern, times, so that they might be fitted to a necklace as ornaments. But there are two objections to this view. In the first place, it is a reasonable assumption (though the proof is lacking) that most of the dirhems in the Hispanic Society collection came from hoards and were not acquired from individuals – villagers and peasants – who wore them, or whose antecedents wore them, as ornaments. This assumption, furthermore, is borne out by a statement of Codera's . Writing of the Alhama hoard 1 , he tells us that in practically all 4th century dirhem hoards many of the specimens predating the time of burial are pierced in the manner described. In the Alhama hoard (2nd and 3rd century dates) there were none; and Codera noted that in the collections with which he was familiar, dirhems of dates previous to the rule of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III are not so pierced – an observation which confirms my own. His wide first-hand acquaintance with hoards establishes the fact that the piercing is not modern. Codera's conclusion was that dirhems predating the hoard burial date were pierced (in the 4th century) so that they might be threaded as ornaments, the implication being that the issues of previous rules were not valid currency. We lack, so far as I know, any corroboration of this implication, but even if the possibility be admitted, the necessity remains of explaining the purpose of the double piercing. Why should there be two holes (or three, or four) instead of one?

The same objection – that one hole would suffice – would be pertinent to two other suggestion: (a) that non-current dirhems were officially invalidated by piercing them, or (b) that money-changers pierced the coins to test the quality of the metal. And neither of these suggestions is satisfactory for other obvious reasons. For example, if dirhems were invalidated, why would they not be taken by their owners to the mint or a silversmith and sold as bullion? In short, it is apparent that I am able only to raise objections to possible explanations and that the solution must await some more ingenious mind 2 .

End Notes

1 For example I can make little or nothing of the statements bearing on the weight in ḥabbāt of the Spanish dirhem quoted by Sauvaire in Matériaux, I. p. 355; and I gladly leave the unscrambling of the Arab calculations to some one better equipped and more patient.
1 See Miles , Arab Dinars , for typical weights of eastern Umayyad dinars of comparable date.
1 For the general problem of gold in the Middle Ages, cf. A. Luschin von Ebengreuth , Allgemeine Münzkunde und Geldgeschichte des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit ( München , 1926), p. 42; Alexander Del Mar , The Science of Money (2nd. ed., New York , 1896), pp. 69ff.; James Westfall Thompson , An Economic and Social History of the Middle Ages (300–1300) ( New York , 1928), p. 219; and the recent very interesting article of Maurice Lombard , "Les bases monétaires d'une suprématie économique: l'or musulmane en VII e au XI e siècle", Annales, II ( Paris , Apr.–Juin, 1947), pp. 143–60.
1 Some early numismatic writers refer to the 4th century fractional dinars as thirds, but in most cases the weight would seem to indicate that they are quarters, and I have altered the terminology accordingly.
1 Maqqari , II, p. 151.
1 See the collection of quotations and references in Sauvaire , Matériaux, I, passim , and especially pp. 79–98.
1 Ibn 'Idhāri , II, p. 245.
1 See Lévi-Provençal , L'Eapagne , pp. 176–7, where most of the sources are assembled.
1 Codera , Alhama , p. 443.
2 The few published metrological studies of the present coinage scarcely need be taken into consideration as they are based on very limited data. These are: Saez , pp. 341–2, Queipo , II, pp. 165–7, 394–7, III ( Tables ), pp. 616–8 (cf. Sauvaire, Matériaux, I, pp. 263–4, 266–7), Cuenca , p. 433. Queipo's data on fineness, however, are utilized below.
2 On the "age of gold" in Egypt see the article by Michel de Boüard , "Sur l'évolution monétaire de l'Égypte médiévale", in L'Égypte Contemporaine , V. 30 (1939), pp. 427–59. Cf. Manuel Gómez-Moreno , "Oro en España", in Archivo Español de Arqueología, No. 45 (1941), pp. 466–7: gold, during the period in question, was "absorbed" by the Eastern Caliphate.
2 The earliest Fāṭimid dinar was struck at Qayrawān in 296 A. H. ( J.Farrugia de Candia , "Monnaies Fātmites du Musée du Bardo (Premier Supplément)", Revue Tunisienne , 1948, no. 1).
2 Cf. Ibn 'Idhāri , II, pp. 165, 245, 267, with reference to the periods of ' Abd al-Raḥmān I and ' Abd al-Raḥmān III .
2 Ibn 'Idhāri , II, p. 309.
2 Cf. J. Allan , s. v. mithḳāl in EI.
2 Ibid., II, p. 246. These payments were in " Sijilmāsah " dinars, an allusion the meaning of which escapes me, unless the reference is to Fāṭimid gold. Cf. p. 46 above.
2 Maqqari , I, p. 89.
2 One piece, not belonging to the period of multiple piercing in question, deserves special passing notice. A dirhem of the year 231 (HSA 14334, no. 123(a)) has been pierced and refilled with a fragment of another coin. See the description in the catalogue. It is mentioned here because the curiosity may have some oblique bearing on the matter discussed above.
3 Cf. Antonio Vives , "Indicación del valor en las monedas arabigo-españolas", in Homenáje a D. Francisco Codera ( Zaragoza , 1904), pp. 513–22.
3 Sikkah was, of course, a privilege of royalty (cf. Ibn Khaldūn , Muqaddamah, II, pp. 47 ff., Prolégomènes , II, pp. 54ff.
3 The theoretical weight is 2.97 grams (cf. E. v. Zambaur , s. v. dirhem, in EI ), but as I have pointed out in my "Early Arabic Glass Weights and Stamps" (referred to above), p. 6, the actual weight is usually less, that is, between 2.70 and 2.90 grams.
3 Loc. cit.
3 Ibn 'Idhāri , II, 174.
3 Ibid. Cf. Sauvaire , Matériaux, III, pp. 445ff., 126f. and 135ff., for these measures of capacity.
3 Al-Ḥimyari , p. 168/202.
4 Cf. E. v. Zambaur , s. v. dīnār in EI. See also the remarks in my "Early Arabic Glass Weights and Stamps" ( The American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs, No. 111, N.Y., 1948), pp. 4–6. So far as I am aware no glass weights have ever been found in Spain ; how the treasury and mint controlled the weights of dinars and dirhems is unknown.
4 Van Berchem , Titres Califiens, p. 23; Arnod , Caliphate, p. 58. Cf. Alexander Del Mar , History of Monetary Systems ( London , 1895), pp. 164–5.
4 Queipo also lists a "dinar bilingue" of ' Abd al-Raḥmān I of the year 160, but such a piece cannot exist.
4 Kitāb al-Masālik (ed. de Goeje, p. 74, quoted by Sauvaire , Matériaux, I, p. 274, P., p. XXVI, Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne , p. 76.
4 Oliver Davies , Roman Mines in Europe ( Oxford , 1935), p. 94. For the plentiful details relating to Roman mining in Spain , consult the whole of Chapter IV of this work. Cf. C. H. V. Sutherland , The Romans in Spain ( London , 1939), pp. 105–8, 196–8.
4 Lévi-Provençal , loc. cit. Cf. Maqqari , loc.cit., and al-Ḥimyari , p. 143/171.


The Arab writers tell us virtually nothing about the operation of the mint and the technique of coining. Ibn Khaldūn describes in a few words the fundamental minting process in his time, the engraving of dies with the titles of the sovereign attesting the validity of the coin, and the striking of the dies with a hammer against pieces of gold or silver of the requisite weight 1 ; and Ibn 'Idhāri has reported one or two facts about the mint (dār al-sikkah) at Cordoba which I have noted elsewhere 2 . The geographer Ibn al-Faqīh (late 3rd century of the Hijrah) states that the mint was in his day located near the Bāb al-'Aṭṭārīn 3 , which, according to Ibn Bashkuwāl , was the seventh gate of Cordoba , also known as the Gate of Seville 4 . The dār al-sikkah was directed by the ṣāḥib al-sikkah 5 , a high functionary of state, whose name is sometimes recorded in the chronicles, as I have noted in various places in dealing with the names on the coinage. Al-Manṣūr Muḥammad b. abī-'Āmir was the most famous ṣāḥib al-sikkah; the beginning of his great career was in that office 6 . Previous to the governmental regularization of the mint which took place in the time of ' Abd al-Raḥmān II (and perhaps in part thereafter), there is reason to believe that minting privileges were farmed out 7 . But aside from these scraps of information about the mint and occasional dubious statistics on output, we are left in the dark as to operation, procedure and technique. The following observations are based entirely on the internal evidence of the coins themselves.

All Spanish Umayyad coins are struck with dies; I have seen no cast coins 1 . Examinaiion of nearly twenty-five hundred specimens reveals no systematic relationship between the position of obverse and reverse; in other words, fixed dies were not in use. Muling is indiscriminate; there are many cases of the interchange of dies, that is of the employment of several reverse dies with the same obverse, or vice versa 2 . But obverse and reverse dies were always carefully paired, for I have seen no flan bearing two obverses or two reverses; although I know of one case where the die-engraver (not the coin-striker) became confused and inscribed an obverse margin on the reverse die (no. 297 (y)), and another where he used the Qur'ānic verse IX, 33, on both obverse and reverse (no. 351(d)). The number of dies must have been enormous, as I have pointed out elsewhere, and although the indications are that out-put was very large, it would appear that the life of a die, particularly that of the obverse (presumably the trussell) was short.

Careful study of the execution of the inscriptions convinces me that from the outset punches were used in constructing the die. Most of these punches are simple horizontal and vertical strokes, curves, circles, etc. 3 , which were combined to make various letters of the alphabet, others contain whole letters, and still others carried groups of letters forming words or even groups of words. Examples which betray the use of punches of this latter type are: HSA 14330 (no. 122(e)), where a single punch ومائتين was imprinted at an angle at the end of the marginal legend, the و falling on top of the end of the decade; and an ANS dirhem of 262 A. H. (no. 155(a)), where the first two quarters of the marginal legend are rectilinear and end with a punch bearing the letters الد, the rest of the word (هم) having been omitted. There are in addition a great many instances of overlapping or over-extending rectilinear marginal segments which appear to me to be un- mistakable evidence of the use of long punches for conventional parts of the mint-date formula, especially for the words between bi'sm and the name of the mint 1 .

Mention of this matter of rectilinear marginal segments brings us to a consideration of the important question of Vives' so-called acuñaciones (or agrupaciones ) which, in his opinion, were possibly the products of different mints represented by the one name, " al-Andalus " 2 . Vives' differentiation of styles in the 2nd and 3rd centuries is well conceived, but I am convinced that these different acuñaciones are not necessarily the products of different mints. The following are his classes:

(1): The only mint from 148–229 A. H.; and the last date is 263. Characteristics: the first words of the margin rectilinear, and the whole legend more polygonal than circular; the word "200" written مئتين.

(2): 229–263 A. H. Characteristics: perfectly circular margin, and the word "200" written مائتين.

(3): 250–279 A. H. Characteristics: the first words of the margin rectilinear, and the rest perfectly circular; the word "200" written مائتين; larger flans and more elegant style 3 .

(4): 250–269 A. H. Characteristics: circular margin; the word "200" written مائتين; larger flans and more elegant, like (3).

"Acuñación varia:" All specimens which do not conform to the above.

