View
horde of 300 silver fifth rupees
Malabar Coast [1]
See Pridmore, also Pridmore SNC 1976
As the trading horizons of
the East India Company were broadened, factories were opened at places other
than
|
|
|
The British established a
factory at Tellicherry (now called Thalasserry) in 1683. The grant for establishing this
trading outpost was obtained from the local ruling family, the Kurungot Nairs, who held the area
under their control from their overlords, the Kolathiri
Rajahs of Chirakkal. The company intended to trade in
cardamom and pepper, both of which were local produce. In 1708, a fort was
built at Tellicherry. Relations between the British
and the local rulers were very cordial, and indeed none other than a prince of
the Kolathiri household laid the corner stone of the
fort. Between 1708 and 1761, the Company actively pursued its interests in the
region and gradually increased its sway to adjoining areas with more privileges
such as civil and judicial indemnities and the right to collect custom duties.
Meanwhile, the trading
ambitions of the French East India Company were not far behind in seeking
benefits from the spice trade. They sent a representative named Mollandin to another local family, the Vazhunnavars
of Badagara, and established their trading enclave at
Mayyazhi, about 5 miles to the North of Tellicherry. Contrary to the English, relations between the
local rulers and the French were not cordial and soon a conflict broke out. The
French, under a general named De Pallardin, were
successful in wresting Mayyazhi from the local
rulers. The victory, however, was attributed to the efforts of a French captain
named Bertrand François Mahé de la Bourdonnais and in
his honour the town was renamed Mahé, which uncannily came close in
pronunciation, at least in part, to the original Mayyazhi.
The French maintained their possession in Mahé until 1954.
Calicut (now called Kozhikode) enjoys a
pre-eminent position in the history of Malabar as compared to both Tellicherry and Mahé. It was here that Vasco da Gama landed
in 1498 with an intention of buscar Cristaos e Especeria
(“seeking Christians and Spices”). It had been a town of great commercial
importance, frequently visited by the Arabs and the Chinese to trade in spices
and ‘Calico’ cloth that derives its name from the town. A local dynasty ruled
here, entitled ‘Samuthiri’ and known in European
annals by the name ‘Zamorin’. The Portuguese, ever since the landing of da
Gama, had tried to assert themselves politically and religiously in Malabar and
that brought them into conflict with the Zamorins. This conflict lasted for
several decades and resulted in the Zamorin seeking alliances with other
European powers like the British and the Dutch. Although the influence of the
Portuguese waned during the course of the 16th century, that of the
other powers grew steadily – the British first visited Calicut in 1615 and a
factory was set up in 1664. However, unlike the Portuguese, their involvement
was confined to trade only. Dutch presence in Calicut lasted until 1721, when
they withdrew out of Malabar completely due to a treaty signed between them and
the British.
A Muslim family known as the ‘Ali Rajahs’
ruled Cannanore (now called Kannur), located north of Calicut, Tellicherry and Mahé. Originally belonging to the Kolathiri stock, they were converted to Islam sometime in
the 12-13th centuries. Their capital seat was the town of Arakkal. A unique feature of the household’s dynastic
practice was a general agreement on female primogeniture and so we see many
Queens ruling Cannanore under the title of ‘Beebi’.
Although the words ‘Ali Rajah’ were commonly used to address the household,
their title accommodates a more sanskritised ‘Aadi
Raja’, literally meaning ‘First King’ and it was carried irrespective of the
gender of the ruler. The ‘Ali Rajahs carried out a spice trade of their own
through ports such as Dharmapattanam that belonged to
them and, as such, were viewed as competitors by the advancing European
mercantile companies. In 1664, the Dutch attacked and defeated the ruler of Arakkal and imposed trading restrictions on him. The
animosity between the European companies meant that the ‘Ali Rajahs were
friendly towards the British during the early years of British presence in
Malabar. Indeed, during an internal strife with the Kolathiri
family in 1720-22, the ruling ‘Ali Rajah Muhammad
‘Ali sought the help of Robert Adams, the chief of the Tellicherry
factory, as a mediator. As the political equations changed in the region,
however, the ‘Ali Rajahs became gradually hostile to the British. The
ascendancy of Hyder Ali in Mysore gave pre-eminence to the religious connections
between the Mysore and Cannanore families, which were strengthened by
matrimonial ties. When Hyder and later his son, Tipu, chose to subdue Malabar’s
local Hindu ruling families, the Cannanore family under the Beebi
Junnammabi sympathised with Mysore.
