EIC Bengal Presidency, Shahjanabad rupees, Muhammad Akbar II

[cmerc]

A couple of Bengal Presidency hammered rupees I recently acquired. Although these coins were struck in the style of the Mughal issues from Shahjahanabad (listed under Mughal in KM), they are, in fact, issued by the East India Company in the name of the nominal emperor Muhammad Akbar (II).

(Top row)
East India Company, Bengal Presidency, in name of Muhammad Akbar (II)
1223-2 [1808], Shahjahanabad mint
Stevens#8.64, KM#777 (under Mughal), unlisted in Pridmore

(Bottom row)
East India Company, Bengal Presidency, in name of Muhammad Akbar (II)
1222-Ahd [1807], Shahjahanabad mint
Stevens#8.62, KM#777 (under Mughal), unlisted in Pridmore



The coin pictured on the bottom row is encapsulated: NGC AU53, clearly over-graded.

[asm]

Why do you say that these were BEIC issues? Though almost the whole country was under the BEIC control, nominally, the Mughal Emperor (sic) was in full control over the Red Fort (Shahjehanabad) and was paid his pension in Mughal Rupees minted especially for this purpose.

Amit

[cmerc]

Why do you say that these were BEIC issues? Though almost the whole country was under the BEIC control, nominally, the Mughal Emperor (sic) was in full control over the Red Fort (Shahjehanabad) and was paid his pension in Mughal Rupees minted especially for this purpose.

Amit

Good point! My attribution is based on Paul Steven's Bengal Presidency book. He does acknowledge that Delhi could be considered a Mughal-EIC transitional mint.

It seems that the English took control of Delhi ~1803. The Mughal emperor indeed insisted upon being paid his pension in Shahjahanabad rupees, but the English debated whether it was worthwhile to maintain the mint at Delhi. So, it seems that although the (very small) Red Fort area was under Mughal "control", the coins were English-issued from an EIC-controlled mint.

So, I guess that these coins now appeal to both Mughal and BEIC collectors!

[repindia]

Good point! My attribution is based on Paul Steven's Bengal Presidency book. He does acknowledge that Delhi could be considered a Mughal-EIC transitional mint.

It seems that the English took control of Delhi ~1803. The Mughal emperor indeed insisted upon being paid his pension in Shahjahanabad rupees, but the English debated whether it was worthwhile to maintain the mint at Delhi. So, it seems that although the (very small) Red Fort area was under Mughal "control", the coins were English-issued from an EIC-controlled mint.

So, I guess that these coins now appeal to both Mughal and BEIC collectors!

These examples were till recently sold as Mughal pieces till Paul Stevens' research came along. I bought my nazrana example as a Mughal piece. I won't be able to afford it today. :-)

[cmerc]

Great specimen Vikram! Just to point out to other board members, this is Shah Alam (II) issue, not Muhammad Akbar.

With these issues, I always find it difficult to distinguish between nazrana and regular issues. Do you have a regular Shah Alam issue to compare with?

[Harry]

Very interesting information and nice coins @cmerc and @repindia!

[cmerc]

Very interesting information and nice coins @cmerc and @repindia!

Thanks Harry! There are several such specimens other members have also posted.

[cmerc]

Sharing a recent acquisition to add to this series. The rupee coins in this Bengal Presidency series from Shahjahanabad are scarce/rare, and the fractional denominations are rarer still. I have only seen one other example of the 1/2 rupee in auction listings: Todywalla 82-755 (same coin pictured on psindiancoins). On this coin, although the AH date is missing, there are some key features still visible on the flan. The parasol is seen on the obverse 3', and the reverse shows part of the dotted border seen on nazrana issues. My favourite is the stars-dots design on the reverse, inside the 'seen' of the 'julus', to the right of the RY date.

East India Company, Bengal Presidency, in name of Muhammad Akbar II
Shahjahanabad (Delhi) mint
1/2 half rupee
RY-8, AH date off flan to the right of parasol (1228?)
Stevens# unlisted date, cf. 8.75-8.76C; unlisted in Pridmore
5.58 g, axes 10 o'clock

[Figleaf]

A small reflection on the older part of this thread. I would suggest that the best way to determine who controls a mint is to find out who receives the mint's profits. A good, but not watertight indication would be to see who signs documents with decisions, especially if the decision entails significant expenditure.

In view of the situations, it seems highly unlikely that the Mughal emperor would have profited from the mint's activities.

Peter

[cmerc]

Peter, I defer to Paul Stevens's research regarding the control of the mint. William Dalrymple has written a series of books on the state of Shahjahanabad/Delhi and the political situation of the time.

Indeed, Bahadur Shah Zafar was most engaged in poetry, dance, arts, etc. He did hold durbar where "subjects" would seek favors, relatively petty and within the nominal emperor's remit. Economic control was largely controlled by the British, who had been collecting revenue in the emperor's name for almost a century since the Battle of Plassey and Buxar. 

Since Amit's comment a decade (!!) ago, these issues are now accepted as BEIC issues. Some auctions will occasionally list them under Mughal though.

[asm]

A few years back, I had made a detailed note on the subject of what, in my belief, would be Mughal COins and what are not. It was published in 2020, in the Souvenir of 'RARE FAIR Nashik' and uploaded on Academia by me.

You can see the details here.

Hope you find it useful.

Amit

[cmerc]

Hello Amit, Many thanks for sharing your article. I think my position is perfectly represented by one of your ending sentences, "At the same time, calling a coin a Mughal issue or a State issue will not change the coin." If someone collects Muhammad Shah coins, then the EIC rupees of Mumbai/Munbai will find a home in their collection. Similarly, I organize these Shahjahanabad coins in my Bengal Presidency box, but with the full recognition that pure Mughal collectors may also be interested these coins.

It was a pleasure reading your article! BTW, is the Alinagar Kalkattah rupee part of your collection?

[asm]

Hello Amit, Many thanks for sharing your article. I think my position is perfectly represented by one of your ending sentences, "At the same time, calling a coin a Mughal issue or a State issue will not change the coin." If someone collects Muhammad Shah coins, then the EIC rupees of Mumbai/Munbai will find a home in their collection. Similarly, I organize these Shahjahanabad coins in my Bengal Presidency box, but with the full recognition that pure Mughal collectors may also be interested these coins.

Thanks for reading the article. I agree with your views as to what to collect. My aim was to just open up the debate on what the coins should be called. I, my self have reduced my collecting interest to the coins of the mints in Gujarat and I do not differentiate these coins by what they are called. Indian history is fairly complicated and till recent times, it was not clear (probably purposely) as to when the Mughal Authority on a area waned and when the local chieftain - call him a Raja or a Nawab, became powerful. Multiple authorities controlled the Ahmedabad mint in a specific period and it now looks like there were 2 mints running simultaneously in Ahmedabad for a decade or more. While, I have not come across any historical confirmation, coins seem to be shouting out this fact.

It was a pleasure reading your article! BTW, is the Alinagar Kalkattah rupee part of your collection?

Unfortunately no. It was never a part of my collection.... and now that I have given up collecting coins other than those of the Gujarat based mints, I have traded my entire collection for the coins of the few mints that I now collect.

Amit