Iranian Copper Coins. Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century

Iranian Copper Coins Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century Alexander V. Akopyan It was probably fifteen years ago when my first teacher in Oriental numismatics, Dr. Arkady Molchanov, acquainted me with the second edition of Steve Album’s Checklist. Having consulted it. I am sure that I am not alone in my impression that the clear structure of this milestone work has made future investigations in Islamic numismatics much easier. Throughout all the subsequent years, despite the heavy demands on his schedule, Steve always found time to stay in touch and discuss the latest research in any field of Islamic and particularly Iranian numismatics, so I offer this article in gratitude for all the assistance and counseling he has provided me. Unlike the silver and gold coins of Iran of the sixteenth to the nineteenth century thoroughly described in special catalogs, information about the copper coins of the Iranian cities is still scattered in various publications which for a long time has made it difficult to systematize and analyze the data. Gaps in the cataloging of this material are associated with a huge variety of types of copper coins, which sometimes changed every year in more than fifty Iranian mints. The practice of such frequent and irregular (not annual) changes of type sharply distinguishes Iranian copper issues from the silver and gold coins, which remained fairly uniform in their external designs and minting. In addition, other characteristics of copper coins make it difficult for them to accumulate in museum and private collections. This lies in their inherent values and consequently short-term circulation, which hindered both long-term accumulation in the people’s hands and made meaningless their hoarding.1 Despite researchers’ interest in copper Iranian coins, attempting to typologize them was difficult due to the incompleteness of the publishing of the coins. Recently the situation in this area has significantly improved. This is due to the publication of collections of Iranian copper coins by the State Museum of Georgia (546 coins), the Ashmolean Museum (192 coins), and the cataloguing by Tinatin Kutelia of all copper coins published by 1990 (444 coins). It has improved, as well, with the digitization in recent years of the collection of the American Numismatic Society (2,006 coins of interest) and the ongoing additions to the online Zeno Oriental coins database (www.zeno.ru currently with 660 coins of interest). The scientific value of the last two databases has recently increased with the introduction of modern polyparametric search tools. To this number I can add personally examined Iranian copper coins from the collection of the State Historical Museum of Armenia (ca. 1700 coins), State Museum of Fine Arts (ca. 1000 coins), and Forschungsstelle für Islamische Numismatik, Universität Tübingen (ca. 200 coins), as well as about 400 coins in private collections. I am very grateful to Kirk Bennett for his patient language editing. I am also thankful to the keepers of the collections in which I had the opportunity to work – Dr. Lutz Ilisch (Forschungsstelle für islamische Numismatik, Universität Tübingen) and Dr. Ruben Vardanyan (State Historical Museum of Armenia). 1 Cf. works of Hurshang Farrahbakhsh (Farrahbakhsh 1975) and Steve Album (Album 2013), as well as catalogues of Krause Publications for world coins of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Bruce, Michael, Cuhaj et al. 2006; Bruce, Michael, Miller et al. 2008; Cuhaj, Michael, Miller et al. 2010). I R AN I AN NUM ISM ATIC STUDI ES 201 The numismatic data accumulated to date on Iranian copper coins allows me to make certain and, it seems to me, important conclusions about the nature, character and characteristics of Iranian copper coins, and also to trace the changes in their properties over the period of their production. The geographical distribution of the Safavid mints that struck copper coins shows their regionalization caused by the differences in the stimuli of local trade which was a precondition for the mintage of copper coins. The following zones of monetary activity with regard to the minting of copper coins may be used later in the investigation of the economic regionalization of Safavid Iran. Thus, analyzing the distribution of mints, one can identify the following zones (see Fig 1): The Caspian Zone – sub-tropical lowlands bordered by the Elburz Mountains, whose copper coinage appeared in connection with the development of maritime trade with Russia, with 8 mints – Fūman, Gilān/Resht, Lāhijān, Langarkunān (4th Beglerbegate of Adharbayjān), Ashraf, Mazandarān/Ṭabaristān, Sārī (Domain of Shāh, khāṣṣe2), Gurgān (7th Beglerbegate of Astrābād); The Western Borderland – a mountainous area separated from other parts of Iran by the southern reaches of the Caucasus and Zagros Mountains, whose copper coinage was stimulated by the influx of E uropean and Ottoman coins from the West, with 22 mints (very active in producing silver coins as well) – Aresh, Shimākhī (2nd Beglerbegate of Shīrwān), Ganja, Kākhed/Zagem (6th Beglerbegate of Qarābāgh-o-Ganja), Tiflīs (3rd Velīyat of G urjistān), Irawān, Nakhijawān, Urdūbād (5th Beglerbegate of Chukhur-i Sa‘d), Dizfūl, Shūshter (1st Velīyat of ‘Arabistān); Kermānshāhān (Domain of Shāh, khāṣṣe); Khurramābād (2nd Velīyat of Luristān); Ardabīl, Khūy, Marāga, Nakhijawān, Nimruz, Paswa, Sa‘ujbulāgh, Sheykh-Murshid, Tebrīz, Urdūbād, Urmiya (4th Beglerbegate of Adharbayjān); The Persian Gulf – a coastal area whose copper coinage appeared thanks to the littoral trade with Europe, with 5 mints – Behbehān (8th Beglerbegate of Kohgīlūyeh), Bandar, Bū Shehr, Khark, Langeh (Domain of Shāh, khāṣṣe); The Central Zone – the area with the most important cities, mainly consisting of the economically powerful Domain of Shāh, with 16 mints (very active in producing silver coins too) – Borūjerd (2nd Velīyat of Luristān); Qazwīn (13th Beglerbegate of Qazwīn, without khān), Hamadān, Iṣfahān, Ja‘farābād, Kāshān, Nihavend, Lār, Qumm, Shīrāz, Sulṭānābād, Ṭehrān, Urdū, Yazd (Domain of Shāh, khāṣṣe), The Eastern Frontier Zone – a region of deserts, less monetarily active, with 6 mints (of which only Meshhed was very active) – Dawlatābād, Meshhed, Sebzevār (12th Beglerbegate of Meshhed, without khān), Herāt (3rd Beglerbegate of Herāt), Kandahār (1st Beglerbegate of Kandahār). 2 3 202 Arabic ‫خاص‬ ḫaṣṣ – domain lands of high ruler and his family in the Islamic countries. ّ Listing of Persian regions based on: Mīrzā Naqī Naṣīrī 2008. Fig 1. Distribution of mints where copper coins were struck during the Safavid period (with approximate borders of the late Safavid administrative regions and of different economic zones) General studies on Iranian copper coins are very few in number. The first investigations for establishing the normative weights and names of these coins were carried out at the beginning of the twentieth century by Richard (Roman R.) Vasmer4 and Evgeny Pakhomov,5 and a little later and independently by Hyacinth L. Rabino di Borgomale.6 Among the studies devoted to Iranian copper coinage, one should also mention the work of Ali Radzhabli (Əli Rəcəbli)7 and a detailed analysis of sources and previous studies in the works of Tinatin Kutelia.8 At the beginning of the this century, Steve Album made the first attempt at a classification of Iranian copper coins,9 and a little later some interesting information about the existence of copper coins was included in the work of Rudi Matthee, Willem Floor and Patrick Clawson.10 Even this small number of studies reflects several different points of view on the subject, divergent in the questions of denominations of copper coin, their names and their relative values. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Vasmer 1926. Pakhomov 1928. Rabino di Borgomale 1945: 17‑18. Radzhabli 1963. Kutelia 1979; Kutelia 1990. Album 2013: 316‑321. Matthee, Floor, Clawson 2013. I R AN I AN NUM ISM ATIC STUDI ES 203 Copper coins in Iran in general were called ‫ فلوس‬fulūs (frozen form of pl. Arabic ‫ فلس‬fals “copper coin,” from Latin follis). People also referred to them generally as ‫ پل‬pul and by derivates of this word (qara-pul or pul-e siyāh “black pul”). The coins were characterized by a complex of particularities due on the one hand to the status of their issuers, and on the other hand to their metallic nature because they were minted from a base metal whose weight in the coin had only a minor relative effect on its value. The absence of normative acts on the organization of coinage in late medieval Iran requires me to pay attention to the important particularities discussed in this article that were inherent in the issuance of Safavid copper coins, and were part of the legal basis of the Safavid coinage in the form of customary law (unwritten codes). 1. Particularities of Issuance and Circulation of Copper Coins 1.1. RIGHTS OF MINTING A specific feature inherent in the issue of copper coinage in Iran was the transfer of the right to mint these coins from the state government to the rulers of the provinces whose central city was indicated on them. The right of coinage is ّ ّ known in Islamic law as sikke11 (Arabic ‫السکة‬, Persian ‫)سکه‬. The term sikke has multiple meanings. Initially it denoted an actual metal bar with an engraved negative image of the coin (i.e. a die).12 Once the names of local rulers began to be included on Islamic coins, sikke began to denote the right of legal possession of such dies and the right to proclaim the denoted name before the population by using it in the minting of coins bearing the ruler’s name (jus monetæ). It cannot be ruled out that in the early Islamic period the receipt of sikke (dies) with their name by governors bore all the signs of investiture, and upon arrival in the region the sikke themselves (i.e. the dies) served as symbols of the legitimacy of the ppointment. In the late medieval Safavid and Ottoman Empires the word sikke continued to be used in the meaning of “stamp.” It is in the sense of the “stamp” that the word sikke was preserved in late medieval Persian and Ottoman sources. It is recorded in the list of the Ottoman mint equipment of the late seventeenth century (e.g.: altın sikkesi – 8 çift; i.e. “gold dies – 8 pairs”)13 and in the “Historiography” of the Armenian Catholicos Abraham Kretac‘i (1734‑1737AD) as sigē (սիգէ “dies”), sik‘k‘ē (սիքքէ “dies”), drami sigk‘ (դրամի սիգք “dies of coins”)14, and «նոր կտրած ոսկի նոր սիգէյով, Բ քիսով», i.e. “gold [coins] newly minted by new dies, in two bags (k‘ise)”15. ّ simply as “a coin”15 In light of the Ottoman and Armenian parallels, Vladimir Minorsky’s translation of the word ‫سکه‬ 16 in §22 of the late Safavid manual Tadhkirat al-Mulūk (completed around 1725), frequently quoted by numismatists, is incorrect. The word in the source meant “dies,”17 while the general concept of “coin” in the Persian text is rendered by the terms zar (“gold”) or ashrafī (“gold coin of 3.55g”). In Iran, the right of sikke belonged to the Shāh, who exercised it by minting gold and silver coins bearing his name. The right of the ruler (caliph) to sikke was inextricably linked with the right to the proclamation of his name at the special khutbe (‫ )خطبة‬preaching during the Friday prayer jame‘, attendance at which was a duty of all Muslims. The late Safavid manual Tadhkirat al-Mulūk directly noted that ‘the glory and efficiency of Royal affairs depend on the khuṭbah and 18 ّ caliphal sikke (‫’)سکه خالفت‬. In this case, the law of sikke is itself mentioned with the adjective caliphal or royal. It is clear that the general aim of a sovereign ruler in the exercise of both these rights was the proclamation of his name among his subjects by means of actions that would reach as much of the population as possible. