Bahmanis of the Deccan, Ahmad Shah I, AE 1/2 Gani, AH 936.

Started by Figleaf, December 05, 2017, 12:34:04 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Figleaf

Our French-speaking brethren are wrestling with the coin shown here. No wonder, as it was bought in Morocco, but doesn't look like a Moroccan coin. The owner reports bronze (copper?), 19 mm, 8.1 grams. The original thread is here. Paris hasn't found it among Tunisian coins and speculates that it could be Indian.

I see what looks like 39, or perhaps 36 at 7 o'clock on the left picture. If that is "zarb" at 3 o'clock on the right picture the mint name is only partly visible. Can someone throw more light on this coin than me (not difficult)?

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

Manzikert

That one has really travelled!!

Bahmanis of Kulbarga, Ahmad Shah I Wali ibn Dawud 1422-1436, fals. I am at work so can't check G&G for the number, but the date is going to be [8]36.

Alan

capnbirdseye

Bahmanis of the Deccan, Shihab al-din Ahmad Shah I,

AE 1/2 Gani,  Hadrat Muhammadabad mint    G&G#BH74
Vic

Figleaf

Some fun links:

Bahmani sultanate (capital: Gulbarga) ruled by Ahmed Shah Wali Bahmani.

So how did the coin get to Morocco? There is the possibility of a traveller like Ibn Battuta who wasn't wise enough to write up his travels, or it may have accompanied a caravan to Bukhara or Samarqand, from there to the Mediterranean East coast and by ship to Venice and hence by violence or slave trading to Morocco. Indeed, not all coins see so much excitement and travel.

Notwithstanding Manzikert's expertise, I have the temerity to have doubts about the date, as I think the loop of the last digit is closed on top of the line underneath. Both 836 AH (1433 AD) and 839 AH (1436 AD) are within the reign of Ahmed Shah.

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

capnbirdseye

Quote from: Figleaf on December 05, 2017, 10:52:16 AM

Notwithstanding Manzikert's expertise, I have the temerity to have doubts about the date, as I think the loop of the last digit is closed on top of the line underneath. Both 836 AH (1433 AD) and 839 AH (1436 AD) are within the reign of Ahmed Shah.

Peter


What you see as a 9 is not part of the date but part of the script, the last digit is a 6 and the first digit an 8 /\ and is mostly off the flan but just visible, also 839 is not a listed date for this type

Another good link  here
Vic

Manzikert

Without G&G in front of me I'd go by Vic's interpretation rather than my shaky memory :)

Alan

capnbirdseye

Quote from: Manzikert on December 05, 2017, 02:53:28 PM
Without G&G in front of me I'd go by Vic's interpretation rather than my shaky memory :)

Alan

You got it right in the first place Alan, I just Added further  details from G&G
Vic

Guillaume Hermann

Conférences à l'école, collectivité, ou domicile, avec mes objets de collection manipulables par le public, sur des sujets d'Histoire et SVT.
https://le-musee-en-classe.jimdosite.com/
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61551887348487
https://www.linkedin.com/company/le-musée-en-classe/about/

RG

:)
8.14 grams. Nice details (full mint name?)