An Introduction To Arab-Byzantine Coinag PDF

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1
CHAPTER 1
AN INTRODUCTION TO ARAB-BYZANTINE COINAGE
This introductory chapter is in three parts. The first is a brief and selective history of Syria during the
seventh century, concentrating particularly on those events which might be relevant to the coinage. The
second is an overview of Syrian Arab-Byzantine coinage which should help familiarise the reader with
typical Arab-Byzantine coins and help in understanding how untypical many of the coins in the Irbid hoard
are. The third part describes recent progress in research and outlines some of the current problems and
uncertainties in the field. At the end of the chapter is a catalogue (Catalogue 1) illustrating all the main
types of Arab-Byzantine coin from each mint.1
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Persian occupation and Byzantine reconquest (610–30)2
In 602 the Byzantine emperor Maurice Tiberius was overthrown by the army and the usurper Phocas (602–
10) installed on the imperial throne in his place. The new emperor proved to be unpopular and a revolt, led
by Heraclius exarch of Carthage, soon began in the western part of the empire. Eventually in 610 Heraclius’
son, also called Heraclius, succeeded in taking Constantinople and was himself crowned emperor later the
same year. He inherited a troubled and impoverished empire, with the Avars invading the Balkans and
adherents of Phocas still active in some areas. Meanwhile the Sasanians, under Khusru II (590–628), had
used the usurpation of Maurice as a pretext for threatening Byzantine Syria and this developed into a full
scale invasion with Jerusalem taken in 614. The Byzantines were in no position to respond immediately
and the Sasanians occupied the whole of Syria followed by Egypt and parts of Asia Minor. We know little
of the details of the Persian occupation of Syria, but there is no evidence of widespread devastation and
they probably left in place most of the Byzantine local administration.
It was not until 622 that Heraclius was able to counter-attack and over the following years he conducted
a number of successful campaigns in Asia Minor and Armenia. He also negotiated an alliance with the
Turkish khaganate which resulted in a Turkish invasion of the northern Sasanian provinces. In 626 the
Byzantines narrowly escaped disaster when both Sasanians and Avars besieged Constantinople, but in 627
Heraclius took the bold step of invading the Sasanian heartland. This risky strategy proved successful;
Khusru was overthrown in 628 and Heraclius was able to conclude a very advantageous peace with the
Sasanians which resulted in the return of all the eastern provinces to Byzantium by 629. The following
year Heraclius entered Jerusalem in triumph bearing the true cross which had been taken by the Sasanians
in 614.
Meanwhile momentous events had been taking place in the Arabian peninsula, presumably largely
unnoticed by either protagonist in the war between the two empires. The Prophet Mu¢ammad was probably
born around 570 and began preaching his new religion around 610. In 622 the hijra took place in which
Mu¢ammad and his followers fled Mecca and were given shelter in Medina, but in 630 Mecca was taken
by the Muslims and by Mu¢ammad’s death in 632 a fledgling Muslim state was already in existence.
According to our sources Mu¢ammad appointed Abū Bakr as his successor and, during the brief reign
(632–4) of this first caliph, the earliest Arab incursions into Syria probably took place.
The history of Syria during the next 60 years forms the background to the coins which are the subject
of this book, but before outlining what we know of this history, it will be useful to consider the problem
of our sources.
1
Throughout this chapter references to ‘Cat. 1, no.’ followed by a number refer to the short Catalogue at the end of this chapter
and not to the longer Catalogues which appear later in the book.
2
All dates are AD unless otherwise stated.
2 CHAPTER 1: AN INTRODUCTION TO ARAB-BYZANTINE COINAGE
The sources
If we read a popular history of the first decades of the Islamic state we have the impression that the main
events and personalities are fairly certainly known, but in fact we are largely reliant on histories that were
written at least 150 years after the events. We have no contemporary inscriptions naming Mu¢ammad or
any of the first four caliphs, and in fact no fully Islamic inscriptions which are firmly datable to earlier than
the caliphate of ʿAbd al-Malik (685–705). There is a corresponding lack of archaeological evidence for the
early battles, Arab garrisons, mosques or other public monuments. This absence of evidence has given rise
to alternative views of early Islam and the Arab conquests, sometimes from authors outside the academic
mainstream, suggesting that Islam evolved slowly from a simple monotheism and that the conquest of
Syria was more of a gradual infiltration than an invasion with a few large battles.3 More recently Volker
Popp has gone even further and suggested that Muʿāwiya (660–80) and ʿAbd al-Malik were not Muslims at
all but effectively rulers of an Arab-Christian state.4 Very few historians would go this far, but many would
acknowledge that there is considerable uncertainty about the degree to which a mature form of Islam was
established before about 690.
Another area of wide disagreement among historians is the degree to which a centrally administered
bureaucratic state existed before the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik. The Arab historians who are our main sources
naturally tended to assume that the first caliphs governed in essentially the same way as their successors,
although they do emphasise the simplicity of their way of life. However, most modern historians tend to
take the view that there is no real evidence of highly organised bureaucratic government until the caliphate
of ʿAbd al-Malik, whilst a minority argue that it developed 20 years earlier under Muʿāwiya.5
Our main source for the period is the monumental history of the world by al-Ṭabarī (died 923), several
volumes of which deal with the period from 630 to 700.6 Al-Ṭabarī made extensive use of earlier authors and
oral traditions, and often gives us, without comment, a number of quotations relating to particular events,
some of which are mutually contradictory. There is inevitably an inherent bias in these earlier traditions
in that many anecdotes were designed to enhance the prestige, and sometimes the entitlement to stipends,
of particular tribes or clans.7 The shorter Conquests of the Countries by al-Balādhurī (died c.892) is also
important, but more concisely written.8 Both these authors wrote in Iraq under the Abbasid caliphate and
each concentrates mainly on events in Iraq and the Iranian East. By the time they were writing the Abbasids
had been in power for about 150 years and a generally hostile view of the Umayyads was prevalent.9 Aslo
much information relating to Umayyad Syria had probably already disappeared from the historical record
and oral tradition. A number of other Arab historians give us small amounts of information relating to
events in Syria, but all of them are either later or very fragmentary and sometimes they are only available in
3
See for example Crone and Cook 1977 on the development of Islam. More recently, and less mainstream, Nevo and Koren 2003
which cites much archaeological and inscriptional evidence from the Negev where Nevo (who unfortunately died in 1992 before
the book was completed) directed field research. We will leave it to historians to comment on the historical arguments put forward,
but in our view the chapter on the numismatic evidence is poorly informed and contains a number of errors.
See Chapter 1 by Popp 2010. Popp makes much use of numismatic evidence, but in our view a number of his arguments
4
are spurious, being based on far-fetched interpretations of single dies (in five cases Pseudo-Damascus dies). Some of these
interpretations will be discussed briefly below and in the next chapter.
For recent expositions of these opposing views see Foss (2002b and 2008) who argues for the establishment of a strong
5
centralised administration under Muʿāwiya and Johns (2003), who favours the later date under ʿAbd al-Malik.
The modern English translation, edited by Yar-Shater (State University of New York Press) in 40 volumes, was completed in
6
2007. Volumes 13 to 22 cover the period under consideration here.

We should therefore probably be particularly suspicious of individual exploits, relationships to Muḥammad (or his companions)
7
and early dates of conversion to Islam. On the other hand it seems unlikely that major battles, sieges etc. could be totally fictitious
as has been occasionally suggested.
8
For the most modern English translation see al-Balādhurī 1916 and 1924.
Although it should be said that the methodology of these early historians was generally to include all accounts available to them
9
on a particular topic, so they certainly did not set out to write heavily biased history.
manuscript form. Over the past few decades scholarship has tended progressively to undermine the value
of the Arab historians particularly for the earliest decades of Islamic history, but recently this trend has to
some extent been reversed and certainly the Arab historians remain our most useful source of information
for the period.10
The Arab sources can be supplemented to some extent by Byzantine historians,11 but unfortunately at
this period there were no contemporary chroniclers and our best Byzantine source is The Chronicle of
Theophanes Confessor written in the early years of the ninth century.12 This covers the period from the
accession of Diocletian up to 813 and incorporates a number of earlier sources, extracts of which have
sometimes been inserted more or less unaltered. It incorporates extracts from a Syriac chronicle, almost
certainly that of Theophilus of Edessa probably dating from the 750s, and so contains scattered information
about events in Syria. Nevertheless Theophanes’ main interest naturally lies within the Byzantine empire.
More nearly contemporary is Sebeos’ Armenian History13 which describes the events leading up to the
Arab conquest of Armenia, with particular emphasis on the Sasanian empire, and then covers the conquest
itself, ending with the first years of Muʿāwiya’s caliphate. Although his interest is mainly Armenian, he
takes a wider view of events and there is scattered information relating to the caliphate and to events in
Syria up to the first civil war.
Finally we have a few fragmentary Syriac sources, of which the most interesting is a fragment of the
Maronite Chronicle, probably written just before 680 and covering a short period at the start of Muʿāwiya’s
caliphate.14 Almost all these non-Muslim histories were written by monks whose main focus was religious
and whose motivation was often to show how the Arab conquest was a punishment for Christians deviating
from what the writers regarded as orthodoxy. Recently the non-Arabic sources have been supplemented
significantly by Robert Hoyland’s ingenious reconstruction of much of the Chronicle of Theophilus of
Edessa originally written in Syriac. Theophilus was an astrologer at the Abbasid court in the mid eighth
century. and, although there are no surviving manuscripts of his work, it was used as a source by a number
of later writers.15
In summary therefore we have, at best, a fragmentary collection of anecdotes put together by authors
who were biased, mostly not very interested in events in Syria and mostly writing many years after the
events they were recording.
These written sources can be supplemented to some extent by contemporary public inscriptions, which
are very rare for Muʿāwiya but become more common in the caliphate of ʿAbd al-Malik and include the
famous inscriptions from the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. A second group of inscriptions are those
found on lead seals, used for sealing letters, documents or bags of merchandise. The Byzantines used them
extensively and Byzantine-style seals, usually bearing personal monograms, are common finds in Syria.
On stylistic grounds they date from the sixth or seventh century and some of them are almost certainly
post-conquest, but so far they have been little studied and have not revealed any useful information about
early post-conquest individuals or administration. There are similar seals in Arabic of which very few have
10
See Noth and Conrad 1994 and Crone 1980 (particularly pp. 3–17) for the shortcomings of the Arab historians and Howard-
Johnston 2010 for a measured defence of them.
11
However, there is an almost total gap in the sources for much of the reign of Constans II (641–68).
12
Mango and Scott 1997.
13
Thomson and Howard-Johnston 1999.
14
See Palmer 1993 for English translations of a number of West Syrian chronicles relating to the seventh century and Howard-
Johnston 2010 for a full survey and discussion of the Syriac and Armenian sources. Translations of a number of other non-Arabic
historical sources can be found in Hoyland 1997.
15
Hoyland 2011. Apart from Theophanes the Chronicle appears to have been used by Dionysius of Telmahre (writing in Syriac
in the ninth century, but only surviving in extensive extracts in the twelfth century Syriac writings of Michael the Syrian), Agapius,
bishop of Manbij (tenth century, in Arabic) and the Chronicle of Siirt (ninth century in Arabic). See Hoyland’s bibliography (pp.
340–4) for a full list of primary sources containing parts of these works.
been published, but the earliest known appear to date from the caliphate of ʿAbd al-Malik.16 We also have
a group of administrative papyri found at Nessana in southern Israel which date from around 675 to 700,
and provide evidence of requisitions of grain and oil for troops during the reign of Muʿāwiya and of more
diverse taxation demands under ʿAbd al-Malik.17 Archaeological excavations have so far provided very
little information about the first 60 years of Arab rule in Syria, although there is growing evidence for the
continued use of Christian and Jewish places of worship, and there is no evidence of a major economic
decline in the wake of the conquest. One final source of information is of course the coinage, but because
almost all of it is undated, it does not give up its secrets easily.
The conquest and the early Caliphate (630–60)

According to our sources the first caliph, Abū Bakr (632–4), sent three armies into Palestine in 633, and
in 634 won a major victory over the Byzantines at Ajnadain. They captured a number of towns and, in
635, took Damascus after a siege. Heraclius himself appears to have then come to Syria, basing himself at
Emesa (Ḥimṣ), and a large army was assembled under the general Theodore. Faced with this new threat the
Arab commander Khalid b. al-Walid withdrew from Damascus and assembled his forces on the Yarmouk
river, to the east of the Sea of Galilee in 636. In the subsequent battle the Byzantine army was totally
defeated, and this seems to have effectively marked the end of Byzantine rule in Syria.18 Some fortified
towns held out for a few years; Jerusalem fell in 638, Caesarea, supported from the sea, was not taken until
641 and the offshore island of Aradus even managed to hold out until 650.
Both Theophanes and al-Balādhurī tell us that the caliph ʿUmar came to Jerusalem in person to receive
the city’s surrender, Theophanes adding colourful details such as ‘Oumaros entered the Holy City dressed
in filthy garments of camel-hair’.19 We learn from the Arab historians that ʿUmar personally set up an
administration for the conquered territories and divided Syria into four military districts or junds: Ḥimṣ,
Dimashq, Filas²īn and al-Urdunn, with a fifth being added later under Yazīd I, when Qinnasrīn was split from
Ḥimṣ.20 Our information on the junds is all from Abbasid sources and may be to some extent anachronistic,
so the geographical differences in Arab-Byzantine coin types may provide some useful information on the
administrative boundaries that were actually in place, at least for the 680s and 690s.
An important point to emerge from the accounts of the conquest is that the Arab commanders consistently
offered generous terms of surrender, in which Christians and Jews would be free to practice their religions
and would be protected, in return for paying taxes. That this resulted in a relatively peaceful transition to
Presumably Arabic was not widely used on seals until after ʿAbd al-Malik made it the preferred language for administration
16
around 700. These seals are sometimes dated and sometimes include the names of officials and districts, so they have the potential
to reveal useful information on the Umayyad administration from the latter part of ʿAbd al-Malik’s caliphate onwards. A group of
159 Arabic lead seals (all believed to have been found in modern Israel) in the Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art have
been studied and catalogued by Nitzan Amitai-Preiss (publication forthcoming).
17
See Kraemer 1958. The documents are often in both Greek and Arabic and use Hijra and Byzantine indictional dating.
Interestingly both Foss (2002b, pp. 356–7) and Johns (2003, pp. 419–23) have used these papyri to support their different arguments
for the establishment of a strong centralised administration under either Muʿāwiya or ʿAbd al-Malik. Many more seventh-century
fiscal papyri survive from Egypt and these show that tax collection, both in kind and in cash, was well organised from an early
date, although there is no evidence as to the extent of control from Damascus. See Trombley 2013 for a survey of the Egyptian
material.
18
Howard-Johnston 2010 has recently argued that the Arab historians misunderstood the sequence of the conquests. He suggests
that the Muslim armies first overran most of Palestine, including Jerusalem and that the victory at Yarmuk represented their
breakthrough into Syria. This was followed by a final victory over the Byzantines at a location somewhere between Damascus
and Emesa. This interpretation is based largely on a close reading of extracts from Theophilus of Edessa used by later writers. We
have retained the traditional sequence of events, but Howard-Johnston’s proposal certainly appears to constitute a more logical
sequence of events.
19
Mango and Scott 1997, p. 471.
Al-Balādhurī also says that the Jazīra was created a separate jund under ʿAbd al-Malik (al-Balādhurī 1916, p. 202). The exact
20
date may well be after the end of the Arab-Byzantine coinage, although the distinctive coins of the two small Standing Caliph
mints in the Jazīra, Harran and al-Ruha (cat. 1, nos 40 and 41), suggest some degree of administrative independence.
Arab rule seems to be borne out by the archaeological record which has revealed no widespread destruction
and in fact shows a remarkable continuity of material culture through the post-conquest period and well
into the eighth century.21
A second point which emerges very clearly in the accounts of the conquest of Iraq and of Egypt is
ʿUmar’s policy of segregating Arab troops in newly built garrison towns known as amṣar (singular mi¤r)
such as al-Kūfa in Iraq. Garrisons were certainly established in Syria, but we hear less of them and it
appears that the incoming Arabs were better integrated into the local population than in Iraq, where the
garrison towns caused problems for various caliphs in later years.22 There must also have been considerable
numbers of settled and semi-nomadic Arabs already established in the eastern parts of Syria who had tribal,
and of course linguistic, affinities with the newcomers.
In 639 ʿUmar appointed Muʿāwiya b. Abi Sufyān as governor of Syria and he was to prove both energetic
and extremely able. It is uncertain exactly what area Muʿāwiya governed at this early date, but it is clear
that he wielded considerable power. He immediately started to reinforce coastal fortifications and took the
unprecedented step of building a large war fleet which he used to attack Cyprus, Cos, Rhodes and Crete.
Finally in 654 he mounted a large naval and land attack on Constantinople itself, described graphically by
Sebeos writing only a few years later:
All the troops of the east … came to Muʿāwiya, the prince of the army who resided in Damascus.
They prepared warships in Alexandria and all the coastal cities. They filled the ships with arms and
artillery – 300 great ships with a thousand elite cavalry for each ship. He ordered 5000 light ships to
be built, and he put in them [only] a few men for the sake of speed, 100 men for each ship so that they
could dart to and fro over the waves of the sea around the very large ships. These he sent over the sea,
while he himself took his troops with him and marched to Chalcedon.23
The Byzantines just succeeded in beating off this attack, which would almost certainly have been repeated
had it not been for events in Medina. Umar’s successor, the elderly caliph ʿUthman had become unpopular
and in 656 he was murdered by a group of Muslim insurgents from Egypt. He was succeeded by ʿAlī, the
Prophet’s son-in-law, who was not directly implicated in the plot, but who failed to punish the assassins.
This gave rise to an insurrection against ʿAlī in Medina and culminated in the Battle of the Camel near
Baṣra in Iraq. ʿAlī was victorious, but a number of highly respected companions of the Prophet were killed
and the Prophet’s widow humiliated, thereby alienating many who would otherwise have regarded ʿAlī as
the legitimate caliph. ʿUthman had been a member of the same Umayyad clan as Muʿāwiya and the latter
now refused to pledge allegiance to ʿAlī. So started the first civil war.
Muʿāwiya abandoned his campaign against Byzantium and negotiated a truce, agreeing to pay the
Emperor Constans II an annual tribute. The events of the first civil war seem to have moved slowly and
one suspects that important episodes have disappeared from the record or come down to us in a distorted
form, but by 657 the armies of the two rivals were facing each other, apparently for several months, at the
inconclusive ‘battle’ of Siffin on the west bank of the Euphrates not far from Raqqa. If we are to believe the
Arab historians the stalemate was ended by both sides agreeing to submit to arbitration, the unlikely result
of which was a declaration that neither ʿAlī nor Muʿāwiya should be caliph. This was more damaging to
ʿAlī as he was the only one claiming the caliphate at the time. Over the next two years Muʿāwiya must have
manoeuvred skilfully on both political and military fronts, but little detail has come down to us. A further
problem for ʿAlī was the formation of the fundamentalist group known as the Kharijites, who believed
21
See Walmsley 2007 for an assessment of the archaeological evidence relating to early Islamic Syria and Avni 2014 for a more
detailed assessment of the evidence from Palestine. Avni argues that this continuity lasts until at least the tenth century.
22
In comparing the differing situations following the Arab conquests it is worth bearing in mind that Iraq had been the centre of
Sasanian power, whereas Syria had just been a province of the Byzantine empire, remote from its centre at Constantinople.
23
Thomson and Howard-Johnston 1999, p. 144. It is of interest that Sebeos refers to Muʿāwiya as ‘prince of the army’ while the
caliph is ‘king’.
that only the word of God should rule. Probably this group would have been inherently more averse to the
worldly Muʿāwiya, but because of their location in Iraq their initial aggression was directed against ʿAlī.
In 660 Muʿāwiya felt confident enough to declare himself caliph in Jerusalem and the Maronite Chronicle,
probably written towards the end of the century, tells us that:
In July of the same year the emirs and many of the Arabs gathered and proffered the right hand to
Muʿāwiya. Then an order went out that he should be proclaimed king in all the villages and cities of
the dominion and that they should make acclamations and invocations to him. He also minted gold
and silver, but it was not accepted because it had no cross on it. Furthermore, Muʿāwiya did not
wear a crown like other kings of the world. He placed his throne in Damascus and refused to go to
Mu¢ammad’s throne.24
This quotation, well known to numismatists, is possibly our earliest (and one of very few) references in the
early sources to Arab-Byzantine coins. The silver coins referred to were almost certainly Arab-Sasanian
drachms issued in large quantities in the Umayyad eastern provinces,25 but the gold could refer to a series
of copies of Byzantine gold solidi which have the cross-bars of all crosses removed.26
For a few months there were two opposing caliphs, ʿAlī in al-Kūfa and Muʿāwiya in Damascus, but in
661 ʿAlī was assassinated by Kharijites and by 662 Muʿāwiya was firmly established as the first Umayyad
caliph ruling over the whole vast Islamic state.
The civil war provided the Byzantines with a much needed breathing space to improve their defensive
capabilities and in 660 Constans II travelled east to obtain the allegiance of the various Transcaucasian
principalities. Shortly after this he left his son, the future Constantine IV (668–85), in charge in Constantinople
and moved to Sicily, presumably to organise the defence of Byzantine Italy and North Africa.
The caliphate of Muʿāwiya (660–80)27