I have not been able to arrange all the coins of the 2nd and 3rd centuries according to Vives' groupings, and have therefore found it necessary to distinguish the following "styles" ( Vives' equivalents being indicated in parentheses):

Style A (V. 1): 146–230, 236–240 A. H. Characteristics: 1st, 2nd and sometimes 3rd quarters of margin rectilinear; from about 200 A. H. on, mostly 1st and 2nd quarters rectilinear; the borders are mostly triple-beaded, but sometimes double-beaded, single-beaded or double-linear; the only style with "200" written مئتين. Style B (V. 2): 229–237, 240–252, 261 (263?) A. H. Characteristics: circular margin; neat, careful epigraphy; inner linear border regularly at first, and later occasionally; usually double-beaded outer border. Style C (V. 3): 250–258, (263), 269–270, 276, 278, (279) A. H. Characteristics: 1st quarter of margin rectilinear, rest circular; larger flans; mostly good, legible epigraphy; triple-linear border with annulets between outer and 2nd borders. Style D: 250 A. H. Characteristics: like C, but 1st and 2nd quarters of margin rectilinear, rest circular; triple-linear border. Style E (V. 4): 250, 259 A. H. Characteristics: like B, with circular margin, but larger flan; triple-linear border with annulets between outer and 2nd borders. Style F: 252–258, 260–262 A. H. Characteristics: 1st quarter of margin rectilinear, rest circular; large, clear 2nd century epigraphy; fine, legible reverse; large flan; triple-beaded border. Style G: 261–262, 264–266, 271–275 A. H. Characteristics: like F, but triple-linear border. Style H: 267–268 A. H. Characteristics: circular margin; improved style; triple linear border.

Even this break-down of styles fails to embrace the entire range of differences, for as the reader will observe in the corpus it has been necessary to list some specimens as "variants," and furthermore, additional sub-headings are required in order to take care of specimens categorized by Vives according to his system which I have not seen 1 . The net result of the analysis is disappointing in one sense in that it fails to provide clear-cut criteria upon which an orderly hypothesis of mint differentiation might be based. There can be no doubt, however, that in 229 A. H., and about 250 A. H. 2 , quite strikingly new styles were introduced, and that these new styles affect the old and each other to a greater or lesser degree 3 . In some instances the new styles deteriorate, and in others they improve. While the new styles may be the product of new mints or ateliers, it can equally well be argued that they are simply the work of new die-engravers. This latter is my view: that is, the existence of several mints named "al-Andalus" in the 2nd and 3rd centuries is not improbable (in fact it is quite likely), but it is certainly not established by the evidence of the "styles" differentiated above. Let us consider one or two specific points.

In the first place there are instances of different styles on the obverse and reverse of the same coin: i. e ., dies of two styles were present in the same shop 1 . Secondly, to judge by the coins preserved, intermediate years in the series of certain styles are unrepresented. It would seem to me more likely that a certain engraver, or certain tools, were inactive in those years, than that an entire mint was closed down 2 .

Finally, the circular or rectilinear character of the obverse margin, which is Vives' principal criterion, in my opinion proves nothing. An examination of dirhems dating before the fall of the Umayyad Caliphate in Damascus demonstrates that circular, rectilinear, and partly rectilinear margins were common to the same mints. In other words, the manner of engraving the margin was a matter of the choice of technique by the individual die-engraver. The margins of most of the dirhems of al-Andalus in this period that I have seen are almost square; yet of the year 116 I have seen one that is almost square and another circular. Damascus always has circular margins, but most other mints have two, three or even four styles of margins. For example, Wāsiṭ has circular margins and margins with the first quarter rectilinear, the first and second quarters rectilinear, the first, second and third quarters rectilinear, and all four quarters rectilinear. So has Iṣṭakhr. Examples can be multiplied, but needlessly. Furthermore the rectilinear first quarter margin is revived in the 4th century in Spain (ca. 357, perhaps before), after a period of disuse, and is used indiscriminately thereafter, along with the circular margin, as noted in the catalogue, both types occurring in the same years at the one mint of Madīnat al-Zahrā '. Also, incidentally, the use of rectilinear margins carries over from al-Zahrā ' to al-Andalus in the resumption of activity by the latter mint in 365 A. H.

It would appear, therefore, that the die-engraver was at liberty to use a several letter rectilinear punch, or punches, for the beginning of his marginal legend, or to engrave the whole margin with individual punches. In the 4th century one observes an interesting relationship between the shape of the margin and the ornamentation, or lack of it, at the top of the obverse area. When the margin is entirely circular there is room for an elaborate ornament above the first line of the area; but when the first quarter of the margin is rectilinear and does not in this segment follow the periphery of the flan, thus reducing the area enclosed by the marginal legend, there is room only for a simple ornament or symbol, or sometimes no room for an ornament at all. In other words, the shape of the margin dictated the type, or even the presence or absence, of area ornamentation. Among many examples illustrating this factor in designing technique are the excellent ones of the years 392 and 393 A. H. Another related aspect of the same question is the treatment of the of the phrase lā-sharīka lahu: when it is floral, there is no ornament beneath the obverse area, simply because the floral flourish fills the available space. Both of these observations have a bearing on the question of the meaning of the ornaments; for they certainly appear to lend support to the view that in the 4th century at least, the ornaments have no technical or administrative significance 1 .

One or two other observations about the internal evidence of the coins with reference to technique and administration. Frequently in the 3rd century, and very commonly in the 4th, the die-engravers failed to estimate correctly the amount of space required for the mint-date formula, with the result that the date is more frequently incomplete than not. They were systematic, however, in beginning the marginal legend at the upper right; I have noted only three exceptions, two of the year 351 (nos. 243 (j) and (q)), beginning at the bottom, and one of the year 400 (no. 343(f)), beginning at the lower right. The variant distribution of the usual three-line reverse area legends into four or more lines under Hishām II and his successors appears to have been dictated merely by the whim of the engraver, and is not evidence of a different mint: e.g ., nos. 316 (vv) and (ggg), with reverse lines differently distributed, have obverses struck from the same die. Finally there is excellent evidence that at certain times at least, not only mint officials, but the technical functioning of the mint, were not affected by even the most violent of political changes. The obverse die of no. 342 (j) ( Muḥammad II , al-Andalus , 400 A. H.) and of no. 342 (qq) ( Sulaymān , same mint and date) is identical, the die quite naturally being in a more worn state when the latter dirhem was struck.

End Notes

1 Muqaddamah, I, p. 407, II, pp. 47–8; Prolégomènes, I, p. 460, II, p. 54. See also the literature cited by Georges Marçais , "Un coin monétaire almoravide du Musée Stéphane Gsell ", Annales de l'Institut d' Études orientales , 1936, p. 182.
1 A recent article by Dr. Paul Balog ("Aperçus sur la technique du monnayage musulman au moyen-âge", Bulletin de l'Institut d'Égypte, 1948–1949, pp. 95–105), received too late for full utilization in this discussion, bears significantly on the matter of the multiplicity of identical, or nearly identical, dies. The author demonstrates quite convincingly that the practice of making cast copies of master-dies was widespread in mediaeval Islam. A re-examinaionn of our materialmight show that this technique was also practiced in Spain . The"fuzziness" of many dirhem dies, especially in the late 4th century of the Hijrah, suggests this likelihood, but I have not been able to make the necessary meticulous study to establish the point.
1 I have remarked on one of many instances, especially at the end of the formula, in a note following no. 256 in the catalogue.
1 A good example of the inevitable intricacies of classification is the year 255: V. has 1st, 2nd and 3rd ascuñaciones, but HSA and ANS have two new types neither of which appear to fit V.'s categories.
1 See, for example, nos. 144 (b), 152, and 154. Also, simply to mention another aspect of the whole matter which points toward the same conclusion, there are occasions when the same, rather distinctive, ornaments appear on different styles (e. g., in the year 250).
1 With the reservation that the type (or presence or absence) of ornament would still permit of differentiation of the product under different assayers. See the discussion of ornaments and symbols, pp. 107 ff.
2 In the discussion of mint-names, pp. 39–41.
2 E.g., the year 340.
2 V., p. IX; cf. the discussion of the mint-name above, pp. 35ff., which is concerned in part with the same problems discussed below.
2 In addition to some entirely new obverse die styles, there is in this year a new lot of fine reverses of style B.
2 For example style A virtually disappears between 231 and 235 A. H.; in the year 251 there is apparently only one style, although in 250 there were several new ones; etc., etc.
3 Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān (Bibl. Geogr. Arab.), V, 1885, p. 88.
3 For the use of these punches in designing ornaments, see p. 110.
3 I do not understand why V. describes the coppers of the year 268 as 3rd acuñación ; the margins are all circular.
3 E. g., an ANS specimen of 230 A. H. (no. 122 (c), the margin of which begins as though style A (as far as al-dirham) and then becomes circular and clean in its epigraphy, as though style B. Did a "style B engraver" pick up the unfinished work of an old "style A engraver"?
4 Apud Maqqari , I, p. 207.
5 Cf. Lévi-Provençal , L'Espagne , pp. 75–6.
6 See p. 68.
7 Cf. pp. 39–40 above, and Lavoix in P ., pp. XXV–XXVII, quoting Yacoub Artin Pasha .


The epigraphy of the Umayyad coinage in Spain is essentially conservative. Considering the long period with which we are dealing and the development of the Kufic alphabet in other media during these centuries, it is remarkable that numismatic epigraphy undergoes so relatively few changes. The alphabet in use on the early 2nd (8th) century coins differs in no way from that of the Umayyad coins in the East; the Kufic is simple and unadorned. Unfortunately the perfection of the engraving, so characteristic of the dirhems and dinars down to the fall of the Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus in 132 A. H., does not persist in the ensuing years in Spain , and by the late 2nd century of the Hijrah a deterioration in legibility sets in, which with only occasional exceptions continues throughout the history of the coinage, and which at times reaches the absolute nadir of Arabic numismatic epigraphy. Indeed, by and large, the inscriptions on the dirhems of the Umayyads of Spain are the most difficult to read of all Islamic coins legends, and if it were not for their very largely conventional nature and the limited number of mint and personal names, correct attribution of many coins would be exceedingly difficult. In view of the prevailing miserable standard of legibility, the occasional examples of beautiful engraving and perfect legibility are the more remarkable.

The following table illustrates the principal forms of the letters throughout the coinage:


Before the middle of the 3rd century the die-engravers began to exhibit their individuality by adding floral flourishes to the terminations of certain letters, especially to the sīn of al-Andalus , and the final letters of the digits and decades in the date, thus 1 :


Shortly after 250 A. H. the lām-alifs of the obverse area are sometimes furnished with crockets image , but aside from these occasional flourishes and elaborations there is no fundamental or general change in the alphabet. Even in the first half of the 4th century the essential character of the Kufic remains the same, although the number of individual letters which receive flourishes increases: for example, the of lāsharīka lahu , the of 'Āmir, the final nūn of almu'minīn frequently, and certain dāls and kāfs occasionally, are floral or flourished. Also there are isolated examples of distinctive ornamental styles which demonstrate the fact that die-engravers were aware of the decorative use of the alphabet in other media and were at liberty to develop their own style. A good exampe is HSA 14621 (no. 231(b) of 341 A. H. (plate V)), the reverse of which (but not the obverse) displays a highly developed ornamental form of Kufic with crocketed letters.

A gradual evolution takes place in the second half of the 4th century which changes the style of the lettering somewhat but very seldom alters the elementary shapes. Most of the letters are thicker, the writing as a whole is more crowded, and some characters have distinctive shapes: for example, initial , image ; kāf , image ; final nūn , image ; , image ; and lām-alif image .

