ORIENTAL NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

Spring 1994 ONS News New and Recent Publications

The following books are available from Taisei Stamps & Coins (HK) Ltd, UG 45-47, Wing On Plaza, 62 Mody Road, T.S.T. Kowloon, Hong Kong: Vi. Vil. Vill. ix.

An Overview of China’s Gold and Silver Coins of Past Ages - The Gold and Silver Coins and Medals of Modern China. Chief Editor:

Dong Wenchao. 1993. 872pp, hardcover. Many photographs and rubbings. From the reign of the Qing emperor Qian Long to 1949. In Chinese and English. HK$ 430; US$ 72. Xinjiang Numismatics. Compiled by the Xinjiang Numismatic Society, 1991. 280pp, hardcover. From the Han dynasty to 1949. 680

colour photographs. In Chinese & English. HK$ 480; US$ 78. Illustrated Catalogue of Chinese Gold & Silver Coins, by Lin Gwoming. 1992. 304pp, softcover. 959 photographs, market valuations.

$HK$ 115; US$ 23.$ Illustrated Catalogue of Chinese Sycee, compiled by Shensi Numismatic Society, 1991. 512pp, hardcover. Photographs of 1500 silver

sycees from the Yuan dynasty to 1933. In Chinese. HK$ 300; US$ 55. Illustrated Catalogue of Chinese Ancient Coins, compiled by Ding Fu Bao, 1992. 520pp, hardcover. Reprinted from Ding Fu Bao’s

original manuscript. Over 1000 annotations by Ma Tingxiang. In Chinese. HK$ 100; US$ 29. Chinese Amulets, by Yu Liuliang, Hsu Yuan, Gu Jiangfong and Zhang Zhencai, 1992. 510pp, hardcover. Rubbings of 2200 amulets.

In Chinese. HK$ 120; US$ 32. Chinese Outstanding Historical Figures Commemorative Coin-Series Pictorial. Chief Editor Gong Qingdong. 1992. 208pp, hardcover.

Brief biographies of the 38 famous people featured on the coin series that began in 1984. In Chinese & English. Colour illustrations throughout. HK$ 300; US$ 55. China’s Commemorative Coins in Circulation 1984-1993. Chief Editor: Shen Jiaju.,مم52‎ softcover. Colour photographs. In Chinese

& English. HK$ 30; US$ 11. Illustrated Catalogue of Hong Kong Currency, by Ma Tak Wo. 80pp, softcover. Colour photographs. HK$ 70; US$ 17.

Information from the International Numismatic Newsletter, Autumn 1993: i. il.

Gobl, Donum Burns - Die Kushanmiinzen des Bernischen Historischen Museum und die Kushanchronologie, Vienna, Verlag

Fassbinder, 1993. OS 1380; DM 198. Actas III Jarique de numismatica hispano-drabe, 1992 (ed. J. I. Saenz-Diez), Madrid - Museo Casa de la Moneda, 406pp. ISBN 84- 606- 12767. ili. | La producci6n y circulacién de moneda en “‘Sharq al-Andalus” durante las primeras Taifas (VI Encuentro de Estudios numismiaticos),

Barcelona, 1992. 178pp. Ptas 1000. iv. - Davidovich - Korpus zolotyh i serebrjanyh monet Shabanidov [Corpus of Shaybanid gold & silver coinage, 16th century], Moscow, 1992. 504pp, 56 plates, 22 tables.

- Hattori - Khulba 4-5: The studies on the Islamic coinages in Central Asia, Kyoto 1992. vi. S.A. Khan - Nomenclature, Origin and History of Coins of Indo-Pakistan sub-continent. Islamabad, 1992. 114pp. vii. The Legendary Kijang. Bank Negara Malaysia, Money Museum. viii. - Althoff - Sammlung Kohler-Osbahr, II, I. Vormiinzliche Zahlungsmittel und Aussergewohnliche Geldformen aus Annam, Korea

und Japan. Duisburg, Kultur und Stadthistorisches Museum, 1993.

Available from the Indian Books Centre, 40/5 Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110 007, India: i Amel Kumar Jha - A Catalogue of the coins of Katoch Rulers of Kangra. 1991, 116pp. US$ 30. ii. - P. Sinha - Twilight of the Imperial Guptas. Delhi, 1993. 346pp. US$ 40. iii.

Ajit K. Dasgupta - A History of Indian Economic Thought. London, 1993. 206pp. US$ 120. iv. William Knighton - The History of Ceylon. ISBN 8107030-381-8. US$ 24.

N. Mukherjee - Coins & Currency Systems of Post-Gupta Bengal (c. AD 500-700), 1993. 73pp. US$ 13.33 vi.

Jhunu Bagchi - The History and Culture of the Palas of Bengal and Bihar (c. 750-1200AD), 1993. 176pp. US$ 20..

1. V. Rtveladze, Numizmatika Uzbekistana. Akademiya Nauk Uzbekskoi SSR, Muzei istorii narodov uzbekistana im. M. T. Aibeka. Tashkent, 1990. Includes:- - - A. Pugachenkova, “Tashkentskaya shkola sredneaziatskoi numizmatiki” ii. - B. Zeimal, “Iz istorii kollektsii drevnikh sredneaziatskikh monet b muzeinikh sobraniyakh uzbekistana” iii. | A. Musakaeva, “Antichnie i rannesrednebekovie moneti muzeya istorii narodov uzbekistana” iv. Sh. P. Pidaev, “Monetnie nakhodki iz mirzakultepa” (Heliocles, Soter Megas, Kushan) (8 - V. Rtveladza, “Podrazhaniya kushanskim monetam” vi. B.D. Kochnev, “Klad monet bukharkhudatskovo tipa iz muankalya” vii. 0. Alimov, ‘Kashkadarinskii klad” (Samanid, Umayyad, Abbasid, only the latter important) viii. - Alieva, “Materiali k katalogu monet timura, chekanennikh b gorodakh zapadnovo irana i azerbaidzhana”’ (Timurid) ix. | L. Shpeneva, “Klad mednikh monet kontsa XV-nachala XVI v. iz tashkentskoi oblasti” (anonymous 2 from Central Asian mints;

several new mint names) - - T. Tukhtiev, “Cerebryanie moneti vostochnovo turkestana kontsa XIX-nachala XX v.”

Melita Historia vol. XI, no. 1, 1992 (appeared 1994), contains two items of interest:

bi Helen W Brown - The Coins of Muslim Malta, pp.1-18. Describes Muslim coins in public and private collections in Malta, and

attempts to reconstruct a large gold hoard, found in 1698 and now dispersed. ii. - J. Luttrell - Mdina Hoard of Muslim Coins: 1698. pp19-25. This minutely describes the finding and subsequent dispersal of a hoard of several thousand gold dinars.

Numismatics International Bulletin, vol. 29, no. 2 (February 1994) contains an item by Kenneth M MacKenzie - Tophane to Darphane: An

American’s Experience at the Ottoman Imperial Mint.

TA NOMIZMATIKA XPONIKA Numismatic Chronicles, Volumes 12, 1993, published by the Hellenic Numismatic Society, Athens,

contains two articles of interest to ONS members: page 45: The Agiasos Hoard by Hans Wilski (Description of a coin hoard found in the church of Agiasos/Lesbos with 251 countermarked Ottoman copper coins)

_ page 67: A bilingual souvenir medal commemorating the re-establishment of the constitution in Turkey 1908, by Kenneth M

MacKenzie. Both articles are written in English and in Greek.

Spink Numismatic Circular, vol. CI], no. 2 (March 1994) includes an article by Samuel Lachman entitled “The supposed mint of al- Hudayda’.
Volume 16 (1992) of the Numismatic Digest has been published by the Indian Institute of Research in Numismatic Studies, Nasik. This

edition has 250 pages and costs US$ 25. Previous volumes are available at US$ 20 each. Cheques should be drawn in favour of the Institute payable at the State Bank of India, Trimbakeshwar Branch or any bank in Bombay. The Institute has also published a four page Newsletter called IIRNS Newsline.

Work in Progress - Dr V. Novak (Naprstek Museum of Asian… cultures, Prague): Sasanian coins in European coin hoards.

ive - A. Bartczack (Cracow University): Arab dirhems in Polish hoards of the 9-10th centuries. iii. | A. Canto and T. Ibrahim (Museo Casa de la Moneda, Madrid): Catalogue of the Arab coin collection. iv. Bank Negara Malaysia Money Museum: A book on Johore coins. Scott Semans (Seattle, USA) is preparing catalogues of Thailand gambling tokens and Chinese amulets. Other News

The American Numismatic Society is running two seminars of interest to ONS members:

May 14th 1994 - Michael L. Bates, “Collecting Islamic Coins”. June 4th 1994 - Michael L. Bates, “Arab-Byzantine Coinage”.

This year the Royal Numismatic Society, London, has made three £400 grants from the Nicholas Lowick Memorial Fund for the

Promotion of Oriental Numismatic Research. The recipients are Prof. Devendra Handa for work on the tribal issues of ancient South India; Dr. E. V. Zeymal, Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, for research on the coinage of ancient Sogdia; and Warren C. Schultz, doctoral candidate at Chicago University, for his investigation of the monetary system of the Bahri Mamluks of Egypt and Syria.

The British Museum and the Royal Numismatic Society symposium now entitled ‘The application of scientific methods for investigating

coins & coinage’ will be held in the British Museum, London, from 22 to 24 September 1994. Keynote papers will be by invitation but short papers (10-15 minutes) may be given by participants. For details contact Miss Havercroft, Dept. of Conservation, British Museum, London

WCIB 3DG.