In 1778, Tipu conquered the
areas of Calicut and Cannanore. His intentions of waging war against the
Travancore Kingdom further south brought him into direct conflict with the
British, who had granted security to the ruler of Travancore under the terms of
a subsidiary alliance. Mysore domination lasted sporadically in the north of
the region (Cannanore) and almost continually in the south of the region. Tipu
was hostile to the Zamorins of Calicut but amicably disposed towards the ‘Ali
Rajah family of Cannanore, presumably because of his religious affinities. As a
consequence, Cannanore witnessed British depredations during the long
Anglo-Mysore struggle and finally the British occupied the town in 1790. The
‘Ali Raja family was nominally re-instated but actual political control
remained in British hands ever after. In 1792, a treaty imposed on Tipu by the
British as a result of their success in the Anglo-Mysore war forced him to
relinquish the territory permanently.
Coinage in 18th and 19th
century Malabar – a circulatory context
Indigenous coinage in Kerala may be termed sparse in a general
historical sense. During the 14th-17th centuries, the
chief currency of the region seems to have been gold fanams, commonly called ‘Viraraya’ Fanams. These were struck initially by the Hoysalas and subsequently copied by the rulers of Coorg
(Kodagu). They seem to have reached the coastal region of Malabar from upland
Coorg through the trade across the southernmost part of the mountain chain, the
Western Ghats. The abundant variation in their design and precious metal
content indicate that a few varieties may also have been struck locally. The Venad kingdom located to the south of Malabar produced a
profuse copper coinage during these years and, in all probability, this was the
lower metal equivalent of the gold coins, namely the fanams.
These local coinages may
seem inadequate given the large volume of trade in spices that was being
conducted in the region – but, in fact, this trade brought in foreign coins in
quantities sufficient to satiate any exigent currency demands. The most popular
of these coins was the Venetian gold sequin.
At the beginning of the 18th
century, silver made its appearance in the currency regime of Malabar. Although
it is widely believed that the Venad kingdom
(Travancore of a later period) struck silver chukrams
as early as the 1600’s, Beena Sarasan has shown recently that the issue of
silver chukrams was not facilitated until c.1750
(‘Coins of the Venad Cheras’,
Calicut, 2000, p. 85). The earliest silver coins struck indigenously in Malabar
during this period are called ‘Velli Fanams’.
The metallic term ‘Velli’, meaning silver, must have been included in
the nomenclature to distinguish them from the gold fanams. The first coins of
this kind seem to have been struck by the ‘Ali Rajahs of Cannanore. They are
mintless, bear on the obverse the inscription Al-Malik Al-Wali ‘Ali Raja and on the reverse B’al-Hijarat Sanah followed by the date. They weigh around 2 gm and the
earliest date seen on them is 1122 AH (= 1710 AD). In view of the other
recorded dates it is just possible that this date is a misengraving
for 1132 AH, and that would put the earliest date of issue c. 1720. Alexander
Hamilton, who visited Cannanore in 1703, makes no mention of a silver currency.
He mentions “all coins circulating being of gold” and remarks on their small
size, thereby indicating a preponderance of the gold fanams (‘The Ali Rajas of
Cannanore’, by K.K.N. Kurup, Trivandrum, 1975, p. 12). On the other hand, the British are known to
have collected and dispatched a sample of silver fanams of Cannanore from Tellicherry to Bombay to get them assayed, vide a letter dated 26th
November 1729. (“Letters from Tellicherry, vols. 1-4, 1729-1736”, printed by the
Superintendent, Government Press, Madras, 1934. This letter is reproduced in vol.
1 1729-31, p.17). It is therefore evident that the issue of silver fanams at
Cannanore must have begun sometime between 1703 and 1729. The probability of
the date being 1720 is more likely because that was the year of accession of
the ‘Ali Rajah named Muhammad ‘Ali. From the chronological details on these
coins, they seem to have had a sporadic, yet long lasting issue.
The reason for introducing
a silver denomination weighing two grams is not known, particularly when
nothing of that kind had been in circulation before. Pridmore, while discussing
the British issues for Malabar (see further) comments that the East India Company
introduced their silver fanams to replace gold fanams circulating in the region
because they were “tiny debased pieces subject to fluctuation and easily lost”.
However, to be equivalent in terms of metallic content given the contemporary
rate of exchange between gold and silver, a gold fanam weighing 0.35 gm would
have had to correspond to 4 gm in silver, rather than the 2 gm actually found.
The observed specimens of ‘Vira raya’ Fanams do not
appear debased to that extent. So reasons for the introduction of the 2 gm
denomination still remain to be determined.
Once the denomination was introduced by the ‘Ali Rajahs, it gained wide
acceptance in trade. This is ostensibly because, being of silver, it was
directly convertible into the predominant rupee system of currency – it was
equivalent in weight to 1/5th of a rupee. Perhaps this was one of
the reasons that silver was chosen as a principal metal of circulation. The
British followed suit and introduced their ‘Velli Fanams’ sometime after
1719-20, and these are the chief subject of discussion of this paper. In British
correspondence the coins are referred to by the sobriquet ‘Billy’ Fanams, which
is ostensibly an anglicised form of ‘Velli’.