Pointed letters are relatively rare, and the significance of the pointing, if any, in most cases escapes me. One is inclined to believe that the occasional points found on letters in the marginal legends of the early dinars have some "secret" meaning, but a more thorough study of the question as it relates to the coinage throughout the whole Umayyad empire is prerequisite to any reliable conclusion 2 . Later instances, it seems to me, are probably devoid of meaning. In the 3rd century the ḍād of ḍuriba quite frequently receives a point, and in the 4th century occasionally a minute annulet in place of a point: e. g ., 226, 228, 237, 239, 340, 386 A. H. There are instances of a point over the dhāl of hadha ( e. g. , 237 A. H.). Sometimes there is a point over the mīm of bi'sm , and an annulet over the ṣād of al-Nāṣir ( e. g. , 340 A. H.). About the year 350 a series of points begins to appear in many obverse margins, but these points only occasionally conform with the true pointing of the cursive alphabet. For exampe, in the latter half of the 4th century points frequently occur over the of al-dirham and al-Zahrā , and the of both al-dirham and al-dīnār , as well as over the of al-Zahrā ', the nūn of sanah and the khā of khamsīn; and in many instances it is difficult to say whether points over certain letters are free-standing or whether they are not simply point-punches used in engraving the top of the letter itself. In the 380's and later, the obverse, and sometimes the reverse, margins are furnished with groups of points and other elements which are quite clearly pure ornamentation: e. g. , •, ∴, image , etc.

A few other isolated, and patently orthographic, points deserve mention: a point beneath the of the name Mufarrij in 386 A. H.; two points each over the and beneath the of the name Tamlīḥ on a few specimens of the year 391 (nos. 320 (ppp) and (ttt)) 1 ; and a point beneath the jīm of the name Jahwar in 399 A. H.

It has been observed elsewhere (in the sections on minting technique and symbols and ornaments ) that there is plentiful evidence of the use of punches in the engraving of the legends, and that some of the letter punches were used in the execution of ornaments. Careless use of these punches has frequently resulted in more than usually illegible inscriptions and in some very curious aberrations. For exampe, late in the 4th century lām-alifs are often very clumsily composed of vertical bars based on an annulet looking like a mīm; and in the late 'seventies and early 'eighties the initial alifs at the right side of the reverse area legend are sometimes made up of a continuous vertical series of strokes and knobs that look as though they might be a combination of medial ' ayn and final or . Also, in the 390's, there are many examples of the use of vertical rows of dots to indicate the alifs in the same position, so carelessly applied that they continue meaninglessly through the line beginning with the names of Hishām or Muḥammad , where of course no alif should be. Another example of conventionalization and careless engraving is the ' ayn of the name ' Āmir , which is often quite unrecog- nizable. At Fās particularly the horizontal punch at the beginning of the name extends far to the right of the crescent which forms the ' ayn , with the result that the name appears not to begin with ' ayn at all but with some other letter.

The word sanah is sometimes omitted ( e. g ., 390 A. H.), and occasionally is preceded by the preposition ( e. g ., 360 A. H.). Mention is made elsewhere of the very common occurrence of incomplete dates; and in some instances the conjunction between the digit and the decade is lacking ( e. g ., 228 A. H.). Digits are almost always, as generally in Islamic coinage elsewhere, in the masculine form, but there are instances of the feminine ( e. g ., اربعة in 384 A. H.).

Plates IX–XTV are designed to assist the student and collector in deciphering the inscriptions of the principal coin types.

End Notes

1 The earliest such flourish I have noticed is in the digit of dirhems of the year 241 A. H.
1 Cf. the discussion of the name, p. 59 above.
2 Cf. Marcel Jungfleisch , "Les points secrets en numismatique: une innovation due aux Arabes(?)", Bulletin de l'Institut d'Égypte , XXVIII ( Cairo , 1947), pp. 101–15; and Miles , Arab Dinars .


An effort has been made to record in the catalogue with some accuracy the very large number of symbols and ornaments which occur on the coins. The failure on the part of most writers to reproduce or otherwise describe these symbols has made it impossible to determine how many varieties of coins with certain inscriptions were issued in each year, and the lack of these details has added to the complexity of the corpus because of the necessity for special subcategories under which coins whose ornamentation is unknown could be listed. It is of some interest, although perhaps of questionable significance, to follow the development of these symbols and ornaments throughout the history of the coinage.

The earliest ornaments to appear are the annulets in the obverse and reverse borders resembling those on the Umayyad dirhems from other mints in the East. Wherever possible the obverse annulets, which occur in varying numbers, sizes and combinations, have been recorded, but by the middle of the 3rd century they are so frequently omitted, or they become so obscure, that it is no longer possible to describe them with any accuracy. In the 4th century, while occasionally present, they are most commonly off the flan, and no consistent effort has been made to describe them. I am convinced, in any event, that the annulets are purely ornamental and that they have no special significance.

I have not attempted to describe the borders enclosing the legends on each individual coin. There are many varieties in the number and style of these circles, but in general they conform to certain patterns. On the silver there is no border separating the obverse area from the marginal legend, but from the beginning two or three beaded circles enclose the marginal legend, outside which are annulets in turn enclosed by one or two outer beaded circles. Some attention is devoted to the types of borders in the discussion of the various styles of the 3rd century. In the 4th and early 5th centuries the circles enclosing the obverse marginal legend are more frequently linear than beaded, and there are usually three or four of them, with occasional annulets between the outer circle and the next outer; and in this period the vertical letters in the margin are so elongated that they extend straight through the borders to the edge of the flan. From the 2nd century onward the reverse area as well as the reverse margin are each enclosed by a circle, usually beaded; and in the 4th century the border around the reverse area is sometimes double. The gold differs from the silver in that there are single, double or triple circles of various styles (beaded, hatched, chevroned, etc.) enclosing the obverse area, as well as outer obverse borders, and the usual reverse borders.

Early in the coinage of the independent emirate there begin to appear in the area a series of symbols such as pellets, small circles, crescents and stars, which one cannot view as ornamental but which rather would appear to have some meaning. What the exact meaning is can perhaps never be determined, but it is safe to assume that these marks (which occur also, but not so plentifully, in the contemporary eastern Muslim coinages) relate to the differentiation of the work of die-engravers and perhaps ateliers 1 . At first we find pellets in the midst of the reverse area, later above and below the reverse area. In addition to the pellets we soon meet with various combinations of the other simple symbols mentioned above, and toward the end of the 2nd century sundry similar symbols appear between the lines of the obverse area. Early in the 3rd century these latter begin to alternate with single letters and combinations of letters, and finally names, usually in very small characters above the third line 2 .

About the middle of the 3rd century the ornaments above and beneath the area, mostly on the reverse, begin to be more complex, and while some of the simple symbols continue to appear, there gradually develops a taste for twigs, branches, tendrils and relatively uncomplicated scrolls, which suggest that the die-engravers were beginning to assert their individuality, which, in view of the strict and continuing uniformity of the purely epigraphical types, they could not express in any other manner 3 . At this point one begins to wonder whether these ornaments have any actual significance with respect to the mint organization. One is inclined to say not, but on the other hand the simple type of symbol never is by any means completely dispensed with but continues plentifully off and on to the very end; and hence the already obscure question becomes increasingly complex and apparently insoluble. Aside from such theories as I have suggested elsewhere in discussing the mints, one should consider the possibility that both simple symbols and the more intricate ornaments were the marks of assayers by which the products of their terms of responsibility could later be traced; not that each separate symbol was the mark of a different assayer, but that certain classes or styles (and there definitely are such) were proper to one assayer and that he varied them, possibly with some significance with respect to the daily or weekly "runs" of strikings. 1

With the coinage of ' Abd al-Raḥmān III a new phase commences. In the early years ( ca. 316–330) there are in both obverse and reverse a few of the straightforward symbols such as stars and pyramided pellets that we have met with before; also a few simple scrolls somewhat resembling those in the latter 3rd century. With the year 330 A. H. and eight (sometimes six)-pointed rosette makes its appearance, and soon thereafter the repertory of ornament is immensely increased by the gradual introduction of a seemingly endless variety of petals, flowers, fleurs-de-lis, pomegranates, scrolls and arabesques of all sorts. The simple annulets, pellets, etc. do not cease but they appear for the moment to take a subsidiary place. It is curious that after the first burst of complicated floral ornaments there are years in which the variety of ornamentation is curtailed (compare, for exampe, the years 337 and 338); and for a time in the late 'forties there is a return to nothing but the relatively simple geometrical symbols. One can only imagine that the mintmaster (or his superior) disapproved of the artistic liberties, or frivolity so to speak, that the engravers were manifesting. The whole matter is obscure.

During the rule of al-Ḥakam II the ornaments reach their greatest complexity, with many new combinations of annulets and pellets and a great variety of vine-like and wing-like scrolls, for the most part above and beneath the obverse area. But here again (for example from the year 360 on) there are inexplicable reversions to relatively simple symbols, mostly in the reverse. The coinage of Hishām II begins with combinations of geometrical symbols and simple ornaments of older types, with the addition of a few new kinds, including the oval "tear-drop." Gradually many original varieties of complex floral ornaments appear, but they tend more to conform to the "double-wing" or elaborate "fleur-de-lis" type; and while there are some arabesques somewhat resembling those of al-Ḥakam's coinage they are never so numerous or involved. Toward the very end, during Hishām's second reign, and during those of Muḥammad and Sulaymān, most of the elaborate ornaments disappear and the commonest symbols are the annulet and "tear-drop" in various combinations.

An index of the ornaments has been provided with a double end in view. In the first place, it may prove useful to art historians in that it comprises a concentrated and rather large corpus of miniature ornament, as represented on the coinage at least, during three centuries of Muslim Spain. Secondly, it should serve to assist collectors with little knowledge of Arabic in identifying and attributing their coins. The arrangement in the index is conceived as a logical one, proceeding from various beginnings toward the complex from the simple. It should be observed that not all the different combinations of symbols are recorded in the index; to have done so would have added immeasurably to its complexity and would have made it more cumbersome than useful. Also it is hardly necessary to point out that the ornaments, while accurately drawn in their essential outline, are in the great majority of instances somewhat conventionalized. Thus a single fleur-de-lis of one type represents many varieties of that type; the same with the "pomegranate," whether the sphere is solid or open, or whatever the curve of its foliage, which is frequently less reentrant than it appears in the conventionalized drawing.

This conventionalization, or standardization, has been necessary for several reasons: wear, mutilation, faulty striking, die-breaks, etc. have frequently obscured part of the ornament or rendered its details uncertain; very seldom are two examples of the same ornament (except the simplest symbols) exactly alike; frequently an ornament is obviously imperfectly executed but the intention of the die-engraver to execute such-and-such a figure is quite apparent; the scale of the ornaments with respect to the inscriptions varies, etc., etc. Patently, to have represented each and every ornament with absolute fidelity would have been wholly impracticable; as it is, nearly eight hundred different symbols and ornaments have been drawn. The actual total, throughout the three centuries, must have been many times this number. For example, in a single year such as 352 A. H., I have seen (or seen represented) about 40 specimens, and among these I have distinguished some 32 different ornaments; yet these 40 specimens are only a fraction of the total of 292 specimens which I have recorded for that year. In many years, for the sake of economy and simplification, I have placed a number of specimens on which the ornaments are nearly but not identical under one subheading (with the word "variations" after the ornament), so that even the listed dies are less than the known total. It is obvious, therefore, that the ornaments represented in the present catalogue, however numerous, are only a sampling.