To mark the 300th anniversary of the Bank of England a colloquium on current research into the history of paper money and banking will

be held at the British Museum on 19-20 May 1994. The museum is also mounting a special temporary exhibition, “Beauty and the Banknote: Images of Women on Paper Money” from 17 May to 18 September 1994 in Gallery 69a. The display will be accompanied by an illustrated book of the same title. Contact: Virginia Hewitt at the Department of Coins and Medals.

The inaugural meeting of ICOMON, The International Committee for Money and Banking Museums, will be held at the Bank of England Museum, London on 21 May 1994.

Lists Received

Stephen Album: List 104 (February 1994) and 105 (March 1994). 2. Persic Gallery (P O Box 10317, Torrance, CA 90505, USA), list no. 34 of Islamic, Indian, Bactrian & Central Asian coinages. 3. Monica Tye (…), List 10.

Auction News - The Taisei-Baldwin auction in Singapore (2! February 1994) contained a wealth of oriental material. Of particular interest in the Indian

section were a gold mohur of Shah Jehan I of Aurangabad mint (AH 1048), a mohur of the same ruler of Balkh (year 20 - cf the coin published in ONS Newsletter 136), a mohur of Aurangzeb of Machhlipatan (AH 1105, year 37), a half pagoda of Aurangzeb of Nasirabad (AH 1102) and a broad flan mohur of Rafi’-ud-Darjat of Dar-ul-Khilafat Shahjehanabad (AH 1131, year 1). Book Reviews

Osmund Bopearachchi’s catalogue of Indo-Greek/Graeco-Bactrian coins The heirs of Alexander’s empire in the east, the Seleucids, lost their eastern-most province, Bactria-Sogdiana, about 250 BC following a

revolt of its satrap Diodotos, who declared himself independent king of this new Graeco-Bactrian kingdom. About 100 years of progressive expansion passed before first Sogdiana and then Bactria were overrun buy nomadic invaders, prominently among them the Yuezhi. With Heliocles’ death in 130 BC only land south of the Hindu Kush was still in the hand of the Greek kings (now called Indo-Greeks), but the further advance of the nomadic aggressors was irresistible: bastion by bastion the Greeks had to give up until with the final occupation of the western Punjab by the Indo-Scythian ruler Azes around 55 BC only a small Greek province in the eastern Punjab survived until the beginning of the Christian era.

Coins generally play an important role in the reconstruction of historical events. In the case of Indo-Greek/Graeco-Bactrian coins this is especially true because of the scarcity of explanatory ancient literary passages and archaeological data. Therefore each publication of fresh material is welcome. It is however for many more reasons that Osmund Bopearachchi’s “Monnaies Gréco-Bactriennes et Indo-Greques”, Paris 1991, deserves special attention. The author presents a detailed in-depth study of the hitherto unpublished, highly important collection of the Cabinet des Médailles, Paris, comprising as many as 1227 specimens of the series. Moreover he mentions nearly all the published coins and the unpublished ones as far as he has studied them from museum and private collections all over the world. The intention was to

bring together as many specimens as possible covering all different types with all known monograms. In each case the author indicates the

number of known specimens with reference to the respective collection. The excellent 69 photographic plates illustrate all specimens in the Cabinet des Médailles and selectively important pieces from other sources. While the coins from outside the Paris collection are just mentioned by number of known specimens and provenance, the description of the 1227 specimens of the Cabinet des Médailles is impressively comprehensive and precise including details frequently neglected by former cataloguers: weight, dimension, axes-orientation, iconography, legends and legend arrangement, provenance, metal, inventory number, reference to earlier publications, form of the planchet, overstrikes (indicating the succession of reigns), monograms and associations of monograms with find-spots (helping to determine the boundaries of a ruler’s territory).

In addition to the collection of the Cabinet des Médailles in Paris, Bopearachchi personally examined that of the British Museum in London, of the Musée Guimet in Paris, The Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, the American Numismatic Society in New York, the Staatliche Museen in Berlin, the Smithsonian Institution in Washington and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, as well as some very important personal collections, those of Harry Fowler in New York and of Adrian Hollis in Oxford. Among the publications used, the most relevant certainly are M. Mitchiner’s volumes 1-4 of “Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian Coinage’, London 1975, comprising the British Museum -, the Ashmolean Museum -, and some private collections including Mitchiner’s personal one. In spite of some errors and sometimes very speculative historical reconstructions and monogram interpretations Mitchiner’s work retains its high value in presenting a well done survey of the British Museum collection with excellent photographic plates. Further publications now more or less of historical value are Gardner’s and Lahiri’s catalogues as well as the historical reconstructions of Cunningham, Tarn and Narain. But as many of the specimens from the Indian Museum collection in Calcutta, published by V. A. Smith in 1906, and of the Lahore collection, published by Whitehead in 1914, are

not included in later catalogues, Bopearachchi incorporates them also, as well as the items of some smaller, already published collections: those of the Danish National Museum in Copenhagen, of the State Museum Lucknow, of the National Museum Athens, of the Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum Budapest and of the National Museum of Georgia in Tbilisi. To all these specimens the author adds those from hoards and excavations: hoard coins from Ai-Khanoum, Boukhara, Qunduz, Mir Zakah and coins from archaeological sites like Ai-Khanoum and Taxila. The excavations conducted by French archaeologists in the 70s have brought to light a considerable amount of historically important

material. It is of great benefit that Bopearachchi has also included this fresh material with an explanation of the conclusions that can be drawn from it. The excavations of Ai-Khanoum were interrupted by the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Having mentioned the different sources (collections, publications, excavations, dealers’ lists and auction catalogues) from which the catalogue specimens have been gathered, Bopearachchi marks each of them with an abbreviation; he explains the way and the criteria by which the coins are described in the catalogue part with special emphasis on the importance of the monograms. The interpretation of the various monograms is certainly one of the most important, but also most controversely discussed questions. Counting together all hitherto proposed monograms one reaches a figure of more than 550. By systematically examining more than 10,000 coins of the series, Bopearachchi detected that many monogram varieties in fact are mere misreadings: many cataloguers had drawn monograms as they had

seen them, without realising that the presumed variety was based only on corrosion or wear. By eliminating all these incorrect readings the author reduced the total number to 298 and by further exclusion of posthumous emissions to about 250 (see O. Bopearachchi’s ‘A new approach to the history of the Greeks in Bactria and India’, to be published soon). This great number obviously does not represent 250 different minting authorities in the Graeco-Bactrian/Indo-Greek realm. In discussing the problem Bopearachchi connects the results of scholars like A. D. H. Bivar and R. Curiel with special emphasis on the phenomenon of die-links, which Curiel had worked out so clearly in his presentation of the famous Qunduz hoard: coins struck from identical obverse dies show reverses with different monograms, which are however connected by a common principal form. Systematically working out these observations Bopearachchi proposes a system of about

15 monogram-‘ families’, each of them mostly characterised by the shape of a Greek letter. Subordinated to these main monograms are a multitude of varieties, interpreted as marks of subordinated ‘officinae’ attached to the main mints, which are represented by the main monograms. Further die-studies could support this interpretation.

A lot of guesswork has been done in the past with reference to the attribution of certain monograms to certain localities - a typical example is to connect the Greek letter shape with a city name beginning with just this letter or to take it as an initial of the mint-master. Bopearachchi concentrates on the importance of coin provenances gathering and evaluating this information systematically: from the Charles Masson collection, that of Marc le Berre, of Joseph Hackin and of various excavation and hoard coins. The result is the attribution of a few monograms to certain localities, which can be taken to be highly convincing: Ris connected with Mir Zakah NX with Taxila and 2 with

the Kabul region (probably Begram). With the support of new archaeological data and numismatic evidence we should be able, in the future, to enlarge this small nucleus of knowledge thus completing the monogram puzzle little by little. It is informative in this context to learn that the greater part of the Paris collection comes from “the regions comprising Begram in the North, Kandahar in the west and Gardez in the south.” Knowing this, it is not surprising that the coinage of the rulers of Taxila and the eastern Punjab are only scarcely represented in the Cabinet des Médailles in contrast to the British Museum, which made its acquisitions mostly in ancient Gandhara and the Punjab.

The next chapter consists of a convincing historical reconstruction combined with a numismatic discussion developed in a chronological order, ruler by ruler. Discussing and testing the validity of arguments brought forward by other scholars, Bopearachchi either adheres to an established hypothesis or draws his own conclusions. Only a few cases may be mentioned here, where Bopearachchi’s results clarify former controversies or differ from former research, partly because of fresh considerations, partly because of new material. The discovery of the Attic tetradrachm with a portrait of Apollodotus I and a seated Athena reverse type is a definite proof for the existence of two kings with this same name. Regarding the Demetrios coinage the author follows the hypothesis of three homonymous kings: Demetrios I, attic coins with

the elephant scalp portrait, ruling 200-190 BC and firstly crossing the Hindu Kush; Demetrios II is regarded as the legal king against whom

the usurper Eukratides I revolted ca. 170 BC and whose coinage is characterised by the standing Athena reverse type; and the bilingual coinage of Demetrios Aniketos obviously belongs to a third ruler of this name, whom Bopearachchi places around 100 BC, basing his argument particularly on the legend arrangement on his coins, which is of a kind first introduced by Menander (155-130 BC).

