Dirham of Nasir al-Din Mahmud (r. 1201–22): Double-Headed Bird of Prey

Copper Coins of the Seljuk Successor States ( MMA 99.35.2376, American Numismatic Society 1917.216.891, 1971.215.1072, 1917.215.1003, 1925.13.1, 1927.999.106, 1917.216.1058, 1911.105.177)

As elsewhere in the premodern Islamic world, coinage of the Seljuq successor states had two basic functions: as currency and as a symbol
of power, by means of the inscribed name of the ruler and/or ruling authority.[1] Coins of the Artuqids, Zangids, and Rum Seljuqs are nevertheless particular for their figural imagery. While the exact meaning and function of the iconography on these coins remain a subject of debate, the figural depictions, relating to a broad range of models and traditions, form an important part of the material production of Anatolia, the Jazira, and Syria, and testify to the artistic and cultural exchanges that took place during Seljuq times.

Gold and, to a certain extent, silver coins were considered high-value money, used and traded over long distances for wholesale, fiscal administration, and state expenditure. It was the principal form of currency used by high-ranking officials to pay land tax or iqta‘ (revenue from grants of land). Traded between regions, it competed with other high-value money. The coin’s worth was usually bound to its metal content but was, in principle, higher in value than the same amount of unworked metal.

Copper and highly alloyed silver coinage was considered petty money, circulated locally and used for daily purchases by merchants, artisans, and workers in the urban market.[2] According to Islamic law, only gold and silver money could legitimately be used in the exchange of goods and services.[3] Nevertheless, gold and silver coinage was more restricted by law than copper coinage. In that regard, in a society where figural representation was negatively received by the same Islamic theologians who interpreted and wrote the law, the
existence of figural imagery on Rum Seljuq silver and gold coins is even more noteworthy.

After about 150 years with little coin production, economic growth in the late eleventh to the first half of the twelfth century led to increased minting in the territories and cities controlled by the Seljuq successor states, to meet the heightened demand for currency.[4] The Zangids, Artuqids, and Rum Seljuqs struck gold (dinar), silver (dirham), and copper (fals or copper dirham) coinage. However, neither each dynasty nor each ruler had coins in all three metals in circulation at the same time. With few exceptions, minting of copper coins began in the 1140s.[5] At the same time, Fatimid, Great Seljuq, and Crusader Arabic gold, Byzantine copper, and other coinage were still being used in the regions controlled by the Seljuq successor states. From the second half of the twelfth century, these alternate currencies were gradually supplemented and replaced by new gold, silver, and copper coins minted by the successor states.[6]

In the territories controlled by the Seljuq successor states, two main types of petty currency were in use: the dirham aswad and Byzantine copper coins, the latter imported during the second half of the eleventh to the early twelfth century to redress insufficient coinage for the growing regional economy. The copper coins remained in use in the successor states until the 1180s and, in the Diyar Bakr and Diyar Rabi’a areas controlled by the Artuqids and the Zangids until the 1220s.[29] However, the amount of petty coinage in circulation was still insufficient to fulfill the demands of the economy, a situation made worse by the fact that the dirham aswad was not considered fully legal tender under Islamic law. As copper was among the most available metals in several of the territories controlled by the Seljuq successor states, particularly in those areas under Artuqid and Zangid control, mines were exploited to generate a very specific type of copper coinage. The period from the mid-twelfth to the mid-thirteenth century witnessed a profusion of unusually large and heavy copper coins depicting a myriad of figural imagery. Minting activity was launched about A.H. 542/A.D. 1147–48 by the Artuqid ruler of Mardin, Husam al-Din Timurtash (r. 1122–53), followed by his rivals Qutb al-Din Mawdud (r. 1149–70), Zangid ruler of Mosul, in 555/1160; and Fakhr al-Din Qara Arslan (r. 1144–67), Artuqid ruler of Hisn Kayfa, in 556/1161.[30] These efforts were coupled with the renovation of roads and/or building of major bridges, emphasizing the commercial preoccupations of these early Turkish Jaziran rulers.[31]

That these new coins were called "dirham" suggests that they were meant to replace dirham aswad. They bear Arabic inscriptions on one side, and sometimes the margins of the figural side are filled with the name and titles of the issuing ruler and/or the current overlord, as well as, on occasion, the mint and/or the date. The relatively large size of these coins (approx. 2.4–3 cm), the existence of figural imagery, and some of the depicted themes recall commonly used Byzantine copper coins, which this new coinage complemented.[32] However, their iconography relates to a much broader range of visual traditions, including those from the ancient Roman (American Numismatic Society 1917.216.891), Greek, Byzantine (American Numismatic Society 1917.215.1072), Sasanian, and Islamic worlds (American Numismatic Society 1917.215.1003, 1925.13.1). Certain examples even copy coins from different periods, such as American Numismatic Society 1917.215.1072, modeled after a Byzantine gold coin on the obverse and a Seleucid silver coin on the reverse.[33] Among the most important themes are religion and astrology (American Numismatic Society 1911.105.177), as well as symbols of power and heraldry (MMA 99.35.2376 and American Numismatic Society 1925.13.1).[34]