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 204 Here and further transliteration of the Arabic terms is given in the Persian tradition. Ibn Khaldûn 1967: 179, 216‑217. Bölükbaşı 2013: 68‑69. Abraham Kretac‘i 1973: 137, 143, 186. Abraham Kretac‘i 1973: 186. Tadhkirat al-Mulūk 1943: 58‑61. ّ fixed in the dictionary of the Persian language of the turn of the nineteenth-twelth centuries The same meaning for the word ‫سکه‬ (Gaffarov 1928: 468). Tadhkirat al-Mulūk 1943: 58. ّ In turn, the right of ḥaqq al-ḍarb (Arabic ‫حق الضرب‬, ‘right to strike [coinage],’ from the Arab ‫‘ ضرب‬beating;’ Persian ḥaqq‑e‑ẓarb) meant only the technical right to make coins (jus cudendæ monetæ) and was in no way connected with sovereign rights. The concept of ḥaqq-e-ẓarb is still overshadowed by the much more widely used term sikke as a result of which so far no special work has been devoted to it either in Western or Oriental languages. Despite this lack of codification, the term itself and its legal content are nevertheless known to Iranian numismatists which is again a reflection of the preponderance in the Islamic tradition of the oral preservation of the unwritten procedures for coinage. The consequence of a different legal basis for the production of copper coins was their anonymity because unlike the Shah, the regional ruler had no right to put his name on money (i.e. to exercise the right of sikke), but only had the right to produce coins (ḥaqq-e-ẓarb). As Evgeny Pakhomov noted, “from the second half of the fourteenth century, Iranian copper gradually begins to lose its dynastic character and in the fifteenth century turns completely into a local coinage, a municipal coinage, issued entirely independently of dynastic changes, solely on behalf of the city,”19 or rather, of the city and its region. However, there is an exception to this rule relating to the period from the late 970H/1570sAD to 1039H/1629‑1630AD in which judging by monetary legend, the Shahs extended their inherent right of sikke to the fuluses also which were issued at that time exclusively on their behalf 20 (as it will be discussed below). With the exception of this period and regardless of whether we are considering the time of the beglerbeks or the period of independent khanates, the beneficiary of the minting of copper coins (Persian ‫ وجبی‬wajebī)21 has always been a local ruler – the hakim of the city, valī, serdar or beglerbek of the region, and in the Southern Caucasus after the death of Nādir Shāh – the local khans. 1.2. LOCALITY Outside the circulation area, that is the region of the city indicated on the coin, the value of copper coin in relation to other coins was less than half of the usual.22 An Italian traveler of the seventeenth century Pietro della Valle, speaking about the city of Fīrūzkūh on the road between Ṭehrān and Mazandarān testifies indisputably to this fact: “this city is the last of the province of ‘Irāq[-i ‘Ajam], in consenquence of which the copper money of Iṣfahān ceases to pass for more than half its value. It is a remarkable circumstance in Persia, that although silver coins be universally current at the same value, copper should pass to a different province from that in which it was issued at only half its price, even though it was larger and heavier than that in circulation of the stamp in the province in which it is tendered.”23 1.3. DEVALUATION IN TIME Another particularity of the circulation of copper coinage was as a rule its devaluation by half after the expiration of the time of its circulation. This happened at Nowrūz (the Iranian New Year, celebrated on March 21) when a new coin was issued. The practice of regularly devaluing the local copper coinage and exchanging it for a new one (Persian ‫ )تغ ّیر دادن‬was widespread in Iran, whereas the opposite cases were considered extraordinary. Thus in the building inscription on the mosque of the ruler of Astrābād (died in 939H /1532-1533AD), it was specially noted that he never changed the value of the coinage during his reign24. Information about this custom is also found among European travelers, for example, in the works of Judasz Tadeusz Krusinsky25 and Adam Olearius.26 However, it is not known whether they encountered this custom regularly, every year only once encountered it during their journey, so it is not entirely clear how consistent the application of this rule was geographically (at all mints) or in terms of periodicity (strictly done 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Pakhomov 1928: 87. Akopyan 2017. Matthee, Floor, Clawson 2013: 15. However, even in this case the price of the coin could not be lower than the price of the metal contained in it (contra: Matthee, Floor, Clawson 2013: 27). Della Valle 1843: 586; cited by Matthee, Floor, Clawson 2013: 27. Rabino di Borgomale 1945: 20. Krusinski 1733: 89. Olearius 1669: 223. I R AN I AN NUM ISM ATIC STUDI ES 205 every year). The known gaps in dates in the coinage of the fulūs can also be explained by the use of “frozen dates,” in which case the date on the coin is the year the type was approved (as Evgeny Pakhomov noted27). 1.4. OVERPRICING The practice of frequent sometimes annual change of types of Iranian copper coins was fueled by a major overvaluation of these in essence Freigeld which had a limited period of circulation and de facto negative annual rate28. While with gold and silver coins the percentage of the metal’s value in the purchasing power of the coin was always high, varying within 90‑95%; for copper coins it was much lower, comprising an estimated 35% to 62.5%.29 The lion’s share of the cost of the copper coin consisted of the overvaluation by the ruler. Naturally, with such a high level of overvaluation, intensive exploitation of the state monopoly on copper coins brought a significant income to the regional ruler. The Gesell nature of Iranian copper coins led to their high circulation – the overwhelming number of copper coins found are characterized by significant wear (and this despite the fact that copper is harder than silver, yet coins struck from the latter metal are never found worn to the point that one cannot even determine the type). 1.5. JURIDICAL BASIS FOR THE CIRCULATION OF COPPER COINS Apparently, the local nature and temporal limitation of the circulation of copper coins were the consequence of a the rule of Islamic law already established by the tenth century, according to which a copper coin was not a currency acceptable for every transaction,30 and therefore could only be used for certain predetermined kinds of payments31 (‘the sphere of copper circulation,’ as it was defined by Elena Davidovich)32. The range of such transactions and taxes is known for late medieval Iran, where various taxes were collected with copper coins (e.g., the poll-tax, bash-puli, in Nakhichevan33 or a tax of 20 dīnārs34 from Armenians to benefit the Ēǰmiacin Catholicosate)35. They were also used for the calculation of taxes related to day-to-day retail or small-scale wholesale trading activities (e.g. for the right to bring cartloads of some kind of product to the market). Despite the time and territorial limitations inherent to the circulation of copper coins, the state guaranteed the exchange of fulūs for silver coins, which was carried out within the region and the time period of their circulation36. Such a territorial/temporal aggregate description of coinage (made from any metal) was conveyed by the Persian terms ‫‘ عدل‬adl ‘legal,’37 or, later, ‫ رایج‬ra’ij ‘current,’ sporadically encountered both in coin legends and in countermarks validating the circulation of older coins (‫رایج فلوس عدل عدل‬, sometimes with the addition of the name of the mint, etc., see Fig 2‑5).38 27 28 Pakhomov 1928: 90. Freigeld – regional money, additional to the basic currency, functioning only for a limited period of time and subject to regular (monthly or annual) devaluation. Known also as Gesell money named after the German theoretical economist Johann Silvio Gesell (1862‑1930), who developed the theory of its circulation. 29 According to the calculations of Irakli Paghava at the beginning of the eighteenth century the price of copper in the fulūs was 35‑50% (Paghava 2012). Adam Olearius at the beginning of the seventeenth century indicated a value of less than 62.5%: from copper at the rate of 1 ‘abbāsī = 200 dīnārs were struck coins at the rate of 64 qazbegī = 320 dīnārs, plus some extra for the cost of minting. Heidemann 2010: 650. Kutelia 1990: 25; Matthee, Floor, Clawson 2013: 26‑27. 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 206 Bournoutian 1992: 153. Dīnār, Arabic ‫ – دینار‬the name of Islamic gold coins of the seventh–twelfth centuries. The term was borrowed by the Arabs from Middle Persian (which came in turn from the Middle Greek δηνάριον, from Latin dēnārius). However, over time the dīnār was significantly devalued, and by the sixteenth century it was the name for the smallest copper coin. Zak‘aria Agulisc‘i 1939: 75. Matthee, Floor, Clawson 2013: 8. One should not see in the word ‫‘ عدل‬adl on the Safavid coins (as, for example, in the inscription ‫‘ عدل تبریز‬adl-e Tabrīz ‘legal [coin] of Tabrīz,’ placed on gold, silver, and copper coins) the name of the denomination ‫‘ عدلیة‬adliya (contra: Kutelia 1990: 34), which was used in Central Asia and Eastern Iran from the Mongol period up until the sixteenth century, i.e. it had already passed out of usage by the early Safavid time (Album 2013: 232, No. 2157А; 233, Nos. 2163А, 2166А; 234, No. 2176А; 259, No. 2390; 322, No. 3280). The same in a deed of purchase of 1214H/1799AD: ‫[« رایج بلدة نخجوان‬by the coins], current in the city of Nakhichevan» (Nakhichevan Manuscripts 1936: 81). Fig 2. Tebrīz, 954H, fulūs with the countermark ‘adl-е Dār-е Sulṭānat Tabrīz 954 39 Fig 3. MM, DM, fulūs with the countermark fulūs-e ‘adl 40 Fig 4. Hamadān, 1238H, fulūs (with word rā’ij on the reverce)41 Fig 5. Shemakhī (or Shirwān Khanate), DM, fulūs with the countermark rā’ij 42 1.6. NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE Analyses of numismatic data does support such specific particularities of copper coinage. Hoards of fulūses are extremely rare and while the vast majority of coins in such hoards were struck at local mints, the dates of the coins gravitate toward the years closest to the terminus post quem (tpq) of the hoard. Unfortunately there is still no recording of coin hoards and finds in Iran, so I have to limit myself to a study of hoards of Iranian copper coins from the South Caucasus where information of this kind has been and continues to be systematically collected. An analysis of the topography of single finds confirms that both civic fulūses and copper coins naming the Shah circulated locally. Considering their particular character (i.e. the stability of their value), the fulūses naming the Shah apparently would have circulated even well after the date of their issuance, perhaps throughout the entire reign of the Shah who had them struck. 