Byzantine miliaresion and Arab dirhem : some notes on their relationship / [George C. Miles]

8/9/2019 Byzantine miliaresion and Arab dirhem : some notes on their relationship / [George C. Miles]

1/37

B Y Z A N T I N E

M I L I A R E S I O N

A N D ARABDIRHEM:

S O M E

N O T E S O NTHEIR RELATIONSHIP

(SEE PLATESX-XIII)

Anyone who

has

heldin onebanda

Byzantine

silver

coin

mili-

of

the second

half of

the 8th

or of the gth

Century,

and in

other anUmayyad or'Abbsiddirhem, cannot have failed

o

the

close

morphologicalrelationshipbetweenthe two.To

sure

the

Byzantine

coin

bears

a

cross potent

on

steps

and

Christian

in

mixed

Greek and

Latin letters, while

the

Arab coin

is

and in Kufic characters; but infabric, general

approximate

weight and

size

and in feel, the two are

similar.TheByzantine obversefieldcontaining the cross

insevere horizontal

lines

resembling the area legendsof

dirhem; both obverse and reverse fields are surrounded by

beaded bordersalmostidentical instyle tothoseon theArab

The relationship between the two was

remarked

upon nearly a

ed years ago by Jean de Bartholomaei, who wrote:1 Au

siecle, le dirhem

koufique,

bientt apres son apparition,

si

repandu

et si

accredite,

qu'

avaitdej cours dans toute

et il dut

egalement

e tre admis, dans l'empire de Byzance,

le

numeraire

d'argent blanc,

etait

alors en

tres-petite quantite.

lafin duVHIe siecle,la

m onnaie

d'argent byzantine

prit-

le une physiognomie tout semblable au dirhem des Khalifes; les

y dispararent et furent remplacees par des legendes, soit

soit

en

plusieurs lignes

au

milieu

du

champ,

les

cercles

de

se

doublerent

et setriplerent, tout

comme

sur lesdirhems

l'epoque,

et ce

type, byzantin

arabise,se

maintintinvariablement

un siecle et demic. a d.jusqu' la

moitie

du Xe

siegle.

Lettre

Mr. B. de

Khne

sur un

dept

de

monnaies deterre

a

Tiflis,

en1858,

Z eitschrift

fr

Mnz- Siegel-

und

Wappen-Kunde 1859-1862,

65-71.

Notes IX

89


2/37

igo A. N. S.M U S E U M NOTES

These

astute

observations were quoted

in

extenso

by J.

Sabatier

in his Description gentrle des

monnaies

byzantines (Paris,

1862)

I,

90-91.

Keary,in hiswell

known

articleonthe morphology of coins,

made no mention of the resemblance or relationship, although he

did recognizea possible influence of Arab coinage on Carolingian

denarii.2Engel

and

Serrure

repeated

part

of

Bartholomaei'sremarks

but without further elaboration.3 Subsequently the matter has

attracted littleattention, possibly because

the relationship

seemed

so obvious and unworthy offurthercomment, but more probably

becauseByzantinists and Arabistsalike in their specializationshad

failed to observe the affinity. Wroth, for example, says only that

the Hexagram

having

ceased to be coined, Constantine V(741-775)

inaugurated

a silver

piece characterized

by its

thin,

flat

fabric,

and

by areverse'type'consisting entirelyof aninscription; 4and the

triple

or

double border which surrounds each side imparts some

finish to an otherwise plain coin .5Goodacre remarks on theintro-

ductionof the distinctive coin and observesthat it is apparently

a newdenomination.6VeryrecentlyAndre Grabarhasdiscussed the

introduction of the new type of silver with particular reference to

the beginning of the iconoclasticcontfro versy and the use of the

T

XC

NICA-legend, but his only allusion to the resemblance between

the new type and the dirhem is in the Statement that

un

signe

religieuxabstraitet une longue inscription, cette formule rejoignait

ou presqueles formules des monnaiesmusulmanes, o Ton trouve

2C. F.KearyinNC 1886,62-64.StureBolingoesso farsto saythat it is

generally known that the Arab

silver

dirhem provided the model for the

Carolingian

silver

denier, and

..

.whentheCarolingian coinsbegan to be

minted

in the

reign

ofPepinthe Short,theLatin

letters

used

in theinscription

were

designed

insucha waystorevealclearC ufic characteristics.

( Moham-

med, Charlemagne

and

Ruric,

in

ScandinavianEconomic

History Review I

T

1953,

I3)-

The

deniers

he

refers

to are

ones attributed

to

Noyon, Cjuentovic,

Saint-Germain

and

Samt-Marcel,

illustratedin E.

Gariel,Lesmonnaies royales

deFvancesous

laracecarolingienne(Strasbourg, 1884)II, pl. III, nos.49,51-54,.

65,66.

Perhaps

thisis so, buteven

with

myconsuming

interest

in

pseudo-Kufic,

I

must

confessto

being

alittleskeptical.But I

have never

seenthe

coins

them-

selves.

3

Traitd de

Numismatique

du Moyen

Age

I (Paris,

1891) 335.

4

BMC

Imp.

Byz.

Coins(hereafter

referred tos BM ] p.Ixxvii.

5

Ibid.,

p.

xciii.

Hugh Goodacre,

A Handbook

of

th e

Coinage of

the

Byzantine Empire (London,

1957)

P-139;also p. 12.


3/37

BYZANTINE

MILIARESIONAND

ARAB

DIRHEM 191

l'emploisimultane d'inscriptionsen lignes horizontales super-

sees et en lignes

circulaires,

le

long

du

bord. 7

Now

it seems to me

that

both the abrupt change in the style,

andweightof theByzantine silver coinagein the 8thCentury,

well

sthepatent

relationship between

the newmttiaresionand

e

Arab

dirhem,are phenomenaof

considerable

interest and

that

deserve

somewhat more thoughtful comment. The hexagram

8

inConstantinoplein

615

A.D. PLATE

X,

i ,

9

large,

thick coin of irregulr and

rather

crude

fabric,

weighing

6. 5

grams.10

Under Constans

II

(641-668

A .D.),Constantine

IV

A

-

D

-)

an

d

during

the

first

reign

of

Justinian

II

(685-695

the

coin continued

to be

strack

at

about

the

same

weight.

13

695 and 741,

during

the

reigns

ofLeontius,

JustinianII

(second reign),

Philippicus,

Anastasius

II,

III and Leo III

(but

seebelow),

little

if any

silver appears

have been issued

from the

Constantinople mint.

12

Then,

to

judge

.Grabar, L -iconoclasme byzantin (Paris, 1957)I26.Sture Bolin(loc. cit.in

above) remarks

that

exactly

the

same tendency

[i.e.,the

arrangement

ons in rows,

s

on the Carolingian coinage] is to be

found

in the

of the

Byzantine empirefrom

the

mid-eighthCenturyonwards.

he vonianoc l cypct|Jinov

p y u p o u v ,

ordouble mi l iares ion.

55. 59, 24 mm.,

6.51gr., ^

Cf.

BM

p.195,

nos.

99 and

103.

ens in the ANS collection average

6.40

grams; theheaviest

6.56,

lightest 6.17.

Twenty-two specimens

at

Dumbarton Oaks average

6.40

from

5.76

to

7.00

grams (two,far tmderweight,notincluded).

BM

catalogue

13

specimens average

6.47

grams and rnge between

and

6.82

grams.

The

theoretical

weight

of the

hexagvam,

i.e.,

6

ypdnncrrcc

was6.82

grams.

II:

8reasonably well preserved specimens

in the

ANS average 6.45

from5.93

to

6.68

grams;

16

at Dumbarton Oaks average

6.34

from

5.68

to

6.77

grams (4specimensof5.22 gramsand less

B

M catalogue

9

specimens average

6.57

grams

and

rnge

6.27

to

6.84

grams(5specimens omitted).C onstantine IV: ANS,2speci-

5.45and 6.06grams;

Dumbarton Oaks, 10 specimens, average

6.46

from

5.85

to

6.84

grams;

BM

catalogue, 4specimens, 4.51,

6.49

and

6.62grams.JustinianII:ANS, none; Dumbarton Oaks, none;

catalogue, 3

specimens,6.18,6.22and6.63grams.

AspecimenofConstansII

A N Sisillustratedin

PLATE

X, 2 exE. T. Newell

Coll.,

23

mm.,

6.68gr., ).

however,

the

very

rare

issues

of

Tiberius

III (F. de

Pfa ffenhoffen

inRN

286,

and Tolstoi,

Mo n n a i e s

Byzantines

[St.

Petersburg, 1914]

885),

901)

and Theodosius III (Tolstoi,913-914).A few silver

attributed

to Leo

III,

butthese

are,

inPhilip

Glierson's

opin-

forged

solidi.


4/37

192

A. N. S.

MU SEUMNOTES

by the

existingnumismatic evidence, some time

between

July741

and

November

743,13

Artavasdus,rebelbrother-in-law

ofConstantine

V,

introduced

the new

type

of

miaresion

with which

this

paper

is

concerned.