Concerning the Eukratides coinage, the author allocates it to two different sovereigns, the famous Eukratides I (170-145 BC) with his Dioscuri on horseback emblem and a short-lived Eukratides II (145-140 BC) with standing Apollo reverse type. Together with several other arguments Bopearachchi presents a number of overstrikes over Strato I/Agathokleia, Strato I and Antialkidas, which lead him to place a Heliokles II around 110-100 BC with a bilingual coinage, in contrast to the monolingual attic coinage of the parricide Heliokles I. The thesis that Eukratides I and Menander had been contemporaries was already proposed by Rapson, Tarn and Bivar (“The sequence of Menander’s drachms, JRAS 1970, pp.123-36). Bopearachchi shares this view making both men bitter rivals. Based on monogram and legend comparisons, as well as on literary evidence, he describes Eukratides as winner of the conflict forcing Menander to withdraw to the southern periphery of the realm. Only after Eukratides’ death was Menander able to regain his lost territories.

We know that after Eukratides’ death by the hands of his son Heliokles I, the Bactrian kingdom was shaken by a political crisis and nomadic invaders from the north used this weakness to gain control. Around 130 BC the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom was a thing of the past. The nomadic conquerors imitated the coins of Eukratides I (mostly in Sogdiana) and of Heliokles I (in Bactria) and it would have been desirable if Bopearachchi had incorporated these imitations too, as he has done with the post-Hermaios coins. Hermaios (90-70 BC) was the last Greek king of Kabul and with his death this region also fell to the nomadic rulers who intensively copied his coinage. It is another merit of the author to have clearly distinguished between the Hermaios and the post-Hermaios issues in his catalogue.

With Hermaios’ death the Greek dominions were restricted to Taxila and the eastern Punjab. Around 55 BC the Greek rule of Taxila ended under Hippostratos, when the mighty Indo-Scythian king Azes made himself master of the region and it was only in the eastern Punjab, in the Sagala region, that a small Greek remnant survived for a few more decades. It is the history and coinage of these late kings of Sagala, which Bopearachchi treats with particular devotion. Contrary to the opinion of Narain, other numismatists like Jenkins, MacDowall

and Cribb have provided arguments for the existence of a Greek enclave in the eastern Punjab until the first years of the Christian era. It is another achievement of Bopearachchi to have convincingly supported this hypothesis in the light of new evidence. On the basis of find-spots

_ and differences in the artistic execution of coin designs and portraits he attributes some monograms to the western Punjab (good style) and others to the eastern Punjab (inferior style) and sets them in relation to the monograms of the Indo-Scythian conquerors. Further valuable information is drawn from hoard evidence (Akhnoor, Sialkot, Punjab I, II, III). In conclusion Strato II (ruling together with his son) is taken

to be the last Indo-Greek king being extinguished by the Indo-Scythian satrap Rajuvula ca. 10-20 AD.

Another numismatist, R. C. Senior, has modified this view somewhat. Hoard analysis, legend and portrait studies bring him to the conviction that the late Strato coinage is more complicated and that not Strato II but possibly a Strato IV was the last Indo-Greek ruler. Senior takes the old portrait with the simple legend ‘Great king Strato’ as belonging to Strato II, the very old portraits also but together with his son, as the legend now tells us. Then Senior presents a new type (ONS Newsletter no. 138) with a mature bust and Greek legend ‘Great king, the father-loving Strato’. This ‘father-loving Strato’ in the reverse Kharosthi inscription is however placed in such a way (bottom line, reserved for the king’s name) that one must assume that Strato Philopator in fact is the name of this Strato III, obviously ruling after his father’s death. And finally we have the series with the portrait of a young man with simple legend ‘Great king, Strato’, considered by Senior

as Strato IV, son of Strato III, and it was this Strato IV whom he takes to have been overthrown by Rajuvula.

Finally the historic-numismatic comments are followed by the extensive catalogue part with its above-mentioned unusually precise and comprehensive coin descriptions. A rich index section with helpful references is devoted to each ruler in alphabetical order, to the different coin designs, to the legends, to the monograms and to the persons and institutions from which the Cabinet des Médailles made its acquisitions. Valuable tables concerning the Kharosthi alphabet, the genealogy and the monogram-pattern as well as instructive geographical maps follow and a photographic part comprising 69 excellent plates round off this masterpiece.

Best of all, the author’s efforts to enlarge the corpus continue and the revised edition, in English, probably coming out in 1994/95, will also contain important collections from the former Soviet Union (Moscow, Leningrad, Tashkent and Samarkand), Pakistan (Lahore and Taxila) and India (New Delhi, Mathura, Calcutta, Lucknow, Allahabad and Bombay) as well as some more private collections. Even if at the

moment the language barrier might constitute a problem - the book is written in French - this publication has established itself in the short time since its publication as the new reference work of the series. Dr. Wilfried Pieper

A Cumulative Index to Spink’s Numismatic Circular, 1892-1992. Volumes 1 to 100. Complied by D. I. Greenhalgh. Spink & Son Ltd., 1993. 994 pages. Casebound. Price £50.

Indices are useful for practically any type of technical or informative work, it could be said that they are indispensable, but this one is of particular use to the numismatist/coin collector, especially if he happens to possess the full run of Spink’s Numismatic Circular or has access

to them. It is essentially a valuable reference for anybody doing numismatic research on practically any numismatic subject in English. There are nine separate sections:

Generalities. Covering 173 pages the subjects range, in alphabetical order, from auctions to touchpieces. Ancient. Mainly indexing Greek and Roman but also covering items on Indo-Greek, Sassanian, Aksumite etc.

Medieval and Modern. Starting with the Byzantine series but, for the orientalist, there are 22 pages listing numerous items specifically on Asiatic and Middle Eastern coinage in which the names of ONS members figure prominently. Earlier writers noted include such worthies

as H. Garside, H. T. Grogan, Oliver Codrington, H. A. Ramsden and L. Forrer. Artefacts other than coins. This section deals with a host of numismatic-related items such as badges, medals and seals but also includes countermarks and tokens.

Productions. Items dealing with mints, productions, designs, patterns etc. Material. Bullion, metallurgy etc. Treasure Trove. Author index.

Index by volume. Each of the main index headings given above have a detailed list of sub-headings (pages iii-v) and it is certainly not difficult to locate a specific title, subject or author.

Spink’s Numismatic Circular has been the vehicle for a tremendous amount of numismatic information and opinion for the past 100 years and it is very satisfying to see this accumulated data finally sorted, tabulated, indexed and cross-indexed in one comprehensive work which is easy to use.

Criticism must be minimal. Errors seem to be few but this reviewer has only really examined critically some parts dealing with orientalia. For instance, what is “‘Tabora 15 rupees, 1916’ doing under Asia - India - Specific - Indo-European. It is also difficult to understand why, under Medieval and Modern, items on Africa are indexed under the sub-heading European - Africa - General, when there are separate headings for Australia, America, Asia.

The compiler should be congratulated on producing such a comprehensive index to a series of items, articles and correspondence which mainly have been unavailable to numismatists for very many years. KW

Malhaz, an Ottoman Camp Mint in the Yemen Dick Nauta, Khartoum, Sudan.

“Then arrived… from the Sublime Porte as Governor over the blessed province of the Yemen the noble Destur, the General of repute, the Wazir Bahram Pasha ibn Mustafa Pasha… He arrived in the year 977… He liked to stay near Dhamar and there he set up his tents. His camp was not far from there, in the direction of the Lower Yemen

at a place called Malhaz. He was encamped there for nearly five years: he extended justice, accomplished good deeds and brought peace and security… In Malhaz he struck the blessed coin, which remains with the local population to this day and is known as the ‘Malhaziyya’.”*

Thus wrote Qadi Shams ad-Din ‘Abdu-s-Samad al-Mawza’i al-Yamani! during the first half of the eleventh century Hijri, i.e. about fifty years after the event described, and at a time when the Zaydi Imam al-Mu’ayyad bi-llah Muhammed bin al-Qasim was successfully ousting the remnants of Ottoman troops from the Yemen and establishing indigenous Yemeni rule throughout the greater part of the country.

This is the fourth article in a series on the Ottoman copper coins from mints in the Yemen published in the ONS Newsletter. Earlier contributions in this series dealt with the copper coins of Zabid (issue number 137), al-Mokha (no. 138), and Kawkaban and Sa’dah (no. 139).

A further article on the Ottoman copper coi ns of San’a’ should complement this series in due course. These articles are based largely on the study of material in my own collection, and do not claim to be exhaustive. Rather, they should be seen as an attempt to present this coinage in its historical context while at the same time establishing an information baseline from which further to pursue the study of this most interesting coinage in a more structured manner than could hitherto be done.

INTRODUCTION The episode of the Ottomans being encamped in the Yemen highlands below Dhamar in a place called Malhaz was not only recorded by AIlMawza’i? but has been attested from at least another two historical manuscripts,? all of which mention that a mint was established in that semi-permanent camp. It was only in 1988 that the first coins from this mint came to light in San’a’ and were identified as such.

It is quite possible that other contemporary descriptions concerning Malhaz exist with more information than what has come to us via alMawza’i. Few of the manuscripts of Yemeni (Arabic) and Ottoman (Turkish and Arabic) origin dealing with this period have been studied in depth, and very little of that has been made available in translation. A good overview of existing source material, its authors, its chronology and its analysis and availability has been provided by Blackburn.’

An exhaustive study regarding the subject ‘Malhaz’ would possibly give us the clues to a number of queries that surround Malhaz and its coinage.

