Figuring out Morocco [solved]

Hello again!

So… out of all the Islamic states, the most confusing one to me is the "Saadi dynasty" because, with it being an issuer, it is also duplicated as a ruling authority under Morocco. I think it would be alright to keep the Saadi dynasty as a ruling authority of Morocco because, in regards to the coins, the decline of the Saadi dynasty, the rise of the Dila'a Interregnum, and the rise of the ‘Awali dynasty are all decently chronological (there were only a couple possible years of overlaps amongst all the coins, and I say possible just because the Dila’a Interregnum was anonymous, so the exact dates of those coins are not precise).

Issuer-wise, here is what I am thinking:

Morocco

----- Morocco

----- Moroccan states

---------- Afshi, City of

---------- Fez, Saadi Branch of

---------- Marrakesh, City of

---------- Marrakesh, Saadi Branch of

So… the main country of Morocco would contain all coins from current Morocco and the Saadi dynasty, aside from what is specifically listed below (and when the coins are done being moved, the Saadi dynasty, as an issuer, could be deleted).

Between 1603 and 1627, the Saadi dynasty became divided, with relevant coins coming from the branches based in Fez (Northern Morocco) and Marrakesh (Southern Morocco). These areas issued their own coins under their own rulers, so I think dividing them into separate issuers would make sense.

The City of Marrakesh would include the coins of the last Saadi ruler, ‘Abd al-Karim (1659-1669) (who captured only the city for a short while, from what I can tell), Moulay Hisham (Marrakesh) (1790-1794) (contender to the throne), and Moulay al-Husayn (Marrakesh) (1794-1797) (a pretender). The City of Afshi would be for the coins of Moulay Hisham (Afshi) (1794-1797).

The ruling authorities would need adjustments for all these issuers, as the current ruling authorities are all under modern-day Morocco, but I would prefer not to make a Google Sheet in case other people have other ideas, and those become the ones that get implemented. Sooo… thoughts and comments welcomed, of course.  :)

For the relevant sections on Zeno:

https://www.zeno.ru/showgallery.php?cat=5968

https://www.zeno.ru/showgallery.php?cat=6747

https://www.zeno.ru/showgallery.php?cat=881

I asked the referree to come here give his opinion :-)

Thank you! :)

Hello

Sorry

I was having my Mid-term exams

Based on the information provided, it seems that the Saadi dynasty in Morocco is causing confusion as it is both an issuer and a ruling authority. To address this, we can consider the following solution:

1. Keep the Saadi dynasty as a ruling authority of Morocco, as it is historically significant.
2. Create separate issuers for the branches of the Saadi dynasty based in Fez and Marrakesh, as they issued their own coins under their own rulers.
3. Divide the coins of the Saadi dynasty between the main country of Morocco and the specific issuers (Fez and Marrakesh).
4. Create separate issuers for the City of Afshi and the City of Marrakesh, as they had their own rulers during certain periods.
5. Adjust the ruling authorities for all these issuers to reflect the historical context accurately.

By implementing these changes, we can maintain the historical accuracy of the Saadi dynasty while also addressing the confusion caused by its dual role as an issuer and a ruling authority.

All good!

I added these Moroccan states to this Sheet (lines 24 to 32):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GGHnMr6c0XRhD2Aulzz7p14AhgAATG3FvbWfX-sOH58/edit?usp=sharing

It seems the referee for the Islamic states might be away right now (meaning moving coins from the Saadi dynasty to Morocco might take a while), so rather than deleting the Saadi dynasty as an issuer, I would like to propose we just change it into the Saadi Branch of Marrakesh. That way, all 80 coins will be placed under Morocco, and we can just sort them into their proper ruling authorities from there. The end results will be the same; this might just speed up the process a little more.  :)

For the ruling authorities (and I can make this on another thread if the administrator prefers that; just keeping it here so I don't forget):

City of Afshi

Move this ruler from Morocco: Alaouite Sharifs • Moulay Hisham (Asfi) (1794-1797)

And remove the “(Asfi)”

City of Marrakesh

Move this ruler from Morocco: Saadi Sharifs • ‘Abd al-Karim (1659-1669)

Title: Rebel (if not this, Sultan is probably fine as it is)

Move this ruler from Morocco: Alaouite Sharifs • Moulay Hisham (Marrakesh) (1790-1794)

And remove the “(Marrakesh)”

Move this ruler from Morocco: Alaouite Sharifs • Moulay al-Husayn (Marrakesh) (1794-1797)

And remove the “(Marrakesh)”

