Enigmatic Copper: Ob; circle with dots Rev: dagger and letter

Started by Rangnath, November 13, 2008, 05:40:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rangnath

The coin weighs 11.4 grams and measures almost 19 mm across.  I think that it is in reasonably good shape, but there is not much there besides dagger and circle. Can a determination be made?
richie

BC Numismatics

Richie,
  That is one very nice coin that you've got there.I've got no idea from where in India that coin comes from.

Aidan.

Rangnath

I notice some similar coins that were issued by Jhabua State:  Km 24 for example.  Weights of Paisas are not included within the catalog.  Could this coin be from that state?
richie

BC Numismatics

Richie,
  Jhabua sounds about right.Perhaps Jan can confirm this.

Aidan.

Rangnath

The more I looked, the less I liked Jhabua as the attribution.  The dots around the circle do not connect to the central area as they might in coins from Jhabua.  I found the coin below for sale.  It too has similarities with the coin above and is probably as difficult to make an attribution.
richie

Oesho

I looked at it from different angles, but so far there doesn't apear a clue to me what this coin could be.

Rangnath

The more I thought about it, the more I do not see any significant relationship between the two coins.  I am also not surprised about the lack of attribution.  There is not very much information on which to base one. Thank you very much for looking. 
It occurs to me that you must have an ample collection of coins for which an attribution has not been possible. I should think some of them are quite intersting.  Someday, when the opportunity or interest arises and you wish to share them, I, for one, would love to see them.
richie

Figleaf

Might this be a weight?

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

Rangnath

I remember the scales and weights that were used in the markets of Inida in the 1960's and 1970's. OLD even then.  But they didn't look like coins. Some looked like rocks (in fact, they were stones!), but most were either smooth or official looking, but never like coins. Not in the 1960's. I even bought a scale and weights.
None the less,  I know from a previous discussion that they could.
On the first coin posted, underneath the dagger, is the "z" (most likely) for "zuriba" or "minted".  I would think that would rule out the piece as a weight.
richie

Overlord

I find this a good opportunity to claim this one as a Paisa of Overlordgarh. The "O" on the obverse is crystal clear and the "L" is off the flan. :D

Figleaf

What is it with coin collectors that makes them wannabe world dictators? :D

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

Overlord

There are two smaller coins with a similar obverse here. These are attributed to Bundelkhand.

Salvete

In my view, this is a Malwa copper coin of the early-mid 19th century.  I have spent some time looking at such coins, and decided that the circular mark on your coin is a remote descendant of the Ra-ij in cartouche on coins of Ratlam, and there are an enormous number of coins with the cartouche degenerating by degrees from the first Ratlam coins of about 1790 to the series of kachcha coins, some of which were also (almost certainly) struck in Ratlam state, and the rest were probably struck as copies and imitations in nearby places.  The Jhar on the other side is copied from an Indore coin, and in turn from a Jaipur or Kishangarh takka.  The plagiaristic and hybrid nature of so much central Indian copper at that time, and the poorly controlled weights explain why the coinage is as it is, but does not help at all in cataloguing it.  An interetsing series to study, so long as you do not expect everything to fall into place like a well-made jig-saw puzzle.  Some of the ra-ij in cartouche coins are dated, but few have mint names on them, but it is possible to compare the coins available, and tentatively attribute some of them to Ratlam rulers between 1790 and about 1830.  This I have tried to do, and anybody who reads the mext (March) issue of the JONS can have fun telling me where I have gone wrong, or agreeing with this tentative (somewhat speculative) catalogue of three Ratlam rulers.  I look forward to hearing from some WoC members in March/April.......

Salvete
Ultimately, our coins are only comprehensible against the background of their historical context.

Rangnath

I look forward to reading it Salvete! 
I realize that the degenerative process in coins is not linear.  That said, I would love to see a line of "Ra-ij " coins, ten? or twelve? from pucha to kutcha (sp?), from most obviously a splendid example of a 1790 Ratlam coin to its mutated worst. Or is that notion, in terms of academic usefulness, too.. painful?

richie

Salvete

Hello, Richie.

I hope all is well with you?

The set or group, as you suggest, would not be linear.  At any given date, there would be 'Durbar mint' (Pukkah or standard) coins and less well-made kachcha pice from elsewhere (or maybe the same mints).  Each would deteriorate over time (including the weight), and none (or very few) would be dated, so it might be difficult to tell late 'pukkah' coins from earlier 'kachcha' ones.  But there may be clues to assist.  Drawing a graph of time alom=ng the bottom and weight up the side, using a separate line for pukkah and kachcha coins makes this plainer, and you might care to play with that, and see how big the 'grey' area of overlap might be with diffreent rates of deterioration of both kinds of coin.  An experienced worker in Indore has recognised seven main stages in the degeneration of the cartouche in true Ratlam coins, but there are many more if you take variations and kachcha coin marks into account, too.  The trend alluded to above is easiest to see in the Mandsaur paisas, and more difficult in the Jhabua and copies of Jhabua coins.  It may also be discernible in coins of other states as well.  Very interesting, but also a bit frustrating to study.

Salvete
Ultimately, our coins are only comprehensible against the background of their historical context.