on two coins of muzaffar ghāzī, ruler of maiyāfāriqīn (a.h. 617-642/a.d. 1220-1244) / [oleg...

7/26/2019 On two coins of Muzaffar Ghz, ruler of Maiyfriqn (A.H. 617-642/A.D. 1220-1244) / [Oleg Grabar]

1/13

ON TWO

COINS

OF

MUZAFFAR

GHZI,

RULER

OF

MAIYFRIQIN

[A.H. 6i7~642/A.D. 1220-1244]

SEE PLATE

XXIV,

1-3)

The

American N um ismatic Society

hasin its

possession

two

copper coins

of

Muzaffar

Ghzi,

the

Aiybid ruler

of

Maiy-

friqm

modern

Silvn, in the

vilayet

of

Diyarbekir,

T^urkey)

from

A.H.

617 to 642

A.D.

1220-1224),

both

of which

show

peculiarities hithertounknown so farsI candiscover to

Oriental numismatists and Mstorians. Neither of the

coins is

well preserved and it isonly through comparison of the two

thattheycan be

partly

deciphered.

No i

Obv.

Rev.

u,

Margin effaced. Dot over Restof the

inscription

firstO of **J \ Dots over0 of

UaLJUndkof

jkJ

18

mm., 1.86

gr.

PLATE

XXIV,

i

167


2/13

i68

A. N. S.

MUSEUMNOT S

No 2

Obv. Rev.

5-

[0]lkUI

-, , , T

151

Margin

effaced. w

over

j

of

Margineffaced.Lower

part

^-Lo

x j l and dot

over secondf.

of the

inscription indistinct.

20

mm ., 2.17

gr. (ex W . L. W right

Coll.)

P L A T EXXIV,2 .

The

debased epigraphy

of the

coins makes

the

reading

sometimes uncertain; however,

it

appears

that the

name

of the

Caliph-al-Musta sim

is the one

inscribed.

A

rather extensive

study of the epigraphy ofAiybid coinsof the time, in the

ANSCollection, has definitely shown that of the four

strokes

composing

the complex L* one is quite

of ten

omitted.1

It has

also shown that

the

medial

p

tends

to be

confused

with a medial

A.

At any

rate?

it is not

possible,

on

purelyepigraphical grounds,toreadal-Mustansir on either of

the

coins.

Furthermore,historicalconsider^tions

seem

to

con-

firm the

reading

wesuggest.

Another

epigraphical problem

is

posed

by the

differing

inscriptions on the obverse of both coins at the right of the

area;

the

areas themselves

are

identical. Coin

No.

i clearly

readsuUs**. The name is notfoundeither in M uzaffar

Ghzi s

kunyahor in his

variousalqb

The likeliest

hypothesis

seems

to be,

then,

that the alimahwas

inscribed around

the

area

and

that

ou.=**

must

befollowed by j and

preceded

by

1

In

particular

the

coins

of

Trnshh

IV

(unpufalished).


3/13

MUZAFFAR GHZI 169

J J V i

d\sInterpretation however cannot

applyto

coin

No.

2. The inscription

there

should probably read

[c*]ol

-?t$[j^]>

hence

the

date

641,

a

date

which corres-

ponds

with

evidence drawn from historians.

But

why this

difference

between inscriptions

one a

date,

the

other

a

name oncoinsotherwiseso similar and obviously belonging

to the same time?

It

is true ofcoursethat Aiybid mint-

rn.as.terswereseldom consistent insetting

up

their inscriptions.

But oncoinNo. 2, the top line of thereverse reads

[

jijIs]L.

Considering the position of the mint-name, the year of the

striking should follow, around the area of the reverse. In

known

examples,the appearance of the mint-name and date

on

di fferent sides

of the

coin2

is

limited

to

coins with f igures.

CoinNo. 2, beingwithoutfigure,

seems

to present an anomaly.

Is the inscription surrounding the area of the obverse some

sortof

modified

Kalimab? Is it thedateand the mint?What

theniswrittenon the reverse?Doesthecoin introducea new

formula

? The

problem remains unsolved

and

will probably

remain sountilnewcoinsof thesame typeare found.

Before

considering the historical value of these two coins, it

is important to compare them with other known coirisof

Mu?affar Ghzi.