As soon as he had consolidated his position as caliph Muʿāwiya resumed the aggressively expansionist
policies of earlier years. An army under Uqba b. Nafi campaigned far across North Africa and founded the
city of al-Qayrawān in modern Tunisia. In the east armies advanced on two fronts, one taking Kabul and
moving into Sind whilst the second crossed the Oxus and took Bukhara.
Muʿāwiya broke his truce with the Byzantines and renewed the annual summer raids from Syria across
the Taurus mountains into Byzantine Asia Minor. He also continued to build up his naval strength and
we have a number of references to craftsmen being brought from other parts of the empire to assist in
this. In the late 660s or early 670s Muʿāwiya’s son Yazīd led a second naval and land offensive against
Constantinople. Based largely on Theophanes’ brief account historians have generally dated this to 672/3,
but Marek Jankowiak has recently argued persuasively that a date around 668 is much more likely.28 Again
24
Palmer 1993, p. 32. The reference to ‘Mu¢ammad’s throne’ is an allusion to the fact that Muʿāwiya did not re-establish the
capital, which ʿAlī had moved to al-Kūfa in 657, at Medina.
25
For example SICA pl. 17, nos 245 and 246 in the name of Muʿāwiya, although the coins referred to could be any of the
numerous Arab-Sasanian coins being struck in the eastern part of the empire (for SICA and other abbreviations for frequently used
references, see the list of Abbreviations on p. 293). Although these silver coins did not circulate as normal currency in Syria at this
time, it is more than likely that some would have found their way into Syria and been seen be the author of the Chronicle.
26
For example Walker, p. 18. no. 54 or SICA, pl. 41, no. 606. These coins and the quote from the Maronite Chronicle (Palmer
1993, p. 32) have caused a certain amount of dissent among numismatists. Bates 1986 has even argued that the Maronite Chronicle
is anachronistically referring to ʿAbd al-Malik’s later gold coinage, but it seems reasonable to accept the account at face value.
However, whether or not these ‘mutilated cross’ solidi were actually issued on the orders of the caliph as part of a concerted
attempt to replace Byzantine coinage is an open question. The author of the Maronite Chronicle would naturally assume that any
new gold coinage was issued by the new ‘king’, but the coins do not really look like a caliphal initiative as they have no meaningful
legends.
27
For a concise ‘biography’ of Muʿāwiya see Humphreys 2006.
See Jankowiak 2013. He demonstrates that the main annalistic source (Theophilus of Edessa) used by Theophanes does not
28
mention a blockade of Constantinople in the 670s and that he made a dating error when he fitted a Byzantine account of the
the Byzantines managed to stay safe behind their walls, although the hinterland must have been thoroughly
ravaged. Over the next few years Muslim military operations continued in various parts of Asia Minor, but
in 674 the Byzantines succeeded in inflicting defeat on an invading force in Lycia (southern Turkey). A
Byzantine fleet, armed with a new weapon, Greek Fire, then devastated the fleet which had evacuated the
Muslim armies. The next development is described in a passage from Theophanes:
In this year (676/7) the Mardaites entered the Lebanon range and made themselves masters of the
Black Mountain as far as the Holy City and captured the peaks of Lebanon. Many slaves, captives
and natives took refuge with them, so that in a short time they grew to many thousands. When Mauias
[Muʿāwiya] and his advisers had learnt of this they were much afraid, … 29
This incursion, presumably organised by the Byzantines, must have appeared as a serious threat to the
caliph in nearby Damascus. We learn from Theophanes that he entered into diplomatic negotiations with
the Byzantines which resulted in another treaty and an agreement to pay annual tribute to the emperor.
We know relatively little of Muʿāwiya’s administration and, as mentioned above, the degree to which it
was bureaucratically organised is open to question. However, from numerous references in al-Ṭabarī we
know that he appointed three senior governors responsible directly to him; one for Egypt and North Africa,
one for Kūfa and its dependent eastern territories and one for Baṣra and its dependent eastern territories.30
Syria and the Jazīra remained the direct responsibility of the caliph. Under these senior governors there was
another layer of governors, presumably in Syria each being responsible for a jund. Below this our picture
is hazy for this early date; there may have been some lower level governors, but the Arab tribal leaders
or ashraf were important and Christian communities were internally governed by their religious leaders.
Presumably parts of the old Byzantine civil service were still intact, but these may well have reported to the
local bishop or some other local Christian leader. We have no idea what sort of central civil service existed,
if any, but we do know that one of the caliph’s senior officials was an orthodox Christian named Sergius,31
whose family had served the Byzantine administration in Damascus.
The main Arab sources concentrate on the military campaigns and on events in Iraq, and they tell us
very little of what was happening in Syria. All we can assume is that, with the exception of the Mardaite
incursion mentioned above, the period was relatively peaceful. Perhaps a little surprisingly there is no
archaeological evidence of the caliph undertaking any building projects in Syria during his 20 year reign.32
Of Muʿāwiya himself the sources give us a picture of a strong leader who was also an exceptionally good
diplomat and who carefully cultivated the tribal aristocracy to give an impression of leadership by consent.
There is little evidence of the bitter Arab inter-tribal feuding which broke out after his death, but it seems
that his main power base in Syria was the large Quḍāʿa tribal grouping led by the tribe of Ḳalb. The later
Arabic sources also portray Muʿāwiya in a slightly negative light, as a secular ‘king’ and as the first caliph
to nominate his son as successor. Although the sources tell us that he sometimes used the title ‘God’s
caliph’ it is unclear how far he projected himself as a religious leader in the way that ʿAbd al-Malik did.
There is no material evidence to suggest that he did, but the biased sources would almost certainly have
suppressed this aspect of his rule.
blockade without dates (on the authority of ‘the patrician Trajan’) into the framework of his annalistic source. Jankowiak then
cites numerous small pieces of evidence from other historical sources in support of the earlier date. He concludes that the lengthy
blockade of Constantinople in the 670s is a myth and that a relatively short blockade took place in the late 660s.
29
Mango and Scott 1997, p. 496.
30
At times these two eastern governorships were combined.
31
Mentioned in a number of sources, for example al-Ṭabarī vol. xviii, p. 216.
32
There is a unique Greek inscription recording repairs to the baths at Hammat Gader which states that the repairs were carried
out ‘In the days of the servant of God Muʿāwiya, the commander of the faithful’ and is dated ‘according to the Arabs the forty
second’, i.e. 662/3, but this is clearly not a major public building project (Hirschfeld 1997, pp. 238–40). Outside Syria there is only
the well-known Taʿif dam inscription dated AH 58 in modern Saudi-Arabia (Miles 1948b).
The start of the Second Civil War (680–5)

Before his death in 660 Muʿāwiya had required the tribal leaders to swear allegiance to his son, Yazīd
I (680–3), but two prominent Muslims based in Medina refused to swear allegiance. The first of these
was Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, son of the fourth caliph and the grandson of the Prophet. Ḥusayn travelled towards
Kūfa with his family and a small group of followers, but they were stopped and massacred at Karbala,
just north of al-Kūfa in Iraq.33 This event was to have momentous consequences for the future of Islam,
but at the time was probably regarded as a relatively minor event when viewed from the perspective of
Damascus. The second senior figure to refuse allegiance was ʿAbd Allah b. al-Zubayr, who for the time
being remained at Medina.
The Arab historians’ main interests in Yazīd’s short reign were the events surrounding the massacre at
Karbala. They tell us little about what was happening in Syria, where we can only assume that Yazīd’s
authority remained secure, but perhaps with more authority devolving to tribal leaders. Towards the end of
his reign he sent an army into Arabia to deal with Ibn al-Zubayr but, while it was besieging Mecca, Yazīd
died in late 683. He was succeeded by his son Muʿāwiya II, who died after only a few weeks. There was
no obvious candidate for the caliphate from the Sufyanid branch of the Umayyad clan,34 the surviving
sons of Yazīd being considered too young, and when Ibn al-Zubayr was declared caliph in Mecca early in
684 he was almost universally recognised. Al-Ṭabarī tells us that he was recognised by the governors of
Ḥimṣ, Qinnasrīn and even by al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Qays al-Fihrī, governor of Damascus.35 In Filas²īn Muʿāwiya’s
governor Ḥassān b. Mālik b. Baḥdal appointed a pro-Umayyad chief of the Judhām tribe, Rawḥ b. Zinbāʿ as
governor while he went to Jund al-Urdunn to rally support for the Umayyads. Almost immediately another
Judhām chief, Nātil b. Qays, overthrew Rawḥ, replaced him as governor and declared for Ibn al-Zubayr.
But the Umayyads still had considerable support in Syria, especially from the Quḍāʿa tribal faction, and
they chose one of the senior members of the clan, Marwān, as leader. We are told by al-Ṭabarī that he was
ready to submit to Ibn al-Zubayr’s authority, but was encouraged to make a bid for power by ʿUbayd Allāh
b. Ziyād, who had been Yazīd’s governor of al-Kūfa. In mid-684 Marwān was acclaimed as caliph by a
meeting of tribal leaders at Jābiya. He then led his followers against al-Ḍaḥḥāk and the pro-Zubayrid tribal
confederation of Qays, defeating them at the battle of Marj Rāhiṭ near Damascus.
Marwān was now in reasonably firm control of Syria, although there appears to have been a series of
attacks by the Byzantines on the coastal cities and al-Balādhurī says that ‘the Greeks destroyed Ascalon
and expelled the inhabitants’ and that they ‘went out against Caesarea and devastated it and razed its
mosque to the ground.’36 Marwān died after less than a year in power, but before his death he obtained
oaths of allegiance to his son ʿAbd al-Malik, who succeeded him in the spring of 685.37 The Qays tribes in
Junds Filas²īn and al-Urdunn took the opportunity of declaring again for Ibn al-Zubayr, but were quickly
subdued and by the middle of the year ʿAbd al-Malik was master of Syria and Egypt whilst Ibn al-Zubayr
controlled Arabia, Iraq and the Iranian East.
The second civil war dragged on for the next seven years and, although it was basically a struggle
between the two caliphs, ʿAbd al-Malik at Damascus and Ibn al-Zubayr at Mecca, there were two other
major factions involved. First, the Kharijites continued their struggle for a Muslim theocracy and caused
Howard-Johnston 2010, pp. 386–7, suggests that the defeat of Ḥusayn has been misplaced by Islamic historians and may
33
actually have taken place about 20 years earlier, towards the end of the first civil war.
Muʿāwiya and his two successors were all descendants of Abū Sufyān and are collectively known as Sufyanids to distinguish
34
them from Marwān and his successors, who came from a different branch of the Umayyad clan and are known as Marwanids.
For once al-Ṭabarī gives considerable detail of events in Syria. The events leading up to the battle of Marj Rāhit are dealt with
35
in vol. xx, pp. 47–69.

