Very excited for this new purchase to finally arrive! When this one popped up in my eBay saved search feed, I was immediately drawn to the portrait, but once I saw the pictures of the reverse I immediately realized what was being offered: At first glance this appears to be a rather ordinary type 1.3 "Tall Head" which is encountered fairly regularly. The head is a bit "goofy" looking and the chin should be connected to the head but isn't- but overall the obverse is well within stylistic guidelines. The important detail here is the reverse - not only is the fire altar engraved a bit too large for the series, but the attendants are totally absent, replaced by two parallel rows of far too many dots. This may seem like an easy detail to miss to the casual observer, but to whatever authority made these coins, it was of critical importance! The formula was initially set in about the middle of 1.2, when the attendants disjointed into a line for the body, a line for the arm, two breasts, a beaded necklace of about 4 pellets, and a featureless head Once 1.2 began to morph into 1.3, the form was set in stone 1.3 marked a radical change in the portrait and quality of workmanship, but the attendants were carefully preserved Even as the series progressed Once series 1.3 came to an end in favor of the more consistent Gadhaiya, the spacing became much tighter, but the formula survived unscathed It is fair to state, then, that while the engravers of this coin did a good job of copying, they were not trained in the proper preparation of Gadhaiya dies, and thus this coin is almost certainly an imitation. Compared to another of roughly the same type, it probably would have passed unnoticed. But who made it? The whole of Indo Sassanian coinage is itself technically a series of barbarous imitations of Peroz, made by largely unknown parties, and yet the number of coins which could be considered "barbarous" is vanishingly small - this would be probably my third imitation, in addition to two fourrees. I spotted one additional on eBay India (the seller strongly rebuked me for even asking if he would ship to the US), and I have not seen any in Maheshwari, Mitchiner, Deyell, or Zeno.ru. The closest thing to imitations of any Gadhaiya from Track 1, ironically, are two historically known rulers, Somalladevi, queen consort of Ajayadeva (1110-1135) and Chittaraja, king of North Konkan, who is known only from exceedingly rare coins and a couple inscriptions from 1022 and 1035. Speaking of Chittaraja... The overall style of the obverse, in particular the detached chin seem like an excellent match to me. That his obverse are distinct from other types of official Gadhaiya indicates that he imitated the "official" issues and did not issue them, thus his workers would not have been formally trained on the importance of each dot in the attendants' bodies. As for why they would do this - we don't know much about how the medieval Indians treated an economy based almost entirely on the Damma, but we do know that the differences were important to them - contemporary literature mention some two to three dozen types of Damma (there are at least 50-75 distinct types of Indo Sassanian currencies in total) and we also know that some were preferable to others, probably in a way analogous to how an ancient trader probably would have preferred payment in Athenian owls, but Corinthian staters would also do. Given the extreme rarity of Chittaraja's coinage (>50 examples total?) it would make sense that his coinage did not carry the "street cred" of the bona fide 1.3 Gadhaiya. Therefore, it would be expedient to attempt to imitate the real deal, either under royal authority, or as an illegal pet project.
Many, Many thanks for this Gaspingly Fantastic OP, @Finn235. Where I'm getting traction from runs heavily to Celtic imitations of Greek and Roman coins, and the 'degraded' (numismatic term of art, lifted from the French) immobilizations of royal issues in the French feudal series. Except, You are Stuff. The progression that you demonstrate is Optimally comprehensive and cogent. Not to mention of a level of erudition which is at the top of what you see in this forum. ...Wow. And the collective prototype is Sasanian. The synapses are lighting up like a Christmas tree. (Edit: ) How do I suggest this as a 'Featured Thread'? No, Really; I forget.
I second @+VGO.DVCKS . Great write up! I know next-to-nothing about these coins but I enjoy your posts about them immensely. I always learn something new and get more interested in them. Thank you for such a good post!
Thanks guys! It makes me glad to know that I'm not just writing these rambling threads for my own amusement
Interesting coin Steve!..They seem to have kept the 2 diagonal parallel lines, I assume these are still body /arm remnants and can also see the base of the crescent moon top right?.. Good eyes as most including me skimmed over this one....Very nice find.... Paul.
Interesting ongoing research ! This sentence makes me wonder. You already put the word "official" between parentheses. And i think that would be correct as this is considered basically a private trade coinage which allowed commerce to traverse the bounderies of multiple small states. So should the Chittaraja coinage not be seen as the opposite: a (likely failed) attempt at government control of a private coinage ? The legend on the coin would imply so, as it reads "Sri CChiTTa RaJaSya". The "-Sya" declension is remarkable. Usually on period coinage there is just a name/title. The "-Sya" states that this is the coinage "OF Chittaraja", thus appears an attempt to stress its legal status ?
@THCoins - Good point, but I still wonder if there was supposedly so little oversight, how did the design change slightly and yet the details (structuring of the attendants, number of pellets in the flame, even the number of pellets in the sun) remain so constant? I don't have any good answers, but I struggle to think of another type of coin subject to imitative drift where the design was so deliberately schematized, and it wasn't until the very end of the Gadhaiya that we see the attendants disintegrate into meaningless clumps of dots I believe I heard Deyell postulate that most/all of the Gadhaiya coinage was minted not by a government authority, but by a trade guild of Jain merchants. And while that makes sense in many ways, as someone who manages business requirements for IT for a living, the idea that they could be given a little artistic freedom but not completely lose the design within a decade, let alone 150-250 years, is beyond comprehension, unless of course there were strictly enforced rules about the creation of these coins.
A really fantastic post, thanks for sure. I do have a small collection of Indian coinage. A really clear and enjoyable mini course. Cheers.
For the consistency of the design over centuries i think public acceptance and trust is a major factor. People had a clear concept of what a coin should look like, and that concept was very conservative. The same holds true for the bull & horseman coinage series over 500 year a bit further to the north. The Jaïn element also promotes trust and stability, as this group had (and has) very strict social and religious moral norms. A Jaïn trade guild as source of money could appear more reliable to the public than a government which might have al sorts of political agendas. A modern parallel may be seen in international diamond trade. In this an important role is played by an orthodox Jewish community in Antwerp where trading mores is founded on trust and reputation above wordly laws. Being a basically conservative group, the Jaïns would not be expected to be forerunners in coinage innovation. It would be part of their honor and religious duties to continue traditions and designs faithfully. Here another one that diverged from the tradition (Which, because of their total rejection of violence, could never have been minted under Jaïn supervision):
