Author Topic: Bharuch. Kachcha Paisa or an official issue?  (Read 3600 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 506
  • Ahmedabad, India
Bharuch. Kachcha Paisa or an official issue?
« on: November 10, 2011, 01:55:17 PM »
Pretty difficult to get.........specially in this condition. Date (1)187. A Paisa of Bharuch issued by Nek Nam Khan.

Amit
« Last Edit: November 16, 2011, 05:50:01 AM by asm »
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline Overlord

  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2 823
  • Tamdiu discendum est, quamdiu vivas
    • Collect Old Coins
Re: Bharuch. Paisa of Nek Nam Khan.
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2011, 05:07:24 PM »
Very interesting coin, asm.

According to my catalogue, Nak Nam Khan ruled from AH1168 to 1182 (1754 to 1768 AD). So, AH1187 seems improbable for him. I tried to read the mint name on the reverse, but can't place the "extra" character (which looks like "Nun") after what seem like Waw and Che (Broach=Be+Ra+Waw+Che). I can't find any coppers from broach on the net; so the illustration in the standard catalogue is my only reference. The only year reported in KM is AH1176 and there seems another character to the left of Che in the catalogue illustration, though it is not joined to Che as on this coin.

« Last Edit: November 10, 2011, 05:19:45 PM by Overlord »

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 506
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: Bharuch. Paisa of Nek Nam Khan.
« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2011, 07:09:32 AM »
Thanks for the info, Overlord. This is what I found on Wikipedia:

Nawab

    * MoGo Governors 1660-1736
    * Abd Allah Beg, Mughal governor
    * Independent Nawab 1736-1772
    * Muazzaz Khan 1769-1772 (verse + 1773)
    * British Occupation 1772-1783
    * Marathas 1783-1803
    * Return to the British in 1803
    * Mirza Ahmad Khan (1773-verse pretender 1800)


Princely States of India says:

Broach

The district of Broach, located between Cambay, Rajpipla, and Baroda, was under Muslim rule for nearly 500 years after the Muslim conquest in 1298. Akbar brought it into the Moghul empire in 1572. Martaha raids began in 1675. In 1736, Abdullah Beg, the local port commander, "held Broach from the Nizam ul-Mulk, who, shortly before he assumed a position of independence in the Deccan (1722), had, as viceroy of Gujarat, made Broach a part of his private estate. Abdullah Beg, who acknowledged neither the new Moghul viceroy nor the claims of the Marathas, received the title of Nek Alam Khan from the Nizam and "was the founder of the short-lived line of the nawabs of Broach."

On his death in 1738, he was succeeded by his second son Mirza Beg, who took the title of Nek Alam Khan II. His younger brother succeeded him in 1752 but died after three months. A dispute over the succession ensued and was not resolved for two years. During this time, which followed the Nizam's death in 1752, "no attempt was made to enforce the Nizam's claims on the lands of Broach; and, for the future, except for the share of the revenue paid to the Maratha, the governors of Broach were practically independent." Eventually, Mirza Ahmad Beg, a grandson of the first nawab, was placed on the masnad by the leader of a Surat family very influential in religious circles. Mirza Ahmad died in 1768 and was succeeded by his son Mazad Khan, the last of the nawabs of Broach.

Soon after the British took over political control of neighboring Surat (q.v.), disputes arose with the nawab of Broach. An armed expedition sent against Mazad Khan in 1771 to enforce the Government's claims was unsuccessful, but later that year the nawab traveled to Bombay and engaged to pay off his debts within two years. In November, 1772, after Nawab Mazad Khan repeatedly failed to make good on his promises to pay the agreed amount to the Company, the city and its surrounding territory (including 162 villages) was taken after a rather spirited defense. The nawab fled to Mahi Kantha where he died soon afterwards. After 1794, the British began paying pensions to members of the former ruling family. Broach was handed over to Scindia in 1783, but retaken by the British in 1803.

33:VIII,358-359; 34:IX,20-21,31; 57:I-1,334, II,468-472; 113:I,128-129; John McLeod's letter of November 24, 2004;


AH 1187 will run from:  25 March 1773 to 13 March 1774 (Gregorian Calander) So as per both accounts, the coin would have been issued during the last days of the Nawabs rule in Bharuch or Broach as it was called during the rule of Mazad Khan or Mu'azzaz Khan (who I presume is the same person with the names written differently) as the two reports mention.

Amit

EDIT: Found another reference: A history of the nawābs of Broach based on the Persian manuscript, Majmūʼa-e-Dānish by Syed Maqbool Ahmad. The book, written in English, was published 1985 by Dept. of Persian, University of Delhi in Delhi.

This book mentions the name as: Mu'azzaz Khan.

Amit
« Last Edit: November 11, 2011, 07:53:58 AM by asm »
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 506
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: Bharuch. Paisa of Nek Nam Khan.
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2011, 11:31:14 AM »
Four more similar Paisa's of Broach or Bharuch..........various dates.

Amit
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 506
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: Bharuch. Kachcha Paisa or an official issue?
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2011, 02:21:33 AM »
Here is the reply of Mr Shailendra Bhandare on SACG on these coins:

Hi Amit
Very interesting coins, so thanks for sharing.
Firstly, the date - judging by the pictures you have uploaded, I am inclined to think it is 1876 rather than 1187 or 1186 so this could be Vikram Samvat, and there is evidence for it: the word below reads 'Samat'. VS1876 would correspond to 1820AD.