A careful study of the design of the ornaments reveals the fact that, like the letters of the inscriptions, they are constructed of a fairly limited number of punches, the most important elements being pellets, small annulets, simple strokes, curves and crescents. Most of these were used in engraving the legends themselves. The technique of combining these punches applied to even the most complicated floral scrolls and arabesques. In all probability the ornament was not even sketched out before it was impressed on the die; within such limits as may have been prescribed by the "system" or meaning of the symbols for the year or issue, the die-engraver probably gave his fancy free play, using the punches which he had used for the inscriptions in various combinations. I am inclined to believe that some of the more intricate scrolls and floral ornaments during a given span of years were the product of one artisan, as they resemble each other very closely in general style, differing only in minute detail. Indeed, in some cases these scrolls are virtually identical except for some one very small particular, such as the addition of a tiny tendril, leaf or petal 1 .

Some aspects of ornamentation are dealt with in the section on epigraphy , pp. 102ff.

End Notes

1 See the discussion of the possible significance of symbols and ornaments in the section on the mint of al-Andalus , p. 37, above.
1 There are many aspects to the problem. For example, one would expect, if the ornaments have any technical significance, that their position in any given year with reference to obverse and reverse would remain invariable, but sometimes we find the same ornament appearing on different faces in the same year: e. g. , nos. 318 (z) and (kk).
1 As a single example, compare the ornaments above the reverse on no. 227 (r) and no. 227 (s); they are almost precise duplicates (even closer than they appear in the drawings) except for the termination at the left.
2 V., pp. 9–11, sorted out these symbols and names on the basis of limited data, and attempted to extract some significance from them, but without any particular success. I have discussed the "die-engraver" or "mint official" names at their proper places on the section on names and titles .
3 Except by occasional ornamental traits in the epigraphy, q. v


98–300 A.H.: 716–912 A.D.


1. 98 A. H. = 716/7 A. D.


Gold .

(a) Dinar .

محمد ر

سول الله image

M.: ضرب هذا الدينر بالاندلس

سنة ثمان و تسعين

V. 9 [ A. F. Guerra ].


(b) Dinar .

As (a). image


V. 10 [ Vives (3)].

Vives lists also Madrid and Paris ; but there is none in the Paris catalogue, and the specimen described by Rada is a variation (see below (e)).

(c) Dinar .

As (a). image


C. pl. I, 29, p. 53 [ Codera ].

(d) Dinar .

As (a). image


C. pl. I, 30, p. 53 [ Codera ].

(e) Dinar.

Area as (a). image

M.:ضرب هذا الدينر ( sic ) بالاندلس سنة مان


R. 9 (cf. V. p. 2, footnote 3; C. pp. 53–4) = DR., Monetario, I, 5.

Rada has the reverse legend ending XCV, as does Codera ; Vives describes it as XC. In the plate in DR., Monetario , it appears to me to end in C. As for the bungled date, مان probably stands for ثمان, and تسعين is omitted.

(f) Dinar.

Area as (a). image

M.: ضرب هذا الدينر بالاند ثمان


و سنة تسعين

Stickel II , no. 40, pp. 72ff. (cf. V. p. 2, footnote 3, C. p. 54).

Stickel attempted to read image ( Antiquera ,) انتقيرة) as the mint, but the explanation of a simple transposition given by Codera and Vives is undoubtedly the correct one.

There is an inaccurate drawing of a dinar of the bilingual type in Lévi-Provençal , Histoire , I, p. 20.

Simone Assemani 1 described and illustrated a dirhem of al-Andalus , purportedly of the year 100 2 . Unfortunately I have not been able to examine the plate: the copy of Assemani's Catologo in the New York Public Library lacks the numismatic supplement entirely, and the Library of Congress copy contains the text and plates only as far as no. L. (pl. IV). But I have little hesitation in accepting the view of Vives , who examined the engraving, that the coin is dated 200, not 100.

Soret's copper 1 attributed to the year 100 is certainly a specimen of the copper issues of 108, q. v. The confusion is twice confounded because Soret later assigned the same piece to 110 A. H. 2

2. 102 A. H. = 720/1 A. D.



(a) Dinar.

لا اله ا بسم الله

لا الله الرحمن

وحده الرحيم

M.: Q. IX, 33.

M.: ضرب هذا الدينر بالاندلس سنة ثنتين و مئة

Plate i

HSA 13159 (4.30) = Miles , Arab Dinars, no. 72 = Dos Santos 2917, V. 14 [3, location not stated], C. pl. II, 1, p. 58 [ A. F. Guerra ], Paris I, 426, Bartholomaei à Soret , RNB, 1862, p. 27, no. 3 = Ties. 495, Østrup 2157 3 .

It is now clear to me that what was described in Arab Dinars as a "pellet (apparently) above m of bism " is not a pellet but a slight protrusion of the metal caused by the indentation of the obverse with a punch-like instrument. Bartholomaei remarks on the presence of two points (horizontally or vertically arranged?) beneath the ب of ضرب and بالاندلس on the specimen he describes. Such points are lacking on the specimens I have seen either in the original or in reproduction (HSA, Codera , Copenhagen ).

(b) Half-dinar.

As (a).

Area as (a).

M.: ضرب هذا النصف بالاندلس سنة ثنتين و مئة

Plate i

HSA 13161 (2.12) = Miles , Arab Dinars , no. 73 = Dos Santos 2918, C. p. 58 ["uno que consta en las láminas de D. Antonio Delgado "; cf. Stickel II , p. 33], Paris I, 427 = V. 15 = Longpérier , p. 5 = Ties , 496.

(c) One-third dinar.

As (a).

Area as (a).

M.: ضرب هذا الثلث بالاندلس سنة ثنتين و مئة

Plate i

HSA 13212 (1.43) = Miles , Arab Dinars , no. 74, ANS (1.43) = Miles , Arab Dinars, no. 75, V. 16 [Vives], C. pl. II, 2, p. 58 [ Gayangos ], DR. 12 = DR., Monetario, I, 7 = R. 10, Longpérier , p. 5 [ de Saulcy ] = Ties . 497, Low.

3. 103 A. H. = 721/2 A. D.




لا له ا بسم الله

لا الله الرحمن

وحده الرحيم

M.: Q. IX, 33.

M.: ضرب هذا الدينر بالاندلس سنة ثلث و مئة

HSA has point beneath beginning of ب of ضرب and image beneath ن of بالاندلس (or beneath ـيـ of الرحيم).

Plate i

HSA 13211 (4.29) = Miles , Arab Dinars , no. 78, V. 17 [ Codera , Catedral de Pamplona ].

4. 104 A. H. = 722/3 A. D.



(a) Dinar.

لا اله ا بسم الله

لا الله الرحمن

وحده الرحيم

M.: Q. IX, 33.

M.: ضرب هذا الدينر بالاندلس سنة اربع و مئة

Both Madrid and GT have point beneath beginning of ب of ضرب and image beneath ب of بالاندلس (or beneath ـيـ of الرحيم).

DR. 11 = R. 11 = V. 18 = DR., Arte Monetario, I, 1 = DR., Monetario, I, 6, GT 5737 = Ties . 510.


(b) لا اله الا الله احد الله

الله وحده الصمد لم يلد

لا شريك له ولم يولد ولم يكن

له كفوا احد

M.: بسم الله ضرب هذا الدرهم

بالاندلس سنة اربع و مئة

M.: Q. IX, 33.

C. p. 62 [one specimen seen by Caballero Infante in Valencia ], Damascus 14, Fraehn , Quinque Centuriae, 29 [ Univ. Rostoch ] = V. 20 = Ties . 514.

5. 105 A. H. = 723/4 A. D.



Fraehn , Quinque Centuriae, 30 = M. p. 8, no. 204, described as "half" [fragment?] = V. 21 = Ties . 522, Sotheby .

6. 106 A. H. = 724/5 A. D.



(a) Dinar. لا اله ا بسم الله

لا الله الرحمن

وحده الرحيم

M.: Q. IX, 33.

M.: ضرب هذا الدينر بالاندلس سنة ست و مئة

Guia , pl. X, 10 = (probably) V. 19 [ Vives ].


(b) Annulets: ○○○○○ ( Paris )

Paris I, 471 = V. 22, Ahmed Zia , 81, Tornberg , Symbolae II, p. 239, no. 8 = Ties . 528.

Codera , in his Errores, p. 22, argues that Tornberg's specimen is in all probability 206 A. H. rather than 106. In view of Lavoix's reliable attribution of the Paris specimen and the not too reliable but nevertheless supporting listing of Zia , I consider Codera's doubts to be unjustified. Furthermore we now have adequate confirmation of the existence of other dirhems of the first decade of the 2nd century of the Hijrah and there need no longer be the scepticism about the silver of this period which prevailed in Codera's day.

7. 107 A. H. = 725/6 A. D.



Hallenberg pp. 1–3 = Hallenberg , Collectio , pp. 2–6 = T. p. L, no. 8 = V. 23 = Ties . 533.

I have not seen the engraving of this coin which apparently was reproduced on the title page of Hallenberg's dissertation, dated 1796 1 , but in view of the several dirhems of proximate dates which have come to light, as stated under no. 6 above, I see no occasion for doubting the authenticity of the attribution.

8. 108 A. H. = 726/7 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○

Nützel notes that on the reverse of the Berlin specimen the و is at the end of the 2nd line rather than at the beginning of the 3rd.

Berlin I, 512 = Fraehn , Quinque Centuriae, 33 = Ties . 537, R. 16 = V. 24 = C. pp. 62–3.

Codera (and Rada y Delgado after him) doubted that the Madrid specimen was truly dated 108, but as in the other cases noted above there should no longer be any suspicion. In this case the Berlin example, first described by Fraehn ( ex Adler ), was later confirmed by the reliable Nützel .


(b) محمد ر لا اله ا

سول الله لا الله

Around, in form of square:

لفلس|هذا ا|ب|ضر

Beaded border enclosing all.

Around, in form of square:

ومئة|ثمان|لس سنة|بالاند

The و because of its shape and position, may sometimes be counted as being in the same segment with ثمان.

Beaded border enclosing all.

HSA 14193, 14198, 14209, 14211, ANS (2 spec.), Soret à Fraehn , p. 9, no. 2 (erroneously assumed to be 100 A. H., the digit being effaced).

(c) As (b) but obv. margin divided:

ـفلس|ا الـ|هذ|ضرب

The ف sometimes appears to be more in the 3rd than in the 4th segment. Vives chose to describe all the specimens as being thus divided.

HSA 14196–7, 14210, 14212–3, V. 42 [22], C. pl. II, 3, p. 59 (recognizing "algunos un poco diferentes, aunque del mismo tipo y año"), DR. 17 = DR., Monetario. I, 8.

(d) As (b) but obv. margin divided:


HSA 14208.

Plate i

(e) As (b) but division of words not indicated.

BM i, p. 186, no. 62, Paris I, 1391–3, Berlin I, 1941–3, Cerda 4, GT. 5738–9, Longpérier , p. 5 = Ties , 538, Lorichs 4738, R. 13 [3 spec. of 2 var., one of which listed under DR. above], Dos Santos 2920–1 [3?].

9. 110 A. H. = 728/9 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ( Damascus )

Damascus 15, F. p. 13 = V. 25 = C. p. 62 = M. Top., p. 25 (cf. de Sacy , J A , II, p. 21) = T. 547.

Codera again ( Errores, p. 18), as in the cases noted above, believed that Fraehn's attribution was one century too early, but the cumulative evidence supports Fraehn's reading.


(b) لا اله ا محمد ر

image سول الله

لا الله

Around: ضرب هذا الفلس

This legend is sometimes in rectilinear, or partly rectilinear, segments, forming a more or less regular square like the rev.

Around, in from of square:

مئة|عشر و|لس سنة|بالاند

The و sometimes appears to begin the 4th segment.