36
Al-Balādhurī 1916, pp. 221–2.
Marwān also specified that ʿAbd al-Malik would be succeeded by another son ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. This was to cause some friction
37
between the brothers, but eventually ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz died before his brother. It has been suggested that the rare twin Standing Caliph
coins, probably minted at Jerash, could show both brothers (see Fig. 13, p. 28, below).
problems for both caliphs, although more so for the Zubayrids. Secondly there was an ʿAlid faction, centred
on al-Kūfa and led by Mukhtār b. Abī ʿUbayd, which in 686 inflicted a serious defeat on the Umayyads in
the battle of Mosul.
The period of five years between the death of Muʿāwiya and the accession of ʿAbd al-Malik is largely
ignored by numismatists studying Arab-Byzantine coins. There is a general tendency to attribute any
initiatives on coinage either to Muʿāwiya or ʿAbd al-Malik. This is very much a numismatist’s view of the
importance of coinage, and seems to be based on a tacit assumption that Yazīd or Marwān would not have
had time to do anything with the coinage during their short reigns. In fact important decisions relating to
the copper coinage could easily have been taken in a few minutes of the caliph’s time or by subordinates or
at a local level by a jund governor. For example, there is evidence that at some time between the late 670s
and the early 690s a degree of coordination was introduced into what had probably been a series of local
coinages, and each mint adopted a different obverse type (see Fig. 6 below).38 In this book we tentatively
date this to the start of ʿAbd al-Malik’s caliphate, whilst Clive Foss has dated it to Muʿāwiya,39 but it could
equally well have occurred between 680 and 685. It is also possible that issues with unusual legends (e.g.
the al-wafāʾ lillāh type) or issues that appear to have been withdrawn and overstruck (the jāza hadhā coins
of Damascus)40 might have been issued by supporters of the Zubayrid or even other factions during their
brief periods of control in Syria. These possibilities will be discussed later.
The end of the Civil War and the caliphate of ʿAbd al-Malik (685–705)41
The remaining main events of the second civil war can be dealt with very briefly as they did not take place
in Syria, although life there must have been greatly affected by the need to assemble armies. There are also
descriptions in the Syriac sources of heavier taxation being imposed, at least towards the end of the war.42
For reasons that are now obscure Ibn al-Zubayr chose to remain in Arabia and this must have significantly
weakened his leadership in Iraq and the East. After the defeat at Mosul it was some years before ʿAbd
al-Malik was able to lead an Umayyad army into Iraq, but in 691 he defeated and killed Ibn al-Zubayr’s
brother, Muṣʿab, governor of Iraq. At the same time as ʿAbd al-Malik was consolidating his position in
Iraq, his general al-Ḥajjāj besieged Ibn al-Zubayr in Mecca, defeating and killing him in 692.
Meanwhile the new young Byzantine emperor Justinian II (first reign 685–95) adopted a more aggressive
policy and sent an army into Transcaucasia to persuade the local Christian princes, who had been Muslim
clients for the past 20 years, to transfer their allegiance back to Byzantium. The Byzantines also took
the opportunity to threaten Syria directly and both al-Balādhurī and Theophanes report a further serious
incursion by the Mardaites, with al-Balādhurī adding that they were led by a contingent of Byzantine
cavalry. Theophanes then describes a third treaty dated 685/6 in which the new emperor, Justinian II,
agreed to relocate 12,000 Mardaites within the empire and ʿAbd al-Malik agreed to pay the enormous
tribute of 1000 gold pieces a day.43
38
Although often cited as evidence of caliphal coordination, the evidence is in fact open to other interpretations (see below).
39
Foss 2008, pp. 38–55.
40
See Cat. 1, no. 37 at the end of this chapter for al-wafāʾ lillāh and Cat. 1, no. 21 for jāza hadhā. Both types are found in the
Irbid hoard; the first will be discussed Chapter 5 and the second in Chapter 3.
41
For a concise ‘biography’ of ʿAbd al-Malik see Robinson 2005.
42
See for example ‘The Chronicle of Zuqnin’ (Palmer 1993, pp. 53–70) compiled in 775, but based on earlier sources, which
complains of new taxes on Christians from the year 691/2. In fact the chronicler seems to be about two years late with his dating
at this point, so he is probably referring to the end of the 680s (Palmer 1993, p. 60).
43
Mango and Scott 1997, p. 506. The tribute also included a horse and a slave every day. For al-Balādhurī’s description of events
see al-Balādhurī 1916, pp. 247–8. He confirms the agreement to pay tribute, but not the amount. Al-Ṭabarī makes a brief mention
of a treaty in AH 70 (689/90) which involved 1000 dinars every Friday; perhaps this refers to the same treaty (Al-Ṭabarī, vol. xxi,
p. 169).
ʿAbd al-Malik repaired and fortified the coastal cities of Caesarea, Ascalon, Acre and Tyre which had
been devastated by the Byzantines and there is a short, puzzling, reference in al-Ṭabarī to him conquering
Caesarea in AH 71 (690/1).44 This suggests that the Byzantines may actually have re-occupied the town for
a while, but any occupation must have been short-lived and on a small scale or it would surely have found
its way into one of the Byzantine chronicles.
The other significant event in Syria which is mentioned by the Arab historians is an attempted coup
by ʿAmr b. Saʿīd in 689. ʿAmr took advantage of ʿAbd al-Malik’s departure on campaign to seize power
in Damascus and declare himself caliph. Al-Ṭabarī devotes several pages to this and the accounts that he
quotes all agree that ʿAbd al-Malik dealt with the situation very quickly, luring ʿAmr to a meeting and then
killing him with his own hands.45
From the start of his reign ʿAbd al-Malik engaged in a propaganda war with Ibn al-Zubayr, who held the
holy cities of Mecca and Medina and who seems to have had the reputation of being pious.46 The Zubayrids
appear to have been the first to use Islamic slogans on their coinage, the first known dated example being
an Arab-Sasanian silver drachm with the legend muḥammad rasūl allāh (Mu¢ammad is the messenger of
God), issued by a Zubayrid governor in AH 66 (685/6) at Bīshāpūr in the south of modern Iran.47 We do not
know how quickly ʿAbd al-Malik’s response evolved, but within a very few years he had clearly decided
that he would project his regime as thoroughly Islamic. A key part of this strategy involved the city of
Jerusalem, although there is no real consensus among modern historians as to its exact status at the time.
Apart from material remains our main sources of information are a number of Arab historians who tell us
that ʿAbd al-Malik tried to make Jerusalem an alternative pilgrimage site to Mecca. The most complete
accessible account is that of Ibn Kathir (1300–73), a very late source, but citing earlier eighth and ninth
century authors. He tells us:
Ibn al-Zubayr had taken control of Mecca and, during the season of the ¢ajj, he used to catalogue the
vices of the Marwanid family. …. He was eloquent, and so the people inclined towards him. ʿAbd
al-Malik, therefore, prevented the people from performing the ¢ajj. He therefore built the Dome over
the Rock in order to divert their attention from the ¢ajj.48
Ibn Kathir then goes on to describe the elaborate ceremonial which was instituted at the site.
Modern historians have tended to dismiss this interpretation of ʿAbd al-Malik’s motives as late, anti-
Umayyad, propaganda but it is inherently very plausible and with Elad’s (1992) demonstration that Ibn
Kathir’s account derives from a number of early sources, recent writers are now more willing to accept it.49
It is certainly beyond doubt that ʿAbd al-Malik built the Dome of the Rock and also carried out an extensive
building programme in Jerusalem including the walls and gates of the Ḥaram al-Sharīf, other buildings
within its walls, a palace complex and new roads leading to the city.
44
Al-Ṭabarī, vol. xxi, p. 197.
45
Al-Ṭabarī, vol. xxi, pp. 155–67. After Yazīd’s death ʿAmr had been considered by the leaders of the Umayyad clan as a
potential successor to the elderly Marwān, but he was out manoeuvred by Marwān and ʿAbd al-Malik. Al-Ṭabarī describes at
length the detail of ʿAbd al-Malik’s murder of a kinsman, and this is a good example of the tendency of these Abbasid authors to
dwell on episodes that show the Umayyad caliphs in a negative light.
46
ʿAbd al-Malik, who was brought up in Medina, is also depicted as a pious individual in some of the anecdotes in the Arab
historians.
47
It should be noted that the Arabic legends bism allāh and al-wafāʾ lillāh, which probably appeared earlier, are not necessarily
Islamic. These monotheistic legends were possibly equally acceptable to Christians and Jews, and their more or less exclusive
association with Islam can only be confirmed at a rather later date.
48
Elad 1992, p. 34 which gives a full translation of this passage. The abbreviated extract given above quotes two much earlier
historians both of whom died in the early ninth century.
49
See for example Johns 2003.
A mosaic inscription inside the Dome of the Rock gives its date of building as AH 72 (691/2) and this has
been another source of disagreement. Most historians accept it as the date of completion but Blair (1992)
has argued strongly that it is the date of commencement. If it really does represent the date of completion,
it must have been started in the middle of the civil war, and this would provide powerful support for Ibn
Kathir’s account.
Whatever the exact date of the completion of the Dome of the Rock it is clear that by the early 690s
much expense had been lavished on Jerusalem and that ʿAbd al-Malik’s intention was to make it a major
religious centre, possibly even the effective capital of the Umayyad state.
The Dome of the Rock mosaic inscriptions also comprise the earliest extensive collection of Islamic
texts, making frequent mention of Mu¢ammad and also containing exhortations to Christians to give up
their erroneous beliefs. Along with the reformed coinage described below, these inscriptions illustrate how
ʿAbd al-Malik integrated an apparently fully formed Islam within the state which had the caliph as its
religious and secular head.
Finally, the greatest achievements of ʿAbd al-Malik’s caliphate were his administrative reforms. As we
have seen above there is some disagreement as to how far the establishment of the state administration
was entirely the work of ʿAbd al-Malik, but there is no doubt that much of it is attributable to him. Starting
before the end of the civil war censuses were carried out and taxation both formalised and increased. In
about 700 Arabic became the official language of the administration throughout the empire replacing Greek
in Syria and Egypt and Middle Persian in the old Sasanian empire. In AH 77 (696/7) a sweeping reform
of the coinage was undertaken, with the introduction of a uniform, purely epigraphic, coinage in gold and
silver across the empire.50 The legends on these coins were Islamic slogans of the same type as those inside
the Dome of the Rock. The period after the coinage reform is beyond the scope of this book, but in the few
years before the reforms a series of experimental precious metal coins were produced as ʿAbd al-Malik or
his senior officials searched for a suitable formula for a new Islamic coinage. These will be described later
in the chapter, but Theophanes provides some confirmation of the start of this experimental coinage and an
insight into the ongoing relationship with the Byzantine empire:
In this year Justinian foolishly broke the peace with Abimelech; for he strove in his folly to move
the population of the island of Cyprus and refused to accept the minted coin that had been sent by
Abimelech because it was of a new kind that had never been made before. As the Cypriots were
crossing, a multitude of them drowned or died of illness, and the remainder returned to Cyprus. When
Abimelech had been informed of this, he diabolically feigned to be begging that peace should not be
broken and that Justinian should accept his currency, seeing that the Arabs could not suffer the Roman
imprint on their own currency; and inasmuch as the gold was paid by weight, the Romans did not
suffer any loss from the fact that the Arabs were minting new coin.51
With the civil war now over ʿAbd al-Malik had the excuse he needed to renew hostilities and in 692 he
inflicted a crushing defeat on Justinian at Sebastopolis to the east of the Black Sea. He was also able to
renew annual attacks against Byzantium, often with his sons as generals, and the expansion of the empire
got under way again, although some of the territorial gains made under Muʿāwiya had been temporarily
lost.
50
The first reformed gold dinars are dated AH 77 and the first silver dirhams AH 78. The copper coinage was also reformed
within a very few years of AH 77, although the exact date is uncertain as the earliest post-reform coins are undated. Outside Syria
the reform was not immediately universal as Arab-Sasanian silver and copper continued to be struck at some eastern mints for a
few years. Meanwhile in North Africa the Arab-Byzantine gold coinage was gradually modified until it was finally brought into
line with Syria around AH 90.
51
Mango and Scott 1997, pp. 509–10.
ARAB-BYZANTINE COINAGE
After the Persian war the major Byzantine Syrian mint at Antioch was not reopened and by the start of
the Arab conquest there were effectively no mints operating in Syria. Although a small mint operated
for a year or two at Neapolis around 635,52 almost all copper coinage was struck in Constantinople and
brought into Syria by the Byzantine authorities. Somewhat surprisingly this flow of coinage continued
after the conquest; folles from the last two years of Heraclius are common finds and those of the early
years of Constans II are even more common. The mechanism for this import of official Byzantine coinage
is not at all clear and there are no references to it by either Byzantine or Arab historians, but the coins are
too abundant to be merely the result of small change obtained during trade. It therefore seems that the
import of Byzantine folles was officially sanctioned by both states, the Arabs finding it convenient and the
Byzantines perhaps regarding it as useful propaganda pending the imminent reconquest.
The import of Byzantine folles continued until about 658,53 following which it did not stop completely
but continued at a much reduced level. By 658 local imitations were already being produced and by the
670s a distinctive Arab-Byzantine coinage had emerged. Three main phases can be distinguished in the
development of this coinage, prior to ʿAbd al-Malik’s reforms of AH 77:
1. Pseudo-Byzantine coins which copy, often very approximately, Byzantine folles, but do not have
any meaningful legends or mint names (640s to 670s).
2. Umayyad Imperial Image coins, which still use Byzantine-style images but have meaningful
legends and usually a mint name (shortly after 670 to early 690s).
3. Standing Caliph coins which introduce new Islamic images and legends (starting late 680s in Jund
Filastīn, early 690s in the other junds and ending just before 700).54
The dates given above are still the subject of debate and the question of chronology will be considered in
more detail later in the chapter, but in the meantime it is worth mentioning two points. First, the start date for
the Pseudo-Byzantine coinage is uncertain, but minting may have started relatively slowly and only reached
high levels in the 650s. The peak of production was presumably associated in some way with the reduction
of Byzantine imports in 658, but it is unclear whether it was a reaction to that reduction or whether imports
were reduced because of the wide availability of locally struck coins. Second, it has gradually become clear
that the three phases must have overlapped to some extent. It is likely that Pseudo-Byzantine coins were
still being produced several years after the first towns had struck their earliest Umayyad Imperial Image
52
MIB Heraclius pl. 12, nos X23 and X24. Folles were struck in years 25 and 26 (634/5 and 635/6) at what was presumably a
military mint associated with Heraclius’ campaigns against the Arabs.
53
See Phillips and Goodwin 1997 for a discussion of the import of Byzantine folles. This is updated in Phillips 2012 which also
includes a comprehensive survey of the copper coinage of Heraclius and Constans II found in excavations throughout the eastern
Mediterranean. It should be noted that the number of Constantinople folles found in excavations decreases significantly during the
last 10 years of Constans’ reign even at sites outside Syria, but the decrease for sites within Syria is much greater than elsewhere.
Further details of Byzantine finds in Israel can be found in Bijovsky 2013.
54
While there is broad agreement among numismatists about this classification into three phases there has been less unanimity
on what to call the first two stages. During the preparation of the Ashmolean sylloge of Islamic coins (SICA 1) all those who had
recently written in English about Arab-Byzantine coins were consulted and agreement was reached on names for the three phases.
Standing Caliph is uncontroversial and there is now general agreement on Pseudo-Byzantine. Umayyad Imperial Image is now
widely used, but it is disliked by some, mainly on the grounds that it is rather clumsy. In the Dumbarton Oaks Catalogue (2008)
Clive Foss used Bilingual Series as an alternative, but this is unsatisfactory as many of the coins are not bilingual and the term
is already in use in early Islamic numismatics to describe series which actually are bilingual, for example the Spanish and North
African gold coins with both Latin and Arabic legends, or the bilingual coin types of Ṭabarīya (when contrasting them with the
all Arabic types). More recently Andrew Oddy and Wolfgang Schulze have suggested using the number of each phase, which can
certainly be useful at times, especially when discussing all three phases, but is not always appropriate, for example in a detailed
discussion of a single phase where the repetition of ‘Standing Caliph’ is likely to read much better than the repetition of ‘Phase 3
Arab-Byzantine’. In this book we will continue to use the term Umayyad Imperial Image, but where it appears frequently we will
often shorten it to Imperial Image.
ARAB-BYZANTINE COINAGE 13
coins, and mints in Jund al-Urdunn seem to have continued with Imperial Image coinage while Standing
Caliph types were being issued elsewhere.
The Arab-Byzantine coinage came to a fairly abrupt end soon after AH 77 when ʿAbd al-Malik issued
the first purely epigraphic gold dinars with religious legends. The earliest reformed copper fulus followed
shortly thereafter and the old coinage must have been recalled because numerous examples survive of
epigraphic fulus overstruck on Arab-Byzantine coins. These early fulus are all undated so the copper
reform could have taken place slightly later than the gold reform.
The Pseudo-Byzantine coinage (640s to 670s)55
a b
Both coins approximately 1.5x actual size.
Fig. 1. Typical Pseudo-Byzantine coin compared to its prototype.
a. Follis of Constans II minted at Constantinople in regnal year 1 (641/2); 5.43g, 6h. (Private collection)
b. Pseudo-Byzantine coin loosely based on the Byzantine prototype; 3.48g, 10h. (Private collection)
A number of different images are found on Pseudo-Byzantine coins, but by far the most common is the
standing emperor coupled with a cursive m reverse (Fig. 1b). The coins survive today in greater numbers
than either Imperial Image or Standing Caliph types, but before about 20 years ago they were largely
unrecognised.56 This was mainly because isolated coins would be taken as contemporary forgeries or
examples of poor workmanship in the Byzantine mint. Even the official Byzantine coins which they
imitate are unattractive and were themselves quite poorly understood, other than by a small group of
Byzantine numismatists. Consequently older excavation reports and numismatic publications were very
unreliable in differentiating official from unofficial coins, and almost all Pseudo-Byzantine coins were
classified as regular issues of Constans II. In recent years the situation has improved considerably, but the
pendulum has now swung a little too far in the opposite direction with some slightly unusual looking coins
of Constans II being classified as Pseudo-Byzantine. In fact distinguishing between the two series is not
particularly difficult, provided a good Byzantine catalogue is available.57 Perhaps the best place to start
is by comparing a typical standing emperor Pseudo-Byzantine coin with its Byzantine prototype. Fig. 1a
above is the most common type of follis of Constans II. The obverse shows the emperor standing facing,
crowned and wearing a long robe with a chlamys (cloak) over his shoulder. He holds a globus cruciger
and a long cross or sometimes, as in this case, a long staff surmounted by a globus cruciger. Around is the
55
When used in a general sense ‘pseudo’ is usually written with a small ‘p’. We have used the term ‘Pseudo-Byzantine’ starting
with a capital ‘P’ in order to make clear that here ‘Pseudo’ is an integral part of the name of this first phase of Arab-Byzantine
coinage. The names of both the second and third phases also begin with a capital letter. A similar logic is also applies to ‘Pseudo-
Damascus’ when referring to the mint of that name.
56
The first publication to deal at some length with Pseudo-Byzantine coins was Goodwin 1993.
For the seventh century MIB (Hahn 1981) is the best available and will be used as a reference throughout this book. The other
57
main Byzantine reference, often quoted in excavation reports, is the Dumbarton Oaks catalogue (Grierson 1968). This is less
comprehensive than MIB and a few attributions have been superseded. However, Grierson’s division of the folles of Heraclius and
Constans II into a number of classes is widely used by Byzantine numismatists and will be used from time to time in this book.
Greek legend ñNTÕTO – NIKA (εν τουτο νικα, ‘by this (sign) may you conquer’).58 The reverse has a
cursive m usually (but not in this case) with a cross above and the legend ANA – NñOY (ANANñOCIC
– renewal) on either side.59 In the exergue is a date numeral preceded by an officina or workshop letter.
Although legends and reverse arrangements vary from year to year, all standing emperor folles of Constans
II have the same obverse legend and all have the date and officina on the reverse. The above example is
unusually well struck, and in practice some details are usually obscured by the poor striking and by the
practice of overstriking on earlier coins.
Fig. 1b is a Pseudo-Byzantine copy and, although the obverse is basically the same, the dies are more
crudely cut and the legends are merely a jumble of crudely engraved letters. On the reverse, again the
legends are meaningless, although the legends in this case are clearly based on the word ANNO (in the year
of). This word commonly occurs in association with a date numeral on Byzantine coins, but interestingly
not on the prototype of Constans II, so the die engraver here is drawing inspiration from more than one
Byzantine prototype. This is a useful illustration of a general characteristic of Pseudo-Byzantine coins;
often the die engraver did not have the prototype in front of him, but was working from memory and was
happy to introduce modifications to the design. Occasionally examples are found which have nearly exact
copies of the Byzantine legends, but normally even competent die engravers seem to have deliberately
avoided producing close copies. The standing emperor type of Pseudo-Byzantine coin (Type E, see below)
is by far the most common, accounting for perhaps 90% of those surviving. Individual examples vary from
well produced coins, such as Fig. 2a, which are rather better than the Byzantine prototype, to very crude
examples such as Fig. 2b. Unlike their Byzantine prototypes Pseudo-Byzantine standing emperor coins are
rarely overstruck on complete earlier coins and signs of an undertype can be a useful indication that a very
worn or badly corroded standing emperor coin is an official Byzantine issue.
a b
Fig. 2. Type E Pseudo-Byzantine coins vary widely in quality.
a. Excellent style and well struck on a large round flan; 6.89g, 12h. (Private collection)
b. Much cruder and struck on one third of a recycled Byzantine follis; 4.00g, 9h.60 (Private
collection)
Although the standing emperor / cursive m reverse type predominates there are several different types of
Pseudo-Byzantine coin. These are listed below and illustrated in Catalogue 1 at the end of this chapter:61
Type A (Cat. 1, no. 1): two standing figures, copying the obverse of folles of Phocas (602–10) and his
empress Leontia. Very rare.
58
A reference to Constantine the Great’s vision of the cross before the battle of the Milvian Bridge. This was an entirely new coin
legend, introduced by Constans II.
59
The absence of a cross above the m is puzzling as crosses are almost universal on Byzantine reverses, but the reverse cross is
sometimes missing on year 1 and 2 folles of Constans II, which also usually have the long cross on the obverse replaced by a long
staff surmounted by a globus cruciger. This reverse has no Christian symbolism or legends whatsoever, and is a salutary reminder
that the absence of a cross on a coin is not always an indication of deliberate de-Christianisation.
60
The use of one third or occasionally one quarter of an old Byzantine follis seems to be largely confined to crude Palestinian
coins. It should not be confused with the cut flans described below which use approximately half of an old Byzantine follis.
61
The classification by type is that used in SICA and ABC.
Type B (Cat. 1, no. 2 and Fig. 3): copying three-figure folles (Class 3, 4 or 6)62 of Heraclius (610–41),
usually with a reverse based on the year 17–19 folles of Cyprus. This is the second most common
type and is often struck on cut flans (see below).
Type C Cat. 1, no. 3): copying two-figure folles of Heraclius Class 5 (or sometimes perhaps the similar
Class 8 folles of Constans II) where the left hand figure is wearing military dress.
Type D (Cat. 1, no. 4): has no obvious numismatic prototype and shows a single standing figure in
military dress. It is perhaps copied from the left hand figure of Type C or its prototype. Quite
rare.
Type E (Cat. 1, no. 5, Figs. 1 and 2): copying the very common standing emperor Class 1 to 4 folles
(struck 641/2 to 647/8) of Constans II with a cursive m reverse. By far the most common type.
Type F (Cat. 1, no. 6): similar to Class E but with a capital M reverse. The emperor is often bearded
showing that the later Class 5 to 7 folles (struck 651/2 to 657/8) of Constans II are being
copied.
Type G (Cat. 1, no. 7): beardless imperial bust, sometimes copying folles of Constans II issued in year
3 with the INPER CONST legend, but sometimes apparently copying images from his early gold
solidi.
Type H (Cat. 1, no. 8): similar to Type G but with a long beard, probably copying later gold solidi of
Constans II.
Type I (Cat. 1, no. 9): copying quite closely a Sicilian follis of Constantine IV (668–85). The obverse
has a facing imperial bust and the reverse has two standing imperial figures either side of the M.
The obverse has an enigmatic legend which looks like Pahlavi and has been read as mardān shāh
(‘king of men’ or similar). On most examples the legend is blundered and, although the reading
mardān shāh is possible on a few known examples, we consider that it should be regarded as
doubtful. It may be no more than a defective writing of the imperial Sasanian titulature MLKAN
MLKA (shāhān shāh – king of kings, a title used by Khusru II and likely to have been known in
Syria during the Persian war.63 Quite rare.
Type J (Cat. 1, no. 10): two imperial busts probably copying a solidus of Heraclius. Very rare.
Type K (Cat. 1, no. 11): a relatively recent discovery with a palm branch on the obverse and a cursive m
or capital M reverse. Quite rare.64
With the exception of Types E and K all the above types generally have a reverse with a capital M, although
the reverse legends are often not derived from the same Byzantine prototype as the obverse. Types B, C, D
and G are occasionally found with anomalous m reverses.
62
Descriptions of the various classes of Heraclius and Constans II folles will be found in Grierson 1968, pp. 226 and 409 and
Grierson 1982, pp. 108 and 112.
63
See Schindel and Hahn 2010a, which also makes the suggestion that the coins could have been issued by the Mardaites. The
type was first published in 1971 by al-ʿUsh, who proposed a different Pahlavi reading which he also translated as ‘king of men’,
but this was not generally accepted. Oddy 2010b, in the most comprehensive survey of the type to date, shows that the Constantine
IV imitations are die-linked to quite normal Type E Pseudo-Byzantine coins. Oddy accepted the legend as Pahlavi, but did not
offer a precise reading. In 2012 Foss made the new suggestion that mardān shāh may have been the title of the leader of Persian
troops known to have been employed by Muʿāwiya in Syria. Mardān shāh also occasionally occurs as a personal name at this
period (see for example al-Ṭabarī, vol. xxi, p. 119). If the Pahlavi legend is generally accepted as meaningful there is a strong case
for transferring this type to the Umayyad Imperial Image series, although, given the die links mentioned above, it could be argued
that it is more sensible to leave it where it is.
64
This novel type is struck on roughly square flans and probably originates in southern Jund Filas²īn, or perhaps southern Jund
al-Urdunn. It was first noted by Goussous in 1996 in an unpublished communication to the Seventh Century Syrian Numismatic
Round Table. A second example appeared in a sale catalogue in 1998 (CNG auction 47 (16 September 1998), lot 2094), but the
type was not properly published until 2004 when Goussous described and illustrated five examples (Goussous 2004, p. 244, nos
64–68) and independently by Metlich and Schindel (2004, p. 15, fig. 16). In 2005 Schindel published a commentary on the new
type and listed further examples (2005a and 2005b).
The above list is in roughly the chronological order of the Byzantine prototypes,65 but it does not represent
the order in which the Pseudo-Byzantine copies were actually minted. It is almost certain that the earliest
were the Type B three figure coins which may have started as early as about 640 as close imitations of the
year 17 Cyprus folles of Heraclius. Initially they were probably struck on large round or oval flans (Fig.
3a). The mint (or mints) also produced a distinctive series of cut coins (Fig. 3b) struck on flans which were
formed from half of an earlier Byzantine follis with two corners trimmed to give a very roughly elliptical
flan which suited the wide three figure design.
a b
Fig. 3. Type B Pseudo-Byzantine coins loosely based on coins of Heraclius struck in Cyprus in year 17.
a. Crude copy with very blundered retrograde reverse legends, but struck on a large roughly circular
flan; 4.62g, 12h. (Private collection)
b. Better style but struck on a distinctive cut flan with parts of the undertype visible on both obverse
and reverse; 3.56g, 6h. (Private collection)
The three figure cut coins comprise the second most common type of Pseudo-Byzantine coin and seem
to have circulated more commonly in the north of Syria than in the south. Despite the difference in size
between the two flan types illustrated in Fig. 3, there is no significant difference in average weight and
the same dies can occasionally be found struck on both types of flan.66 It is therefore clear that both were
produced by the same mint(s). The mint(s) also struck coins of other Types (e.g. Cat. 1, no. 1, Type A) and
cut coins must have continued into at least the mid 650s as some of these coins include details copied from
the later coins of Constans II, such as busts with long beards.
Minting of the type E standing emperor coins and the other types struck on normal flans probably started
a little later than the three figure type and probably reached a peak in the 650s and 660s. The less common
Types A, C, D, G, H and J are difficult to date, but die links show that some mints struck several different
types more or less simultaneously. As many of the Type F standing emperor coins show the emperor with
a long beard these must date from the 650s onwards. We can be fairly certain that Type E coins were still
being produced in the early 670s as a number are known which die link with Type I obverses copying
Constantine IV (668–85).67 But copies of Constantine IV are rare and it seems likely that from the 670s
onwards Pseudo-Byzantine coins were gradually replaced by Umayyad Imperial Image types.
At present it is unclear how many mints were involved in the production of Pseudo-Byzantine coinage.
It is possible that most of the Type B three-figure coins and the other types of cut coin are the products
of a single mint in the sense of being struck by a single authority. However, the huge variety of standing
emperor coins suggests that several mints were involved and a number of distinctive, small, die-linked
65
With the exception of Type J, which was added to the list at a later date and really belongs between Types A and B, and Type K
which is not based on a known Byzantine prototype. With our present state of knowledge it is not possible to classify the Pseudo-
Byzantine coins in the actual order they were minted. Indeed there almost certainly was no orderly sequence of types.
66
Pottier, Schulze and Schulze 2008.
67
Oddy 2010b, pp. 107–8.
groups have been identified which probably represent the output of different mints.68 While some of the
coins we see today must be contemporary forgeries, it is likely that the majority of them were struck in
local mints that had at least some form of official status. If the coins were all the result of forgery we would
expect to see more close imitations of official coins and we might also expect to see evidence of the rapid
decline in weight and size which often results from epidemic forgery. Exactly what sort of authority struck
them is uncertain but local, probably Christian, authorities in towns are perhaps most likely.
The Umayyad Imperial Image coinage (670s to 690s)69

It is surprising that so much Pseudo-Byzantine coinage was produced without any attempt to put a
meaningful mint name on the coins. It is possible that the new Arab rulers initially forbade the practice as an
unacceptable assertion of local autonomy, or alternatively it may have been felt that minting a completely
anonymous coinage was less likely to invite punishment in the event of a Byzantine reconquest. Whatever
the reason, eventually the important step was taken of putting a mint name on what would otherwise be a
normal Pseudo-Byzantine coin, thereby creating the first Umayyad Imperial Image coins. We cannot be
certain exactly when this took place, but it was probably around 670, and we cannot at present be sure
where it took place, but the most likely candidates are Jerusalem, Diospolis and Ḥimṣ (Emesa), plus the
special case of Scythopolis.
a b
Fig. 4. The earliest Umayyad Imperial Image coins?
a. Jerusalem, reverse legend IñPO – COãV – MwN –‘of the people of Jerusalem’. (Nasser D. Khalili
Collection of Islamic Art. Cat. 1, no. 35)
b. Mint of Diospolis (Ludd) with obverse legend åIOCâ – OãH(C). (Cat. 1, no. 36)
Fig. 4 shows the rare coins from the Palestinian mints of Jerusalem and Diospolis. Both have standing
emperor obverses with cursive m reverses and both are struck on irregular flans. In fact they both look very
much like ordinary Class E Pseudo-Byzantine coins with the exception of the mint names.
The large module coins of Scythopolis (Cat. 1, no. 31), which imitate much earlier folles of Justin II,
will be considered in more detail later in this chapter, but they are also very probably among the earliest
Imperial Image coins. In fact they almost certainly pre-date the Diospolis coins, which copy both the
unusual positioning of the mint name on the obverse and the layout of the reverse of the Scythopolis
coins.70
68
Oddy 2003 also identifies a much larger group of stylistically similar coins which generally have neat arrangements of
(apparently meaningless) Greek letters on the reverse. Fig. 1b is an example of this group. He shows that these Pseudo-Byzantine
coins share some stylistic features with the later Umayyad Imperial Image coins of Ḥimṣ and suggests that they might be the
product of a mint at Ḥimṣ.
69
A sketch map showing the location of the Umayyad Imperial Image mints will be found at the end of this chapter (Fig. 21).
70
The reverses of most Scythopolis coins (Cat. 1, no. 31) have the pseudo-mint mark NIKO copied from the very common Justin
II folles of Nikomedia and a frozen date 7II. The Constans II folles which are ultimately the prototype for the Diospolis coin were
not minted at Nicomedia and the NIKO mint mark is virtually unknown on Pseudo-Byzantine coins, so the reverse of the Diospolis
coin must have been partially copied from Scythopolis rather than vice versa.
One other coin has a good claim to being among the earliest of the Imperial Image series and that is the
first issue from the important town of Ḥimṣ (Emesa). This coin is shown in Fig. 5 below and looks very
much like a Type F Pseudo-Byzantine coin with a standing emperor on the obverse and a capital M on the
reverse, but with the addition of a mint name ñMñ – CIC written either side. An innovation on this coin is
two words of validation KAãON (good) in Greek on the obverse and ²ayyib (good) in Arabic in the reverse
exergue. Quite soon the type was modified by the addition of the Arabic bism allāh (in the name of God)
on the obverse (see Cat. 1, no. 13) and this variant was issued in large numbers, making it one of the most
commonly found Arab-Byzantine coins today.
Approximately 1.5x actual size.

Fig. 5. The first Umayyad Imperial Image coin from the major city of Ḥimṣ (Emesa)
and probably the first to be issued in large numbers. (Private collection)
In terms of stylistic development it appears to be later than the two Palestinian coins considered above, but
we cannot be certain that it post-dates them; the differences could be merely due to a more conservative
approach at Jerusalem and Diospolis. The evidence for the Ḥimṣ standing emperor type being relatively
early is, however, quite strong, and can briefly be summarised as follows:
1. It is the only major issue of Imperial Image coins often to be struck on irregular flans, similar to
those used for Pseudo-Byzantine coins (the example shown in Fig. 5 is particularly well struck on
an unusually round flan. Cat. 1, nos 12 and 13 are more typical).
2. It is one of the very few Imperial Image types to be countermarked, a practice which had virtually
ceased by the early 680s.
3. There is a second major issue of Ḥimṣ with an imperial bust on the obverse (Fig. 6d below)
which is occasionally found overstruck on the standing emperor type. The bust type is also found
overstruck on other Imperial Image coins, but no examples are yet known of the standing emperor
type overstruck on another Imperial Image coin.
Judging by the relative numbers of surviving coins, Ḥimṣ was the most prolific Imperial Image mint,
closely followed by the Umayyad capital of Damascus. This mint issued five main types, probably in the
following order, but with considerable overlap:
1. Enthroned emperor obverse with Greco-Latin reverse (Cat. 1, no. 17).
2. Standing emperor obverse with Greco-Latin reverse (Cat. 1, no. 18).
3. Standing emperor obverse with Arabic reverse ¡ arb dimashq jāʾiz (current issue (of) Damascus)
(Cat. 1, no. 19).
4. Standing emperor obverse with the additional legend åAMACKOC and the Arabic reverse ¡arb
dimashq jāʾiz (Cat. 1, no. 20 and Fig. 6a below).
5. Two figure obverse with Arabic reverse ¡arb dimashq jāʾiz (Cat. 1, no. 22).
There is also an anomalous standing emperor type with a variant Arabic reverse legend, jāza hadhā dimashq
wāfiyah (this [fals] current [in] Damascus, full weight), which may be the product of a separate mint and
will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 (Cat. 1, no. 21).
At present it is difficult to decide when minting started at Damascus. In one respect, the absence of
Arabic legends, the first two types are less developed than most of the Ḥimṣ standing emperor coins, but
in their more careful die cutting and use of neat round flans they are much further from their Pseudo-
Byzantine predecessors. In the absence of any really firm evidence it looks likely that the first issues of
Damascus are somewhat later than those of Ḥimṣ.
Whatever the exact sequence of these early issues, by around 680 Imperial Image coins were almost
certainly being minted at a number of towns. At this stage there is no evidence for any caliphal or central
interest in the copper coinage and we can be almost certain that these early Imperial Image coins were
effectively civic issues, probably minted under the authority of a local governor, bishop or town council.
Before long there is some evidence for a degree of coordination, because there appears to have been a
different obverse image at each major mint, with the standing emperor reserved for the capital Damascus,
two figures for Baalbek, three figures for Ṭabarīya and an imperial bust for Ḥimṣ (see Fig. 6 below), while
Scythopolis continued to mint its own much larger coins with two enthroned figures (Cat. 1, no. 31).71
This evidence is not unequivocal, because the mints in Jund al-Urdunn continued to pursue apparently
independent policies for the following few years. It could also be argued that the different obverse images
were just the result of each mint doing its best to produce distinctive coins. On balance we feel that some
degree of caliphal, or at least central, interest is indicated although the coins remained very much local
issues. It is also worth noting that this local or civic aspect is emphasised by the prominence given to
the mint name when compared to seventh century Byzantine copper coins. The latter either have a very
abbreviated mint name or no mint name at all (for example Fig. 1a above), but all four of the Imperial
Image coins in Fig. 6 have the mint name written in full, once in Greek and once in Arabic.
a b c d e
All coins approximately actual size.