The French, too, struck
coins in the same denomination at their factory at Mahé. It is also reported
that, alongside the silver fanams, coins in the ‘rupee’ system were also struck
there but none have survived. The French struck silver coins named ‘Royalins’ or ‘Fanons’ at their chief outpost Pondicherry,
situated on the Eastern coast, and it is possible that the same name was given
to the silver coins issued from Mahé. Whilst a good deal of information is
available regarding the operation of the mint at Pondicherry, that for the Mahé
mint is scanty. One point to note, however, is that coins with a Persian
inscription seem to have been struck at Mahé at least a few years before they
were at Pondicherry. This is interesting as far as adopting a native style
coinage was concerned. Although the issues struck at Mahé do not refer to a
Mughal ruler, they have legends in native script mentioning a pseudo-mintname ‘Puducheri’, the native
name for Pondicherry. The earliest date these coins are known to bear is 1731. In
c. 1738, the French silver issues of Mahé are seen to have undergone a radical
change in their design. Along with a distinctly superior calligraphy, the coins
now bear the letter ‘P’ prominently on their reverse, in all probability
standing for ‘Pondicherry’. The mintname on coins in
this second series appears as a more Persianised ‘Phulcheri’ than the previous ‘Puducheri’.
It is believed that the coins were struck until the 1820’s.
As regards the coins of
metals other than silver, both the British and the French struck copper coins.
Not much research has been done about them – Pridmore refers to the British
issues as ‘Paisas’ while the French issues are called ‘Biche’,
presumably a corruption of ‘Paisa’. When the weights of both these series of
copper coins are compared, it becomes apparent that they actually complement
each other and their denominational structure corresponds to the local ‘Cash’
system (See further under appropriate section). As for gold, no issue is known
for the French mint at Mahé. The British are not known to have struck any gold
in Malabar, apart from a pagoda issued in 1809 that Pridmore identifies as the
‘Nishini’ or ‘Revenue’ Pagoda (Hoan). However, this
view has been challenged (see paper by Bhandare & Stevens and also under
gold pagoda on this website). The ‘Ali Rajahs of Cannanore struck a gold
pagoda, which remains to be published in detail and that is undertaken as an
appendix to this paper.
During the Mysore occupation, currency in
Calicut is seen to have undergone a drastic change. Initially, Tipu ordered a
variant of the gold ‘Vira Raya’ Fanams to be struck there. This variety is
inscribed with a Persian letter he
and called the ‘Bahaduri Vira Raya’ Fanam. In tune with Tipu’s currency reforms
after he ascended the Mysore throne in 1782, he introduced a Paisa-Rupee-Pagoda
system in Calicut. He also opened a new mint in the region at Feroke
(Farrukhi), located near Calicut, which, during the later part of his reign,
became the principal mint for copper and gold. While gold and copper issues of
both Calicut and Feroke under Tipu (namely fanams and paisas)
are fairly numerous, silver is exceedingly rare for these mints. This
phenomenon was probably an outcome of the large issue of French and British
silver fanams in the preceding years.
The brief description presented about the
circulatory context of British coinage in Malabar enables us to see it in a
wider perspective, as part of a flourishing and localised monetary economy.
Pridmore failed to take this context into account while presenting his analysis
of the Malabar coinage and this led him to some possibly erroneous conclusions.
Moghul Style – Gold
The only gold issue listed by Pridmore for
use on the Malabar Coast is a pagoda (discussed below). Neither hoans nor mohurs nor their fractions were discussed by him,
so their existence in the years prior to 1809 would be considered unknown.
Whether there was a gold coinage for Malabar during these years would therefore
be a question worth asking. After all, gold had been reaching the Malabar Coast
in the form of Venetian sequins and when viewed in the wake of the Company’s
efforts in achieving convertibility between the Pagoda-Fanam and Mohur-Rupee
systems, it would be logical to presume there was room for some of this gold to
be converted into coinages befitting one or both these systems. While reviewing
his treatise in the course of facilitating the analysis of the Malabar coinage,
it became evident that there are some coins that would fill this apparent gap.
These are listed on p. 147 and numbered 8-11. They are struck in the name of Alamgir II in denominations of 1, ½, ¼ and 1/15th
mohur. The ½ mohur (or ½ rupee in gold as Pridmore calls them) is not actually
known to exist, but other coins are illustrated. They all reside in the British
Museum collection. The most striking feature of these coins is their similarity
in execution with some of the obverse and reverse die varieties we have already
described. The reverse of the mohur comes very close to reverse 4 of the Billys
(see later), while its obverse resembles one of the rupees with a reverse
similar to reverse 4 designs.
