Request to Reclassify the Coins of British Mandate Palestine

Hello everyone,

I would like to bring attention to a common misclassification issue regarding historical coins: the coins and banknotes issued under the British Mandate in Palestine (1927-1948) are often listed under "Israel", even though these currencies were not Israeli.

Historical Background

From 1920 to 1948, Palestine was under British administration as a mandate territory assigned by the League of Nations. To establish a unified currency, the British authorities created the Palestine Currency Board in 1927, which issued the Palestine Pound (£P), divided into 1000 mils.

These coins and banknotes featured inscriptions in English, Arabic, and Hebrew and were used throughout the entire British-administered territory, which included Jewish, Arab, and international communities.

However, with the end of the British Mandate in May 1948, the Palestine Pound ceased to be legal tender. The following monetary transitions occurred:

• Israel replaced the Palestine Pound with the Israeli lira in 1948, which was later replaced by the Shekel in 1980.
• Jordan replaced it with the Jordanian Dinar, particularly in the West Bank.
• The Gaza Strip, under Egyptian administration, adopted the Egyptian Pound.

Why These Coins Are Not Israeli?

• They were issued by the British authorities, long before the establishment of the State of Israel.
• They were used in a territory that later became divided among multiple states and communities.
• Israel introduced its own currency in 1948, independent of the British Mandate system.

Proposed Reclassification

To ensure accurate historical and numismatic classification, I propose that these coins be categorized under "Palestine (British Mandate, 1927-1948)" instead of "Israel." This would prevent misunderstandings and properly reflect their historical context.

I appreciate your consideration of this request and look forward to discussing this matter further.

Best regards

Same argument could be made about Italian Eritrea not being truly Eritrea.

Country list is arranged mostly geographically, that is why it is done this way.

Thank you for your response.

I understand that the country list is arranged primarily based on geography rather than strict historical or political definitions. However, I believe the classification of British Mandate Palestine (1927-1948) under "Israel" is misleading for several key reasons:

1. The British Mandate of Palestine was not an independent state

• Unlike modern-day Israel, the British Mandate was an internationally recognized territory under British administration, governed under the League of Nations' mandate system.
• The currency was issued by the Palestine Currency Board under British authority, not by any sovereign local government.

2. The territory was later divided among multiple states

• After the end of the British Mandate in May 1948, the region was split:
  • Israel introduced the Israeli lira as its own national currency.
  • The West Bank, controlled by Jordan, adopted the Jordanian Dinar.
  • The Gaza Strip, under Egyptian administration, used the Egyptian Pound.
• Since the currency was never exclusive to one successor state, listing it under "Israel" only distorts its historical context.

3. Precedents in numismatic classification

• Other former mandates and colonial territories are often classified separately. For example:
  • "French Mandate Syria" and "French Mandate Lebanon" are distinct categories, even though both territories were governed by France before becoming independent states.
  • "German East Africa", "British India", or "French Indochina" exist separately from their modern successor states.
• Following this logic, a separate category for "Palestine (British Mandate, 1927-1948)" would be more historically accurate rather than grouping it under "Israel."

4. The Eritrea comparison does not fully apply

• While Italian Eritrea (1890-1941) is sometimes grouped under "Eritrea," that case differs from the British Mandate of Palestine because Eritrea eventually became an independent state that retained territorial continuity.
• In contrast, the British Mandate of Palestine was dissolved, and its territory was divided among multiple entities, making its numismatic classification more complex.

Suggested Solution

To maintain historical accuracy and consistency with other numismatic classifications, I suggest either:

1. Creating a new category: "Palestine (British Mandate, 1927-1948)," as has been done for other historical territories.
2. At the very least, providing a note in the listing that clarifies these coins were issued under British administration before the creation of Israel.

I appreciate the discussion and look forward to further input on this matter.

Best regards,

While I agree that the country list is a bit of a mess, what we did is that Predecessor entities are under modern states if they are fully within their borders.