Fig. 6. Evidence for central coordination? Different obverse images for each major mint.
a. One standing emperor at the capital Damascus. (Cat. 1, no. 20)
b. Two standing figures at Baalbek. (Cat. 1, no. 24)
c. Three standing figures at Ṭabarīya. (Cat. 1, no. 28)72
d. Imperial bust at Ḥimṣ; 3.76g, 6h. (Private collection)
e. Standing caliph at Īliyā (Jerusalem). (Cat. 1, no. 55)
The dating of this period of ‘co-ordination’ is again uncertain, but it is tempting to associate it with the start
of Marwanid rule, probably very early in the reign of ʿAbd al-Malik (685–705).73 Apart from the rare and
probably very early coin already discussed (Fig. 4a above) there is no Imperial Image coinage for Jerusalem,
a city which was of central importance under ʿAbd al-Malik. However, there is considerable evidence, to
71
Nevertheless it is worth pointing out that the use of distinctive obverses is certainly not proof of central coordination as
is sometimes asserted. The Ṭabarīya coins are larger and slightly heavier than those of the other mints, indicating a degree of
independence, and the distinctive Īliyā coins could be slightly later. The different images at the remaining three mints could then
be merely the result of a local desire to produce distinctive coinage.
72
Note that the Ṭabarīya coins are frequently larger than this
73
Foss 2008, pp. 38–55, dates this phase to the later years of the reign of Muʿāwiya (died 680). The pros and cons of an earlier
date will be discussed later in this chapter, but on the numismatic evidence a date close to 680 is certainly possible.
be discussed later in this chapter, that the Standing Caliph type was first introduced at Jerusalem. This
would neatly fill the apparent gap and give the holy city an appropriately distinctive obverse type and also
the first to bear an Islamic legend (muḥammad rasû l allāh – Mu¢ammad is the messenger of God).
Most of the coins from this main phase of minting were of roughly similar module and it is probable that
they circulated freely outside the town where they were minted, but the coins of Ṭabarīya were often much
larger and somewhat heavier, so these may have mainly circulated locally. There was also an apparently
separate monetary zone in part of Jund al-Urdunn centered on the cities of Scythopolis and Jerash. Here
larger size folles of Justin II (565–78) had long been the favoured type of small change and the Imperial
Image coinage of the two cities copies these folles quite closely (Cat. 1, nos 31 and 34) with two enthroned
figures on the obverse. Although the Scythopolis coins were probably among the earliest Imperial Image
issues, the type seems to have survived right up to the end of this phase and possibly just into the next phase
when Standing Caliph coins were being issued elsewhere.
In total Umayyad Imperial Image coinage was issued from ten named mints: Ḥimṣ, Ṭarṭûs, Baalbek,
Damascus, ʿAmmān, Scythopolis, Jerash, Ṭabarīya, Jerusalem and Diospolis (see Catalogue 1 at the end
of this chapter for the main types from each mint).74 In addition there were two major and two minor
mints which did not use a mint name. The two major mints, known for convenience as al-wafāʾ lillāh and
Pseudo-Damascus, are of central importance to this book as most of the coins from the Irbid hoard come
from them. The al-wafāʾ lillāh mint struck coins with a standing emperor obverse and a cursive m reverse
with the legend al-wafāʾ lillāh (loyalty to God) in the exergue (Cat. 1, no. 37). Apart from the lack of a mint
name these coins share all the characteristics of the Imperial Image coinage, that is, they have a consistent
arrangement of images and meaningful legends, and they are quite well struck on neat round flans. There is
little hard evidence to date them, but they do not seem to borrow any characteristics from other mints and
they are occasionally found countermarked (e.g. Cat. 1, no. 37), both suggesting a reasonably early date. It
has recently been suggested that they may have been issued during the second civil war in Jund Filas²īn by
a tribal leader with Zubayrid sympathies. This would give a date of 684 or 685 which would fit well with
the limited numismatic evidence.75
In contrast to all the mints so far considered the coins of the Pseudo-Damascus mint (Cat. 1, no. 26),
display a bewildering variety of obverse and reverse images, some clearly borrowed from Damascus,
combined in an apparently random manner. Where a mint name appears it is almost always a blundered
form of Damascus or Dimashq, but it is certain that the mint was not located in Damascus. It was probably
located somewhere to the east of the Sea of Galilee, although this could still have been within the Jund
Dimashq. The coins of this unusual mint will form the subject of the next two chapters.
Two minor mints should also be mentioned. The coins of the first mint, which was probably located
in Jund Filas²īn, are struck on distinctive square flans and have a crude standing emperor obverse with a
cursive m reverse. There are two main varieties. The most common bears the legend mu¢ammad (Fig. 7a
and Cat. 1, no. 39), which has occasionally been interpreted as a reference to the Prophet, but the recent
discovery of a second variety makes it clear that it must be a governor’s name. This second variety (Fig.
7b) has the legend al-amīr saʿīd (the governor Saʿīd). Both names are common, Muḥammad particularly
so, and neither of these governors can be securely identified from the historical sources. The coins are also
difficult to date because of their unusual style and fabric, but nevertheless they are unusual instances of
personal names appearing on Imperial Image coins.
74
Oddy (2004c) has tentatively suggested that certain large module coins of the Scythopolis / Jerash type might have been minted
at Abila. There is also a very rare Imperial Image type from Yubnā (see Fig. 18a below), but, as this die links with the much more
common Yubnā Standing Caliph type, it is probably best to regard it as essentially part of this latter series.
75
I. Schulze 2010. She suggests that the coins could have been issued by Nātil b. Qays leader of the Judhām tribe. This will be
discussed further in Chapter 5.
a b
Fig. 7. Two similar coins with governors’ names.
a. Crude standing imperial figure on the obverse with mu¢ammad to the left and an enigmatic word
baʿad (?) in the reverse exergue; 3.68g. (Private collection)
b. Similar images with al-amīr downwards to the left. The reverse has a retrograde m with ñ to the
right and saʿīd in the exergue; 3.49g. (Gemini (Chicago) auction 7 (9 January 2011) lot 1067)76
Coins of the other minor mint are very rare and have a two figure obverse with the shahāda written partly
around and partly between the figures. The reverse has a pole-on-steps surmounted by a globe with the
shahāda around (Cat. 1, no. 38). This same reverse is found on the later Standing Caliph gold coinage and
also on the experimental gold solidi almost certainly struck in or just before AH 74 (693/4) at Damascus
(see Figs 10 and 11 below). Given that the style of the copper coins is very similar to that of the gold it is
likely that these were produced by the same mint at about the same time. They are therefore among the last
Imperial Image coins.
Also among the last Imperial Image issues are a group of small module coins with three figure obverses
some of which bear the mint name of Ṭabarīya. These fall into three main categories:
1. With the Ṭabarīya mint name and an enigmatic Arabic word in the exergue which has been read as
‫( ﻗﻂﺮﻯ‬q²rī?) or ‫( ﻩﺻﺭﻯ‬ma¤rī ?), the first perhaps meaning district or possibly referring to Qa²arī b.
al-Fujāʾa, the Kharijite rebel, and the second indicating that Ṭabarīya was the capital of the jund
(Cat. 1, no. 29).77
2. A much less common issue apparently bearing the mint name Baysān (Cat. 1, no. 33), which may
represent a short-lived attempt to integrate Scythopolis into the monetary system of the rest of Jund
al-Urdunn (Cat. 1, no. 33).
3. A series of mintless coins bearing Islamic legends (Cat. 1, no. 30).
Since Jund al-Urdunn struck no Standing Caliph coins (apart from the very rare twin Standing Caliph type)
it is likely that at least some of these coins are contemporary with the Standing Caliph coins from northern
mints.78
76
See Goodwin 2012b, pp. 95–6 for a fuller discussion of these coins.
77
This has been the subject of some debate with Ilisch 2001 supporting the qa²arī interpretation and Foss 2001 and 2002a
supporting Qedar’s reading of qu²rī. Ilisch 2010, p. 129 argued in favour of ma¤rī, and this interpretation appears to us more likely.
Although the initial letter of the word looks at first sight more like a qāf than a mīm, the first letter of mu¢ammad is written in
exactly the same way on a number of closely related coins.
78
Phillips 2005 concludes that the coins with Islamic legends appear to fall into two main groups, the first with the legend
mu¢ammad rasūl allāh has an average weight of about 2.5g and the second with longer legends has an average weight of
around 3.5g.
Countermarking (c.660–85)
In the early years after the conquest only official Byzantine coins would have circulated and the population
would have had very few problems in deciding what was acceptable as small change. But as increasing
numbers of Pseudo-Byzantine coins came into circulation there must have been increasing difficulties,
until by the 670s the coinage would have consisted of a confusing mixture of old Byzantine coins, a large
variety of different types of Pseudo-Byzantine coins and a few of the new Imperial Image types. There
was probably considerable tolerance of slightly dubious coins among merchants and their customers, but
nevertheless small, crude or otherwise strange-looking coins must have been refused from time to time. To
overcome this problem some towns introduced the practice of validating suspect coins by countermarking
them.79 Most of these countermarks consist of either a simple geometric design or monogram (Fig. 8a, Fig.
9 and Cat. 1, no. 37) or a short Arabic word (Fig. 8b, c and Fig. 9), but a few show stylised animals or in
one case a human bust (Fig. 9).
a b c
All coins approximately 1.5x actual size.
Fig. 8. Countermarks on Byzantine and Pseudo-Byzantine coins.
a. Byzantine follis of Constans II (MIB, pl. 28, no. 166) with geometric countermark A2 on obverse.
(Private collection)
b. Type E Pseudo-Byzantine follis with Arabic countermark B2 reading lillāh (for God).
(Private collection)
c. Type E Pseudo-Byzantine follis with two Arabic countermarks B1c both probably reading bi-ludd
indicating that the coin was countermarked in the town of Ludd (Diospolis). (Private collection)
Over forty different types of countermark are known (see Fig. 9 below80) but only a few can be read or
interpreted. Five (A3, A7, A8, A9 and A11) are probably monograms of officials, B2 reads lillāh (for God),
B7 reads ²ayyib (good), the three variants of B1 probably give the name of the city of Ludd (Diospolis)
and some or all of B3, 4, 5 and 6 may be intended as jāʾiz (current or legal). The countermarks are applied
mainly to Pseudo-Byzantine coins, but also to official Byzantine coins, mainly those of unusual design,
and to a very few Imperial Image coins.
The large number of different types of countermark and the fact that only a small fraction of surviving
coins are countermarked shows that the countermarking was carried out locally and was clearly not a
central initiative. The small fraction of countermarked coins also suggests that the phenomenon was not
very long-lived, although it is highly probable that not all the countermarks are contemporary with each
other. Given the limited evidence available we cannot precisely date the countermarks, but probably most
of them were applied between 660 and 680.
79
See Schulze and Goodwin 2005 for a full discussion of these countermarks. Although validation of dubious or ‘foreign’ coins
seems to have been the main reason for countermarking, it is possible that some countermarks were used for slightly different
reasons e.g. to validate a coin so that it could be used to in payment of tax.
80
Since this figure was first published a few additional countermarks have been provisionally identified including one which is
now known from several examples (published in W. Schulze 2007 and designated A19). This countermark appears to be a copy of
two similar Heraclian monograms.
A1 A1var A2 A3 A4a A4b A5
A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A13
A14 A15 A16 A17 B1a B1b B1c
B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8
B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
Fig. 9. Countermarks applied to Byzantine, Pseudo-Byzantine and a few Umayyad Imperial Image coins
(from Schulze and Goodwin 2005, Fig. 1).
Experimental precious metal coinage (late 680s – early 690s)

Although this book is almost wholly concerned with copper coinage we must pause briefly to consider the
important developments which were taking place in the precious metal coinages during the last years of
the Umayyad Imperial Image phase.
During the second civil war the Zubayrids in Iran had issued the first dated coin with truly Islamic
legends – an Arab-Sasanian silver drachm with the short shahāda or Muslim profession of faith
(mu¢ammad rasūl allāh – Mu¢ammad is the messenger of God) struck at Bīshāpūr in AH 66 (685/6).81
The first firmly dated use of the long shahāda (lā ilāha illāh allāh waḥdahu mu¢ammad rasūl allāh
– there is no god but God, He is alone; Muḥammad is the messenger of God) was also a Zubayrid
initiative in AH 72 (691/2).82 From around this time onwards the potential for using coins as propaganda
became obvious and ʿAbd al-Malik and his governors struck a series of Sasanian-style drachms with
Islamic legends and innovative Islamic images. All of these were short lived and most are very rare, so
it is reasonable to regard them as an experimental coinage. Although rare silver drachms were struck at
Damascus and Ḥimṣ,83 no serious attempt was made at this stage to introduce silver coinage into Syria.
81
SICA, pl. 11, nos 151–154. For a discussion of the introduction of the shahāda and its significance see Treadwell 1999, pp.
243ff. The first Standing Caliph coins from Īliyā with the same legends (Fig. 6e above) are undated but could also possibly be as
early as this.
82
Ilisch 2007 illustrates (p. 18, figs 5 and 6) two Arab-Sasanian coins from the mint of AKULA (al-Kūfa), both with the longer
version of the shahāda. He gives the probable date of the coins as AH 70, although he expresses some slight doubts about the reading.
If the date is in fact AH 70 these would be the earliest coins to bear the longer shahāda, but they would still be Zubayrid issues.
83
See SICA, pl. 19, nos 278 and 279 for Dimashq and pl. 21, no. 305 for the unique coin of Ḥimṣ.
Instead an experimental gold solidus (Fig. 10) was struck by ʿAbd al-Malik, probably in Damascus and
probably in AH 72 or 73 (691/2 or 692/3).84
Approximately 2x actual size.

Fig. 10. The experimental gold shahāda solidus struck by ʿAbd al-Malik shortly before AH 74 (693/4).
Obv. Three imperial figures loosely based on the later solidi of Heraclius (610–41), but with all
crosses removed.
Rev. Pole-on-steps surmounted by a small globe with B – I either side, Arabic legend clockwise from
1h: bism allāh lā ilāha illāh allāh waḥdahu mu¢ammad rasūl allāh (in the name of God, there is
no god but God, He is alone; Mu¢ammad is the messenger of God); 4.38g, 6h. (Nasser D. Khalili
Collection of Islamic Art)
A few Syrian gold solidi, imitating Byzantine issues but with crosses removed, had previously been struck
in Syria, probably during the reign of Muʿāwiya, but these bore no meaningful legends and may not
have been caliphal issues.85 The new coins still have a Byzantine-style image on the obverse, but with all
crosses removed. The reverse is new and bears the long shahāda around a new symbol – a pole-on-steps
surmounted by a small globe. This very rare coin is the first Islamic gold coin and it must have appeared
right at the end of the period of minting Umayyad Imperial Image copper, because, with one exception,
none of the copper coins copy any features of the solidus. The exception is the equally rare mintless copper
coin (Cat. 1, no. 38) discussed above which may have been struck at the same mint as the gold.
ʿAbd al-Malik was clearly not yet satisfied that the desired model for Islamic gold coinage had been
found because in AH 74 the experimentation continued with a new obverse image – the Standing Caliph.
Standing Caliph coinage (late 680s in Jund Filasṭīn, early 690s elsewhere – just before 700)
The final phase of Arab-Byzantine coinage was shorter than the first two phases and can be more
precisely dated, although some uncertainty remains. Our main piece of evidence is the existence of dated
Standing Caliph gold dinars (Fig. 11) for AH 74, 75, 76 and 77 (693/4 to 696/7). These represent the final
84
The coins are not dated, but were almost certainly struck shortly before the first Standing Caliph dinars which are dated AH
74. Alternatively it is just possible that they are contemporary with the first Standing Caliph dinars, but that the latter design was
chosen in preference. Bates 1986 argued that their introduction could be precisely dated to October to November 691 based on
the passage quoted above (p. xx) from Theophanes which describes how Justinian II would not accept tribute money from ʿAbd
al-Malik as it had ‘a new type of stamp’ on it. This was the first stage of the so-called ‘war of images’ between ʿAbd al-Malik and
Justinian; for the most recent discussion see Humphreys 2013. This identification of the shahāda solidus with the tribute money
is plausible, but cannot be regarded as certain, given the unreliability of Theophanes and the existence of other types of Umayyad
gold coin. The coins are generally known as solidi because they seem to have been struck to a Byzantine weight standard of c.4.5g
rather than the later dinar standard of c.4.3g.
85
For example SICA, pl. 41, no. 606 and ABC, p. 23, fig. 4. Three types of these ‘mutilated cross solidi’ are known, all copied
from earlier Byzantine solidi; one with a facing bust of Phocas (Miles 1967, pl. xlv, no. 2), one with busts of Heraclius and
Heraclius Constantine (Miles 1967, pl. xlv, no. 4 and ABC, p. 23, fig. 4) and one with standing figures of Heraclius and his two
sons (Miles 1967, pl. xlv, no. 8 and SICA, pl. 41, no. 6). All have a similar reverse in which the cross is modified into a T-shaped
object on steps. The legends are all blundered copies of the Byzantine prototypes. These may well be the coins referred to in the
Maronite chronicle, as being issued by Muʿāwiya (see above), but Heidemann 2010a, pp. 171–2 has suggested that the three figure
type is later (late 680s to 691/2). Given the similar style of the three types and the very different style of the shahāda solidus, this
later date is unlikely.
stage of experimental precious metal coinage before the first purely epigraphic dinars were introduced in
AH 77. The coins have a reverse image which is almost identical to the shahāda solidus (Fig. 10), but the
shahāda is now transferred to the obverse. The new reverse legend, for the first time in Syria, gives the
date of minting. The new obverse image shows the caliph, bearded and apparently bare headed, standing
facing us. He wears a long robe, over which appears to be a long coat open at the front, and he holds
the pommel of his sword, which hangs to his left in a large scabbard. Hanging from his right forearm is
an uncertain object known as the ‘girdle band’ which is usually shown either as a long loop or as three
separate strands. The three separate strands could represent the knotted ends of a girdle, but the loop could
not, and furthermore the object usually seems to hang from the elbow rather than the waist. As long ago as
1870 Stickel suggested that the object was a whip86 and some confirmation that a whip formed part of ʿAbd
al-Malik’s regalia is provided by a passage in al-Ṭabarī which quotes a letter written by Khālid b. ʿAbd
allāh to a group of Kufan deserters, dated AH 74:
…..O Muslims! Know who it is whom you have so boldly defied! It is ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān, the
Commander of the Faithful, a man of no weaknesses, from whom rebels can expect no indulgence!
On the one who defies him falls his whip, and on the one who opposes him falls his sword!87
Both the loop and the three strands could represent a whip, which was perhaps attached to the back of his
baldric at his right shoulder so that it appeared to hang from his right elbow. We will continue to use the
somewhat unsatisfactory term ‘girdle band’, but on balance we feel that the whip is much the most likely
interpretation.88
Approximately 2x actual size.

Fig. 11. Standing caliph gold dinar minted in each year from AH 74 to AH 77.
Obv. Caliph standing facing holding the pommel of a sword which hangs to his left. Arabic legend
clockwise from 1h: bism allāh lā ilāha illā allāh waḥdahu mu¢ammad rasūl allāh (in the name of
God, there is no god but God, He is alone; Mu¢ammad is the messenger of God).
Rev. Pole-on steps surmounted by a small globe. Arabic legend around from 1h: bism allāh ḍuriba
hadhā al-dinār sanat sabʿ wa sabʿin (in the name of God this dinar was struck in the year seventy
and seven; 4.45g, 6h. (Ashmolean Museum; SICA, pl. 45, no. 705)
We cannot be absolutely certain that no Standing Caliph dinars were minted before AH 74 but, given the run
of known examples for four consecutive years, it is extremely unlikely that anything earlier than about AH
73 existed. It has usually been assumed that the copper coinage followed the gold, but, as mentioned above,
there is reasonably compelling evidence that the image was first used on the copper at Īliyā (Fig. 6e) while
86
Stickel 1870, p. 43. See also Miles 1967 pp. 221–4 for a more detailed discussion of what the object might represent.
87
Al-Ṭabarī, vol. xxii, p. 6.
88
However, the superficially similar object, comprising two or three strands, which occurs on some Pseudo-Damascus and
irregular Damascus coins (see for example Chapter 4, p. 189, Fig. 5) could well be the knotted end of a girdle as it appears to hang
from the waist.
Imperial Image coins were still being struck at other mints.89 ʿAbd al-Malik then adopted this innovative
new Islamic image for his reformed gold coinage and at much the same time decided to reform the copper
coinage. The new copper coins have the same obverse image as the gold dinar, but usually with a new
legend, naming the caliph for the first time on Syrian coinage: li ʿabd-allāh ʿabd al-malik amīr al-muʾminīn
(for the servant of God ʿAbd al-Malik, Commander of the Believers). The reverse has the shahāda around
and a modified version of the image on the dinar, known as the symbol-on-steps or the transformed cross-
on-steps.90
a b c d e f
All coins approximately actual size.

