Author Topic: Farrukhsiyar. Dam. Mint: Shahjahanabad. ... No it is Singhana  (Read 997 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 500
  • Ahmedabad, India
A dam of Farrukhsiyar minted at Shahjahanabad.......Singhana.

Amit
« Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 05:34:35 AM by asm »
"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than To Curse The Darkness"

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 500
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: Farrukhsiyar. Dam. Mint: Shahjahanabad. ... No it is Singhana
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2017, 05:33:58 AM »
All these years, this coin has been posted on ZENO and was attributed to Shahjahanabad. Recently, Shailen Bhandare, while looking for something, stumbled across this coin and pointed out that the mint is in fact Singhana, a mint is located in the copper rich area of Rajasthan and only known to mint copper coins.

Weight of the coin is 20.57 g appears to have been struck on the heavy (normal) weight standard. The details of the listing now stand corrected. Jan Lingen mentions that this is only the second Farrukhsiyar coin of this mint on the Zeno Database - the other being the coin of Abhishek (Abhinumis), which is a lightweight issue of around 13 g.

So this is in line with the dual weight standards followed in the Empire since the time of Aurangzeb.  We need to find the cause as to why two weight standards were followed? I am not convinced by the theory of silver copper price ratio.

Any views?

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

Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29 264
Re: Farrukhsiyar. Dam. Mint: Shahjahanabad. ... No it is Singhana
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2017, 12:36:47 PM »
I have zero knowledge of the circumstances for this very interesting question. However, for inspiration, I would like to remind you of another double standard coinage. The Spanish colonial money existed as reales de vellon (billon) and reales de plata (silver). The difference was in metal content, rather than weight, but the principle is the same.

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

Offline asm

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6 500
  • Ahmedabad, India
Re: Farrukhsiyar. Dam. Mint: Shahjahanabad. ... No it is Singhana
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2017, 08:16:46 AM »
Thanks Peter for the interesting information.

However, the Mughal story seems a bit different, extends over a long period of time, and varies at different times.

1) During the rule of Babur and Humayun (1st reign), the copper cons were 9 g pieces. During Humayuns 2nd reign, the coppers were standardised at the new standards set by Sher Shah Suri. The same contimues in to 30 odd years of Akbar.
2) All of a sudden, we have the double Dam of 40 - 41 g and the Tanki series - where 5 tankis made a Dam and the coins were 1, 2, 3 4 Tanki coins. - At this time Malwa had the 6 g standard, Gujarat had the 8 & 14 g standard etc. from the local or as yet unattributed mints  - or was it a ploy to win over the local trade without disturbing it too much.
Early in to Jahangirs reign, we have the 4 Tanki found in Ahmedabad (in the name of Salim Shah) and the 20 - 22 - 24 g copper Dams. In my opinion, no exact relation to the increase in prices of silvers.
3) Later on the weight of the Dams stabilises at the old weight - 20 g
4) Aurangzeb starts at 20 g Dams and all of a sudden, we see the 13 g Light weight Dams.
5) Shah Alam Bahadur reign sees the 13 g coins as well as heavy 20 g Dams With some Gujarat Mints showing weights of up to 23g.
6) Same dual weight standard is continued in later rulers.

Another important point to be noted is the fact that these dual weight standards are not found across all mints (unless may be the other different standard coins have yet not been found but do exist)

In my opinion, this dual weight standard is more a challenge for the economists rather than historians and numismatists. My gut feeling is that it has more to do with the economics of currency or trade than the historically considered price ratio of copper and silver.

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

Offline EWC

  • Meritorious Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
Re: Farrukhsiyar. Dam. Mint: Shahjahanabad. ... No it is Singhana
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2017, 09:48:35 AM »
I had not planed to post till next year, but I think this is too important to miss – so I will hastily sketch some suggestions – which might be just clarifications?

During the rule of Babur and Humayun (1st reign), the copper cons were 9 g pieces.

I would make these very base billon tankas – quite possibly with a big fiat component of value - so something different from coppers

During Humayuns 2nd reign, the coppers were standardised at the new standards set by Sher Shah Suri. The same contimues in to 30 odd years of Akbar.

Yes, these are clearly coppers and texts show they were clearly introduced due to pro-market political philosophies of Sher Shah and Akbar.  The model they follow seems to have been developed by the Bahmanids

At this time Malwa had the 6 g standard, Gujarat had the 8 & 14 g standard etc. from the local or as yet unattributed mints  - or was it a ploy to win over the local trade without disturbing it too much.

I think I made a little progress on the silver standards of the period, but I do not understand the copper standards, and I much encourage you to develop these ideas!

In my opinion, this dual weight standard is more a challenge for the economists rather than historians and numismatists. My gut feeling is that it has more to do with the economics of currency or trade than the historically considered price ratio of copper and silver.