Had there been Palestinian state created out of British Palestine, creating some currency, then all three entities would have been separated. For now, British Mandate of Palestine is simply predecessor to the state of Israel. The fact that some parts were annexed for a time by different country and then reintegrated back to Israel matters very little. Since then, some sovereignity was transferred to Palestinian Authority, but since that is yet to produce any currency, we are not listing it. Once they do, it will the basis on differentiating all three entities.

Dear Mr,

Thank you for your response and for explaining the reasoning behind the current classification. I appreciate the effort to structure the country list in a way that aligns predecessor entities with modern states where applicable. However, I would like to address some points regarding the inclusion of the British Mandate of Palestine under “Israel” and further clarify my concerns.

1. Historical and Political Continuity

While I understand the reasoning that the British Mandate of Palestine is considered a predecessor to Israel, it is important to recognize that it was not a precursor to Israel in an exclusive sense. As you mentioned, parts of the mandate’s territory were later integrated into different states (Israel, Jordan, and Egypt). Unlike cases where an entity fully transitions into a single successor state (e.g., Ottoman Turkey), the mandate’s legacy is split.

2. Geographical vs. Numismatic Context

Numismatically, the Palestine pound (1927-1948) was issued under British administration and circulated throughout the entire mandate territory, not just in the area that later became Israel. As such, assigning it solely under Israel creates a historical disconnect, as it overlooks the fact that these coins and banknotes were never issued by Israel itself, nor did they serve as a direct foundation for its currency system. The Israeli lira (introduced in 1948) was a separate national currency, distinct from the Palestine pound, which ceased to exist as a legal tender shortly after the mandate ended.

3. Comparative Classification with Other Mandates and Territories

As I pointed out previously, other territories that were internationally administered or colonial holdings are listed separately in numismatic classifications. To reiterate:

• French Mandate Syria and Lebanon are distinct categories, despite their governance under a single colonial administration.

• German East Africa, British India, and French Indochina are treated separately from their modern successor states.

• Even Austrian Netherlands and Spanish Netherlands exist as separate classifications, though both territories later became part of multiple different states.

Given these precedents, maintaining a separate category for “Palestine (British Mandate, 1927-1948)” aligns more closely with standard numismatic practices than grouping it solely under Israel.

4. Future Palestinian Currency and Classification Adjustments

I understand your point regarding the Palestinian Authority and the absence of an independent Palestinian currency. However, even if a Palestinian currency is introduced in the future, it would represent a modern political entity distinct from the British Mandate era, reinforcing the need for a separate classification for the British Mandate period rather than linking it to Israel alone.

Proposed Solution

To better reflect historical accuracy and maintain consistency with numismatic classification norms, I suggest:

1. Creating a separate category for “Palestine (British Mandate, 1927-1948)” to distinguish it from the modern State of Israel.

2. If a separate category is not feasible, at least adding a clarification note in the Israel listing stating that these coins and banknotes were issued under British administration and were not exclusive to Israel.

I believe this approach would provide a more historically accurate and neutral classification while ensuring clarity for collectors and researchers. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion on this matter and look forward to your input.

Best regards,

I would advise you to stop using ChatGPT to generate responses, trained eye can recognize that 😉

Also, it thinks it is always right, and instead of presenting some new arguments, it only reiterates what was given before. It also did not understood my comment, Palestnian currency would be basis of splitting them, instead of reinforcing anything. (And it thanks and “understoods” too much :D)

Second part of the proposed solution is nonsense, since those listings are already distinct and do not need any further notes.

I acknowledge your remark regarding the use of ChatGPT. However, I would like to clarify that this tool is not used to mechanically repeat arguments but rather to structure a coherent reflection while avoiding historical inconsistencies or partisan biases.

The goal here is not to "always be right" but to analyze the classification of British Mandate Palestine coins through a strictly historical and numismatic lens. The use of such a tool precisely helps to avoid misinterpretations or shortcuts that could distort a factual approach.

The discussion remains open, and I am happy to continue this exchange in a constructive manner.

Best regards,

I appreciate your response and the opportunity to engage in this discussion. I fully understand the reasoning behind the current classification system, particularly the approach of aligning predecessor entities with modern states when they fall within their borders. However, I still believe that classifying British Mandate Palestine (1927-1948) exclusively under Israel is both historically and numismatically misleading.