Fig. 12. The varied Standing Caliph image – copper coins from six different mints.
a. Yubnā in Jund Filasṭīn, 3.54g, 9h. (Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art)
b. Ḥalab in Jund Qinnasrīn. (Cat. 1, no. 42)
c. Ḥimṣ in Jund Ḥimṣ, 3.97g, 12h. (Private collection)
d. ʿAmmān in Jund Dimashq. (Cat. 1, no. 51)
e. Manbij in Jund Qinnasrīn. (Cat. 1, no. 49)
f. Harrān in al-Jazīra. (Cat. 1, no. 40)
In addition to the three mints in Jund Filas²īn, Standing Caliph coins replaced Imperial Image coins at
Damascus, Ḥimṣ, ʿAmmān and Baalbek and were introduced at ten new mints in Jund Qinnasrīn and the
Jazīra. This major reform of the coinage was without doubt a caliphal initiative, but it is interesting to
see the variety of images at different mints (see Fig. 12). It does not look as if each mint merely copied
the image on the dinar. It seems much more likely that the image of a Standing Caliph was already well
known to the die engravers throughout Syria, probably because it represented the familiar pose of the
caliph or governor leading Friday prayers. It is also interesting to note how different mints interpreted their
instructions in slightly different ways and how these differences to a large extent follow the jund structure
described by Abbasid historians. A coin from each mint is illustrated in Catalogue 1 at the end of the
chapter and the main characteristics of each mint can be summarised as follows:
Mints in Jund Filasṭīn: The first and probably the most important mint was at Īliyā (Fig. 6e), but a second
mint at Yubnā struck crude coins with several different and unusual images of the caliph (for example Fig.
12a and Cat. 1, no. 56). There was also a very small mint at Ludd (Cat. 1, no. 57). None of the coins from
Jund Filas²īn mention the caliph’s name and they all retain the Byzantine-style m reverse.
89
The case for an early date for Īliyā is set out in Goodwin 2005a, pp. 91–2. The key to the dating is a pair of Yubnā obverse dies
which appear to be the first produced by that mint (see Fig. 19 below, p. 41). One copies Īliyā and the other copies a Damascus
standing emperor, strongly suggesting that these two types are contemporary. The early dating is also supported by the average
weight of the Īliyā coins, which is closer to that of the Imperial Image series than to the other Standing Caliph mints.
90
There is a continuing debate as to whether this is a meaningful symbol or merely a deliberately de-Christianised version of the
Byzantine cross-on-steps. The question will be discussed later in this chapter, but we will use the more neutral term, symbol-on-
steps, as the alternative, transformed cross, strongly implies the de-Christianised explanation.
Mints in Junds Dimashq and Ḥimṣ:91 Damascus (Dimashq, Cat. 1, no. 50) and Ḥimṣ (Fig. 12c) both struck
large well engraved coins with caliph figures that are fairly close in style to those on the dinars, and also
smaller coins which were generally less well engraved, those of Damascus being particularly abundant
(Cat. 1, no. 50). The coins of ʿAmmān (Fig. 12d) are similar to the smaller coins of Damascus, but are
generally more neatly engraved and struck. Baalbek (Baʿlbakk, Cat. 1, no. 53) seems to have been only a
minor mint striking coins which are similar to the larger coins of Ḥimṣ.
Mints in Jund Qinnasrīn: Judging by the number of surviving coins, Ḥalab (Fig. 12b) was the largest of the
Standing Caliph mints and its coins are often crude and badly struck, sometimes on the cut down flans of
old Byzantine folles. Qinnasrīn (Cat. 1, no. 42), Tanūkh (Cat. 1, no. 44) and the small mint of Jibrīn (Cat.
1, no. 45) are very similar in style to Ḥalab. Sarmīn (Cat. 1, no. 47) is quite similar in style to Ḥalab, but
Maʿarrat Miṣrīn (Cat. 1, no. 48) and Manbij (Fig. 12e) both struck coins with distinctive caliph images and
usually with variant legends which only give the caliph’s titles and not his name.92 The small mint of Qūrus
(Cat. 1, no. 46) struck coins which were broadly in the Ḥalab style but usually using small round flans.93
Mints in the Jazīra: The two small mints of Ḥarrān (Fig. 12f) and al-Ruhā (Cat. 1, no. 41) struck distinctive
coins, unlike those of the nearby mints in Jund Qinnasrīn. The image of the caliph on the coins of al-Ruhā
is particularly striking. At both mints the caliph has a large elongated head and no girdle band. Neither
mint names the caliph and Ḥarrān is alone among Standing Caliph mints in placing the mint name on the
obverse. Ḥarrān also places the name mu¢ammad on both obverse and reverse; this is probably a reference
to the Prophet, but it could possibly be the name of Mu¢ammad b. Marwān, governor of the Jazīra and
ʿAbd al-Malik’s brother.
Mints in Jund al-Urdunn: For reasons which remain obscure the mints in Jund al-Urdunn did not strike
Standing Caliph coins with the exception of a very small issue of twin Standing Caliph coins described
below. It appears likely that the separate monetary zone centred on Scythopolis and Jerash continued to
use large module coins based on the Justin and Sophia folles, although by now these were being minted
at a reduced weight of around 6 grams, but there must have been some pressure for change as two rare
experimental issues are known. The first of these, shown in Fig. 13, has two identical caliph figures on the
obverse with a symbol-on-steps between them. This is slightly different to the symbol on the reverse of
either the gold dinars or the other Standing Caliph coppers and has a globe and a spearhead on top of the
pole. Two types of reverse are known: the first with the shahāda around a capital M (13a) and the second
with a blundered Greek legend (13b), typical of the Jerash mint.94 These coins were presumably an attempt
91
A second possible mint has recently been identified in Jund Ḥimṣ at Sinjār (not to be confused with the well-known town of
the same name in the Jazīra), but it is only known from one pair of dies and the reading is made slightly uncertain by a die flaw.
See Goodwin 2012a.
92
In addition to the usual ‘commander of the faithful’, these coins use the unusual title khalifat allāh (God’s caliph), a very clear
indication of ʿAbd al-Malik’s claim to religious leadership. The title also appears on a very rare Arab-Sasanian style drachm with a
Standing Caliph reverse minted in AH 75, probably at Damascus (see for example Heidemann 2010a, fig. 24), but it was not used
after the reform of AH 77.
93
Wolfgang Schulze has recently discovered that two out of three Qūrus reverses die link with Ḥalab and Qinnasrīn reverses
respectively (personal communication 2014, publication forthcoming).
94
Oddy (2004a, p. 11, coin C) published another twin Standing Caliph coin with a different Greek reverse plus a coin struck from
this same Greek reverse die (p. 11 coin D) but coupled with what appeared to be a typical Jerash Justin and Sophia obverse, albeit
with the mint name illegible. He therefore concluded that the attribution of the twin Standing Caliph type to Jerash is virtually
certain. However, in 2012 a better preserved die duplicate of coin D appeared in trade which, surprisingly, included part of the
Scythopolis mint name. We are therefore left with a somewhat confusing situation where the twin Standing Caliph coin is die-
linked to an unusual coin with the mint name of Scythopolis but in the style of Jerash. For the present therefore it seems prudent
to attribute these coins to Scythopolis / Jerash. Oddy also plausibly argued that the shahāda reverse was probably the first die to
be coupled with the twin Standing Caliph obverse and that, when this reverse die wore out, a previously discarded Jerash-type
reverse die was used.
to align the new Islamic imagery of the Standing Caliph coins with the large twin figure / M reverse coins
which had been used in the Scythopolis / Jerash region for up to a hundred years. The rarity of the coins
suggests that this attempt was unsuccessful and was probably overtaken by the introduction of purely
epigraphic coins in ʿAbd al-Malik’s next coinage reform.95
a b
Both coins approximately actual size.
Fig. 13. The rare twin Standing Caliph type minted at Scythopolis or Jerash.
a. Obv. Two standing caliph figures either side of a pole-on-steps surmounted by a globe and a
spearhead. Rev. M with star above and A ‘officina’, Arabic legend around bism allāh ʿabd allāh
ʿabd al-malik amīr al-muʾminīn (in the name of God, the servant of God ʿAbd al-Malik, Commander
of the Believers); 6.28g. (Private collection)
b. Obv. as a. Rev. M with cross above and A ‘officina’, ANN – OK either side and ONà in exergue;
5.8g. (Goussous 2004, p. 124)96
Ṭabarīya had been the most important mint in Jund al-Urdunn and so far as we know it struck no Standing
Caliph coins. Some of the small three figure types described above probably continued in production, but
at a reduced weight of under three grams (e.g. Cat. 1, no. 29) which was close to the average weight of
the Standing Caliph coins being produced by other mints. It is also possible that Ṭabarīya struck a small
three figure coin (Cat. 1, no. 33) with the mint name of Baysan (Scythopolis). This looks like a second
experimental issue designed to align Scythopolis / Jerash with the rest of Jund al-Urdunn, but again it was
probably unsuccessful as the coins are rare.
PRE-REFORM COINAGE IN EGYPT, NORTH AFRICA AND IRAN

This book is almost entirely about the Arab-Byzantine coinage of Greater Syria, but it is worth bearing in
mind that other, roughly contemporary, pre-reform copper coinages were in circulation in other provinces
of the new Arab state. In the first part of this short section we will very briefly describe the two parallel
series of coins issued in Egypt and North Africa, examples of which are illustrated at the end of this chapter
(Cat. 1, nos 58–65).97 In the second part we will touch on the extensive series of Arab-Sasanian copper.
Egyptian and North African Arab-Byzantine coinage

The Arabs invaded Egypt in the late 630s and Alexandria was finally surrendered by the Byzantines in
642. It seems likely that the Arabs kept the Alexandria mint operating for a few years, minting the local
copper unit of 12 nummi in the name of Constans II. These coins are virtually indistinguishable from their
Byzantine predecessors, but within a very few years local copies of much smaller module were being
Foss 2003 suggested that the two figures could represent ʿAbd al-Malik and his brother ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, but, although not
95
impossible, there is no other evidence to support this idea.

96
The type with the shahāda reverse was discovered in excavations at Jerash and first published in Walker 1935, pp. 120–6 and
pl. ix. The second type of reverse was first published by Goussous in 1993.
97
The classification used here is from Goodwin 2015 where the Egyptian Arab-Byzantine coinage is discussed more fully. The
classification system is an extension of that used by Domaszewicz and Bates (2002) so Types I, II and III are identical to their
Types AI, AII and AIII. As with the Syrian Pseudo-Byzantine coins it is not possible to suggest a classification system based on a
chronological order of types. The dating of all types and the number of mints involved is at present uncertain and some of the types
may have been essentially contemporary.
PRE-REFORM COINAGE IN EGYPT, NORTH AFRICA AND IRAN 29
produced at another mint (Type I, Cat. 1, no. 58). Six different types of Egyptian Arab-Byzantine coin are
known (Types I–VI, Cat. 1, nos 58–63) all of which have imperial images on the obverse, although none of
them is a close copy of a Byzantine prototype. The earliest may be Type V (Cat. 1, no. 62) which has the
mint name âAN in the reverse exergue, probably an abbreviation for Panopolis.98 The only other type with
a mint name is Type III (Cat. 1, no. 60) which was almost certainly struck at the new capital, al-Fus²ā² near
modern Cairo, and bears the mint signature MAC(P) or MAC(A), a Greek transliteration for the Arabic
miṣr. The latest type is probably Type II (Cat. 1, no. 59) which has the reverse exergual legend ABAZ,
perhaps a Greek transliteration of the Arabic ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, ʿAbd al-Malik’s brother and governor of Egypt
from AH 65 to 85.99
Although the Egyptian coins are all rather crude and none of them bears Arabic legends, they show a
number of parallels to the Syrian coinage in that they are of Byzantine style and were minted at a number
of different cities. There is, however, no obvious division into three phases as with the Syrian coinage.
The Arab-Byzantine coinage of Ifriqiya is different in a number of respects. First, there is a relatively
extensive gold coinage and secondly it all dates from the 80s AH and is therefore not strictly a parallel to
the Syrian and Egyptian series. Most of the coins bear long Latin legends, which are blundered, abbreviated
and often partially off the flan. The gold was produced in three denominations with two imperial busts on
the obverse and a pole-on-steps on the reverse. The most common copper type, from the ‘Main North
African Mint’ (Cat. 1, no. 64), has almost identical images to the gold and the Latin legend is usually a
monotheistic slogan or a version of the shahāda, while a few name a governor Mūsā b. Nusayr. The second
mint at Tripoli produced similar coins and also a second type (Cat. 1, no. 65) which names an earlier
governor al-Nu‘mān. This has Arabic legends and a facing bust on the obverse and is unique among Arab-
Byzantine copper coins in being precisely dated to AH 80 (699/700).100
Arab-Sasanian coinage
In Iraq and the Iranian East a completely different monetary system was in operation based primarily on
a silver drachm of around 4.1 grams. Initially these coins were close copies of the last Sasanian drachms
with the addition of the Arabic phrase bism allāh (in the name of God) in the obverse margin, but from
about 660 governors’ names began to appear, initially in Pahlavi, but later in Arabic. During the period of
experimental gold coinage in Syria attempts were made to introduce the Arab-Sasanian silver drachm into
Syria and a few examples were minted at Damascus and Ḥimṣ.101
There was also an extensive Arab-Sasanian copper coinage which forms another parallel series to the
Syrian Arab-Byzantine coinage. As in Syria the Arab-Sasanian copper was very much a local coinage
and the legends often include a mint name or the name of a local governor. Initially these coins loosely
followed the iconography of the silver drachms, but from the late 670s a variety of different images were
used, most of which are clearly Sasanian in origin, but which generally do not derive from numismatic
prototypes. Two examples are shown in Fig. 14 both of which have an obverse bust derived from the
drachms but, instead of a fire altar on the reverse Fig. 14a has a senmurv, a mythical Iranian bird, while 14b
has a horse and rider. Other images are loosely based on Byzantine numismatic prototypes, usually solidi
of Heraclius or Constans II. By the 690s Muslim images also began to appear including a Standing Caliph
(Fig. 14c), perhaps copied from a Syrian prototype, and a Caliph Orans (Fig. 15d), presumably copied from
the drachms of Bishr b. Marwān struck at al-Kūfa from AH 73.
98
See Castrizio 2010 which includes numerous examples of these coins found at Antinoöpolis. Castrizio concluded that the
mint was at Antinoöpolis itself and that âAN should be read as an abbreviation of âOãIé ANTINEìN. This is possible as
Antinoöpolis was the provincial capital, but the more obvious reading is as an abbreviation for Panopolis, an important town just
over 100 km to the south.
99
Suggested in Metlich and Schindel 2004, p. 12.
100
See Jonson 2015 for a comprehensive survey of the North African copper coinage.
101
See SICA, p. 19, nos 278 and 279 for Dimashq and pl. 21, no. 305 for the unique coin of Ḥimṣ.
It would be beyond the scope of this introductory chapter to attempt a classification of this complex
series. In her comprehensive survey Gyselen lists 128 types from at least 20 mints.102 Not all of these can
be geographically located, but almost all the named mints are in the provinces of Fārs or Khūzistān.
a b
c d
Fig. 14. Arab-Sasanian copper coins.
a. Obv. Sasanian style bust with Pahlavi legends – xvarrah abzūd (the royal glory has increased) to
left and Farroxzād (governor’s name or epithet) to right. Rev. Senmurv with Pahlavi legend around
ābād ardashir-xvarrah (may Ardashīr-xvarrah be prosperous). Mint of Ardashīr-xvarrah (ASCC,
type 2); 0.51g, 4h.103 (CNG e286, lot 494)
b. Obv. Sasanian style bust with Pahlavi legends xvarrah abzūd (the royal glory has increased) either
side. Rev. Horseman holding uncertain object (perhps a falcon) in right hand, mint name in Pahlavi
– Kāzerūn (ASCC, type 35a); 1.31g, 5h. (CNG e278, lot 472)
c. Obv. Standing Caliph with Pahlavi legends šwš to left and abzōn to right (Susa growth). Rev.
Symbol-on-steps with Pahlavi legends farnīg to left and ud ravāg to right (brilliant and current).
Mint of Susa (ASCC, type 39b, no. 4, Susa excavations (1948–9) 1.29g.
d. Obv. Standing figure in orans pose with Pahlavi legend to left šwš and ravāg to right (current Susa).
Rev. Arabic legend bism allāh ithnayn wa thamānīn (in the name of God [year] eighty two. Mint
of Susa; 3.00g and 2.31g (ASCC, type 41, no. 1 (obv.) and type 41, no. 5 (rev.), both excavated at
Susa)104
The Arab-Sasanian copper coinage is therefore comparable in terms of number of mints and types to the
Syrian Arab-Byzantine coinage and even more diverse in terms of the images used. The question arises as
to whether any influence can be detected in either direction between the two series. The Standing Caliph
type from Susa (Fig. 14c) may have been copied from a Syrian prototype and another three-figure type
(ASCC type 76) from the same mint could have been copied from an Imperial Image coin of Ṭabarīya (Cat.
1, no. 28),105 but otherwise there is little certain evidence for influence either way.
102
Gyselen 2009. This is the main reference for the series and supersedes the 2000 edition. See also Treadwell 2008.
103
ASCC = Gyselen 2009.
104
The obverse and reverse are from two different coins.
105
The three figure obverse of ASCC type 76 could be a copy of a Class 3 or 4 follis of Heraclius, a solidus of Heraclius, a Type
B Pseudo-Byzantine coin (Fig. 3 above) or an Imperial Image fals of Ṭabarīya (Cat. 28). However, the officina symbol and the
layout of the reverse legend are unlike any Byzantine follis, but bear a striking resemblance to the Ṭabarīya fulus, despite the fact
that the legend appears to be in Pahlavi rather than Greek / Arabic.
THE REFORMED COINAGE (c.700 ONWARDS) 31
THE REFORMED COINAGE (c.700 ONWARDS)

In AH 77 (696/7) ʿAbd al-Malik took the momentous step of introducing an entirely new gold coinage with
Islamic legends and no images whatsoever. In the following year purely epigraphic silver dirhams were
introduced and both types of precious metal coinage were struck in huge quantities in the ensuing years.
At about the same time an entirely new epigraphic copper coinage was introduced. At first the coins were
mintless with purely Islamic legends: lā ilāha illāh allāh waḥdahu (there is no god but God, He is alone)
on the obverse and mu¢ammad rasūl allāh (Mu¢ammad is the messenger of God) on the reverse (Fig. 15a),
but within a few years mint names started to reappear.
a b
Fig. 15. The first post reform copper coins.
a. Obv. lā ilāha illāh allāh waḥdahu (there is no god but God, He is alone). Rev. mu¢ammad rasūl
allāh (Mu¢ammad is the messenger of God). (Private collection)
b. As coin a, but overstruck on an Imperial Image coin of Ḥimṣ with facing bust obverse and m
reverse (as Cat. 1, no. 14); 3.92 g. (Private collection)
The early copper coins are all undated but it is very likely that the copper reform took place shortly after
AH 77. Given the independence shown by Jund al-Urdunn during the previous Standing Caliph phase it is
possible that figural coinage lingered on for a short while in some more remote locations, but there is no
evidence for this. On the other hand there is evidence that much of the earlier coinage was withdrawn and
restruck as numerous examples exist of post-reform fulus overstruck on Arab-Byzantine coins (Fig. 15b).
PROBLEMS AND RECENT RESEARCH

Research Methods
To undertake numismatic research on any series of undated coins one would ideally like to have a large
number of examples available for examination including some intact hoards and information on finds from
several controlled excavations. When John Walker was preparing his British Museum catalogue in the
early 1950s he was very far from this ideal; there were no known hoards, only two significant published
excavations (Jerash and Antioch) and he probably only had access to about 200 Syrian Arab-Byzantine
coins – far too few to undertake any meaningful metrological or die studies. He was also unaware of the
period of importation of Byzantine coins and of the extensive nature of the Pseudo-Byzantine coinage. He
therefore had to confine himself to classifying the coinage based on a broad analysis of images and legends.
This is still an essential methodology, but in recent years it has been possible to apply the techniques of
scientific numismatics, mainly because of the very much greater number of coins available for research.
Before describing other areas of recent progress in our understanding of the coinage it will therefore be
useful to outline the results that have been obtained with these techniques.
Analysis of data from archaeological excavations. Potentially the evidence of coins recovered from precisely
dated archaeological loci could solve the problems of Arab-Byzantine chronology, but in practice coins
are very often the most precise dating evidence available to the archaeologist and so far excavations have
not provided any useful dating evidence for the coins. In fact until recently very few Arab-Byzantine coins
had been published from excavations. This was partly due to the identification of Pseudo-Byzantine coins
as Byzantine, and perhaps also to lax control of small finds on site and to a lack of interest among many
archaeologists in the late antique or early Islamic periods. The only notable exceptions to this bleak picture
were excavations at Antioch (Miles 1948a and Waagé 1952) and Jerash (Bellinger 1938). Fortunately, the
situation is changing and small numbers of coins have been published from Jerash, Pella (both in Jordan),
Salamis (Cyprus), Capernaum, Hammat Gader, Rehov and most notably Nabratein (all in Israel). A number
of other recent excavations have also included one or two Arab-Byzantine coins.106 The coins from the
synagogue site at Nabratein are particularly interesting, because this is the first occasion when the majority
of coins recovered from one location in an excavation are Arab-Byzantine.107
So far the only firm conclusion that can be drawn from excavation data is that the large scale import
of Byzantine folles ceased in about 658. There is also quite a strong indication from the very scarcity of
Arab-Byzantine coins that, if they ever comprised the majority of coins in circulation, it could only have
been for a short period of time. As the number of published excavation coins increases it should also soon
be possible to draw useful conclusions on the areas where particular types of coin circulated.
Analysis of hoards. Groups of coins which have been lost or hidden fall into two main categories: savings
hoards which may have been accumulated over several years and cash hoards of money for immediate use.
The first category will tend to exclude damaged or suspect coins and the saver may have a preference for
certain types of coin. The second category is more likely to be a sample of the coins in circulation at the
time of loss. Both categories can provide relative and absolute dating evidence.
Only four hoards containing Arab-Byzantine coins are known, all of which were probably intended for
immediate use rather than for long term saving:108
1. The Hama hoard consisted of 225 Byzantine and 73 Pseudo-Byzantine coins and included one
Constans II follis with an Arabic countermark. The latest dated Byzantine coins suggested that the
hoard was deposited in the early 660s and so it provides a useful indication of the mix of coins in
circulation at this period and of the date when countermarking occurred (Phillips and Goodwin
1997).
2. A hoard of 45 sixth-century Byzantine folles, including 16 of the Justin and Sophia type, and eight
Umayyad Imperial Image coins from Scythopolis and Jerash (Bates and Kovacs 1996). This hoard
gives a picture of the types of coin in circulation in the separate Scythopolis / Jerash monetary
zone. Unfortunately the latest Byzantine coin is dated 612/13, although the Arab-Byzantine coins
could hardly be earlier than say 660 so, as Bates pointed out, the hoard stands as a salutary warning
on the danger of dating hoards by the latest dated coin.
3. The Irbid hoard found in Jordan in the 1960s and comprising probably about 700 Umayyad Imperial
Image coins mostly from the al-wafāʾ lillāh and Pseudo-Damascus mints. Some of the coins were
dispersed in trade, but 158 were published by Milstein in 1991. The remaining 501 coins, acquired
by the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, form the main topic of this book and will be fully discussed
in chapters 4 and 5.
4. The Rehov hoard of 14 Arab-Byzantine coins recovered during the excavation of a synagogue site
in the Jordan Valley a few kilometres south of Scythopolis.109
106
A very useful summary of coins from excavations will be found in Foss 2008, pp. 167–75 and some additional excavation sites
are listed in Phillips 2012. The Rehov and Nabratein coins are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4.
107
The coins were found in two adjacent loci, one in the fill layers on the surface and one just below the floor (Bijovsky 2009,
p. 380).
108
Occasionally large accumulations of coins in trade contain what appear to be small hoards or parts of hoards. Two of these
are published in Goodwin 1994 and Goodwin 1996, but, while the coins themselves may be of considerable interest, it is usually
impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions on dating from such commercial parcels.
109
For brief details of the Rehov hoard, which has yet to be fully published, see Bijovsky 2012, p. 77. The hoard will be discussed
further in Chapters 3 and 4.
PROBLEMS AND RECENT RESEARCH 33
Unfortunately, with the exception of the small Rehov hoard, none of these hoards was found under
controlled conditions and all of them had passed through dealers’ hands before publication. Some of the
Irbid hoard coins appear to have been sold before publication and the same could be true of the other two
hoards. There is also the possibility of dealers adding material to a hoard to make it commercially attractive
or even concocting a hoard by repatinating coins from disparate sources. Considerable caution is therefore
necessary in interpreting commercial parcels claiming to be hoards, but we can be reasonably confident
that each of the first three groups of coins listed above represents at least a major part of a hoard without
any apparent additions.
Metrology. In recent years the increased number of Arab-Byzantine coins available for study had made the
statistical analysis of weights and diameters a practical proposition. The first results were obtained by Bone
(2000) who carried out a survey of coins in museum and private collections. For each main type from each
mint he calculated the average weight and, although his sample sizes tended to be small, he obtained some
useful results. The most important findings were:
1. There is a significant difference in average weight between:
a. most types of Imperial Image coins at just below 4 grams
b. Standing Caliph coins at around 3 grams.
2. The large module Scythopolis coins appear to have been struck to two different ‘weight standards’,
one between 10 and 15 grams and the other, presumably later, between 4 and 8.5 grams.110
Bone’s study did not include Pseudo-Byzantine coins, but in 2008 Pottier, Schulze and Schulze published
a detailed study of the metrology of Pseudo-Byzantine coins, with large sample sizes and making full use
of standard statistical techniques. This has enabled them to propose a chronology for the series which will
be discussed below, p. xxx.
It is now clear that metrology, particularly the analysis of weights, can be a powerful tool in solving
some of the problems of Arab-Byzantine coinage, and we will make considerable use of it later in this
book.
Overstrikes. An overstrike occurs when a coin is struck on the flan of an existing coin (the undertype), not
on a blank flan. Generally the overstrike will be a later type than the undertype, but it is worth bearing in
mind that a single overstrike of Type A over Type B only tells us that Type B was in existence when Type
A was struck, so the two types could be contemporary. It is only when a consistent pattern of overstriking
is established, with A always overstruck on B that we can be confident that Type A is later.
Overstrikes are very common among the Byzantine copper coins of Heraclius and Constans II and
have helped solve the relative chronology of these coins. Among Arab-Byzantine coins they are much
less common. Goodwin (2001) catalogued 34 examples of Arab-Byzantine coins overstruck on other
Arab-Byzantine coins, most of which are Imperial Image over Imperial Image.111 The most significant
conclusions were:
1. By far the most common undertype is the unusual and relatively scarce Damascus standing emperor
type with the reverse legend jāza hadhā dimashq wāfiyah (Cat. 1, no. 21). At the time I suggested
that this was because the jāza hadhā type was one of the earliest struck at Damascus, but it now
looks much more likely that it was not struck at the normal Damascus mint, but by some rival
authority and that the type was subsequently suppressed (see the discussion in Chapter 3).
Oddy’s recent die study shows that the true picture is more complex and that there is no sharp division between light and heavy
110
coins, although it is still possible to distinguish a group of heavy early coins and much lighter late coins (see Oddy 2015).
111
Since the publication of the article I have recorded another 20 examples, which support the original conclusions. 18 of these,
which are Imperial Image overstruck on Imperial Image, are catalogued in Goodwin 2012b, pp. 104–7. The only new conclusions
relate to the Pseudo-Damascus mint and these will be dealt with in Chapter 3.
2. The Ḥimṣ bust type (Cat. 1, no. 14) is almost certainly later than the standing emperor type (Cat. 1,
no. 13).
3. Despite being one of the earliest Imperial Image coins the large module Scythopolis Justin and
Sophia type is found overstruck on Ṭabarīya and must therefore have continued in production for
a long period. One example has even been reported overstruck on a Standing Caliph coin.112
This category of overstrike may eventually enable us to piece together the relative chronology of the Imperial
Image coins, but two other categories of overstrike are also potentially useful. Any overstrike involving
a dated Byzantine coin and a nearly contemporary Arab-Byzantine coin is potentially of great value and
since 2001 four examples have been discovered of Type B Pseudo-Byzantine coins on characteristic cut
flans overstruck by Constans II folles of year 15 or 16 (655/6 and 656/7).113 These give a useful, but
unsurprising, terminus ante quem for the start of the Pseudo-Byzantine coinage. A real breakthrough would
be the discovery, for example, of a datable coin of Constantine IV or Justinian II overstruck on an Imperial
Image coin (or vice versa). It would certainly be worth searching Byzantine collections for Arab-Byzantine
undertypes. The third category of overstrike, which is fortunately much more common, is a post-reform
fals overstruck on an earlier coin. Individual examples can tell us relatively little, but if a sufficiently large
number of examples were recorded, it should be possible to get an idea of what coins were in circulation
just before the reform.
Die studies. A die study consists of examining large numbers of coins of a particular mint and / or type, and
attempting to identify as many dies as possible, noting all combinations of obverse and reverse dies. The
results can tell us a great deal about how the mint operated, such as whether there were separate workshops
or more than one phase of minting. In 2005 Goodwin published a die study for the Imperial Image mint of
Baalbek which suggested that there were three phases of minting.114 The first showed two figures with a
cross-on-steps between the figures. The second, of slightly smaller coins, omitted the cross-on-steps, The
third phase was similar to the second but in a different style. During the third phase the mint also struck
coins with the Damascus mint mark, suggesting that the Baalbek and Damascus mints may have been
combined towards the end of the Imperial Image phase.115 For what is a relatively common series the total
numbers of Baalbek dies recorded (48 obverse and 69 reverse)116 is small and even for the most abundant
Imperial Image coins, the Ḥimṣ bust type, Andrew Oddy has recorded only about 60 obverse and 60
reverse dies.117 Oddy has also carried out a die study on Scythopolis (24 obverse and 43 reverse dies)118 and
Chapter 3 of this book includes the results of a die study on the Pseudo-Damascus mint. Finally Wolfgang
Amitai-Preiss et al. 1999, Cat. no. A8a is a late Scythopolis coin apparently overstruck on a Standing Caliph coin of unusually
112
large module. If this overstrike has been interpreted correctly it confirms that Scythopolis continued with its own large module
Imperial Image coins when Standing Caliph coins were being produced by other mints. It is difficult to confirm unequivocally the
authors’ interpretation from the published photograph, but the word mu¢ammad seems to be clearly visible on the undertype.
113
Two examples are illustrated in Goodwin 2004, nos 20 and 21.
114
ABC, pp. 49–83.
But see I. Schulze 2015 which raises the possibility that these third phase coins were the product of a separate semi-official
115
mint.
116
It is, of course, never possible to record all dies from a mint, so figures such as this must always be an underestimate, but the
total number is very unlikely to be more than about 20% greater. Standard statistical techniques are available for estimating the
total number of dies from the sample size and the number of different dies found in the sample, but these rely on there being a
uniform method of die production and therefore a reasonably consistent life for a die. This is certainly not the case for most Arab-
Byzantine mints. In the ten years since completing the Baalbek die study in 2004 I have found only one new obverse die (with
cross-on-steps) and one reverse die of fairly normal appearance. These are represented by a single isolated die pair, and could
well be irregular. In addition I have recorded three small module single figure coins of crude style, which are almost certainly
contemporary forgeries.
117
Personal communication.
118
The results for Scythopolis are summarised in Oddy 2015.
Schulze has published a die study on the Imperial Image coins of the small mint of Ṭarṭūs for which he
recorded five obverse and nine reverse dies for both main types.119
So far no die study has been carried out on a major mint striking the Standing Caliph type,120 but within
a few years studies will probably have been completed on most of the main Arab-Byzantine mints.
Interpreting legends and images

