News:

Sign up for the monthly zoom events by sending a PM with your email address to Hitesh

Main Menu

SURI Reign - 3 Silver Rupess Identification Request !!

Started by jaspersaini, August 17, 2015, 07:07:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jaspersaini

Sharing three coins from Suri reign. First two coins are of bigger size. Third coin is bit smaller like 28 mm, third coin is around 26mm
Weight : 10.4 , 11 and 9.5 gms.

Looks like Islam Shah Suri (1545–1554) silver Rupees. Expert views are welcome.

saro

Bengal Sultanate
These coins are not of Suri dynasty but from Bengal sultanate.
The 2 first are rupees of Ghiyath al-din Bahadur Shah (ref Goron & Goenka B967 "C" = common)
The 3rd is a rupee of Da'ud Shah Karani (ref B983 "RR" = very rare).

The rulers names are well legible on the 3 coins
"All I know is that I know nothing" (Socrates)

capnbirdseye

Dear Jaspersaini,, can you post the third coin separately, as if it's rare it needs it's own thread to go in the database

The difference between this coin & D982 is a different legend in the Obv right margin (right image) so it needs close examination as it's  barely visible
Vic

S. M. Iftekhar Alam

Hello Jaspersaini,

Nice to see three coins from your posting. The 1st two coins actually belong to Suri Dynasty of Afghanistan. The ruler is Ghiyath al-Din Bahadur Shah Sur though on the coin the Dynastic name Sur is not mentioned. Both coins are dated 965AH. These coins are without mint name but are assumed to be struck in Bengal. These belong to type B967 of G & G.

The 3rd coin belongs to Daud Shah Karrani who comes from the Karrani dynasty of Afghanistan. This type belongs to B982 of G & G. On obv it has a symbol of "cluster of dots" - 1 dot at the center surrounded by 6 dots. On some coins these peripheral dots are connected with the central dot by fine lines. However, these small variations do not classify the coins as different types rather these are die varieties of the same type. Though G & G graded this type as scarce(S), from my experience I would grade it as a common coin of Daud Shah where as the coins with "pentagram" and "five-armed whirligig" symbols are very rare.  To be honest grading of rarity of Daud's coins by G & G is not up to the mark.

Regards,

Iftekhar

Md. Shariful Islam

I have a few observations on the first two coins. Firstly obverse and reverse of the two coins should be separated. Secondly I request to note that both obverse and reverse of the two coins have shown exactly same impressions. Exactly same on both side. They identical in impression. But not same as they show differences in die error. I request to take it as serious note. Otherwise I have no doubt on them.

Md. Shariful Islam

Quote from: S. M. Iftekhar Alam on September 04, 2015, 05:41:17 PM
Hello Jaspersaini,

Nice to see three coins from your posting. The 1st two coins actually belong to Suri Dynasty of Afghanistan.

The 3rd coin belongs to Daud Shah Karrani who comes from the Karrani dynasty of Afghanistan.
Iftekhar

If I am not wrong, both Bahadur Shah and Daud Shah Karrani were ruler of Bengal only. Were they ruler of Afghan too.If they were ruler of Afghan then we can put them under Afghan dynasty. This is my personal opinion.

Regards

S. M. Iftekhar Alam

Quote from: Md. Shariful Islam on September 06, 2015, 02:18:47 AM
If I am not wrong, both Bahadur Shah and Daud Shah Karrani were ruler of Bengal only. Were they ruler of Afghan too.If they were ruler of Afghan then we can put them under Afghan dynasty. This is my personal opinion.

Regards

Yes, both Bahadur and Daud were rulers of Bengal only but they originated, respectively, from Suri and Karrani dynasty of Afghanistan. It never means that they were rulers of Afghanistan too! Similarly, the Khalji Amirs namely Ikhtiyar al-Din Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji, Shiran Khalji, Ali Mardan Khalji and Iwad Khalji belonged to Khalji dynasty of Turkey but they were rulers of Bengal only. None of them ever ruled Turkey.   

Md. Shariful Islam

Quote from: S. M. Iftekhar Alam on September 06, 2015, 05:58:30 AM
Yes, both Bahadur and Daud were rulers of Bengal only but they originated, respectively, from Suri and Karrani dynasty of Afghanistan. It never means that they were rulers of Afghanistan too! Similarly, the Khalji Amirs namely Ikhtiyar al-Din Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji, Shiran Khalji, Ali Mardan Khalji and Iwad Khalji belonged to Khalji dynasty of Turkey but they were rulers of Bengal only. None of them ever ruled Turkey.
Truly! But as long as a local ruler accepts himself as subordinate to another dynasty, we can accept that ruler under that dynasty. When he declares him as sultan he becomes a ruler of the local sultanate. In these coins of Bahadur and Daud they did not mention subordination to another dynasty. In that case how can we call them as ruler of Afghan dynasty. Their origin is not an issue to consider.






Figleaf

Nationality is one of those issues that is rich in shadows and poor in clear solutions. How can a sultan be ruler of Turkey when the land we call Turkey today was called the Ottoman empire? Emperors of Rome were certainly not rulers of Italy, even when they ruled the land now called Italy. And how about rebels calling themselves emperor but holding land only in what we now call England and France?

