It appears to be a Dam of Akbar dated AH 1005. Not much else to go by. Please help further attribution if possible.
Amit
The ornament, style and date indicate that this dam is from Narnol mint (ref Brown 1143-44 / Mughal coins in Lucknow museum).
Only few mints have struck dams with AH dates after apparition of the Ilahi datation on them (first known :Ilahabad, Ilahi 31/ AH 994), it's the case of Narnol and Ajmer mints.
Thanks Saro. Here (http://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=24333) you see a coin of a similar date.
Amit
Quote
Only few mints have struck dams with AH dates after apparition of the Ilahi datation on them (first known :Ilahabad, Ilahi 31/ AH 994), it's the case of Narnol and Ajmer mints.
:) I lived at Allahabad for more than 10 years :)
Weight of the coin is 20.3g
Please tell - what is written on the coin?
Thank you to have dig out this dam, not at all easy to read with so little part of legend on it.
- on 1st scan, we have a fraction of " falus" +"n" of Narnol and at top a half of a rosette (ornament present on some issues of this mint)
- 2nd scan gives the 3 last digits of the date : 1005 and over a fraction of the date in persian : "hazar"..(= one thousand) / rest of legend is off.
The full legend should be : "zarb falus Narnol" / "fi sanah 1005 hazar wa panj"
Dear saro,
thank You very much for the answer!
Dear ZYV, you may have a look to a similar type dated 1004, shown on Zeno; this beautiful exemplar gives nearly the full date in persian script : "hazar chahar" = 1004, but the date in digit is off...(when you have the high part you haven't the lower...), you can see also the ornament.
The word "hazar" is written in an elongated manner which gives it difficult to decipher when cut
http://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=87619
I'm not too sure with the attribution to Narnol.. Could be Bairata as well!
Dear Abhinumis, as far I know, it doesn't exist dams of Bairata with an AH date after 984, later issues were with an Ilahi datation, so for me there is no doubt, this dam is well of Narnol.
(in addition, the ornament is not present on Bairata coppers)
Four petalled flower is definitely present on Bairata coppers.. I understand bairata comes with ilahi dates. What is the earliest date in your records for bairata in ilahi??
Bairata-Narnol is an interesting question and if the mintname is off, the answer is somewhat uncertain...
For dates, my own records are :
Bairata : AH dates : 971 to 984 and then Ilahi 44 to 50
Narnol : AH dates : 962 (curiously..) & 963 to 1007 and no Ilahi issues
I notice :
- The 2 cities are very close each other (may be 25km?)
- the two mints were simultaneously working till 984AH (with Narnol predominant)
- in 984 Bairata workshop stops its copper activity and only Narnol was striking dams.
- In year 1007 AH = Ilahi 44, the tanka is created / Narnol stops its activity and it was only Bairata which strikes tankas and fractions.
May be I am wrong of course, this is only established from the dates...
A very good study saro.
Amit
Quote from: abhinumis on August 05, 2014, 09:09:09 PM
Four petalled flower is definitely present on Bairata coppers.. I understand bairata comes with ilahi dates. What is the earliest date in your records for bairata in ilahi??
Dear Abhinumis, Did you have any picture of a Bairata dam with this ornament to show? I have not been able to find one and I'll be interested; most of coins have wide parts of die out of flan.
If I would not have such a dam, I wouldn't ask this question of attribution.. Here is a bairata with four petalled flower as mint mark
Many thanks for this picture !
Be sure I had no doubt, it was just by personal interest, it's the first time I see one with this ornament.
If the date wasn't 1005 on the dam posted by asm, I'll have now a serious doubt...
Quote from: abhinumis on August 06, 2014, 09:00:03 PM
If I would not have such a dam, I wouldn't ask this question of attribution.. Here is a bairata with four petalled flower as mint mark
Nice example .
Cheers ;D