Saadi Branch of Marrakesh

Abu Faris Abdallah, Sultan, 1603-1608, Q2720253 (https://www.zeno.ru/showgallery.php?cat=17452)

Abu al-Ḥasan Muhammad, Rebel, 1607 (https://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=205906)

Abu Mahally al-Mahdi, Usurper, 1612-1613 (N#183136)

Saadi Branch of Fez

Muhammad al-Shaykh al-Ma'mun, Sultan, 1603-1613, Q3318907 (https://www.zeno.ru/showgallery.php?cat=17453)
Abdallah al-Ghalib II, Sultan, 1609-1623, Q104205658 (N#157685)
Abd al-Malik ibn Abdallah, Sultan, 1623-1627 (N#157677)
Abu al-Abbas Ahmad III, Sultan, 1627-1628 (N#157668)

Sulfur

For the ruling authorities (and I can make this on another thread if the administrator prefers that; just keeping it here so I don't forget):

 

City of Afshi

Move this ruler from Morocco: Alaouite Sharifs • Moulay Hisham (Asfi) (1794-1797)

And remove the “(Asfi)”

 

City of Marrakesh

Move this ruler from Morocco: Saadi Sharifs • ‘Abd al-Karim (1659-1669)

Title: Rebel (if not this, Sultan is probably fine as it is)

 

Move this ruler from Morocco: Alaouite Sharifs • Moulay Hisham (Marrakesh) (1790-1794)

And remove the “(Marrakesh)”

 

Move this ruler from Morocco: Alaouite Sharifs • Moulay al-Husayn (Marrakesh) (1794-1797)

And remove the “(Marrakesh)”

 

Saadi Branch of Marrakesh

Abu Faris Abdallah, Sultan, 1603-1608, Q2720253 (https://www.zeno.ru/showgallery.php?cat=17452)

Abu al-Ḥasan Muhammad, Rebel, 1607 (https://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=205906)

Abu Mahally al-Mahdi, Usurper, 1612-1613 (N#183136)

 

Saadi Branch of Fez

Muhammad al-Shaykh al-Ma'mun, Sultan, 1603-1613, Q3318907 (https://www.zeno.ru/showgallery.php?cat=17453)
Abdallah al-Ghalib II, Sultan, 1609-1623, Q104205658 (N#157685)
Abd al-Malik ibn Abdallah, Sultan, 1623-1627 (N#157677)
Abu al-Abbas Ahmad III, Sultan, 1627-1628 (N#157668)

Thankss for your hard work

<3

all done, you can move/create them ^^

Thank you. I sent a lot of requests.  x)

I accepted them

Thanks to both Sulfur & Compendium for bringing this issue to light

:)

From my point of view, I think that separating the 2 Alawite pretenders (My Hicham & My el-Husayn) from the other Alawites will cause errors and/or doublets.
For example: Moulay Hicham; in his first period (in Marrakech (1790-1794)), he struck in Marrakech, in Moulay Ibrahim, in es-Suwayra (Essaouira) and in Asfi!
What will be the rule of recording in the latter case; where do we put the coins minted in Safi during the Marrakech period?

And for the Saadians:
If I summarize the rules of registration we have in:
"Morocco - Dinar (1549-1659)": all Sa'adians except the following 8 who are in "Morocco -States" (Marrakech or Fez):

‘Abd al-Karim (1659-1669)
Muhammad al-Shaykh al-Ma'mun (1603-1613)
Abdallah al-Ghalib II (1609-1623)
Abd al-Malik ibn Abdallah (1623-1627)
Abu al-Abbas Ahmad III (1627-1628)
Abu Faris Abdallah (1603-1608)
Abu al-Ḥasan Muhammad (1607)
Abu Mahally al-Mahdi (1612-1613) (the usurper)

and I suppose that the name prevails over the workshop, so we can have in Fez strikes with the Marrakech mint or in the "bronze" the "without mint"?

Conclusion for Sa'adians: out of around twenty Moulays (or others) who struck the coins, we put 8 aside on the pretext that they were based in Marrakech or Fes (but could strike the coins in other mints..); I don't really see what this separation brings, other than confusion in the recordings.

For the "Interregnum" (1659-1664) and the "Dila'ites" (1631-1663), I assume that they are recorded with the Alawites (?).

And for the minted/cast coinage period (1659-1882), we do not separate the Alawites of the interregnum or the Dila'ites, but we set apart 2 Moulay Alawites, for the only reason that they were "pretenders" and not “official”.

What does separating them bring? There is not a catalog that separates them from the others...