This innovation was

formerly attributed

to Constantine

V,

14 but

since the only known type ofsilver issued by him bears also the

name

ofhissonLeo,andsincethelatter'sassociationon thethrone

with

his father took place in

751,

the issue ofArtavasdus

15must

take precedence.16 Betweenthe suppression of Artavasdus' revolt

in 742 or 743 and adtenot earlier than751we know of no silver,

but thereafteruntilthe reign of Basil

II

(976-1025) this new style of

miaresion,

with only

slight

modifications

in the

obverse type

and

appropriate changesin thelegendof thereverse, persistsstheonly

silver issue of the Constantinople mint. With regard to the invention

of the new

type,

the

possibility

of

reattributing some

of the

coins

of

Leo

IV to Leo

III,

thus deprivingArtavasdus of the distinction, is

discussedbelow,pp.

207-210.

M y

own

interest

in the affinity

between

the newm iliaresion and

the Arab dirhem, and in the

obvigu.

priority

of the

latter,

was

13Theexact dates ofArtavasdus'rebellionare uncertain.Amongthemodern

authorities Louis Brehier Vieetmortde

Byzance[Paris,1948]

81) is the most

specific:

Artavasdus

was

crowned

in

July741,Constantinople

was

recovered

byConstantineV onNovember2, 742

s

in F.Dlger, Regesten

derKa iser-

Urkunden

de s Ostrmischen Reiches, I Mnchen, 1924) 37). G.Ostrogorsky

History

of theByzantine

State,transl.

JoanHussey [Oxford,1956] 147-148)

places Constantine's defeat by Artavasdus in 742, his reentry

into

Constan-

tinople

on 2

November 743.

A. A.

Vasiliev

History of

the

Byzantine

Empire

[Madison,

1952]260) is not

precise:

Artavasdus was in control for a year within

the period of the first two years of Constantine's reign, i.e., between

741

and

742

or 743.

Wroth

BM II, 391)adoptedBrooks'

chronology

(742P-744?), but

also cited Lombard's (onwhichBrhier

chiefiy

relies), i.e., June ? )

741-742.

14E.g., Wroth,BMI, p.Ixxvii,and, quite recently, Grabar,op.cit., 121and

122.

16BM II,

391 (Paris)

Grabar,

op.cit.,pl. VI, 28.

This specimen weighs

i.82,f.The

following unpublished specimens have

cometo myattention:BM

acquired

since Wroth's catalogue),

1.68

gr., f;

Dumbarton

Oaks,twospeci-

mens,1.80gr.,

4 -

and

1.70

gr.,4;ANS58.231, 1.60gr., J .Philip Grierson

has

recently

informed

methatthere

are

eight specimens

in the

National

Museum

in

Warsaw: 2.20,

2.10,

2.00,

1.98,

1.75,

1.70,1.68,and 1.32.I

have been

able

to

includethese

in the

table,

p.

211,below.

The first to makethis observation,so farsIknow,wasAlineA.Boycein

A

solidus

of

Artavasdus,

ANSMN V

1952)

91-92.


5/37

BYZANTINE

MILIARESION

AND

ARABDIRHEM 193

a

year

or two ago when

Philip Grierson

17

brought

to

y

attention a specimen of ConstantineV and Leo IV at

Dumbarton

(no.

2,

below

which

revealed clear traces

of

its

having been

over

an

Arab dirhem. Here,

if

such were needed,

was

striking

of the relationship

between

the two

coinages.

Subse-

and correspondence

have resulted

in the

discovery

this is not by anymeansan isolated phenomenon.Sixteen such

are

described

in the

following

pages.

18 They

may be

s

follows:

May I take this

opportunity

toexpress my warmthanks to the manyfriends

who

havehelped mein the preparation ofthis article. Philip

was not

only

the first to

inform

me of the existenceof

this

overstrike,

of f

and on for a

period

of a

good manymonths,whether

at

Dumbarton

or in

England,

he has

patiently replied

to my

many inquiries

and has

been

and encouraging in more ways than I can say.AlfredR. Bellingermade

possible for

me to

obtain

a

cast

of the

specimen

in the

Whittemore collection

shared with

me

both his knowledge

and

his enthusiasm.

am

grateful

authorities of the Fogg

Museum

in Cambridge, Massachussets, of the

arton Oaks Research Library and Collection in Washington, and of the

Museum

in

Leningrad

for

permission

to

publish coins

in

these

lections. A. A. Bykov of the Hermitage very kindly supplied me with

of the Tolstoi specimens. Herbert A. Cahn of Basel was good

to borrowa

specimenfrom

a

European collector

and to

send

it to me

that I

could

makeaplaster-cast. John Walker of the British Museumand

Le

Rider

of the

Cabinet

des

Medailles

in

Paris kindly furnished

in-

which

I

required.Amongothers

to

whom

I am

especially indebted

or

advice and

help

are Speros Vryonis Jr., GeorgeL. Kustas and George

I

feel

that

after

all the

trouble they have taken, these kind people

be

disappointed thatnothing moresubstantial than this little article

has

but I do

want them

to

know

how

much

I

appreciate their help

and

8

Since these lines were

written

four

more specimens with clear evidence of

undertypes have come to my

attention.

Three are in the Campbell

in theUniversity ofNebraskaState

M useum,

and I am indebted to

Rev. I. C. G.Campbell for permitting me to examine the coins and to

are:C

1544,

Leo IV and Constantine VI, 23 mm.,

f , Arab annulet preserved at 5 o clock on obverse,traces ofArab

from 11:30 to 9 o clock on reverse; C1564,Constantine VI

dIrene, 21

mm.,

1.78

gr.,

f , probable traces ofArabic at 5o clockon ob-

traces

of two lines of Arabic area legend (probably

the:

2nd and 3rd

of

theobverse) from8 and 9 o clock to

i

30 and2:30 o clockonreverse;

1565,

Constantine

VI and

Irene,

22

mm.,

1.86

gr.,

f , on the

obverse

at10:30

andrunning across,the first

four

letters

of the

third

lineof theArabic

and at

6:30o clock outside

the

Byzantine triple beaded

anannulet, and on the reverseat

i

30o clocktraces of reverse mr-


6/37

194

A. N. S.

MUSEUMNOTES

Constantine

VandLeo IV: 5 specimens, overstruck on

Umayyad

dirhems of 87

H.,

98 H., 80-98 H., an

Umayyad or

Abbsid

dirhem

of

130-

139

H.,

and an

Umayyad

or

Abbsid

dirhem

ofuncertain date.

Leo IV and Constantine

VI:

5 specimens, overstruck on an Umayyad

or Abbsid dirhem

of

79-140H . ? ) ,

Abbsid dirhems of

147-157

H. and of

156H.,

and twoUmayyad or

Abbsid

dirhems.

Constantine VI and

Irene:

5 specimens, overstruck on Abbsid

dirhems

datable between 132 and

181

H.

TheophusandM ichaelIII: specirnen probably overstruck on an

Abbsid

dirhem.

In

addition

to

these, mentionismade

(p.

206)

of seven

other possible

overstrikesranging

in

datefrom

ca.

751

to

perhapss

late

s

856

A.D.

Itmay well

be

that there

are

many more such

mili resi

overstruck

on

Arab dirhems.

The number of

collections

of

Byzantine silver

that

I

have.

been

able

toexamineat first

hand

islimited.19Also one should

bear injmind thatthepresenceoftracesofArab

undertypes

mayhave

escaped the notice ofcollectorsand curators not aware ofthis pheno-

ginallegend, at 2:30to 3 o clock the word

kulli i

(part of the

same

marginal

legend),and an annulet or part of a

letter

on a double linear border surroun-

ding

the

Arab area.

To

judge

by this latter

characteristic

this

dirhem

may

perhaps beattributed to the period between

158

and 193H., or, considering

the

dates

of the Byzantine issuer, 775-797

A.D.

;

the other two cannot be more

precisely dated, but they are probably Abbsid. Another specimen was

acquired by the ANS in

December 1959

(ANS

59.232):

Leo IV and Constan-

tineVI,

2i mm.,

1.98 gr., f , tracesofArabic legend at 9o clock andpossibly

inright fieldbelowcross on obverse, traces at 3 to 4 o clock on reverse.

19

ANS, Dumbarton Oaks, the National

NumismaticM useum

in Athens (with

the kind

permission

of Mme. E. Varoucha-Christodoulopoulos), the collection

of

Dr.

John

F.

Lhotka

of

Oklahoma Citywho

was

goodenough

to

sendme his

silver for examination, and a few in the hands ofdealers in NewYork. In

September

1958Mr.

Lars

O.

Lagerqvist kindly permitted

me to

examine

the

Byzantine coins in the

Swedish

Cabinet in Stockholm. It is perhaps worthy of

note

that

in

that

collection there is not a single

mili resion

of the period in

question, although there are ofcourse thousandsofdirhems from the Viking

hoards.


