novice » 21-May-2010 12:09pm

( 79 )-? AH, Juchid AE pul, Khwarizm.

vapp » 20-June-2011 12:06am

790 AH is the most probable

frank » 20-June-2011 4:34pm

Qongirat Sufids.

frank » 21-June-2011 2:02pm

see comment 100626.

frank » 21-June-2011 2:13pm

and Album,checklist(1998),page 102:"a local dynasty that briefly assumed power from the Golden Horde at Khwarizm until driven out by Timur...".Fedorov-Davydov(1965), ascribes it to the Jujid period of Khwarizm(F.-D.,p.195).

vapp » 21-June-2011 2:34pm

Fedorov-Davydov was a pioneer in researching Juchid coins of Khwarizm, but not all of his attributions are correct and full. I just look at the date which is clearly visible on this exact specimen

frank » 21-June-2011 2:51pm

Fedorov-Davydov`s many publications(over a very long time span) are excellent and very helpful to scientists as well as to collectors.Therefore they are again recommended here.

vapp » 21-June-2011 3:31pm

Should we pray on his papers? By the way, drawings of coins by Fedorov-Davydov were often unaccurate. Please, remind me - I will send you newer articles about Khwarizm coins, where some attributions were revised

frank » 21-June-2011 4:54pm

most of the existing articles,"old" or "new",dealing with Golden Horde/Jujid copper coins
are based on hoard coins in the usual worn condition,and uptil now a lot of copper types could be identified only to some degree,leaving open many questions.

vapp » 21-June-2011 8:52pm

Forget articles, just look at the coin

frank » 22-June-2011 2:43pm

I am sorry but for me Islamic Numismatics in Russia(and outside) is based on the extensive work of scientists,numismatists and collectors from Empire and Soviet times.

charm » 22-June-2011 6:19pm

Dear Frank, this is quite correct for all numismatists and collectors in Russia too. However, this is not frozen schience. New finds, new books, new investigations - and sometime some data from old publications should be updated and revised.

frank » 22-June-2011 6:29pm

so as every day in zeno.

vapp » 22-June-2011 7:29pm

I really wonder, what's wrong with it? Of course, it would be better, if all new ideas and attributions were first published in scientific literature and then used for Zeno. And we try to do this way, but it's not so easy. There is a huge amount of a new coins uploaded every day in Zeno and elsewhere. One could wright three or four articles per year, but not more. If the case seems quite clear (as this one), why not to change its attribution?

SS » 22-June-2011 7:49pm

Of course, it would be better, if all new ideas and attributions were first published in scientific literature and then used for Zeno.
Oh, I would say that very often Zeno is far ahead than the scientific literature, as many new investigations were done exactly here first and only after several months were published in literature if published at all.

Perseus » 22-June-2011 9:07pm

Regarding numismatics historiography – we are living in a truly globalised and very dynamic world. No surprise that an open on-line database like this one is growing at an extremely high rate, which exceeds tenfold an average speed of any peer-reviewed scholarly publication.