Comparison of
reverse designs – Mohur/Billy
|
Reverse of Mohur
|
Reverse 4 of Billy
|
The reverse of the so-called ¼ mohur is almost identical to reverse 4 of
the Billys in all its characteristics, while the obverse is again close to the
rupees just mentioned.
Comparison of
reverse designs – ¼ Mohur/Billy
|
Reverse of ¼ Mohur
|
Billy Rev. 4
|
In the case of the 1/15th mohur (small ‘rupee’ of gold in
Pridmore parlance), the illustration (in Pridmore) is not clear enough to
reveal the reverse details but the obverse again shows similarity with the
obverses of the mohur and the ¼ mohur. Two characteristics common to these
coins are noteworthy - they all have the frozen RY 9 and also the ‘lotus’ mark
(The RY detail is truncated on the ¼ Mohur). As is shown in succeeding
sections, both these are peculiar aspects of silver issues of Malabar in the
period 1763 – c.1778. It is therefore very likely that the gold coins, too, are
issues intended for the Malabar region, although this is not so apparent for
the 1/15th mohur. It seems certain that the tiny gold rupees were
intended for use in
There being several counterfeit gold rupees
now circulating on the island, it is agreed to offer a reward of one thousand
rupees to any person or persons who will make discovery of the persons
concerned in coining them so that the offenders may be brought to justice.
There is more evidence to
the story. The weight of the ¼ mohur that Pridmore lists is not equal to that
denomination. A ¼ mohur should weigh in the range of 2.7 to 2.9 gm depending
upon whether it was struck to a 10.8 gm or 11.6 gm standard. The specimen that
Pridmore lists weighs 3.84 gm and is therefore considerably heavier than the
normal weight for a ¼ mohur. The only gold denomination that corresponds to
that weight in the period we are talking about (1760-1780) is a pagoda (hoan). It is therefore evident that what has been listed by
Pridmore is not a ¼ mohur at all – but a pagoda. As pagodas were not a
preferred denomination in the Bombay region, it would mean that this particular
issue was destined to be circulated elsewhere. The only area where it could
have done so was South India. The resemblance in execution that the obverse of
this coin has with the ‘lotus’-marked rupees and the reverse with type 4 of the
Billy reverses (see below) indicates that this coin is a pagoda struck for
circulation on Malabar Coast. This is also supported by the observation that
its weight is not far removed from the only other gold coin from the same
region and roughly proximate with it in chronological terms - the Cannanore
Pagoda.
This attribution would give strength to the
contention that some of the other denominations should be ascribed to Malabar
as well, although it must be admitted that this inference is subjective in the
absence of unequivocal evidence. The only other explanation that would account
for the weight of 3.8 gm is that the coin may be of a denomination of 1/3rd
mohur or ‘Panchia’. Such coins were struck at a later
date in the Bombay mint to encourage the convertibility of gold coins along the
western coast, because coinage systems changed along a north-south axis, with
the Pagoda-Fanam system gaining precedence over the Mohur-Rupee system. As the
weight of 1/3rd mohur corresponded to that of a pagoda, the
denomination had definite convertibility value. However, the history of such
attempts as well as the launch of the denomination is a phenomenon that can be
dated to the 1800’s rather than the time period to which this particular coin
can be attributed. So the probability of it being a pagoda is greater than that
for it to be a ‘Panchia’.
According to Pridmore [3], the
gold issues of Malabar were limited to a solitary instance apart from the
nondescript ‘Vira Raya’ Fanams. This was the ‘Revenue Hoan’ struck at the
Calicut mint in 1809. Some thought should be given to this term and Pridmore’s
interpretation of it to make sense of certain features of the coin itself, like
the obverse legend. His conclusion in identifying the coin as such stems from a
draft recommendation made to the Bombay Government in 1793, wherein intentions
to strike such a coin were mentioned. The main reason for this was to have a
gold coin that would facilitate conversion with the ‘Mohur-Rupee’ system – it
was intended to have the “Bombay Muhr divided into 5 parts, each part to be of
the value of three rupees and the coin to be called a ‘Revenue Hun’. By
regulating the fanam and hun in this way, the Bombay
rupee and muhr would become convenient multiples of the existing currency
system”. It is clear from this description that the term ‘Revenue Hun’ was
employed with an emphasis on the convertibility aspects in mind, and not the
actual collection of the revenue. It is evident that it denoted a coin that was
readily acceptable in revenue transactions because of its easily convertible
nature and therefore it was to be a ‘preferred’ coin for revenue payments.
