Here my Indo Sasanian. I have it attributed as: Gadhaiya-Derivative Coinage of Chaukyas of Gujarat, Anonymous- Series (1030 AD - 1120 AD). Pretty sure I have the general ID correct; not sure about variety. If anyone knows more, feel free to share. Picked it up at NYINC. It is my only coin from the 1000's. Here is a link with similar: http://picasaweb.google.com/flowerflawless/Sikke1#5113038381006901442
Got the same type but not sure about the reverse being the same: INDIA, CHALUKYAS of GUJARAT (1030 - 1120 A.D.) AR Drachm (gadhaiya paisa) O: Degenerate Indo-Sasanian style bust right, sun and moon (crown?) above. R: Stylized fire altar, sun (consisting of rosette of dots) above left, crescent moon above right. 4.4g 17mm Deyell 158, Mitchiner Non-Islamic 427
I think yours is earlier Mat. You can tell these by styljstic differences, and yours is not degraded as much.
This is the group discussed on my page on these. As a group it is easier to see the 'progress' as time passed but you can still see the fire altar and portrait along the way. I don't have all the variations by any means and really need to get an ugly late one. http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/gadpaisa.html
This is an interesting set... One I am currently working on... I believe Mat's coin is an earlier piece than TJC's
Great coins, everyone. I'm generally very skeptical about any sort of dating based on style. I find that, at best, you're "cutting artificial steps into a sloped hillside," to paraphrase another numismatist.
Exactly! Like farming, by cutting artificial steps we make it possible to utilize land (understand coins) that otherwise would be just waste. Certainly it would be better if we had mint records and mint marks and certainly we will make an occasional error based on misunderstanding of the clues but it is better than just saying that we can't know with certainty whether there were two different guys named Gordian represented on coins or three. Without slope cutting we even fall prey to errors like believing that asses of Agrippa were struck while he lived and all Athenian owls were made in Athens. It is not just part of the game, in many cases, it is the game.
I agree. We may not know the exact chronology but we do know beginning and end results. Lacking any further information, I would postulate following a degenerative design timeline, ala celtic issues, is the only reasonable place to start. If we had hoard evidence of course I would love to change that, and be able to know specific dates and mints. Any collector would. Short of that, I simply find using weights and style degradation as the only starting point. Both of these have been amply proven dating indicators in many other coin series. Look at the whole Chinese cash series for weight indicators and age.
Some of the most egregious dating logic I've ever come across can be found in 19th-century numismatic texts. For instance, a particular minting technique can be dated to such and such century. Therefore, if that same technique is found a thousand miles away, it must date to the same time period, as if technological advancement was a linear evolution, homogenous across all human cultures! :rollling:
I have Some of These coins http://www.cointalk.com/t222883/ I bought these from a seller who is an expert in Indian and Oriental Coinage. These are his attributions and dates. Look for my post.
I agree it cannot be used across cultures, or across different issues. We are talking here, though, of a contiuous issue of coins over centuries by the same people. As such, I think it foolhardy to ignore other such issues over a period of time, and to ignore the data showing us over and over again coins over time become smaller and more debased stylistically when producing the same issue. Again, I would LOVE to have hard data. Short of hard data, though, I say using our assumptions are the best place to start.
Yes, of course. I'm not suggesting otherwise. This conversation just reminded me of a book I recently read: The Coinages of the World, Ancient and Modern, by a certain George D. Matthews, published in 1876. I've discovered that the general 19th-century approach to the science of numismatics was anything but scientific.
