Shah Jahan - half dam surat, Post confinement issue

[abhinumis]

Hi all,
Shah Jahan half dam , 9.8 grams. Surat mint. Ry33. Post deposition coinage of Shah Jahan.
Obverse- (Falu)s (Sha)h Jahani
Reverse- (Zar)b (S)urat sanah 33 (letters in bracket are out of flan
The coins of Ry33 of Shah Jahan are post deposition coins. Murad, who controlled Gujarat was already deposed on 07-07-1658 and Aurangzeb's first coronation occurred on 21-07-1658. However, it seems that the control of Aurangzeb over the mints were loose and some mints minted coins in the name of already deposed emperor Shah Jahan. Ry 33 of Shah Jahan begins from 14-02-1659 (Almost 8 months after Shah Jahan was deposed). Aurangzeb slowly took control of all the areas of his empire and arranged a second coronation on 05-06-1659. Thus these rare coins were minted between 14-02-1659 to 05-06-1659. Although such coinage in silver is known to occur in silver in atleast half a dozen mints, it is only in Surat mint in copper.

[asm]

Abhishek, an excellent and historically very important coin. However, I do not agree with the use of the word 'POST DEPOSITION'. If we look at the historical context, what happened was (in very short and general terms):
1) Shah Jahan becomes critically ill. 3 of his 4 sons are governors of various provinces and are out of Agra. One is with him in Agra.
2) Regular communication (aka health bulletins) are sent out to the three brothers by the fourth who is in Agra.
3) After some time, all of a sudden, the communication stops.
4) The 3 get restless and start believing that Shah Jahan is no more and that the 4th brother who was in Agra has taken the throne. So they all, individually decide to become rulers and crown themselves.
4) Murad in Gujarat and Shah Suja in Bengal have the Khutba read in their name and Sikka struck in their names. Aurangzeb is advised against it by his Maulvis.
5) When Shah Jahan hears of this, he calls all 3 to Agra.
6) The brothers get suspicious. Aurangzeb sends word to Murad and they decide to jointly move to Agra.
7) A fight ensures between Dara (4th brother) and the joint armies of Aurangzeb and Murad. Aurangzeb, a crafty fellow sent Murad to lead the fight.
Soon Aurangzeb falsely implicates Murad for the murder of some noble and imprisons him in Gwalior jail.
9) He again engages Dara near Agra, defeats him and Dara runs towards the east. Aurangzeb moves in to Agra.
10) He takes Shah Jahan prisoner.
11) Again advised by the Maulvis against the ceremony of Khutba and Sikka (since Shah Jahan was still alive) and hence second coronation is also a subdued affair without coins being struck.
12) It was after the intervention of a senior cleric from North Gujarat area that a way was found and Aurangzeb had the Khutba read in his name and Sikka struck (this is when the final couplet was officially put in to use) even when Shah Jahan was still alive. THIS IS WHEN AURANGZEB ACTUALLY OFFICIALLY BECAME THE RULER. He had the official date of coronation then dated from the earlier time.

So till late in to AH 1069, Aurangzeb was not the official ruler and one can not say that Shah Jahan (though a prisoner of Aurangzeb) was still the official ruler of the Mughal empire. That is the reason why we find coins dater 1068 from many mints and also 1069 from a fair number of mints.

Amit

[abhinumis]

There are some  flaws in this argument Amit ji.
Aurangzeb did coronate himself in July 1658 and that is recorded. Coronation would also mean that officially Aurangzeb is the ruler. Shah Jahan died in 1666, so not necessarily that Khutba will be read after the death of the deposed ruler. There were mints minting coins with 1068/Ahd after the first coronation. There seems to be a confusion in Gujarat , I think from the fact that Murad was captured but not killed yet and the mints in Gujarat were loyal to him as evident from minting of Murad coins(There was a chance that he would escape and come back to his base in Gujarat) . The mint masters perhaps thought it safe to keep the name of Shah Jahan . The second coronation settled all doubts . However, Surat mint waited for almost 6 months to confirm Aurangzeb's rule and minted coins dated 1070AH/Ahd next following this issue
(Do correct the name of Dara in place of Azam as the 4th brother and Dara fled to the west towards Punjab and Sindh).
Another small nugget of history- After fleeing to Tatta, Dara crossed Rann of Kutch and came to Gujrat where he met Gujarat governor Shah Nawaz khan. Dara occupied Surat for a short time and governor of Gujarat Shah Nawaz Khan supported Dara. Aided by Shah Nawaz Khan , he proceeded towards Ajmer where he was again defeated in battle of Deorai and again fled to Sindh (where he was ultimately captured) and executed on 30th August 1659.