Some coins have rare and unusual iconography, such as the "mourning scene" (American Numismatic Society 1927.999.106) or the "feline rider" (American Numismatic Society 1917.216.1058), the visual sources and artistic models of which remain difficult to identify.[35] But in the main, and excepting the influence of regional manuscript painting, the dominant source materials were selected motifs from ancient and contemporary coins (busts or heads and Christian popular themes were favored, while pagan deities and buildings were not).[36] The nearly exact rendering of certain images suggests that mint makers had their models to hand, meaning that ancient coinage must also have been available alongside Byzantine copper coins. Ancient gold and silver currency was probably uncovered when rebuilding or erecting monuments, as many of the towns and cities occupied by the Artuqids and Zangids were important centers in antiquity. But even though some examples come quite close to their models (e.g., American Numismatic Society 1917.216.891, in which even the original Latin script is included), mint makers tended toward interpretation, applying changes in details and introducing new features. This creative liberty led to some particularly striking and unusual examples.

For at least 250 years, scholars have debated the rich iconography of these coins in relation to classicist ideologies, astral associations, and other forms of symbolism, with one theory interpreting figural imagery not as portraits of individual rulers but as attributes or concepts of rule; it would follow, then, that the Artuqids and Zangids aimed to establish a codified dynastic vocabulary of sovereign imagery.[37] However, general conclusions based on iconography remain questionable. The consideration of individual cases alongside evidence linked to a particular ruler and context would probably be a more fruitful approach to understanding specific imagery and its meaning. For example, the double-headed eagle on the MMA coin is among the few images that can be attributed to individual rulers—who seemingly used it as a personal or dynastic symbol of power — by means of their titles, names, or tamghas on the body of the bicephalic bird of prey.[38]

Nevertheless, some explanations for the existence and profusion of certain imagery can be posited. Copper coinage was not considered proper legal tender and was meant for local issue; figural imagery would thus be less likely to elicit censure and could diverge from the more orthodox, aniconic Islamic canon. For economic reasons, introducing figural coins that recalled Byzantine coins already in use suggests that the rulers aimed to produce a trusted type of coinage that would circulate easily. The motivation to benefit fiscally from each new issue might be one reason for the variety of coin issues but is not enough to explain the flourishing of the iconography.[40] Political, cultural, and artistic rivalries between these smaller principalities might be another explanation for the profusion and variety of figural imagery. Above all, the figural repertoire of these large copper coins reflects the spirit of the time, when open-minded rulers, curious and receptive to new creations, must certainly have stimulated the experimental efforts made visual in not only these coins but also other media. The Jazira was a kind of artistic platform, fostering a circulation of ideas that led to new inspiration.

Deniz Beyazit in [Canby, Beyazit, and Rugiadi 2016]

Footnotes:


1. The right of the sikka, the prerogative of including the ruler’s name on the coin, similar to the khutba, in which the ruler is named during the Friday prayer, belonged theoretically to the caliph and eventually became in the early Islamic period a royal insignia of power; see
Bosworth, C[lifford] E[dmund]. “Sikka. 1. Legal and Constitutional Aspects.” In EI2 1960–2009, vol. 9 (1997), p. 592; Wensinck, A. J. “Khubayb.” In EI2 1960–2009, vol. 5 (1986), pp. 40–41.

2. Heidemann, Stefan. Die Renaissance der Städte in Nordsyrien und Nordmesopotamien: Städtische Entwicklung und wirtschaftliche Bedingungen in ar-Raqqa und Harran von der Zeit der beduinischen Vorherrschaft bis zu den Seldschuken. Islamic History and Civilization, Studies and Texts, 40. 2001. Leiden, Boston, and Cologne, 2002, pp. 355–63; Heidemann, Stefan. “Economic Growth and Currency in Ayyubid Palestine.” In Ayyubid Jerusalem: The Holy City in Context, 1187–1250, edited by Robert Hillenbrand and Sylvia Auld, pp. 276–77. London, 2009.