7/37

BYZANTINEMILIARESIONANDARAB

DIRHEM

195

and not

sufficiently

familirwith theArab coinagetodetect

eremnantsof aletter or two of the Kuficlegends.Furthermore the

maybe suggested

that

thereexist

many

miliaresia

the

ofwhichwas sostrongly and effectively done

that

no

of the undertype

remains visible

to the

eye.

It

will

in the examples described and illustrated below

that

the Byzantine overstriking very nearly obliterates all

Arab legends,

but

enough remains

to

demonstrate beyond

any

that the original planchet was

that

of an Arabdirhem. One

orX-ray

examinations

of specimens

no

apparent Arab traces

might

reveal

differences

in

density

structure that would indicate the fact of an earlier striking.

without

interest, for it suggests

further lines

of

numismatist and physicist might collaborate to the

historian.

Thepurposeof the

present article

is

two-fold:

tolaythe

evidence

these overstrikes before students of Byzantine historyand

before

those interested

in

Arab-Byzantine

relationsand

hint

atsome implicationsandunsolved problems which relatenot

to the

overstrikes

but to the

broader question

of the

circumstan-

introductionof the newmiliaresion Let usbegin

a

detailed description

of the

overstrikes themselves.

ConstantineV and Leo IV

75i~775A.D.

Miliaresion

Tolstoi,

20

p.959,no. 49, pl. 67. 22

mm.,

1.7

gr. Two

specimens are listed under this number, but only

one

is illustrated. Tolstoi notes without

further

comment that both are struck on Arab dirhems.

The

plate,

supplemented

by the

photographs

furnish-

ed

me

by A.Bykov of the

Hermitage Museum,

showsthe followingdetails:

Obv

Between the left vertical bar of the transverse arm

of

the

cross

and 7

o'clock,...

* \

one, Allah,

J.Tolstoi, Monnaies Byzantines (St.Petersburg,1914 .


8/37

196

A. N. S.

MUSEUM NOTES

beingthemiddleand end of the firstlineof the Arab

reverse area; on the main verticalshaft of the cross,

b

jJiL

J

JXM^U ,

"the Eternal One.

He

does

not

J

L \ L j

beget and," being the second line of the Arab reverse

area;

in the

field

to therightofthecross,

jj^,

.,

"is not begotten,"beingpartof the thirdline of the

Arab reverse;at 3 to 4o'clock, ...nLiS^...,

"like,"

being

partof the fourth

line

of the

Arabreverse;

and

starting.at 10o'clockandrunning counter-clockwise,

"[Muhammad

is the

messenger] of Allah, sent

with

guidance and the

re[ligion of

truth,

tomakeitprevail over]everyother

religion,eventhoughthe

[polytheists]

may beaverse"

(Qur'n IX, 33), being the marginal legend of the

Arab reverse.

y Rev Beginningandendingat10

o clock

lX Uo4 \i

. . r T

5>L5j ~ 2 L L Juljj ^joJl, "In [the name of

Allah, th]is dirhem

was

strack

at Wsit in

[the

year] seven

and

eighty",being

the

marginal legend

of

theArab obverse. PLATEX, 3.

The year 87 H. is equivalent to 705/6A .D .ThusthisArab dirhem,

issued

under

the

Umayyad Caliph

al-WalidI, wasoverstruckby the

Byzantine mint between45 and 70years later.Wsit,21the most

prolific

of all

Umayyad mints, laymidway between al-Kfah

and

al-Basrahinsouthem

'Irq.

It was

founded

in 84 H.

(703A.D .),just

threeyears

before

thecoin underconsiderationwasstrack.Adirhem

of

Wsit dated 87 H. in the collectionof the ANS is

illustrated

in

PLATE

X,

4.

22

2 1 Thenameof themintis notlegibleinTolsto'i's

plate.

For

various

reasons,no

longer

worth recounting,

I

had

decided

that

Wsit

was probably the mint

before

Mr.

Bykov's

photograph

arrived

to confirm thisconclusion.

2 2

ANS 56.163,ex

Boyd

Coll.,28mm.,2.


9/37

BYZANTINEMILIARESIONAND

ARAB

DIRHEM 197

.

Miliaresion.

Dumbarton Oaks Collection.25mm.,2.15

gr.

Byzan-

tine dieposition:

|;

Arabdieposition:-.

Obv.

Beginning

at 5

o'clcok

and

continuing around

the

periphery,

outside the

Byzantine

marginal

inscription,

theentire reverse marginal legendof anArab

dirhem

cf. the

fll text

in the

description

of no.i

above).

Traces of reverse area legend above and to

left

of

left

arm of

cross.

Rev.

Beginning

ati o'clock and

continuing around

periphery:

u-Jj

O U

A J L .

(?)

J

?

)

..

jjJI

l

o*

^jJ, S l

LLj

In thenameofAllah,thisdirhemwasstrack

in the year eight and ninety. In portions of this

legend the lowerpartsof thelettersare obliterated.

PLATE

X, 5 (enlarged 2 diameters), 6.

The

date (98 H.

=716/7A.D.), whilevery

imperfectly

preserved,

certain,

and I

believe/, in,

can

bereadbefore

the

word year.

name, however,

is

very dubious.

Onlyoneletter

appears

to

preserved

and

even

this

may

not be a

letter

but

simply

a flaw or

Byzantineoverstrtke. If

it is aletter,it would bejim,

h

orMall three the same in

Kufic

script.At least 20mintsare

tohave issued dirhemsin theyear gS ,23and oftheseat least

5have

the

word/e, in,

beforethe

date. Amongtheselatter,

two

nameswiththeletterjlm-kh -hwithin the name

o f f

er

them-

s candidates:

Itakhr andDarabjird. If theletter is indeed

then the more likely of these two is Darabjird, fof there is too

space

before

fl for

only

one

letter

r

of Istakhr),

whereas

to beenough space toaccommodate the

ra-dal

Darabjird. This important townlayin the province ofFrs,south-

of

Shirz. Unfortunately

no

specimen

of

Darabjird,

98

H.,

is

forillustration, but adirhemofItakhrofthatyear PLATE

ll demonstrate

how

littlespace is required between thekh

JohnWalker,A

Catalogue

of theArab-Byzantine and Post-Reform Umaiyad

Catalogue

of

theMuhammadan Coinsin theBritishMuseum,Vol. II),

p.

Ix, where

19

are

listed.

To

these

should

now be added a

of Junday-SbrwhichI have recorded in the possession of a

col-

in

Casablanca.


10/37

198

A. N. S.MUSEUM NOTES

and

fl,

and why I imaginethat Darabjird is the more probable

name.24

This overstrike was issued between 34 and 59 years after the

striking

of the original coin.

3.Miliaresion. ANS

59.104 purchased). 2 2 mm ., i.88gr.Byzantine

die

position:|

Arab

die

position:f.

Obv .

Between 6 and 4:30 o'clock, part of Arab reverse

marginal legend,

jJM

3^J l....Traces

of

Arab

area legend

at

no'clock.

Rev.

Between 3 and

12

o'clock,

part

of Arab obverse

marginal legend, ending with U j i?..., ....ty

and one hundred. Probable traces of Arab area

legendat 5o'clock.

PLATEX, 8.

Itwill be noted that of the Arabic

mint-date

formula

only the

wordfor one hundred and the

last

threelettersofthedecade are

preseryed.These threeletterscouldbe thetermination of thewords

thalathna(30),

sima

(60)orthamanlna(80),but thedirhem cannot

be

later

than

159

H.

(the equivalent

of 775A.D., the

last year

of

Constantine V's

rule), and the

decade must therefore

be thirty.

Oneor twolettersappear faintlyatabout3o'clock,buttheyare not

clear enough to be deciphereds part of the mint name, the word

sanah( year )or adigit.At alleventsthedirhem must date between

130 and 139 H. (747-757

A.D.),

and thus predates the overstriking

by amaximumof 28yearsand aminimumof 3

years.

4.

MUiaresion.

Tolstoi',op.cit., 959,no. 49,another specimen.Not25

illustrated,butTolstoinotedthatthisspecimen also

was struck on an Arab planchet. 22mm.,

1.6

gr.

Obv .Faint traces ofArab reverse area legend downward

above right arm of cross. Beginning at 12 o'clock

24ANS 56.163,exBoydColl.,26

mm.,

2.54

gr.(clipped) .

25See no.

i,above.


11/37

BYZANTINE

MILIARESIONAND ARABDIRHEM

199.

and

reading

counter-clockwise

...

jjl

V . d ^ ^ ^ ...

(part

ofQur'nIX, 33).

Rev Unidentifiable

traces of Arabic legend at

right

bet-

ween2 and 5 o'clock.

PLATE X, 9.

Not enough of the

undertype

is

preserved

on

this specimen

to

enable

us to

determine

the

date. Since

the

reverse marginal legend

is

the sameonboth Umayyad and

'Abbsid

dirhems, wecannot teil

whether the

original coin

was strack before or after 750A .D .