Pseudo-Byzantine coins. The images on Pseudo-Byzantine coins are, with one minor exception,121 always
derived from Byzantine numismatic prototypes and the legends appear always to be meaningless. However,
there is no reason why an occasional meaningful date or symbol should not have crept into these otherwise
meaningless legends and there has been occasional speculation about particular coins. For example the
series of Type H imperial bust coins, first published by Mansfield,122 consistently show a date X X on the
reverse which could just possibly be a meaningful regnal year 20 of Constans II (660/1). Another die-
linked group comprising Types B and F and G has fairly consistent dates ranging from 6 to 9, which again
could be regnal years of Constans II.123
More intriguing is the legend on the obverse of the Class I imperial bust coins (Cat. 1, no. 9) which copy
Sicilian folles of Constantine IV (668–85), but have an additional legend on the obverse. This looks like
very poorly written Pahlavi or perhaps Arabic, and even Syriac has been suggested. These rather scarce
coins were first published by al-ʿUsh in 1971 and he proposed a reading in Pahlavi of Martān Shāh – ‘king
of man’. Al-ʿUsh’s reading was not generally accepted and as more coins were discovered opinion favoured
a nonsense Arabic legend rather than the more usual nonsense Greek legends, a view that was reinforced
by the discovery of die links to normal looking Type E Pseudo-Byzantine coins. Recently Oddy studied
the series in detail and concluded that the legend is probably blundered Pahlavi. Schindel and Hahn, on the
other hand, have come down firmly in favour of a Pahlavi legend reading mltʾn MLKA (Martān Shāh for
‘king of men’ or similar).124 The meaning of this title or name has been the subject of some speculation,
but remains uncertain.
Arab-Byzantine coins and the first Islamic legends. At present the earliest known dated use of an Islamic
legend on a coin is on an Arab-Sasanian drachm of AH 66 (685/6) issued by a Zubayrid governor during the
second civil war.125 On the Syrian coinage legends on Imperial Image coins are generally very straightforward,
and always comprise one or more of the following: a mint name, a word or phrase of validation such as
KAãON or a short religious phrase.126 The main current area of interest is the interpretation of the religious
legends and in particular the identification of the earliest Islamic legends. As mentioned above a good
candidate for one of the earliest Imperial Image coins is the standing emperor type from Ḥimṣ (Cat. 1, no.
12) which has the legend bism allāh (in the name of God) on the obverse. This phrase is ubiquitous in early
Islamic inscriptions, but in fact there is nothing to identify it as Islamic rather than just monotheistic. The
same is true of the al-wafāʾ lillāh (loyalty to God) legend (Cat. 1, no. 37). These legends were possibly
119
W. Schulze 2013. See Cat 1, nos 15 and 16 for the two main types. Schulze divides the type with the monogrammatic reverse
into two classes.
120
Schulze and Schulze (2010) have published a die study of the two very small mints in the Jazīra: al-Ruhā (3 obverse and 5
reverse dies noted) and Harrān (2 obverse and 4 reverse dies noted).
121
The exception is the Type K with a palm branch on the obverse (Cat. 1, no. 11).
122
Mansfield 1992 and Oddy and Mansfield 2013.
123
Goodwin 2011. The date numerals 7 and 9 in this group are certain, but the third date numeral could be interpreted as either
6 or 8.
124
Oddy 2010b and Schindel and Hahn 2010a. As mentioned above we have some reservations about the reading Martān Shāh.
125
ʿAbd al-Malik b. ʿAbd Allāh at Bīshāpūr, SICA, pl. 11, nos 151–154, see also SICA, pp. 19–26.
126
One minor mint issued coins which appear to bear governors’ names, Mu¢ammad and Saʿīd (see Fig. 7 above and Cat. 1,
no. 39).
placed on coins to appeal to Christians and Jews as well as Muslims. Our best candidate for a truly Islamic
legend on an Imperial Image coin is one of the religious legends on the series of small three-figure coins
probably minted at Ṭabarīya (Cat. 1, no. 30).127 However, as we have suggested above (p. xx) the Standing
Caliph coins minted at Jerusalem, with the obverse legend mu¢ammad rasûl allāh – Mu¢ammad is the
messenger of God – are probably earlier. Could the Syrian coins represent a response by ʿAbd al-Malik
or his governors to this powerful Zubayrid propaganda? Or are they slightly earlier, in which case was the
propaganda initiative was taken by the Umayyads? A complicating factor is that the small three-figure
Ṭabarīya coins also include a type with the legend q²rī or m¤ rī which has been read as the name of the
Kharijite Qa²arī b. al-Fujāʾa (Cat. 1, no. 29). This reading has proved controversial as there is no mention
in the (very meagre) historical record of Qa²arī being active in the region,128 but, if it is accepted, there is
the third possibility that some of the earliest Islamic legends were the work of Kharijite sympathisers. The
coins therefore have the potential to shed significant light on both the political divisions in Syria during
the second civil war and on the use of Islam as propaganda by the main protagonists. They could also
contribute to our knowledge of the development of Islam itself. The main priority is to obtain a closer
dating for the various coin types involved and there is no doubt that the interpretation of these religious
legends will continue to be a topic of considerable interest.
Images. The images on Imperial Image coins are generally clearly derived from Byzantine prototypes,
but two of the images used by the Pseudo-Damascus mint, the ‘hunting figure’ (Chapter 2, Fig. 6) and the
‘orans figure’ (Chapter 2, Fig. 9), have no obvious Byzantine prototype and have caused some disagreement
among numismatists. Oddy (1991) first pointed out the unusual nature of the hunting figure and proposed
that it represented a falconer, but this has been rejected by Schindel and Hahn (2010b), who regard it as
merely an interpretation of a Byzantine emperor wearing military dress, derived from a Class 5 follis of
Heraclius.129 The orans figure has been regarded as a preacher and even interpreted as an image of John
the Baptist.130 Again these interpretations have been rejected by Schindel and Hahn. Both images will
be discussed further in Chapter 2, but one can discern two different approaches to the images on Arab-
Byzantine coins which will also be apparent when we consider the Standing Caliph coinage below. On
the one hand some numismatists tend to regard all the images as ultimately deriving from Byzantine
prototypes, while others interpret some of the images as essentially new and therefore more meaningful.
Standing Caliph coins. For many years the Standing Caliph image has created considerable interest as it
is our only record of the appearance of ʿAbd al-Malik. There has been much written about details of his
dress.131 The question has also arisen from time to time of whether the image was based to some extent
on the image of Justinian II on his gold solidi or on already existing depictions of the caliph.132 Given the
legend naming the caliph which usually appears around the image there has been little doubt about the
127
Discussed in Phillips 2005 and Phillips 2010. The religious legends are mu¢ammad rasūl allāh (Mu¢ammad is the messenger
of God), lā ilāh illā allāh waḥdahu lā sharīk lahu (There is no god but God. He is alone. There is no partner in him), allāh aḥad
al-ṣamad lam yalid (God is one. He is eternal. He did not beget).
It was first suggested by Ilisch 1993, p. 30, see also Ilisch 2001, Foss 2001, 2002a and 2008, pp. 61–62 and Phillips 2005.
128
Recently Ilisch (2010, pp. 128–9) has revised his opinion and now favours ma¤ rī (see section above on Umayyad Imperial Image
coinage). Our view is that this is a more plausible reading.
129
See Cat. 1, nos 3, 4 and Fig. 17a for Pseudo-Byzantine coins with the image of Heraclius in military dress.
130
Popp 2010, p. 43, fig. 9. Popp also suggests that the ‘hunting figure’ represents John the Baptist (p. 43, figs 7 and 8). He argues
that there was an important cult of John the Baptist at Muʿāwiya’s capital of Damascus, and that both hunting figure and orans
coins were minted in Damascus. However, as these coins were almost certainly not minted in Damascus, the case is considerably
weakened.
131
Most notably in Miles 1967, but see also SICA, pp. 91–3. See also the discussion above p. xx on the caliph’s girdle band.
Schulze and Schulze 2010, pp. 349–50 have noted some detailed similarities between the image of the caliph on the coins of
132
al-Ruha and the Justinian image.

identity of the individual depicted. However, the coins of Jund Filas²īn (Cat. 1, nos 55, 56 and 57) never
name the caliph and always have the obverse legend mu¢ammad rasûl allāh. Furthermore the images
are very unlike those found on coins naming ʿAbd al-Malik, and at Yubnā there is a remarkable variety
of images. In a study of the Yubnā mint Goodwin suggested that some of these could possibly be based
on images of Christ or Mu¢ammad, but more recently Foss has gone further and proposed that the figure
depicted on Jund Filas²īn coins probably is intended as Mu¢ammad.133 He argued that where a coin has an
image of an individual and a legend including a name, the two always match,134 so it is logical to regard the
individual depicted as Mu¢ammad. We do not know whether the proscription on depictions of the Prophet
was in place at this early date, so Foss’ proposal is certainly not as far-fetched as it might at first appear.
Foss (2003) made an ingenious proposal in relation to the rare twin Standing Caliph coins minted in
Jund al-Urdunn. He suggested these are probably an accession issue for ʿAbd al-Malik and that they show
the caliph and his brother ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, who had both been proclaimed as successors by Marwān in 684/5.
This suggestion would be more convincing if the coin in question had been minted at Damascus. However,
the most plausible explanation for a coin minted at Jerash is that the caliph image was doubled in order
to match the two figure type which had long been used there. For the moment the balance of evidence is
probably against Foss’ suggestion, but, if it could be proved, it would give us a very useful piece of precise
dating evidence.
Until relatively recently the symbol-on-steps on the reverse had generated little interest. It was almost
universally regarded as a modified (de-Christianised) version of the cross-on-steps found on the reverse of
Byzantine gold solidi. This view still has considerable support, but three different interpretations have also
been put forward, each of which sees the symbol-on-steps as a meaningful image with deep significance
for Muslims of the time. The first of these interpretations was by Savage who suggested that it represented
a victory trophy consisting of a spear and shield.135 The second by Jamil (1999) was more complex, but
basically she considered the pole to represent an axis around which stars rotate, which by analogy had
a number of layers of meaning, including the caliph as an axis of the community. She pointed out that
such concepts also occur in eulogistic poetry of the Marwanid period. Recently Schulze has offered a
third interpretation of the image as a solar or lunar symbol.136 He argues that solar, lunar and astral cults
were common in Syria, Mesopotamia and the Arabian peninsula. These cults and their associated symbols
were of very ancient origin, but lasted into late antiquity and he cites suggestive examples of cult objects
mounted on top of poles (or columns)-on-steps. He also points out that many Umayyad Imperial Image
coins are decorated with small astral symbols (stars, crescents, circles etc.).
These three interpretations all have the common theme of the selection of a symbol that was in some ways
familiar to the users of the coins, but which would serve as a suitable image for the new Islamic coinage.
Of the three interpretations Jamil’s is probably the least convincing as it is unduly cerebral and complex.
Savage’s explanation has the great benefit of simplicity and, if such trophies were used, its meaning would
have been obvious to all users of the coins. Schulze’s interpretation is perhaps the most persuasive of the
three, although it requires us to accept that a basically pagan cult symbol would have been acceptable for
a new Islamic coin. However, as he points out, we have very little knowledge of the state of Islam at this
formative stage. Also there are numerous examples of solar, lunar and planetary symbols on later Islamic
coins. For the moment therefore the interpretation of the symbol-on-steps must be regarded as unresolved
as so far none of the proponents of the new interpretations has been able to produce any contemporary
artefact or inscription which supports their case. There is also the problem of the roughly contemporary
133
See Goodwin 2005a, p. 116 and Foss 2008, p. 69.
134
There is an important exception to this generalisation in the contemporary Arab-Sasanian coinage where a governor’s (or
occasionally the caliph’s) name appears next to a bust of Khusru II.
Elizabeth Savage in an unpublished talk to the Royal Numismatic Society entitled ‘Arab-Byzantine symbols of victory’, 17
135
December 1996.
136
W. Schulze 2010.
North African gold coinage, struck in three denominations, with an obverse copying the North African gold
of Heraclius. This also has a symbol-on-steps on the reverse, but usually on the solidus and the tremissis it
consists of just a horizontal bar on top of a pole-on-steps and looks very like a slightly modified version of
the cross-on-steps of the Heraclius prototype.
In 2010 Popp put forward the much more radical interpretation of the symbol-on-steps as a Jewish
symbol, the Yegar Sahaduta, comprising a pile of stones.137 This is in line with his thesis that ʿAbd al-
Malik was an Arab Christian rather than a Muslim, but seems to us unlikely as the symbol seems to bear
no resemblance to a pile of stones.
Recently Heidemann has suggested another interpretation which lies somewhere between the
transformed cross and religious symbol. He suggests that it may have represented a late Roman urban
column surmounted by a globe of the type shown on the Madaba map outside the Damascus gate of
Jerusalem. This familiar secular object was chosen because of its general resemblance to the Byzantine
cross-on-steps.138 Heidemann’s suggestion is essentially different from the others in that he sees the symbol
as a representation of a real object, but not necessarily one which had deep significance for the Muslims.
The legends on Standing Caliph coins are well understood and the only unusual legend to emerge in
recent years is a coin from the mint of Sarmīn with the name ʿAbd al-Raḥmān in the obverse field. This
is the only known example of Standing Caliph coins being struck for an individual other than the caliph,
although unfortunately it has not yet been possible to identify the individual concerned.139
The problem of ‘irregular’ coins

The term irregular is used to describe coins where the style suggests that they are not official products of the
main mint, although they are probably not illegal forgeries. Its use often indicates a degree of uncertainty as
to the authority which issued the coins. In seventh century Byzantine numismatics such coins are usually
interpreted either as the product of a military mint, travelling with the army, or as copies of Byzantine coins
struck by Barbarian states on the fringes of the empire. When Walker compiled his catalogue of Arab-
Byzantine coins in the 1950s he had little choice but to accept any coin bearing a mint name as official,
and this was the generally held view until 1994 when Bates made the important observation that some
Arab-Byzantine coins appeared to be imitations of uncertain status. Since then, as many more coins have
been studied, it has become increasingly apparent that many Umayyad Imperial Image coins are to some
extent irregular.
a b
Fig. 16. Comparison of official and irregular coins.
a. Official fals from the mint of Ḥimṣ; 4.20g, 6h. (Cat. 1, no. 14; Private collection)
b. Irregular coin of uncertain status with blundered legends; 3.53g, 12h. (Private collection)
137
See Popp 2010, pp. 59 ff.
138
Heidemann 2010b, pp. 179–80. He acknowledges Hanswulf Bloedhorn as the originator of this suggestion.
139
It is also possible that the name Mu¢ammad on the Standing Caliph coins of Harrān is that of the governor Mu¢ammad b.
Marwān. The Sarmīn coin was first published in Goodwin 1997. Since then two other examples have been found both struck from
the same obverse die, one of which has been in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Cabinet des Médailles since 1891. Although
none of the examples have complete obverse legends, it is now clear that the obverse legend does not include the name of the
caliph. See also Goodwin 2010.
The distinction is probably clearest for the imperial bust coins of Ḥimṣ. Most of these coins are well
engraved with no errors in the legends and are of uniform style (Fig. 16a), but there is also an extensive
series of cruder, generally smaller and lighter ‘irregular’ coins (Fig. 16b), which often have blundered
legends. There is a sharp distinction between the two series of coins and no known die-linking between
them,140 but the status of these irregular coins is unclear. They could be contemporary forgeries, or the
product of a subsidiary mint, or the result of a period of minting with untrained staff at the official mint.
For other mints the distinction between regular and irregular is less clear cut, and the problem becomes
particularly acute when we consider the extensive coinage of Damascus. It is now clear that a geographically
separate mint known for convenience as ‘Pseudo-Damascus’ struck a large number of coins with the
Damascus mint name, and these will form the subject of the next two chapters. There are nearly 200
Pseudo-Damascus coins in the Irbid hoard compared to about 30 official Damascus coins, but there are
also a number of irregular coins which apparently do not belong to either mint. Some of these are almost
certainly contemporary forgeries, but others seem to be the product of separate small mints. Fig. 17b shows
a particularly interesting example compared with an official Damascus coin (Fig. 17a).
a b
Fig. 17. Comparison of regular and irregular coins.
a. Official fals of Damascus; 4.03g. (Cat. 1, no. 20)
b. Fals from irregular mint which produced well-engraved and well-struck coins which are on average
slightly larger and heavier than the official coins; 4.43g. This coin is a mule with a non-standard
combination of obverse and reverse. (Irbid 73)
Coin 17b is of good but unusual style and the same die is found paired with both Arabic and Greco-Latin
reverses. 17 coins sharing this obverse die were found in the Paris portion of the Irbid hoard, but only a
handful of examples are known from outside the hoard, most of which were found in modern Jordan.141
Although the coins from this ‘mint’ are clearly irregular they are on average slightly larger and heavier than
the official coins. Other irregular Damascus coins are much cruder (see Chapter 6, Irbid nos 64–72), and
it is interesting to compare both parts of the Irbid hoard and the coins from the Nabratein excavations with
commercial parcels from Syria and Lebanon. While the latter contain predominantly official Damascus
coins, the majority of Damascus coins from both Irbid and Nabratein appear to be irregular.142 Further
evidence is required, but it is beginning to look as if irregular Damascus coins only circulated at some
distance from Damascus, whereas there is as yet no such evidence for the Ḥimṣ irregular coins.
In a recent study Ingrid Schulze has identified a number of distinct groups of irregular coins, including
a die-linked group which includes coins bearing the mint names of Damascus, Ḥimṣ and Baalbek.143
140
Confirmed by Andrew Oddy’s unpublished die study (personal communication).
141
See Chapter 4, pp. 187-8, Figs. 3 and 4.
142
For Nabratein see Bijovsky 2009. Note that most of the coins catalogued under Damascus are of irregular appearance and one
is from the Pseudo-Damascus mint. A revised classification is given in Chapter 4.
143
I. Schulze 2015. The group referred to is illustrated in her Fig. 11 and is quite distinct from the Pseudo-Damascus coins
described in Chapters 2 and 3 of this book. Interestingly there appear to be no coins from this group in the Irbid hoard which
supports Schulze’s suspicion that the mint may have been located in northern Syria.
She concluded that these are probably the products of a ‘semi-official mint’ rather than contemporary
forgeries.
Although considerable progress has been made in differentiating regular and irregular coins, there are
still no reliable criteria for recognising contemporary forgeries and, more importantly, we still have no real
understanding of what authorities issued the majority of irregular Imperial Image coins.
The situation is even more uncertain for the Standing Caliph coinage where some mints, most notably
Yubnā, struck coins in a wide variety of styles, while others, such as Ḥalab, exhibit large variations in the
quality of die engraving. A better understanding will have to await proper die studies, particularly for Ḥalab,
but the indications at present are that the majority of Standing Caliph coins can, despite appearances, be
regarded as official.144
Transitional coins
At a number of places in this Chapter we have mentioned the growing evidence for some overlap between
the three main phases of Arab-Byzantine coinage. Further evidence has also emerged in the form of a few
coins, all of which could be described as irregular, and which display characteristics of two phases on the
same coin.
a b
Fig. 18. Coins exhibiting characteristics of both Pseudo-Byzantine and Umayyad Imperial Image phases.
a. Obv. Pseudo-Byzantine Type C (as Cat. 1, no. 3). Rev. Meaningless date and Constantinople mint
name. Apart from the mint name, the reverse is exactly the same as a common early type of Imperial
Image coin from Damascus; 3.15g, 6h. (Cat. 1, no. 18, Private collection)
b. Standing emperor Imperial Image coin of Emesa / Ḥimṣ. Obv. Type E Pseudo-Byzantine coin
which is a good copy of the obverse of a Constans II follis with the εν τουτο νίκά legend clearly
readable. Reverse normal (as Cat. 1, nos 12 and 13); 3.63g, 7h. (Cat. 1, no. 5, Private collection)
Fig. 18a is a Pseudo-Byzantine coin of unusually good style, well struck on an atypical round flan, with a
reverse that is very close to that of a common early type of Imperial Image coin of Damascus.145 This could
be a late Pseudo-Byzantine coin with an innovative style of reverse which was adopted at Damascus for
the first Imperial Image issue. Or, more likely, it is a late Pseudo-Byzantine coin struck after the start of the
Damascus Imperial Image coinage and copying a Damascus reverse.
Fig. 18b is an Imperial Image coin of Ḥimṣ which appears to have the obverse die of a Pseudo-Byzantine
coin. The Ḥimṣ reverse is crudely engraved, so perhaps this is a contemporary imitation struck in a mint
that was also producing Pseudo-Byzantine coins. Whatever the precise explanation of these two coins, they
both suggest some overlap between the first and second phases of Arab-Byzantine coinage.
144
This was the conclusion for Yubnā, see Goodwin 2005a, pp. 114–17.
145
A number of die-linked coins from the same ‘mint’ have an imperial bust obverse.
a b c

