Regarding the question that popped up on this thread (https://en.numista.com/forum/topic138413.html) I did a bibliographic review of whatever I could find about this. I'll present all I saw and give my opinions at the end. Sorry that this turned out way larger than I expected.
Josef Antonio Conde - Memoria sobre la moneda arabiga y en especial la acuñada en España por los principes musulmanes (Treatise read in 1804 at the Royal Academy of Hisotry of Spain, edited in 1817, I consulted the 1982 reprint)
This is not exactly a catalogue but an interesting historical note. Conde does give the chronology as the first Hammudid rulers has being Caliphs, but separates the civil war part of the caliphate from the rest, including mentioning the last Umayyad rulers here in this section.
Francisco Codera - Tratado de numismatica arabico-española (1879, I consulted the 1977 reprint)
Fully separates the Umayyad Caliphate from the Hammudids, considering all coins from the Hammudids as coins from the Taifas period, but says the following:
La dinastía de los Hammudies de Málaga y Algeciras puede considerarse como una de tantas de los reyes de Taifas, aunque algunos de sus individuos fueron tan califas como los últimos Omeyyahs, entre quienes se interponen, y aun los que no fueron califas de Córdoba, en sus monedas se titularon Amir de los creyentes ^ lo que no sucede con ninguno de los otros reyes de Taifas: por esto creemos que deben figurar como intermedio entre unos y otros.
Translation:
The dynasty of the Hammudies of Malaga and Algeciras can be considered one of many of the kings of Taifas, although some of its individuals were so caliphs like the last Omeyyahs, among whom interpose, and even those who were not caliphs of Córdoba, on their coins they were titled Amir of the believers, which does not happen with any of the other kings of Taifas: this is why we believe that they should appear as intermediate between one and the other.
Antonio Vives y Escudero - Monedas de las dinastías arabigo-españolas (1893, I consulted the 1978 reprint)
Includes some Hammudid rulers in the Caliphate phase (up until Yahya), but separates the Hammudid rulers from the Umayyad rulers even though they were interleaved.
Antonio Prieto y Vives - Lo reyes de Taifas; estudio histórico-numismático de los musulmanes españoles en el siglo v de la hégira (XI de J. C.) (1926)
Includes some Hammudid rulers in the Caliphate phase (up until Mohammed III) in the discussion part of the book, but leaves all of the Hammudid rulers in their own section in the catalogue part of the book, the first few as "pretenders".
Joaquim Figanier - Moedas Árabes: Inventário e descrição (inventary of the arabic coins in the portuguese numismatic museum, 1949)
As Vives does, he includes the Hammudid rulers until Yahya in the Caliphate phase, but separates the Hammudid rulers from the Umayyad rulers even though they were interleaved.
George Miles - Coins of the Spanish Muluk al-Tawa'if (1954)
Separates the coins into dynasties and considers the whole of the Hamudid dynasty to belong to this Taifas period, in his earlier work on "Coinage of the Umayyads of Spain, Part 1" (1950) he predictably leaves out the Hammudids. I think this only reflects his way of thinking about the dynasties more than anything.
Juan Rodríguez Lorente - Prontuario de la moneda arabigo-española (1982)
Fully separates the Umayyad Caliphate from the Hammudids, considering all coins from the Hammudids as coins from the Taifas period.
Tawfiq Ibrahim - Adiciones al oro del califato omeya de Córdoba (article published in 1990)
The author does mention a Hammudid coin and describes the Hamudid caliphs as "bridging" the space between Umayad coinage and the numismatics of the Taifas, reflecting Codera's opinion:
Se han incluido en este trabajo sólo las monedas que nos parecen seguras de esta dinastía, excluyendo las que, después de la revolución de Córdoba, los diversos régulos acuñaron nominalmente a nombre de los últimos omeyas. Excepción a esta regla es la última moneda descrita, la número 14, que enlaza y hace puente con la numismatica plenamente taifal.
Translation:
Only the coins that seem certain to belong to this dynasty have been included in this work, excluding those that, after the Córdoba revolution, the various rulers minted nominally in the name of the last Umayyads. An exception to this rule is the last coin described, number 14, which links and bridges the fully Taifal numismatics.
This same author is the curator of the Tonegawa Collection (http://www.andalustonegawa.50g.com/) an in there he does separate the Hammudids from the Caliphate, and only considers the Taifa of Málaga as being the section under the Zirid dynasty.
Antonio Medina Gómez - Monedas Hispano-Musulmanas (1992)
Includes some Hammudid rulers in the Caliphate phase, says the caliphate was officially abolished in 422AH when Yahya was reigning in Málaga, although he lost Córdoba in 417. Puts all coins of Yahya into the Caliphate section. Has the coins of the Caliphate in chronological order, reflecting the interleaved nature and back and forth of power in the Caliphate.
(I was mistaken before, Vives has a different approach than the one I cited, my apologies)
This goes to show that this question has no rigth answer and from the 1800s until now, different authors prefer different approaches. For what I believe is the "numista paradigm", I feel separating the Hammudies at Yahya is the best course of action, as there is indeed a political/geographical change here. But I propose we go further and throw the "Hammudid dynasty" section away altogether, and include the Hammudid rulers until Yahya in the Caliphate part (as does Medina Gómez), as that better reflects the history and the politics of the era.
So in the end I propose the following division into issuers:
Emirate of Córdoba
Caliphate of Córdoba
Taifas (Including Málaga)
The Caliphate/Taifa division has three options:
- Including the Hammudids until Yahya into the Caliphate and from Idris I onwards into the Taifa.
- Including the Hammudids until al-Qasim into the Caliphate and from Yahya onwards into the Taifa.
- Separating Yahya's reign into two, putting the coins before 417AH into the Caliphate and from 417AH onwards into the Taifa.
I think the best course of action would be the first of these three options, as separating a coin series based on year alone (and moreover with the year being somewhat tricky to read on this coins) doesn't seem good, and Yahya was indeed Caliph of Córdoba for a while.
This is also defending the reversal of the decision of joining the Emirate and the Caliphate into one (reviving this thread https://en.numista.com/forum/topic138404.html), a change which I missed and didn't add input to, which I defend based on the fact that the Emirate and the Caliphate were completely different political entities even though they shared the same are and the same dynasty, and by noting that all the authors on the numismatics of al-Andalus separate these two eras (that I know of).