Al-Mawza’i tells us that Bahram Pasha moved from Dhamar to establish his army camp at Malhaz, and further, that he built there i.a. baths, mosques and multi-storey buildings (‘amarat’), in other words, it must have become a sizeable township for its time. Why would he have gone to all this trouble when he could have lived in Dhamar, which was an established town dating from pre-Islamic times? Dhamar had always been an ‘open town’, i.e. without walls or gates. A well organised army as the Ottoman force must then have been, could easily have been garrisoned there. And why strike coins in Malhaz and not in Dhamar, which in earlier days had already been a mint town? And why has Malhaz disappeared, its memory gone, vanished from the map so that to the present day we do not know its exact location, despite the urban development which, according to al-Mawza’i, took place there? He tells us that Malhaz was situated a little distance from Dhamar towards the ‘Lower Yemen’. Dhamar lies in the highland plains of Qa’ Balasan at an average altitude of 2,400 meters above sea level, surrounded by a number of even higher rock outcrops which were fortified and used to guard Dhamar from Himyarite times to the present. Dhamar is about 90 km due south of San’a’ (three day-marches), and the ‘Lower Yemen’ is nowhere really near. Geographically speaking the shortest distance to lower areas is due west, where the highlands drop precipitously into a deeply cut-out wadi system with extremely steep sides. Both Wadi Rima’ and Wadi Zabid find their origin in this dissected highland area to the west of Dhamar. But these dramatic landscapes of precipitous escarpments, deep valleys and rugged mountains are still a considerable distance away from Dhamar, a day’s march or more. Would one have called that ‘a little distance from Dhamar’?°

Despite the fact that Dhamar was never a fortified town, it has always held a key position on the south-north route to San’a’ (see map). Why did not Bahram hold the town and control the traffic and trade? Why instead, did he ‘camp’ some distance away?

Dhamar too was the nearest sizeable town due west of the strategically important Jabal al-Lissi or Jabal Kibrit. This dome-shaped volcano was a source of sulphur which, as an essential component of gun powder, had caused the Ottomans to build a fortress surrounding

the crater on its summit in order to deny the Yemenis access to the ‘kibrit’ or sulphur, or probably just as much, to ensure their own access to this important raw material.®

Apparently, Bahram Pasha used his encampment at Malhaz as a base for operations as far afield as San’a’ to the north, and probably similar distances in other directions in order to subdue the Yemenis and establish Ottoman rule as widely as he could. Al-Mawza’i writes that he did so with justice and even-handedness; this author according to Blackburn’ was an orthodox Sunnite Qadi and thus strongly antiZaydi, which might amount to a pro-Ottoman slant to his writings. Al-Mawza’i states that after Bahram Pasha’s arrival in 977 he stayed in a camp called Haud al-Ashraf (now part of Ta’izz town) for about four months, after which he moved to the Higher Yemen where he liked to stay in Dhamar. How long he stayed in Dhamar is not mentioned. From here he moved a little distance in the direction of Lower Yemen where he established the army camp in a place called Malhaz and established the buildings as mentioned above. Here he stayed for five years. The next date mentioned in the narrative is then 982, when the arrival of Mustafa Pasha as governor of the Yemen is announced and, it may be assumed, Bahram Pasha departed.® After this there is no more mention of Malhaz.

Further study of historical source material will show us what else there is to be known about Malhaz, its army camp, its location and its coins.

THE COINS The coins from Malhaz which have come to my notice so far are all copper coins, seven in number, of the same type, with a number of (minor) variations within the type.

Two of the coins (nos. 1 and 2) are shown in the photos, whereas the drawings give a clear idea of their epigraphical aspects. Details regarding weights and dimensions are shown in the table below. The coins belong to what I have termed ‘thick’ coins, i.e. with a diameter/thickness ratio of less than 10, more usually 5-7. Such coins are common for a number of Yemen mints from about 975 onwards, probably in keeping with practices at the Misr mint at that time.

Photo 1. Obverse and reverse, Malhaz coin no. 1. Photo 2. Obverse and reverse, Malhaz coin no. 2.

PLANCHETS As can be seen from the weights and dimensions, these are big copper coins, struck from crude planchets, with coarse design features and lettering in thick lines, enclosed on both obverse and reverse in a broad edge circle. This is in most coins only partly visible. Even though the coins were comparatively large, the dies used were even bigger. Poor centring of the dies and insufficient flattening of the planchet in many cases resulted in rather imperfect and mostly shallow strikes.

The planchets were crudely fashioned, probably from lumps chopped from a round copper bar. They received their final shape in the process of striking as is testified by the rounded, bulging edges and horizontal compression creases and radial cracks that can be discerned along the rims of some of the coins. The metal of the coins appears to be pure copper.

Table showing details of weights (grams) and dimensions (mm) of seven copper coins of Malhaz

Coin No. Weight Diameter Thickness Obverse Reverse & Owner* Max Min Max Min type** type*** 1 (N) 12.99 22.0 4.3 3.8 I a

2 (N) 20.0 L722 5.6 5.4 IV

3 (G) 13.01 22.0 20.8 4.8 4.4 II a 4(G) 12.87 22.0 19.5 5.0 5.0 Ill? 12.105 21.0 19.0 4.8 3.5 II a 6 (C) 13.243 23.0 20.0 3.0 3.0 Ill b 7(W) 12.156 22.0 21.0 4.0 4.0 Il a Average 12.67 21.9 19.9 4.5 4.1 Note: * a - author’s collection; b - collection of Mr Paul de Groot c - collector in Germany d - collection of Dr Hans Wilski see fig. 1. +. See fig,’ 2:

OBVERSE All coins show a simple hexagram, drawn in bold lines over the full surface of the obverse. Three internal ‘diagonals’ form a ‘star’ in the central hexagon. Round dots fill the six external triangles formed between the points of the hexagram and the edge-circle. The sides of the two main triangles that form the hexagon are mostly slightly concave.

From the drawings of four reconstructed, different hexagrams (fig. 1), it is clear that the arrangement and shape of the three ‘diagonals’ (or six inner ‘spokes’) may vary appreciably. It is not believed however that these variants have any meaning that would warrant a division into subtypes. They should probably be regarded as ‘graphic licence’ on the part of the die-cutters. Observing and recording these differences however may be important in enabling the identification of Malhaz coins by their obverse, in cases where the reverse cannot be properly read.

The use of the hexagram on Ottoman copper coins throughout the realm has been extensively documented by Olcer.? The hexagram, in different variants, is also common in many of the ‘thin’ Ottoman copper coins from Zabid, San’a’, Kaukaban, Sa’dah and possibly other mints in the Yemen.!° However, the particular arrangement with diagonals or spokes in the central hexagon as found on the Malhaz coins have not been reported in literature on Ottoman copper coins and may probably be considered peculiar to Malhaz.

Fig. 1. Four different types of obverses as encountered on the copper coins of Malhaz. Types III and I’V are closely related variants. REVERSE As regards the reverses of these coins (fig. 2), their plain lettering is immediately obvious. It covers the total surface of the reverse and reads from the top downwards: ‘malhaz al-mihras fi 974’ (fig. 2a) enclosed in a plain edge-circle. No further ornamentation such as a circle of pellets has been found on these coins. a b Cc

Fig. 2. Three different variants of reverses as found on the copper coins of Malhaz. In most coins the reverses have been incompletely struck, and distinction of types is as yet inadequate. Coins 1, 3, 5 and 7 appear to be all of one type; coin 6 might constitute a different type.

The coin of which the reverse is presented in Fig. 2a (7) has not been seen by myself. Despite its seemingly quite different reading as shown in the drawing it might yet prove to be of the same type as that shown in fig. 2 al, hence it has been tentatively included in this group. Further comparative studies will be needed to ascertain whether 2a, b and c are simply die-variants or different designs/types. The reverse of coin 4 is incomplete and impossible to attribute to any of the variants shown.

The omission from these coins, which have a large surface area, of the word ‘duriba - ضري‎ “ (‘it was struck’), is surprising. This word is a feature that is characteristic of virtually all (Ottoman) coins. From what is visible, it appears to have been left out of the design of most of these coins, possibly with the exception of coin 2 (fig. 2c). Although poorly preserved, this latter coin would seem to be of a different reverse design which may include this word “duriba’. Here, too, further comparisons of available material might throw more light on the differences in design of the epigraphy of these coins.

THE MINT The mint name actually consists of two words: Malhaz al-Mihras. It is also possible to read it as al-Mihras Malhaz, with apparently little difference in meaning, but the former mode seems to be preferred. From the manuscript of al-Mawza’i it would appear that the Ottoman army camp was established in ‘a place called Malhaz’, i.e. the place already had this name. If this is correct, the name may be considered of Yemeni origin.

The meaning of ‘Malhaz’ is not directly clear. The word goes back to the root consonants |-h-z which convey a sense of ‘to watch, to

regard, to observe carefully’. The morphology of the word with the prefix ‘ma-‘ could indicate a function of ‘place’, thus giving it the meaning of ‘vantage point’ or ‘look out’. The word as such however is only listed in two dictionaries. ‘! The meaning of the word ‘mihras’ goes back to the well-known root consonants h-r-s which convey a sense of to guard, to protect. This word, which apparently is now obsolete, in old Yemeni Arabic has the meaning of ‘guard house, block house, a small fortified place’.’* This would seem to agree well with the situation of Malhaz as a semi-permanent army encampment. In this context the word might signify the actual building in which the minting operations were taking place.