5.M iUaresion

Hermitage

Museum,

Leningrad.

Provenanceunknown.

24mm.

Pierced.

Obv

Possible traces

of

Arabic reverse area legend

in

lower

right field

Rev At 7

o'clock

andfrom 4 to 2

o'clock, reading counter-

clockwise,

traces

of

Arab obverse marginal

legend,,

...U-J(?)ji...(?)J\,

[ thi]s [dirhem]

? )

. . . .d(?)in

the

year

PLATEXI,i.

I believe.therecan be little

doubt

about the presence of

2 L L .

J|,

in the

year. Preceding this there

may be the

letter

dal

Only

two

Umayyad mints

at

which dirhems

were

struck have names

thatend

with this

letter:

one the

rare Birmqubdh,

the

other, Darabjird.

The

latter retains the preposition

fi

in the mint-date

formulauntil

the

year

98 H. A

noteworthy characteristic

of the

epigraphy

at

arabjird

is the

sharp angle

that the

marginal legend takes after

the

preposition,

the

word

sanah

being almost

at

right angles

to the

preceding base

line.

This

feature

appears

to be

present here,

and

hence

thereis a

good

possiblitythattheoriginal coinis adirhemofDarab-

jird, struck betweentheyears 80 and 98 H.

(699-717

A .D .) .26

26See the

corpus

ofpreserved yearsinWalker,op.cit.,139-141.For the

loca-

ionofDarabjird,see p. 197,above.


12/37

200

A. N. S.

MUSEUMNOTES

Leo

IV and

C onstantine

VI

776-780

A .D .

6.

M iliaresion.

Fogg

Museum,

Cambridge,

ex

Thomas Whittemore

Coll. 22mm. , 1.89gr.

Obv.Beginning at

11130

o'clock and

extendingto

8

o'clock,

part

of

Arab obverse marginal legend, 2 L L f>l. ..

*-

j , [inMadinatal-Sa]lm,yearsix and fif [ty

and one

hundred]. Most

of the Byzantine

circular

legend

leftofthecrossis tooweakly strucktoshowover

the

Arabic words. Also,

to the

lef

t of the

left

arm of

the

cross,

V,

l being

the first

word

of the thirdline

of

the

Arab obverse area legend.

Rev.

At

10:30o'clock

and

from

4 to

o'clock, portions

of

the

Arab reverse marginal legend: 4 , . . . 4 \ .

j\\j4LT

O^JJI^s. (cf.no.i etc.). Also at

right

of

third

and

fourth

Byzantine lines, possible

traces of fcfu bakh bakh,

bravo,

bravo, beneath

Arab reverse area legend.

PLATE

XI, 2, 3

(enlarged

2

diameters).

This

dirhem was an

issue

of

Madinat al-Salm,

i. e.,

Baghdd,

struck

in the

year

156 H.

(772/3A.D. ) under

the

Caliph al-Manr,

the grandfatherof

Harun

al-Rashid. It

will

be

observed

that the

Byzantine overstrike postdates the Arab original by a maximum of

eight and a minimum of four years. An example of the

'Abbsid

undertype is illustrated in PLATE XI, 4.27 Note the words

beneath

the

reverse area.

7.Miliaresion.

Property

of a private

European collector

= ex

Mnzen

undMedaillen,

List

128 (Sept.,

1953),no. 56.

24mm.,

2.16gr.

2'

ANS, ex Wood

Coll.,

26 mm., 2.90gr./?.


13/37

BYZANTINE

MILIARESION

ANDARAB

DIRHEM 201

bv Annuletsoo at 3 and 7o'clock. Veryfainttraces of

Arab obverse area legend in lower

right

quarterof

empty field, and possibly in

lower

lef

t

quarter.

Rev

Beginning at 3 o'clock, portion of Arab reverse

marginal legend,

-d5 ^>

jJi

J

PLATEXI, 5, 6(enlarged2diameters).

In thiscase there isverylittle

clue

to the dateormint of the

original coin.

It

cannot,

of

course,

belater

than

164H.

(780A.D.) ,

thelastyear of Leo

IV's

reign. The epigraphy of the reverse raarginal

legendis not

sufficiently

distinctive to limit thedate.However, the

pairs

of

annulets

on the

obverse provide

us

with certain

restrictions

:

they

do not occur on Umayyad dirhems, thus eliminating any date

earlier than 132

H.

(750

A.D .); and an

examination

of the

trays

of

dirhems in the collectionof the ANSbetweenthe beginningof the

'Abbsid dynasty

and

164

H. revealsthatpairs of annulets

(without

alternatingsingle or triple annulets) occur only in the decade between

147

andI57-

28

Inall probabilitythen thisArabdirhemwasstruck

between these two dates, i. e., 764 and 774A.D. ; and the over-

striking therefore probably occurred not less than two years and

not

more

than16 aftertheoriginal issue.

8

Miliaresion Tolstoi', op. cit., 967, no. 9, pl.67. 25mm., 2.15gr.

Three specimensare listed under this number, but

only

one is

illustrated.

It is

assumed

that

the first

weight given is

that

of the specimen illustrated in

Tolstoi's

plate

and described

below.

Tolstoi notes,

without further comment, that all three specimens

werestruck

on

Arab dirhems.

bv

Traces of Arab marginal legend at 10 11 o'clock,

7 o'clock and 6 o'clock. Also an annulet probably

survivingfrom theoriginal dirhem borderat12o'clock.

28

At various dates in this interval at Arrn, Armlnlyah, al-Basrah,al-Muham-

madfyah,and Madinatal-Salm.There may,ofcourse,beothers.


14/37

202 A. N. S.

MU SEUM NOTES

Rev.

Traces

of

A rab area legend between

4th and

5th

lines

of

Byzantine inscription and at right angles to

it;

probable traces

of

A rab m arginal legendat 2-3o clock

and

at 9 o clock.

PLATE

XII,

i

Too

little of the Arab tmdertype is preserved, in the photograph

at least, to permit

even approximate Identification

of the

dirhem.

9.

Miliaresion.

Tolstoi', op. cit., 967,no. 9, not illustrated inTolstofs

plate.

22 mm.,1.9gr. C f. no. 8, above.

Obv.

At

7:30

to 9 o clock, several

letters

of Arab obverse

marginal legend, just possibly

[Ijstakhr....

Rev.

Traces

of

Arab reverse area

( ? )

legend

at 5o'clock,

and

possibly

at

no clock.

PLATEXII, 2 .

Theletters

preserved

on the

obverse

pf this

specimen

are unmi-

stakably Arabic and the first two

look-very

much like

sd s

or t s.

This

cofnbination would

suggest only Istakhr, and if one assumes

that

only

the

tops

of the

next

two

letters

are

preserved then

one

could

see in

them

the

tih

and

r

which follow,

making

the

word

almost complete. M y only hesitation is caused by the length of the

second

preserved element, which is longer than the

usual t

in the

mint

name (compare

the

illustrated specimen

of

thismint,

PLATE X,

7) .

The

only other possibility

(if

indeed

the

preserved letters

arepart

of

the mint name, and I cannot identify them

s

any other

part

of

the conventional Arabic legends) would be al-Basrah, but thiswould

entail readingthe second element

s

ar andthis letter never takes

an

elongated

form

at

this mint.

If,

then,

Istakhr is the

correct

reading, the original dirhem could date

s early

s79 H. (698/9 A.D.) 29

and at least slates 140 H. (757/8 A.D.).30

29Walker,op.cit., 112-114.

30H.Lavoix,Catalogue

des

M onnaies

Musulmanesde la

BibliothequeNationale

I (Paris,

1887)

489,

no. 1685. The

only

other

known

'Abbsid

dirhem

of

Istakhr

is one of 139 H. (G. C.M iles,Rare Islamic Coins, NNM 118,New

York,

1950,

p. 57, no.

221).


15/37

B Y Z A N T IN E

MILIARESIONA N DARABDIRHEM 203

10.Miliaresion.

Tolstoi, op. cit., 967, no. 9, not

illustrated

in

Tol-

stoi's

plate.24

mm .,2.1

gr. Cf. no. 8,

above.

Obv ,

Probable traces

of

Arab

m arginal

legendat

10

o'clock.

Rev.

Traces

of

Arab marginal legend

ati

o'clock

and

possibly

of

area legend

underneath the

4th line

of

theByzantine legendat the left.Thepellet between

T

and l in the 3rd

line

of the

Byzantine

inscription

may perhaps be the centering point which occurs

on

many

Arab dirhems.

PLATE

XII,

3.

Here

again

so

little

of the

original

is

'preserved

that

closer

attri-

bution cannot

beattempted.

Constantine

VI and Irene

780 797 A D

11.Miliavesion.ANS 46.51, ex H. W.Bell

Coll.

20

mm.,

1.39gr.

Byzantine

die

position:

f;

Arab

die

position:

\.

Obv .