39 40 41 42 Weight is unknown (Zeno, №164544). Weight 12.60g (State Historical Museum of Armenia, inv. no. Æ8756). Weight 6.28g (Zeno, no. 102490). Weight 8.22 г (State Historic Museum of Armenia, inv. no. Æ9317). I R AN I AN NUM ISM ATIC STUDI ES 207 In the South Caucasus only one early Safavid hoard of copper coins is known from a tpq of 993H/1585AD.43 It was unearthed in Ganja and consists coins of mints located in Beglerbegate of Qarābāgh-o-Ganja. These are Kākhed–80%, Zagem–14% (both are names of one mint); and Ganja–3% with an admixture of 3% imported coins from Tiflīs. A main bulk (83%) of the coins from this hoard are undated, but among the dated coins 11% belong to the last year 993H, and 6% to the time of Muḥammad Khudabande (985‑993H). For the late Safavid period five or eight hoards containing the production of South Caucasus mints are known with a tpq of 1130-1135H/1717-1723AD, when hoarding was connected with the Afghan invasion (1721) and the fifth Ottoman-Safavid war of 1723-1727. These hoards (some quite large), are from Armenia (?),44 Göygöl (Azerbaijan),45 Meghri (Armenia),46 Vosketap‘ (Armenia),47 Patara Ateni (Georgia),48 Ereda (Georgia),49 the Republic of Artsakh (No. I)50 and the Republic of Artsakh (No. II).51 To these same years most likely should be dated the hoard from Idlet‘i (Georgia), as well as the extraordinarily huge hoards from Goris (Armenia), Ferik (Armenia) and Aydınqışlaq (Azerbayjan), about which only general information is known to date. The wave of human resettlements caused by the Ottoman invasion of 1723 was reflected in two hoards of Irawān fulūses from the Republic of Artsakh (Nos. I and II); this wave also reached the Crimean peninsula on the southern shore of which in 2015 a hoard of exclusively Irawān fulūses with a tpq of 1133H was found,52 which was undoubtedly connected with military events in Armenia. Taking as the most common copper denomination in 1130‑1135H a pul equal to 5 counting dīnārs (this is a coin weighing one Iranian mithqāl, equal to 4.61g; see Chapter 2.4 of this article), it turns out that the total values of the hoards hidden during these years are grouped around the following sums: • • • •  50 to 150 counting dīnārs or 1‑3 silver shāhīs (Vosketap‘ hoard: 8 coins; hoards from Republic of Artsakh (I) from and Republic of Artsakh (II): 9 coins each; Meghri hoard: 15 coins; Idlet‘i hoard: 20 coins; Crimean hoard: 30 coins), from about 1000 counting dīnārs or 5 silver ‘abbāsī (Aydınqışlaq hoard: 193 coins; Ferik hoard: 203 coins), about  3000 counting dīnārs or 15 silver ‘abbāsī (Goris hoard: 590 coins; Armenia (?) hoard: 676 coins), about  6000 counting dīnārs or 30 silver ‘abbāsī (Göygöl hoard: about 1200 coins). These hidden sums can be interpreted as the savings of a nuclear family (8‑30 copper coins) or an extended family (193‑203 copper coins). As for the larger treasures, their unambiguous interpretation is difficult because of their manifest variability. An analysis of the published hoards indicates that, despite the preponderance of coins dated just before the tpq, the owners of even the smallest hoards had older coins on hand (see Fig 6). The composition of the short-term accumulation hoards eloquently testifies to a certain chronological duration of the process of retiring the old coins from circulation even after the coining of the fulūses of the new year, when the hoards of old coins still retained their validity (ra’ij ) and still continued to be considered as money. Among other things, this led to their joint hoarding with coins issued in the year of the hoard’s tpq. Nevertheless, all known hoards of Iranian copper coins reflect the relatively short duration of their accumulation especially in comparison with hoards of silver coins. The information obtained from the analysis of the these hoards and single finds of copper coins indicates their exclusively local circulation. Thus in the published hoard possibly from Armenia (676 coins, 667 of which were identified) Irawān coins consist of 99.8% of the total with an admixture of one copper coin each from Tiflīs and Ganja; in the Vosketap‘ hoard (8 coins, 7 identified) all coins are of Irawān except one of Ganja; in the two hoards from the Republic of 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 208 Akopyan 2015: 116; Akopyan, Aleksanyan 2015: 147‑170. The exact place this hoard was found is unknown. The hoard contained 676 copper coins of 1116-1133H (Severova 1981; Mousheghian, Mousheghian, Bresc, Depeyrot, Gurnet 2003: 113). A hoard of 6kg copper coins, mainly Ganja fulūses of 1132H (Pakhomov 1938: 60. №549). A small hoard of 15 fulūses of the eighteenth century (Pakhomov 1949a: 86. №1258). A small hoard of 8 fulūses of 1095‑1133H (Pakhomov 1954: 67. №1655; Mousheghian, Mousheghian, Bresc, Depeyrot, Gurnet 2002: 64‑65). A jug with copper coins. Among the 4 coins examined were fulūses of 1120‑1130H (Pakhomov 1949b: 42. №1490). A big hoard of copper coins. Among the 6 coins examined were fulūses of «1011H» (i.e. 1100sH) – 1130H (Pakhomov 1949b: 42‑43. №1491). A hoard of 9 copper coins of 1133‑1135H (Akopyan 2017). 9 copper coins of 1130‑1133H (Akopyan 2015: 118, №17). A hoard of 30 Irawān fulūses of 1125‑1133H (Akopyan 2017). Artsakh (No. I – 9 coins, 7 identified; No. II – 9 coins, 8 identified) 100% of the coins were struck in Irawān. The same applies to the hoard from the Crimea (30 coins) completely consisting of Irawān coppers, and to all the hoards from Georgia, consisting entirely of Tiflīs copper coins (with an admixture of Russian coins when the hoards’ tpq was later than the 1850’s). Since this regularity occurs regardless of the size of the hoard, it can be safely assumed that the circulation of the coins narrowly within the region of issuance is indeed a basic characteristic of the fulūses. At the same time of course the penetration of copper coins from other regions is known, but due to their singularity such finds reflect not so much the peculiarities of the region›s monetary circulation as interregional contacts. This is particularly evident in an analysis of hoards and single finds of the eighteenth to the nineteenth centuries from the western coast of the Caspian Sea, dominated by fulūses of the southern Caspian region (especially from Resht) with some admixture of local and Russian copper kopecks. a 1133 57% b 1135 43% 1133 50% 1135 38% 1130 12% 1120 1116 1132 0% 1% 1133 1122 6% 6% 1132 20% 1095 20% 1132 20% 1127 11% 1128 7% 1133 40% 1130 9% c 1132 20% 1133 21% 1130 14% 1132 39% d 1127 20% 1133 23% 1125 23% e Fig 6. Distribution of coins per anno in the described hoards of copper coins with a tpq of 1130‑1135H / 1717‑1723AD (a. Republic of Artsakh (I), b. Republic of Artsakh (II), c. Vosketap‘, d. possibly from Armenia, e. Crimea) Pecularities that have been identified and analyzed regarding the minting and circulation of Iranian copper coins of the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries allow me to outline the range of basic legal customs (or unwritten norms) under which they were emitted. Such an analysis is an indispensable tool in reconstucting the peculiarities of regional monetary activity (i.e. the complex of the monetary system and laws regulating it) in late medieval Iran. Limiting the purchasing power of non-local copper coins within a certain region was a form of protection for both the local copper coinage and the income of the local ruler from competition from other copper coins. In such protectionist actions, one can see the reflection of a certain and quite consistent monetary policy in the sphere of copper coinage, which in the realities of late-medieval Iran was sanctioned not simply by the local authorities but by the Shah himself. A possible reason for removing the Shah from the process of minting copper coinage was a desire to reduce the demand by local authorities on the silver in the Shah’s treasury (since all local rulers not only paid taxes to the treasury, but also received a salary from the Shah) by transferring some independence to them in monetary matters specifically in the minting of copper coinage. I R AN I AN NUM ISM ATIC STUDI ES 209 2. Standard Weights and Face Values of Copper Coins Throughout the copper coins’ production period, the denomination of these coins was never indicated on them53 but was rendered by the general-name for a copper coin, fulūs. Therefore for the reconstruction of the system of denominations of copper coins, in addition to the study of numismatic material, it is also necessary to factor in data from written sources (both European and Oriental). The main defect of all past studies was the failure to place the practice of coining and circulating copper coins in their proper historical context so that the identification of different weights of copper coins was never subjected to periodization. To illustrate and explain the weights and denominations of copper coins from the earliest period of Safavid copper coinage, researchers attempted to use retrospective analyses and to draw conclusions by analogy based on the data of previous copper coins minted in Afghanistan and Central Asia. I am thoroughly convinced that, because of the significant temporal and geographic diversity of Iranian copper coinage, this approach is methodologically incorrect. Data about copper coins that bear a denomination but were minted in pre-Safavid Afghanistan is not applicable to the situation even in the early Safavid domains in western Iran,54 nor is there any basis for the application of data on the ratio of silver and copper in Transoxiana to the Safavid territories. The low percentage of the price of copper to the nominal value of a copper coin in Safavid Iran, and consequently the arbitrarily high degree of its overvaluation, do not allow one to consider the nominal value assigned to copper coins in the same manner in different state entities. An analysis of the weight of copper coins shows a division into recognizable denominations during different periods of time. However, further conclusions regarding the standard weights of Iranian fuluses must be preceded by preliminary remarks. First, due to high fluctuations in the weight of copper coins, often reaching 50%, a determination of the standard weight must take into account not only the average weight of copper coins but also the median of their weights. Second, the inaccuracy of following certain weight standards of copper coins as well as high manufacturing tolerances in the production of such coins makes it necessary to approach with caution any analysis based on statistically unconfirmed weights of single specimens. Taking into account all of the above, and also using previous studies, it seems possible to build the following system of denominations and weights of Iranian copper coins. 