Mr. Vanhoudt, who catalogued Belgian coins, was faced with a similar problem, as Belgium came into existence only in the 19th century. His solution:
Quotea coin catalogued may be struck within or outside the current borders of Belgium, but it was always meant to circulate in what is now Belgium. This approach means that coins made for an area that is today to a large degree outside Belgium are included, even if today the mint is not in Belgium and that coin types may be domestic or foreign. In addition, I paid attention to the historical context.

In other words, the "nationality" of the ruler (most Belgian rulers were Spanish or Austrian, some were French) is of no importance and neither is the location of the mint. The author wants to describe what the coins in circulation looked like. This is a logical approach. Until the 19th century, citizens were required to be loyal to a person, not a land. The background of the ruler was unimportant, because his rights came either from inheritance or from conquest. The law does not take nationality into account in questions of inheritance and it would be very unwise and bad for your health to question the right to rule of a conquerer on account of his tribal background.

In this case, the "Vanhoudt" solution is that the Suri coins are Bengali, because that is where they circulated. If they circulated in other areas also, they take on an additional interest for that area, but that does not make them less Bengali. It does not matter if the Suris came from Bengal or Afghanistan. Their coins circulated in Bengal.

However, individual collectors may well have a different approach in case of their own collections.

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

Md. Shariful Islam

... and what about your opinion about two identical (obv and Rev) of the first two coins? How far is it possible in hammered coinage?

Figleaf

I see two issues here. One is about the use of dies, the other is about the placement of the die on the flan.

It is certainly possible for hammered coins to have come from the same dies. It is just less likely than for machine struck coins, because die hardening and special hard metal compositions had not been invented yet, so each die could strike less coins. In addition, since mobile (upper) dies wear more quickly than immobile (lower) dies, it is more likely to find two coins with a single common die than two coins struck with the same die pair.

In the case of the first two coins, it seems to me that we are dealing with two coins with a single common die. Though the second pair of dies look quite close, there are subtle differences, e.g. in the thickness of the square frames. We may in fact be dealing with a die that was re-engraved when worn, to give it a new lease of life. Also, the left coin seems to have been struck from more worn dies. Keep in mind that these coins were probably found together as part of a treasure, so they are not randomly chosen coins at all.

Another issue is the placement of the die on the flan, which seems to be very much alike. I think this is no coincidence. Mind the four corners of the square frame. If the minter can get two in the right position, he can obtain a closely similar centring. One way to achieve this is to mark both dies on the side where the four corners of the frame are and to tell the minter to align the marks just before striking. The result will be nicely centred coins, struck at lower speed. Keep in mind that this is only speculation, but it explains the symptoms.

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

S. M. Iftekhar Alam

#11
Quote from: Md. Shariful Islam on September 06, 2015, 08:18:40 AM
Truly! But as long as a local ruler accepts himself as subordinate to another dynasty, we can accept that ruler under that dynasty. When he declares him as sultan he becomes a ruler of the local sultanate. In these coins of Bahadur and Daud they did not mention subordination to another dynasty. In that case how can we call them as ruler of Afghan dynasty. Their origin is not an issue to consider.

In fact all coins of Daud Shah state the ruler's name as Daud Shah Karrani. This Karrani is an Afghan Dynasty. So, you will recognize his dynasty as Karrani Dynasty and other suri rulers who did not mention their names as "sur" will not be recognized to originate from the suri dynasty! What a logic!! So, all historians and scholars who mention these rulers to belong to the suri dynasty of Afghanistan are very wrong!!! In fact except Ganesh and his son Mahendra and /or Jalal al-Din Muhammad and Shams al-Din Ahmad all rulers of Bengal were foreigners who came from different clans/dynasties from different parts of the world.

nnasir


jaspersaini

#13
New images uploaded :

Photo of the edges (Both coins)


The condition of both coins isn't exactly same, but the overall design is almost identical.

Figleaf

Quote from: S. M. Iftekhar Alam on September 06, 2015, 04:19:54 PM
In fact all coins of Daud Shah state the ruler's name as Daud Shah Karrani. This Karrani is an Afghan Dynasty.

I think you are quite right. The background of a ruling family is an interesting historical item, that may explain their behaviour in certain cases. There is a parallel with the Moghul dynasty in India, with cultural roots in Afghanistan and Persia. Those roots explain quite well certain forms of their behaviour and they have left traces on Moghul coin design. Therefore, the background of the ruling family is a valid piece of information, especially for those interested in the design of the coins.

I would say that this historical argument is separate from the "nationality" argument of a coin. Consider late Chinese cash pieces, partly inscribed in Mongol script. Nobody denies that they are Chinese coins, even if part of their legend is foreign to China. However, the information that the ruling dynasty was of Mongol descent is important to explain why the Mongol script was used.

Similarly, a coin meant to circulate in Bengal is a Bengali coin. However, its design may well be influenced by the cultural background of the ruler. If that background is foreign and the design shows the influence of a foreign culture, the coin is still Bengali and its design is part of Bengali history and culture.

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