[asm]

(Do correct the name of Dara in place of Azam as the 4th brother and Dara fled to the west towards Punjab and Sindh).
Another small nugget of history- After fleeing to Tatta, Dara crossed Rann of Kutch and came to Gujrat where he met Gujarat governor Shah Nawaz khan. Dara occupied Surat for a short time and governor of Gujarat Shah Nawaz Khan supported Dara. Aided by Shah Nawaz Khan , he proceeded towards Ajmer where he was again defeated in battle of Deorai and again fled to Sindh (where he was ultimately captured) and executed on 30th August 1659.

Thanks for the corrections. Done. Messed up with the names.

There are some  flaws in this argument Amit ji.
Aurangzeb did coronate himself in July 1658 and that is recorded. Coronation would also mean that officially Aurangzeb is the ruler. Shah Jahan died in 1666, so not necessarily that Khutba will be read after the death of the deposed ruler.

Well, in the Indian context, Aurangzeb was crowned but no coronation was recognised until the Kuthba & Sikka ceremonies were held. Exactly the reason one does not see coins dated AH 1068.( If there are any coins of 1068, I'd love to see them).

There seems to be a confusion in Gujarat , I think from the fact that Murad was captured but not killed yet and the mints in Gujarat were loyal to him as evident from minting of Murad coins(There was a chance that he would escape and come back to his base in Gujarat) . The mint masters perhaps thought it safe to keep the name of Shah Jahan . The second coronation settled all doubts . However, Surat mint waited for almost 6 months to confirm Aurangzeb's rule and minted coins dated 1070AH/Ahd next following this issue

Not fully correct. Ahmedabad has 1069 / ahd followed by 1071 / 3. Surat has 1069 & 1070 / ahd. Junagadh has no coins in name of Aurangzeb till 1071 / 3 and in fact coins of Shah Jahan dated 1071 are also known.

In the Indian context, a ruler had the Kuthba read and the sikka issued (with his new laquab) as a sign of his being crowned the new ruler.

Amit

[abhinumis]

Well, in the Indian context, Aurangzeb was crowned but no coronation was recognised until the Kuthba & Sikka ceremonies were held. Exactly the reason one does not see coins dated AH 1068.( If there are any coins of 1068, I'd love to see them).

Akbarabad and Shahjahanabad have coins with 1068AH

[asm]

Akbarabad and Shahjahanabad have coins with 1068AH

Hard to believe Akbarabad as Shah Jahan was still there in the Fort. ZENO has 53 images of Akbarabad coins and the earliest is 1069 / Ahd. Shahjahanabad has 44 images and again 1069 / ahd is the earliest date. Yes. there is 1071 / 4 but I did not find any 1068 /ahd. See if you can find any images. I will PM Jan to seek his opinion.

Amit

[abhinumis]

I had a detailed discussion with Oesho , and I agree no coin of first coronation is known . So it seems that it was only a small informal coronation and formally the coronation was done on 05-06-1659.(second coronation).

[abhinumis]

To conclude, Shah Jahan was still emperor for the name sake while Aurangzeb coronated himself (First coronation)and put Shah Jahan under arrest in Agra fort in 1658. He went after his other brothers thereafter, eliminated Murad before his first coronation while eliminated Shah Shuja in January 1659 and Dara was also running for his life. Once he was sure that he has no threat, he organised a formal second coronation in June 1659 and issued coins formally..