2.1. THE LOCAL WEIGHT STANDARDS At the beginning of the Safavid era both silver and copper coins were minted according to different local weight standards. In the central parts of Iran (e.g. at the mints of Tabrīz, Qazwīn and others) the weight of the Iranian mithqāl of 4.61g was used from the beginning of the Sefevid era, but throughout Iran the weight of copper coins became a divisible of the Iranian mithqāl only by the AH 980-990’s. The coins of the mint Kākhed (‫کاخد‬, located in Zagem (Bazari), the capital of the Kakhet‘ian kingdom, now on the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan) date from the earliest period of the Safavid-type copper coinage in the Southern Caucasus.55 These coins are undated, but according to their design, coin legend and terminus ante quem of mint renaming in Zagem ( ‫ )زگم‬they can be dated by 930-960’sH.56 They are known in two weight groups related to each other as 1 : 2 and gravitating toward the values of 6.23g and 13.94g. Based on the known Iranian weight units in these coins, it is reasonable to see fulūses weighing two and four Iranian dirhams, which according to Walther Hinz; weighed about 3.22g in actuality, these tended to an even greater value57 of 3.36g according to the coins. No other South Caucasian coins of this weight standard are known. Due to the silence in the sources about these early coins, the question with their names can not be solved so far. The following weight standard, used for the coinage of copper coins, was a multiple of 3.84g. Judging by this value, the penetration of the Persian units of weights in the Southern Caucasus was already quite stable by the time of its use, 53 With r are exceptions, like 8 0 fulūs of Rasht, 1022H with indication “100 dīnārs” instead of 40 dīnārs according by weight (Alaedini 2013: 87). 54 Rabino di Borgomale 1945: 17; Kutelia 1990: 34. T. S. Kutelia, following H. L. Rabino di Borgomale, draws conclusions about the early-Safavid system of weights of copper coins on the basis of the coinage of Ḥiṣar and Kandahār (by the way, erroneously instead of Kundūz), bearing the face value of “two dinars” and weighing two mithqāls of 4.64g. However, these coins were not minted in 957 or 970H, as both researchers believed, but in 907H, that is, at the very beginning of the sixteenth century, when Safavid rule did not spread so far to the east (cf. Album 2001: Nos. 685, 1034, 1035). 55 Akopyan, Aleksanyan 2015. 56 Akopyan, Aleksanyan 2015: 155‑157. 57 Hinz 1970: 16. 210 since the weight of 3.84g is simply associated with the Iranian mithqāl in the ratio of 5 : 6. In the Iranian weight units it can be called a light mithqāl (lm) containing 20 nokhūd, while the Iranian version contained 24 nokhūd. Coins with weights as multiples of Southern Caucassian mithqāl are known of the following mints: a) Aresh – fulūs with missing date: ½ lm (Fig 7), b) Ganja – fulūses with missing date: ⅔ lm (Fig 8); 1 lm;58 2 lm (Fig 10), c) Nakhjawān – fulūses with missing date: 1 lm,59 2 lm,60 d) Urdūbād – fulūs with missing date: 1 lm (Fig 9), e) Zagem – fulūses with missing date: ½ lm;61 and fulūses of 993H: 2 lm;62 4 lm (Fig 11). Fig 7. Aresh, DM, fulūs weighing ½ lm Fig 8. Ganja, DM, fulūs weighing ⅔ lm Fig 9. Urdūbād, DM, fulūs weighing 1 lm Fig 10. Ganja, DM, fulūs weighing 2 lm 58 59 60 61 62 Author’s collection. State Historical Museum of Armenia, inv. no. Æ7709. Kutelia 1990: 94, no. 541. This and the three other coins of Zagem are described in an article dedicated to the Ganja hoard (Akopyan, Aleksanyan 2015). It is still unclear how to attribute the coin with the countermark ‘adl-e fulūs and the anepigraphic coin from the same hoard because of the possibly high deviation of their weights from the standard, expressed in the local or in the Iranian mithqāl. Akopyan, Aleksanyan 2015: 158, no. 33. I R AN I AN NUM ISM ATIC STUDI ES 211 Fig 11. Zagem, 993H, fulūs weighing 4 lm63 We also lack information about the names of these coins. The weights (½, ⅔, 1 and 2 lm) have a common base of 6 or 10 lm, whose nominal value in dīnārs should be a multiple of the smallest silver coin of that time (50 dīnārs). The equation 6x lm = 50 dīnārs gives a set of coin denominations difficult for practical use, while the equation 10x lm = 50 dīnārs creates a convenient system of denominations that correspond to each other as follows: 100x coins of ½ lm = 75x coins of ⅔ lm = 50x coins of 1 lm = 25x coins of 2 lm = silver shāhī; and most probably, x = 1. The standard based on the weight of the light mithqāl of 3.84g returned into use in the margins of the Iranian world from the early 1200’sH, as indicated by the coins struck in Georgia, the Caucasian khanates (mints of Ganja and Panāhābād), the Caspian Zone (mints of Māzandarān,64 Resht,65 Sārī,66 Ṭabarestān67), Kurdistān (mints of Kermānshāhān,68 Sa’ujbulākh69), but also in Tabriz,70 Dizfūl71 and Nihāvend72. 2.2. 6,1*/( WEIGHT STANDARD (IRANIAN MITHQĀL) The termination of coinage according to a standard based on a local mithqāl and the transition to an Iranian mithqāl varies in the South Caucasus from city to city. Judging by the coins that have been preserved, in Nakhjawān coins based on the Iranian mithqāl were minted beginning in 949H,73 but at other South Caucassian mints much later – in Aresh from 978H,74 in Ganja since 984H (Fig 16), in Īrawān since 988H (Fig 30), and in Urdūbād from 992H (Fig 17).75 Judging by this data, until the late 970’sH in the South Caucasus fulūses could still be produced according to a local standard based on the weight of the local mithqāl. The early transition to the Iranian mithqāl in Nakhjawān could be connected with the administrative subordination of this city to the beglarbek of Tebrīz rather than Īrawān from at least 949H. The numismatic data known to date show that the introduction of the Iranian mithqāl in the South Caucasus, i.e. the unification of the South Caucasus weight units with the Iranian ones, preceded by several years the coinage of fulūses of a single la‘nat type. During the subsequent period of coinage in the South Caucasus and Iran, fulūses were minted with weights in multiples of the Iranian mithqāl (hereinafter – м) in 4.61g. For this period, a large quantity of information about the names of coins has been preserved, it needs to be ordered chronologically and linked to the weights of actual coins: 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 212 Akopyan, Aleksanyan 2015, no. 32. Alaedini 2013: 32. Alaedini 2013: 87, 94, 99. Alaedini 2013: 85. Alaedini 2013: 72, 73, 75. Alaedini 2013: 41. Alaedini 2013: 81, 84. Alaedini 2013: 121. Alaedini 2013: 102. Alaedini 2013: 22. Author’s database. Akopyan, Mosanef 2010: 18, no. 10‑13; Alaedini 2013: 152. Weight 18.47g (Forschungsstelle für islamische Numismatik Tübingen, inv. No. JC5F6), 17.29g (Stephen Album Rare Coins, Auction 23, lot 551). 1. “brass coin called casipeghi76 or qazbaki”77 – Tebrīz, 946-947H/1540AD, reign of Ṭahmāsp I, 2. double qâz78 is 10 dinars79 – Iṣfahān, 1615AD, reign of ‘Abbās I; therefore, ghāz = 5 dīnārs, qazbegī = 10 dīnārs;80 3. “when the fruits [in the garden of Shah ‘Аbbās] are fit to eat, they [wardeners] permit any that have a mind to go into it, and to eat what they please of the fruits, paying four kasbeki, or two pence a piece”81, “the Persians call all sorts of Copper or Brass money Pul, but there is one particular kind thereof, which they call Kasbeki, whereof forty make an Abas … he [the King of Persia] pays for a pound of this Metal [brass], but an abas … and he hath made of it sixty four Kasbegi”82 – 1637AD, Iṣfahān, reign of Ṣefī I; therefore, qazbegī = 200/40 = 5 dīnārs; 4. “Ils ont aussi d’autres monnoies de cuivre, savoir: kasbequi (khassbeguy), et demi-kasbequi, mot composé de kas, monnoie, d’où est venu le mot de kasné (khaznéh), qui signifie trésor, et de bek, seigneur *; comme qui diroit la monnoie du roi; et cette monnoie eat la dixième partie d’un chayé {*toute cette explication manque de justesse – khâss83 est un mot arabe adopté par les Persans, pour indiquer tout ce qui appartient au souverain. Tavernier écrit casbequé, et l’évalue à cinq deniers une maille. Olearius écrit kasbeki, et dit qu’il en faut quarante pour faire un a’bbâcy, évalué, comme on sait, alors à dix-huit sols; author’s note}”84, «2 Poùli Syâh ou Qarah Poùl [equal to] 1 Guez, 10 Gues [equal to] 1 Cháhy”85 – 1660‑1670’sAD, Iṣfahān, reign of ‘Abbās II;  5. “maar wel veel kopere Munt, die su Pul noemen, en waar van 40 op een Abas geen”86 – 1670’sAD, Iṣfahān, reign of Suleymān I; 6. “qaz known as pul”87 – 1718AD, reign of Ḥuseyn I ; 7. Russo-Georgian coin of 1804‑1833AD were struck with following notation in dīnārs: quadruple p‘uli 88 or bisti 89 = 20 dīnārs = 4 м, double p‘uli = 10 dīnārs = 2 м, p‘uli = 5 dīnārs = 1 м (the names of these coins are given according to the research of Evgeny Pakhomov based on many sources, including information of Georgian Prince T‘eymuraz)90, before them were struck copper shauri 91 (shāhī) = 50 dīnārs = 10 м. Earlier, no attention was paid to this, but even from a simple comparison of this data, it can be seen that between 1024H/1615AD (the report of Richard Steele) and 1047H/1637AD (the message of Adam Olearius), that is, in the second half of the reign of ‘Abbās I or the beginning of the reign Ṣefī I, in Iran there was a change in the weight of the dīnār, which followed from the change in the nominal quantity of dīnārs in different copper coins of the same weight. 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 Persian ‫ قاضی بیکی‬qāzī begī or ‫ قزبکی‬qazbegī (the latter form is undoubtedly a contraction form). The history of the appearance of the term is obscured – the legend of the first issue of such coins by a certain Qāzī-bek who ruled in Shirwān in 1501‑1502AD, quoted by Rudi Matthee and co‑authors (Matthee, Floor, Clawson 2013: 22), has no confirmation in any coins. Another version was cited by Jean Chardin (see further). Membré 1999: 51. Persian ‫ قاز‬ghāz with unclear etymology. A letter of Richrd Steele from Iṣfahān dated 9 October 1615 cited by: Rabino di Borgomale 1945: 17. Dīnār ‫ – دینار‬name of Islamic gold coins of seventh–twelth centuries. The term was borrowed by the Arabs from the Middle Persian (in which appeared from the Middle Greek δηνάριον, borrowed from Latin dēnārius). However, over time, the value of the dīnār was significantly devalued, and by the sixteenth century thus called smallest copper coin. Olearius 1669: 224. Olearius 1669: 223. Arabic ‫خاص‬ ḫaṣṣ – domain lands of high ruler and his family in the Islamic countries. ّ Chardin 1811: 182. Chardin 1811: 185. Struys 1677: 336 Cited by: Rabino di Borgomale 1945: 17. Georgian ფული p‘uli from Persian or Turk pul. Persian ‫ بیستی‬from bist ‘twenty.’ Pakhomov 1928: 106. Georgian შაური shauri «of Shah» (*შაჰური shahuri) from Persian ‫ شاهی‬shāhī. I R AN I AN NUM ISM ATIC STUDI ES 213 2.3. PRE-REFORM SYSTEM The pre-reform system is being reconstructed by analyzing the information of Michel Membré and Richard Steele. Originally it was systematized by Hyacinth L. Rabino di Borgomale in the following form:92 • small qâz or qâzbak = 5 dīnārs, •  tanga, double qâz or qâzbak = 10 dīnārs. Although the terms ghāz and qazbegī were synonymous (or confused), S. Album93 later divided them into two separate denominations. He also supplemented the system with one more denomination, the bistī, retrospectively transplanting this name from the post-reform period (it is given in square brackets, since it is not found in the contemporary sources): • ghaz = 5 dīnārs, weight = 2 м, • qazbegi = 10 dīnārs, weight = 4 м, • [bisti] = 20 dīnārs, weight = 8 м. Both European letters (of Richard Steele and Adam Olearius) are most likely related to the situation in Iran in general, and not to the capital Iṣfahān only, where these travellers spent the longest time, and where copper coinage is confidently dated only from a later time (1078H/1667-68AD).94 However, the list of copper coin denominations was much longer and included the following denominations minted at different times at different mints (examples are provided in brackets): • [quarter of a small ghāz, rob‘-e kūchuk ghāz] = 1¼ dīnārs, weight = ½ м (Fig 12), • [half of a small ghāz, nīm-ghāz] = 2½ dīnārs, weight = 1 м (Fig 13), • (denomination of unknown name) = 3¾ dīnārs, weight = 1½ м (Fig 14), • small ghāz or small qazbegī [kūchuk ghāz, kūchuk qazbegī] = 5 dīnārs, weight = 2 м (Fig 15), • [eighth of a shāhī] = 6¼ dīnārs, weight = 2½ м (Fig 16), • double ghāz or double qazbegī [do ghāz, do qazbegī] = 10 dīnārs, weight = 4 м (Fig 17), • [rob‘-e shāhī] = 12½ dīnārs, weight = 5 м (Fig 18), • [bistī] = 20 dīnārs, weight = 8 м (Fig 19). Only the denomination of 3¾ dīnārs is unclear in this system; it is one-quarter of 15 dīnārs, and possibly had a specific name. Fig 12. Kermān, 926H, quarter of a small ghāz95 Fig 13. Astarābād, 952H, half of a small ghāz96 92 93 94 95 96 214 Rabino di Borgomale 1945: 17. Album 2013: 318. Kutelia 1990: 99, no. 062; Album 2001: no. 254. Weight 3.16g (Akopyan, Aleksanyan 2015: 161‑162, no. 36). Akopyan, Mosanef 2013: 17, no. 4. Fig 14. Nakhjawān, 998H (?), fulūs weighing 1½ m97 Fig 15. Shah (Muḥammad Khudabandeh), Irawān, 986H, small ghāz98 Fig 16. ‘Ādelī (Isma‘īl II), Qaṣrat al-Dasht Ganja, 984H, eighth of a shāhī 99 Fig 17. Shah (Muḥammad Khudabandeh), Urdūbād, 992H, double ghāz100 Fig 18. Kāshān, [9]93H (date isunclear, time of Muḥammad Khudabandeh), rob‘-e shahi 97 98 99 100 Date is not very clear, weight 6.74g (Forschungsstelle für Islamische Numismatik, inv. no. JB6B3). Weight 8.8g (Zeno, no. 62694. 11.42g (Akopyan, Mosanef 2013: 16, no. 2). Weight 17.29g (author’s collection). I R AN I AN NUM ISM ATIC STUDI ES 215 Fig 19. Qazwīn, ND (time of Muḥammad Khudabandeh), bistī 2.4. POST-REFORM SYSTEM The post-refom system was reconstructed by Evgeny Pakhomov based on data from the Russo-Georgian coins of the early nineteenth century, and retrospectively extended back to the initial coining of copper at the Tiflīs mint under Ṣefī I. With the addition of information from the reports of European travelers, as well as numismatic data from the copper coinage of other mints, the system looks thus (Georgian names are given in parentheses): • half-qazbegī (half-p‘uli), yarïm-pul, pul-e siyāh, qara-pul, [nīm-pul, nīm-qazbegī] = 2½ dīnārs, weight = ½ м (Fig 20), • qazbegī, pul, ghāz (p‘uli) = 5 dīnārs, weight = 1 м (Fig 21), • (denomination of unknown name) = 7½ dīnārs, weight = 1½ м (Fig 22), • double qazbegī (double p‘uli) [do qazbegī, do pul] = 10 dīnārs, weight = 2 м (Fig 23), • [quarter shāhī], [rob‘-e shāhī] = 12½ dīnārs, weight = 2½ м (Fig 24), • [three pul], [se pul] = 15 dīnārs, weight = 3 м (Fig 25), • bistī (quadruple p‘uli) = 20 dīnārs, weight = 4 м (Fig 26), • shāhī (shauri) = 50 dīnārs, weight = 10 м (Fig 27). Fig 20. Tabrīz, 905H (or 950H), half-qāzbegī Fig 21. Nakhjawān, 1148H, qāzbegī101 Fig 22. Tabrīz, 113(0)H, fulūs with weight 1½ m102 101 Weight 4.3g (Zeno, no. 164528). 102 Weight 6.30g (Zeno, no. 83546). 216 Fig 23. Īrawān, 1052H, double qāzbegī103 Fig 24. Īrawān, 1052H, quarter shāhī104 Fig 25. Īrawān, 1821AD, three qāzbegī105 Fig 26. Shīrāz, 1115H, bistī106 Fig 27. Ganja Khanate, 1208H, shāhī107 Clearly even while retaining the names of the denominations, the post-reform copper coins weighed only half as much. As in the pre-reform period dīnārs continued to be counted in units of fifteen, since the occasional coin of 7½ dīnārs was minted, even if only rarely. In the Southern Caucasus, for a coin of 5 dinars the name pul was used. In addition 103 104 105 106 107 Weight 8.93g (State Historical Musem of Armenia, inv. no. Æ11657). Weight 10.35g (author’s collections) Weight 13.47g (Zeno, no. 161447). Weight 18.16g (Zeno, no. 130914). Weight 30.71g (private collection), struck in late local Ganja standard with 5 dīnārs equal to 3.14g (equal to ⅔ of mithqāl). I R AN I AN NUM ISM ATIC STUDI ES 217 to Tiflīs, this name is recorded in Īrawān108 and Nakhjawān109 as well as in Qarabāgh, and therefore it is reasonable to assume it for Ganja as well. Both before and after the reform the relationship between the weights of the most common copper coins was 1 : 2 : 4 м, but coins were often minted with a weight of 2½ м (coins with weights of ½, 1½, 8 or 10 м were relatively rare). Previously coins with standard weights of 1½ м and 2½ м were not distinguished from coins with a weight of 2 м, which greatly skewed the statistical data within this group. The firm demarcation of these groups is based inter alia on the casus of 1052H, when different types of coins were minted in Īrawān – one weighing 2 м with the image of a partridge to the left, and another weighing 2½ м with the image of an elephant to the right. The absence of the practice of weighing copper coins during transactions and the proximity of the weights (1 м and 1½ м, 2 м and 2½ м) inevitably led to different designs for the coins of different weight (and therefore denomination) struck in the same year.110 Table 1 contains the denominations and weights of pre-reform and post-reform Iranian copper coins. Pre-reform coins Name Denomination [quarter of a small ghāz, rob‘-e kūchuk ghāz] 1¼ dīnārs [nim-ghāz] Weight Post-reform coins Denomination Name ½м 2½ dīnārs nim-qazbegī 2½ dīnārs 1м 5 dīnārs qazbegī, pul, ghāz ? 3¾ dīnārs 1½ м 7½ dīnārs ? small ghāz or small qazbegī 5 dīnārs 2м 10 dīnārs double qazbegī [eighth of shāhī] 6¼ dīnārs 2½ м 12½ dīnārs [rob‘-e shāhī] – – 3м 15 dīnārs [se pul] double ghāz or double qazbegī 10 dīnārs 4м 20 dīnārs bistī [rob‘-e shāhī] 12½ dīnārs 5м – – [bistī] 20 dīnārs 8м – – – – 10 м 50 dīnārs shāhī Table 1. Names, denominations and standard weights of pre-reform and post-reform Iranian copper coins111 In their studies, Western numismatists (Steve Album, Rudi Matthee and others) continued to follow the description of the system of copper coins devised by Hyacinth L. Rabino di Borgomale, while Soviet numismatists (e.g. Ali Radzhabli) worked from the system constructed by Evgeny Pakhomov. The irreconcilability of these two systems to one other, as well as the inapplicability of the first system to later coins and vice versa, forced other scholars (e.g. Tinatin Kutelia) to limit themselves to the use of the general term fulūs in describing Iranian copper coins. Moreover, an analysis of Eastern sources (Persian, Ottoman, Armenian and Georgian) requires one to make allowance for custom, which has a long history and exceptionally stable existence in Iran. The issue here is the description of any sums of money solely in terms of counting units (dinars and tumans), which could be represented very differently in actual coins. This kind of counting was the basic one used from the very beginning of Safavid rule (definitely continuing the old Mongol/Ilkhānid tradition). All the coins of Tahmāsp I and his successors were expres108 Pointed out by G. А. Bournoutian with the proviso that “pul commonly called kazbi” (Bournoutian 1992: 153, 203). 109 Bournoutian 1992: 153. 110 The fact that during one year coins of different standard weights were struck at the same mint indicates that these were indeed coins of various denominations, and we are not simply encountering a case of various technological standards being used for weighing blank copper planchets at the mint. 111 Dashes in the table denote non-fixed denominations. 218 expressed in terms of these counting units, which continued to be used in official records until the end of the nineteenth century. In everyday life the counting tuman is still used by Iranians to this day. Among a multitude of examples of this phenomenon, two are illustrative. First are the detailed manuals of the late Safavid period – Tadhkirat al-Mulūk, Dastur al-Mulūk and Alqāb va mavājeb-i dowraha-ye salāṭin-i Ṣafaviyah by Mīrzā Naqī Naṣīrī (all of them dating from the time of Ṭahmāsp II, i.e. before 1732AD), in which not a single coin type is named, but all monetary sums are expressed exclusively in counting ṭūmāns, dīnārs and dāngs (1/6 dīnār). Second are the names of large Ganja coins at the beginning of the nineteenth century – minaltun (Turkish ‘one thousand gold [coins]’) and meazar (Armenian մի հազար ‘one thousand’),112 both of which refer precisely to the value of these coins in counting dīnārs. An important consideration is the equivalence of the Persian dīnār and the Ottoman altun – both are semantically related to the name of a gold coin, but denote only a counting unit. An eloquent testimony to the tradition of denominating coins in counting dīnārs is the series of Russo-Georgian coins issued in 1804‑1833 all denominations of which bear their values only in dīnārs. This fact is important to remember when interpreting the records of Eastern chroniclers and travelers, who also indicated amounts of money in counting dīnārs. Thus, in interpreting Iskander Beg Munshī’s data that 600 dīnārs were equal to 6 mithqāls of minted silver,113 there is no need to resort to a recalculation into copper114 (as if “600 [copper] dīnārs were equal to silver coins weighing 6 mithqāls») – it simply meant that silver coins with a total weight of 6 mithqāls (which was, for example, 12 one-shāhī coins in his time) were equal to 600 dīnārs (12×1×50 = 600). Thus, the dīnārs of Safavid documents are neither an indication of any weight, nor the name of any copper coin; they are only a counting unit. The interpretation of counting dinars only in terms of copper coins would lead to curiosities. For example, when trying to estimate the weight of coins paid out by Evliya Çelebi traveling in Iran during the reign of Ṣefī I, the interpretation of his phrase “ten ṭūmāns for travel expenses115” as copper coins would mean 10 × 10.000 [dīnārs] / 20 [dīnārs in bistī] = 5000 of the heaviest copper coins (since a bistī contains 4 м = 18.44g of copper), which would give 92.2 kgs of copper coins – a weight that would make any travel burdensome. The term bistī, often used by the Ottoman traveler to describe coins, most likely was a general designation of small silver Iranian coins. It is unclear exactly which type of coins they were but definitely not the silver bistī which was not minted under Ṣefī I. In any event, it does not matter which silver coin Evliya Celebi mistakenly called a bistī, since in any case 10 ṭūmāns in silver coins (considering the weight of an ‘abbāsī under Ṣefī I was equal to 7.68g) make up a total weight of 7.68g × 10 × 10,000 / 200 [dīnārs in ‘abbāsī] = 3.84kg of silver coins, divided into one or another quantity of coins – an amount quite convenient for traveling. The understanding of the bistī as a silver coin generally helps to understand correctly another report of Evliya Çelebi: “in the bazaars, trade is conducted on the basis of the law of Shah Ṣefī – with bistīs and altuns,116” i.e. with only silver and gold coins. Some early attempts