3. Heidemann 2002 (note 2), pp. 355–57.

4. Ibid.

5. Bates, Michael L. “Crusader Coinage with Arabic Inscriptions.” In A History of the Crusades, vol. 6, The Impact of the Crusades on Europe, edited by Harry W. Hazard and Norman P. Zacour, pp. 421–41. London, 1989. Among the earliest examples are coins struck by Malik Ghazi Gumushtekin (r. 1104–34), ruler of the Turkmen Danishmendid dynasty in Anatolia, also a Seljuq successor state; see
Whelan, Estelle J. The Public Figure: Political Iconography in Medieval Mesopotamia. London, 2006, pp. 51–52.

6. Bates 1989 (note 5), pp. 421–41; Heidemann 2009 (note 2).

29. Heidemann, Stefan. “Das Bildprogramm der Kupfermünzen der Zangiden und Artukiden.” In Die Dschazira: Kulturlandschaft zwischen Euphrat und Tigris. Exh. cat., Museum für Islamische Kunst, Berlin, 2006–7. Catalogue by Almut von Gladiss and others. Berlin, 2006, p. 97.

30. For the first coin of Timurtash, struck in A.H. 542/A.D. 1147–48, see Lowick, Nicholas [M]. “Les premières monnaies artuqides: Une exhumation tardive.” Revue numismatique 16 (1974), pp. 95–99. and Ilisch, Lutz. “Die älteste artuqidische Kupferprägung.” Münsterische Numismatische Zeitung 69 (November 1976), pp. 1–2. The date is further confirmed by the Artuqid chronicler Ibn al-Azraq, who writes, “In this year, which was 542/1147–48, al-Sa‘id Husam al-Din struck copper coins, after I had gone to al-Ma‘dan and bought copper for the coins” (Hillenbrand, Carole. A Muslim Principality in Crusader Times: The Early Artuqid State. Istanbul, 1990, p. 120). Whelan, Estelle J. The Public Figure: Political Iconography in Medieval Mesopotamia. London, 2006, pp. 75–77, agrees on the date but attributes it to another type of coin. For other early Jaziran coins, see ibid, pp. 147–48, 203–4.

31. Beyazit, Deniz. “Le décor architectural artuqide en pierre de Mardin placé dans son contexte régional: Contribution à l’histoire du décor géométrique et végétal du Proche-Orient des XIIe–XVe siècles.” 2 vols. Ph.D. diss., Université de Paris I Panthéon–Sorbonne, Paris, 2009, pp. 466–67.

32. Heidemann 2006–7 (note 29), p. 97. Other scholars believe that these copper dirhams were meant to replace copper coins; see
Lowick, Nicholas [M]. “The Religious, the Royal and the Popular in the Figural Coinage of the Jazıra.” In Raby, Julian, ed. The Art of Syria and the Jazıra, 1100–1250. Oxford Studies in Islamic Art, 1. Oxford, 1985, p. 161.

33. The pair of busts on the reverse of ANS 1917.215.1072 is a doubling of the portrait of Antiochus VII Euergetes, depicted on a silver coin of this Seleucid emperor from 139 to 129 B.C., that appeared on the second Artuqid copper coin of Mardin, struck by Timurtash. The scene on the obverse was copied from a Byzantine gold coin of Romanos III (r. 1028–34). See Illisch 1976 (note 30), pp. 1–2; Heidemann 2006–7 (note 29), p. 104, no. 5; and Whelan 2006 (note 30), pp. 75–76, 79–82. The winged figures in ANS 1917.215.1003 and ANS 1925.13.1 relate to medieval Islamic manuscript paintings, in particular those produced in Mosul, where winged figures often appear
above depictions of rulers (see, e.g., cat. 11 in this volume). See Whelan 2006 (note 30), pp. 166–68, 204–6, 208–9. For ANS 1917.216.891, see ibid., pp. 155–57.

34. For ANS 1925.13.1, see Whelan 2006 (note 30), pp. 166–69; for MMA 99.35.2376, ibid., pp. 178–79; and for ANS 1911.105.177, ibid., pp. 214–17, 229–30.

