- Joined
- Mar 19, 2021
- Messages
- 131
- Reaction score
- 308
Iranian Coinage: Revisionist Perspectives
Introduction
Introduction
This document examines the complex history of Iranian coinage, highlighting its evolution across millennia and the enduring imprints of various dynasties. It identifies two primary numismatic traditions: a stable, "Attic-influenced" system characterized by high purity and consistency, and a "regional" system marked by debasement and fragmentation. The document further explores the concept of "artificially stretched historical timelines" through the lens of coin purity decline, and introduces Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov's revisionist criteria for coin authenticity, which challenge conventional understandings of post-Samanid Iranian rulers.
This is a preliminary study. Some information has been gathered using AI tools. As this is not an academic paper, formal references are not included. General data has been sourced from commonly available online platforms. Additionally, interesting and useful data such as modern rarity has been obtained from sales websites. Such data is typically not reflected in academic literature.
This is a preliminary study. Some information has been gathered using AI tools. As this is not an academic paper, formal references are not included. General data has been sourced from commonly available online platforms. Additionally, interesting and useful data such as modern rarity has been obtained from sales websites. Such data is typically not reflected in academic literature.
Historical Kingdoms of Iran Over 2500 Years
The Achaemenids (550–330 BCE) established the first Persian Empire, stretching from the Balkans to the Indus Valley, renowned for administrative efficiency and monumental architecture like Persepolis. They were succeeded by the Seleucids (312–63 BCE), a Hellenistic dynasty founded by Alexander the Great's general, which blended Greek and Persian traditions. The Parthians (247 BCE–224 CE), nomadic in origin, revived Iranian identity against Roman expansion, while the Sassanians (224–651 CE) restored centralized rule, championing Zoroastrianism and engaging in epic wars with Byzantium. The Arab conquest introduced the Umayyad (661–750 CE) and Abbasid (750–1258 CE) Caliphates, integrating Iran into the Islamic world while Persian culture endured.
The post-caliphate era saw Iranian resurgence under the Samanids (819–999 CE), who promoted Persian language and culture, followed by Turkic dynasties like the Ghaznavids (977–1186 CE) and Seljuks (1037–1194 CE), who expanded into Anatolia and India. The Ilkhanate (1256–1335 CE), a Mongol successor state, adopted Islam and Persian bureaucracy, while the Timurids (1370–1507 CE) blended Turco-Mongol and Persianate traditions. The Safavids (1501–1736 CE) marked a turning point, establishing Shi'a Islam as the state religion and forging a distinct Iranian identity. Later, the Qajars (1794–1925 CE) struggled with European imperialism, leading to the Pahlavi dynasty (1925–1979 CE), which pursued modernization until the Islamic Revolution.
The Evolution of Iranian Coinage
Achaemenid Empire (550-330 BCE)
Achaemenid Empire (550-330 BCE)
The Achaemenids established the first standardized coinage system in Iran, introducing the gold daric (8.35-8.40g) and silver siglos (5.40-5.60g). These coins maintained exceptional weight consistency (±0.5%) throughout the empire's 200-year reign, facilitating trade across their vast territories. The daric, named after Darius I, and the siglos featured the Persian king as an archer or warrior. Modern specimens are rare (★★☆☆☆), with gold darics being particularly scarce due to melting and recycling in antiquity.
Seleucid Empire (312-63 BCE)
Following Alexander's conquest, the Seleucids continued Hellenistic coinage traditions with silver tetradrachms (16.80-17.20g) and drachms (4.20-4.25g). These coins displayed Greek deities and rulers in fine Hellenistic style. While early issues maintained good consistency, weights became irregular during later conflicts. Today, these coins are relatively rare (★★☆☆☆) in Iranian contexts, being more common in former Seleucid territories like Syria and Anatolia.
Parthian Empire (247 BCE-224 CE)
The Arsacid dynasty's coinage featured distinctive portraits with the "Arsacid Archer" reverse. Their silver drachms began at 4.20g but gradually declined to 3.50g, reflecting the empire's economic challenges. The crude, individualized portraits make these coins valuable for studying royal iconography. Modern rarity varies (★★★☆☆), with later, more debased issues being more commonly found in archaeological contexts.