1. British Mandate Palestine Was Not a Predecessor to Israel Alone

While Israel did emerge from part of the mandate’s territory, the British Mandate of Palestine was never a political or administrative predecessor to Israel in an exclusive sense. The mandate’s territory was divided in 1948:

• Israel introduced the Israeli lira as its national currency.
• The West Bank, then under Jordanian control, adopted the Jordanian dinar.
• The Gaza Strip, under Egyptian administration, switched to the Egyptian pound.

Since British Mandate Palestine did not directly evolve into a single state but rather into multiple political entities, linking its currency to Israel alone creates a historical distortion.

2. Numismatic Context: The Palestine Pound Was a Distinct Currency

• The Palestine pound (issued 1927-1948) was created by the British Palestine Currency Board under colonial administration. It was not issued by any local sovereign entity, nor was it intended as a precursor to Israeli currency.
• The Israeli lira, introduced in 1948, was an entirely new currency. Unlike some other cases where a new state simply continued to use its predecessor's currency (e.g., Ottoman lira transitioning to Turkish lira), the Palestine pound was entirely phased out.
• The Palestine pound circulated across the entire mandate territory, not just in areas that later became Israel, making it inappropriate to retroactively assign it to one successor state.

3. Consistency with Other Numismatic Classifications

Several historical territories that no longer exist today are classified separately from their modern successor states. Examples include:

• French Mandate Syria (1920-1946) and French Mandate Lebanon (1920-1943) are distinct categories, even though they were under the same colonial administration.
• German East Africa (modern Tanzania, Rwanda, and Burundi) is listed separately rather than grouped under Tanzania.
• British India is separate from both India and Pakistan, despite both states emerging from its dissolution.
• Even more fragmented cases, such as Austrian Netherlands or Spanish Netherlands, are recognized as distinct entities in numismatic catalogs.

Given these precedents, it would be more consistent to classify the British Mandate of Palestine separately rather than placing it under Israel.

4. The Issue of Palestinian Currency

You mentioned that a future Palestinian currency would be the basis for a potential reclassification. However, the presence (or absence) of a modern Palestinian currency has no impact on how British Mandate Palestine should be classified. The Palestine pound belongs to a different historical period and should be assessed based on its own context, not potential future developments.

Proposed Solution

To ensure historical accuracy and consistency with other numismatic classifications, I suggest:

1. Creating a separate category: Palestine (British Mandate, 1927-1948) to reflect its unique status.
2. If this is not feasible, adding a clarification note in the Israel listing stating that these coins and banknotes were issued under British administration and were used across the entire mandate territory, not exclusively in what became Israel.

I appreciate the time and effort you invest in maintaining the catalog and structuring classifications. My goal here is not to challenge the catalog's overall approach but to ensure a historically accurate and neutral representation of this specific period.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Best regards,

Sorry, I simply do not see any new arguments.

Mandate of Palestine is within standard settings we have for the issuer list, and there is no real need for a change.

Hello,

Alright, I take note of your decision. Thank you for the discussion.

Best regards,
Geza

I cannot believe that British Mandatory coins, bearing letters א"י (Land of Israel), were in use in Transjordan or Egypt! The fact there was Arabic writing on them doesn't make them" palestinian" - Israel's modern currency has it too, since Arabic is official language in Israel, just like Hebrew. 

Please - stop trying to rewrite history. 

Dejan,

Your argument conflates linguistic elements on coins with national identity, which is not a historically accurate approach to numismatic classification. The presence of Hebrew, Arabic, or English on British Mandate Palestine coins does not determine their national affiliation; rather, these inscriptions reflected the administrative structure of the mandate, which governed a multiethnic and multireligious population.

Usage Across the Entire Mandate

• The British Mandate of Palestine covered a specific geographical area that included both Jewish and Arab communities. The Palestine Pound was issued by the British Palestine Currency Board and was the official currency in the entire territory, including regions that later became Israel, Jordan, and the Gaza Strip.
• There is documented evidence that the Palestine Pound was used in parts of Transjordan, particularly in trade and financial transactions before Jordan introduced its own currency in 1949.

