The Tale of a Rejected Piece

Jee Francis Therattil

This has reference to the paper titled Unique Punch Mark Coin of Venad [Vel-nad], presented by Mrs. Beena Sarasan at the fifteenth annual conference of the South Indian Numismatic Society held at Trivandrum during January 2004. The coin weighs only 1.25g and is almost rectangular in shape. The miniature dimensions i.e. 8mm by 11mm is too small for a punch marked coin flan to be easily studied by the symbol pattern. But surprisingly, the two symbols which are there in the obverse are sufficient enough to prove beyond any doubt, the identity of the coin. The first symbol is a very peculiar one which can be identified as a part of the symbol no. 27001 seen in coins 573 to 575 of series VIb and coins 586 and 596 of series VII. The reporters identification of that symbol as a part of a six arched hill [which is represented in the catalogue plainly as symbol no. 325 and its variations as nos. 263, 346 and 375] is not even remotely plausible. The second symbol is also very peculiar and can be identified as symbol no. 14502 which is seen only in coin no. 57403 in the VIb series. This is the figure of a humped bull facing right having a taurine in front of it and a bold line below these. Even though the taurine is not easily recognisable in the present specimen, the bold line below the bull is clearly visible.

Angle of deviation to Y-axis of the first symbol: -137O

Obverse.

Angle of deviation to Y-axis of the second symbol: +34O

The combination of the above two symbols is found in only one variety, i.e., coin no. 574 of type VI IV F 145. This is attributed as an issue of rulers belonging to Maurya and Sunga dynasties04 of the period 270 BC to 175/150 BC. This is an extremely common [XC] variety and has reference also in the British Museum Catalogue, Ancient India, as coin no. 2 Ia-c. The other symbols invariably occurring on coins of this type are sun [no. 468], six-armed symbol [no. 392] and the crescent on three arches [hill?] symbol [no. 374]. But why are those three critical symbols absent in this coin? Let us examine the physical characteristics of this coin in detail. The unworn specimens available for comparative study weighs about 3.3g to 3.5g and have a dimension of 11mm - 12mm by 16mm - 18mm, whereas the present specimen weighs only 1.25g and is having a dimension of merely 8mm by 11mm. The size and weight of the specimen show that it is just half of the normal ones. 8mm by 11mm size is just half of 11mm by 16mm size. This shows that this specimen is a bifurcated portion of a full sized coin. The other half must be bearing in it, the other three symbols. The weight 1.25g also is in tally with the size considering the worn condition of the specimen coin. It should be remembered that the latest Cheran authenticated punch marked coin05 reported weighs 2.54g only. Arthashasthra06 states that: The Superintendent of the mint shall carry on the manufacture of silver coins made up of one-fourth part copper and one-sixteenth part of any of the metals tikshana, trapu, sisa and anjana. These shall be a pana, half pana, quarter and eighth. This clearly confirms the presence of fractional coins. But whether the half pana was made by cutting the pana in to two is not clear. Let us now examine whether the cutting, the result of which is the specimen piece, was done during the issue of the coin or at a later point of time. Three of the four lateral sides of the specimen coin are found to have only smooth roundish edges, whereas the fourth side is having two predominant 90 degree edges, one upper and one lower. The smooth roundish edges are results of extreme wear, whereas, the square edges in one side are due to the retainment of its original thickness at that edge. If the cutting was done at the time of its minting itself, all the four sides would have been worn out uniformly. Here it is not like that. This is a clear evidence of bifurcation done at a later point of time. While the imperial Magadha-Maurya coin reached the locality of its provenance, it is most probable that it had its full size except loss due to wear. The punched symbol in the reverse is claimed to be of an ankusha -elephant goad. All the coins of the variety to which this part of the coin belong, are known to be having only two standard bold marks in the reverse and are nos. 140 and 473.07 Here both these symbols are not recognisably present.