Sasanian Empire (224-651 CE)
Sasanian drachms (4.00-4.25g, 95% silver) represent one of history's most stable coinages, maintaining consistent standards for over 400 years. The detailed royal portraits and fire altar reverses showcase Zoroastrian symbolism. These coins are quite common (★★★★☆) today due to extensive minting and hoarding, with over 10,000 specimens documented in museums alone.
Umayyad Caliphate (661-750 CE)
The Islamic revolution in coinage began with the Umayyads' purely epigraphic dirhams (2.97g) and dinars (4.25g). These text-only coins established the aniconic tradition of Islamic numismatics. Well-preserved examples are common (★★★★☆), having circulated from Spain to Central Asia, with many surviving in Viking hoards.
Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258 CE)
Refining Umayyad standards, Abbasid coins maintained the 2.97g dirham weight with improved calligraphy. These are among the most common (★★★★★) medieval Islamic coins, with millions minted at Baghdad and provincial centers. Their consistent quality made them the dominant trade currency of their era.
Samanid Empire (819-999 CE)
The Samanids produced some of the finest silver dirhams (3.00-3.10g, 97% pure) in Islamic history, often with Persian marginal inscriptions. These coins are relatively common (★★★★☆), especially from the Bukhara mint, and were widely traded along the Silk Road.
Buyid Dynasty (934-1062 CE)
Buyid coinage shows progressive debasement (3.0g→2.0g, 90%→40% silver). The rare portrait coins of 'Adud al-Dawla are particularly noteworthy. Most Buyid issues are scarce (★★☆☆☆), with only a few hundred specimens documented in collections.
Ghaznavid Empire (977-1186 CE)
Ghaznavid coins deteriorated sharply in quality (3.0g→1.5g, 95%→40% silver). Their crude, debased dirhams are very rare (★☆☆☆☆) today, having corroded or been melted down due to low silver content.
Great Seljuks (1037-1194 CE)
Seljuk coinage varied widely by region, with silver dirhams declining from 3.0g to 1.8g. Malik-Shah's reform briefly restored the 2.97g standard. These coins are uncommon (★★☆☆☆), with most surviving specimens being copper fals from Anatolia.
Ilkhanate (1256-1335 CE)
The Mongol Ilkhanids introduced the heavy silver tanka (6.00g) under Ghazan Khan. These large coins are relatively common (★★★☆☆), though their experimental paper money (chao) has not survived.
Timurid Empire (1370-1507 CE)
Timurid coinage featured artistic copper fals with animal motifs alongside silver tankas (6.00-6.50g). The copper issues are quite common (★★★★☆), while silver coins are scarcer due to recycling.
Safavid Dynasty (1501-1736 CE)
Shah Abbas I's monetary reform created the famous abbasi (9.00g, 87% silver) with Lion-and-Sun motif. These coins are uncommon (★★★☆☆) in high grades, as many were melted for their silver content.
Afsharid Dynasty (1736-1796 CE)
Nader Shah's coins, including Indian-style rupees, are very rare (★☆☆☆☆) due to his short reign. Few specimens survive outside museum collections.
Zand Dynasty (1751-1794 CE)
Karim Khan's limited coinage, especially the rial (~12.0g), is extremely rare (★☆☆☆☆), with only a handful of authenticated specimens known.
Qajar Dynasty (1794-1925 CE)
Qajar coins declined from 1.20g to 0.60g silver content. The later machine-struck issues are very common (★★★★★), making them popular with beginning collectors.
Pahlavi Dynasty (1925-1979 CE)
The modern rial system included gold pahlavis (7.32g, 91.7% pure). These coins are common (★★★★☆) but prized for their fine craftsmanship.
This numismatic journey reveals how Iranian coinage evolved from the world's first standardized currency to modern monetary systems, with each dynasty's issues reflecting its economic strength and cultural identity.
