No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
The Broach (Bharoch) hoard found in 1882, though its publication is statistically incomplete, offers evidence of the movement and import of valuta into western India during the 13th and more particularly the 14th century. Broach and Cambay were the principal ports of Gujarat during this period. The hoard, found in a brass pot, consisted of 448 gold coins, besides pieces of coins and a small ingot, and about 1,200 silver coins and pieces. The coinages represented are those of Genoa, Venice, Egypt, Armenia, Persia, southern Arabia and the Dehfi Sultanate. With the exception of two 12th-century coins the dates of minting fall between A.D. 1260 and 1382, which we may take to be the approximate date of burial.
1 Codrington, O., On a hoaid of coins found at Broach, JBBRAS, XV, 1882 1883, 33970.Google Scholar
One may accept Codrington's reading of the date A.H. 783 on a coin-type of the Raslid Mummahid al-dn Ism'l of the Yaman (r. A.H. 778803), but it seems likely that on another coin of the same ruler he has misread 788 for 778: see n. 18 below on his errors of identification of this Raslid series.
Codrington is discreetly silent on the whereabouts of the hoard when he was permitted to examine it. It is not unlikely that the coins had come into the possession of a local ṣarrf (shroff), who was unwilling to surrender them to the Government of India as treasure trove. There is a possibility that the majority of the coins were melted for their metal content; another possibility is that most of them repose, with scant attention paid to them on account of their non-Indian character, in one or more of the official collections of the museums of India. Though no note was taken of its provenance at the time, there can be little doubt that a portion of the hoard, which included 3 examples of the previously unknown gold coinage of the rulers of Sstn, found its way into the Department of Coins of the British Museum in 1884 and 1886, donated by the archaeologist and architectural historian James Burgess (18321916).
In 1884 Burgess, who at that time held the post of Archaeological Surveyor and Reporter for Western (as well as Southern) India, presented 21 coins to the British Museum, which were accessioned on 8 June of that year. These consisted of 14 Baḥr Mamlk gold coins, 2 gold coins of Izz al-dn of Sstn, and 5 silver coins of the Raslids of the Yaman (see Accessions Register, Oriental Series, 681884). A third gold coin from Sstn, in this case of the ruler Quṭb al-dn with a legible date of A.H. 782, is recorded in the coin-tray as having been received from Burgess on 5 April 1886. Following the system of accession then current in the Department of Coins, this suggests that Burgess made a rather larger donation around this date, comprising 18 Baḥr Mamlk or similar Middle Eastern gold coins, this single gold coin from Sstn, and possibly some more silver coins. Unfortunately the Oriental Series of the Accessions Register is devoid of entries for several months in 1886, and there is no traceable record of Burgess's second donation.
All the Mamlk and Rasulid issues found in Burgess's donation of 1884 are also identifiable in Codrington's catalogue of the previous year, though Codrington's readings of the Rasulid legends contain many errors: see n. 18 below. One may also state with confidence that none of the three gold coins of Sstn (together with a fourth acquired at a coin-sale of 1906, which may have also come from the Broach hoard, and reached the Museum by a longer route) are the actual coins illustrated on Codrington's plates, as different areas of flan are visible upon them.
In this search I am grateful for assistance from Mr. Nicholas Lowick of the British Museum, Department of Coins; to Dr. David Bivar; and to Dr. Parmeshwari Lai Gupta.
2 If Codrington read the date correctly as A.H. 754, this would be a posthumous issue of a pretender. Wright, Nelson, The coinage and metrology of the Sultans of Dehl, Delhi, OUP, 1936, No. 648,Google Scholar records the issue with the sole date 752. As in that year Frz Shh Tughluq ascended the throne in the capital city and Mahmd disappeared from history, the correct reading is likely to be 752 not 754: see Sihrind, , Trkh-i Mubrakshh, text p. 123Google Scholar, for the date of Frz Shh's enthronement.