I have tried for any possible appearance of a hook that can be interpreted as a decisive part of an ankusha [na-thtti] in the reverse. It is seen that one can be misled at two places near the straight mark - one is at the place where the straight mark is meeting the edge of the coin and the other, at the half way of the mark. We have to be more observant before we come to a conclusion. On detailed examination, it can be seen that the hook like appearance at the edge of the coin was caused only due to a deep corrosion of the flan near the edge of the coin. We have to bear in mind that a figure is imparted to a surface by a punch is by imparting a depression of the outline and the background of the figure. The level of the figure will be in tally with the level of the flan of the coin. Here, the corrosion has emptied a portion of the figure, a portion of the depressed outline and also a portion outside the depressed outline. Moreover, if it could be a depressed outline of the figure, it must have to continue further so as to impart the shape of the tip of the hook which should be inside the flan of the coin. Reverse At the next place, at the halfway of the mark, the portion of the mark is clear. The depressed outline is also clear which should not be there if anything is expected to be there as a continuation with the mark. Moreover the whole area supposed to be denoting the hook is an uneven depression and no outlining can be seen. This proves that this depression is also due to corrosion if not a remnant of a possibly expected additional reverse mark, which is having three hook-like portions around a circle with a dot in its centre, bearing no. 140 in the catalogue. The size of the hook is not at all proportional to the size of the mark and the position which is almost at the midway of the mark is also not plausible. Thus the mark cannot be identified as an ankusham as claimed in the paper and hence the attribution is baseless. Next point to consider is that the coin is not made up of silver, but of copper. Traces of silver are seen on both sides of the specimen coin which should be the remnants of once well coated silver over copper. This point to the fact that this coin is a contemporary counterfeit of which many specimens are known and studied in detail.08 Dies for counterfeiting punch marked coins locally are also brought to light.09 It is hard to believe that even after much circulation, evident from the wear it has suffered, which had made the copper inside exposed, hasnt come to the notice of the local authorities, who, if at all authenticated the coin by punching a mark on the reverse of the piece.

Once it was confirmed that the coin is not genuine and it does not have the intrinsic value it has to carry, the inspection authority marked the coin by giving a cancellation mark. Here, the cancellation mark - a strike-off line which is made across the flan of the coin, just like it is more widely observed in Roman gold coins10 recovered from the region, together with the corrosion scars is misinterpreted as an ankusha. Eventually, the coin is made subject to destroyal by cutting it and disposed it off most probably to the river from where a piece has later been recovered with almost all the silver coating corroded away by then, leaving only some remnants. At least three dies for making counterfeit imperial punch marked coins are known to be found from the riverbed at Karur.11 In those days, it might be a practise with sanctity to dispose them off in to the river as an extreme entity, from where usually; even the metal could not be recovered. As the cancellation mark is imparted by punching, I attribute the period of cancellation to be before the advent of the inflow of Roman coins12 to this region, which is believed to have started in the first century BC.

References & Notes:

01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 06. 07. 08. 09. 10. 11. 12. Indian Silver Punch Marked Coins - Magadha-Maurya Karshapana Series - P.L.Gupta and T.R.Hardaker, Indian Institute of Research in Numismatic Studies, 1985, page 94. ibid. Page 90. ibid. Page 81. ibid. Page 10. Studies in South Indian Coins, vol. X, page 28, paper by P.Vijayaraghavan. Arthashasthra - Kautilya, book II, chapter XII Indian Silver Punch Marked Coins - Magadha-Maurya Karshapana Series - P.L.Gupta and T.R.Hardaker, Indian Institute of Research in Numismatic Studies, 1985, page 101. ibid. page 28. Studies in South Indian Coins, Madras, vol. IV, paper by P.V.Radhakrishnan, pages 51 to 56. In this specimen, cancellation mark is imparted by punching, whereas, later Roman gold coins are marked by chiselling. Coin Circulation in Southernmost India - Michael Mitchiner, Indian Institute of Research in Numismatic Studies, 1995, Page 26. Most probably, the first specimens got introduced to this region made by die striking method.

This study is on a 3rd / 2nd century BC coin on which a research paper was already published. Could convincingly prove that the previous attribution was baseless by identifying the punch marks on it correctly and by logically interpreting other peculiarities of the coin. Paper created far-reaching impact as the coin was previously acclaimed as the only surviving specimen representing Ay dynasty. Paper got published in the journal of the South Indian Numismatic Society, volume XVI [2006] with the title Re-examination of a Punch-marked Coin.

Jee Francis Therattil Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India. E-mail: jeefrancis@rediffmail.com