Plate i

HSA 14194, 14203, 14214–5, ANS (2 spec), V. 43 [10], C. pl. II, 4, p. 59, BM i, pp. 186–7, nos. 63–4(?), Paris I, 1394–5, Cerda 4, GT. 5741–3 (pl. XIV) = Ties . 551, Guia , pl. X, no. 13 (wrongly dated 108 A. H. on p. 366), Lorichs , 4739 [2], Moeller, XXII–XXV (probably, date lacking) = Ties . 2581, R. 14 [2], Dos Santos 2922.

Lavoix ( Paris I, pp. XLIV, 358 and 414) expressed the opinion that the figure appearing on the obverse of these fulūs was copied from the wheat-blade appearing on Celtiberian coins of Hispania Ulterior, such as those of Baetica , Carmo , Ilipa , Iltuci , Lastigi , etc. (cf. Heiss , op. cit., plates XLII, XLIII, L, LIV-LVIII, etc.). This derivation is certainly not unlikely. Cf. p. 21, above.

10. III A. H. = 729/30 A. D.



Date written احد عشر و مئة ( Paris )

The obv. margin is almost completely rectilinear, forming a square.

Paris I, 472 = V. 26, Christ Church.

For many years the late Howland Wood, Curator of the American Numismatic Society, kept a note-book in which he recorded the dates and mints of Umayyad dirhems that came to his attention. In it there are entries for al-Andalus for the years 112, 119 and 120, with the notation "Schulman Cat. April, 1935." Prolonged search fails to reveal the existence of such a catalogue 1 , and for the time being we must consider these years unrepresenedd in spite of Mr. Wood's entries. Obviously he saw the coins listed somewhere, but as they would be unique and authenticated only (apparently) in a sales catalogue, there is insufficient justification for their acceptance.

11. 113 A. H. = 731/2 A. D.



Annulets: ⊚ ⊚ ⊚ ⊚

Obv. margin almost completely rectilinear, forming a square.

BM i, 59, Paris I, 473 = V. 27.

12. 114 A. H. = 732/3 A. D.



C. p. 61 [ Gayangos (date?)], p. 62 [Caballero Infante, Cánovas], Paris I, 474 = V. 28, Bartholomaei á Soret , RNB 1859, no. 40 = Ties . 573, Codera to Lane-Poole , M. p. 9, nos. 321–2.

The specimen described by Bartholomaei came from a hoard of nearly 1600 Umayyad dirhems found near Teheran in 1858 2 , probably within the great area of the ruins of Rayy. As Bartholomaei observed, it is remarkable to find an Umayyad dirhem of Spain apparently in circulation in Persia.

13. 115 A. H. = 733/4 A. D.



Annulets: ⊚ ⊚ ⊚ ⊚

Obv. margin nearly square.

Paris I, 475 = V. 29, Istanbul, 167.

14. 116 A. H. = 734/5 A. D.



Annulets: ○○○○

The ANS and Madrid specimens have nearly square obv. margins; that of the Gayangos piece is circular.

Plate i

ANS (2.94), V. 30 [Gayangos, Codera ], C. pl. III, 2, p. 61 [ Gayangos ], Bartholomaei à Soret , RNB 1859, no. 41 = Ties . 578, Casanova 270, DR. 16 = Guia , pl. X, 11 (wrongly dated 126 A. H. on p. 366) = DR., Monetario, I, 9.

15. 117 A. H. = 735 A. D.



V. 31 [communication from Codera ] = (probably) C. p. 62 [Caballero Infante], Codera to Lane-Poole , Ties . 585 [ Izv. Arch. Obsh. III, p. 389], Gagarine 96.

16. 118 A. H. = 736 A. D.



Annulets: ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ (ANS)

The obv. margin of the ANS and Fitzwilliam specimens is almost square.

Plate i

ANS (2.93), V. 32 [ Vives ], C. p. 62 [Caballero Infante, Fraehn ], Paris I, 1683 (475 bis), p. 488, Brethes "453,2 e Sujet (no. 1)", Codera to Lane-Poole , F. p. 14 = Ties . 590, M. Top., p. 25 (cf. de Sacy , JA II, p. 21), Fitzwilliam 3.

Codera (Errores, p. 18) suggested that Fraehn probably misread 118 for 218, but there is now no hesitation in accepting Fraehn's reading. See the remarks under nos. 6 and ff. above.

The possible existence of a dirhem of 119 and of another of 120 has been discussed on p. 121, above.

17. 121 A. H. = 738/9 A. D.



Annulets: ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ (ANS)

The obverse margin of the ANS specimen in completely circular.

Plate i

ANS (2.93), Fraehn , Quinque Centuriae , 46 = V. 33 = C. p. 62 = Longpérier p. 5 = M. p. 10 = Ties . 611 (cf. Queipo , II, p. 394).

18. 122 A. H. = 739/40 A. D.


Silver .

Casanova 271.

Marsden (I, p. 315) pointed out that Adler's no. I (p. 46), dated 123, was probably not a dirhem of Wāsiṭ but rather of al-Andalus . Adler's engraving leaves no doubt of the correctness of Marsden's opinion, but it is equally clear that the date is not 123 but 223. This coin is the same as that listed by Fraehn in Quinque Centuriae (47) which Tiesenhausen (616, and footnote) assigns to 163 or 166.

19. 124 A. H. = 741/2 A. D.



C. p. 62 [Caballero Infante] = V. 34, Codera to Lane-Poole .

Marsden's CCCXXIV (p. 314) (= Ties . 620) is obviously a dirhem of 224, not 124 A. H. 1 The Alicante hoard specimen, mentioned in Codera's letter, may be the one acquired by Caballero Infante.

20. 125 A. H. = 742/3 A. D.



Fraehn , Quinque Centuriae 48 = V. 35 = Ties . 623.

21. 126 A. H. = 743/4 A. D.


Silver .

V. 36 [communication from Codera ] = (probably) T. 629 [letter from Gagarine to Sawelief ].

The evidence for the existence of this coin is obviously somewhat tenuous.

A characteristically frustrating entry in Brethes ' inventory (no. 453) lists a dirhem: "sebaa acherin ou maïa: 137." Which is it, 127 or 137? Or perhaps 227 or 237?

22. 129 A. H. = 746/7 A. D.


Silver .

V. 37 [ A. F. Guerra ] = C. p. 62, Allan , NC 1919, p. 195 [BM].

See the note under no. 24 below.

23. 130 A. H. = 747/8 A. D.


Silver .

Tornberg , 'Symbolae III, p. 7, no. 8 = T. p. L = V. 38 = Ties . 647.

Codera ( Errores, p. 22) suspected that this coin is an issue of 230 A. H. There is here perhaps more reason for accepting his opinion than in the several cases cited above (years 106ff.). On the other hand Tornberg remarked (loc. cit.) that the coin was probably unique and he must therefore have examined it with great care.

24. 131 A. H. = 748/9 A. D.


Silver .

V. 39 [ Vives ].

Del Rivero , in Arte Monetario, I, 2, illustrates a dirhem which he designates 129 A. H. in the key to the plates, but which in another place (p. 5 of the reprint) he refers to as 135 A. H. It certainly is not 129; but in view of the nature of the reproduction (half-tone) it is virtually impossible to verify the reading 135. The digit 5 is clear, but the decade is obscure. However, I am inclined to believe that 135 is correct. The appearanee of this specimen, which has not appeared before in any of the catalogues or studies dealing with the Madrid collection, would (if the date is actually 135) tend to support the attribution of a dirhem which I had heretofore doubted: one of the year 137 which Longpérier (p. 5) listed but had not seen. Otherwise there are no dirhems preserved between 131 and the first issue of ' Abd al-Raḥmān I in 146.

End Notes

1 Museo Cufico Naniano ( Padova , 1787), separate pagination in his Catalogo de' Codici Manoscritti Orientali della Biblioteca Naniana ( Padova , 1787–1792), no. LII, pl. V.
2 Cf. V., p. 6, footnote; Tychsen , pp. 59, 130, 162; Tychsen , Add ., p. 9; Ties. 482.
1 Soret à Fraehn , p. 6.
2 Soret à Sawelief , p. 278; cf. Ties., p. 48, footnote.
3 Wrongly attributed to the year 160. A cast of the coin kindly furnished by Dr. Georg Galster , Keeper of the Royal Cabinet in Copenhagn, establishes the fact that the coin is a dinar of the year 102.
1 See the Hallenberg references above.
1 The files of J. Schulman Catalogues in the library of the American Numismatic Society are fairly complete, and Mr. Hans M. F. Schulman of New York has been kind enough to check through his own files and to make inquiries abroad. None of Schulman's cataloguss of approximately this date contains the coins in question.
2 Loc. cit., p. 330.
1 Cf. Codera , Errores, p. 11.


A. Without Mint Name

25. لا اله ا محمد

لا الله رسول


HSA 9165 (17 mm.).

26. لا اله ا محمد ر

لا الله سول الله

Both obv. and rev. usually enclosed by a beaded border.

Plate i

HSA 14199–14200, 14204, 14206 (± 19 mm.).

27. لا اله ا محمد ر

لا الله ○

سول الله

○ sometimes appears as •

Both obv. and rev. sometimes enclosed by one or more beaded borders.

HSA 14201–2, 14205, 14207 (± 20 mm.), ANS (19 mm.).

B. With Mint Name, but no Date.

28. image بالا

(sometimes only 6 points) ندلس

M.: لا اله الا الله وحده محمد

رسول الله

M.: بسم الله ضرب هذا الفلس

Sometimes وحده is omitted from the obv. margin, but in most specimens the marginal legend is so fragmentarily preserved that it is impossible to tell whether the word is present or not. I have therefore adopted the expedient of putting all the specimens in one category.

Both areas and margins of obv. and rev. enclosed by beaded or dotted borders.

Plate i

HSA 14183–92, 14216, ANS (11 spec., of which 8 from Campaner Collection), V. 44 [18], C. pl. II, 5, p. 59, BM ix, p. 89, nos. 39 m, n, o , Paris I, 1396–8, Berlin I, 1944–8, Castiglioni CCLVIII, Conde pl . III, 1, Escorial 1632, F. p. 6***, GT. 5744–7 [6], Moeller XXVII–XXXI (probably similar, obv. legend incompletely described), R. 15 [46], ( Ties . 2579), Dos Santos 2923–4 [9]. These fulūs range in diameter from 17 to 24 mm.

29. As no. 28, but both margins: بسم الله ضرب هذا الفلس

Moeller XXVI (wrongly listed as XXVII).

30. لا اله محمد

الا الله رسول

وحده الله

M.: بسم الله ضرب بالاندلس

ANS (18 mm., pierced), Mainoni LXXV, p. 120.

The ANS specimen is double-struck and obscure but probably as above.

31. As 30, but rev. margin:......; ضرب بالا

Castiglioni CCLIX.

32. As 30, but image beneath obv., and rev. margin:

(sic) بالاندلس [هذا] بسم الله ضرب

Soret à Bartholomaei , RNB 1858, no. 36 = Ties . 2582.

33. لا اله ا محمد ر

لا الله سول الله

M.: ..... الفلس بالاندلس ...

M.: س(هذا الفلـ) بسم الله ضرب


( Vives ; others effaced except

ANS which has بالاندلس ...)

ANS (13 mm.), V. 41 [ Gayangos (2), Vives ], C. pl. II, 6, pp. 59–60, Codera , Pujol , GT. 5751, R. 12, Dos Santos 2920. GT. does not show the division of lines in the areas, only indicating that there are two lines in each. Tiesenhausen (2583) groups nos. 30, 31 and 33 (GT.) together, but as noted above they differ in several respects.