3 Wright, Nelson, op. cit., No. 492;Google ScholarThomas, E., Chronicles of The Pathan Kings of Dehli, No. 213,Google Scholar issued in the name of the Khalfa Ab'l-'Abbs al-Ḥkim bi-amri'llh. Six others of the Dehl Sultanate gold ṭankas are issues in the name of the previous 'Abbsid pretender in Cairo, Ab Rab' Sulaymn al-Mustakf (Wright, Nos. 491ff.); and these may be conjectured to have been transported in the treasury of the Sultan when he set out for his campaign in Gujarat on 1 Sha'bn 745, 8 December 1344. For a discussion of Muḥammad b. Tughluq's movements during these years, see Digby, S., Muḥammad bin Tughluq's last years in Kthiwr and his invasions of Ḥhaḥḥtha, Hamdard Islamicus (Karachi), II, i, 1979, 7888.Google Scholar
Of the remaining gold ṭankas of the Dehl Sultanate which are presented in the Broach hoard, 3 are of the unvaried and common gold issue of Al al-dn Muḥammad Khalj (r. A.D. 12961316: Wright Nos. 305ff., pp. 1056: The abundance of the Dehl gold ṭankahs is, paradoxically, the reason for their not being represented in this collection). The recorded dates range from the Sultan's second to his penultimate year. The date, read by Codrington on one of the coins in the Broach hoard, viz A.H. 704, cannot be related to the conquest of Gujarat by Al al-dn's general in A.H. 698 (Lai, K. S., History of the Khaljis, London, 1967, 68)Google Scholar. However, the Sultan himself in this period conducted campaigns in areas adjacent to Gujarat, against the fortress of Citauṛ in south Rajasthan in A.H. 704 (Lal, 104) and in Malwa in A.H. 705 (Lal, 11314).
The rarest of the gold ṭankas of the Dehl Sultanate found in the Broach hoard is a coin of Sultan Ghiyth al-dn Tughluq, with the mint legible on Codrington's Fig. 31 as mulk-itilang. This issue was recorded by Nelson Wright many years later (No. 433, a completely new type, with observed dates of A.H. 724, 725). The issue obviously bears some relation to the successful punitive expedition of Ghiyth al-dn Tughluq's son, the future Sultan Muḥammad, against the Kkaṭiya ruler of Warangal and the region of TilangTelingana (the Telugu-speaking area of the south-east Deccan, modern Andhra Pradesh). One might have assumed that these coins were an issue struck on the march of the expedition, possibly after the fall and plunder of Warangal; the future Saltan passed through Devgiri on his return, and therefore onwards through Gujarat before he reached Dehl. However, the expedition is recorded to have taken place a couple of years earlier than the dates mentioned on the coins as recorded by Wright, viz. A.H. 7212 (Prasad, I., History of the Qarauna Turks in India, repr. Delhi, 1974, 28:Google ScholarDigby, S., War-horse and elephant in the Delhi Sultanate, Oxford, 1971, 62;Google ScholarBaran, , Trkh-i Frzshh, 449Google Scholar). Perhaps, as in other dates given in this primary source, there is an inaccuracy in Baran's narrative (Digby, S. in Hamdard Islamicus,Google Scholar cited above in this note; cf. Thomas, E., op. cit., 113, n. 1,Google Scholar author's italics: I may add that of the two exceptional dates given in the entire twenty years of Balban's domination, one is manifestly wrong).
Only 6 out of the 47 gold tṭankas of the Dehl Sultanate found in the Broach hoard have not been discussed above. Three are other issues of Ghiyth al-dn Tughluq, which could also have reached Gujarat during the progress or return of the Telingana expedition. The remaining 3 are of the earlier years of Muḥammad b. Tughluq. One is from the Devglr (Devgiri) mint, the date read as A.H. 727 (Wright, No. 484). This was probably the first year of the settlement of the new capital, before its name was changed to Dawlatbd, and is the only issue recorded by Wright with this mint name. The second coin is of the Delh mint with its date read as A.H. 735, and the third, with mint invisible, is read by Codrington as A.H. 73(3). These coins may well have reached Broach by ordinary processes of trade, in which the individual example reverses the common process in the transfer of specie: cf. n. 9 below for a possible example of gold exported from India to Iran recycled into the Broach hoard. Out of the 47 gold ṭankas of the Dehl Sultanate found in the Broach hoard, only the Dehl coin of A.H. 733 suggests that this happened.
