Latin Kingdom Of Jerusalem

Thank Nate, It's tie to the crusades is what drew me to it.

I'm an avid follower of Medieval and Crusades Christian history. I gotta say one of those bad boys is now definitely on the list. Great find!

I agree, great coin - really lovely example and interesting history.

Unfortunately, I believe your information about the inscriptions is not correct. This does appear to be a "Crusader imitative dirham", but it is a direct imitation of the Islamic types, with full Islamic legends, just like a regular Damascus-made dirham of the period. In fact, I'm not entirely certain that it isn't a "genuine" Damascus dirham; the Crusader imitations are usually less round than this piece. I can't read the date, which would be the telltale.

Some background: in the year AD 1244 (AH 641), the remnant of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, based at Acre, made a treaty with Ayyubid king al-Salih Isma'il of Damascus, and it is from this time that Crusader imitation Damascus dirhams are first known to be dated. Prior to this, the Crusaders had been striking imitations of the "star" dirhams of Aleppo.

But in the year AD 1250 (AH 647, the last known date for the above coins) a papal envoy was shocked to discover that the Crusaders were striking from their mint coins proclaiming "Mohammed is the messenger of God" and the date in the Islamic calendar. The envoy promptly demanded they cease and desist, and reported back to Rome to seek a formal edict on what kinds of coins the Crusaders should be striking instead.

Meanwhile, the Crusaders, in need of coinage, struck in 1251 the so-called "Christian Arabic dirhams", which look distinctly different to the Islamic types, with a large prominent central cross as well as the Christian "one faith one baptism" legend and the AD date. They look like these examples on Zeno.ru. This series was obviously unacceptable in trade with their Muslim neighbours, so they toned things down, first by making the cross much smaller, then taking the cross away entirely.

The "offensive" legend remained, however, making trade difficult, and by 1253, the Pope's formal response had arrived: Crusader coins must not bear the name of Mohammed, or "his birthdate" (ie the Islamic calendar year). Adhering to the letter of the law of the papal edict, the coins dated 1253 reverted to a much more imitative style, restoring the now-deceased Islamic ruler's names and only changing the edge inscriptions: "Mohammed" replaced with the similar-looking "Michael" (the archangel), a more generic statement about God being Merciful and Compassionate (something which both Christians and Muslims could agree to) and keeping the AD date. Finally, the date devolved to a garbled mess that might or might not be interpretable as anything sensible in terms of a date.

The "Christian Arabic" coins with the date "1251" written in the AD calendar are, of course, quite popular with date-collectors, as they are the second-oldest coins ever struck with an AD date. Sadly, Echizento, your coin is not one of them.

Sap's comment sent me on the road to do a bit more research. It does appear as he stated that the legend is not the Christian type, but the Islamic type. I'm hoping to come up with a translation and will post it if I do. In any event the coin is still a Crusader Imitative Dirham from the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Thanks Sap, I've been trying to come up with the translation but wasn't having much luck. I have some reference material by Michael Bates but he doesn't translated the legend. I appreciate your help.