Designating a particular coin for revenue payments had been a practice of many
18th-19th century indigenous governments like the
Marathas or the Nizam and there are enough
documentary sources available to support its existence. The British in Malabar
evidently resorted to it and therefore termed their gold coin a ‘Revenue Hun’.
Pridmore, however, interprets the reference
in a different manner. His interpretation is based on a revenue survey
conducted after the Madras Government took charge of the province, in which it
is indicated that the revenue of the province was tendered in “debased Vira Raya gold fanams, of which ten were
termed a Hoon.” References to ‘Tellicherry’ Fanams and “debased silver coins called Billy
Fanams” were also made in the survey. In addition, a suggestion was made that
the Vira Raya Fanams should be
recalled and the silver currency should be confined to the Bombay or Arcot
rupee, and Madras fanams should replace the two smaller silver coins (i.e. the Tellicherry fanam and the Billys). Based on these
references, and for reasons best known to him, Pridmore says, “from this it
seems that the Tellicherry hun
dated 1809 was struck at Calicut as a temporary measure for the revenue
collections of that year…. with its issue, the recommendations made in 1793 for
a revenue hun
were completed”.
Pridmore’s inference defies
logic. Nowhere in the sources is there an indication that this gold issue was
indeed called a ‘revenue hun’, or for that matter
that any other coin known by that term was ever struck. The recommendations
were made in 1793 and the issue is dated 1809, and one would wonder why it took
nearly sixteen years for them to be completed, when the mint at Calicut was up
and running soon after 1793. The obvious indication seems to be that Pridmore
has misconstrued the term as denoting a specific coin, as opposed to the
documents, which point to it being employed as a generic term.
Pridmore’s contention that
the Persian legend on the obverse of these gold coins and also on the ‘T99’
type of Billys reads ‘Nishini Sikka’ may have
something to do with his inference that the 1809 pagoda was a specially struck
issue – because he takes the legend to mean ‘government coin’. But there is
nothing to suggest that ‘Nishini’ means ‘Government’
and Pridmore is silent on the source of this idea. ‘Nishani’ Hoan, as a generic
term is found in several Maratha and other Deccani
documents, but of a much earlier period and its exact connotation has been
difficult to ascertain. In any case, if it had anything to do with the
‘government’ or revenue collection, its occurrence on the ‘T99’ Billys is
rendered inexplicable, because there is no indication that those coins were
struck under any such compliance factors as Pridmore attributes to the issue of
the gold hoans. We therefore have to conclude that
both Pridmore’s reading of the legend and the meaning that he tends to derive
from it, are incorrect. The word looks more like a corrupted form of ‘Kampani Sikka’ – especially when the nasal compound after
‘K’ is spelled in Persian with ‘Noon’ rather than ‘Mim’,
similar to ‘Mu-n-bai’ instead of the phonetically closer ‘Mu-m-bai’ – and that
would make better sense in the context of the coinage, than ‘Nishini Sikka’.
Calicut was
captured by the British in 1790 and began to produce a new gold fanam, based on
a style of fanam produced prior to 1773 and widely used throughout southern
India. These tiny gold coins were called Vir
raya fanams from one of the titles of the local
Zamorin’s family [4].
Single, Half & Quarter Rupees – Alamgir II
(1754 to 1759) [5]
The issue of ‘crescent’-marked rupee coins starts with RY 5, at least 4
years prior to that listed by Pridmore. Pridmore completely missed the
identification of the ‘crescent’ on rupees and fractions in the name of Alamgir II as a privy mark for the
There are some more
varieties of Malabar rupees that Pridmore failed to note. These bear a striking
resemblance to 1/5th rupees of Types 5 and 6 in terms of execution.
They are also in the name of Alamgir II and retain
the RY 9, presumably as a frozen detail, but are much cruder in execution than
other rupees bearing the same date and listed by Pridmore. The noteworthy
difference (which is reflected in the 1/5th rupee design as well -
see reverse 4 below for details) is the differentiating mark on the reverse.
This is characteristically a flower with a stalk and two curves next to it. The
mint name is apparently ‘Munbai’ but all the other
traits of these coins conclusively point to the fact that they were not struck
at
Calcutta Mint. Rupees for Use on the
Malabar Coast – 1810 to 1813
Pridmore makes the following comment:
‘Machine struck rupees, undated, but impressed Zarb Munbai
= struck at
But I have not checked the records yet, so I’m not sure on what
authority he bases this.
Distinguishing features are the upside-down crescent and the neat
appearance of the coins.