Whether or not the mint in question was a movable camp mint, as described by Olcer!> or whether it was a more permanent, though probably improvised set-up is unknown. I tend to think it was the latter, as a mobile camp as used in the Balkan campaign of Mustafa II required considerable extra preparations, equipment and material and financial outlay. This would probably have been recorded in some of

the annals. Moreover, five years of residence at Malhaz would point to a semi-permanent and not a mobile mint. DATE The coins have been dated with the year of accession of Sultan Selim 11, 974/1566. For copper coins this is rather unusual. Often they have

no date, or if they have, the date is more usually the actual year of minting. In this case it is clear from the written historical sources that these coins of Malhaz with the date 974 were actually not minted before 977. Whether or not they were minted over a longer period of several years with the same year 974 is not clear. Those with readable dates all show 974 with the ‘Persian’ 4= ع‎

METROLOGY	From the details of the weights and the sizes of the seven coins, as listed in the table, it is clear that these coins of Malhaz show a remarkable	uniformity for their period. This is in strong contrast to the wide range of weights and sizes encountered within types of other Ottoman	copper coins from the Yemen.’4
Though statistically the average of the weights of a sample of seven coins may not be very meaningful, it is all there is that we can go by.	Accepting therefore that the calculated average weight is 12.67g, a simple comparison of weights reveal that deviations from the average are	on the whole within limits of a few percent, the heaviest coin being 4.49% heavier, the lightest being 4.46% lighter than the average. The	remaining coins are very close to the average. For this type of coinage these would seem very acceptable standards of accuracy.
The seven coins listed here are all considerably heavier than Ottoman copper coins reported in literature for the period covering the	reigns of Sultan Suleyman I up to and including Murad III, i.e. from 926 to 1003. One notable exception I have found is a coin of 974, Misr,	weighing 17.29g.’5 Most other copper coins listed by e.g. Olger or Jem Sultan are within the 4-6 grams range, with only a few exceeding this	weight.!¢

Though statistically the average of the weights of a sample of seven coins may not be very meaningful, it is all there is that we can go by. Accepting therefore that the calculated average weight is 12.67g, a simple comparison of weights reveal that deviations from the average are on the whole within limits of a few percent, the heaviest coin being 4.49% heavier, the lightest being 4.46% lighter than the average. The remaining coins are very close to the average. For this type of coinage these would seem very acceptable standards of accuracy.

The seven coins listed here are all considerably heavier than Ottoman copper coins reported in literature for the period covering the reigns of Sultan Suleyman I up to and including Murad III, i.e. from 926 to 1003. One notable exception I have found is a coin of 974, Misr, weighing 17.29g.’5 Most other copper coins listed by e.g. Olger or Jem Sultan are within the 4-6 grams range, with only a few exceeding this weight.!¢

The study of the metrology of the Ottoman copper coinage of the Yemen should be closely tied to the metrology of its silver coinage. A comprehensive study of this important subject has yet to be undertaken. However, a comparison of some of the data of the malhaz coins with available information on other coins may give us some preliminary ideas of relationships between such coins.!’7

From my earlier articles on Ottoman copper coins of the Yemen, it is clear that either too few specimens of a type are available or that

the range of weights within a given type of copper coinage is such that no deductions as to metrology can as yet be made. The range of weights of coins of a given mint and type present a universum within which it has so far been impossible to define even the coarsest subdivisions according to weight. No groups at coins within certain weight limits can be distinguished, that could possibly represent a certain value or denomination. ‘*

Yet, when considering the higher weight limits of the ‘thick’ copper coins of a number of Yemen mints!” it becomes apparent that for the heavier coins (of the ‘thick’ type) these are all at just over 6 grams. (Mukha: 6.3g; San’a’: 6.7g; Kawkaban: 6.4g; Sa’ dah: 6.7g). These thick coppers in so far dated, all show years from 974 onward.

From the table above it appears that the average weight of the seven Malhaz coins is around 12.7g. Thus the heaviest coins of the other Yemen mints mentioned here are approximately half the weight of the Malhaz coins.

When looking at the actual weight in contemporary terms, the ‘dirhem’, being 3.2g, is the most obvious weight to consider for comparison purposes.” This would mean that the Malhaz coins come up to a weight of almost exactly 4 dirhems of copper, and the heavier of the coins of the other mints mentioned above to about 2 dirhems. Olger?! states that 535 akces of three karats (0.6g) each were struck from 100 dirhams weight (320.7) of silver. He then continues: “If four mangirs [Anatolian coppers] were struck from one dirhem of copper, 32 were equivalent to one akce.”?* This sentence gives us the rate of value between copper and silver, viz.: 8 dirhems (25.66g) of copper were equivalent to one silver akce which itself was the unit of account and variable as to its silver value. For the period however we may take it at 0.6g of silver, which means that the rate of value between silver and copper was about 1:43 on a weight basis.

The Malhaz copper coins weighing 4 dirhem would therefore represent the value of half a silver akce. Two of them would equal one akce, the unit of account. Similarly, we may now assume that the heavier specimens of the ‘thick’ copper coins of the other mints (Mukha, San’a’, Kawkaban and Sa’dah) each were struck to the value of a quarter akce, hence four of these coppers would make up the value of one akce. Akces are very small silver coins; fractions of an akce are not known to have been produced as silver coins. Hence copper coins took on that function.

All this assumes that the Anatolian weights and values had gained currency in the far off Yemen territories to the extent that these were readily recognised as such.*? If we accept that this is correct, the Malhaz coins may have given us a first clue to the metrology of the later Ottoman copper coinage of the Yemen. In how far this would also hold for the earlier Ottoman copper coinage of the Yemen is yet to be seen.

TERMINOLOGY The historical texts do not come up with a monetary term for the coin struck in Malhaz. All along we have assumed that it is the copper coin that is referred to by al-Mawza’i. Copper coins were known in the Ottoman Empire as ‘mangir’, ‘pul’ or ‘fils’ and in the Yemen probably under different names. All we know is that the coin was popularly called ‘al-Malhaziyya’.

HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE	In the above text considerable attention has been paid to the heavy copper coins of Malhaz, but we do not know so far whether this Ottoman	camp mint has not also issued coins of other denominations or even in silver or gold. Al-Mawza’i does not give us any details of these coins	and does not mention the metal in which they were struck. He merely mentions the fact that “In Malhaz he struck the blessed coin, which	remains with the local population to this day and is known as the ‘Malhaziyya’.”
From this simple statement we may deduce some facts. The coin was obviously rather special to merit attention, to acquire a name of its	own and to continue with that name as an accepted currency for at least half a century and presumably over a large area, because it is thought	that al-Mawza’i was writing his history while resident in Taiz. Assuming that the mint at Malhaz may also have struck smaller coppers or	silver akce, would these have acquired a special name or status? That is unlikely, because such coins were current and known from a number	of other mints in the Yemen and would hardly have attracted that author’s attention.
So it must have been a special coin, and the coin under discussion is that. Unlike other copper coins it had a direct relation to the silver	coinage of the realm. Two of these would make one akce. And akces were not common at the time when these Malhaziyya were struck. As a	matter of fact, I am not aware of any silver coins, akce or medin, struck in the Yemen during the reign of Sultan Selim II (974-982) and we	may assume therefore that the ‘Malhaziyya’ was struck to that standard to replace silver coinage, which for reasons unknown, but most	probably scarcity of silver, could not عط‎ 4

From this simple statement we may deduce some facts. The coin was obviously rather special to merit attention, to acquire a name of its own and to continue with that name as an accepted currency for at least half a century and presumably over a large area, because it is thought that al-Mawza’i was writing his history while resident in Taiz. Assuming that the mint at Malhaz may also have struck smaller coppers or silver akce, would these have acquired a special name or status? That is unlikely, because such coins were current and known from a number of other mints in the Yemen and would hardly have attracted that author’s attention.

So it must have been a special coin, and the coin under discussion is that. Unlike other copper coins it had a direct relation to the silver coinage of the realm. Two of these would make one akce. And akces were not common at the time when these Malhaziyya were struck. As a matter of fact, I am not aware of any silver coins, akce or medin, struck in the Yemen during the reign of Sultan Selim II (974-982) and we may assume therefore that the ‘Malhaziyya’ was struck to that standard to replace silver coinage, which for reasons unknown, but most probably scarcity of silver, could not عط‎ 4

Why then were these coins minted in this obscure place Malhaz, whereas they could have been minted in any or all of the other known Ottoman mints? Malhaz being the (temporary) seat of government, and, we may assume, being the principal Ottoman army camp of the day, was in need of money. If an army camp is in need of money to the extent that it will strike its own coins, it proves that there is insufficient flow of cash, which means one of two things: the camp is encircled, besieged for a long period by enemies and cut off from normal trade and commerce or other sources of finance. In the case of Malhaz, this is not borne out by al-Mawza’i’s story. The other, more likely reason may have been that the surrounding countryside was no longer yielding any revenues” to speak of, so that, in order to pay the troops, Bahram Pasha would have to find alternative sources for cash.2© Obviously, silver was scarce throughout this period, and gold was probably altogether absent, so copper would have to make do. This must have been a very unpopular move with the soldiers in the camp, who, no doubt were accustomed to receive their pay in silver akces or medins.”’ The only way this measure could possibly be made palatable was to ensure that the relation of the copper coins to the value of the silver akce would be absolutely clear.