Texts seem to confirm that the hiatus under Jehangir had a lot to do with international metal prices, but also quite a lot to do with the fact that Jehangir himself had a rather slender grip on reality.  However I agree with you that there has been in general far too much dogmatising about currency from people looking merely at metal prices.  There are big political elements to what is going on also.  So my own hunch is that  you are probably at least half right here

I look forward to hearing your further thoughts

In haste

Rob T

Offline Coinsforever

  • Moderator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3 268
Re: Farrukhsiyar. Dam. Mint: Shahjahanabad. ... No it is Singhana
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2017, 04:21:01 AM »

So this is in line with the dual weight standards followed in the Empire since the time of Aurangzeb.  We need to find the cause as to why two weight standards were followed? I am not convinced by the theory of silver copper price ratio.

Any views?

Amit

My fair guess may be wrong such dual standard was possibly due to availability of raw material in case of these coppers some time they had  minted with light weight blanks or heavy weight depending upon availability of copper  bars  in stock .

However can't ruled out other economics factors more research on this is needed before concluding any thing.
Cheers ;D
Every experience, good or bad, is a priceless collector's item.



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

Offline Figleaf

  • Administrator
  • Honorary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29 264
Re: Farrukhsiyar. Dam. Mint: Shahjahanabad. ... No it is Singhana
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2017, 09:18:30 AM »
Economic theory says that it is impossible for a coin to circulate at different weight standards with the same tariff*, as it will lead to arbitration - better known in numismatics as Gresham's law. The heavy money will be kept in stock and remelted and the light money will circulate. This is true also in remote areas as long as people there have access to at least one place where they can melt coins.

Having coins of different weight standards at different tariffs circulate side by side is possible but confusing, not to mention that all amounts must be specified. Therefore, it is most likely that coins of different weight standards were used for different purposes, even though you can use different weight standards without having the actual coins.

As an example, from the early 17th century, the Amsterdam bank of exchange (Amsterdamse Wisselbank) took in reasonably good silver coins by weight and administered them as "bank money", while actual coins were known as "current money". Payments were also effected by weight. This was not pure conservatism: the bank's main business was in foreign trade. It had a vested interest in a stable coin, while the country needed to admit inflation in its coins. Eventually, export coins for export were struck at bank money standards, like the Lion Dollar (leeuwendaalder) that did not circulate in the Netherlands.

Less detailed, but the same principle, Cavaros has shown on this site how Greeks struck bad silver content coins especially for trade with Celts, showing that the idea was known - but perhaps not documented - way before the 17th century.

The thought that the two different standards had something to do with foreign trade seems appealing to me, especially since Indian foreign trade was concentrated in Surat. Mughal legislation and practice was to demand that all foreign silver and gold had to be re-melted. Here is a possible scenario. It is only a small step from there to pay foreign source metals with light weight coins but at the standard conversion rate. However, these would come into circulation, as the sailors had to buy supplies for the home voyage and entertainment while waiting for it. Gresham's law would have made sure that heavy coins disappeared when light coins were available. If there were not enough light coins, the two weight standards would circulate side by side, complicating life for all concerned, but providing extra income for the mint, so the situation would continue. In the end, other mints would see their market share undermined by Surat and start minting light coins also.

Peter

* unless the coins are purely fiduciary, which is clearly not the case here.
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Offline EWC

  • Meritorious Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
Re: Farrukhsiyar. Dam. Mint: Shahjahanabad. ... No it is Singhana
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2017, 11:09:14 AM »
Economic theory says that.......

I spent (wasted?) a long time reading philosophy books as a youngster, and the guy I finally came most to agree with was Quine

The central message I found in him concerned how we must conceive of the search for rationality itself – and it is all to do with seeking out the best way to get facts and theories into an acceptable balance – or perhaps – a best fit.

Neither he nor I claim there is any royal road to the solution of that problem, so I offer just a personal opinion that at least  in this case your economic theories are in the main correct, but do not connect well with the key facts in the case.

Further – I would suggest the primary key fact is that all these later Moghul copper are quite rare, at least compared with earlier issues of the Suris and Akbar.  So personally the first thing I would do is look for facts bearing upon a theory about why the coppers became rare in the reign of Jehangir. 

It seems to me many years ago I found what seems to me key facts bearing on that matter, and they are in the diaries of that very hard headed and objective Dutch fellow, Pelsaert.   If I am correct, then the disappearance of copper in early 17th century India looks somewhat like the disappearance of copper in later 18th century England.

As you are aware, I was more than a little disappointed at the reaction I got to my earlier attempts to address that English matter, and again, inappropriate application of “Economic theory” seemed to me to lie at the root of that problem too

Anyhow, that aside, do Enjoy Christmas   :)

Rob T
« Last Edit: December 24, 2017, 08:22:59 PM by EWC »