Fifth
Rupees (Fanams) – c1792 to c1798
The discussion of the Malabar silver coinage is to be found on p. 114 of
Pridmore’s treatise. Having noted the fact that a denomination to the weight of a fifth of a rupee was not intended for circulation
in Bombay, he adduced evidence from Sir Walter Elliot’s book Coins of Southern India that the silver
or ‘Velli’ Fanam “as appears from the records in the Calicut Kacheri (=‘Office’) was originally
coined tentatively in Bombay in 1730 AD”. He further identified the earliest of
these issues as bearing a peculiar inscription on the obverse, which is derived
from a Mughal legend but which incorporates the English numeral ‘5’ in a
conspicuous position. Having noted that these coins have a fine calligraphy, a
Hijri date of 1131, a regnal year Ahd
(= first) and the mint name of ‘Munbai’, Pridmore
rightly concluded that the prototype for the design of these issues is a rupee
of Shahjahan II, struck at Bombay (Mumbai in the vernacular). An important
archival source is quoted to support the fact that the issue of these ‘fifth’
rupees, or ‘Billys’ as they were later called, was under way in December 1727
at the Bombay mint and that it was specifically being carried out for the Tellicherry factory [7].
This is where Pridmore’s accuracy ends as
far as analysing the coinage goes! His subsequent treatment of the Malabar
coins is uncharacteristically superficial and arbitrary. Elliot remarked,
“these old Velli Fanams had generally the numeral ‘5’ in English or Malayalim form” (Malayalim or
Malayalam is the local language of Kerala and has its own alphabet and
numbering system). Pridmore takes this remark prima facie and neatly groups the coins into three ‘distinct types’
–
First type: Nice round coins showing the
major portion of the die impression with the numeral ‘5’ in the ‘normal English
form’
Second type: Slightly smaller and thicker
coins, which now show a distinct style of design…. ‘The numeral ‘5’ is now in
the Malayalim form’.
Third type: Crude copies of the first and
second types.
There are many surprising elements in
Pridmore’s classification. Firstly, he fails to recognise that what Elliot
terms as the ‘Malayalim’ form of 5 is actually the
English numeral turned upside down. It only vaguely resembles the Malayalim numeral 5, which is:
Secondly, he notes the ‘distinct style’ of design but fails to translate
it into an aid for classification. As will be seen later, the design of the
Billys not only helps in classifying them but also offers important insights
into the chronology of British coinage in Malabar in general. Pridmore comments
that ‘once established, the only change made in these later issues is the AH
and Julus years, which relate to the reign of Muhammad
Shah. No attempt was made to correct the design to
correspond with the change in the name of the Emperor’. He therefore fails to
note that, although the Billys begin as a corruption of Shahjahan II’s issues,
at least some of them bear the name of another Mughal Emperor, Alamgir II. Curiously, he lists such a Billy in the
catalogue with other silver issues of Bombay in the name of Alamgir
II but leaves it without any comment.
Pridmore is at his worst when he tries to
attribute the categories he created for the Billys chronologically and by
location. Firstly, his views are based on the wrong premise that they have two
forms of the numeral five, one English and the other Malayalim.
He attributes the first type to the 1719-1730 period. This is interesting
because even though the coinage uses a 1719 issue as a prototype, the earliest
documentary reference is that of December 1727. Pridmore assumes that the
coinage actually began in 1719 or immediately thereafter, when there is nothing
to base this inference upon. He further comments that the coins were issued for
circulation from the Tellicherry factory, which is
correct – but treats them as replacement for gold fanams judging by the fact
that they “circulated as ‘Fanams’”. He therefore sees their issue as a measure
to replace the gold fanam (vide supra),
thereby ignoring the fact that the gold and silver fanams were two different
coins, albeit homonymous. He is obviously unaware of the fact that the
introduction of this denomination was a British response to an already
circulating silver coinage, namely the Cannanore fanams. This is where he fails
to take into account the context of coin circulation in Malabar – a shortcoming
that remains a constant feature of his views on the coinage.
He then takes the mention of a small
debasement (2.5%) in the Billys in the 1727 reference as a basis for the
attribution of the second type of these coins, with the so-called ‘Malayalim’ form of 5. The premise for this attribution is
flawed because Billys of his ‘second’ type show much more debasement in their
contents than the mere 2.5% mentioned in the reference. This fact can be
ascertained even with the naked eye.