4 The process is illustrated by an event only a few years distant from the interment of the hoard (see Sihrind, , Trkh-i Mubrakshh, 132)Google Scholar. In the year 77813767, the Delh Sultan Frz Shh Tughluq granted the tax-farm of Gujarat to Shams Damghn upon his offering to remit annually, above the previous yield (maḥṣl), 100 elephants, 200 Arab horses, 400 slaves either the sons of Hindu chieftains or Abyssinians, and 40 lakhs of ṭankas (4,000,000 ṭankas). When Shams Damghn reached Gujarat he found that he could not realize this demand: accordingly he rebelled.
The promised remittance of ṭankas is unlikely to have been in the form of coined money, as in this reign we have no evidence of Dehl Sultanate ṭankas or other coins minted in Gujarat. The only recorded mint in the decade is the capital - hadrat Dehl (see Wright, Nelson, op. cit., 17288)Google Scholar. The money of account of the later 14th-century Dehl Sultanate was the debased billon 140 gr. ṭanka (see Digby, S., War-horse and elephant in the Delhi Sultanate, Oxford, 1971, 39 and n. 101).Google Scholar
Assays conducted for Nelson Wright on 9 billon ṭankas of the years A.H. 77182 produced 3 rogue coins, either with no silver or little more than half the usual amount. This could be the result of the instability of the original silver-copper alloy or of subsequent sweating; and these should be omitted from the calculations. The remaining 6 ṭankas showed a small range of variation in their silver content between 24.75 and 27.95 grains, yielding an average of 25.85 grains according to Nelson Wright's calculation, and 25.98 grains according to my own (see Wright, Nelson, op. cit., 1768, 407, 409Google Scholar). Taking the latter figure, the silver content of 4 million ṭankas to be remitted annually by Shams Damghn would amount to almost exactly 254 metric tonnes. There may have been some unrecorded discount on moneys of account, or a portion could have been commuted into gold at the parity which, as we have noted, was difficult to maintain in this period. However, we know from other references that Frz Shh and his predecessor Muḥammad bin Tughluq (during the latter part of his reign) were particularly anxious to collect tribute or tax from distant regions in silver (Sihrind, , op. cit., 1045:Google ScholarBaran, , Trkh-i Frzshhi, 588, 597). The demand made from Shams Damghn, as noted above, was an enhancement on the annual remittances from Gujarat. It strikingly attests the hunger for silver, and also the nature of the economic relations between the capital city of Dehli and provinces which were too remote to contribute to its grain-supply.Google Scholar
For an earlier remittance from Gujarat to Dehl, plundered en route, consisting of specie (khazna), imported horses, cloths, and luxury goods, in A.D. 1344, see Baran, , Trkh-i Frzshh, 507.Google Scholar
5 Wright, Nelson, op. cit, 160, 1634, 174, 218;Google ScholarDigby, , War-horse and elephant, 44, n. 121:Google ScholarBarani, , Trkh-i Frzshh, 588, 597, 11. 56;Google ScholarSihrind, , Trkh-i Mubrakshh, 1045.Google Scholar The matter is further discussed by the present writer in the section on the currency of the Dehli Sultanate in Raychaudhuri, T. K. and Kumar, D. (ed.), The Cambridge economic history of India, CUP, in the press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Al-'Umar, , Maslik al-abṥr (section on India), ed. Fariq, , Delhi, 1961, text, 278;Google ScholarBaran, , Trkh-i Frzshh (variant recension), Digby MS 47, fol. 119;Google Scholar see also Serjeant, R. B., Islamic textiles, Beirut, 1972, 14751, especially 149.Google Scholar
7 For the previous 60 years until the reign of al-Ṥaliḥ Ṥliḥ (A.D. 13514) no issues have been recorded from the Alexandria mint: see Balog, P., The coinage of the Mamlk Sultans of Egypt and Syria, New York, 1964, 51.Google Scholar