If

weexceptagroupofcoins earlier than A.H.

3O,3coinsof the rulerof Maiyfriqm so farpublishedcan be

2

For

instance,

S.

Lane-Poole,C atalogue

of

Oriental Coins

in the

Britisb

Museum

(Lon-

don, 1879),

IV,nos.

612ff .

Thecataloguewill bereferredto sB.M.

3

H. Lavoix, Catalogue

desMonnaies Musulmanes de la

Bibliotheque Nationale (Paris,

1896),III no.

693;

Ibid.nos. 694-695,

although

not dated,

belong

to the sametype.

I. Ghalib Edhem, Monnaies Turcomanes (Constantinople,

1894),

p. 160.

Erbab-i

Merakdan

bir Zat

(Anon.), (Constantinople,1901), pp.

104-105. Markoff ,

Inventory

(StPetersbourg, 1894),p.

359,lists

two

coins

of

Muzaffar Ghzi.

One is

dated 63X,

the

other

one hasmintanddateeffaced.Thelatterisbriefly

descr ibeds

being ofanother

type. Lackoffurther descriptionforces usto leavethesetwo coins out of our

study.

E. Zambaur, Nouvelles Contributions la

Numism at ique

Orientale,

Numismatische

Zeitschrift N.F., VII (1914),

referred

to

heres

ContributionsIII ),p. 177, lists three

coins

dated

A.H.

618

and

describes

them

sof the

type

B.M.

IV,

nos. 462-463. Follow-

inghim,we mayattribute these coinsof theBritishM useumtothis earlier period.


4/13

170 A. N. S.M U S EU M NOT ES

dividedint o twocategories. The inscription of the first group

ofcoins

the majority4 has the name of an Aiybid over-

lord,generally one of the Egyptian rulers, al-Malik al-Kmil

or

al-M alik

al-Slih

Aiyb. The second group is not inscribed

with thename of any

overlord, except

the Caliph of Baghdd.

5

The inscription onthese

coins

is

simple.

Fraehn6 deciphered

the

obverse

jUAJI jv\1 alLJ and the reverse dlLJ

The

title

ofM uz affar Ghziisalways

al-malik?

in both groups

of

coins.

The two

coins

of the

AmericanNu mismatic Society

with

the title of sultnare thusof particular interest. It

should

be

notedthat

the

inscriptional arrangement

of

these coins

is

quitedifferent frorn that of all

other coins

ofM uz affar

Ghzi

except

that

describedby

Fraehn,

with which it has certain

similarities.Fraehn s coin cannot be later than A.H. 640 the

date of al-Mustansir s death. The fact

however, that

its

inscription does not inclu de the n am e of any overlord and

that,

except

for the

title

of

sultn

it is so

similar

to

that

of the

tw o coinso f the A merican N u m isma tic Society indicatesthat

Fraehn s

coin mu st have been stru ck in the

late

thirties of the

seventh Century

of the

H ijrah.

Allother

coins with

the

name

of al-M u stansir

have

the

name

of an

Aiybid overlord

in

addition

t othat of the

Caliph.

We shallsee that it is

reasonable

to assumethat,

around A.H. 640

Muzaffar

Ghzimay have

4

B.M.

IV,

nos.

464-466;

Ibid.

SuppL,p.

229,

no.

4663;

Lavoix

III, nos.

696-697;

I. Pietraszewski,Numi

Mohammedani

I (Berlin,

1843),

p. 126. Pietraszewskimentions

two coins ofM uzaffar Ghzi, both of them withunusual

inscriptions,

which may be due

to

errors

in

decipherment. Only

the

first

of the two has

ahnostcertainly

the

name

of an

overlord.

6I.

Pietraszewski, op.

cit. p,

126,

the

second coin

of

Muzaffar Ghzi; Fraehn, Nova

Supplementa (St Petersbourg, 1855), p. 92.

8Theinscription onPietraszewski s coinis original,but onecannot

trust

theauthor s

reading. P.

115,

he read OaLJI, where bis

own

drawing of the coin quite clearly

shows


5/13

MUZFFAR

GH AZ I 171

been ledto

express

his

independence,

and it is at

thattime

thathehadthe

title

osultn

inscribedon

his

coins.