Beginning at

11:30

and

1:30

o'clock and

running

down

upper

shaft of

cross

and

parallel

to it in field,

the beginningof the 2nd and 3rd

lines

of the Arab

obverse

area:

o Allah....

j ZV

There

is no

part[ner]

R ev

.Traces of Arab reverse marginal between 9 and

12

o'clock;

of thelinearborder enclosing the reverse

area between

8 and 12

o'clock;

and of the

reverse

area legend running across

the fieldfrom2 tonand

from

5 to 8

o'clock.

PLATE

XII, 4, 5(enlarged2

diameters).

Precise attribution of the dirhem is impossible, but judgingby the

epigraphy

o f the few

letters

both

on the

obverse

and the

reverse,

one

can

at

least

say

with reasonable confidence

that the

piece

was

'Abbsidrather

than Umayyad. Thiswould

place the

original

be-

tween

132

and 181H.

(750-797

A.D. .


16/37

204 A. N. S. MUSEUM

NOTES

12.

Miaresion

ANS 57.163, ex

Mnzen

und Medaillen,

Basel.

21mm ., i.ggr.

Byzantine

die position:f;

Arab

die

position: uncertain.

O b v.

Probable

traces

of Arab reversemarginallegend at

6:30-7

and

9-10:30 o'clock,

where

there

are

irre-

gulr depressed areas; also probable trace

of

area

legend

below

and to left of

left

arm of

cross.

Rev.

Diagonally

from 3 to 6

o'clock,

the 3rd line of the

Arab obverse area legend,

4 d j~ Y, There is

no partner

with

Hirn; and at 6

o'clock

3or 4

letters

of the

marginal legend,

possibly,....

>

jL u ,

\al di\rham bi~

'...,

this

dirhemin

PLATE

XII,6, 7 (enlarged 2diameters).

T hecharacterof theepigraphyof thethird lineof theArab obverse

is unmistakably

'Abbsid,

but

closer

attributionis

probably

out of

the

question.

As in the

case

of no.n,but

without reservation,

we

can saythatthe

original coin

was

struck between

750 and 797A.D .

13.

Miaresion

Hermitage

M useum,

Leningrad (Tolstoi

collection?).

22mm. This piece supposedly is Tolstoi,

981,

no.13,

whichTolstoi'states

is

overstruck

on an

Arab dirhem,

but the

photograph furnished

me by Mr.

Bykov

doesnot correspond with the

Illustration

in

Tolstoi's

pl.68

(see

no.

14, below).

A

note from

M r.

Bykov

accompanying

the

photograph suggests

that

Tol-

stoi's no. 13 and no. 14 were interchanged on the

plate,

but

this

would not appear to be the case.

At

all events the

specimen

here described and

illustrated is not illustrated inTolstoi's

catalogue.

O b v.

Traces of Arab obverse marginal legend between

6:30

and 5:30

o'clock;

and

possible traces

of

area

legendin field at left ofsteps.

Rev.

Crossing

the

ist

and 2nd lines of the

Byzantine

inscription

and

clearly evident between

11:30and


17/37

BYZANTINE

MILIARESIONAND

ARAB

DIRHEM 205

9130o'clock,

the

ends

of the

threelines

of the

Arab

reverse area legend:

jJjgH

J L

J and

[Jini]/'Mu-

hammad is the

messenger

of

Allah.

PLATE

XIII,i

There

is no

doubt whatever about

this

specimen's being'Abbsid,

the reverse area legend, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah,

the

Umayyad

formula

(Srah CXII)

at the

beginning

of the

period. Compare

PLATE

XI, 4, for the placement of this

One cannot, however,

limit

the datemore closely than

A D

4.M iliaresion Tolstoi,op.cit.,981, rio.

13,

pl.68.19mm.,

1.95

gr.

Cf thenote underno.

13,

above.My

illustration

is

takendirectly

from

Tolstoi'splate.

Obv

No

traces

of

Arab original.

Rev Diagonally upward

from 8

o'clock,part

of one Hne

ofArab area legend (obverseor reverse?).

PLATEXIII,2

Againthisdirhemisprobably

'Abbsid.

5.M iliaresion

Ratto Auction Catalogue,

Monnaies Byzantines

etc.,

9

Dec.

1930, no.

1776,

pl. XL. 21 mm.

Obv

In field to

right

of

cross, upside

down

and

slanting

downward

with respect to the

vertical shaft

of the

cross,theendsof the 2nd and 3rdlinesof theobverse

area of an Arab dirhem: Je He is o[ne];

A


18/37

206 A. N. S.MUSEUMNOTES

TheopMlus andM ichael III

Ca.840-842A.D.

16.M iliaresion.

ANS, ex E. T. NewellColl.23

mm., 1.66

gr. Byzan-

tine

die

position:

f;

Arab

die

position: uncertain.

Obv.

Between 7 and 9

o'clock,

outside the word

Ihs i j s ,

probable tracesofArab legend.

Rev. Between 3rd and4thlinesof Byzantine inscription,

at extreme right, portion of an Arabic ? ) letter.

PLATEXIII,4 and 5(enlarged2diameters).

The identification of

this

specimen

s

an

overstrike

on an

Arab

dirhemis not entirely certain. It is just possible that the elements

that Ihave takento beArabic

letters

on both obverseandreverse

areactuallytracesofdouble-strikingor of aByzantine

overstriking

ona Byzantine original.

Other specimensthat have come

to my

attention that

may be

overstrikes

on

Arab dirhems

are the

following:

one of

Constantine

V

i

j

and Leo IV

(Ratto,

op.

cit.,

no.

1753), possible traces

on

obversebe-

neath'fight arm of cross and at 5

o'clock;

anotherofthe same rulers in

the BMwith the possible remainsof a marbtahwitha dot over

it,son dirhems of

Istakhr

of the year 95 H.(informationof Dr.John

Walker); one of Leo IV and ConstantineVI BM , p.394, no. 7),

possible traces

on

obverse between

3 and 6

o'clock,

at 9

o'clock,

and

in lower left field; two more of Leo IVwith several probable traces

in

the collection of Dr.

John

F.Lhotka);one of Constantine VI and

Irene Ars

Classica,

auction catalogueno. XV, 2July1930,Lucerne,

no. 2074), double struck, with barely possible Arabic traces on ob-

verse

from 7 to 9o'clock, and on reverse in upper right of field

and

at 3 to 5

o'clock;

and one of

Michael

III

with Theodora

and

Thecla (842-856 A.D.), with almost certain traces on both obverse

and reverse (Dr. Lhotka's collection).

No

miliaresia

later

than thislastwith

clear

or even possible evi-

dence oftheir having been overstruckondirhems have cometo my

notice. However, toiHustratethe continuityof the dirhem

style

of

Byzantinesilver

I

show

in

PLATEXIII,6-7, miliaresia

ofBasil

and


19/37

BYZANTINE

MILIARESIONAND

ARABDIRHEM

207

Constantine,869-879 A.D. (ANS46.51, exH.W. Bell

Coll.,

26 mm .,

2^73gr.,

f , and of Leo VI and

Constantine VII,

911-912

A.D.(ANS,

exE.T. Newell

Coll.,

25mm. ,2.86

gr.,/ .

Withthis

evidencebeforeus

that

amimberof

m ili resi

of the

new

type werestruck

on

Arab planchets

let us

examine

a

little

more

closelysome of theproblems associatedwith the introduction of the

reformed

silver.

Two questions, closely related, immediately spring

tomind:were perhapsthe first

mili resi

of

this

type

ll

struck over

Arab

dirhems, and was

Artavasdus

actually the

innovator?

The

numismatic evidenceat present availabledictatesthe answerno to

the firstquestionand yes to thesecond.Of the

mili resi

ofArtavas-

dus

that

I

have examined

or

thatothers have examined

or m e,

none

appears

to be anoverstrike;

31

and there aremanyof the joint rule of

Constantine

V and Leo IV

(751

onward) whichshownovisible traces

of

Arab

undertypes.

But,

sI

have suggested,

it is

possible

thatthe

physicist'sormetallurgist'spenetrating eye mightcauseus torecon-

siderthisquestion. Obviously

I am not at the

moment

in a

position

topress

this

point.Thesecond query, however,is, Ibelieve,onewhich

merits

careful

examination

before

the answer is allowed to remain

categorically affirmative.With some hesitation and misgivings, then,

I

submit

the

following arguments against

the

accepted view that

Artavasdus

was the first tostrikethe dirhemtype of

silver.

It istruethat

s

str tegusof the Armeniakon theme Artavasdus

would doubtlesshave been familir with

the

Arab dirhem (indeed

most imperial functionaries, wherever situated, would by this time

have seenand handledthiscoin)andwould havehadcausetoadmire

its quality. Alsoonemight expect a rebel to mark hissuccessby

issuinga

coin

of

revolutionary type.

But is it

likely

thathe, an

icono-

dule,should have introduced a type of coin which, on the faceof it,

has a rigid iconoclastic appearance and which

imitates

the severe

imageless

epigraphic style

of the

Arab dirhem? Would

not

Arta-

vasdus' father-in-law,

the

great

and

iconoclastic

Leo III

(717-741),

have been

the

more probable innovator

? His

close association with

the

Arabworld throughout

his

long career

is

well known.