8 In a chapter entitled The maritime trade of India, 12001500 A.D.in Raychaudhuri, and Kumar, , op. cit.Google Scholar (see n. 5 above), I have argued against the opinion of Lewis, B., Aubin, J., and Ashtor, E. that the Gulf route was of lesser importance during this period than the Red Sea route;Google Scholar see Ashtor, E., A social and economic history of the Near East, London, 1976, 195, 2645, and the references to the earlier modern literature on the subject there given.Google Scholar
9 Of the 12 gold coins of these two issues recorded by Codrington, we have argued above (see n. 1) that 4 coins are now in the Department of Coins and Medals of the British Museum. On account of the clearly legible mint of one of the coins in the British Museum, Nmrz, which is found on the sole specimen of Codrington's type No. 37 in the museum's holding, as well as the correspondence of names with recorded rulers of this period, there can be no doubt that these are coins of the Maliks of Sstn. Poole, S. Lane (in BMC: Additions, II, p. 179) erroneously assigned them to the Shrvn Shhs.Google Scholar
The regnal dates of the two rulers whose legends are on the gold issues are given in the one surviving chronicle of the Maliks of Sstn in this period (Ḥusayn, Malik Shh, Iḣy' al-mulk, ed. Sutudeh, M., Tehran, 1966, 97, 10203, 105) as follows:Google Scholar
Malik 'Izz al-dn A.H. 75382
Malik Quṭb al-dn b. 'Izz al-dn A.H. 7825
A single silver coin of Malik Tj al-dn, brother of Malik 'Izz al-dn (r. A.H. 74751; op. cit., 96Google Scholar) is noticed later in Codrington's catalogue of the hoard.
Regarding the six coins of the gold issue of Malik Qutb al-dn Muhammad (II) in the hoard (No. 37, Fig. 28) Codrington read the date as A.H. 781. The date is rather doubtful, but comparison of the six specimens in this collection confirms the reading 781. However, the British Museum specimen, undoubtedly from this hoard as we show above (n. 1), clearly reads 782, the year of this ruler's accession according to the chronicle. Codrington's reading of MYHNH (Mayhana) for the mint on the flan of the obverse can be corrected to Nmrz from the B.M. specimen, which is a singularly well struck coin (PL Ib, p. 131 above).
With regard to the six coins of the other issue (Codrington's No. 38, Fig. 29) we must clearly correct his reading of 'Abd al-dn to 'Izz al-dn. Codrington also read a date on the flans of A.H. 768, adding I feel very uncertain about this date. This cannot be confirmed from the three coins of the issue in the British Museum holding, nor is it legible from his illustration. Nevertheless it falls comfortably within the regnal dates of 'Izz al-dn.
The word which appears to read KRMN in the lowest line of the reverse of both issues was assumed by Codrington to be the mint-town of Kirmn in the Muẓaffarid realm of southern Persia, though he correctly noted that there were no Muẓaffarid rulers with the names and titles of the coin-legends. Though nowhere mentioned in the Iḥy' al-mulk, it is attested as a personal name of Malik Izz al-dn Muhammad in an early 15th-century collection of insh; for letters despatched from Shaykh Mu'n al-dn of Jm to Malik Izz al-dn Muḥammad KRMN of Sistn see al-dn Ahl, Jall, Far'id-i Ghiyhi, ed. Mu'ayyad, H., Tehran, Shhanshh 2536, 3503, 37894, 41921. Both the Iḥy' al-mulk and the Fard-i Ghiyth mention that Malik Quḥb al-dn Muḥammad (II) was the son of Malik 'Izz al-dn Muhammad. Thejowest line of the coin-legend on Codrington's No. 37 should therefore be read as bin KRMN.Google Scholar
A minor remaining difficulty is that Codrington also read the mint-name of Kirmn on the obverse flan of the issue of 'Izz al-dn (his No. 38). The mint is off the flan of the three British Museum specimens, but it should probably be corrected (like Mayhana which Codrington read on the obverse flan of No. 37) to Nmrz.