35. For ANS 1927.999.10, see ibid., pp. 97–103; and for cat. ANS 1917.216.1058, ibid., pp. 58–60, 114–15.

36. Lowick 1985 (note 32), p. 169.

37. Recent monographs include Artuk, Ibrahim, and Cevriye Artuk. Artuk Ogulları Sikkeleri. Istanbul, 1993; Spengler, William F., and Wayne G. Sayles. Turkoman Figural Bronze Coins and Their Iconography. Vol. 1, The Artuqids. Lodi, Wisc., 1992; and Spengler, William F., and Wayne G. Sayles. Turkoman Figural Bronze Coins and Their Iconography. Vol. 2, The Zengids. Lodi, Wisc., 1996, which overinterpret the astrological meanings; and Parlar, G. Anadolu Selçuklu Sikkelerinde Yazı Dıs¸ ı Figüratif Ögeler. Ankara, 2001. See also Brown, Helen Mitchell. “Some Reflections on the Figured Coinage of the Artuqids and Zengids.” In Kouymjian, Dickran K., ed. Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and History: Studies in Honor of George C. Miles. Beirut, 1974, pp. 353–58; Lowick 1985 (note 32), and Heidemann 2006–7 (note 29). Shukurov, Rustam. “Christian Elements in the Identity of the Anatolian Turkmens (12th–13th Centuries).” In Cristianità d’occidente et cristianità d’oriente (secoli VI–XI), pp. 707–59. Spoleto, 2004. discusses the Christian elements, which would have been chosen as symbols of dynastic and/or royal power and would have been understood and well received by the majority Christian population. Yalman, Suzan [A]. “‘Ala al-Din Kayqubad Illuminated: A Rum Seljuq Sultan as Cosmic Ruler.” Muqarnas 29 (2012), pp. 159–67, interprets some of the Artuqid coins as expressing rulership through solar symbolism. The most thorough discussion of the coins and their iconography remains Whelan 2006 (note 30), especially pp. 15–20.

38. Heidemann 2006–7 (note 29), p. 98; and Heidemann, Ste[f]an. “Die Expedition Taqı ad-Dın ‘Umars in die Gazıra und die Rebellion al-Mansur Muhammads in Harran während des Dritten Kreuzzuges.” Master’s thesis, Freie Universität Berlin,1990, pp. 148–50. The coins of ‘Imad al-Din Zangi II (r. 1170–97), Zangid ruler of Sinjar, are inscribed with the title of the Abbasid caliph, “al-Imam al-Nasir lil-Din,” sometimes together with the caliph’s name, “al-Imam al-Nasir Ahmad.” The coins of his son Qutb al-Din Muhammad b. Zangi (r. 1197–1219) feature a tamgha on the eagle’s breast. The reference to the caliph may be interpreted as sovereign power expressed through the bird, while the tamgha refers to the power of the family. The Artuqid Nasr al-Din Mahmud (r. 1201–22) placed this device on almost all his coins (e.g., MMA 99.35.2376) as well as on the two towers of the Amid city walls and on tiles decorating his palace in the inner citadel (Gabriel, Albert. Voyages archéologiques dans la Turquie orientale. 2 vols. Institut Français d’Archeologie de Stamboul. Paris, 194, vol. 2, pls. 58, 60; Aslanapa, Oktay. “Diyarbakır Sarayi Kazısından I˙lk rapor.” Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 9, no. 2 (1961), pp. 10–13, pl. 19, fig. 25a–b). On several of his coins, the double-chevron tamgha of the Artuqids, visible also in ANS 1917.215.1072 below the bust on the left side, appears on the bird’s breast. See Spengler, William F., and Wayne G. Sayles. Turkoman Figural Bronze Coins and Their Iconography. Vol. 1, The Artuqids. Lodi, Wisc., 1992, pp. 42–48, 97, 105–7; and Hennequin, Gilles. Catalogue des monnaies musulmanes de la Bibliothèque Nationale. [Vol. 5], Asie pré-mongole: Les Salguqs et leurs successeurs. Paris, 1985., pp. 416–17, nos. 911–21, pl. 21, with the tamgha most clearly visible in no. 912. Another example of a royal symbol of power on copper coins is the image of the equestrian dragon slayer, which the Rum Seljuq sultan ‘Ala’ al-Din Kay Qubad I (r. 1219–37) used for both copper coins and lead seals (used to secure tied bundles of state documents); see Yalman, Suzan A. “Building the Sultanate of Rum: Memory, Urbanism and Mysticism in the Architectural Patronage of `Ala al-Din Kayqubad (r. 1220–1237).” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 2010., p. 333.

39. See also the imitation of established gold coinage.

40. Heidemann 2006–7 (note 29), p. 98.

Inscription: Inscribed in Arabic in kufic, on the obverse field:
الملك الصالح / محمود بن ارتق / الملك العادل / ابوبكر / الامام /
الناصر / امير / المؤمنين
Al-Malik al-Salih / Mahmud b. Artuq / al-Malik
al-‘Adil / Abu Bakr / al-Imam / al-Nasir Amir /
al-Mu‘minin.
On the reverse field:
ضرب بالحصن / سنة 615
Struck in al-Hisn / in the year 615

Joseph H. Durkee, New York (until d. 1898; bequeathed to MMA)

New York. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. "Court and Cosmos: The Great Age of the Seljuqs," April 25–July 24, 2016, no. 14j.

Canby, Sheila R., Deniz Beyazit, and Martina Rugiadi. "The Great Age of the Seljuqs." In Court and Cosmos. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2016. no. 14j, pp. 66–71, ill. p. 70 (color).