J. H.

Kramers,

intheEn cyclopedia

of Islam?writesthat

the

titleisnever foundonAiybid coins.It is,however, generally

found inAiybid inscriptions.8 So fars coinsare

concerned,

Zambaur9corrects

Kramers'

Statement, saying

that

noAiy-

bidcoins bearthetitleofsultn

until

themiddleof theeighth

Century.

This

Statement, too, needs revision. Before

the

Aiybid rulersof Hisn

Kaifa

10

there

are several examples of

usage of thetitleby descendants ofSalhal-Dm.The Ameri-

can Numismatic Society has in its possession eleven un-

published coins

of

Trnshh,

the son ofal-Slih

Aiyb, ruler

ofEgyptand

Damascus

from Sha*bn647 to

Mubarram 648.

Of

these

eleven coins,

mostof

which were strack

in

Damascus,

nine bear

the

title

of sultn

(cf. PLATE XXIV,

3).

However

close

in time these coins are to those of

M u ? a ff a r

Ghzi, we

mayassumethat,withtheturmoil which swepttheNear East

at

this

timeof

almost

constant Mongol attacks andwith the

growth of Mamluk influence, the childish and depraved

Trnshh feit compelled

to

assume

a

titlewhich

had

been

s ageneral ruleavoided, oncoinsat

least,

by his fore-

fathers and cousins. - ,

7J. H.Kramers, art. Sultn.

See

Repertoire Chronologique d Epigraphie

Arabe vols.

X and XI,

passim.There

are

three

recorded inscriptions

of

Muzaffar

Ghzi,

one of

A.H.

623

(R epertoire,

X no.

3959),

one

ofA.H.624

( Ibid. ,

no.3975),onelisted

under

A.H.642(Repertoire, XI, no.4240).

All

these inscriptions givethetitleofsultnto therulerof Maiyfriqln. Al though the

problem has never been

thoroughly

studied, it would

seem

that religious scruples

prevented

Aiybid princesfromusing

the

title

on

coins.

Throughout

their history

the

Aiybids were considered s

Champions of

orthodoxy,

whether

against

Shi'ites or

against

Crusaders. However,thecaliphal authority never sanctioned their assumption

of the titleofsultn.Consideringthe traditional importance attributedto the use of

titles on coins, we may

tmderstand

their reticence in this respect. Cf. note 14.

* Zambaur, ContributionsIII, p.

179.

10Ahmed Tewhid, MonnaiesdesAyoubitesdeHisn Kaifa,

Congres

Internationalde

Numismatique

(Bruxelles,

1910).

Also

Erbab.....

pp.

109-110.

12

Numismatic

Notes


6/13

172 A.N.

S.

M U S E U M

NOTES

EarlierthanTrnshh,earlierthan

Muzaffar

Ghzi,

there

are two sets of examples of

the

title

on Aiybid coins. The

first

is a goldcoinof Salh al-Dln in the British

Museum11

and

ischaracterized

by

Lane-Pooles rare

and

unusual. 12

The

coinis

dated A . H . 583/A.D. 1187.

The

date

is

essential

to the

understanding of the

coin:

thiswas the year of Salh

al-Din's

reconquest

of Jerusalem. The event had extraordinary

reper-

cussionsthroughout

the

Moslemworld.

13And the

title

on the

coin

is like an

honorary

titleon a

commemorative

medal; it is

not

necessarily

an

attempt

by

Salh

al-Dmtoassert,

through

thiscoinage,the spiritual

significance

of his

rulership.

14

The

collections

of the

Bibliotheque

Nationale

and of the

British

Museum have

also a few coppers which probably have the

title

ofsultn.15The

paucity

pf

examples,

together

with

the

factthat

they

were all probably struck in the same year ( A . H .

587/A.D. 1191),

seemsto show

that

the experiment was not

entirely approvedof, and

that

Salh al-Dln did not dare to

continueinscribing

on

coins

a

title

he had ptherwise

more

or

lessdefinitely

appropriated.

The

second group

of

Aiybid coins bearing

the titleof

sulfn is the onewhichwassupposedbyZambaurtoshow the

suzerainty of the Seljuq house over the rulers ofSyria.16Three

11

B.M.

IV, SuppL,no.

2543.

Ibid.

Introd.,p.XVI. -

13

N.

Sobernheiin,art.