There are many discrepancies between
Pridmore’s text and what he actually lists in the catalogue. Firstly the
arrangement of the catalogue, when it comes to these particular issues, is
somewhat tedious - Billys of the first type, with a clear date 1131 AH are
listed in the main section of Mughal style coinages of the Bombay Presidency in
the catalogue. Also listed there are those that allegedly bear the RYs
corresponding to Muhammad Shah’s reign. There is a
Billy in the name of Alamgir II that appears in the
same catalogue section but eludes any mention in the text. Then there is a jump
in the catalogue and all other varieties are consigned to the sub-section on
‘Malabar Coast’. Up to this point, the classification in three ‘distinct
types’, so evocatively suggested in the text, is nowhere reflected in the
catalogue. The coins listed in the ‘Malabar’ section of the catalogue are
clearly of the ‘second type’ as they have the so-called ‘Malayalim’
form of the numeral 5. A time bracket of nearly 65 years is suggested for these
coins, while only two actual varieties of coins with the ‘Malayalim’
numeral have been listed. It is evident that this number would fall short of
bridging, by any logic, such a long lapse of time – although it could be
attributed to Pridmore having found only two of the many, as yet undiscovered,
varieties. However, there is yet more confusion – a third coin attributed to
the same time bracket actually has the ‘English’ form of 5 and as such is a
misfit in the classification scheme!
The third ‘type’ of Billy that Pridmore
enlists in the text is actually supported by only one coin in the catalogue.
For some reason he remarks that ‘crude copies of the coin, or of the earlier
1/5th rupee, appear to be locally minted imitations, possibly struck
in the Calicut mint before the Company acquired control in 1793, or by the ‘Ali
Rajahs of Cannanore circa 1731-1788’. Here again he betrays his flaw of
treating the British coinage in isolation – there is no question of striking
any Billys at Calicut in the period he mentions, because Calicut remained
firmly under Mysore control for about 15 years before the British acquired it
in 1793. As such the only coins that were struck in this period at Calicut were
the Mysore coins – the fanams and other mainly copper issues mentioned above.
There is no evidence of any British monetary involvement at Calicut before the
Mysore occupation, and the mint under the Zamorins is accredited with minting
only a variety of ‘Vira Raya’ gold fanams. The ‘Ali Rajahs of Cannanore minted
their own silver coins to the same standard as that of the Billys and as such
there is no reason to believe that they copied the British issues. Pridmore has
actually listed a coin as of ‘Cannanore’ mint, but gives no substantiation of
his attribution, apart from the fact that the coin betrays what he calls
‘crudeness’ in execution as compared to the ‘second type’ of Billys. This, as
one can see, is clearly a qualitative assertion and as such cannot be taken as
an evidence for the attribution.
In relation to the early issues of the
Malabar Coast, Pridmore’s assessment of the later silver issues is much more
detailed and based on firmer foundations. This is the period in the aftermath
of the 1792 treaty with Mysore that gave the Company complete control of the
regions of Calicut and Cannanore. The British chose to re-instate the
respective ruling families, namely the Zamorins and the ‘Ali Rajahs, at both
these places but only in a nominal manner. The most important implication of
the Company assuming control of coinage was that it tried consciously to
substitute the gold fanams with silver coins – this was in accordance with the
company’s efforts to drive the gold fanams out of circulation because of the
economic impracticality that was involved in their use following a change in
the gold-silver price ratio. Although initially the Malabar Commission rejected
the proposal when it was referred to it, it was decided in 1799 to strike the
silver Billys. A mint was set up in Calicut and a completely new design was
adopted for the Billys. Rather than the usual design showing the name of the
Mughal Emperor, a legend that Pridmore read as ‘Nishini Sikka’ and roughly translated as ‘Revenue or Government coin’ was
placed on these coins. The mint name of these coins appears as ‘Talcheri’, and the other distinguishing feature not present
on any earlier coins was the inclusion of English letter ‘T’ followed by ‘99’
as an indication of the year of issue, 1799. In addition to this chronological
detail, a Hijri date of 1214 also appeared on the obverse.
In May 1800, the Malabar province was
transferred to the Government of the Madras Presidency. The issue of Billys under the Madras
government, dated 1805, had a different design. These coins had the name of the
Mughal Emperor, Shah Alam
II, and the mint name ‘Mumbai’ on the reverse, while the obverse depicted a
pair of scales, the letter ‘T’ and the AD date. The ‘T99’ and ‘T1805’ are the
last issues of Billys – ostensibly struck in Malabar and they are datable due
to the obvious chronological details they bear.
Apart from the fifth rupees or Billys, the
Malabar Coast region also had full rupees in circulation. The only mention that
Pridmore makes of these coins is while attributing and discussing a partially
machine struck issue of 1810-1813 period, struck at the Calcutta mint for
circulation in the Malabar region. He does not, however, explain why the
striking of rupees was undertaken specifically for the Malabar Coast at a time
when Billys happened to be the principal silver currency of the region. This
created a doubt as to whether he had missed any previous rupees struck for use
in the region. Upon further examination, this doubt was confirmed. We will come
to the identification and attribution of earlier rupees of the Malabar region
at a later stage in this paper.