Copper must have been available in some quantity in the form of many kitchen utensils such as cauldrons in which food was prepared for the troops. More copper objects could probably be requisitioned from nearby towns and villages. It is also quite possible that a supply of raw copper could be obtained through Aden from trade with East African ports such as Kilwa (present southern Tanzania), which exported copper from the African interior from early times onwards.

Now the minting of copper coins to the value of one silver akce might have resulted in large and heavy (25-26g) coins, unacceptable to people accustomed to small coins. Moreover, such coins might have proven difficult to produce. Thus copper coins were struck to the value of half an akce.

These coins are interesting because they represent a rare Ottoman army camp issue, comparable in status, if not in value, to the coinage minted by Sultan Mustafa II during his last European campaign in 1106/1694.?8 This is however not their only claim to interest. These coins probably also represent an emergency issue in copper, that took the place of a regular silver issue.*? This fact might also explain why this copper issue was, like silver coins, dated to the year of accession of Sultan Selim II and not dated e.g. 977 or 978.

Another fact that might be deduced from the statement by al-Mawza’i, is that the Malhaz copper coins represented real money, and not a kind of shadow money, or a parallel currency as in the Anatolian territories, introduced there largely for the purposes of tax-farming.*? With this practice, the copper coinage was demonetised every three years or so, and new coins issued to enable the new incumbent of the tax concession to reap his harvest in silver.

No doubt its large size and its solid weight caused people to have confidence in this coin. So it would appear that the coin which is the subject of this article is indeed “‘as-Sikkah al-mubarakah al-Malhaziyyah”, the blessed coin, the Malhaziyya, mentioned by al-Mawza’i.

Much of what has been written in the last part of this article admittedly is conjectural. Further studies of the available contemporary sources by persons better equipped than I would lead to a fuller understanding of the history surrounding Malhaz, and might shed more light on the significance of this interesting coinage and in doing so would increase our understanding of Yemen Ottoman numismatics in general.

I would be very interested to hear of other Malhaz coins that may be present in private or public collections. Details about such coins may increase our knowledge and understanding of the Ottoman coinage of the Yemen.

to Sa ‘dah

Central Highlands south of San’a’, with tentative X location of ٠ Kawkaban 5 himarmer Malhaz just south of Dhamar in the centre and Jabal al-Lissi to the east of Dhamar. Historically important towns are indicated. Arrows show routes to - - other significant Ottoman-held towns and mints. @ 5 ana

Nislah

Pass 2600m.

e Dawran ie iad eHamminm اذ‎

Dhamiare {@) Jabal al-Lissi Malhex “ا‎ Radia’e

e Yarim

Sumarah

Pass 200m. e Hammam

Damt

to Zabid ts و‎ Ibb lo Dolan

“sp Afeftoths Jiblan وت ه/‎ 80 Yo مى‎ km. Zo A Zz NOTES General notes:

The years of the Islamic and Christian calendars are shown without the usual abbreviations. Since the period under discussion falls mainly in the 10th century Hijri or the 16th century AD, it is assumed that the years will be understood from the context. Where thought relevant, the rough equivalent AD year follows that of the Islamic (Hijri, H.) era, separated by a slash.

The name Malhaz in Arabic is spelled - In this article the dots under the letters h and z to indicate resp. ‘ha’ and ‘za’ in transcription have been omitted for typographic reasons.

I am indebted to many persons who made it possible for this article to be written. Their help is acknowledged in the text or in the notes; in particular I wish to mention here collectors Mr Paul de Groot, who already in 1988 made available his two Malhaz coins to me for study, Dr Hans Wilski and another, anonymous collector who recently made available information on the Malhaz coins in their collections. I also wish to thank Mr Ronald Kon of Leiden University for finding and sending me copies of a number of essential references not available to me in Khartoum, which enabled me to give more substance to this article. I am also indebted to him for assisting with the translation of the introductory quote, and for his stimulating interest in ‘the matter Malhaz’.

Al-Hibshi, Abdallah Mohammed (Ed.), Dukhil al-‘Uthmaniin al-awal ila-l-Yaman. Al-musamma: al-Ihsan fi dukhil mamlakat al-Yaman taht zill ‘adalat al ‘Uthman. San’a’, 1986. An annotated edition of the three known manuscript versions of this work by al-Qadi Shams ad-Din ‘Abu-s-Samad bin Isma’il bin ‘Abdu-s-Samad al-Mawza’i al-Yamani; written during the reign of the Ottoman Sultan Othman II (1027-31/1618-22) under the second part of the title quoted here. The title translates as follows: “The first Ottoman invasion of the Yemen, that is to say, the good deeds performed on the invasion of the Yemeni Kingdom under the auspices of justice of the Ottomans”. 2. Iam indebted to Popp et al. who first brought the above reference to ‘Malhaz’ to my notice in their article (p.258, table 4) that helped me in identifying the mint name. Popp V., G.-R. Puin and H. Wilski: “Ottoman Coins of the Yemen”, in A Festschrift presented to Ibrahim Artuk on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Turkish Numismatic Society. Istanbul, 1988, pp.251-62.
These other manuscripts are the following and quoted here according to their listing in Ayman Fu’ad Sayyid’s Sources de l’Histoire du Yémen a l’époque Musulmane, Cairo, 19..: page numbers below refer to the listing of authors and titles of manuscripts in this book. (The reference to al Mawza’i (note 1 above) is on p.225).

Mohammed bin Yahya al-Mutayyab al-Hanafi (died Zabid 990/1582): Bulugh al-maram fi tarikh dawlat mawlana Bahram. (p. 212 and 213).

‘Abd Allah bin Salah ad-Din bin Da’ud bin Da’ ir (alive in 1020/1611): al-Futihat al-murddiyya ft-l-jihat al-yamaniyya. (p.222). The relevant part in the latter source, in preliminary translation reads: “His [Bahram’s] place of residence was on the sloping terrain of Dhamar; that camp became a town with buildings… this place was called Malhaz, and that name was engraved on the Sultan’s coins” (translation: Ronald Kon). I am indebted to the friendly co-operation of Ustadh Abdallah Mohammed al-Hibshi, of San’a’, historian and prolific author of works on Yemen history, for pointing out references to Malhaz in these two manuscripts, and for providing me with copies of the relevant pages and also for helping me in trying to find (without success) modern references to a place of that name. 4. Blackburn, J.R., ‘Arabic and Turkish source materials for the early history of Ottoman Yemen, 945/1538 - 976/1568’, in Studies in the History of Arabia, Volume I, Sources for the History of Arabia, Part 2, 1977, pp.197-210. Hereafter referred to as ‘sources’. The same author elaborates on the earlier article in extensive notes on sources and authors in his: ‘The Ottoman Penetration of Yemen, an annotated translation of Ozdemiir Bey’s Fethname for the conquest of San’a’ in Rajab, 954/ August, 1547’, in Archivum Ottomanicum VI, 1980, pp.55-100. Hereafter referred to as ‘penetration’.

Wilson says of the texts of ‘al-Futuhat al-Muradiyya (note 3 above) and ‘al-Ihsan fi Dukhul’ (note 1 above) that “the information given in these texts tells

us that Malhaz is outside Dhamar, a short distance to the south, and on a hill. These hints alone are rather more precise than you could often hope to find: a site on a hill a short distance to the south of Dhamar.” Personal communication, R.T.O. Wilson, 1990. This description would place Malhaz roughly on the location of what is known as ‘Qarn Dhamar’ (Horn of Dhamar), a village along the main road to the south, built partly on top of, and surrounding, a basalt rock outcrop, now being encroached upon by the outskirts of expanding Dhamar.

Serjeant R.B. and R. Lewcock (Eds), San’a’, an Arabian Islamic City. London, World of Islam Festival Trust, 1982. P.73b, note 39, which refers i.a. to a ‘muhimme’ of 975/1565-66 stating that by that date the Yemen was producing a good quality gunpowder. This is probably the same ‘miihimme’ which Salih Ozbaran refers to in his article: ‘The importance of the Turkish archives for the history of Arabia in the sixteenth century (with particular reference to the Beylerbeyliks of the Yemen and Lahsa), in: Studies in the History of Arabia, Volume I:;’Sources for the History of Arabia’, part 2, 1977,.م‎ 106 and note 16. - R. Blackburn (op.cit. ‘sources’, p.203), states the importance of the ‘miihimme’ documents that give information on a great many different items, amongst which is “… the annual supply of gunpowder from Yemen to Egypt…”! Gunpowder from the Yemen was thus not only of local importance and safeguarding the supply of one of its basic raw materials takes on another dimension. Incidentally, the sulphur of Jabal al-Lissi is not found in the fortified crater on top, but in crevices and caves with hot springs situated in the lower slopes of the mountain. 7. Blackburn (op.cit. ‘penetration’, p.62 and note 20). Ibn Da’ ir, the author of ‘al-Futuhat al-Muradiyya’, likewise a pro-Ottoman observer, in contrast to alMawza’i, hints at considerable bloodshed accompanying Bahram Pasha’s settling at Malhaz. 8. Lachman, Samuel, ‘The Numismatics of the Yemen of the 10th/16th Century.’ Part 1, in: Spink’s Numismatic Circular, May 1992, p.114, Ottoman Beys and Pashas. Here the dates for Bahram Pasha’s tour of duty in the Yemen are given exactly as Dhi’l-Hijja 977 - 12 Dhu’l-Qa’dah 983, i.e. not 982. His successor as listed here is Kucuyu Murad Pasha and not Mustafa Pasha as al-Mawza’i has it.
Olger, Ciineyt: Nakisli Osmanli Mangirlari (‘The Ornamental Copper Coinage of the Ottoman Empire’), Istanbul, 1975. Many examples of hexagrams used in designs can be found throughout. See also Nuri Pere: Osmanlilarda Madeni Paralar (‘Coins of the Ottoman Empire’), Istanbul, 1968. Following plate 88, there is a series of 8 unnumbered plates showing some of the principal designs of Ottoman copper coins in sequence from the earliest Sultans up to and including Sultan Mahmoud II, i.e. from the 14th to the early 19th century (Baghdad and Tarablus Gharb copper coins), where this design feature may be encountered.
Nauta, Dick: ‘A survey of the Ottoman coinage of the Yemen.’ Presentation paper for the Turkish Numismatic Society (TND) Symposium, November 1993. To be published by TND. In this paper most of the known copper coins of Ottoman Yemen are briefly described and shown in drawings.