Secondly, the 'noon' - here again I think it is not a 'noon' but the final letter of the word above 'Bharuch' which, depending on how well the dies are engraved, fuses with the top end of 'Ch' in 'Bharuch'. This word above begins with 'saud' /'zuad'. I am not too sure what it is, but it could well be 'Zila'a' which ends in 'ain'. The legend on the reverse could thus be 'Zila'a Bharuch'.

Who struck these coins is a good question - Bharuch must be under the control of EICo at this point, but if the coin was struck somewhere in 'Zila'a' Bharuch it may well not be an EICo issue. During the 1820's and 30's there was a spurt in the production what the British often referred to as 'unofficial' copper coins in the region of the Gulf of Cambay. This was in response to a boom in cotton trading and the consequent demand for small change which meant making the coins was a profitable business in itself. A similar phenomenon too place in Malwa during the same years in response to a boom in Opium trade.

Some of these coins could well have been at least semi-official - the minting rights might have been farmed with the approval of a state or polity that controlled the port/s through which the trade was carried out. These polities were the Nawabs of Cambay, the Gaikwads of Baroda and the Thakor of Bhaunagar and each appears to have struck a range of 'unofficial' coinage - many coins have a 'countermark' appearance with small devices, often specific to the states, 'punched' on rectangular copper flans.

The British were not behind in taking advantage of this boom on trade and the demand in copper coinage - the EICo ran at least one mint in the region, at the port of Dholera during these years.

The coins under discussion may well be one more series in a range of such coinages in the Gulf of Cambay region. They display typical characters of the coinage - a lack of reference to issuing authority, simple designs and rapid degeneration / great variation in execution suggesting 'fast and furious' minting activity.

cheers,
Shailen


On hindsight, I believe he is correct. In fact, I had read the date too as VS 187X on the first coin but was mislead by the fact that the SCWC says the date is 1176. The coin illustrated in the SCWC also shows only 2 digits with the first two digits being off flan.

If any one has a view contrary to this, I would be happy to discuss the same.

Amit
« Last Edit: November 16, 2011, 05:48:51 AM by asm »
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29 281
Re: Bharuch. Kachcha Paisa or an official issue?
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2011, 10:43:45 AM »
I am enjoying this thread, but am especially interested in the economic/financial aspect. I can easily imagine that a trading boom requires more money. What escapes me is why it would require more copper money. Transactions would be for a farmer's whole harvest, or at least a cartload in transportation. I would imagine that such transactions were financed in silver. In the case of opium, I can imagine that, as opium gets cheaper, more locals start using it, but cheaper cotton wouldn't mean more local consumption when it has not yet been turned into cotton cloth yet?

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 506
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: Bharuch. Kachcha Paisa or an official issue?
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2011, 10:54:33 AM »
May be it required more hands to harvest it and move it and that required copper. Silver was always easily available as the government of the day or the local saraf (shroff) would normally ensure that silver was easily available. May be Copper was not so easy to get.

This is where we miss our friend Salvete.......... who has toiled hard on this subject of Kachcha Pice........

Amit
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29 281
Re: Bharuch. Kachcha Paisa or an official issue?
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2011, 11:28:34 AM »
Good thinking, asm. It explains also why the kachcha pice were accepted. The labourers would not be literate. Thanks! This in turn points to a surprising (for me) mobility of labour (people moving to where there is work.)

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 506
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: Bharuch. Kachcha Paisa or an official issue?
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2011, 01:23:08 PM »
............. It explains also why the kachcha pice were accepted. The labourers would not be literate.......

Not in this case but the Malwa Kachcha Pice had marks of atleast 2 if not 3 states on them so that people from different states would feel 'at home' anf accept them without a fuss.

I do remember the houses in Amsterdam you showed us which has some graphical representation to identify them........ well the marks of different states must have served a similar purpose...... the illitrate labourer would have though that the one he recognised was OK and the rest he did not understand.........

Amit
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline Coinsforever

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3 268
Re: Bharuch. Kachcha Paisa or an official issue?
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2011, 10:49:27 PM »
Interesting to  read this thread here and topic you posted  at SACG , Nice find asm .

Cheers ;D
Every experience, good or bad, is a priceless collector's item.



http://knowledge-numismatics.blogspot.in/

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 506
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: Bharuch. Kachcha Paisa or an official issue?
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2011, 01:56:37 AM »
Another thing that strikes me is the design og the dots............ don't the squarish dots look a lot like the ones found on the Baroda Coins. Coins of Bharuch had the circular dots while the Baroda coins had such squarish dots. Any guesses?
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline Coinsforever

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3 268
Re: Bharuch. Kachcha Paisa or an official issue?
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2011, 03:19:04 PM »
There must be some hidden reason for keeping square ( dots) instead of keeping round (dots ) easy as design.


May be we are just at tip of iceberg to break this clue.
Cheers ;D
Every experience, good or bad, is a priceless collector's item.



http://knowledge-numismatics.blogspot.in/

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 506
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: Bharuch. Kachcha Paisa or an official issue?
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2011, 03:09:21 AM »
While chatting with another expert on Indian Coins in Delhi last night, as soon as I mentioned these coins, both of them said that the coin is wrongly attributed on KM and they also confirmed the reading of Samat as well as Zila'a Bharuch.

Now to find out the authority who minted these..........

Amit
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"