by researchers to specify the standard weights of copper coins are, in my opinion, methodologically incorrect. For example, an incorrect picture emerges from confusing counting ṭūmāns of 10.000 dīnārs with actual gold coins called ṭūmāns.117 Thus the calculated standard weight or ratio between copper and silver coins appears to be very different from the data of contemporaries. It forces numismatists to introduce some “real” and “nominal” ratio 112 113 114 115 116 Akopyan 2016: 293‑294. Kutelia 1990: 35. It was point out by Ali Radzhabli too (Radzhabli 2014: 174). Evliya Çelebi 1983: 155, 169. The Russian translation is given with distorting insertions: “in the bazaars, trade is conducted on the basis of the law of Shah Ṣefī – by [copper coins] bistī, [silver coins] and [gold] altuns” (Evliya Çelebi 1983: 135), whereas Iranian gold coins are unknown for the time of Shah Ṣefī. 117 Cf. the inaccuracy in the interpretation of the data of a Meghri deed of purchase dated 1576. Tinatin Kutelia came to the conclusion that 80 counting dīnārs were equal to the weight of a mithqāl (which at that time was the weight of a maḥmūdī) (Kutelia 1990: 36). However, it is known that the mahmūdī of these years, while weighing a mithqāl, contained 100 dīnārs just like always, and the data of the deed of purchase must be interpreted as follows: The gold coin (ṭūmān) mentioned in this deed of purchase contained 25% more gold (i.e. 12,500 dīnārs) than the gold content of the counting ṭūmān (10,000 dīnārs), commonly used to express large amounts. This situation was particularly noticeable in the Meghri deed of purchase precisely because an ordinary gold coin (ṭūmān-i Tabrīz) contained exactly 10,000 dīnārs. I R AN I AN NUM ISM ATIC STUDI ES 219 between copper and silver (“differing,” for example, by a factor of two when comparing the information of Adam Olearius to the coins of his time).118 Tadhkirat al-Mulūk and Alqāb va mavājeb-i dowraha-ye salāṭin-i Ṣafaviyah indicate the use of coins in one dinar (for example, in the amount of 1179 or 6003 dinars)119 and even dāniks of 1/6 of a dīnār. The same was true in Iṣfahān in 1701, where the tax shesh-dīnār “six dinars” was collected from Armenians.120 Since no dīnār or 1/6-dīnār coins were minted in the post-reform period, it can be assumed that fuluses were used instead. These fuluses had presumably been minted in earlier years or in other cities, had lost their original value, and and were devalued according to certain established rates by a factor of 5-30 times (a pul depreciated by a factor of five becoming a dīnār, and a pul depreciated by a factor of 30 becoming a dānik). 3. Typo-chronological Classification of Copper Coins 3.1. PERIODS OF COPPER COIN6 TYPES The only typo-chronological classification of Iranian copper coins to date has been proposed by the honoree of this work, Steve Album. He grouped coins of pre-Safavid times in the “first period,” and for the Safavid and post-Safavid times two “periods” of coinage and one “seria” were distinguished:121 1) 2) 3) second  period: 907‑1010H/1501‑1600AD, la‘nat seria: 985‑995H/1577‑1587AD,  third  period: ca. 1010‑1294H/1600‑1878AD. The undoubted significance of this periodization lies in its departure from the description of the multitudinous types of copper coins in exchange for which typo-chronological groups are proposed, called “periods,” and characterized by the same rules of design over a certain period of time. However taking into account new data, the proposed classification requires both typological and temporal corrections as well as adjustments for one more feature which will be discussed below. Taking into account the research on the coins of the Safavid times only and based solely on their textual analysis, copper coins of this period should be attributed to the following “periods”: А) “period of various types,” В) “period of the short legend,” С) “period of special Shah’s legends.” The first “period of various types” (period A), as its name would suggest, is characterized by the lack of a uniform design for copper coins of different mints. On the obverses of fulūses of this period could be found all manner of particular legends, e.g., the distich on the 917H coins of Tabrīz,122 the name of Imām ‘Alī repeated four times on the 924H coin of Saveh, a floral ornament on the 928H coin of Herāt (see Fig 28123 and 29124), and the mixture of a floral motif and an animal with mint and date information on the same side of 989H coin of Īrawān (Fig 30125). During this period, coin legends do not follow a fixed canon. The coinage of this period does not always even indicate that a coin is a fulūs nor the date of its minting, but with rare exceptions the coins usually indicate that they were minted (Arabic ‫ ضرب‬ḍuriba), as well as the name of the mint. 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 220 Kutelia 1990: 37. Mīrzā Naqī Naṣīrī: 92, 95 Esai Hasan-J̌ alalean 1989: 21 Album 2013: 316‑321. Radzhabli 1963: 187‑189; Alaedini 2013: 111. Weight 4.78g (Album 2001, no. 1621). Weight 9.20g (Akopyan, Molchanov 2005: 98‑99). Weight 2.74g (Album 2001, no. 806). Fig 28. Sāweh, 924H, quarter of small qāz Fig 29. Herāt, 928H, half small qāz Fig 30. Īrawān, 988H, small qāz A natural continuation of the copper coins of the pre-Safavid period, the period of “various coin types”, chronologically extends from the beginning of Safavid rule (the first coin of this type dates from 917H) to right before the beginning of coinage with special ‘Shah’ legends in the late 970’sH/1560’sAD. The end of this period, generally dated to the 1010’sH/1600’sAD126 should be revised in connection with new numismatic data, which testified to the almost complete cessation of copper coinage in the period from the late 990’sH/1580’sAD up to 1039H/1630AD, that is during the entire brilliant reign of Shah ‘Abbās I and the early years of the rule of Ṣefī I. From this period only a few unique coins are known. The second period of Safavid copper coins is characterized by a “short legend” (period B) and uniformity of coin types – on the obverse of the coin was an image of a animal, floral or mythological subject, and on the reverse was an inscription indicating that it was a copper coin minted in a certain year and at a certain mint (using the formula “year, city, ‫)”فلوس ضرب‬. The minting of coins of this period began in the Safavid state in the 910’sH/1500’sH, and among the earliest samples are fulūses of Ūrdū from 915H,127 Urmiya from 922H,128 Tabrīz from 930H129 and Āstrābād from 932H.130 Scholars have not identified any explanation for the choice of subjects for their reverse on the basis of geography or chronology.131 The pictorial motifs on Iranian copper coins would have had the same semantic meaning as other objects in the Iranian fine arts, in particular carpets, for which a whole vocabulary of images and their significance was developed (a floral motif or garden – paradise; a hunting scene – glory and honor; a lion – power; a rooster – divine protection; the sun – light, clarity; a sword – firmness, masculinity; a heron – divine grace; a pair of birds – conjugal happiness; a fish – undying love; a dove – the world; a camel – wealth, happiness).132 Coins of the “short legend” type were minted in Iran until the introduction of machine coinage in 1295H/1878AD. 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 Album 2013: 316. In the collection of the State Hermitage (inv. no. 57784; cited by Kutelia 1990: 33). Kutelia 1990: 33. Radzhabli 1963: 189. Radzhabli 1963: 189. Kutelia 1990: 29‑32. Ahmadi 1997: 63. I R AN I AN NUM ISM ATIC STUDI ES 221 The third period (period С) starts from the appearance of coins with the so-called la‛nat legend. Coins of this type bear on the obverse the inscription “may he who alters the Shah’s fulūs be eternally [condemned] to the damnation of God” (‫ پیوسته به لعنت الهی‬/ ‫ ;تغییر ده فلوس شاهی‬this type is usually known by the word ‫ لعنت‬la‛nat, “curse”133 (Figs 11, 17). Coins with this legend are known for the period from the late 970’sH/1560’sAD to the middle of the 990’sH/1580’sAD, i.e. during the reigns of Ṭahmāsp I (1524‑1576) and Muḥammad Khudabandeh (1578‑1587). During the brief rule of Ismā‘īl II (1576‑1577) fulūses of Ganja,134 Īrawān and Qazwīn135 were struck with his nickname ‘Ādelī (‫عادلي‬, as he signed his poems and firmāns).136 Copper coins dating to the time after Muḥammad Khudabandeh again relate to the period of “various types,” but throughout the entire reign of ‘Abbās I (1587‑1629) and the beginning of the reign of Ṣefī I (1629‑1642),137 until the early 1040’sH, fulūses were struck in the names of Shahs. 3.2. ISSUING AUTHORITIES OF THE COPPER COINS This more precise typological and chronological classification of fulūses leads me to the clarification of their issuing authority, a matter neglected in previous works. Beginning with the end of the reign of Ṭahmāsp I, one can observe, the transfer of the state monopoly on issuing copper coins into the hands of the Shah.138 This process began with the issuance of coins of a special type with the lan‘at legend, which directly indicated that these coins were the Shah’s fulūses (Persian ‫)فلوس شاهی‬.139 According to the known coins, various South Caucasus mints began to strike the lan‘at type at about the same time – in 989H (Ganja and Īrawān)140, 992H (Ūrdūbād, Fig 17), 993H (Zagem, Fig 11),141 while in 988H in Īrawān coins of another type were still being minted (Fig 30). The minting of copper coins in the name of the Shah was maintained under the following Shah, Isma‘īl II, in whose reign copper coins were struck with his poetic pseudonym, ‘Ādelī (‫( )عادلي‬Fig 16, 31). According to the known coins, an attempt was made under Isma‘īl II to replace the la‘nat legend with a distich in the name of ‘Ādelī, which is known to us from fulūses of 984H struck in Ganja (Fig 16) and Tabrīz.142 The following distich was placed on the obverse of ّ «the copper sikke (coinage) (i.e. cheap coin) of ‘Ādelī opens the ḥiṭṭe (door of these coins: ‫ شرف سکه مس عادلی‬/ ‫حطه حیدر ازلی‬ forgiveness) thanks to the name of Ḥaydar (i.e. ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭalib) [on it]». This religious verse reflects the Shi‘ite tradition ّ ‫)باب‬143 through which that Imam ‘Alī (called by his title “Ḥaydar” – “the lion”) is the door of forgiveness (Persian ‫حطه‬ Muslims shall pass. The reverse of this type is remarkable for presenting the date using words rather than numerals which is a clear anachronism for the end of the sixteenth century. Under his successor, Muḥammad Khudabandeh, fulūses with the la‘nat legend were struck once again. The practice of countermarking fulūses with the Shah’s inscription ‫“ عدل شاهی‬legal [coin] of the Shāh”144 (Fig 32) should also be dated from his reign. 133 La‘nat – the special Shī‘a ritual of the curse during the Friday prayer juma‘ in the Safavid time, subjected to the first three Caliphs: Abū Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān, and also ‘Āi’shat bint Abū Bakr, the younger wife of Muḥammad, who fought against ‘Alī. 134 Akopyan, Mosanef 2010: 16‑17. 135 Akopyan, Mosanef 2010: 17. 136 Iskandar-bek 2008: 207. 137 Kutelia 1979: 47; Kutelia 1990: 28; Paghava, Turkia 2006; Gogava 2014; Bennett 2014: 275. 