So this would be rightly described as post confinement issue!  I have changed the topic for better description

[asm]

Abhishek, thanks for the clear sequence of events with dates. I did not recall the dates off hand when I wrote the previous post.

Still if anyone can find an image of a coin dated before 1069, I would love to see the image. There are a lot of people talking about coins of Aurangzeb, including experts. There was a heated debate last year when a friend made a presentation on this topic - the coronations of Aurangzeb and his earliest coins. Experts refused to believe what was said emphatically saying that coins of Aurangzeb dated 1068 are known (some one said even 1067 is recorded) but no images have been shown. There have been errors in museum catalogues and old references and it would be interesting to see if this is one of those rare instances when an error was made.

Amit

[asm]

Here is the response of Oesho (Jan Lingen) on Facebook on this coin:

Interesting discussion, which started with a copper coin in the name of Shah Jahan, mint: Surat. This coin was struck while Dara Shukoh got possession of Ahmadabad: From the History of Aurangzeb, by Jadunath Sarkar we learn: Whether inspired by revenge or cowardice, Shah Nawaz Khan submitted at the very outset. Welcomed Dara and admitted him into the fort of Ahmadabad (9 January 1659 = 24 Rab'I II, 1069) This coincides with the 32nd regnal year of Shah Jahan.
Dara spent one month and seven days in Gujarat.
One of his officers took peaceful possession of Surat from Aurangzeb's governor.
In Ahmadabad palace Dara held Court, occupying a lower seat than the Emperor's out of respect for his father, Shah Jahan. Notwithstanding the defeat of Shuja beginning January 1659, news reached Gujarat that Shuja was rapidly advancing from the east, while Aurangzeb was absent in the Punjab. Now it was time for Dara to make a dash on Agra from the west. And release Shah Jahan. Soon rumour brought the flattering news that Aurangzeb's army had been routed in the battle with Shuja near Allahabad and that Maharaja Jaswant Singh of Jodhpur had returned home loaded with the spoils of the vanquished imperial camp. The golden opportunity had come.
Dara hesitated no longer and on 14th February 1659 (1 Jumada II, 1069) on the day of his father's 33rd regnal year, he started for Ajmir, leaving one of his officers behind as governor of Gujarat.
Ahmadabad and Surat remained loyal to Dara (thus to Shah Jahan) till after his defeat of Dara near Ajmer (12-14 March, 1659).

I hope this will settle the issue finally.

Amit

[asm]

This should also solve the mystery of the 1069 coins from all 4 Gujarat mints. I have in my collection, the coins of Ahmedabad, Junagadh, Khambayat and Surat dated 1068 as well as 1069 in the name of Shah Jahan.

Should these coins be called issues of Dara in name of Shah Jahan?

Would be an interesting discussion.

Amit

[abhinumis]

I told you Dara was in Gujarat for a short time. These should be called Shah Jahan's issue only post confinement and during the war of accession

[Figleaf]

This highly interesting discussing highlights that there are two general issues at play here:

- When does a new ruler come to power? Possibilities are the day of death, abdication or deposition of the former ruler, the day of proclamation/khutba or the day of coronation?

- In whose name are the coins issued in an interregnum?

There should not be a separate set of rules for India.

Some examples to illustrate these questions.

- In 69 AD, there were four claimants for the imperial title of Rome: Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasianus. A domestic war decided in favour of Vespasianus. During most of the year, Vitellius was master of Rome, though. Historians tend to consider that Vespasianus' term started with the death of Vitellius. All four were declared emperor. The coins are considered to be in the name of whoever is on the coin.

- Edward VIII was king of Great Britain from 20 January 1936 until his abdication in favour of George VI on 11 December of that year. Coins in his name were issued for a number of British colonies, some after his abdication. There is no succession question. All the coins with the name of Edward VIII on them are considered issued in his name.

My tentative conclusions are that the questions above are answered as:

- A ruler comes to power when there is no more resistance of other claimants to his succession. A prisoner or dead person cannot offer such resistance. Proclamation and coronation are evidence, but are not decisive.

- Coins are considered to be issued by whoever's name is on the coin.

Go ahead. Shoot at my conclusions.

Peter