Saladin,

E l

14

Inasmuch s

he

uses

the titleOruluil

*}L.Vl

O^aLJi,

which

did not have the

same

significance

sthat

of

plain OaLJl.This

is the

title usedlater

by Mamluks.

Fatimids

used

p

> i aL

Somehow it was

more

of a laqab

which,

fo r

religious

reasons,

was not

maintained

oncoins.For a

brief discussion

of the

adoption

of thetitle

of sultan by Saladin, see M. van

Berchem,

Materiaux pour

un

Corpus

Inscriptionum

Arabicarum PremierePartie:

Egypte in M emoires

de

la

Mission rcheologiqueFrangaise

au

Caire

t. XIX

(Paris, 1903),

p.

299,

n. 4. Max van Berchem

showsthat,even

on his

inscriptions,Salh

al-D

;

ndid not

adopt

the

titles

a

rule.

It

never occurred before A.H.

583/A.D.

1187 and,afterthat date,only sporadically.

15

LavoixIII, nos.468 and490;U.M.IV,nos. 279-283.

16

Zambaur, Contributions

ala Numismatique

Orientale,

Numismatische

Zeitschrift

XXXVI(1904),

pp.81-82.

This

article

is

hereafter referred

to

s

Contributions I.


7/13

MUZAFFAR

GHZI

173

coins bear

the

name

of an

Aiybid

and of

Keykhosrev

II, the

ambitious Seljuq leader.17

The

coin

of the

Bibliotheque

Nationale

and the second coin of Zambaur were struck in

Aleppo in A.H. 638. The first coin of Zambaur was struck in

Damascus

in

A.H. 640.

It should be

noted

that, in all

these

cases, only

Keykhosrev has the titleofsultn.The Aiybid

ruler,

whether

al-Slih

Ism'ilof

Damascus

or al-Nsir

Ysuf

of

Aleppo,

isstill

al malik.

Zambaur used these three coins

and

a

text

of

Abu

al-Fid'18in

order

to

show

that,in

theirdesire

to

fight their

cousin

f rom Egypt

and his Khwrizmian mercen-

aries,the twoAiybid, rulers actually acceptedthesuzerainty

of

Keykhosrev.

And

Zambaursays:

Cette

alliance

a duetre

du

reste

fort

ephemere;

ni

les

pieces anterieures..

n i

post-

erieureSo...ne

portent

le

nom dusuzerain. 19It

may

beopen

to

doubt thatthere actually

was a

technical suzerainty

of the

SeljuqovertheAiybid princes.

Abu

al-Fid'merely relates,

in

thepassage quotedbyZambaur,thatKeykhosrev married

the

sister

of the ruler of Aleppo, while al-'AzIz hims'elf

married the

sister

of Keykhosrev. And he

adds: U J v_Ja>-j

_ > L J^MJP t>Zambaur translates:

(A

la suite de cette

alliance)

la khotba fut

faite

a Halab au nom de -,Kai-

khosraw.

20

Although

not incorrect,this translation may be

misleading.The

original does

not saythat from th non the

name of Keykhosrev was

mentioned

in the

khutbab.

The

text

simply

says

that

on

that

occasionthenameof theSeljuq ruler

17

Lavoix III,

no.

570,

with the

corrections added

by P. Casanova, pp.

559-560;

Zambaur, Contributions I, p. 8 1 ; Zambaur, ContributionsIII, p.

179.

B M

IV,

no.

340, although

Hsted by

Zambaur,

does not have the

name

of the Seljuq ruler. It

does

not

evenseem

to be an Aiyubid

coin. Lane-Poole

has

perhapsmistaken

a

M amluk

coin

for anAiybidone.

18Abu al-Fid,Kitb al Mukhtasar (Cairo,

1325),

III,

p.

170.

The

alliance

w s not

completely

unsuccessful, for

Abu

al-Fid

says that,

in 641, the

Mongols

defeated

Keykhosrev

in

spite

of the

help

he

received

from

Aleppo

(Abu al-Fid*,

III,

p.

171).

18

Contributions I, p. 82.

Contributions III,

p.

180.


8/13

174

A. N. S.

MUSEUMN O T E S

waspronounced

inthemosque,

probably

sa

mark

ofhonor

to a

distinguished ally.