138 Coins of the type la‘nat, which did not into these chronological frames, were erroneously dated – the coin of Herat of “929H” in fact dated by 979H (cf. Zeno, no. 17729), the same refers to the coins of Astrābād of “921H” (should be 97Hx) and Mashhad of “942H” (of 972H?) (Album 2013: 318). 139 Ali Radzhabli tentatively came to the same conclusion – not knowing the reading of the legend of the type la‘nat, but based on the external appearance of the coins of this seria, which are different from other copper coins. He quite rightly suggested that they were struck by the central authority (Radzhabli 1963: 55). However, it is incorrect in our opinion to attract as the form of an indication to the nation-wide stricking the presence on the coins some “knot of happiness” (Kutelia 1990: 34), widespread in the Oriental arts (cf. Damalı 2010: 60). 140 Both in authors collection. 141 Akopyan, Aleksanyan 2015: 158-160, nos. 32‑33. 142 Zeno, no. 178906. 143 It is interesting to note that another widely held title of Imām ‘Alī “the door to the city of knowledge” (‫ )باب مدینة العلم‬is also associated with the symbolism of the door and the process of “passing through.” 144 During his reign exactly the same countermark was placed on silver coins too (Album 2013: 278. No. 2624), underscoring that coins in both metals had the same national status. 222 Fig 31. ‘Ādelī (Isma‘īl II), Qazwin, 984H, eighth of a shāhī145 Fig 32. Shāh (Muḥammad Khudabandeh), NM, ND, fulūs weighing 1½ m146 The centralization of the minting of coins reached its apogee under the next Shah, ‘Abbās I. The coining of copper continued to be the exclusive prerogative of the Shah, but he practically did not use it. For the entire time of his reign (1587‑1629AD), we can confidently point to only three types of fulūses with his name (Fig 33‑35). These coins do not bear a mintname and were possibly issued in the capital city, Iṣfahān. The lack of a mintname clearly shows that they were intended for circulation throughout the country regardless of the area of issue. Fig 33. ‘Abbās I, [Iṣfahān?], 1034H, fulūs weighing 2 m147 Fig 34. ‘Abbās I, [Iṣfahān?], ND, fulūs weighing 4 m148 145 Weight 11.50g (Akopyan, Mosanef 2013: 17, no. 2, coin 3). 146 Weight 7.16g (Akopyan, Aleksanyan 2015: 161‑162, no. 36*). 147 Weight 9.00g (Zeno, no. 175869). Obverce: lion and sun right, reverce: ۱۳۴۴ ‫ ضرب فلوس ع ّباس‬struck fulūs of ‘Abbās 1034. Previously attributed to the unclearly localized mint “Ra‘nash” (with legend’s reading as ۱۳۴۴ ‫)فلوس ضرب رعناش‬, which is absolutly unknown by any other coins. 148 Weight 18.28g (Zeno, no. 172923). Obverce: peacock right, reverce: ‫ ضرب فلوس شاه ع ّباس شاه ع ّباس‬struck fulūs of Shah ‘Abbās with repeating Shah’s name. Well known type, in the catalogues mistakenly assigned to the mint Sa‘ujbulāgh, active in 1200’sH only. I R AN I AN NUM ISM ATIC STUDI ES 223 Fig 35. ‘Abbās I, [Iṣfahān?], DM, fulūs weighing 4 m149 The Armenian chronicler Zak‘aria K‘anak‘eṙc‘i provides interesting testimony about the emergency issuance by Shah ‘Abbās I of leather money with the nominal value of one dang during the siege of Baghdād: “and then he [‘Abbās I] came up with this: he called the tanners, that is the dabāghs, and ordered to make a lot of white leather, [then] ordered the shoemakers to cut it, so that they cut the skin into small identical roundlets, like copper money. And ordered [‘Abbās I] to make two iron seals and write on one of them the name of the Shah, and on the other – the name [of the city] Baghdād. And they printed countless amounts of money and named it dang, in Armenian – dian, and in Jewish – loma <...> Then he called together the main commanders of the army – the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, gave them this loma and said: “Distribute it to the troops. As long as we are here, let them sell and buy, and when we return to Iṣfahān, give me back the leather money and you will receive the same amount of copper money instead.” Thus they did, and all was in abundance among the troops until the Shah took Baghdād. In [the Armenian year of ] 1073 (1624AD) he returned to Iṣfahān and did as he had said.”150 The fact that even leather money bore the name of the Shah indisputably testifies to the exceptional degree of centralization of the state monopoly over coinage in the hands of ‘Abbās I. Undoubtedly when minting copper coins with their title or in their own name or pseudonym, the Shahs both emphasized its nationwide status and redirected the income from this coinage into their own hands. However, the profitability of this low value item in the context of other the revenues in the Shah’s treasury was not large. This is probably the reason why Shah ‘Abbās I practically did not strike copper coins.151 The nationwide status of the coinage was emphasized either by a legend (of the la‘nat type) that directly forbade its change every year under the fear of a ritual curse, or by bearing the name of the Shah. Paradoxically, this was the apparent reason for stopping the issuance of copper coinage. Its course had not changed over the years. Being made of base metal it was almost never buried in hoards, was not used in international transactions, and therefore circulated for a long time within the country. The blanks used for copper coins of this period were mainly of large weight, multiples of a mithqāl of 4.61g, which reduced the risk of people accidentally losing coins and facilitated their longer circulation. As a consequence the market did not require a constant renewal of the copper coinage being content with the existing constant supply of copper coins not subject to exchange-rate fluctuations. As a natural result in such conditions, the minting of copper coins came to a halt152. The most recent known copper coins bearing the name of the Shah were struck in Tiflīs during the reign of Ṣefī I153 (Fig 36). Traditionally, their issue explained as reflection of the pro-Iranian politics of the Georgian king Rostom (1632‑1658). Traditionally, their minting has been explained as a reflection of the pro-Iranian policy of the Georgian king Rostom (1632‑1658AD). However, in light of the discovery of coins with the names of Shahs Ismā‘īl II and ‘Abbās I, and in the context of the national character of the copper coins with the names and titles of the shahs, there can be little doubt that the Tiflīs coins naming Shah Ṣefī I reflect the contemporary Iranian practice of issuing national copper coins. Otherwise, they would have only noted the name of the city (a practice which began in fact a little later). The Tiflīs coins of Ṣefī I are not dated, but considering the fact that the copper coinage of many Iranian mints began 149 Weight 16.75g (Akopyan, Mosanef 2013: 17‑18, no. 3). Obverce: pomegranate blossom (flower of Shah ‘Abbās), reverce: twice repeated ‫ فلوس شاه ع ّباس‬fulūs of Shah ‘Abbās. 150 Zak‘aria K‘anak‘eṙc‘i 1969: 62 (author’s translation). 151 Shah ‘Abbās I carried out a very successful reform of the silver coinage, the profit from which could more than cover any slight loss of revenue due to the termination of the minting of copper coins. 152 A propos, quite justified are the doubts expressed for a long time by Georgian numismatists regarding the dating of the Tiflīs coins with a date of “1011” – thus Тinatin Kutelia suggests reading this date as 1104H (Kutelia 1979: 52‑54), and recent studies allow the interpretation of the date as 1101H (Gabashvili, Paghava, Gogava 2015: 15). 153 Kutelia 1979: 47; Kutelia 1990: 28; Paghava, Turkia 2006; Gogava 2014; Bennett 2014: 275. 224 to use the “short legend” starting in 1040H, these Tiflīs copper coins should be dated to the first years of Ṣefī’s reign (1038‑1040H). Another coin can be attributed to the reign of Ṣefī I based on indirect data: the heavy weight (8 mithqāls), the image on it (two peacocks looking at each other in a thicket), and the mint name, Dar al-Sulṭānat Iṣfahān (Fig 37). The legend on the one known specimen of this type cannot be completely reconstructed, but apparently in this coin we should see those four ghāz that paid the entrance to the Shah’s garden in Iṣfahān. According to Adam Olearius: “any that have a mind to go into it [Shah’s garden], and to eat what they please of the fruits, paying four kasbeki, or two pence a piece”.154 Fig 36. Ṣefī I, TIflīs, NM, fulūs of 2 m155 Fig 37. [Ṣefī I?], Dar al-Sultanat Iṣfahān, xxx7H, fulūs of 8 m156 The existing narrative sources provide no explanation for either the introduction of the Shah’s regulation of copper coinage or the termination of this practice. Not a single European traveller paid any attention to these events, nor did any Eastern sources mention them. Only in the words of Evliya Çelebi, already quoted, is it possible to see an indication of a certain law current under Ṣefī I: “in the bazaars, trade is conducted on the basis of the law of Shah Ṣefī [to use only fulūses struck in the name of the Shah (?)] – with bistīs [i.e. silver coins] and altuns [i.e. copper coins].”157 Possibly also Adam Olearius was a witness to the possession of copper coinage in the Shah’s hands, as he notes, that “the King of Persia [due to regular issuance] makes a great advantage by this brass-money”.158 The phenomenon of the centralization of copper coinage in the hands of the Shahs in 984‑1039H/1576‑1631AD reveals the variability in the issuance of copper coins over time. The emission of coins intended for use nationwide was not a “rare exception” to the rule for copper coinage as previously thought, but was purposefully carried out in accordance with the policy of the Shahs for more than fifty years.159 In connection with this variability, one must note the incorrectness of retrospective speculation about the fulūses of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries based on the data of the first half of the eighteenth century (for example, with regard to the kings of K‘art‘li as the issuing authority for their own copper and silver coins in Tiflīs in the previous period).160 The lack of consistency in copper coinage during the periods when it was in the hands of various local rulers led in the sixteenth century to the use of different coin types at different times; between groups A and B no fundamental 154 Adam Olearius mistakenly confused the terms ghāz and qazbegī (Olearius 1669: 224). 155 Weight 8.44g (Kutelia 1979, no. 25). 156 Weight 35.78g (Stephen Album Rare Coins. Auction 23. September 10‑12, 2016. Santa Rosa, 2016. 43. Lot 549). The date is clearly ‫ وسبع‬/ ‫ سنة‬year … and seven. Definetly not la’nat type dated (9)82H. 157 Evliya Çelebi 1983: 135. 158 Olearius 1669: 223. 159 Copper coinage in the name of the Shah is also found in the eighteenth century. A special group of fulūses was struck in 1155‑1159H in the name of Nādir Shāh at the Eastern mints of Kābul, Kandahār and Bhakkar (Eftekhari 1394: 89, 98; see also Zeno, №48703, №48704, №48705). 