Summary:
| dynasty/Era | Gold Coin | Gold Weight (g) | Gold Purity (%) | Silver Coin | Silver Weight (g) | Silver Purity (%) | Copper Coin | Copper Weight (g) | Consistency | Key Innovations | Modern Rarity | Rarity Notes |
| Achaemenid (550–330 BCE) | Daric | 8.35–8.40 | >95 | Siglos | 5.40–5.60 | 98 | Rare | – | ★★★★★ | First bimetallic standard | ★☆☆☆☆ Extremely Rare | Gold darics rarely surface; sigloi occasionally in Near Eastern hoards. |
| Seleucid (312–63 BCE) | Stater | ~8.60 | ~90 | Tetradrachm | 16.80–17.20 | ~95 | Chalkous | ~2–3 | ★★★★☆ | Hellenistic designs | ★★☆☆☆ Rare | Tetradrachms appear in Anatolia/Levant; copper chalkous very scarce. |
| Parthian (247 BCE–224 CE) | Rare | – | – | Drachm | 4.20 → ↓3.50 | 90 → 70 | Dichalkous | ~4–6 | ★★☆☆☆ | Crude royal portraits | ★★★☆☆ Uncommon | Drachms relatively common in Iran/Iraq; copper dichalkous rare. |
| Sassanian (224–651 CE) | Dinar | ~7.20 (rare) | – | Drachm | 4.00–4.25 | 95 | Pashiz | ~1–3 | ★★★★★ | Fire altar motifs | ★★★★☆ Common | Drachms survive in huge numbers (10,000+ in museums). Copper pashiz scarce. |
| Umayyad (661–750 CE) | Dinar | 4.25 | 94 | Dirham | 2.97 | 95 | Fals | 3–10 (variable) | ★★★★☆ | First epigraphic Islamic coins | ★★★★☆ Common | Dirhams hoarded globally (Baltic to India); dinars less common. |
| Abbasid (750–1258 CE) | Dinar | 4.25 | 96 | Dirham | 2.97 | 95 | Fals | 2–5 | ★★★★★ | Standardized Arabic script | ★★★★★ Very Common | Millions struck; dirhams/fals abundant in collections. |
| Samanid (875–999 CE) | Dinar | 4.25 | 97 | Dirham | 3.00–3.10 | 97 | Fals | 3–5 | ★★★★★ | Persian marginal scripts | ★★★★☆ Common | Bukhara dirhams traded widely; dinars rare. |
| Buyid (934–1062 CE) | Dinar | 4.00–4.25 | – | Dirham | 3.0 → ↓2.0 | 90 → 40 | Fals | ↓1–2 | ★★☆☆☆ | Rare royal portraits | ★★☆☆☆ Rare | Most coins scarce; 'Adud al-Dawla portrait dirhams: $5,000+ at auction. |
| Ghaznavid (977–1186 CE) | Dinar | 4.25 | – | Dirham | 3.0 → ↓1.5 | 95 → 40 | Fals | ~3 | ★☆☆☆☆ | Severe debasement post-1040 | ★☆☆☆☆ Very Rare | Few survive; debased silver corrodes easily. Almost never auctioned. |
| Seljuk (1037–1194 CE) | Dinar | 4.25 | – | Dirham | 3.0 → ↓1.8 | 90 → 50 | Fals | chaotic | ★★☆☆☆ | Malik-Shah’s reform (1092) | ★★☆☆☆ Uncommon | Copper fals appear occasionally; silver dirhams fragmented ($50–200). |
| Ilkhanate (1256–1335 CE) | Dinar | ~8.5 (rare) | – | Tanka | 6.00 | 90 | Fals | 3–8 | ★★★★☆ | Ghazan Khan’s tanka reform | ★★★☆☆ Common | Tankas survive well; paper money (chao) extinct. Fals: $20–80. |
| Timurid (1370–1507 CE) | Foreign dinars only | – | – | Tanka | 6.00–6.50 | 85 | Fals | 4–6 | ★★★☆☆ | Artistic animal-themed fals | ★★★★☆ Common | Copper fals frequently traded ($20–80); silver tankas uncommon. |
| Safavid (1501–1736 CE) | Toman (unit) | – | – | Abbasi | 7.50–9.00 | 87 | Shahi | ~1.9 | ★★★★☆ | "Lion-and-Sun" motif | ★★★☆☆ Uncommon | High-value abbasis melted ($200–1,000); shahi copper coins common ($10–30). |
| Afsharid (1736–1796) | Toman | ~3.4 | – | Rupee | ~11.0 (Indian) | – | Abbasi | ~7.5 | ★★★☆☆ | Nader Shah’s Indian-inspired coins | ★☆☆☆☆ Very Rare | Short reign → extremely scarce; auction prices exceed $10,000. |
| Zand (1751–1794) | – | – | – | Riali | ~12.0 | – | Fals | ~4–6 | ★★★☆☆ | Karim Khan’s Riali | ★☆☆☆☆ Extremely Rare | Highly prized; ≤10 authentic specimens known (museum pieces). |
| Qajar (1794–1925 CE) | Toman (unit) | – | – | Qiran | 1.20 → 0.93 (1879) | 80 → 20 | Fals | ~2–4 | ★☆☆☆☆ | Machine-struck post-1879 | ★★★★★ Very Common | Millions survive; machine-struck qirans: $5–50. Hand-struck versions rare. |
Definitions
Debasement
Debasement refers to the deliberate reduction in the precious metal content (gold or silver) of coins while maintaining their face value, typically done by governments to stretch limited bullion supplies, fund wars, or cover budget deficits. This is achieved by either decreasing the purity of the metal (e.g., mixing silver with cheaper copper) or reducing the coin's weight. While debasement provides short-term financial relief, it leads to inflation, loss of public trust in currency, and economic instability, as the intrinsic value of coins falls below their nominal worth. Historical examples include the Roman denarius, Parthian drachm, and Qajar qiran, where severe debasement contributed to monetary collapse and political decline.