Thecoinsmay not have any wider

meaning

than

that

ofrecordingan

alliance.

In

deference

to

their ally, the Aiybid rulers have used,ontheir

coins,

the

title

heuseshimself,buthave also kept their own traditional

one.

Thus

we

have seenthat

the two

instances

of the

usage

of

the

title

ofsultn beforeor in

A.H.

640 can beexplainedby refer-

ence

to

specificevents.Furthermore, while

the

laterAiybids,

al-SlikIsm* and al-Nsir

Ysuf,

used thetitleonlyfor the

ruler ofanother house than their own, Salh

al-Dm

took for

himself

what

Max van Berchem has

called

a "composite"

21

title.M uz a ff ar

Ghzi's

coinsdiffer from

Sallj

al-Dm'sand the

laterAiybids5;unlikeal Slifa.

Ism'il'sand

al-NsirYsuf's

coins,

they bear

no

nameexceptthat

of the

Caliph

and

that

of

the ruler ofMaiyfriqm; arid unlike Salh

al-Dm's

coins,

theyuse thestraight formal sultn

al malik

instead of the

compositeone

al sultn

al muslimm.In

order

to

find

an ex-

planation,and to make anapproximationof

M uz a ff a r

Ghzi's

role in thecomplexhistory of the times, we have to return to

Abual-FidJand to

other

historians.

After

the deaths of al-Kmil, ruler of Egypt, and of

al-

Ashraf,

ruler

of Damascus,

their sons, respectively al-Slih

Aiyb

and

al-Slih Ism'il, took

ovet the governments of

Egypt

andDamascus.22The old

animosity between Syria

and

Egypt revived and,

s

Zambaur says completing Casanova's

hypothesis

23

thattheSeljuq alliancewassoughtby the ruler

of Damascus

and

Aleppo against

the

Khwrizmians,

the

Khwrizmians were employed by the Egyptian ruler. Most

81M . van Berchem loc cit

22

Actually

mEgypt, another son

of

al-Kmil,al-'dil

II,

reigned

for a

short

time

after

the

death

of his father and before the returno f

al-Slihfrom .Syria.

23

In

Lavoix

III,

p.

569;

Zambaur

Contributions I, p.

81 .


9/13

MUZAFFAR GH ZI 175

Aiybidprinces took

sides;and

s Egypt formed

a large

unit,

while

Syria

wassplit

among minor dynasts,

we

generally

find

a

large number

ofsmall

princes allied against

al Slifr

Aiyb.

What

was

Muzaf fa r

Ghzi's

role

in

this

feud

? The

ruler

of

Maiyfriqm

is not veryoftenmentionedby

either

Maqrizi or

Abu

al-Fid'.The

versatile

historianof

Egypt mentions

him

once.

The

instance

is

this:

in the

year

A.H.

38/A.D.1240-1241,

a

Mongol

embassy reached

Maiyfriqm

and required the

surrender

of the

town

and the

destruction

of its

fortifications.

Timidly and cautiously Muzaf fa r Ghzi answeredthathe is

only

one of the (Aiybid) princes and

that

the town (he)

owns islittleindeed when compared to the

lands

ofRum,of

Syria and of

Egypt.

Goto the rulers of these countries, says

he to the

ambassadors

of the qakhn, and I

shall

regulate

my

conduct according

to theirs. 24 In

this case, Muzaf fa r Ghzi

appears

sa

neutral

character,

refusing

to take

sides.

In the

following

year, however, he entered into an alliance (* ; \)

with the Khwrizmians.

25

We know

from

the same authority

thatin the

preceding year

the

Khwrizmians,

who had

been

devastating the

whole

of Syria, spared the possessions of the

rulerof

Hamah

because

he was anallyof

al-Slih

Aiyb.f6We

can thus

assume

that Muzaffar Ghzi

himself

was, if not

distinctly

an ally, at

least

a friend and

supporter

of the

Egyptian house;thiscontention

is

fur ther supported

by the

fact

that

theregenerally appears on his coins the name of an

Egyptian Aiybid,

al-Kmil27

or al-Slih

Aiyb.

28

The alliance between the Khwrizmians and the ruler of

Maiyfriqm

turned

out unsuccessfully. They

were opposed

24Maqrizi Histoire

de VE gypte, tr. E. Blochet Revue

del OrientLatin

X pp.