He is re-

31Mr.Grierson examined sevenof theeight specimensin theNational Museum

in Warsaw and

detected

notracesof

Arabic legends.


20/37

208

A. N. S.

M USEUMNOTES

ported even to have been

able

to speak Arabic.32There are

those

w ho

believe

tliathis

iconoclastic policies were promptedatleastinpariby

the

hopethatthe

destruction

ofthe iconswouldtendtobreak down

Opposition

between Moslems

and

Christians

and

thuspromote

the

subjugation

of the former to theEmpire.

33

Theissue of asilver coin

resembling the

dirhem would have been consonant with such policies.

Another

question may be put in this connection: ConstantineV

recoveredhis throne in 742 or 743, but, according to the presently

ac-

cepted view (which, to be sure, in the premises is inescapable), he

issued

no

silveruntil 751

when,in

association with

his son

Leo,

he

f

ollowedtheprecedentof thearch-enemyw ho hadusurpedhisthrone

a decade

before.

What may be the historical justification of

this

curiousperformance? And ifthere bereasonable cause to doubt its

acceptance

s a

fact

and to

propose

the alternative-that is, the

attribution of the first dirhem-type

miliaresia

to LeoIIIcan the

necessary

num ism atic

adjustmentsbe

m ade

?

Without

attempting a

complete

argumentof thecaseI may at the

moment suggest

the

following possibilities: sometime between

March

720, when Leo III associated

his-son

Constantine V with him,

and June

741,

Leo

could

have introdced the new

m iliaresion

The

occasion,

mighthave been afterLeo andConstantine had wontheir

great victory over the Arabs at Akromos

Afyn

Qara Hisr) in

739,

or,

more probably,

in

740.34

It is

conceivable

that

tribute

or

32Actually,some

of the arguments

which

I suggestherein

support

of Leo III

s

the

possible innovator

might

equally

wellbea.ppliedinfavorof

Artavasdus.

He was an

Armenian

(George

Finlay,

A History of Greece ed.Tozer,

Oxford,

1877, II, 47) and his name is

Iranian (cf.

F.

Justi,

Iranisches Namenbuch

Marburg,

1895,38-39,s. v.

Artawazdah];

anotherArtavasdus,general of the

Anatolics

in 778, also was an

Armenian

(J. B.

Bury,

Later

Roman

Empire

London & N.Y., 1889, II, 479); andstillanother person bythis

name,

the

Hetaeriarch

in

867,

spoke

Persian

(J. B.

Bury,Eastern

Roman

Empire Lon-

don, 1912, 178). Might

Artavasdus not have

beenparticularlysusceptible

to

oriental influences

? My

attention

was first drawn to the

origin

of

Artavasdus'

nameby Mr. Kenneth A.

Luther,

a graduate

Student

at

Princeton

University

and a

participant

in the ANS

Summer

Seminar in1959.

33Brhier,

op.cit., 76ff . ;

Vasiliev,

op.cit., 234, 252;Charles Diehl &Georges

Mar9ais.Histoire

du

Moyen Age Tome III

Le

Monde Oriental

de 395

1081

(Paris,

1944)

252.

34

Vasiliev,

op.

cit.,

238;

Ostrogorsky,

op.

cit.,

139; Brehier,

op.

cit.,

76-77;

Diehl & Mar$ais, op.

cit.,

252. L.

Caetani,

Chronographia Islamica

Rome,

1912

ff.)

1534. Thereis agood

deai

ofconfusion

about

thedate,

chiefly

due to


21/37

BYZANTINE

MILIARESION

AND

ARAB DIRHEM

209

booty

in the

form

of

Arab dirhems provided

a

large

supplyof

silver,

pari ofwhich was restruck

with

Byzantine dies of the new type.

Alternatively

the new

issue

might

be connected

with

Leo

III s

m rg n ytax of orafterOctober26,739,to finance therebuildingof

the

capital's walls

following the

great

earthquake,35

although

the

general concensusnow isthat the term 6iKepcrrov36referred not to

acoinbutto thetax.

Asfor thestrictlynumismaticproblem, thelegendon the reverse

of

themiliaresianowattributedto Leo IV andConstantineVI(776-

780)couldswellreferto Leo III and Constantine V. We

wouldthen

have Artavasdus

fo llowing

suit

in

741

and 742 (or

743),

a

break

in the

series

until751

(not satisfactorily explained

in any

case according

to

the attribution commonly accepted), and the resumption of the type

in or

about

thelatter year under ConstantineV and Leo IV, con-

tinuingtintil775.What then

of the

nileof

Leo IV and

Constantine

VI,

if

the

silver

formerlyattributedto

them

were assignedto Leo III and

Constantine V ? Perhaps some o f them could be attributed to the

former

pair ofrulers, some to the latter. Arethere any

differences

among the

known

specimens with

the nam es of Leo and

Constantine

in

that

order)

37

which would enable us to distinguish between two

issues? A preliminary study of the limitedbody ofmaterial at

my

disposition reveals

only

one possiblecriterion.Of 45 specimens which

contradictory

testimony in the

Arabic

sources. Cf. E. W. Brooks,

The Arabs

in

Asia Minor (641-750),

fromArabic

Sources,

inJHS XVIII

(1898)

182-

208.

For the location of

Akrolnos,

see Fr.

Taeschner,

s.v. AfynKara

Hisr

Encyclopaedia

of

Islmz (1955). There were ofcourse other

occasions

on

the Arabs

were defeated

in AsiaMinor duringthis

period,

for

example

106

and

114

H.

723/4,

724/5

and 732/3

A.D. (cf.

Caetani,op.

cit.,

1321-2,1338,1439).

Theophanes (ed. Bonn) 634-635;

Dolger,

op.cit.,37. Cf. L. Brhier, Les

de

l Empire

Byzantin (Paris,1949) 258;

Diehl

&

Mar9ais,

op.cit.,

Finlay,A History

of Greece(Oxford,1877) II, 32.

DuGange,Glossarium.... Graecitatis (Lugduni,1688), I, 637; idem.,

G los-

sarium

Latinitatis

(Basileae,1762), III,

Dissertatio,

45,ult.

7

There

is noquestion ofconfusing the miliaresiaof Leo V and his sonCon-

stantine

(813-820)or of Leo VI and ConstantineVII

(911-912)

with

those

of

Leo III or IVbecausetheirlegendsend

with

fcASIL1S R O O Q A l O h,atitle

intro-

on the

coinage

byMichael I (811-813).Cf.Vasiliev,op.cit.,268,in re-

to the probable

occasion.

Finlay

(op.

cit.,

I,

450),

on the basis of

scant

data,

once proposed assigning

the

silver

of Leo V to Leo

III,

bnt

failed totakethematterof thetitleinto consideration.


22/37

210 A. N. S.MUSEUM NOTES

Ihave examined or about whichI have data, ten have on the obverse

the misspelling

? )

hI SM S38 , and therest have I h S M S Admittedly this

aberration may simply be a die-engraver s error.

If

it is intentional

it

would

seem to be a poor way for Leo

IV s

mint-master

to have

distinguished

his coinsfrom those of LeoIII. I have no intention of

pressing the point.39 In any case, if this criterion should have any

validity, th eissues with

I h S M S

(i.e., th e majorityofthose examined)

would have to be assigned to Leo IV, because among them is the

specimen

in the

Whittemore Collection (no.

6,

above), restruck

on a

dirhem of 156

H.,

or 772/3

A . D .,

which ofcourse is long

after

the

deathof Leo III.

A n o th e r

question

that

comes

to

mind

is

that

of the

relationship,

if

any, betweenth e weight of the new miliaresion and of the dirhem.

I have no intention of entering into the complicated problem of

Byzantine metrology, even

if I

were competent

to do so.

Philip

Griersonintends shortly to publish an exhaustive study of the metro-

logyof the m iliaresion and tothis article I

shall

behappy to

refer

the

reader. Itmay, however, beuseful to set forth here such data s I

have beenable toassemble on the weJLghtsof the relevant Byzantine

and

Arab denominations.

A s

stated above,

th e

hexagram

of

Heraclius

and his immediate successors weighed about 6.5 grams. The newsilver

currency departed radically

from

its predecessor not only in design and

fabricbut in weight. The

followingtable

summarizes the metrological

datawhich I have recorded for the period from Artavasdus to Basil I.

88

ANS,

two specimens;

Tolstoi, 967,

no.

10;

Ratto Catalogue, no. 1769;

four

at Dumbarton Oaks; and three in the collection of Dr. J. F.

Lhotka.

88Closer study might result

in the

emergence

of

other

criteria. The

presence

or

absence

of

pellets

or

rosettes

after

the

reverse

legend

may

have some

signi-

ficance. I have

found

them to be lacking on all specimens with the

misspelled

word on the

obverse.