Fig. 19. Coins exhibiting characteristics of both Umayyad Imperial Image and Standing Caliph phases.
a. Umayyad Imperial Image of Yubnā.
Obv. Standing emperor in the style of Damascus, holding long cross (or staff) and globus cruciger.
Rev. Retrograde m, filasṭīn downwards to left and yubnā upwards to right; 2.33g, 12h. (Nasser D.
Khalili Collection of Islamic Art, ABC, p. 119, no. 1)
b. Standing Caliph of Yubnā.
Obv. Standing Caliph in the style of Īliyā. Rev. Same die as 19a. 2.72g, 6h.
(Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art, ABC, p. 142, no. 154)
c. Hybrid coin of Damascus.
Obv. Standing emperor in the style of some irregular Damascus Imperial Image coins. Rev. Symbol-
on-steps in the style of Damascus Standing Caliph coins (as Cat. 1, no. 50); 3.33g, 12h. (Private
collection)146
The first two coins in Fig. 19 are from the mint of Yubnā and provide support for the idea that the Standing
Caliph coins in Jund Filas²īn were contemporary with the Imperial Image coins elsewhere. Both coins
share the same reverse die which is typical of Yubnā Standing Caliph coinage. But while 19a is strictly an
Umayyad Imperial Image coin with a standing emperor obverse loosely copying the style of Damascus,
19b has a Standing Caliph obverse copying Īliyā. Both obverse dies are much better than average for Yubnā
and look like the work of the same die engraver. Goodwin has suggested that they may represent the first
dies cut at Yubnā.147 If this is so they show that the Īliyā and Damascus types were both current when the
Yubnā mint started production, but in any case the two coins are suggestive of some overlap between the
second and third phases of Arab-Byzantine coinage.
Fig. 19c is a very strange looking coin, known from three examples all struck from the same pair of
dies.148 The reverse, with a symbol-on-steps and blundered Arabic legends, is typical of many Damascus
Standing Caliph coins, but the obverse has a rather crude standing emperor.
146
This type was first published in Ramadan 2010b.
147
Goodwin 2005a, p. 92.
148
One was collected by A.S. Kirkbride in Transjordan in the 1930s or 1940s, so there is no suspicion that these coins are modern
forgeries.
Chronology
There is no doubt that establishing an accurate chronology is the major challenge facing Arab-Byzantine
numismatics today. Early writers, including Walker, being unaware of either the extensive import of
Byzantine coins or of the Pseudo-Byzantine coinage, naturally tended to spread the second two phases
of Arab-Byzantine coinage over the 60 years from the conquest until the reform of AH 77. This long
chronology was the accepted view until Michael Bates put forward a radical new short chronology in 1976.
He argued that the Standing Caliph copper must have followed the first Standing Caliph gold of AH 74 and,
more controversially, that the Imperial Image copper probably followed the shahāda solidus in about AH
72.149 This allowed only a very short period, possibly as little as two years, for the whole Imperial Image
coinage and most numismatists found this difficult to accept. However, Bates had made a convincing case
for the Imperial Image phase starting many years after the conquest and this seemed even more plausible
with the discovery of the period of importation of Byzantine coins and of the Pseudo-Byzantine coinage.
The dating of the Standing Caliph copper to just after AH 74 also seemed entirely logical.
Although Lutz Ilisch (1980) pointed out some of the weaknesses in Bates’ chronology, no real alternative
was put forward until 1991 when Qedar revived the long chronology by arguing that local minting must
have been more or less continuous from the conquest onwards. He then proposed a development from
mintless issues such as Pseudo-Damascus and al-wafāʾ lillāh (from 640 onwards) via Imperial Image
coins with Greek only legends which first appeared in Jund Filas²īn (from 645) to fully developed Imperial
Image coins with Greek and Arabic legends (from 650). He suggested that the Standing Caliph issues
with the M or m reverse started about 685 and the normal Standing Caliph coins with the symbol-on-
steps reverse about 690. There are three errors of detail in this analysis. First, insufficient time is allowed
for the Pseudo-Byzantine phase. Second, Pseudo-Damascus clearly copies some features from Damascus
and therefore cannot be earlier. Third, the Ḥimṣ standing emperor type, which has both Arabic and Greek
legends, is almost certainly among the earliest Imperial Image coins. However, Qedar’s general approach
has been widely accepted and no one would now question the concept of more or less continuous minting
from the 640s onwards.
From the early 1990s interest in Arab-Byzantine numismatics increased significantly and the progress of
research was accelerated by the formation of two informal groups, the Seventh Century Syrian Numismatic
Round Table in London and the Arab-Byzantine Forum in New York.150 The number of coins available for
study also increased to the point where the application of the numismatic techniques described above was
a viable proposition. These techniques gradually began to yield information on relative chronology and the
results have been used by writers since then.
In 2000 Luke Treadwell published a detailed critique of Bates’ chronology and suggested that Ḥimṣ was
a better candidate for the first Imperial Image mint than the small Palestinian mints proposed by Qedar.
While we still cannot be sure about which mint has precedence, it certainly looks as if Ḥimṣ became the
major influence on the subsequent development of the coinage. Building on Treadwell’s ideas and taking
account of an analysis of overstrikes Goodwin outlined a provisional chronology for the three phases of
Arab-Byzantine copper coinage in SICA (2002). This can be summarised as follows:
640s – Start of Pseudo-Byzantine coinage.
Late 650s to 670s – Main period of production of Pseudo-Byzantine coinage.
c.675 to 680 – First Umayyad Imperial Image coins, struck as local initiatives.
149
Bates’ case was convincingly argued and a number of the points which he made are still accepted today. See Album and
Goodwin 2002, pp. 99–101 for a discussion of the pros and cons of Bates’s chronology and of Qedar’s chronology.
150
The Seventh Century Syrian Numismatic Round Table was formed by a small group of Oriental Numismatic Society members
in 1993 and has held small informal conferences, bringing together numismatists, historians and archaeologists, at roughly two-
year intervals. The first Arab-Byzantine Forum was organised by Michael Bates of the American Numismatic Society very shortly
afterwards.
c.685 early 690s – Main period of Imperial Image minting with some evidence of central coordination.
Standing Caliph coins issued in Jund Filas²īn.
Early 690s – Centrally coordinated reform in which the Standing Caliph type is extended to virtually
all mints.
c.697 to 702 – Second reform in which epigraphic coins replace all earlier types.
With minor modifications this is the chronology used in this book, the most significant changes being
slightly earlier dates for the main period of Pseudo-Byzantine minting (early 650s on) and the start of the
Imperial Image coinage (shortly after 670).
More recently there have been two important contributions to the chronology debate. The first by Pottier,
Schulze and Schulze contains a complete reassessment of the Pseudo-Byzantine coinage including, for the
first time, a comprehensive analysis of weights based on large samples.151 The main conclusion of the
study was that the Pseudo-Byzantine coins were generally struck to a specific weight standard and that
this standard declined over the years from about 5 grams to under 3 grams, following the declining weight
standard of the contemporary Byzantine folles. If this is accepted it enables the various types of Pseudo-
Byzantine coin to be quite accurately dated and the authors proposed the following date ranges:
638 to 643 – three figures (Type B).
642 to 647 – two figures (Type C).
645 to 647 – beardless bust (Type G).
658 to 660 – beardless and bearded bust with year 20 reverse (Types G and H).
647 to 658 – standing emperor, first series (Types E and F).
658 to 664 and at a reduced level to c.670 – standing emperor, second lighter series (Types E and F).
The study represents a major advance in our understanding of the series. It has demonstrated beyond
reasonable doubt that the average weight declined over time and that the three figure type was the earliest.
It has also shown that the standing emperor coins fall into two distinct populations, the later one having
a significantly lower average weight. However, it is difficult to accept the very precise dates, or some of
the very short date ranges, particularly for the Type C, G and H coins.152 For example the Type C coin in
Fig. 17b above has a reverse which is very similar to a Damascus Imperial Image coin and could hardly
date from earlier than the 660s. Furthermore Oddy has demonstrated a very close relationship between
some Type G coins and others which copy prototypes of Constantine IV (668–85).153 There are also an
uncomfortable number of die-linked groups which mix various types of obverse and reverse.
More fundamentally, has the case been made for the coins being struck to an accurate weight standard
and for the link with the Byzantine weight standard? As yet there has been no considered response to
the Pottier, Schulze and Schulze article but our own feeling is that the weights did follow the Byzantine
weights downwards, but not in such an orderly manner as the authors suggest. Some of the mints may have
minted at a standard of x coins to the pound, but we think it more likely that most of them just tried to
produce coins of approximately consistent size. We also think that different mints may have been striking
to different standards at the same time, as appears to be sometimes the case during the Imperial Image
and Standing Caliph phases. Answers to some of these doubts should be forthcoming from, for example,
further analysis of the weight distributions of coins from particular ‘mints’.
151
Pottier 2004 had already applied these techniques with great success to an enigmatic series of large module Byzantine-style
folles. He demonstrated that these coins formed a coherent series issued over a period of twenty years (610–31) by a single mint
(the ‘Syrian Mint’), probably from Antioch and Ḥimṣ, during the Persian war.
152
As the authors themselves state (p. 133) ‘…it is only a first rough overview – a step on a longer way to give answers to a lot
of still open questions.’
153
Oddy 2010b.
The second contribution has been from Foss (2002b and 2008) who, with his background as a historian
specialising in this period, has attempted to fit the coins more closely to the historical framework. He
follows Pottier, Schulze and Schulze in assigning short precise periods of minting to the various types
of Pseudo-Byzantine coinage, and suggests an earlier date than Goodwin for the main period of Imperial
Image minting. Summarised, very briefly, his chronology is as follows:
638 – start of Pseudo-Byzantine coinage.
638 to 645 – Type B.
642 to 646 – Type C.
645 to 647 – Type G.
647 to 658 – al-wafāʾ lillāh coins.
660 – end of main period of Pseudo-Byzantine coinage.
After 660 – early Imperial Image coins, standing emperor types at Ḥimṣ, Damascus, Diospolis,
Jerusalem and Tiberias.
Before 680 – main series of Imperial Image coins and Standing Caliph in Jund Filas²īn.
685 – Twin Standing Caliph type at Jerash.
685 to 688 – small module three figure types.
After 685 – Standing Caliph coinage.
687 to 691 – probable dates for Jund Qinnasrīn Standing Caliph coinage.
Foss’ chronology is slightly longer than Goodwin’s but overall the differences between them are not great,
the most significant ones being a difference of up to ten years for the main period of Imperial Image
minting and Foss’ very early date for the al-wafāʾ lillāh coinage. At present we do not have the detailed
numismatic information to resolve the first difference, but such an early dating for the al-wafāʾ lillāh coins
seems unlikely.154
One other recent study may prove to be of significance for the chronology. In an article on the al-wafāʾ
lillāh coinage Schulze has suggested that these coins could have been issued by the leader of the Judhām
tribe in Jund Filas²īn when they supported the Zubayrids.155 This is a plausible suggestion which we will
discuss further in Chapter 5, but, if accepted, it would date the coins precisely to around 685. Finally,
it should be emphasised that all the chronologies that have so far been put forward are to some extent
speculative, and unfortunately this is not always made clear in numismatic publications. The margins of
error are not very great, usually no more than ten or 15 years, but they are important for this period when
dramatic historical events occurred over a relatively short time. All the proposed datings should therefore
to be treated with caution by archaeologists and historians in order to avoid dangerous circularities, where
sites or events are dated from coins and these are subsequently used by numismatists to refine the dates of
the coins themselves.156
Mint organisation
When Bates proposed his short chronology in 1976 he also suggested a highly centralised model of mint
organisation for both the Imperial Image and Standing Caliph phases, with dies being cut centrally and sent
out to smaller mints. This allowed him to interpret some of the rarer types of coins, such as the Damascus
two figure type (Cat. 1, no. 22) as a mule with a Baalbek obverse and a Damascus reverse, and so helped
to reduce the apparent complexity of the coinage. Subsequent research has clearly demonstrated that dies
Foss 2008, p. 35 states that ‘the weights of numerous published examples would suggest that they were produced in 647–58.’
154
However the median weight of 4.07g fits in well with other Imperial Image coins. Foss, p. 34 also dates the mintless square coins
with the legend mu¢ammad (Cat.1, no. 39) to the same period.
155
I. Schulze 2010. The legend, which can be translated as ‘loyalty belongs to God’, is not specifically either Islamic or Zubayrid
but it could possibly have been intended as subtly anti-Umayyad and to appeal to adherents of all three monotheistic religions.
156
For a discussion of recent progress in understanding the chronology of the Imperial Image coinage see Goodwin 2012b.
were not cut centrally, but this does not rule out a centrally organised mint structure. Relatively little has
been published on the subject, but it has been a frequent topic of informal discussion at conferences and
a number of ideas have been put forward.157 The key question is whether the minting of copper coins
was regarded as the prerogative of the caliphate and was devolved to nominated mints with continuing
control exercised from the centre, or whether decisions on minting were taken at a more local level. Any
comprehensive model needs to explain the apparently independent policy followed at times by Junds
Filas²īn and al-Urdunn, and also the status of the irregular mints. Certainly the Standing Caliph coinage,
at least in Junds Dimashq, Ḥimṣ and Qinnasrīn, gives the strong impression of central organisation, but
the situation is less clear for the Imperial Image coinage, particularly in its early stages. In this book we
have suggested that the Imperial Image phase began as a local initiative at a number of cities, most notably
Ḥimṣ, and that there may have been some central coordination towards the end of this phase. Foss (2002b)
has adopted a more centralised model and proposed that the start of the Imperial Image coinage was an
initiative of Muʿāwiya.
Our current understanding of the mint structure is clearly far from complete, but some progress can be
expected from further die studies and detailed stylistic comparisons of different mints.
Modern forgeries
Finally we must mention an unwelcome additional problem now facing researchers, that is the appearance
over the last few years of a number of modern forgeries. These are of three types:
1. Genuine Byzantine coins which have been recut, usually to give the appearance of Arabic legends
and then repatinated. Although the cutting is often crude the repatination is often very convincing.
For example the thick patina on Fig. 20a made the coin look very plausible and its true nature was
only revealed by chemically removing the patina.
2. Struck forgeries, mainly of Standing Caliph coins, but also Imperial Image coins of Baalbek and
Ṭabarīya have also been seen. These are all of odd style but usually with realistic and varied
patination. Individual examples can be convincing (Fig. 20b).158
3. Genuine Byzantine or Pseudo-Byzantine coins impressed with false countermarks.159
a b
Fig. 20. Modern Forgeries.
157
For example Oddy has explored the idea that one of the Ḥimṣ mints (probably the one producing standing emperor coins) was
a military mint and Ilisch has suggested that minting was sometimes delegated to local authorities such as bishops (suggestions
made during discussions at Seventh Century Syrian Numismatic Round Table conferences). Foss (2008, p. 77) has suggested
that the Qinnasrīn Standing Caliph mints were military mints associated with ʿAbd al-Malik’s campaigns against the Zubayrids.
Also, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, I. Schulze has put forward the idea of a pro-Zubayrid mint in Junds Filas²īn or al-
Urdunn.
158
See I. Schulze 2007.
159
See Schulze 2004 and Schulze and Goodwin 2005, pp. 51–2.
a. Purports to be a rare variant of the normal Ṭabarīya Imperial Image fals with the mint name in
the exergue and the word ¡ arb downwards on the right. It is in fact a Byzantine Class 4 follis
of Heraclius, with the reverse crudely recut and then covered with a thick false patina. (Private
collection)
b. Struck forgery of a Standing Caliph coin of Qinnasrīn with the additional word jāʾiz to the left of
the symbol-on-steps. (I. Schulze 2007, p. 46, no. 6)
Undoubtedly more forgeries will appear in the future and unfortunately it will always now be necessary to
have doubts about new unusual types of coin until they have been examined very carefully.
Fig. 21. Sketch map showing Umayyad Imperial Image mint locations in Syria and approximate jund
boundaries. Mints represented in the Irbid hoard are shown as solid circles.160
160
The locations of the Pseudo-Damascus and al-wafāʾ lillāh mints are not precisely known, but are both probably within the
boundaries of Jund al-Urdunn.
CATALOGUE 1 47
CATALOGUE 1
The coins are illustrated approximately actual size. They are listed under the three main categories described
in this chapter: Pseudo-Byzantine, Umayyad Imperial Image and Standing Caliph. Within the second and
third categories the coins are listed by mint. The catalogue is not exhaustive, but includes the main types
of copper fulus struck by each mint. Most coins are from private collections; where a coin is from a public
collection or sale catalogue this is indicated at the end of the entry. To avoid multiple references to other
catalogues, a concordance table is included at the end of the catalogue. The main references cited are:
ABC – T. Goodwin, Arab-Byzantine Coinage, 2005, pp. 33–48.
DO – C. Foss, Arab-Byzantine Coinage, 2008 (Catalogue of the Dumbarton Oaks collection).
SICA – S. Album and T. Goodwin, A Sylloge of Islamic Coins in the Ashmolean, Volume 1, Arab-
Sasanian and Arab-Byzantine Coins, 2002.
Walker – J. Walker, A Catalogue of the Muhammadan Coins in the British Museum, Volume 1, A
Catalogue of the Arab-Byzantine and Post-Reform Umaiyad Coins, 1956.
Other references will be found in the Bibliography.
Many of the legends are blundered and the transcriptions given below can only be regarded as the best
approximation possible with available fonts.
CHAPTER 1: AN INTRODUCTION TO ARAB-BYZANTINE COINAGE
48
PSEUDO-BYZANTINE COINS 8. Class H (obv. perhaps copying facing bust folles of
year 11 of Constans II or his later solidi). 5.63g. 1h.
1. Class A (obv. copying folles of Phocas and Leontia).
Obv. Facing imperial bust with long beard, heavily
4.02g. 6h.
blundered legend around perhaps intended as
Obv. Standing figure of emperor on left holding
INPñR – CONST.
globus cruciger and empress on right holding
Rev. M with à officina, ANO – X7II either side,
cruciform sceptre, blundered legend clockwise
exergual legend unclear.
NFOO[...].
9. Class I (copying Sicilian facing bust folles of
Rev. M with cross above and two officina letters, A
Constantine IV). 3.22g. 12h.
and i, *IIO to left, other legends unclear (ABC, p.
Obv. Facing imperial bust holding globus cruciger,
33, no. 1, this coin).
blundered Pahlavi legend downwards either side,
2. Class B (copying Class 3 folles of Heraclius, usually
possibly intended to read mltʾn to the left and
of the Cyprus mint). 5.32g. 6h.
MLKA to the right (Martān Shāh – ‘king of men’
Obv. Three standing imperial figures (Martina,
or similar).
Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine) holding
Rev. M with monogram above, two imperial figures
globus crucigers.
either side and blundered SCL in exergue (ABC, p.
Rev. M with monogram above and i officina,
34, no. 11, this coin).
ANNO – XTII either side and KVO\ in exergue
10. Class J (obv. perhaps copied from solidi showing
(Goodwin 2004, p. 6, no. 2 this coin).
Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine). 3.98g. 12h.
3. Class C (copying Class 5 folles of Heraclius).
Obv. Two facing imperial busts, left hand bust holds
4.55g. 6h.
cruciform sceptre.
Obv. Two standing imperial figures, the left hand
Rev. M with A(?) above and i officina, NN to left
figure in military dress holding a long cross and
and uncertain letter above N to right.
the right hand figure holding a globus cruciger,
11. Class K (obv. no known numismatic prototype).
cross between heads.
Obv. Palm branch on triangular base, NåâO
Rev. M with monogram above, A officina, KwN
downwards to left.
– XIIIO either side and KCN in exergue.
Rev. m with traces of blundered legend to left (N.F.
4. Class D (obv. copying one figure from a Class 5
Goussous, communication to Seventh Century
follis of Heraclius). 2.38g.12h.
Syrian Numismatic Round Table 1996).
Obv. Standing imperial figure in military dress
holding long cross, Nñ downwards to right.
UMAYYAD IMPERIAL IMAGE COINS
Rev. M with cross above and ñ officina, HN to right,
other legends unclear. Ḥimṣ (Emesa)
5. Class E (copying Class 1–4 folles of Constans II). 12. 4.03g. 6h.
3.76g. 12h. Obv. Standing emperor holding long cross and
Obv. Standing emperor holding long cross and globus cruciger, Kã[...] to left and crescent to
globus cruciger, heavily blundered legend around right of head. The legend is a blundered version of
based on ñNTOUTO – NIKA. KAã – ON (good).
Rev. m with cross above, AO – ñN either side and Rev. M with monogram above and å officina, ñMH
IIIIIII in exergue; either side of the cross is an N – CIC either side, crescent and star either side of
at an angle, presumably from the undertype of the monogram and ṭayyib (good) in exergue.
copied Constans II follis. 13. 3.87g. 4h.
6. Class F (copying Class 5 to 7 folles of Constans II). Obv. Standing emperor holding long cross and
4.25g. 6h. globus cruciger, bism allāh (in the name of God)
Obv. Standing emperor with short beard holding long downwards to left and star to upper left, legend to
cross and globus cruciger, traces of blundered right (normally KAãON) unclear.
legend around. Rev. As no. 12 above.
Rev. M with cross above and à officina, uncertain 14. 4.20g. 6h.
legend to left and in exergue, AN[...] to right. Obv. Facing imperial bust holding globus cruciger,
7. Class G (obv. copying facing bust folles and solidi KAãON downwards to left and mint name bi-
from the early years of Constans II). 3.14g. 6h. ḥimṣ downwards to right, small crescent shaped
Obv. Facing beardless imperial bust holding globus punchmark on emperor’s face.
cruciger, NTÕ-TONIK around. Rev. m with star above, ñMI – CHC either side,
Rev. M with cross above, officina letter unclear, short wavy lines either side of the star and ṭayyib
ANNO to left, date numeral (1 year 6) above (good) in exergue.
cross to right, exergual legend unclear.
CATALOGUE 1: PSEUDO-BYZANTINE COINS
49
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14
50
Tartūs (Antarados) Rev. M with cross above, 1 officina, blundered
15. 3.94g. 7h. Arabic legend clockwise from 2h. ḍarb dimashq
Obv. Imperial bust holding globus cruciger, mint jāʾiz (current issue[of] Damascus) (ABC, p. 37,
name bi-ṭardūs to left downwards and KAãwN no. 24 this coin).
(good) downwards to right. Baalbek (Heliopolis)
Rev. M with cross above and å officina, ANT – APÕ
23. 4.75g. 8h.
either side and ṭayyib (good) in exergue.
Obv. Two standing imperial figures each holding
16. 4.95g. 12h.
a globus cruciger, cross-on-steps between, no
Obv. Imperial bust holding globus cruciger, KAN to
legends.
left downwards.
Rev. M with cross above and 1 officina, mint name
Rev. Monogrammatic M with additional letters
HãIÕ – âOãÈ and mint name baʿalbakk in
ATåOV, star to right and ṭayyib (good) in
exergue (ABC, p. 37, no. 25 this coin).
exergue. This rare type is presumably from the
24. 4.12g. 6h.
mint of Tartūs because of its close resemblance
Obv. Two standing imperial figures holding
to the normal type and because the reverse
cruciform sceptres, cross between heads.
monogram contains most letters of the mint name
Rev. M with cross above and 2 officina, mint name
in Greek.
(slightly blundered) HãIÕ – HOãñ either side and
Dimashq (Damascus) mint name baʿalbakk in exergue.
17. 2.83g. 6h. ʿAmman (Philadelphia)
Obv. Enthroned emperor holding cruciform sceptre
25. 5.01g. 7h.
and globus cruciger, bird-on-T to left, ãñO
Obv. Enthroned bearded imperial figure on the left
downwards to right.
and standing imperial figure on the right both
Rev. M with monogram above and 2 officina, ANO
holding a single central long cross, no legends.
– XTII either side and åAM\ in exergue. The
Rev. M with A officina and two dots each side of the
obverse legend ãñO appears to be meaningless
A, hadhā (ḍuri)ba ʿammān (this was struck [in]
as is the frozen date on the reverse. Both probably
ʿAmman) clockwise from 11h.
derive ultimately from mechanical copying of the
legends on Byzantine coins. Pseudo-Damascus mint
18. 3.19g. 4h. 26. 3.20g. 11h.
Obv. Standing emperor holding long cross and Obv. Enthroned emperor holding cruciform sceptre
globus cruciger, bird-on-T to left and ãñO and globus cruciger, bird-on-T to left.
downwards to right. Rev. m with serpentines between uprights and cross
Rev. as no. 17 above. above, cross to left, AX to right and åíM\ in
19. 4.70g. 1h. exergue (Chapter 2, Cat. 2, no. 23, dies O16E/
Obv. As no. 18 above, but bird replaced by palm R8C).
branch.
Rev. M with monogram above and 2 officina, ḍarb Ṭabarīya (Tiberias)
to right downwards, dimashq in exergue and jāʾiz 27. 4.45g.
downwards to left (current issue [of] Damascus). Obv. Standing emperor holding long cross and
20. 4.03g. 7h. globus cruciger, ‘girdle band’ of three strands
Obv. Standing emperor holding long cross and globus hanging from waist to his left, ãO downwards to
cruciger, åAMACKOC clockwise from 1h. left and TIBñPIAC downwards to right.
Rev. As no. 19 above (ABC, p. 37, no. 22 this coin). Rev. m with cross above, KAãA downwards to left,
21. 5.14g. 1h. XAãñå downwards to right and NO» in exergue
Obv. Standing emperor holding long cross and (Album auction 19 (15–17 May 2014) lot 258).
globus cruciger, stylised bird-on-T to left, ãñO Both obverse and reverse legends on this coin
downwards to right. are unusually well written; most of the known
Rev. M with monogram above and star officina, examples of this type have much more blundered
blundered legend clockwise from 8h: jāza and fragmentary legends.
hadhā dimashq wāfiyah (this [fals] current [in] 28. 2.96g. 6h.
Damascus, full weight) (ABC, p. 37, no. 23 this Obv. Three imperial standing figures holding
coin). Irregular, almost certainly not an issue of vestigial globus crucigers, no legend.
the main Damascus mint. Rev. M with k officina, around anticlockwise from
22. 3.13g. 1h. 10 h TIBñPIAåOC (blundered), clockwise from
Obv. Two imperial figures holding cruciform 2h: ṭabarīya.
sceptres, cross between heads, no legends.
CATALOGUE 1: UMAYYAD IMPERIAL IMAGE COINS
51
15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22
23 24 25
26 27 28
52
29. 3.00g. 11h. right hand figure a cruciform sceptre, long
Obv. Three stylised standing imperial figures without cross between, àñ to right.
globus crucigers, no legend. Rev. M with cross above and A officina, ANN
Rev. M with cross above and A officina, abbreviated – O+XIII either side, exergual legend unclear.
mint name THB to left downwards, mint name
ṭabarīya to right downwards, uncertain Arabic Jerusalem (Iliyā)
word qṭrī in exergue. The reading of the exergual 35. 2.68g. 10h.
legend is uncertain and has been the subject of Obv. Standing emperor holding long cross and
considerable debate with Ilisch (1993, p. 30, globus cruciger, 3 to lower left and C to right.
nos 286–287, and 2001) suggesting that it might Rev. m with cross above, [...]PO – Coã[...]either
refer to the Kharijite rebel Qaṭarī b. Fujāʾa and side and MwN in exergue (Nasser D. Khalili
Qedar suggesting an alternative reading of quṭrā Collection of Islamic Art, ABC, p. 41, no. 40
(district). However, we prefer Ilisch’s more recent this coin). The full reverse legend should read
suggestion (2010) of maṣrī (word used to indicate IñPOCOãVMwN (of the people of Jerusalem).
a garrison town). Diospolis (Ludd)
Mintless (but probably minted at Ṭabarīya) 36. 3.26g. 11h.
30. 2.85g. Obv. Standing emperor holding long cross and
Obv. Three imperial standing figures holding globus cruciger, åIOCâ – OãH(C) cockwise
vestigial globus crucigers. from 8h.
Rev. M with A officina, clockwise from 2h: Rev. m with cross above, N[...] – 7II either side and
muḥammad rasūl allāh (Phillips 2005, p. 1638 (N)IKO in exergue (ABC, p. 41, no. 41 this coin).
no. 6). ‘Al-wafāʾ lillāh’ mint
Scythopolis (Baysān) 37. 3.75g. 3h.
31. 6.96g. 6h. Obv. Standing emperor holding long cross and
Obv. Two enthroned imperial figures holding globus cruciger, no legends.
cruciform sceptres, cross between heads, Rev. m with cross above, pellets to left and long
clockwise from 8h: CKVíO – âOãHC. cross to right, al-wafāʾ lillāh (loyalty to God) in
Rev. M with cross above and A officina, A33O – 7II exergue (ABC, p. 39, no. 35 this coin). This coin
either side and NIKO in exergue. has been countermarked (reverse lower right)
32. 4.11g. 6h. with a Byzantine-style monogram q which
Obv. Two enthroned imperial figures holding has been tentatively read as ΠATRIKI(OC)
cruciform sceptres with long cross between, CKV XAPT(O)VΛAPI(OC), ‘Patrikios Chartoularios’
to left upwards. (see Schulze and Goodwin 2005, p. 42 Type A9).
Rev. K with X above and officina I, ANNO – 7II Mintless
either side. Overstruck on a Damascus Umayyad
Imperial Image coin with standing emperor 38. 2.89g. 3h.
obverse similar to no. 21above. Obv. Two standing imperial figures each holding
33. 3.14g. 5h. a globus cruciger, clockwise from 2 h: lā ilāha
Obv. Three imperial figures holding globus crucigers, illā allāh waḥdahu lā sharīka [lahu] (there is no
no legends. god but God, He is alone, He has no associates)
Rev. M with monogram above and A officina, continuing between figures downwards
clockwise from 1h: fals al-ḥaqq bi-baysān muḥammad rasūl allāh (Muḥammad is the
(legal fals of Baysān). This coin is very different messenger of God).
from all other Scythopolis / Jerash coins and Rev. Pole-on-steps surmounted by globe with a
closely resembles some of the smaller module star either side, lā ilāha illā allāh waḥdahu lā
coins of Ṭabarīya (e.g. nos 29 and 30 above). It sharīka lahu clockwise from 1h. (ABC, p. 40,
may represent a short-lived attempt to integrate no. 39 this coin). This rare coin is very similar in
Scythopolis into the monetary system of the rest style and has an almost identical reverse to the
of Jund al-Urdunn before the sweeping reforms of gold shahāda solidi (ABC, p. 36, no. 18) minted
Abd al-Malik from AH 77 onwards. in the early 70s AH. Both gold and copper are
mintless, but they were almost certainly struck at
Gerasa (Jerash) the same mint, which was very probably located
34. 9.60g. 9h. at Damascus.
Obv. Two enthroned imperial figures, the left
hand figure holding a globus cruciger and the
CATALOGUE 1: UMAYYAD IMPERIAL IMAGE COINS
53
29 30
31 32 33
34 35
36 37 38
54
39. 3.68g. 10h. JUND QINNNASRĪN
Obv. Crude standing emperor holding globus
Qinnasrīn
cruciger, muḥammad downwards to left.
Rev. Retrograde m with cross above, II I to right and 42. 2.80g. 12h.
an uncertain Arabic word in the exergue possibly Obv. No girdle band (same obverse die as no. 45
baʿḍ (part or portion) in exergue. Struck as usual below).
on a square flan, the word muḥammad, which Rev. wāfin upwards to left, bi-qinnasrīn downwards
also occasionally appears on the reverse, is almost to right.
certainly the name of an official rather than that of Ḥalab
the Prophet. The coins appear to be found in Israel
43. 2.21g. 3h.
and Jordan rather than in Syria and the uncertain
Rev. wāfin upwards to left, ḥalab downwards to
word in the exergue could possibly be a mint
right.
name or the second part of a personal name (see
Fig. 7 above). Tanūkh
44. 2.38g. 12h.
STANDING CALIPH COINS Rev. bi-tanūkh upwards to left, wāfin downwards to
Obv. Caliph standing facing holding the pommel right.
of his sword which hangs, in its scabbard, to his Jibrīn
left. Apparently hanging from his right elbow
45. 2.57g. 6h.
is an uncertain object conventionally known as
Obv. No girdle band.
the ‘girdle band’, but probably a whip. This is
Rev. bi-jibrīn upwards to left, wāfin downwards to
normally shown as a long loop, or sometimes
right. This coin is struck from the same obverse
as three separate strands. Arabic legend around
die as no. 42 above, an unusual instance of the
clockwise from 12h or 1h: li-ʿabd allāh ʿabd al-
same obverse die being used for two mints,
malik amīr al-muʾ minīn (for the servant of God
possibly indicating that the Jibrīn coin was
ʿAbd al-Malik, Commander of the Believers).
actually struck at the Qinnasrīn mint.
Rev. Symbol-on-steps with mint name left or right.
Arabic legend around clockwise from 12h or Qūrus
1h: lā ilāha illā allāh waḥdahu muḥammad 46. 2.63g. 3h.
rasūl allāh (there is no god but God, he is alone, Rev. qūrus downwards to right, wāfin upwards to left
Muḥammad is his messenger). (ABC, p. 44, no. 51 this coin).
Variations from these standard arrangements are noted Sarmīn
against individual coins. 47. 3.48g. 12h.
Obv. Heavily blundered legends probably intended
PROVINCE OF AL-JAZĪRA as amīr allāh downwards to left and khalīfat allāh
Harrān downwards to right.
40. 3.27g. 6h. Rev. Mint name written either side of symbol-on-
Obv. No girdle band, muḥammad to left downwards, steps sar to right downwards and mīn (retrograde,
mint name ḥarrān to right downwards (partly off as usual at this mint) downwards to left (ABC, p.
flan). 44, no. 49 this coin).
Rev. Monogram to left, muḥammad downwards to Maʿarrat Miṣrīn
right and IS in exergue (ABC, p. 42, no. 43 this
48. 3.00g. 2h.
coin).
Obv. Blundered legends amīr allāh to left
Al-Ruhā downwards and khalīfat allāh downwards to right.
41. 3.47g. 12h. Rev. maʿarrat to left upwards and miṣrīn to right
Obv. muḥammad to left downwards and rasūl allāh downwards (blundered as usual for this mint).
to right downwards. Manbij
Rev. Mint name al-ruḥa to left downwards and bism
49. 2.40g. 1h.
allāh lā ilāha illā allāh waḥdahu (in the name
Obv. No girdle band, khalīfat allāh downwards
of God, there is no god but God, he is alone)
to right and amīr al-mu’min (Caliph of God,
clockwise from 12h.
Commander of the Believers, last two letters
omitted) downwards to left.
Rev. wāfin upwards to left and mint name manbij
upwards to right (ABC, p. 45, no. 53 this coin).
CATALOGUE 1: STANDING CALIPH COINS
55
39
40 41 42
43 44 45
46 47 48 49
56
JUND DIMASHQ Ludd
Dimashq 57. 3.0g. 2h.
Obv. No girdle band and small crescent above
50. 2.48g. 12h.
caliph’s head, muḥammad ra– to left downwards
Obv. Girdle band comprising three strands,
and –sūl allāh (Muḥammad is the messenger of
blundered legend lā ilāha illā allāh waḥdahu
God) upwards to right.
muḥammad rasū clockwise from 1h, blundered
Rev. Retrograde m with filasṭīn downwards to left
and omitting end of legend.
and mint name ludd upwards to right (Limbada
Rev. dimashq downwards to right, standard legend
collection, ABC, p. 48, no. 64 this coin).
around heavily blundered.
ʿAmmān EGYPTIAN ARAB-BYZANTINE COINS
51. 2.95g. 2h. Type 1
Obv. Girdle band of two strands. The end of the
58. 4.94g. 12h.
standard legend – minīn – is to the right of the
Obv. Crude standing figure holding long cross and
caliph’s head between 1h and 2h.
globus cruciger or cross.
Rev. Star to left and mint name ʿammān to right
Rev. I – B with cross-on-globe between and
downwards.
blundered Aãñï in exergue.
Mintless (but probably minted in ʿAmmān)
Type II
52. 3.09g. 6h.
59. 7.39g. 6h.
Obv. Girdle band of two strands.
Obv. Facing bust with palm branch-on-globe to left,
Rev. M with A officina. Although there is no mint
star to right and A to lower right.
name the distinctive style and fabric of all coins
Rev. IMB with A above and ABAZ in exergue.
of this type is very similar to the standing caliph
coins of ʿAmmān (ABC, p. 47, no. 61 this coin). Type III
Baʿalbakk 60. 7.70g. 6h.
Obv. Squat standing figure holding long cross and
53. 3.03g. 6h.
globus cruciger, star to lower right.
Obv. Star to right, legend preceded by bism allāh and
Rev. I – B with cross-on-globe between and MACP or
ends with amīr a.
MACA in exergue.
Rev. Mint name baʿalbakk downwards to right.
Type IV
JUND ḤIMṢ 61. 7.06g. 6h.
Ḥimṣ Obv. Crude facing bust with palm branch to left,
uncertain object to right and ñ to lower right.
54. 2.72g. 8h.
Rev. With ABN in exergue.
Rev. Star to left and bi-ḥimṣ downwards to right.
Type V
JUND FILASṬĪN 62. 7.76g. 12h.
Īliyā Obv. Two crude facing busts with long cross
between.
55. 3.14g. 6h.
Rev. @ – w with long cross between and âAN in
Obv. muḥammad ra – sūl allāh around anticlockwise
exergue.
from 10h.
Rev. m with īliyā upwards to left, filasṭīn upwards to Type VI
right and exergual line below. 63. 1.9g. 2h.
Yubnā Obv. Large cross on a horizontal base with trefoil
terminations at the top and at each end of the cross
56. 2.98g. 12h.
bar, four globes (one very small) around.
Obv. Caliph has radiate halo, heavily blundered
Rev. I–B with uncertain design between, perhaps a
Arabic legend, perhaps muḥammad, downwards
heavily blundered cross-on-steps (Barber Institute
to left.
of Fine Arts, The University of Birmingham, cat.
Rev. Retrograde m with exergual line below, fulū
no. AB 66, Goodwin 2003, Fig. 8).
downwards(?) to left and s yubnā (money of
Yubnā) retrograde, upwards to right.
CATALOGUE 1: EGYPTIAN ARAB-BYZANTINE COINS
57
50 51 52 53
54 55 56 57
58 59 60
61 62 63
58
NORTH AFRICAN ARAB-BYZANTINE
COINAGE
Main North African Mint
64. 3.78g. 8h.
Obv. Two facing imperial busts wearing chlamys
with fibula and trefoil crowns, traces of legend
around.
Rev. Pole-on-steps with horizontal crossbar at top,
blundered fragmentary legend around, probably
intended as DeUs TuUS DeUS ET ALIVS NON
Est (Thy God is God and there is no other), (CNG
auction 78 (14 May 2008), lot 1916).
Tripoli AH 80 (699/700) in the name of al-Nuʿmān
65. 3.26g. 3h.
Obv. Facing imperial bust wearing chlamys with
fibula and trefoil crown, Arabic legend to left
down fī sanat and to right down thamānīn.
Rev. Pole-on-steps surmounted by globe, retrograde
Arabic legend clockwise from top bism allah
hādhā amara bihi al-nuʿmān. The legend starts on
the reverse and continues onto the obverse ‘in the
name of God, al-Nuʿmān ordered this in the year
80’ (Mansfield collection).
CATALOGUE 1: NORTH AFRICAN ARAB-BYZANTINE COINAGE
59
64 65
CONCORDANCE OF TYPES
The following table gives the references for each type in Catalogue 1 found in the commonly used Arab-Byzantine
catalogues (a * against the entry for Walker, SICA 1 or DO indicates that the example illustrated is not from the
actual museum collection):
Cat. 1 Walker SICA ABC DO Cat. 1 Walker SICA ABC DO
1 - p. 78* 1 - 34 G1* - 34 86
A7*
2 - 505ff 2 3ff 35 - - 40 -
3 - p. 78* 3 5ff 36 - - 41 p. 44*
4 - p. 78* 4 p. 31* 37 ANS9 595ff 35 32
5 - 508ff 5, 6 8ff 38 P6 p. 83* 39 p. 66*
6 - 526ff 7 - 39 140 - 42 31
7 - 528 8, 9 7, 24 40 Vat1ff - 43 -
8 - p. 79* 10 p. 30* 41 92ff - 44 103
9 - 530 11 25 42 132ff 657ff 45 112ff
10 - - - - 43 106ff 608ff 46 115ff
11 - - 12 - 44 - 656 47 129
12 27ff 531ff 13 40ff 45 I2 - 48 -
13 57ff 538ff 14 65ff 46 J2 672ff 51 -
14 - 555ff 15 78 47 94ff 639ff 49 128
15 55 559 16 79 48 99ff 674ff 52 124ff
16 - - 17 80 49 102ff 679ff 53 126ff
17 4 p. 82* 19 - 50 86ff 706ff 58 104ff
18 7ff 560ff 20 46ff 51 126ff 717ff 60 107
19 20ff 569ff - 52ff 52 104 716 61 90ff
20 12ff 566ff 22 - 53 Vat2ff 701ff 59 -
21 ANS1ff 564ff 23 39 54 119ff 689ff 54 108ff
22 42ff 574ff 24 - 55 73ff 730ff 62 92
23 ANS4 583 25 p. 48* 56 83ff - 63 93ff
24 35ff 584 26 60ff 57 - - 64 101
25 - p. 83* 27 - 58 - - - -
26 5** 577 36 57 59 Fig. 10 - - 140
27 J4, J5 - 28 44 60 - 732ff - 131ff
28 43ff 587ff 29 81 61 - 735 - -
29 - 592 - 88 62 - - - 142ff
30 - - - - 63 - - - -
31 1ff 594 32 82ff 64 156ff 736ff - -
32 - - - 84 65 164ff 738ff - -
33 - - - p. 62*

An Introduction To Arab-Byzantine Coinag PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Introduction To Arab-Byzantine Coinag PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1

2007. Volumes 13 to 22 cover the period under consideration here.

The conquest and the early Caliphate (630–60)

The caliphate of Muʿāwiya (660–80)27

The start of the Second Civil War (680–5)

in vol. xx, pp. 47–69.

The Pseudo-Byzantine coinage (640s to 670s)55

The Umayyad Imperial Image coinage (670s to 690s)69

Approximately 1.5x actual size.

All coins approximately actual size.

A1 A1var A2 A3 A4a A4b A5

A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A13

A14 A15 A16 A17 B1a B1b B1c

B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15

Experimental precious metal coinage (late 680s – early 690s)

Approximately 2x actual size.

Approximately 2x actual size.

All coins approximately actual size.

PRE-REFORM COINAGE IN EGYPT, NORTH AFRICA AND IRAN

Egyptian and North African Arab-Byzantine coinage

impossible, there is no other evidence to support this idea.

THE REFORMED COINAGE (c.700 ONWARDS)

PROBLEMS AND RECENT RESEARCH

Interpreting legends and images

al-Ruha and the Justinian image.

The problem of ‘irregular’ coins

All coins approximately 1.5x actual size.

You might also like