345-346.

25 Abu al-Fid ,p. 169.

Ibid. p.

168.

27

For

instance,B.M.

IV,

no.

4663.

28For instance,

Lavoix III,

no.

697.


10/13

176

A

N S MUSEUM NOTE S

by thecombinedforcesof

Aleppo, Hirns

and

Damascus.

Such

a show of force can only be explained s evidence of the

desire,

on the

part

of the

Syrian princes,

to

eliminate

any

potential enemy

threat

on their northeastern flanks.

They

succeeded

inthattask.M u z a ff ar Ghzi and his

Khwrizmian

allies were completely'defeated

in the late part of A H

6407

A D

1242-1243. Al-Malik

al-Mansr

Ibrahim of Hirns even

succeeded in

breaking through

the

camp

of

al-Malik al-

Muzaf fa r Ghziand intaking possessionof histreasuryand of

histents. 29The

alliance

probably broke downthen, but in

642

we

find

the

Khwrizmians

again alliedto

al-Slih

Aiyb.

80

Thusacertain consistencyintheir policy seems,established.

Calledby an Egyptian rulertoplaythe part of rangers or

irregulrst' they

faithfully

accomplished it, helped by or

helpingany

ally

al-Slih Aiyb

may

have foundinSyriaand

Northern

Mesopotamia. Among

them

was the .ruler of

Maiyfriqm.

Thisis, I

think,

alikely

hypothesis

toexplainthe partplay-

ed by Muzaf fa r Ghziin thecomplex balanceofpowerof the

time. How is it connected with his assumption of the

title

of

sul^n

The twocoins described aboveundoubtedlybelong to

the periodwhichfollwedhisdefeatby the united forcesof

AleppOj

Hirns andDamascus.Al-Musta^im did not

become

Caliphbeforethemiddleof theyear,whJlethebattleoccurred

around

the monthof

Sa.far

the second monthof the Arabic

calendar. It seems paradoxical

that

Mu z a f f a r

Ghzi should

adopt thehighest

title

in the hierarchy of the time after

that

of

Caliph

immediately

followinga

crushingdefeat.

The

paradox is

further

complicated by the

addition

of the only

known

inscription ofM uzaffar Ghzi, which is added by the

editors

of the

Rtptrtoire

to the

inscriptions

of the

year A H

sAbual-Fid>, p. 171.

Ibid


11/13

MUZAFFAR

GHZI 177

642,but

which

may beearlier.31In

this

inscriptionhe iscalled,

among

other

titles,

. . thesavant , thechampionof

faith,

who

exacts

justice

for the oppressedf rom the oppressor,

thekiller of theunfaithfuland thepolytheist,

J >

Is

this

meremegalomania,possiblein a man whoearlier called

him-

self

masterof

kings

and

sultans

? 32Thehypothesis

cannot

be excluded, but, drawing on actual

events,

we can reach

another andmore likelysolution.

Muzaffar Ghzihasjust been defeated.Thealliance with

the Khwrizmians has

broken down. Because

of hisfriendship

with

the

Egyptian

house,

Muzaf far

Ghziwasprobably not

on good terms with Keykhosrev and his vassals. He was

always

threatened by a possible

Mongol

attack. We may

suppose that in order to increasehis prestige amonghis

subjects, in order to raise

himself

to the same

hierarchical

level s his

Seljuk

neighbours, Muzaf fa r Ghzi decided to

strike coins,

on

which

would

appear

the

title

those

neighbours

were using, and which he himself used in inscriptions,'and

probablyon officialdocuments.

The two coins of the AmericanNumismaticSociety bearing

thetitleof

sutfn

havethus

led

us to two interesting, however

minor, results.First,theyareanother exampleof thetitleon

Aiybid coins

before

the middleof the eighth Centuryof the

Hijrah. Statements such s that ofKramers in the

Ency

clopedia.

of

Islam cannot

be

accepted. Secondly, they throw

some

light

on the

history

of a

relatively unknown Aiybid

ruler,

whokept the

traditionaltitle

of

al malik s long s

he

wasentangled in the complex balanceofpowerof the time

5

on two coins of muzaffar ghāzī, ruler of maiyāfāriqīn (a.h. 617-642/a.d. 1220-1244) / [oleg...

Documents