Jump to content

863-884A.D. Jaunpur Sultanate, Hussain Shah, Tanka


Topcat7
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Here I have what I believe to be a Tanka of Hussain Shah, (Gandharva), of the Jaunpur Sultanate, but the dates don't match, 863-884A.D. When I 'Google' the 'Jaunpur Sultanate' I see dates of 1394-1479, (although some references give dates to 1505). If the later dates are correct, to what do the earlier dates refer?

Can anyone tell me any more about this coin, please? (Even which side of my coin should be considered the 'obverse' would help.)

 

 

 

Magical Snap - 2022.07.04 09.23 - 037a.jpg

Magical_Snap_-_2022.07.04_09.17_-_035-removebg-preview.png

Magical_Snap_-_2022.07.04_09.18_-_036-removebg-preview.png

Edited by Topcat7
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first set of dates refers to dates in the AH (Islamic) calendar, which is pretty often used even in Western sources when discussing the history of Muslim states.  And indeed, 884 AH starts on March 25, 1479 AD, which is the end of the Jaunpur (not Juanpur, which I guess is a spellcheck artifact?) sultanate.  863 AH starts on November 8, 1458 AD, and 1458 is the start of the reign of the last Jaunpur sultan, Hussain Khan (who uses "Hussain Shah" on his coins).  The Wikipedia article "Jaunpur Sultanate" is informative, and shows several coins.

Yes, mixing dates in two different systems can lead to confusion.  Yes, authors do it anyway.

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Topcat7 changed the title to 863-884A.D. Juanpur Sultanate, Hussain Shah, Tanka
19 minutes ago, Parthicus said:

The first set of dates refers to dates in the AH (Islamic) calendar, which is pretty often used even in Western sources when discussing the history of Muslim states.  And indeed, 884 AH starts on March 25, 1479 AD, which is the end of the Jaunpur (not Juanpur, which I guess is a spellcheck artifact?) sultanate.  863 AH starts on November 8, 1458 AD, and 1458 is the start of the reign of the last Jaunpur sultan, Hussain Khan (who uses "Hussain Shah" on his coins).  The Wikipedia article "Jaunpur Sultanate" is informative, and shows several coins.

Yes, mixing dates in two different systems can lead to confusion.  Yes, authors do it anyway.

Thank you Parthicus. My (Roman) dates had him ruling for 85 years and if he was aged 30 when he commenced his rule, he was 115 when he was defeated in battle.               (I will correct the spelling of Jaunpur. Sorry.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Topcat7 changed the title to 863-884A.D. Jaunpur Sultanate, Hussain Shah, Tanka
Posted (edited)

The legends read Hussain shah bin Mahmud shah bin Ibrahim shah sultani // khalifa abu'l-fateh 866. The 'busier' side is the obverse. The final digit of the date is mushy. Although the coin appears to have a silver surface, the dies and the weight are that of a copper falus (Goron & Goenka p. 348, J30). There is some similarity between the copper and silver coins which threw me at first, enough perhaps that that someone plated it to pass it as a more valuable coin? Or an error in G&G? The similar silver/billon coin (G&G J28) weighs slightly less (3.6-4.2g) and its reverse has a longer legend: al-khalifa amir al-mu'minin khulidat khilafatahu (date). Interesting. If I'm missing something, perhaps someone with more expertise in Sultanate issues will chime in. You can compare the differences I've mentioned here:

https://www.zeno.ru/showgallery.php?cat=20193

Edited by DLTcoins
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2022 at 2:20 PM, DLTcoins said:

The legends read Hussain shah bin Mahmud shah bin Ibrahim shah sultani // khalifa abu'l-fateh 866. The 'busier' side is the obverse. The final digit of the date is mushy. Although the coin appears to have a silver surface, the dies and the weight are that of a copper falus (Goron & Goenka p. 348, J30). There is some similarity between the copper and silver coins which threw me at first, enough perhaps that that someone plated it to pass it as a more valuable coin? Or an error in G&G? The similar silver/billon coin (G&G J28) weighs slightly less (3.6-4.2g) and its reverse has a longer legend: al-khalifa amir al-mu'minin khulidat khilafatahu (date). Interesting. If I'm missing something, perhaps someone with more expertise in Sultanate issues will chime in. You can compare the differences I've mentioned here:

https://www.zeno.ru/showgallery.php?cat=20193

Thank you for that information. In hand it is quite possible that the coin is copper with a silver 'wash' over it. I think that you might be 'spot-on' there.

I think that you have given me all the information that I am looking for. Great. Thank-you, again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/3/2022 at 5:23 PM, Parthicus said:

The first set of dates refers to dates in the AH (Islamic) calendar, which is pretty often used even in Western sources when discussing the history of Muslim states.  And indeed, 884 AH starts on March 25, 1479 AD, which is the end of the Jaunpur (not Juanpur, which I guess is a spellcheck artifact?) sultanate.  863 AH starts on November 8, 1458 AD, and 1458 is the start of the reign of the last Jaunpur sultan, Hussain Khan (who uses "Hussain Shah" on his coins).  The Wikipedia article "Jaunpur Sultanate" is informative, and shows several coins.

Yes, mixing dates in two different systems can lead to confusion.  Yes, authors do it anyway.

Just, "spellcheck artifact."  Summarily Needing that. 

...As in (since I can't stop myself in time),

'I'm an algorithim, designed by someone who a)has zero background in the Humanities and is b)correspondingly, broadly socially challenged, ...and Yes, there's No Brain Here, and Yes, I'd like to tell you how to write in your language of birth.  ...And because of All of these factors, I'm going to proceed to relentlessly get in your (expl. du jour) face in process of doing this.'

Grrrr....

Edited by JeandAcre
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...