34. لا اله الحمد لله

الا الله محمد ر

وحده سول الله

M.: .... هذا الفلس بالاند

V. 45 [Delgado].

M.: Effaced.

A copper described by Blau and Stickel , "Zur Muhammedanischen Numismatik und Epigrafik" ( ZDMG XI, p. 458, no. 47 = Ties . 2580) appears to bear the "Glaubessymbol" on the obverse and a six-point star above ضرب بالاندلس on the reverse, but the coin is very obscure and not illustrated.

C. With Mint Name and Date, but Date Effaced.

35. لا اله ا محمد ر

لا الله سول الله

M.: .... بالاندلس سنة ...

M.: الله ضرب هذا ...

V. 40 [ Madrid , Academia (2), Vives ], Dos Santos 2920.

36. Possibly year 9x A. H.

لا اله ا محمد ر

لا الله سول الله

M.: ـذا الفلس...

M.: ـعـين.... بالاندلس

Paris I, 1389–90 (11–12 mm.)

Lavoix lists these two coins as being dated "90?," but if the date can be hazarded at all (which must be doubted in view of the fragmentary marginal legends), it would have to be 9x. Historically 90 is impossible. Lavoix's comparison of these coins with Codera's pl. II, 6 (see no. 33 above) is not accurate.

Most of these coppers bearing the mint name are very thick ( ca . 3-3.5 mm.), as are those lacking the mint name. The latter (group A) have been assigned to Spain simply because of their presence in the Hispanic Society Collection; they were, therefore, in all probability acquired in Spain , and as coppers almost never travel far they hence would be indigenous. There are probably many other mintless Spanish coppers similar to these in the numismatic literature, but in the absence of any knowledge of their fabric and provenance it is impossible to distinguish them from the numerous other Umayyad fulūs with simple religious legends struck in all parts of the empire.



37. 146 A. H. = 763/4 A. D.


Silver .

Annulets: ○○○○○○

Plate ii

Denizbac ı.

The illustration of this piece is reduced. Bay Artuk writes me that the coin measures 27 × 28 mm., which is the normal size of the dirhems of this period.

38. 147 A. H. = 764/5 A. D.



Cordoba .

39. 148 A. H. = 765/6 A. D.



V. 46 [ Gayangos ], C. [ Gayangos + 2], Dorn I , p. 53, Cordoba .

This was the first issue of ' Abd al-Raḥmān I known to Codera ( cf ., Títulos , p. 40).

40. 149 A. H. = 766/7 A. D.



Pellets on obv.: له وحده الله ( Codera )

V. 47 [ Vives ], C. pl. III [Infante + 1].

41. 150 A. H. = 767 A. D.



Annulets: ○○○○○ Between 2nd and 3rd lines: •••

(HSA, Berlin , DR., Østrup)

HSA 13367 (2.66), V. 48 [5], C. [8], P . 1–2, B. 1–2, DR. 19, F. p. 31**, Lane-Poole , Johnston , p. 53, Lorichs 4740, M. p. 68, Østrup 2158, R. 17, BM uncat., Cordoba [3], Denizbac ı, Schulman 5/24/09, 3/30/14, Sotheby [2].

42. 151 A. H. = 768 A. D.



Annulets: ○○○○○

Between 2nd and 3rd lines •••

(HSA, ANS, Paris )

Plate ii

HSA 13344 (2.67), ANS (2.44), V. 49 [4], C. [7], P. 3, Cerda 6, Conde, pl . I, 2 (misattributed, p. 242), Lorichs 4741, R. 18, BM uncat., Cordoba , Denizbacı, Thorburn , Low, Sotheby .

43. 152 A. H. = 769 A. D.



Annulets: ○○○○○

Between 2nd and 3rd lines: •••


HSA 13371 (2.43), V. 50. [ Vives (2)], C. [3], Kh. p. 327, Lorichs 4742, R. 19 [2], Denizbac ı.

44. 153 A. H. = 770 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○○○○○

Between 2nd and 3rd lines •••

HSA 13345–6, 13370 (2.56, 2.70, 2.73).

(b) Annulets: as (a).

Between 2nd and 3rd lines: •

HSA 13257, 13511 (2.66, 2.76), ANS (2.70), BM ii, 1, P . 4, B. 3–5, DR., Arte Monetario, I, 3.

(c) Details lacking.

V. 51 [5], C. [10], Brethes 454, Cerda 6, F. p. 31**, GT. 5774, Kh. p. 327, M. p. 68, M. Top. p. 51, no. 290, Østrup 2159, R. 20 [2], Cordoba [6], Denizbac ı, Istanbul uncat., Dos Santos 2930, Schulman 3/30/14, Sotheby .

45. 154 A. H. = 770/1 A. D.



Annulets: ○○○○○ (usually so small that they appear as pellets)

HSA 13237–8, 13343, 13361, 13369, 13381, 13420 (2.76, 2.64, 2.78, 1.55 clpd., 2.54, 2.48, 2.77), ANS (2 spec., 2.63, 2.67), V. 52 [5], C. [6], BM ii, 2, ix, 2 a , P. 5–7, B. 6, Casanova 964, Cerda 6, Conde pl . I, 3 (?) (misattributed, p. 243), M. p. 68, Østrup 2160, R. 21 [4]. Cordoba [3], Denizbac ı, Schulman 6/26/05, Sotheby .

Henceforth the central point on the reverse is omitted from the description. It becomes less prominent (on some specimens it is barely visible), and there can be no doubt that it is the die-engraver's centering-point.

46. 155 A. H. = 771/2 A. D.



Annulets: ○○○○○

HSA 13375, 13513–4 (2.76, 2.55, 2.74), ANS (2.71), V. 53 [4], C. [3], BM ix, 2 b , P. 8, B. 7–8, Cerda 6, M. p. 68, R. 22 [2], M. Top., p. 32, no. 179, Cordoba [3], Denizbac ı, Dos Santos 2930, Sotheby .

47. 156 A. H. = 772/3 A. D.



Plates ix–x

Annulets: ○○○○○

HSA 13364, 14262 (2.12 clpd., 2.66), V. 54 [4], C. [5], BM ix, 2°, P . 9, B. 9, Brethes 455, Cerda 6, F. p. 31**, M. p. 68, M. p. 879, R. 23, Cordoba [3], Denizbac ı, Istanbul uncat., Sotheby .

48. 157 A. H. =773/4 A. D.



Annulets: ○○○○○

HSA 13363 (2.69), ANS (2.62), V. 55 [4], C. pl. III [3], BM ii, 3, B. 10, Brethes 456, Cerda 6, Lorichs 4743, M. p. 68, R. 24, Cordoba [2], Nesmith , Gagarine , Sotheby .

49. 158 A. H. = 774/5 A. D.


Silver .

(a) Annulets: ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ •/•

Pellet above ك, 3rd line.

BM ii, 4.

(b) Details lacking.

V. 56 [ Vives ], C. [ Guerra , Caballero Infante + 1], M. p. 68, Cordoba , Istanbul uncat.

50. 159 A. H. = 775/6 A. D.



Annulets: ○○○○○

ANS (2.67), V. 57 [2], C. [2], P. 10–11, Escorial 1637, R. 25 [3], Saez pl. 1 (?), Cordoba [4], Mabbott , Low.

51. 160 A. H. = 776/7 A. D.



Annulets: ∴ imageimageimage

HSA 13362, 13382 (2.67, 2.75), V. 58 [4], C. [5], BM ix, 4 b , P . 12, B . 11, Cerda 6, Conde pl . II, 2, p. 243, Guia pl. X, 14, M. p. 68, R. 26 [3], Ashmolean 75, Cordoba [2], Denizbac ı, Gagarine .

A cast, kindly furnished me by Dr. Georg Galster , establishes the fact that Østrup's 2157, described as being of the year 160, is actually a dinar of the year 102, q. v. There is no doubt whatever about the correct reading. A dinar of 160 would be completely anomalous.

Østrup obviously read an extra tooth into the word ثنتين.

52 161 A. H. = 777/8 A. D.



Annulets: imageimageimage

HSA 13368, 13380, 13383, 13508, 13512 (2.75, 2.74, 2.78, 1.95 clpd., 2.60), ANS (3 spec., 2.64, 2.67, 2.70), V. 59 [7], C. pl. III [8], BM ii, 5, P . 13–14, B. 12–13, Calcutta 7901, Cerda 6, F. p. 32**, GT. 5775, Kh. p. 327, Lorichs 4744, M. p. 879, M. Top. p. 33, no. 180, Østrup 2161–2, R. 27 [2], RN 1863, p. 214 (A. L. [ Adrien de Longpérier ], "Monnaie Andalouse trouvée à Contres" = M. Top. p. 106, no. 5), Cordoba [5], Denizbac ı, Fitzwilliam 4,28, Istanbul uncat., Dos Santos 2931 [2], Fonrobert 6316, Gagarine , Low , Sotheby , Welzl p. 577.

53. 162 A. H. = 778/9 A. D.



Annulets: ∘∘∘○∘∘∘○∘∘∘○

These annulets are described in BM , P. and B. as beginning ○∘∘∘ etc., but on the HSA and ANS specimens the larger annulet is in the first quarter.

HSA 13377–9, 13507, 14423 (2.66, 2.73, 2.70, 2.34, 2.30), ANS (2.71), V. 60 [7], C. [12], BM ii, 6, P. 15, B. 14–5, Casanova 965, Cerda 6, E sc orial 1638, GT. 5776–8, Hallenberg and Hallenberg Collectio , VIII, Lorichs 4745 [2], M. p. 68, R. 28 [4], Cordoba , Fitzwilliam 2 , Dos Santos 2931, Low [2].

54. 163 A. H. = 779/80 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○○○○○

HSA 13376 (2.69), ANS (2.69), V. 61 [4], C. [6], BM ii, 7, B. 16, Brethes 457 (illustrated as no. 455), Cerda 6, DR., Monetario, I, 10, GT. 5779, Lorichs 4746, M. p. 68, R. 29 [2 var], T. p. 125, no. 2, Ashmolean 76–7, Cordoba [6], Denizbac ı, Yale , Dos Santos 2933, 2936, Gagarine , Low , Pedersen , Schulman 11/18/07, 5/5/08, 5/24/09, 3/30/14, Sotheby .

(b) •/•

Windisch-Grätz 69.

55. 164 A. H. = 780/1 A. D.



Annulets: ○○○○○

The Paris specimens are described as having only 4 annulets.

HSA 13366, 13510 (2.68, 1.96 clpd.), ANS (2.61), V. 62 [5], C. [5], BM ii, 8, P . 16–7, B. 17, Calcutta 7902, Cerda 6, Lorichs 4747, M. p. 68, R. 30 [3 spec, of 2 var.], Tychsen pl. I, no. XII, Cordoba [2], Istanbul uncat. [2], Yockers , Dos Santos 2933–4 [4], Gagarine , Low [2], Sotheby .

56. 165 A. H. = 781/2 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○○○○○

ANS (2.16, clpd.), BM ii, 9, B. 18–9, Pedersen (?).

(b) Annulets: as (a). •/•

P. 18, Bardo .

(c) Annulets: as (a).

3rd line: image

HSA 13285, 13373 (2.66, 2.71), ANS (2 spec., 2.49, 2.70), C. pl. III.

(d) Annulets: as (a).

3rd line: image

As (b).

Plate ii

HSA 13374 (2.53).

(e) Annulets: ⊚○○○○

B. 20.

Annulets: ⊚ ⊚ ⊚ ⊚ ⊚

T. p. 125, no. 3.

(g) Details lacking.