Why the Hebrew Letters א״י (Land of Israel) Appear

• The inclusion of א״י (Eretz Yisrael) was mandated by the British administration to accommodate the Jewish population, but this did not make the currency "Israeli." The mandate coins were issued under British authority, and their use predates the establishment of the modern State of Israel.
• By the same logic, the presence of Arabic text does not make the coins "Palestinian" in the modern political sense either; it simply reflects the demographic composition of the mandate at the time.

Misinterpretation of Modern Israeli Currency

• Yes, Arabic appears on modern Israeli banknotes and coins because Arabic is an official language in Israel. However, the Palestine Pound was not an Israeli currency. It was abolished in 1948, and Israel introduced a completely new currency system. The transition from the Palestine Pound to the Israeli Lira marked a distinct break, as Israel sought to establish economic sovereignty separate from the British mandate system.

Avoiding Historical Revisionism

• Recognizing that the British Mandate of Palestine was an administrative entity distinct from modern Israel is not "rewriting history"—it is acknowledging historical accuracy.
• Similar historical cases exist, where former colonial currencies are not retroactively assigned to their successor states. Examples include:
  • French Indochina, which issued banknotes under French administration but is not classified under Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos.
  • German East Africa, which covered multiple modern states but is recognized as a separate numismatic entity.

In summary, the Palestine Pound was not Israeli, just as it was not Jordanian or Egyptian. It was a British colonial currency that should be classified as part of the British Mandate of Palestine, in line with standard numismatic practices.

If the goal is historical accuracy, then the classification should reflect the actual issuing authority—the British administration—rather than the political developments that followed its dissolution.

Best regards,
Geza

Dejan

I cannot believe that British Mandatory coins, bearing letters א"י (Land of Israel), were in use in Transjordan or Egypt! The fact there was Arabic writing on them doesn't make them" palestinian" - Israel's modern currency has it too, since Arabic is official language in Israel, just like Hebrew. 

Please - stop trying to rewrite history. 

The Palestine pound may not have been used in Egypt (I don't think geza or ChatGPT are claiming it was) but it was certainly used in Transjordan. The story of the Hebrew found on the Palestine coins is well known. It doesn't make them “Israeli” but, again, that isn't (quite) what Numista has. Since Palestine is currently occupied by Israel, the issues of Palestine are grouped with those of Israel under a heading based on the current situation. Personally, I'd like to see a second issuers page where all, current and historic, are listed alphabetically. This wouldn't replace the current grouped page but I'd find it much easier to use.

ceh2019

Dejan

I cannot believe that British Mandatory coins, bearing letters א"י (Land of Israel), were in use in Transjordan or Egypt! The fact there was Arabic writing on them doesn't make them" palestinian" - Israel's modern currency has it too, since Arabic is official language in Israel, just like Hebrew. 

Please - stop trying to rewrite history. 

The Palestine pound may not have been used in Egypt (I don't think geza or ChatGPT are claiming it was) but it was certainly used in Transjordan. The story of the Hebrew found on the Palestine coins is well known. It doesn't make them “Israeli” but, again, that isn't (quite) what Numista has. Since Palestine is currently occupied by Israel, the issues of Palestine are grouped with those of Israel under a heading based on the current situation. Personally, I'd like to see a second issuers page where all, current and historic, are listed alphabetically. This wouldn't replace the current grouped page but I'd find it much easier to use.

I'm still waiting for the British empire to be listed here…. 

Hello ceh2019, Thank you for your message, which clarifies several important points. Indeed, my goal has never been to claim that the Palestine Pound was used in Egypt, but simply to highlight that it was the official currency of the British Mandate of Palestine and that it circulated not only in the area that later became Israel but also in other parts of the mandate, including Transjordan before the Jordanian Dinar was introduced in 1949. I understand that Numista’s classification reflects the current situation rather than a strictly historical or numismatic reality, and this is precisely why I opened this discussion. It seems to me that having a second issuers' page, classified historically, as you suggested, could be a useful addition. This would help collectors and researchers access information more easily while maintaining the existing classification logic. Once again, I appreciate your constructive contribution. Best regards, Geza