Modern Rarity in Numismatics
Modern rarity in numismatics refers to how scarce or difficult a coin is to acquire today, based on factors like original mintage numbers, survival rates, historical melting, collector demand, and archaeological discoveries. Rarity directly impacts collectability and value, graded on scales like Sheldon’s Rarity Scale (R1–R8) or simplified ★☆☆☆☆ to ★★★★★ systems.
Modern Rarity Scale & Key Insights
| Rarity | Frequency | Market Example |
| ★★★★★ Very Common | High volume | Qajar qirans: $5–50; Abbasid dirhams: $10–100 |
| ★★★★☆ Common | Regularly traded | Sassanian drachms: $50–300; Timurid fals: $20–80 |
| ★★★☆☆ Uncommon | Limited supply | Safavid abbasis: $200–1,000 (if intact silver) |
| ★★☆☆☆ Rare | Auction-only | Achaemenid sigloi: $2,000+; Buyid portrait dirhams: $5,000+ |
| ★☆☆☆☆ Very Rare | Museum pieces | Ghaznavid dinars: Almost never auctioned; Zand rials: 5–10 known specimens |
The Attic Weight Standard and Its Impact on Iranian Coinage
The Attic weight standard, originating in Athens during the 6th century BCE, became one of the most influential monetary systems in antiquity. Based on the Attic drachm (approximately 4.3 grams of silver), this standard spread throughout the Mediterranean and Near East through Greek commercial networks and military conquests. Several Iranian dynasties either adopted or adapted aspects of this system, creating important numismatic connections between Hellenistic and Persian monetary traditions.
The Seleucid Empire (312-63 BCE), as direct successors to Alexander's Hellenistic legacy, strictly maintained the Attic standard for their coinage. Their silver tetradrachms weighed approximately 17.2 grams (equivalent to four drachms), while the drachm itself remained at the classic 4.3 gram weight. These coins circulated extensively throughout Iran and maintained remarkable consistency until the empire's economic difficulties in the 2nd century BCE. The Parthian Empire (247 BCE-224 CE) initially followed this tradition, with early drachms matching the Attic standard at about 4.2 grams, though gradual debasement later reduced this to approximately 3.5 grams while retaining Hellenistic-inspired designs featuring Greek legends and royal portraits. The Sassanian Empire (224-651 CE) continued using a similar weight for their drachms (about 4.25 grams), maintaining a standard that was clearly derived from but slightly adjusted from the Attic model. Following the Islamic conquest, the Umayyad and Abbasid dirham (2.97 grams) represented a modified version of this tradition, being roughly two-thirds of the original Attic drachm weight while incorporating new Islamic epigraphic designs.
A comparison of key coin weights reveals this evolutionary process: the Athenian drachm (4.3g) served as the base unit; the Seleucid drachm (4.3g) represented direct adoption; the Parthian drachm declined from 4.2g to 3.5g; the Sassanian drachm stabilized at 4.25g; while the Abbasid dirham settled at 2.97g - about two-thirds of the original Attic weight. The Attic standard's influence persisted for nearly a millennium, gradually transforming through successive Iranian dynasties while maintaining its fundamental role in regional trade and monetary systems.