Pridmore’s assessment of the copper coins of
Malabar mirrors his confusion regarding the Billys. He correctly attributes a
series of copper coins bearing the ‘balemark’ on the obverse and the AD date in
bold numerals on the reverse as Malabar issues. But one finds an exactly
similar, machine-struck coin dated 1798 attributed to Madras as a pattern. We
will discuss his views regarding copper coins for Malabar at an appropriate
later stage.
Reassessing the Malabar Coinage
In re-examining the coinage of Malabar, nearly 300 pieces of Billys were
examined and gaps in Pridmore’s classification became evident. Firstly,
contrary to Pridmore’s contention, many of these coins showed discernible
chronological details. Many coins showed RYs and the large number gave an
opportunity for them to be studied in such detail as would be useful to arrive
at a much finer classification than that attempted by Pridmore. The basis of
Pridmore’s grouping had to be discarded, because what he identified as a ‘Malayalim’ numeral 5 was in fact the English numeral turned
upside down. A set of ‘full die depictions’ was made of each obverse and
reverse, and a mix-and-match exercise was carried out to yield the most
comprehensive picture of the known varieties of Billys. The task of classifying
the Billys was limited to all those issues that predate the last two – the
‘T99’ and ‘T1805’ issues.
Unfortunately, the archival information on
the subject as quoted by Pridmore is not easily accessible, because he was
extremely careless about giving references to the details that he reproduced in
his book. He does mention, “Records have been traced in the Bombay mint
accounts of silver Fanams extending to the year 1796” – but gives neither the
details of these records nor the reference to enable one to trace them in the
myriad of records in the ‘Oriental and India Office Collection’. Perhaps a
sound comparison with archival material is desirable for this kind of
essentially numismatic analysis that has been carried out, but that will have
to be relegated to the future. The internal numismatic evidence that our study
provides is pretty well structured and as such leaves a few lacunae that may or
may not be filled with archival research. Having said that, some of the
archival material used by Pridmore has been traced and references are provided
where this occurs.
As Pridmore correctly
noted, the Billys have ‘distinct styles of execution’. This feature has been
used extensively in the classification and this, combined with the RY details
within each group served as a basis for arriving at a chronological sequence for
the coins.
It was noticed that there
exist nine varieties of obverses and several more varieties of reverse dies for
Billys that predate the ‘T99’ issue. Each of them has distinct features. Some
overlap occurs between these obverses and reverses and this helps to determine
the chronology. For instance, reverse 2 occurs with both obverse B and D1. This
overlap is shown in table 1.
Before proceeding to the
arguments supporting the proposed chronological sequence, it is necessary to
describe the different attributes of the various obverse and reverse varieties.
Matching these obverse and reverse designs with the actual specimens
available, both from reported sources and the large group of 300 examined, the
combinations shown in table 1 can be worked out to delineate the varieties of
Billys. The observations can be tabulated with reference to some of the obverse
and reverse characteristics as shown in table 2 below:
Table 1. Obverse
and Reverse Combinations
|
Type |
Obverse |
Reverse
|
RY
|
|
1 |
A |
1 |
1 |
|
1a |
A1 |
2.1 |
1, 22 |
|
1b |
A1 |
2.2 |
12?, 25, 30? |
|
2 |
B |
2 (2a, 2b, 2c) |
2, 3, 5, 6?, 9 |
|
3 |
C |
3 |
9 |
|
4 |
D1 |
2 |
9 |
|
5 |
D1 |
4 |
9 |
|
6 |
D2 |
4 |
9 |
|
7 |
D3 |
4A |
9 |
|
8 |
E |
5 |
9 |
|
9 |
F |
6 |
9 |
Table 2. Relationship of Obverse
and Reverse Varieties
Obv. Rev. |
Normal ‘5’
|
Inverted ‘5’
|
Top word ‘Ghazi’
|
Top word ‘Alamgir’
|
Top word ‘Manoos’
|
Top word
‘Shah Alam’ |
RY 1
|
Type 1
|
-
|
Type 1
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
RYs 2,3,5 and 9
|
Type 2
|
-
|
Type 2
|
Type 3
|
Type 4
|
-
|
RY9 (Frozen)
|
Type 3
|
Type 8, 9
|
-
|
Type 3?
|
Type 5,6,7,8
|
Type 9
|
Cluster of dots, or ‘flower’
|
Type 2, 3
|
Type 8, 9
|
Type 2
|
_
|
Type 4
|
Type 9
|
Flower with stalk
|
Type 1
|
Type 7
|
-
|
Type 3
|
Type 7
|
-
|
Flower with stalks and curves
|
Type 5
|
Type 6
|
-
|
-
|
Type 5, 6
|
-
|
