Notes on some ancient gold coins, from Johore River
G.B. Gardner, writing in 1933 from his fieldwork on the Johore River, presents a numismatic study of gold coins recovered from ancient sites in the Johore delta, arguing that these pieces constitute genuine currency of the Johore Sultanate rather than mere funerary tokens. His central contribution is the tentative attribution of individual coins to specific Sultans across the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, supported by comparative analysis of inscription styles and corroborating European trade records.
Summary
Gardner’s article is fundamentally a catalogue and attribution exercise. Having recovered several gold coins while investigating ancient sites on the Johore River, he found that existing literature—limited to Millies and Bucknell—provided almost no guidance. After consulting the Raffles Museum in Singapore, the British Museum, and institutions in Amsterdam, Leiden, and Batavia without success, he produced his own drawings and attempted to assign each coin to a particular ruler. The coins fall into two denominations: large pieces he calls dinars and smaller quarter dinars (which he identifies with Hamilton’s “Mace”). All bear the reverse inscription Khalifatu’l-Mumin, except one piece stamped Malik al-Adil with a conventional flower device.
The most substantive argument concerns the function of these coins. Gardner challenges the prevailing view that Johore gold coins were struck only at a Sultan’s death and thrown to crowds at funerals—a theory that would explain their concentration in cemeteries. He counters this with d’Albuquerque’s proclamation ordering the re-coining of Malacca Sultanate money into Portuguese currency, which implies the coins were circulating as real money. He further cites Hamilton’s 1695 account of small gold coins called Mace worth 3/6 English, Vaughan’s 1702 shipwreck narrative in which a gold coin was given to buy fish, and Robert Quarkin’s 1614 complaint that 308 pieces of Johore gold received in trade were short weight. As for the cemetery concentration, Gardner offers a pragmatic explanation: old cemeteries were typically built on former fort and palace sites where coins may have been deposited earlier, and graveyards remain the only land in the area regularly excavated to depth.
The Malik al-Adil coin presents a particular puzzle. Gardner notes that tin coins bearing the same legend and a similar flower device were dredged from a Malacca river, and that Dr. Hanitsch had tentatively identified the flower as the wheel of St. Catherine, linking it to Portuguese Goa. Gardner rejects this identification on the grounds that Portuguese sources record coinage at Goa in gold, silver, and copper but not tin, and he argues that Malik al-Adil means “The Just King” rather than “full weight currency” as Hanitsch had translated it.
Key Findings
- The Muzaffar Shah coins (reign 1564–1580) are the only pieces Gardner can date with reasonable confidence; the quarter dinar (No. 1) bears a reversed inscription, which he attributes to an illiterate die-cutter faithfully copying a written template before the error was corrected (pp. 174–175).
- Coin weights range from approximately 9.9.60 to 9.39.80 (units as recorded by Gardner), with the large Abdul Jalil dinar (No. 10) at 9.39.35 and the Muzaffar Shah dinar (No. 14) at 9.39.80 (p. 172).
- Robert Quarkin, English factor at Patani, complained in 1614 that 308 pieces of Johore gold received in trade were short weight; Jourdain’s reports (1608–1617) state it was “very necessary to furnish our ships outward bound with rice and Jore Gold in Quoine” (p. 175).
- Gardner assigns the round (rather than octagonal) Abdul Jalil coin (No. 11) to Abdul Jalil IV (1699–1719), reasoning that this Sultan, of a new dynastic line with extensive European contacts, may have introduced a new shape (p. 173).
- The Sulaiman Shah coin (No. 16) must belong to the Sulaiman placed on the throne by the Bugis in 1722, as no other Sultan of that name is recorded for Johore (p. 175).
- Three coins (both ‘Ala’u’d-din pieces and the Malik al-Adil) bear small attached rings, indicating they were worn as charms (p. 173).
Conclusion
Gardner’s definitive takeaway is that Johore gold coins were functioning currency in regional and international trade, not commemorative or funerary objects. The European documentary evidence—Portuguese proclamations, English trading complaints, and travel accounts—collectively demonstrates that these coins circulated as money of recognized value, and their archaeological concentration in cemeteries is best explained by the practical circumstances of land use and the persistent Malay custom of leaving offerings at royal graves.
Context
- Gardner was conducting field investigations of ancient sites on the Johore River in his capacity as a colonial-era administrator or official in the Straits Settlements; his access to the Raffles Museum and his home leave to consult the British Museum reflect the institutional networks available to British officials in Malaya at the time.
- The article draws on the small existing numismatic literature (Millies, Bucknell, Hanitsch) and European primary sources (d’Albuquerque’s Commentaries, Hamilton’s travel account, Vaughan’s narrative, Quarkin’s factor reports, Jourdain’s dispatches) rather than on any substantial Malay archival tradition.