V. 63 [8], C. [8], Adler Collectio , p. 159, Ahmed Zia 2104, Cerda 6, F. p. 32**, GT. 5780–2, M. p. 68, Østrup 2163, R. 31 [2], Ashmolean 78, Cordoba [2], Denizbac ı, Dos Santos 2933 [2], Gagarine [2], Low , Schulman 6/15/10, 3/30/14, Sotheby , Welzl p. 577.

57. 166 A. H. = 782/3 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊚ ⊚ ⊚ ⊚ ⊚

HSA 13359, 13372, 13392 (2.57, 2.36, 2.76), ANS (2.67), BM ii, 10, P . 19–20, B. 21–2, Czazki pl. XIV, 2, Bardo , Fitzwilliam 1, 27, Schulman 5/24/09.

(b) Annulets: as (a).

3rd line: image

HSA 13244, 13393 (2.54, 2.50), Fitzwilliam 5.

(c) Annulets. as (a).

ق ... سـ (?) engraved in minute characters in low relief above and at right of image , 3rd line.

ANS (2.75).

(d) Details lacking.

V. 64 [8], C. [12], Cerda 6, F. p. 32**, Kh. p. 327 [2], M. p. 68, Østrup 2164, R. 32 [3], Cordoba [2], Denizbac ı, Istanbul uncat., Dos Santos 2935–6, Gagarine , Schulman 11/18/07, 5/5/08, Sotheby , Welzl p. 577.

58. 167 A. H. = 783/4 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○○○○

image over ستين

image on inner side of inner margin at top.

HSA 13390–1 (2.02 clpd., 2.61), ANS (2.68), BM ii, 11, B. 23–4, Yale .

(b) Details lacking.

V. 65 [8], C. [5], Cerda 6, Lorichs 4748, R. 33 [2], Cordoba [5], Istanbul uncat., Gagarine , Low , Sotheby .

59. 168 A. H. = 784/5 A. D.



Annulets: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○, and apparently some varieties (e. g., R. and Dos Santos )

HSA 13284, 13389 (2.64, 2.69), ANS (2.67), V. 66 [6], C. [7], BM ii, 12, P. 21, B. 26–6, GT. 5783, Lorichs 4749, M. p. 68, Østrup 2165, R. [2 var.], Ashmolean 78 (?), Cordoba [3], Istanbul uncat., Dos Santos 2935, Sotheby .

60. 169 A. H. = 785/6 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

P. 22.

(b) Annulets: as (a). ○

HSA 13388 (2.72), ANS (2.50), BM ii, 13.

(c) Details lacking.

V. 67 [5], C. [3], Lorichs 4750, R. 35 [2], Cordoba [4], Denizbac ı, Low , Sotheby .

61. 170 A. H. = 786/7 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○○○○○ image

HSA 13254, 13387 (2.67, 2.40), ANS (2.66), BM ix, 13 a , P. 23–4, B. 27, Yockers.

(b) Details lacking.

V. 68 [4], C. [7], GT. 5784, M. p. 68, Østrup 2166, R. 36, Cordoba [4], Denizbac ı, Dos Santos 2936, Gagarine , Low .

62. 171 A. H. = 787/8 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○○○○○

HSA 13386 (2.16, small flan), BM ix, 13 b , B. 28, Bodleian 92.

(b) Details lacking.

V. 69 [4], C. [4], Cerda 20, Østrup 2167–8, R. 37 [2], Cordoba [5], sotheby [2].

63. 172 A. H. = 788/9 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

BM uncat.

(b) Annulets: as (a).

HSA 13317 (2.37), P. 25.

○ on inner border above and below.

(c) Details lacking.

V. 70 [4], C. pl. III [4], Ahmed Zia 228, Cerda 20, Longpérier p. 6, M. p. 68, M. Top. p. 55, no. 314, R. 38, Cordoba , Denizbacı, Istanbul uncat., Schulman 6/26/05.


64. 173 A. H. = 789/90 A. D.


Silver .

(a) Annulets: ○○○○○

BM ii, 14.

(b) Annulets: •○○○○○

HSA 13422 (2.59).

○ on inner border at top.

(c) Annulets: •○•○○○○


○ on inner border at top and below.

(d) Annulets: ○ image ○ ○ ○ ○

HSA 13385 (2.75).

(e) Annulets: as (a). •/•

B. 30.

(f) Annulets: ○ image ○ ○ ○ • ○ image

ANS (2.40).

(g) Annulets: ○ image image ○ ○ ∴ ○ */•


(h) Details lacking.

V. 71 [7], C. [8], Cerda 20, F. p. 32**, Kh. p. 327, LN. 3, Lorichs 4751, M. p. 68, M. Top., p. 55, no. 314, Østrup 2169, R. 39 [2 var.], Bardo (2.55), Cordoba [5], Denizbac ı, Gagarine , Low , Sotheby [2].

65. 174 A. H. = 790/1 A. D.



Annulets: ○○○○○

HSA 13384 (2.33), V. 72 [3], C. [3], P . 26, Cerda 20, F. p. 32**, GT. 5785, Østrup 2170, R. 40, BM uncat., Cordoba [4], Yockers , Gagarine , Low [2].

66. 175 A. H. = 791/2 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○○○○○

ANS (2.20).

(b) Annulets: as (a). /○

HSA 13240 (2.36).

(c) Annulets: as (a). /•

BM uncat.

(d) Details lacking.

V. 73 [3], C. [5], R. 41 [2], Cordoba [3], Dos Santos 2937, Welzl p. 577.

67. 176 A. H. = 792/3 A. D.


Silver .

(a) Annulets: ⊙○○○⊙

ANS (2.49).

(b) Annulets: ○○○○○

ANS (2.71).

image on inner side of inner border at bottom.

(c) Details lacking.

V. 74 [2], C. [3], GT. 5786, R. 42, Cordoba {4}, Denizbac ı.

68. 177 A. H. = 793/4 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊚ ⊚ ⊚ ⊚ ⊚

B. 31–2.

(b) Annulets: as (a).

image on inside of inner border at top and bottom.

Plate ii

HSA 13315 (2.68), P. 27, Fitzwilliam 6.

(c) Annulets: as (a).

ANS (2.60).

image on inside of inner border at bottom.

(d) Annulets? •/

BM ix, 14 e .

(e) Details lacking.

V. 75 [4], C. pl. III [5], Ahmed Zia 2105, Cerda 20, F. p. 32**, M. p. 68, M. Top. p. 55, no. 314, Cordoba [5], Denizbac ı.

69. 178 A. H. = 794/5 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○○ ○○ ○○

HSA 13259, 13314 (2.43, 2.64), P. 28, BM uncat.

(b) Annulets: as (a).

B. 33.

image on inside of inner border at top and bottom.

(c) Details lacking.

V. 76 [5], C. [5], Dorn I , p. 53, F. Add., p. 234, Grigoriew p. 2, Østrup 2171, Cordoba [3], Istanbul uncat., Gagarine , Sotheby .

70. 179 A. H. = 795/6 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○○ ○○ ○○

HSA 13313 (2.80), P. 29, B. 34, BM uncat.

(b) Details lacking.

V. 77 [6], C. [4], GT. 5787, Lorichs 4752, R. 43, Cordoba [2], Denizbac ı, Istanbul uncat.

71. 180 A. H. = 796/7 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ image

B . 35.

(b) Details lacking.

V. 78 [ Gayangos , Vives (2)], C. [2], Østrup 2172, Cordoba [2].


72. 181 A. H. = 797/8 A. D.



(a) Annulets: image

HSA 13312 (2.00 clpd.)

(b) Details lacking.

V. 79 [ Gayangos , Vives ], C. [Caballero Infante, Codera + 1], M. p. 69, M. Top. p. 51, no. 290, Cordoba [2], Denizbac ı.

73. 182 A. H. = 798/9 A. D.



(a) Annulets not preserved.

Stacks, N.Y. (11/48).

(b) Annulets: ∴ imageimageimage

HSA 13311 (2.17 clpd.), BM ix, 14 t (annulets not described), B. 36, Marsden I , CCCXXV.

(c) Details lacking.

V. 80 [ Gayangos , Vives ], C. [1], F. p. 33**, M. p. 69, R. 44, Cordoba [2].

74. 183 A. H. = 799/800 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○ ○○

P . 30.

(b) Details lacking.

V. 81 [ Gayangos , Vives ], C. [ Camerino + 1], Lorichs 4753, R. 45, Cordoba , Denizbac ı, Istanbul uncat. [2].

75. 184 A. H. = 800 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○○○○○

○ on inside of inner border at top.

HSA 13233, 13397 (1.61 clpd., 2.76), BM uncat.

(b) Annulets: as (a). /○

B . 37.

(c) Details lacking.

V. 82 [4], C. pl. III [8], Cerda 25, LN. 4, R. 46, Cordoba [4].

76. 185 A. H. = 801 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ∴

• • • beneath ك, 3rd line.

Plate ii

HSA 13241, 13243, 13394–6 (2.46, 2.33, 2.74, 2.76, 2.74), ANS (2.73), BM ii, 15, B . 38.

(b) As (a). •••


(c) Annulets: ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙

P. 31.

As (a).

(d) Details lacking.

V. 83 [5], C. [9], Cerda 25, Kh. p. 327, LN. 5, Lorichs 4754 [2], M. p. 69. R. 47, Cordoba [6], Istanbul uncat. [2], Dos Santos 2938 [2], Gagarine , Low .

77. 186 A. H. = 802 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ •/••

HSA 13328 (1.98 clpd. & pierced), BM. ii, 16, B. 39, Østrup 2173.

(b) Details lacking.

V. 84 [3], C. [4], Bartholomaei à Soret , RNB 1861, p. 32, Cerda 25, F. p. 33**, LN. 7, Lorichs 4755, M. p. 69, R. 48 [3 var.], Cordoba [2].

78. 187 A. H. = 802/3 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙

HSA 13327 (2.07 clpd.), BM ii, 17, P. 32, Castiglioni CCXLVI.

(b) Annulets: as (a). •/

B . 40.

(c) "In center" image . image

Windisch-Grätz 70.

(d) Details lacking.

V. 85 [3], C. [4], Cerda 25, R. 49 [2 var.], Cordoba [2], Denizbac ı, Gagarine , Sotheby .

79. 188 A. H. = 803/4 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙

BM ii 18.

(b) Annulets: ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ image

Descriptions of these annulets vary, but they are probably as above.

image on inside of inner border at bottom.

HSA 13239, 13326 (2.69, 2.65), BM ix, 18 a (ornament beneath rev. not mentioned), B . 41.

(c) Details lacking.

V. 86 [4], C. [6]. M. p. 69, R. 50 [3 var.], Cordoba [3], Istanbul uncat., Sotheby .

80. 189 A. H. = 804/5 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ image

HSA 13325 (2.34), ANS (2.59), P. 33, B. 42–3, Clark.

(b) Annulets: ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ○

BM uncat.

(c) Details lacking.

V. 87 [5], C [5], R. 51 [2], Cordoba [4], Low .

81. 190 A. H. = 805/6 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙

HSA 13322 (2.48).

(b) Annulets: as (a). image

ANS (2.64), B. 44.

(c) Annulets: as (a). ∴/∴

HSA 13323–4, 13417 (2.64, 2.56, 2.13 clpd.), ANS (2.24 clpd.), C. pl. III, BM ii, 19, P. 34 (described as having 5 annulets), Brethes 458, Bardo , Yockers .

(d) Details lacking.

V. 88 [9], C. [7], Cerda 25, Lorichs 4756, M. p. 69, R. 52 [5], Cordoba [2], Dos Santos 2939 [2], Gagarine , Low , Sotheby .