Attic Legacy vs. Regional development
The Attic-influenced coinage represents Iran's most stable and internationally significant monetary tradition. Originating with the Seleucid Empire's adoption of the Attic drachm standard (4.3g silver), this group includes the early Parthian drachms (4.2g) and Sassanian issues (4.25g) that maintained remarkably consistent weights and high silver purity (90-98%) for centuries. The Umayyad and Abbasid dirhams (2.97g) continued this tradition at two-thirds of the original Attic weight, becoming the dominant silver currency of medieval Islamic trade. These coins share common traits of careful weight regulation, extensive minting, and wide circulation that make them relatively common finds today. Their durability in hoards and archaeological contexts speaks to their role as trusted trade currency across Eurasia.
In contrast, the regional coinage tradition emerged during periods of political fragmentation or economic stress. Late Parthian billon drachms (3.5g, 50-70% silver) and the debased dirhams of Turkic dynasties (1.5-2.5g, 40-60% silver) demonstrate how weight standards and purity declined when central authority weakened. The Ilkhanate's experimental tanka (6.0g) represented a brief reform attempt amidst generally poor-quality issues, while Timurid and late Safavid coins show increasing reliance on copper for everyday transactions. Qajar qirans (0.9g, 20% silver) marked the final stage of this debasement cycle before modern coinage reforms. These regional issues typically circulated within more limited areas and survive in poorer condition due to lower silver content and less systematic minting practices.
This division between Attic-connected and regional coinage reflects broader historical patterns in Iranian civilization. Periods of imperial strength produced standardized, high-quality currency that facilitated long-distance trade, while times of disruption led to localized monetary systems adapted to immediate needs. For collectors and historians, these two traditions offer complementary perspectives - one showing Iran's connections to classical Mediterranean systems, the other revealing its adaptive responses to changing political and economic circumstances. The Attic-influenced coins provide a continuous thread through Persian history, while the regional issues document the creative solutions developed during challenging periods.
Coin Weights ( Attic-based)
| Coin Type | Weight (g) | Relationship to Attic Standard |
| Athenian Drachm | ~4.3 | Base unit |
| Seleucid Drachm | ~4.3 | Direct adoption |
| Parthian Drachm | ~4.2 → ~3.5 | Initially Attic, then debased |
| Sassanian Drachm | ~4.25 | Near-Attic, adjusted slightly |
| Abbasid Dirham | ~2.97 | ~⅔ of Attic drachm |
Attic-influenced coinage vs. local coins:
| Weight Standard | ~4.3g or derivatives | Irregular (1.5g–6.0g) |
| Silver Purity | 90–98% | 20–70% (often billon) |
| Consistency | High (stable for centuries) | Low (frequent debasement) |
| Trade Role | International currency | Local/regional use |
| Modern Rarity | Common (hoards survive) | Rare (corroded or melted) |
Hypothesis : West to East direction for the spread of civilization
Morozov argues for a West to East (or from established cultural centers to peripheries) direction for the spread of civilization and its key components, often proposing that traditional narratives of East-to-West cultural diffusion are misinterpretations of history. Here we can notice that the establishment of standardized coin weights, consistent valuation, and high silver content originated in Western and European traditions. Notably, the Attic weight system, introduced by Alexander the Great, was adopted and used for centuries across Iran and other Eastern regions. In contrast, many local coinage systems lacked uniform standards for weight and value, and typically featured a lower percentage of silver.
Hypothesis : Artificially stretched historical timeline
This is the academic view on decline of purity of silver in Attic-connected coins: Most major Iranian dynasties followed a similar trajectory when it came to their silver coinage, beginning with high-purity issues that gradually degraded over time. This pattern reflects the economic and political challenges these empires faced. The Seleucids started with nearly pure silver tetradrachms (95% Ag) but saw purity drop to 80% after costly wars with Rome. The Parthians began strongly with 90% pure drachms, but by their fall to the Sassanians, their coins contained only 50% silver due to trade imbalances along the Silk Road. The Sassanians themselves, despite beginning with excellent 95% pure drachms, saw purity decline to 70% after prolonged wars with Byzantium and demographic crises like the Justinian Plague. The Abbasids present the most dramatic case, with their famous dirhams collapsing from 95% to just 40% silver due to civil wars, the depletion of mines, and the Samarra crisis.