The thick fabric of these gold issues of Sstn, with a weight of circa 170gr. (circa 11 gm.) is unparalleled in other 14th-century coinages of Iran. It strongly attests Indian influence, for the standard is that of the 96 rat gold ṭankas of the Dehl Sultans. There is no trace of overstriking on the British Museum specimens, but it is possible that they may have been a straight recoinage of Indian ṭankas, brought to Sstn by the pattern of trade from India to Iran for which this article provides evidence (see n. 10 below). If, as I argue, the Sstn coins in the Broach hoard represent a single windfall, with the second issue close to the terminal date of the hoard, they may provide the only evidence in it of gold previously exported from India being recycled to the subcontinent.
10 Bykov, A. A., Finds of Indian medieval coins in East Europe, JNSI, XXVII, 2, 14656;Google Scholar cf. IbnBaṭṭṭa, , Riḥla, ed. Defrmery, . and Sanguinetti, , II, 3714Google Scholar and Digby, , War-horse and elephant, 356;Google ScholarMzandarn, , Risla-yi falakiyya, ed. Hinz, W., Wiesbaden, 1952, 229;Google ScholarThomas, E. op. cit., 171,Google Scholar n. 1, citing Yazd, Ẓafar-nma = Elliot and Dowson, History of India, III, 503.Google Scholar In the bazaars of Tehran the writer once found 3 gold ṭankas of the 15th century Sultans of Kashmir, of which only 11 examples had previously been recorded, in association with another 15th-century gold ṭankas of a Bahma Sultan of the Deccan.
11 Digby, , War-horse and elephant, 2933.Google Scholar The topic is further discussed in Raychaudhuri, and Kumar, (ed.), op. cit. (see nn. 5 and 8 above).Google Scholar
12 Heyd, W., Histoire du commerce du Levant au moyen-age, Leipzig, 1923, 145.Google Scholar
13 For a general discussion of the manufacture and circulation of these coins, see Ives, Herbert E., ed. and annotated by Grierson, Philip, The Venetian gold ducat and its imitations (Numismatic Notes and Monographs No. 128), New York, American Numismatic Society, 1954.Google Scholar There is little information in the volume about pseudonymous imitations already circulating by the late 14th century, although correctly inscribed imitations were being minted in other Italian principalities, by the Knights of St. John at Rhodes and by the Gattilusi rulers of Mytilene. The earliest recorded pseudonymous Levantine imitations are in the name of the Doge Andrea Dandolo (reigned A.D. 134454, see Ives, 26). They are conjectured to have been coined on the Aegean island of Chios. If, as Codrington thought, the coins in the Broach hoard bearing the name of Andrea Contarini, elected Doge in A.D. 1368, are imitations, they must have been immediately contemporary imitations; the evidence of Ives, op. cit., appears rather against this.
14 The Broach hoard affords the earliest datable evidence of the circulation of Venetian gold ducats upon the shores of the Indian Ocean. In the 15th century the Venetian traveller Nicolo Conti mentions them as a common currency there, see Major, R. H., India in the fifteenth century, London, Hakluyt Society, 1857, Pt. 2, p. 30:Google Scholar In some parts again of anterior India, Venetian ducats are in circulation. For 16th-, 17th-, and 18th-century references, see Yule, and Burnell, , Hobson-Jobson, s.v. chick (chickeen, zecchino) and Venetian.Google Scholar Apart from the Broach hoard, they have been found on the Malabar and Coromandel coasts (Aravamuthan, T. G., Catalogue of the Venetian coins in the Madras Museum, Madras, 1938,Google Scholar quoted by Ives, , op. cit.).Google Scholar
Though earlier Mediterranean imitations of the Venetian ducat must have been circulating in the Indian Ocean together with the original coinage, Ives affords no evidence that imitations were being produced in India before the late 16th century. His pl. XIV, No. 6, has a recognizable legend, ALOY. MOCEN. in combination with a completely Indianized rendering of the St. Mark banner, and Doge on the obverse transformed to Rma, toddypalm, and St, and on the reverse the Christ in mandorla transformed to Lakṣmaḗa. The legend may be of the first Doge Alvize Mocenigo (r. A.D. 15707) or of three 18th-century successors of the same name.