82. 191 A. H. = 806/7 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ ∴/∴

HSA 13320–1 (2.69, 2.51), ANS (2.67), BM. ii, 20, P. 35, Pedersen , Schulman 5/5/08, 5/24/09.

(b) Annulets: as (a). image

B. 45.

(c) image above 3rd line.

V. 90 [ Madrid , Vives ].

Rev. not described.

(d) Details lacking.

V. 89 [4], C. [8], Cerda 25, GT. 5788–9, M. p. 69, Marsden p. 316, RN 1863, p. 216 [in Carcassonne Museum = M. Top. , p. 106, no. 6], R. 53 [5 of 3 var.], Cordoba [6], Gagarine , Schulman , 6/26/05, 11/18/07, Sotheby .

83. 192 A. H. = 807/8 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊙ ⊙ ⊙ ⊙ ⊙

P. 38.

(b) Annulets: as (a) (sometimes appearing to lack dots)

image above 3rd line

(sometimes blurred to appear as •)


The star above usually blurred and the presence of that beneath sometimes doubtful.

HSA 13319, 14074–5, 14077, 14266 (2.66, 2,66, 1.82, 2.78, 2.61), Dos Santos 2941 (rev. not illustrated.

(c) As (b) but image on obv. not mentioned ( P. and B. ) or present.

P. 37, B. 46, BM uncat.

(d) Annulets: as (a). ∴/∴

• above 3rd line.

P. 36.

(e) Details lacking except annulets as (a) and rev. •/•

Dos Santos 2942 [2].

(f) Details lacking except annulets: ⊙∴⊙∴⊙∴

Dos Santos 2940.

(g) Details lacking.

V. 91 [ Vives (3)], C. [5], Cerda 25, Lorichs 4756, M. p. 69, Østrup 2174, R. 54 [2 var.], Cordoba [2], Gagarine [2], Low , Wetzl p. 577.

84. 193 A. H. = 808/9 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊙ ⊙ ⊙ ⊙ ⊙

P. 40.

(b) Annulets: as (a). image

BM ii, 21, P. 41, B. 47–8, Bardo , (possibly Brethes 459).

(c) Annulets: ○○○○○

HSA 13318 (2.74).

As (b).

(d) Annulets: as (a).

image above 3rd line.

ANS (1.97 clpd.).

As (b).

(e) image above 3rd line.

V. 93 [6], R. 55 [3].

Rev. not described.

(f) Annulets: ∴ ○ ∴ ○ ∴ ○ •/•

P. 39.

(g) Details lacking.

V. 92 [ Codera ], C. [7], Cerda 25, F. p. 33**, M. p. 69, Marsden p. 316, Østrup 2176 (half-circle beneath rev.), Cordoba [5], Low , Sotheby [2].

85. 194 A. H. = 809/10 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊙ ⊙ ⊙ ⊙ ⊙

HSA 13339, 13418 (2.00 clpd., 2.66), P. 42, B. 49–50, Escorial 1639, Østrup 2177, BM uncat.

(b) Annulets: as (a). •/•

HSA 13263 (2.63).

(c) Details lacking.

V. 94 [11], C. [5], Castiglioni CCXLVII, Cerda 25, LN. 8, M. p. 69, Marsden p. 316, R. 56 [5], Cordoba [7], Gagarine , Sotheby .

86. 195 A. H. = 810/1 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊙ ⊙ ⊙ ⊙ ⊙

HSA 13316 (2.64), BM ii, 22.

(b) Annulets: as (a). •/•

The pellet beneath sometimes appears like a blurred, star.

HSA 13246, 13305, 13338, 13421 (2.68, 2.51, 2.41, 2.02 frg. lacking), ANS (2.71), P. 43.

(c) Annulets: as (a). /•


(d) Annulets: as (a). •/∴

ANS (2.69), Yockers.

(e) Annulets: as (a). image

B. 51.

(f) Annulets: as (a). image

BM ix, 22 a .

(g) image above 3rd line.

V. 96 [ Gayangos , Vives (2)].

Rev. not described.

(h) Details lacking.

V. 95 [17], C. [11], Calcutta 7903, Castiglioni CCXLVIII, F. p.33** (?), GT. 5790, Lorichs 4757, M. p. 69, Østrup 2178, R. 57 [14 of 3 var.], Cordoba [6], Dos Santos 2942 [2], Gagarine , Low , Sotheby .

87. 196 A. H. = 811/2 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊙ ⊙ ⊙ ⊙ ⊙

HSA 14076 (2.67,) B. 52, BM uncat.

(b) Annulets: as (a).

• above 3rd line.

BM uncat.

(c) Annulets: as (a). •/∴

image above 3rd line.

One of the HSA specimens is double-struck so that there appears to be 4 pellets beneath.

HSA 13245, 13248, 13252, 13335, 13337, 13360, 27800 (2.55, 2.69, 2.06 clpd., 2.62, 2.61, 2.63, 2.70), ANS (2.70), BM ii, 23, P. 44–5, B. 53–5, Østrup 2179 (probably), Ashmolean 79, 81, Bardo , Fitzwilliam 8.29, Yale .

(d) Annulets: as (a).

• above 3rd line.

BM ii, 24.

As (c).

(e) Annulets. as (a).

image above 3rd line.

P. 46.

As (c).

(f) image above 3rd line.

V. 99 [13], Schulman 3/30/14.

Rev. not described.

(g) • above 3rd line.

Rev. not described.

V. 98 [8 incl. 4 in Madrid ], M. p. 917, no. 32 a (?).

(h) Details lacking. The Vives citations apparently lack any ornament above the 3rd line of the obverse.

V. 97 [6], C. [12], F. p. 33**, Kh. p. 327, M. p. 69, Marsden p. 316, Lorichs 4757–8 [3], R. 58 [11 spec, of 4 var.], Cordoba [11], Dos Santos 2943–4 [4], 2948 [2], Gagarine , Low , Sotheby .

88. 197 A. H. = 812/3 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ •/∴

image above 3rd line.

HSA 13249–50, 13329–31, 13336 (2.72, 2.62, 2.66, 2.69, 2.63, 2.66), BM ii, 25, P. 48, B. 56, Brethes 460, Fitzwilliam 7, Yale , Pedersen .

(b) As (a). •/∵

HSA 13353 (2.69), P. 49, Bardo (?).

(c) As (a) but image above 3rd line. image

The crescents sometimes stand free of the inner border, sometimes are attached to it.

HSA 13333–4, 14073 (2.62, 2.61, 2.61), ANS (2.68), BM ii, 26(?), ix, 26 a , P. 47 (6–point star), B. 58, Hallenberg XIV, Østrup 2180 (probably), Fitzwilliam 9.

(d) Annulets: as (a). image

image above 3rd line.

B. 57.

(e) Obv. not described. •/•

Østrup 2181.

(f) image above 3rd line.

Rev. not described.

V. 103 [38, incl. Madrid (21), Codera (3)], Dos Santos 2945 [2 var.].

(g) image above 3rd line.

Rev. not described.

V. 101 [14, incl. Madrid (7), Codera (2)].

(h) image above 3rd line.

Rev. not described

V. 102 [ Madrid , Academia, Vives ], DR. 20(?).

(i) No ornament on obv.(?).

Rev. not described.

V. 100 [ Madrid , Vives ].

(j) Details lacking.

C. [19], Kh. p. 327, Lorichs 4759 [3], M. p. 69, R. 59 [31 spec, of 6 var.], Cordoba [10], Gagarine , Low , Sotheby .

89. 198 A. H. = 813/4 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙

HSA 13348–52, 13255 (2.70, 2.63, 2.52, 2.75, 2.63, 2.72), ANS (2.03, doubly pierced, clpd.), BM ii, 27, P. 50–1, B. 59–61, Brethes 461, Ashmolean 82 a, Bardo , Fitzwilliam 10.

(b) Annulets: ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙ •/•

• above 3rd line.

B. 62.

(c) image

Østrup 2182.

(d) Details lacking.

V. 104 [18], C. [8], Cerda 25, GT. 5791, M. p. 69, Marsden p. 316, R. 60 [19], Cordoba [8], Dos Santos 2946 [2 var. of annulets], Gagarine , Low , Schulman 6/26/05, 6/15/10, Sotheby .

90. 199 A. H. = 814/5 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ⊙ ∴ ⊙ ∴ ⊙ ∴ •/∴

B. 67.

(b) Annulets as (a).

image above 3rd line.

B. 66.

(c) As (b). ∴

P. 52.

(d) As (b) •/••

BM ii, 28.

(e) As (b).

As (a).

Plate ii

HSA 13251, 13341, 13347, 13419 (probably), 13517, 14072 (1.92 clpd., 2.69, 2.45, 1.79 frg., 2.12 clpd., 2.76), B. 63–4, Bardo .

(f) Annulets: ⊙ ∵ ⊙ ∵ ⊙ ∵ •/∵

image above 3rd line.

HSA 13340, 13342, 13515–6, 13518 (2.76, 2.69, 2.69, 2.50 clpd., 2.71), ANS (2 spec, 2.64, 1.98 clpd.).

(g) As (f). image B. 65.

(h) Annulets: as (f).


image above 3rd line.

HSA 13247 (2.74).

As (f).

(i) Details lacking, except image above 3rd line.

V. 106 [15], C. pl. III, GT. 5792–4, Dos Santos 2946 [2 var.], 2948, Schulman 6/15/10.

(j) Details lacking except image is apparently lacking above 3rd line.

V. 105 [ Gayangos , Vives ], Dos Santos 2947.

(k) Details lacking.

C. [16], M. p. 69, Marsden p. 316, R. 61 [6 spec, of 4 var.], Cordoba [7], Gagarine , Low , Sotheby [3].

The overwhelming evidence is against the correct attribution of Østrup 2183, with image beneath the reverse.

91. 200 A. H. = 815/6 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○○○○○○ •/•

image above 3rd line.

BM ix, 30 a .

(b) Annulets: ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

• above 3rd line. Sometimes with a distinct pellet or centering point above the 2nd line.

As (a).

HSA 13253, 13256, 13261, 13519–21, (2.10 clpd., 2.24 clpd., 2.65, 2.65, 2.14 clpd., 2.00 clpd.), ANS (2 spec., 2.75, 2.47), BM ii, 29, Yale .

(c) As (b). •/

B. 68, Ashmolean 85 (? Pellet above 3 rd line not mentioned).

(d) As (b). image

BM ii, 30.

(e) Annulets: as (b).

P. 53–4, Brethes 462.

As (a).

(f) Details lacking except image above 3rd line.

V. 108 [5, incl. Madrid (1)].

(g) Details lacking except • above 3rd line.

V. 107 [12, incl. Madrid (4)], Dos Santos 2948 [2 var.], 2949, Schulman 6/15/10.

(h) Details lacking.

C. [8], Calcutta 7904, LN. 10–12, Lorichs 4760, M. p. 69, Østrup 2184 (pellet above rev.), R. 62 [5 spec, of 3 var.], Cordoba [6], Low , Sotheby , Welzl p. 577.

92. 201 A. H. = 816/7 A. D.



(a) Annulets: ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○

P. 55.

(b) Annulets: ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ •/•

• above 3rd line. Sometimes with a distinct pellet or cen­tering point above 2nd line.

HSA 13262(?), 13266, 13354, 13522 (2.01, 2.02, 2.06 broken, 2.15, all clpd.), ANS (2.54), BM ii, 31, B. 69.

(c) As (b). •/

Østrup 2185.

(d) Annulets as (b).