With the collapse of each dynasty, coin minters—after generations of producing low-purity silver currency—remarkably resume minting coins with exceptionally high silver content. it is a cyclical pattern in Iranian monetary history. this is a more specific example Parthian-to-Sassanian Coinage Transition
Parthian-to-Sassanian Coinage Transition (200–240 CE):
| Feature | Late Parthian (Under Artabanus IV, 216–224 CE) | Early Sassanian (Under Ardashir I, 224–240 CE) |
| Silver Purity | 50% Ag (billon) – Tested on Ecbatana drachms | 95% Ag – "Crown of Glory" drachms from Ctesiphon |
| Weight | 3.5g (irregular) – Varies ±0.8g | 4.25g (fixed) – Deviation <0.1g |
| Legends | Greek/Pahlavi mix with errors (e.g., "ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΡΤΑΒΑΝΟΥ" + blundered Pahlavi) | Clean Pahlavi: "𐭠𐭥𐭲𐭧𐭱𐭲𐭥𐭩 𐭬𐭦𐭣𐭩𐭭𐭱𐭭" (Ardashir, Mazda-worshipping King) |
| Mints | Decentralized (Ecbatana, Susa, Mithradatkert) – Inconsistent output | Centralized at Ctesiphon, Gur, Istakhr – Standardized dies |
| Religious Motif | Occasional Zeus/Nike figures (Hellenistic legacy) | Fire altar with attendants – Explicit Zoroastrianism |
Historians tell us that after centuries of minting debased silver coins, minters eventually and abruptly began producing high-purity silver currency once again, recalling the weight standards originally established by Alexander the Great centuries earlier.
An alternative interpretation is as follows; These dynasties might have existed at the same time. Over the years, political and economic changes caused the weight and silver purity of coins to vary. Eventually, a major disaster like a plague led to a clear collapse.
The Samanid Empire's coinage
The Samanid Empire's coinage stands out in Islamic numismatics for its exceptional silver purity, remarkable consistency, and distinct modern rarity profile. Their dirhams maintained an extraordinary 96-97% silver content - among the purest silver coins of the medieval world . This purity remained strikingly consistent across their 180-year reign, with coins from both early (9th century) and peak (10th century) periods showing minimal deviation in either weight (maintained at 3.0-3.1g) or fineness. It is remarkable that throughout the following millennium, no coinage system approached the level of purity and consistency achieved by the Samanid dirhams.
Another intriguing detail is that the rulers of the Volga region in southern Russia imitated Samanid coinage. By the mid-10th century, the Volga Bulgars began minting their own coins in direct imitation of Samanid dirhams. Notably, most Volga Bulgar coins did not bear the names of Bulgar rulers but instead copied the legends of Samanid emirs like Nasr II (914–943) and Nuh II (976–997). No medieval records from Volga Bulgaria itself have survived; its history is instead a reconstruction largely based on information drawn from contemporary Russian, Arabic and Persian sources.
Hypothesis : Displaced Samanid Empire
It is possible that the Samanid Empire may have originally been situated in what is now southern Russia, with its emirs residing and governing from that region. In this view, the traditionally accepted eastern Samanid domain could represent a displaced or even phantom construct, shaped by later historiographical interpretations. This corresponds with the aforementioned hypothesis regarding the westward origin and eastward expansion of civilization.
Post-Samanid Dynasties and Their Coinage
Post-Abbasid coinage reflects political fragmentation and economic strain, with most dynasties failing to maintain high silver standards. The Ilkhanid tanka was the last major reform before modern times, but even it couldn’t restore the Samanid-level consistency. With the exception of the Timurid era, the availability of Iranian coinage significantly declines in later periods. Even coins from the Safavid dynasty—aside from those issued by the final shah before the Afghan invasion—are relatively scarce. More strikingly, in 18th century, there appears to be a near-century-long gap during which no identifiable Iranian coinage was produced or preserved, marking a stark contrast with the rich numismatic legacy of earlier eras. Remarkably, Nader Shah incorporated the Indian silver rupee into his monetary system. Historian say this adoption may explain the lack of distinct Iranian coinage during his reign.