160 Kutelia 1979: 47; Paghava 2013: 207; Matthee, Floor, Clawson 2013: 17. I R AN I AN NUM ISM ATIC STUDI ES 225 distinction was made. The type with a “short” legend became standard only after the resumption of coinage of the fulūs at the beginning of the 1040’sH (see Table 2). Issuing authority of copper coins Period Local ruler (anonymous coinage) Persian Shah A. “Period of various types” Before Sefevids, and in 917‑984H/1511‑1576AD – B. “Period of short legend” 915‑984H/1509‑1576AD – C. “Period of special Shah’s legends” – End of 970’sH/1560’sAD – 1039H/1629AD B. “Period of short legend” 1040‑1295H/1630‑1878AD – Table 2. Typo-chronological classification of Iranian copper coins 4. Monetary Zones of Late Mediaeval Iran The Iranian monetary system from the sixteenth through to the beginning of the seventeenth century has only recently been given a general description in a joint study by an international research team consisting of Rudi Matthee, Willem Floor and Robert Clawson. In their very detailed book, the Iranian monetary system was described as trimetallic,161 consisting of gold, silver and copper coins in varying ratios among themselves. Unfortunately, this research did not include an analysis of the issuing authorities of Iranian fulūses. As a consequence, this description – unexpectedly for the authors, one should recognize – turns out to be accurate only for the period when the issuing authority for all coins was the Shah (from the end of the 1560’s to 1629AD). But in the previous and later periods, there was no single trimetallic monetary system in Iran since there were two types of issuing authorities for coins in Iran – the Shah and the local ruler, creating two currency zones with different regulatory norms. The first zone was formed by the national currency – gold coins, which were primarily a means of accumulation or a ceremonial instrument and were rarely used in transactions within the country, as well as silver coins the lifeblood of the Iranian economy circulating throughout the country. This money was issued by the Shah exercising his right of sikke. It was used for payment and fiscal purposes throughout the state regardless of the place of minting. Another zone was formed by the regional currencies – local copper coins issued by the rulers of regions exercising the right of ḥaqq-e-ẓarb with the entire range of temporal and territorial limitations inherent in them. Despite a significant reduction in the price of copper and silver relative to gold during the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, the Iranian monetary system proved to be fairly stable throughout this time. The reason for its stability was the separation of the circulation of coins into spheres. As Rudi Matthee and his co-authors rightly noted: “the coins in each of the three metals were largely separated by their use: the copper coins were mostly for local trade, silver for government use and long distance trade, the gold equally for long distance trade as well as for hoarding and luxury items.”162 However, in addition to the marked separation of spheres of application, this stability was rooted in the twotiered state monopoly over coinage and the delegation of the minting of copper coins to the regions, thereby lowering the demands of regional governors on the Shah’s treasury. Such a system lasted until the reign of Nāṣir al-Dīn Shāh Qājār (1848‑1896AD), at which time the state monopoly over copper coinage again returned to the hands of the central government, a situation which has remained unchanged since. 161 Matthee, Floor, Clawson 2013: 24. 162 Matthee, Floor, Clawson 2013: 24. 226 BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Abraham Kretac‘i 1973, Абраам Кретаци. Повествование: Критический текст. Пер. и коммент. Н. К. Корганяна. Ереван, 1973. Chardin 1811, Chardin J. Voyages du chevalier Chardin en Perse, et autres lieux de l’Orient, enrichis d’un grand nombre de belles figures en taille-douce, représentant les antiquités et les choses remarquables du pays. Tome quatrième. Paris, 1811. Della Valle 1843, Della Valle P. Viaggi di Pietro della Valle, il pellegrino. Brighton, 1843. Esai Hasan-Jalalean 1989, Есаи Хасан-Джалалян. Краткая история страны Албанской (1702-1722). Баку, 1989. Evliya Çelebi 1983, Эвлия Челеби. Книга путешествий «Сейахатнаме». Вып. 3. Земли Закавказья и сопредельных областей Малой Азии и Ирана. Москва, 1983. Iskandar-bek 2008, ۱۳۸۷ ،‫ تهران‬،‫ تاریخ عالم آرای عباسی‬،‫اسکندر بیگ‬. Krusinski 1733, Krusinski [J. T.]. The History of the Late Revolutions of Persia. Taken from the Memoirs of Father Krusinski, Procurator of the Jesuits at Ispahan. Vol. 1. London, 1733 Membré 1999, Membré M. Mission to the Lord Sophy of Persia (1539‑1542). Cambridge, 1999 Mīrzā Naqī Naṣīrī 2008, Titles & Emoluments in Safavid Iran. A third Manual of Safavid Administration by Mirza Naqi Nasiri. Transl. by W. Floor. Washington, 2008. Nakhichevan Manuscripts 1936, Нахичеванские рукописные документы XVII-XIX вв. Тифлис, 1936. Olearius 1696, Olearius A. Des Welt-berühmten Adami Olearii: colligirte und viel vermehrte Reise-Beschreibungen bestehend in der nach Muszkau und Persien. Hamburg, 1696. Struys 1677, Struys J. J. Drie aanmerkelijke en seer rampspoedige Reysen, Door Italien, Griekenlandt, Lijflandt, Moscovien, Tartarijen, Meden, Persien, Oost-Indien, Japan, en verscheyden andere Gewesten. Amsterdam, 1677. Tadhkirat al-Mulūk 1943, Tadhkirat al-Mulūk. A manual of Ṣafavid administration (circa 1137/1725). Transl. and expl. by V. Minorsky. Cambridge, 1943. Zak‘aria Agulisc‘i 1939, Дневник Закария Акулисского. Ереван, 1939. Zak‘aria K‘anak‘eṙc‘i 1969, Закарий Канакерци. Хроника. Москва, 1969. Researches and catalogues Ahmadi 1997, Ahmadi R. T. Symbolism in Persian rugs / Manuscripta Orientalia. 1997. Vol. 3. No. 1. 62‑64. Akopyan 2015, Акопян А. В. Новые данные о монетных находках из Армении и прилегающих областей / Нумизматика Золотой Орды. 2015. Вып. 5. 116‑124. Akopyan 2016, Акопян А. В. Метрология и название серебряных монет Гянджинского ханства / Проблемы истории, филологии, культуры. 2016. Вып. 2. 293‑294 Akopyan 2017, Акопян А. В. Иранские медные монеты XVI‑XIX вв.: особенности выпуска и обращения / Проблемы истории, филологии, культуры (submitted to publish). Akopyan, Aleksanyan 2015, Акопян А. В., Алексанян Д. А. Гянджинский клад и медный чекан Кахетинского царства / Эпиграфика Востока. 2015. Вып. 31. 147‑170. Akopyan, Molchanov 2005, А. В. Акопян, А. А. Молчанов. Две медных монеты XVI в., чеканенные в Ереване / XIII Всероссийская нумизматическая конференция: тезисы докладов и сообщений. Москва, 2005. 98‑99. I R AN I AN NUM ISM ATIC STUDI ES 227 Akopyan, Mosanef 2010, Akopyan A. V., Mosanef F. Safavid Coinage of Aresh / Journal of Oriental Numismatic Society. 2010. No. 202. 16‑20. Akopyan, Mosanef 2013, Akopyan A. V., Mosanef F. Four remarkable Iranian civic copper coins / Journal of Oriental Numismatic Society. No. 214. 16‑18. Alaedini 2013, Alaedini B. Persian copper coins. From Safavids to Qajars. Tehran, 2013. Album 2001, Album S. Sylloge of Islamic coins in the Ashmolean. Vol. 9. Iran after the Mongol Invasion. Oxford, 2001. Album 2013, Album S. A Checklist of Islamic Coins. Santa Rosa, 2013. Bennett 2014, Bennett K. A Catalogue of Georgian Coins. Santa Rosa, 2014. Bölükbaşı 2013, Bölükbaşı Ö. F. Osmanlı Taşra Darphaneleri / Türk Kültürü İncelemeleri Dergisi. Sayı 29. 2013. 27‑76. Bournoutian 1992, Bournoutian G. A. The Khanate of Erevan Under Qajar Rule: 1795-1828. Costa Mesa, 1992. Bruce, Michael, Cuhaj, et al. 2006, Bruce C. R., Michael Th., Cuhaj G., et al. Standart catalog of world coins: 1801‑1900. Iola, 2006. Bruce, Michael, Miller et al. 2008, Bruce C. R., Michael Th., Miller H., et al. Standart catalog of world coins: Seventeenth Century: 1601‑1700. Iola, 2008. Cuhaj, Michael, Miller et al. 2010, Cuhaj G., Michael Th., Miller, H., et al. Standart catalog of world coins: 1701‑1800. Iola, 2010. Davidovich 1972, Давидович Е. А. Денежное хозяйство Средней Азии после монгольского завоевания и реформа Мас‘уд-бека. (XIII век). Москва, 1972. Damalı 2010, Damalı A. Osmanlı Sikkeleri Tarihi: History of Ottoman Coins. Volume 1. İstanbul, 2010. Eftekhari 1394, ۱۳۹۴ ،‫ تهران‬،‫ سکه شناسی شاهان افشار‬،‫یوسف افتخاری‬. Farrahbakhsh 1975, Farrahbakhsh H. Iranian Hammered Coinage. Berlin, 1975. Gaffarov 1928, Гаффаров М. А. Персидско-русский словарь. II том. Москва, 1928. Gogava 2014, Gogava G. A new discovered copper coin bearing the name “Safi” / Journal of Oriental Numismatic Society. 2014. No. 214. 11‑13 Heidemann 2010, Heidemann S. Numismatics / The New Cambridge History of Islam: Vol. 1: The Formation of the Islamic World, Sixth to Eleventh Centuries. Cambridge, 2010. 648‑663. Hinz 1970, Хинц В. Мусульманские меры и веса с переводом в метрическую систему. Москва, 1970. Kutelia 1979, Кутелия Т. С. Грузия и Сефевидский Иран: (По данным нумизматики). Тбилиси, 1979. Kutelia 1990, Kutelia Т. Catalogue of the Iranian copper coins in the State Museum of Georgia. Tbilisi, 1990. Matthee, Floor, Clawson 2013, Matthee R., Floor W., Clawson R. The monetary history of Iran: From Safavids to Qajars. London–New York, 2013. Mousheghian, Mousheghian, Bresc, Depeyrot, Gurnet 2002, Mousheghian Kh., Mousheghian A., Bresc C., Depeyrot G., Gurnet F. History and coin finds in Armenia: Inventory of Coins and Hoards (7 – 19th c.): Volume I. Wetteren, 2002. Mousheghian, Mousheghian, Bresc, Depeyrot, Gurnet 2003, Mousheghian Kh., Mousheghian A., Bresc C., Depeyrot G., Gurnet F. History and coin finds in Armenia: Inventory of Coins and Hoards (7 – 19th c.): Volume II. Wetteren, 2003. 228 Paghava 2012, ფაღავა ი. სპილენძის ღირებულება ქართლ-ქახეთის სამეფოში XVIII საუკუნის მიწურულს ისტორიული საბუთების მიხედვით (თანადროული სპილენძის საფასის თვითღირებულების საკითხისთვის / საისტორიო კრებული: წელიწდეული. ტ. 2. თბილისი, 2012. გ. 220‑241. Paghava, Gabashvili 2015, Paghava I., Gabashvili G. Silver Coinage Issued at “Kākhed” in the Kingdom of K’akheti (Georgia): When and Where Was This Mint Operating? / Journal of Oriental Numismatic Society. 2015. No. 223. 20‑21. Paghava, Turkia 2006, Paghava I., Turkia S. Another autonomous copper coin bearing the name of Safi / Journal of Oriental Numismatic Society. 2006. No. 189. 8‑10. Paghava: K’ak’i, Paghava I. K’ak’i (Kākhed, Kākhetābād): One More Georgian Coin-Minting Urban Center [available on‑line: https://www.academia.edu/28604821]. Pakhomov 1928, Пахомов Е. А. Вес и достоинство медной монеты Тифлиса XVII‑XVIII вв. / Известия Восточного факультета Азербайджанского государственного университета. Востоковедение. 1928. Т. III. 87‑109. Pakhomov 1938, Пахомов Е. А. Клады Азербайджана и других республик и краев Кавказа. Вып. II. Баку, 1938. Pakhomov 1949a, Пахомов Е. А. Монетные клады Азербайджана и других республик, краев и областей Кавказа. Вып. IV. Баку, 1949. Pakhomov 1949b, Пахомов Е. А. Монетные клады Азербайджана и других республик, краев и областей Кавказа. Вып. V. Баку, 1949. Pakhomov 1954, Пахомов Е. А. Монетные клады Азербайджана и других республик, краев и областей Кавказа. Вып. VI. Баку, 1954. Rabino di Borgomale 1945, Rabino di Borgomale H. L. Coins, medals and seals of the Sháhs of Irán, 1500‑1941. Hertford, 1945. Radzhabli 1963, Раджабли А. М. Монетное дело в сефевидском государстве (XVI ‑ начало XVIII в.): дисс. … канд. ист. наук. Баку, 1963. Radzhabli 2014, Раджабли А. Монетное дело азербайджанского государства Сефевидов. Баку, 2014. Severova 1981, Северова М. Б. Клад медных монет Еервана первой четверти XVIII в. / Труды Государственного ордена Ленина Эрмитажа. Том XXI. Нумизматика, 5. Л., 1981. 163‑172 Vasmer 1926, Фасмер P. Р. Персидские монеты с надчеканкой Петра I / Государственный Эрмитаж. Вып. III. Л., 1926. 119‑132. I R AN I AN NUM ISM ATIC STUDI ES 229