Codrington did not publish an illustration of any of the ducats in the Broach hoard, on which the characteristic features of the Indian imitations might have been visible; although as we have seen above, the balance of the evidence suggests that Indian imitations were not yet being manufactured in the later 14th century. Ives conjectures than Indian imitations were being manufactured, largely for use as ornaments, down to the early 19th century, with evidence for a late centre of production as trinkets in Goa, (op. cit, 2931)Google Scholar. The present writer has seen what must be even more recent Indian imitations. He was shown an Arab gold dagger (jambiy), acquired by its owner in Arabia, on which two such medals were soldered on the hilt. The visible sides were the reverse with the figure in the mandorla. The legends, in Roman characters, read RADHA and KRISHNA. This pair of imitations can hardly be earlier than the late 19th century.
15 Codrington, , art. cit., 36870;Google Scholar cf. Balog, , op. cit, 1467.Google Scholar
16 These names recur in the lineage of the Armenian kings. This was a crude coinage, very likely taken as plunder (as Codrington conjectures, on the Cilician campaigns of Muhammad b. Qal'n), and it may have been exported eastwards with minimal concern. The coins inscribed with the regnal name Constantin could also have been those of Constantin III (r. A.D, 13423) carelessly overstruck with a die of the recently deceased Mamluk Sultan Muhammad b. Qal'n.
17 Codrington, 356, No. 1. His reading of the mint, of which the name is not distinct as Samarqand must be rejected, as this, like the gold issues discussed in n. 9 above, is a coin of one of the numerous lineage of the fourth Ẓaffrid dynasty in Sstn, Tj al-dn I b. Muḥammad. Of the remaining silver coins which reached Broach from the Persian side of the Gulf, one is of the Jal'irid Sultan Uways (reigned A.H. 75777); and there are seven later 14th-century coins of the Muẓaffarid dynasty of Shrz, minted at Shrz (3), Yazd (3), and Aydaj in Lristn (1).
18 Codrington was unable to attribute these coins to their proper dynasty, and his readings of their legends, mints, and dates are clearly often erroneous, although the specimens from the same hoard presented to the British Museum in 1884 (see n. 1) were correctly identified in the Accessions Register. The coins are of five rulers of the Raslid dynasty of the Yaman, viz:
Shams al-dn Ysuf (r. A.H. 64794) 3 coins
Hizabr al-dn Ysuf (r. A.H. 696721) 5 coins
Sayf al-dn 'Al (r. A.H. 72164) 22 coins
Dirghm al-dn (r. A.H. 76478) 109 coins
Mumahhid al-dn (r. A.H. 778803) 78 coins
From the figural symbols on Codrington's plates 3 and 4, viz. the seated man, the fish, the lion, and the bird the four mints of Tha 'bt, 'Adan, al-Mahjam, and Ta'izz can be identified.
19 Bernier, F., Travels in the Mogul empire, tr. Brock, , ed. Constable, , London, 1891, 202.Google Scholar
20 Gad, Ysuf, Tuḥ fa-yinaṣa'ih, Bombay, A.H. 1289, 52;Google Scholar Digby MS 59, fol. 20b. The date and circumstances of composition of this work are discussed in my recent paper, The Tuḥfa-yinaẓ'ih (Present of counsels) of Ysuf Gad, an ethical treatise from the late 14th-century Dehl Sultanate, presented at the Conference on adab and moral authority among Muslims of South Asia,University of California,Berkeley,June 1979.Google Scholar