But

they

are

also lacking

on

some

of the others. As for

anyrelevance

that

die-positions might have, nosuggestive data present them-

selves, becauseof the 28

Leo-Constantine

specimens of which Iknow theposi-

tions

24 are at

12o clock

and

among

the

fourwith reverses

at 6

o clock none

has the

misspelling.

One should

perhaps

note,

however, that

the

arrangement

of the

dies

on the

coins

of

Artavasdus

and of

Constantine VLeo

IV is

irregulr

(Artavasdus: two at

12

o clock, three at 6 o clock; Constantine V-Leo IV:

twoat

12

o clock, six at 6 o clock).

Later,

i.e.,

from

Constantine VI onward,

reversesare regularly at 12o clock. In other words at the

start

the majority

are at 6

o clock, under

Leo-Constantine the

majority

are at

12

o clock, and

laterall are at 12o clock. Could the Leo-Constantine specimens at 6 o clock be

attributed to Leo III, the others to Leo IV ?


23/37

BYZANTINEMILIARESIONANDARAB

DIRHEM 211

Ruler

Artavasdus

Constantine

V

LeoIV

Leo IV Con-

stantine

VI

Constantine VI

Irene

Irene

NicephorusI

Michael

I

Leo V Con-

stantine

MichaelII

Theophilus

Dates

ca.

74 -743

751-775

776-780

780-797

797-802

802-811

811-813

813-820

820-829

829-842

Light

series

Heavy series

Michael III

Basl

842-867

867-886

Noof

Spec

*3

8

35

3i

None

None

9

ii

12

7

2.3

22

High

2.2O

2 15

2.22

2.65

2.25

2.24

2 21

2.30

3.26

2.28

2.90

Low

1.32

1.61

1.49

1-39

2 01

I 7I

I.2

1.66

2.63

1.49

2.41

ug

1.79

1.79

1.99

1-93

2.IO

1 95

2.02

2.00

3-05

1 99

2.70

Frequency

Peak

1.66-1.70

1.71-1.75

2 II 2 2040

2.16-2.20

2.11-2.15

2.01-2.05

2.11-2.15

1.91-2.00

3.06-3.15

1.91-1.95

2.71-2.85

Most,

but not

all,

of the 8th

Century

specimensareclipped;in the

9th

Century

few are.

Since

the

various

degrees of

clipping make

it

difficult to

decide which specimens should

be

eliminated,

if

any,

I

have

included all except fragmentary or badly damaged pieces. The above

table, although compiled from a rather limited body of material,

showsfairlyclearlythat from thetimeof Leo IVdownthrough the

reign ofMichaelIII (with theexceptionofpart of

Theophilus'

reign

when

there appear tohave beentwoStandards)the weightsofre-

corded specimens

(not

heavily damaged) suggest

thatthe

intended

Standard

was

somewhat

in

excess

of 2grams.

Previous

to LeoIV's

reign,

i.e.,in the

period of Artavasdus

and

Constantine

V, the

weights

are

w ell

under this

figure, but the

material

is too

scanty

to

justify

the

40Thereis alesser peakat1.86-1.90.


24/37

212

A. N. S. MUSEUM

NOTES

inference that

at the beginning the intended weight was under

2

grams. With

Basil

I andthereafteruntil

Basil

II at the beginning of

the

nth Century whenthe type changes and silver again becomes

very scarce, the weight is raised to a figure in excess of 2.70

grams.

41

As

for the

Arab dirhem

in the

period under

considerationwe

have

asufficientlylargebodyofevidencetoshowthatafter'Abd

al-Malik's

coinage

reform the intended weight was in the neighbourhood of

2.97grams, i.e., nearlyagram heavier thanthatof the

miliaresion

The pre-reform Arab-Sasanian dirhem was

still

heaviernearly

4grams.42In the followingtableIhave

assembled

somedata, largely

frommaterialin theMuseumof theAN S, whichprobably giveafairly

accurate

picture

of the

actual weight

of the

Arab dirhem during

the

period

of somewhat more than two centuries from about 651 to

865A.D .Thereader will notethe

remarkable

consistency ofweight

after the reform of 79

H./gS

A.D.

After the reignof the

Caliphal-Musta'm

theweight of the dirhem

becomesvery erratic, and to include in the above table statistics

relativeto theyears

when

al-Mu'tazz,

al-Mu'tamid,

al-Mu'tadid and

al-Muktafi occupiedthe thronein Baghdd would serve no useful

purpose,

43

For

example, under al-Mu'tazz (252-255

H./865-86g

A.D.

dirhems-rnge

in

weight

from

s

low

s

1.95

grams

to

s high s 3.70,

withan unimpressive peak somewhere between 2.86 and 2.95. With

al-Mu'tamid

(256-279 H./87O-892 A.D.

the

peak

is

again between

2.91

and 2.95, but manyspecimensweigh more than 3 grams, and

41Philip Grierson

teils

nie that his

calculations

show

that during

the first

period of the newmiliaresion thetheoreticalweightwould haveprovided

144

to the

pound,

in the

second 108

to the

pound.

42

John Walker

A Catalogue of the

Arab-Sassanian Coins,

London,

1941,

p.

cxlvii)

doesnot give aprecisefigure for the Arab-Sasaniandirhemin the

BM

cataloguebut statesth t it has an

averageweight

thatcan be put round

aboutthesamefigure s the averageth tMordtmannarrivedat byweighing

2000Sasanian

dirhems,

viz., 3.906

grams.

Unfortunately wehave, so far s

I know, no frequency table calculations for the

Sasanian

drachm (R.Gobi,

Aufbau

der Mnzprgung, Wiesbaden,

1954,

gives only durchschnittlich

3.7to 4

grams),

but it

would appear

thatthe

Arab-Sasanian

Standardwas

in-

deed nolower thanthe Sasanian.Zambaur'sarticledirhemin the firstedition

of

the

Encyclopaedia ofIslam

needs

quite

drasticrevision.

43

A

thoroughstudy

of the

rnetrology

of

thisperiod,with

due

consideration

of

thepossibilityofdifferent Standardsat

various

mints,mightbringsomeorder

out ofwhatappearsto be chaos, butthisis not theplaceforsuchaninquiry.


25/37

j renoa,

Arab-Sasanian,

31 8311/651-702A.D.

Post-Reform

Umayyad,

79-132H./698-750

A.D.

'Abbsid

Al-Saffh,132-136H./749-754 A.D.

Al-Mansr,136 158H./754-775A.D.

Al-Mahdi,

158-169

H./775-785

A.D.

Al-Hdi,169-170H./785-786A.D.

Harun al-Rashid,170-193H./786-809A.D.

Al-Amm,193-198H./8o9~8i3

A.D.

Al-Ma'mn,

198-218

H./8i3~833

A.D.

Al-Mu'tasim,218-227117833 841A.D.

Al-Wthiq,

227-2321 7841-847

A.D.

Al-Mutawakkil,

232-247H7847-86iA.D.

Al-Musta'm,248-251H./862-865A.D.

V

uj

Spec.

i45

M

29245

I246

I2346

3I

47

32

48

4447

22

47

3I

47

3049

2450

20

46

l65

rrequency

Peak

3.96-4.00

2.91-2.95

2.91-2.95

2.91-2.95

2.91-2.95

2.86-2.90

2.91-2.95

2.91-2.95

2.91-2.95

2.91-2.95

2.91-2.95

2.91-2.95

2.96-3.00

No

44 In the

collection

o f the

ANS. Clipped specimens

25 in

number)

are

exciuded. These

lat

3.03 grams withapeak between 2.71and2.75

gramsand

alesser peak between2.86and

clipping appearsin

most

casestohave been doneto conform roughly withthe lower po

45Cf. G. C.

Miles,

TheIconography ofUmayyadCoinage, Ars OrientalisIII 1959) 213

of

289

specimens

in the ANS

collection

was

calculated

at

2.8920 grams. W alker BMC

the

average weight

of

post-reform Um ayyaddirhems

in bis

catalogue

s approximately

2

46

All the

undam aged specimens

in the

ANS.

47

All the

undamaged specimens

in the A NS of the

mint

of

M adlnat al-Salm

Baghdd)

48

As the ANS has only

8,

specimens,

I

have included the undam aged specimens of the B

13).

Allmintsare included.

49 As the ANS has only 8specimens,Ihave includedthe undam aged specimensof the BM

7).A ll

mints

are

included.

80

A s the ANS has

only

7

specimens,

I

have included

the

undamaged specimens

of the B M

Allmints

a re

included.

61As the A NS has only 4 specimens, I have included the undamaged specimens of the BM

Allmints

are

included.


26/37

214

A. N. S.

MUSEUMNOTES

some

morethan4andevensmuchs5grams. The

Situation

is

equally

'chaoticunder al-Mu'tadidandal-Muktafi

(279-295 H./892-9O8

A.D.).

