Weight and Other Standards
I recently saw an announcement for the publication of papers from a Princeton Workshop :
‘Money, Power and Politics in Early Islamic Syria: A Review of Current Debates’
Edited by John Haldon, Princeton University, USA, August 2010, ISBN: 978-0-7546-6849-7
It caught my attention because I have an interest in a yet unresolved (indeed largely ignored) debate concerning the weight of the reformed dirhem of Abd al-Malik and the implications of that reform.
To summarise the matter, in line with Skinner, but against the opinion of many Islamicists, I believe the weight of the dirhem was fixed by Abd al-Malik for bullion at c. 3.11g, but for coin at c. 2.92g, with 1/16th being taken in seigniorage. I believe that many opposed to this interpretation hold views about the historical use of commodity monies that are found attractive more for their role in 21st century political debate than for their historical veracity
The paper that seemed to me most likely to address this topic in the volume announced was:
“First Century Islamic Currency: Mastering the Message from the Money” by Gene W. Heck
Since the paper did not appear to be easily available on line, I hunted around and found that Heck had also written a book entitled
“Charlemagne, Muhammad, and the Arab Roots of Capitalism”
Usefully, much of this latter work is available on Amazon. And on page 228 Heck tells us that “Charlemagne's last currency issue precisely matched the Abbasid silver dirhem in weight”
I presume Heck here referred to Charlemagne's last penny standard, which was c. 1.70g. But here can be little doubt that the contemporary Abbasid dirhems weighed c. 2.925g. Thus the claim is transparently false. I can understand how this falsity might be manufactured out of an incompetently hazy recollection of other texts which are themselves incompetent. But I find it less easy to understand how someone who writes in such an incompetent way would get to address a Princeton audience as a specialist on what is fundamentally the same matter (these Abbasid dirhems weighed to Abd al-Malik’s standard, as far as we can tell)
So I thought to hunt out a bit more about Gene W Heck. and I quickly discovered:
1) he held a doctorate in economics and three master's degrees at the University of Michigan, with master's degrees at Golden Gate University and the University of Jordan. He also served as adjunct professor of government and history with the University of Maryland.
2) he had served as a U.S. Army Military Intelligence Officer for many years, with U.S. Army reserve tours in Ethiopia, Turkey, and Jordan.
3) He was director of the El-Seif Group, one of Saudi Arabia’s top five diversified firms in earnings annually, which employs more than 15,000 individuals. The firm specialises in security and defence systems, construction and engineering, hospital management and construction, commercial representation and investment. (turn over just over $1 billion p/a)
4) Despite his lecturing and commercial activities, he also wrote (or perhaps “wrote”?) books at a truly phenomenal rate, including volumes with titles like "Building Prosperity: Why Ronald Reagan and the Founding Fathers Were Right on the Economy".
5) At least some of his historical titles were published by the King Faisal Centre for Research and Islamic Studies
6) He seemed to make regular donations to the Republican Party.
Comments on his 2007 book, “When Worlds Collide: Exploring the Ideological and Political Foundations of the Clash of Civilization” found on internet blogs include
“The Worst Book of 2007?”
“Might be hard to classify this book. You really could not put it in the non-fiction section. Fantasy would be a better choice than fiction. Nope just sell it as is, a paid political advertisement”
“It's unbelievable what people will do for money.”
I do not endorse any of these opinions, as I have not read the book or researched its subject matter. But they are somewhat in line with my own concerns about Hack’s incompetent handling of metrological matters, where he seems willing straightforwardly to invent evidence to support his case.
More than 20 years ago I studied matters to do with the medieval monetary economy within Europe and Islam, and came to the conclusion that a particular scholar, Andrew Murray Watson, had been impeded in his research, not because there was any flaw in his (excellent) scholarship, but because his conclusions flew in the face of what influential individuals with strong political views wanted to hear. I recall mentioning this to a well educated friend, outside the field of monetary history, and he suggested that I must be insane to suggest such a thing.
Yet here we have an exactly complementary case - an apparently incompetent scholar being promoted way beyond his abilities because his conclusion are exactly what influential individuals with strong political views want to hear.
Thus yet again I protest in favour of my sanity.
Rob Tye