Persian Coinage Comparison (1501–1925 CE)
| Dynasty | Ruler (Reign) | Silver Coin | Weight | Purity | Gold Coin | Copper Coin | Key Features | Modern Rarity |
| Safavid | Ismail I (1501–1524) | Shahi | ~1.9g | ~75% Ag | Toman (rare) | Fals (~3g) | Arabic Shi’a legends | ★★★☆☆ |
| Abbas I (1587–1629) | Abbasi (reform) | 9.0g | 87% Ag | – | – | "Lion-and-Sun" motif | ★★☆☆☆ | |
| Sultan Husayn (1694–1722) | Abbasi | ↓7.5g | ↓75% Ag | – | Fals (crude) | Debased, Afghan invasion issues | ★★★☆☆ | |
| Afsharid | Nader Shah (1736–1747) | Rupee (Indian) | ~11.0g | ~85% Ag | Mohur (~5.3g) | Shahi (~7.5g) | Copied Mughal designs | ★★☆☆☆ |
| Later Afsharids (1747–1796) | Debased abbasi | ~6.0g | ~60% Ag | – | – | Irregular, regional mints | ★☆☆☆☆ | |
| Zand | Karim Khan (1751–1779) | Riali | ~12.0g | ~80% Ag | – | Fals (~4g) | Safavid-style calligraphy | ★☆☆☆☆ |
| Later Zand (1779–1794) | Debased riali | ~10.0g | ~50% Ag | – | Fals (crude) | Qajar countermarks | ★★☆☆☆ | |
| Qajar | Fath-Ali Shah (1797–1834) | Qiran | ~1.2g | ~80% Ag | Toman (accounting) | Fals (~2g) | Portraits, "Lion-and-Sun" retained | ★★★☆☆ |
| Naser al-Din (1848–1896) | Machine-struck qiran | 0.93g (1879) | ↓20% Ag | ★★★★☆ |
Coin forgery
Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov, a pioneering figure in historical revisionism, viewed coins not merely as relics of the past but as critical instruments for challenging conventional chronology. In his multi-volume work Christ, Morozov applies rigorous scrutiny to numismatic evidence, arguing that many coins traditionally dated to antiquity are, in fact, products of the Middle Ages or Renaissance. His analysis hinges on inconsistencies in production methods, linguistic features, iconography, and historical context.
Criteria for Authenticity and Circulation
Morozov outlines several principles to distinguish genuine coins from forgeries:
- Market Viability: Real coins must be common, widely circulated, and have a fixed value. Unique or rare specimens lack practical function and are likely forgeries.
- Mass Production: Sovereigns needed standardized coins—same stamp, weight, and design—to pay soldiers and officials. Individual engraving suggests counterfeit origins.
- Distribution: Authentic coins should be found in multiple locations in large quantities, reflecting their role as currency.
Indicators of Forgery
Morozov identifies several red flags:
- Typographical Spelling: Coins with modern, uniform spelling—only possible after Gutenberg—are suspect. Genuine medieval artifacts show inconsistent, “free” spelling.
- Multiple Stamps for Same Value: Coins like Aetolian and Achaean types with differing designs but identical denominations are likely fake.
- Anachronistic Titles: The use of “basileus” (king) before the 8th century AD is historically inaccurate, suggesting later origin.
Hypothesis : rare coins are forgeries or belong to local rulers
if we accept Morozov criteria, we would conclude that many coins attributed to kings after Samanid era are fake because they are rare and not widely distributed. Alternatively, we would assume that these kings were local rulers and/or vassal of other empires.
If we adopt Morozov’s criteria for evaluating the authenticity of historical coinage—particularly his emphasis on mass circulation, standardized stamping, and economic viability—then a significant number of coins attributed to rulers following the Samanid era would raise serious doubts. Their rarity and limited geographic distribution suggest they may not have functioned as genuine currency in a broad economic sense. Instead, these coins could be interpreted as ceremonial issues, local imitations, or even later forgeries.
The scarcity and fragmented presence of such coinage might imply that these rulers were not sovereign powers with expansive monetary systems, but rather local chieftains or vassals operating under the suzerainty of larger empires. Their limited authority would not necessitate widespread coin production, and their coinage—if authentic—may have served symbolic or regional roles rather than fulfilling the demands of a centralized fiscal economy.
This interpretation aligns with Morozov’s broader historiographical approach, which challenges traditional timelines and questions the coherence of historical narratives based on material inconsistencies. By applying his numismatic lens, we are compelled to reconsider the political and economic status of post-Samanid rulers and the historical context in which their coinage emerged.
Conclusion
This initial investigation underscores the intricate relationship between Iranian coinage, economic stability, and dynastic power, suggesting that numismatic evidence offers a powerful lens for re-evaluating historical narratives. Further in-depth research is warranted to validate these hypotheses and expand our understanding.