11. The word ‘Malhaz’ appears to be unknown in present-day Arabic. The only dictionary that mentions this word in its own right is E. W. Lane’s Arabic

English Lexicon, vol. Il, the Islamic Texts Society, Cambridge, p.2653c where ‘malhaz(un)’ خزه‎ ce is given a meaning synonymous with ‘lahz(un)’ which is ‘e.g. something or a place at which one looks from the outer angle of the eye’. jo Another mention of ‘Malhaz’ is in Moshe Piamenta’s Dictionary of Post-Classical Yemeni Arabic, Brill, Leiden, 1990. Part 2, p.446. He mentions it however as the place name from which the noun ‘al-Malhaziyya’ (i.e. the popular local name for the coins under discussion) is derived, and not as a word with a meaning in its own right.

In R. Dozy, Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes, Tome second. Leiden, 1881, pp.518b-519a the word ‘malhaz’ is not found. Although assumed to be a noun of place of pure Arabic derivation, the name Malhaz is not found with the article ‘al-‘ as one might have expected. This omission of the article is not, as in the case of (al-)Mukha or (al-)Hudaydah a matter of Ottoman-Turkish usage, but is consistently used that way by Arab authors of the three manuscripts mentioned (notes 1 and 3 above).

The word ‘al-mihras’ is no longer common in modern Arabic. Its meaning is given by Piamenta (op.cit. note 11) part 1, pp.88-89 as ‘residence of guard in

the basement’ [presumably of the large town houses such as in Old San’a’ where the ground floor was used for stabling animals and storing produce etc. but usually not for normal habitation.]

Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon does not list this word, but Dozy in his Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes first volume, p.270a gives the meaning as: ‘une enceinte fermée de murs et assez grande pour loger une petite garnison, ou les 26165 musulmans se réunissaient pour faire la guerre aux non-musulmans’ [a walled enclosure large enough to accommodate a small garrison where the ‘fanatic muslims’ assemble to wage war on the non-muslims].

I am indebted to Ustadh Abdallah Mohammed al-Hibshi of San’a’, who first explained ‘al-mihras’ to me as meaning: a small guard house, a block house.

It is his (Yemeni) voweling with ‘kesrah’ that I have used here. Both Piamenta and Dozy vowel the word as ‘al-Mahras’. 13. Olcer, Ciineyt, ‘Coins struck in the Imperial Army of Sultan Mustafa II’. This is the unpublished text of a presentation held by Olcer in Budapest in 1986. It deals with the preparations, equipment, material and manpower required for the operation of an Ottoman army camp mint, based on a document which he discovered in Ottoman archives in Istanbul. The document is dated 1108/1697 and deals with the preparations of the third and last European campaign of Sultan Mustafa II. 1 am indebted to Mr Szilagyi Mihaly of Budapest for bringing this article to my attention and for making a copy of this text available to me.

Nauta, op.cit., ‘Table of details of Ottoman Copper Coins from the Yemen], showing the weights and dimensions of numerous coins from nine mints. 15. Olcer, op.cit., p.178: coin no. 11A (plate 8), Selim II, Misr, dated 974, with a diameter of 36mm. 16. Olcer, ibid., these are: no. 10R, Mardin ND (6.150g) and no. 10Y, NM, ND (6.070g). A few more coins with weights in excess of 6 grams may be found in Jem Sultan’s Coins of the Ottoman Empire, Seven Oaks, 1977, viz.: No. 1305, Murad III Dimesq 990 (6.64g) and no. 1172, Suleyman I, Mardin ND (8.56g).
For an understanding of the role of copper coinage in the Anatolian parts of the Ottoman Empire during the period under discussion see Olcer op.cit. pp.6-

10 of the English translation. It is not clear however whether this information may be extrapolated to areas of the realm as far removed from Anatolia as the Yemen. Another reference concerning Ottoman copper coinage may be found in Anton C. Schaendlinger’s Osmanische Numismatik, Braunschweig 1973, p.58.

- 1. Nauta, op.cit., San’a’ mint chapter, last paragraph. See also the graph showing individual weights of 55 copper coins of San’a’ (all coins in the ‘thick’ category).

This however excludes one ‘thick’ coin of San’a’ in Dr Wilski’s collection, which appears similar in size and weight to the coins of Malhaz; it concerns an apparently unique specimen without date of which at this moment I have no further details.

Nauta, op.cit., see note 13 above. 20. The Ottoman dirhem weight as given by Olcer (op.cit.) is 3.207g. Garo Kiirkman in Osmanlilarda Ol¢ii ve Tartilar (Ottoman weights and measures), Istanbul, 1991, gives an even more refined weight of 3.207363 grams. For the purpose of this article I shall confine myself to the use of 3.2 grams. 21. Olcer, op.cit.,.م‎ 9 of English translation. 22. Olcer, ibid.,.م‎ 10 of English translation. 23. This need not necessarily have been the case. Prior to the introduction of Ottoman coinage via the transition of Mamluk and Levend coinage (see my article on the Ottoman Copper Coins of Zabid, ONS Newsletter 137), the Yemen used to have for many centuries its own silver dirhem based currency. Up to

the first invasion of the ottomans (945/1539), Tahirid and Zaydi dirhems were current in the Yemen, and presumably also formed the basis of the weight system. A Yemeni silver dirhem in the name of Sultan Suleyman I exists, obviously based on the Zaydi type of dirhem then current. It weighs 1.239g and is dated 95x but unfortunately it shows no mint name. See Suchy, Vladimir, ‘An unknown Dirham of Sultan Suleyman I from Yemen’, Spink’s Numismatic Circular, July 1992, p.194.

For a detailed study of the Tahirid monetary system see Porter, Venetia, ‘Coins and Money in the Tahirid period’, (unpublished discussion paper for the Arabian Studies Seminar, July 1992) and also Chapter 6 of her as yet unpublished PhD thesis, 1992, which contains an extensive study of this subject based

on references in contemporary source material. I am indebted to Dr Porter, who kindly placed these unpublished materials at my disposal.

Further material on the subject of monetary weights and values has been collected, collated and published by Samuel Lachman, in his 6-part series entitled: ‘The Numismatics of the Yemen in the 10th/16th century’, Spink’s Numismatic Circular, May-November 1992, especially parts 4 and 5. 24. See Blackburn, op.cit. (note 4 above, ‘sources’), p.203, where he mentions 1.3. an Ottoman ‘muhimme’ relating to the halting of the outflow to India from Yemen of military equipment and silver items, which obviously must have worried the Ottomans. 25. Blackburn, ibid., writes that another Ottoman ‘muhimme’ mentions i.a. regional impoverishment caused by oppressive taxation in the Yemen. These muhimme documents belong to a period of 961/1554 to 976/1568, but individual dates are not provided by Blackburn. 26. See Ozbaran, op.cit. (note 6, The importance of Turkish archives…), p.106, middle paragraph and his note 7, where he writes i.a. that the commander in chief of the Yemen is entitled to 700,000 akce ‘salyane’, his pay, which he has to collect directly, i.e. himself, and not through taxcollectors (timar). 27. This had actually happened before, cf. Lachman, op.cit. p.224, item 111555 where he states: ‘975H/1567. The soldiers at ‘Adan were paid in copper fulus.’ 28. See Olcer, op.cit. (note 13 above) his unpublished paper on this subject. The coin in question is shown in Nuri Pere’, op.cit. (note 9 above), p.186, item 489, the description of the reverse reads: ‘Tugra, duribe fi Orduyu Hiimayun sene 1106’. 29. This issue would be comparable in certain ways to the ‘modern’ Tabora emergency issues of the German army in East Africa in 1916, in brass, copper

and gold (see e.g. the well-known Krause & Mishler catalogue under Tanzania). 30. For a description of the practice of tax-farming and the role of copper coins in Anatolia, see Olcer, op.cit (note 9 above), pp.6-8 of the English summary. Siamese Porcelain Tokens - Pei or Att Peter Flensborg

Mr. G. Hollink has in Newsletter no. 135 proposed that Pai Ba (P’ai Pa) should not be taken as | Pei but read as Bai Ba (Pai Pa), which is

100 Ba (Pa) (100 Cowries) or 1 Att. For various reasons the argumentation seems very weak, as I shall now seek to explain.

WK in ara

(wade) = Wn (pinyin) (wade) P’ai Pa Yi Pai I P’ai a الك‎ 2 as Pai Pa + rz) Yi Bai I Pai

Mr. Hollink has based his investigation on one quarter of the existing material, if we estimate that app. 8000 different porcelain tokens exist.

My own investigation concerns over 6000 different tokens, and the percentage distribution of the different nominals indicate - as you can also see from the material - that most of the series consist of a Salung, a Fuang and rarely a Song Pei.. Other series consist of smaller values like Song Pei, Pei and rarely Att.

