The Tale of a Rejected Piece

Jee Francis TherattilJee Francis TherattilJee Francis TherattilJee 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 reporter’s

identification of that symbol as a part of a ‘six arched hill’ [which is represented in the catalogue

plainly as symbol no. 325 and it’s 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 it’s 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 [āna-thōtti] 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, hasn’t 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. 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.

02. ibid. Page 90.

03. ibid. Page 81.

04. ibid. Page 10.

05. Studies in South Indian Coins, vol. X, page 28, paper by P.Vijayaraghavan.

06. Arthashasthra - Kautilya, book II, chapter XII

07. 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.

08. ibid. page 28.

09. Studies in South Indian Coins, Madras, vol. IV, paper by P.V.Radhakrishnan, pages 51 to 56.

10. In this specimen, cancellation mark is imparted by punching, whereas, later Roman gold coins are

marked by chiselling.

11. Coin Circulation in Southernmost India - Michael Mitchiner, Indian Institute of Research in

Numismatic Studies, 1995, Page 26.

12. 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