To

return

to the

period

ofparticular

concern

to us,the table

above

clearly demonstrates

that

from the date of 'Abd

al-Malik's

dirhem

reform in 698until

well into

the

middle

of the

gth

Centurythe

average

weight of preserved specimens

falling within

the largestfrequency

group

is

approximately 2.93 grams. If

weallowi| for lossof

weight,

52we

arrive

at anintended weightof2.97 395)grams, which

agrees precisely withthesupposed theoretical weightof the classical

Arab dirhem which

has

longbeen accepted by European

writers.

53

Actually

thistheoretical weightingramsfor the dirhemis nothing

but a figure

arrived

at by

taking

7/10of the

weight

of the

dinar

following theArab metrologists whowrotethat the weight of the

legal dirhem stood in relationship to the dinar in the ratio

7:10);

and

theweightof the dinarwascalculated empiricallyat 4.25 gramson

the basis of the average weight of a fewUmayyad and 'Abbsid

dinars

and

dinarglassweights.54Without digressing

too far it might

serve

ausefulpurposetopresent heretheresultso fsome

calculations

of

rnyown

with respect

to the weight

^ o f

the

dinar.

Addirjg

i|-% for wear to the above figures for dinars we arrive at an

intended

.weight

of

4.251

for

both

the Umayyad and the

'Abbsid

issue.

As for the

glass weights,

it

will

beobservedthatthe

weight

is

appreciably higher, 4.2301 grams without allowance

fo r

loss

of

weight.

I am notcompetentto say howmuchoneshould allowfor thelossof

weight inglasssopposedtogo ld,but if oneapplies .005%instead

of.015%

(which perhaps

is

reasonable

in

view

of therelative

hardness

ofglass)55

one arrives at the same

figure,4.251,

for the glass exagia.

52

Cf.P.Naster,

Trouvaille

de

monnaies

Carolingiennes

Zelzate,

RBN1950,

222-223.

53E.g., Zambaur (loc.cit.);Vasmer

apudF. v.

Schrtter,Wrterbuchder

Mnz-

kunde,

145;

Adolf

Grohmann,

Einfhrung und Chrestomathie zur Arabischen

Papyruskunde

(Prage,

1955)26-

s*

In

most

if not all instancesmodern writersrefer, directlyorindirectly, to

E. vonBergmann's article, Die NominalederM nzreformdesChalifen

Abdul-

melik, in

Sitzungsberichte

derphil.-hist, Cl.derkais.Akademieder Wissenschaf

ten, Wien,LXV 1870)

239

ff.

55

We recall that the

Caliph 'Abd al-Malik

is

alleged

to

have ordered

the

manufacture

of

glass weights

sglass

would

not be

susceptible

of

alteration

either

by augmentation or by diminution. Cf. G. C.

Miles,

Early

Arabic

Glass

Weights and

Stamps ANSNNM in,NewYork,1948) 2-3.


27/37

(a)

Period

Dinars

Umayyad,

77-132

H./9-749

A.D.

'Abbsid,132-21811/749-833

A.D.

Dinar Glass Weights

Weights

Umayyad Abbsid,90-194H./709~8io

A.D.

(b)

No.of

Spec.

8i

56

96

8558

(c)

Frequency

Peak

4.16-4.20

4.16-4.20

4.21-4.25

No

56Undamaged specimensin the collectionsof the ANS and the UniversityMuseum,Ph

on

deposit

at the

ANS),

not

including al-Andalus.

Cf. G. C.

Miles, Some

Early

Arab

Din

93-114, wheretheweightsof the individual specimensare givenbut nometrological obs

Ehrenkreutz, Studies

in the MonetaryHistory of

theNearEast

in the Middle

Ages,

in

Social

History of th e

Orient

II (1959),128-161,dealing with

this

and supplementary mater

the fineness, not theweight,ofdinars.

57Undamaged specimens

down

throughthe reignofal-Ma'mn,

from

thesame sources.

68

These weights

are

assembled

from

records

in my files; the

specimens

are in

many

differ

private.Weights

of

specimens

from

unreliable published sources

are

excluded.

Incidentall

and one-third dinar glass weights (not included in theabove table) are extraordinarily a

third dinar weights

16

weigh1.41grams each, and 42, orapproximately 87%, weigh betwe

Dirhem

glass weightsare notcommonand thereare notenough undamaged onesin my fil

tion

of a

frequency

table.


28/37

2i6 A. N. S.

MUSEUM

NOTES

Thesecalculations(basedonmore

material than

heretofore

and

perhaps

more scientifically

compiled) appear

to

confirm

the conventional

figure of4.25 gramsfor theweightof thedinarand of2.97forthatof

thedirhern;and the Arab metrologists do indeed seem to be correct

in their Statement

of the

weight

ratio

between

the

dinar

and the

dir-

hem

in the classical Arab period.Ingeneral alsoit may bemarked

thatthe

Arab dirhem appears

to

have been

strackwith

much greater

accuracy

than

the Byzantinemiliaresion and one mayreasonablycon-

cludethatthedirhem

normallypassedbytale,

the

m^res/owby

weight.

One would

expectthatthe Byzantine

overstrikerswould

have made

some

effort

to

reduce

the

weight

of the

Arab planchet

to

conformwith

their

own

Standard.

What

evidence

do therecorded

examples provide

?

Wefindthatall are clipped,mostof

them

severely (diameters rnge

from19

to 24 mm.);onlytwo

(nos.

2 and 8,

each

25

mm.)approximate

the

normal dirhem size. Consequently

the

weight

in every

instance

is

farbelow

the Arab Standard. The heaviest LG.G.Campbell specimen

of

Leo IV) weighs 2.20 grams; two specimens weigh2.15(nos. 2 and

8);

and the

rest

rnge between1.39 and2.1grams,inmost cases well

up

to, ifnot slightly exceeding, the

Bvzantine

average.

Ishallnot

venrare

to

draw

anyconclusions

from

all

these

figures.

One

thihgisevident,andthatisthatinintroducingthe newcointhe

Byzantineauthoritieshad no intention of having its weight approxi-

matethatof itsprototype. Whetherthere was anintendedrelation-

ship between the weights of the miliaresion and the dirhem is not

clear, although the evidence suggests

that

theformer may have been

strack at aweight approximatingtw^Wrds^ofjthe,Ara^jc^in. One

should perhaps seek an explanation which wouldtakeinto considera-

tion

a

comparison

of the

Arab

and

Byzantinegold-silver

ratios.

Here

unfortunately we are on very

difficult

ground.

Theoretically,

the

8th Century

dinar

was

worth

12

dirhems,

but we

have evidence

also

for

this periodof20:

i

22:

andeven 28:

i.

59

Themiliaresion atleast

theoretically,

appears

to

have been reckoned

at

1/12

of thesolidus.

60

The best modern summary is in Grohmann, op. cit., 190ff., based partly

on

Sauvaire's

well-known collection of source material and partly on the

testimonyof the papyri.Cf.alsoA. v.Kremer, ber das Einnahmebudget des

Abb asiden Reiches

vomJahre306 H. (pjtf-pjp),

Wien, 1887, yff .

60

Cf. A.Andreades, De la monnaieet de lapuissanced'achatdesm6taux

precieux dans l'Empire

byzantin, inByzantion I

1924)79-80.


29/37

BYZANTINEMILIARESIONAND

ARAB

DIRHEM

217

the

economic

historians can make use of these figures to

firm orreject somefiscalrelationshipbetweenthe twoneighboring

currencies. But in any case the

study

wouldnot be

conclusive

anexaminationof therelativefineness of thesilver employed

the twodenominations,andthisIhavenotattempted. Still another

is the fluctuation in the gold-silver ratio which in these

The

question

of the fineness of the

silver

suggestsone

other

field of

and ofpossibly fruitful research in connectionwith the

of the new

miliaresion. What

was the

origin

of the

bullion in the 8th and

gth

Centimes?

I canonly

somelinesof

inquiry

andhopethatother students better

than I may find them worth

pursuing.

What silver mines

Byzantine territory were being exploited ?61Did

the

Byzantines

se important silver mines in the Tauras area to the Arabs in the

hand 8th centuries, and might the scarcity of silver coinage in the

95 and the second quarter of the 8th Century be

in

part

to

such

circumstances?

62

Did the

iconoclastic

plate

and

treasures

63

serve

sasourceofcoinagemetal

f

or themiliaresion ? Oralternatively did

A cursory search would seem to indicate that literature on the subject

scanty.M.

Cary

( The SourcesofSilverfor the GreekWorld, in

Melanges

I

[Paris,1932]133-142) does

not

carry

his

studybeyond

the

Hellenistic

R. J. Forbes

(Metallurgy in

Antiquity,

Leiden,

1950)

listsmanysilver

and

mines

in Anatolia

(pp.190-192)

and in

Greece,

Macedonia,Thrace

the islands(pp.198-200),

but

makes

no

specific

mention of

Byzantine opera-

The

title

of O.

Davies'Roman Mines in Europe (Oxford, 1935)indicates

limits

of his

important

Documents

Byzantine miliaresion and Arab dirhem : some notes on their relationship / [George C. Miles]