As is natural with a continuous sequence, it would seem strange that many series after this - if you follow Mr. Hollink’s thesis - will only consist of a Song Pei and an Att. If you look at the Chinese characters, it is quite obvious that in many cases they have chosen characters which have the closest possible likeness in pronunciation in relationship to the Siamese word in question (name of gambling- or lotteryhouse, coin denomination etc.) This can for example be seen on several porcelain tokens with inscriptions in both Thai and Chinese.

But in this case it is not just a phonetic corruption. First of all you will find Pai Ba (P’ai Pa) on so many different types, that it could not be just a coincidence. Next you will actually find series with the denomination: Sdng Pai, Pai Ba and Yi Bai or Bai Ba = 100 Cowries = 1 Att.

fig. | fig. 2 Song Pai Pai Ba (Sung P’ai) (P’ai Pa)

fig. 5 -_ - Pai Ba Yi Bai (Sung P’ai) (P’ai Pa) (I Pai)

I have selected series of which Mr. Hollink has illustrated some examples, but if he had had the “complete series” he would have seen that the middle value Pai Ba in fact is a one Pei and not an Att as a logical conclusion. Whether Pai Ba (P’ai Pa) should be interpreted as “Pei Coin” or Pei “in Cowries” can be discussed on a later occasion. fig. 8

Mr. Hollink uses in his argumentation two coins: figs. 7 & 8 (his figs. 12-13) which he claims are from the same series. The first (18mm diameter) with Yi Pai (1 Pei) and the second (15mm diameter): Pai Ba, which he suggests should be read as Bai Ba (100 Cowries) = | Att.

But these two coins are not from the same series. The porcelain types are different. The coin in fig. 7 has a green bottom and red characters, and the value on the reverse is painted; whereas the other (fig. 8) has a green borderline, red characters and the value on the reverse is incuse. fig. 9: Chinese lute

In his article Mr. Hollink described the motif on figs. 4-6 as a cornucopia. Here he follows Schleges from 1889 and later authors. The correct interpretation of the motif is a Chinese lute or zither (Qin). Here the lute is in an emblematic form with wrapped bands. This normally 7stringed instrument is said to have been invented by Fu Xi (Fu Hsi), the first legendary emperor 2852-2737 BC. The lute is one of the four signs of a scholar, the others being literature, chess and painting, and these elements are often used for decorative purposes on porcelain, and as we see here - on porcelain tokens. More New Members American Region

Mr. Dan Masters, 3398 California St. # 10, San Francisco, CA 94118, U.S.A. Interests: Pre-Islamic India, Indo-Greek & Bactrian. European Region

Mr. F. Jarman, Marienburgerplatz 22, 31141 Hildesheim, Germany Interests: All oriental coins, especially Indian, and Roman Asian provincial coinage. More Address Changes

Mr. L. Ilisch, Betlestrasse 12, 7400 Tiibingen, Germany.

Dr. H. K. Malhotra, Suite 212, Medical Arts Building, 33 Overlook Road, Summit, N.J. 07901-3562, U.S.A. Mr. John Page, 3707 San Pablo Drive, Raleigh, N.C. 27604-4541, U.S.A. Mr. W. KGnig, Ina Seidel-Bogen 39, 81929 Miinchen, Germany. — Steve Cribb 1944 - 1994

It is with great sadness that we report the death of Steve Cribb one of our founder members. Steve was a born collector and this combined with a taste for Chinese food led him into oriental coins. His first interest in coins was restricted to British hammered silver, but when Michael Mitchiner, a family friend, gave him a few Chinese coins, Steve set off on a new adventure of discovery. He scoured the coin shops of London and the South East searching for companions to join Michael Mitchiner’s gift. Over a few years he built up a formidable array of cash coins, but it was alas in the days before the Hong Kong market began to flood the world with Chinese coins and so he soon exhausted the supply and had to move onto other things, Chinese paper money, postal orders, co-operative tokens, school medals, religious

medals to name a few. During the late seventies he hosted several meetings of the ONS UK region and became known to many members. His interest in Chinese coins was a major factor in leading his brother Joe, now Curator of South Asian Coins in the British Museum, into

fa a il oriental numismatics. Over the last decade his interests were drawn away from numismatics by a period in public office as a London borough councillor, than a career as a development worker for the disabled. However Steve still retained his interest in Chinese coins and other aspects of numismatics.

He was a fellow of the Royal Numismatic Society for over 20 years and made sure that his collections continued to serve a purpose after he

had finished with them. His Chinese paper money, religious medals and co-operative tokens collections are now in the British Museum and his Chinese coins and school medals were sold on to other collectors. His interests always went beyond the bounds of just collecting as can be seen from his publications on school medals, religious medals, co-operative tokens and his book (the first on the subject) on British Postal

Orders. To those who knew Steve personally his loss is more than just that of a fellow numismatist; Steve, who lived his life in a wheelchair,

had an enthusiasm, humour and warmth which touched all who met him.

Late News

THE NICHOLAS LOWICK MEMORIAL FUND The Nicholas Lowick Memorial Fund of the Royal Numismatic Society is making five awards this year. Each award is of £400 to support research in oriental numismatics. The awards are as follows:

To Dr A Ghouchani, Iran Bastan Museum, Teheran. To support his study of the coins of the Hasanwaihid dynasty, 10-115 century rulers in Kurdistan. He plans to visit London during 1994 and will use the grant to extend his visit so that he can study the coins in the British Museum. To Mr Stuart Seers, the University of Chicago. To support his research on the Arab imitations of Sasanian coins. He is planing a revision of the series to bring it up to date since Walker’s catalogue (1941). He will use the money to cover some of the costs of a visit to London to study the British Museum collection and two important private collections. To Dr Siham Mohammed al-Mahdi, Numismatic Curator, Islamic Art Museum, Cairo. To support her work on a hoard of more than 3,600 gold coins found in Egypt. The hoard, containing Mamluk coins together with European ducats (about 3,000 pieces), was deposited in the late 15th century. To Dr Natalia

Smirnova, Head of Numismatic Department, Pushkin Museum, Moscow. To support her work on Indo-Greek coins. She will use the award

towards the cost of visiting the Indo-Greek and Bactrian coin collection in the British Museum. To Dr Stuart Munro-Hay, of Mezin, France. To support his work on a catalogue of the Axumite coins in the British Museum. He will use the award to cover the costs of two visits to London to examine the collection.

Anyone wishing to be considered for an award from this fund to support their research on original numismatics is invited to write for information to the Secretary of the RNS, c/o Department of Coins and Medals, British Museum.

LHOTKA PRIZE The Royal Numismatic Society’s Lhotka Prize for 1993 has been awarded to Dr Elizabeth Errington, Dr Osmund Bopearachchi and Mr Joe Cribb for their numismatic essays in the catalogue of the 1992 Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, UK, exhibition “The Crossroads of Asia’’. The Lhotka Prize is awarded each year to the authors of the book or article in English published during the previous two years judged to be most helpful to the elementary student of numismatics.

AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY PRIZE The ANS committee on Islamic and South Asian coins has established an annual prize for the best book on Islamic coinage. The first

recipient is Stephen Album for his book “A Checklist of Popular Islamic Coins’ (reviewed in Newsletter 139). For this prize, publications (excluding articles or collections of articles) on any aspect of Islamic numismatics or monetary history in any part of the world are eligible.

The judging committee will make its decision each December on books published within the previous two years. Books may be brought to the attention of any member of the committee, viz. William F Spengler, Michael Bates, Jere Bacharach, Kenneth MacKenzie, Marie Martin or William B Warden Jr. The prize includes an award of $250.

Two talks were given at the ONS meeting in London on 23 April:

Elizabeth Savage: Slaves and dirhems, an early Islamic monopoly. The mint output of the Muhallabid Governors of Ifriqiyya during the ‘Abbasid period.

Nicholas Rhodes: Nara Narayan’s military campaign of 1562-4 and the numismatic outcome. In addition, Ken Wiggins presented a half rupee of ‘Alinagar (Calcutta), year 4 of ‘Alamgir II.

New & Recent Publications Ibrahim and Cevnye Artuk: Artukogullari Sikkeleri (Coins of the Artukids). In Turkish. Published after Mr Artuk’s death. 159 coin entries in

the catalogue section of the book and 107 coin illustrations (including 67 of the figural types). A short review of this book by Kenneth MacKenzie appeared in a recent edition of the Numismatics International Bulletin.

Available from the Indian Books Centre, 40/5, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-11007, India (List 4202/94):

Prabhakar Gadre: Bhosle of Nagpur and East India Company; Jaipur, 1994. 278pp. US$ 24. S R Goyal: Indigenous Coins of Early India; Jodhpur, 1994. 240pp. US$ 30. Iqbal Husain: The Ruhela Chieftaincies: The Rise & Fall of Ruhela Power in India in the 18th century; Delhi, 1994. 253pp. US$ 16.67

The Numismatic Chronicle for 1993 (published by the Royal Numismatic Society, London), includes the following articles:

T D Yih and J de Kreek: The Gongsi cash pieces of Western Borneo and Banka in the Ethnographical Museum at Rotterdam.

Devendra Handa: Coins attributed to the Audumbara king Mahadeva. H M Malek: A survey of research on Sasanian numismatics. and several reviews of books on oriental numismatics.

Galata Print Ltd Llanfyllin, Powys SY22 5BX