1611 AD Kishangarh state founded.
1644 – 1658 Rup Singh
Jun 1658 - Oct 1706 Man Singh (d. 1706)
Oct 1706 - Apr 1748 Raj Singh (b. 1674 - d. 1748)
1748 – 1781 Bahadur Singh (d. 1781)
(in opposition to 1756; from 1756 raja of Roopnagar)
(raja of Roopnagar; regent for Sawant 1756-65)
22 May 1839 -
Oct 1926 -
is a state of over 850 square miles in central Rajasthan, located between 25°
49’ and 26° 59’ N. and 70° 40’ and 75° 11’ E.
Jaipur is to the east,
The chiefs are Rathor Rajputs and are decended from
Raja Udai Singh of
Raj Singh (1706-1748 AD) fought with Shah Alam Bahadur at Jajjau during the war of succession following Aurangzeb’s death. He was wounded but survived, and was awarded more land, some of which was later lost to Jaipur. His son, Sawant Singh, gave half the kingdom to his younger brother, but soon retired to live a religious life at Bindraban, where he died in 1764 AD. His son, Sardar Singh ruled for two years, and his successor ruled the re-united territory until 1781, when he died.
Then came Kalyan Singh
(1797 – 1832 AD, who brought the state under British protection in 1818
AD. He seems to have been an unstable
character, and, after getting into disputes with his nobles, he fled to
A Mule of Kishangarh 
Kishangarh (or Kishengarh)
was a small State on the south-western border of its much larger neighbour,
Jaipur, and not far from
The first known coins of Kishangarh were dump copper takkas (undated), struck during and after the rule, and in the name of the Mughal Emperor, Muhammad Akbar II (1806-1837 AD). These coins are crude copies of the then-current coins of Jaipur (paisas numbered KM.35 in SAC). The Maharajas during this period were Kalyan Singh (1797-1832AD) and Mokham Singh (1832-1841AD), but their names never appeared on the coins.
The first Maharaja to put his own name on coins of this
state was Prithvi Singh (1841-1879AD), who struck
silver rupees and gold mohurs (very rare) with his
name alongside that of Queen
In addition to these series, which can obviously be positively attributed to the rulers under whose authority they were issued, there were two series of undated coins, without any clue to the issuer. These anonymous coins are published in the Krause-Mishler catalogues as KM.M7 to M9, and KM.M10 to M13 under the headings “First -” and “Second Anonymous Series”.
I have recently seen and photographed a half-rupee which has the obverse of the “Chandi” (which means Silver), or “First Anonymous Series” in the KM catalogues, KM.M9. This is coupled with the reverse of the Madan Singh half-rupee KM.A3 (i). Hence it is, in effect, a “Chandi” series coin with the name of Madan Singh (partly) readable on the reverse.
There would seem to be three possible explanations for the existence of this coin.
1). The coin is a mule in the generally accepted meaning of the word, and, as such, could be taken as confirmation that the authors of SAC have got it right when they describe the “Chandi” series as the “First” anonymous series. It also suggests that the mule here described was most likely struck during the first few months of Yagha Narayan Singh’s reign (1926-1938AD), and before the withdrawal and destruction of the dies prepared for his predecessor, Madan Singh. To the best of my knowledge, it has never been positively determined whether the description “First” and “Second” Anonymous series used by KM are accurate or not. If this scenario is correct, this could be taken as evidence that they are.
2). Could it be that the “Chandi” dies were introduced towards the end of Madan Singh’s reign, and some coins were struck legitimately using these dies, and that the coin now under discussion is therefore not anonymous at all? Nor would it be a mule, but a new type, if this proposition is the right one.
3). There is, of course, another, and probably a better explanation. It seems that both the anonymous series were struck concurrently, just after the Mint was officially closed in about 1910AD. The output received only limited circulation (if any), being primarily intended for use as “donatives” , or token pieces struck to order, and used principally in wedding ceremonies where ‘old’ rupees retained a ceremonial worth. Smaller fractional denominations were frequently used for jewellery, coat buttons and so on (ii). The Hindi word ‘chandodi’, in Rajasthan, referred to such hand-made, ‘dump-style’ rupees as distinct from the machine-struck specie from the new British mints, which had largely ousted hand-made coins from daily use throughout the sub-continent by this time. Mr Shailendra Bhandere is of the opinion that the word ‘chandi’ on the reverse of ‘first-series’ coins alludes to the fact that pieces so marked were dump-style and not machine-struck , as well as indicating their unofficial or bullion status. We might, perhaps, refer to them as NCLT issues. (iii). The two anonymous series were struck concurrently after the closure of the mint (about 1910AD vide supra), and under these circumstances, with dies of at least two series being in use at the same time and in the same place, without strict official oversight, mules would be expected to occur, and may not be at all uncommon. “To err is human….” (iii)
Of the three scenarios suggested above, perhaps the most likely is the third. Unless someone out there has a better suggestion……………
(i) SAC by Krause Publications, Iola, 1981. (Mr William Spengler was largely responsible, with others, for the excellent and well-researched I.N.S. section, which remains, in its updated form, the standard work for many of the Native States series).
(ii) Shailendre Bhandare, personal correspondence, 2004, used here with the permission of Mr Bhandere.
(iii) Anonymous and undated.
Any further information which can throw any light on the introduction (and usage and destruction) dates of the “Anonymous Series” dies involved would be greatly appreciated by the writer who can be contacted by e-mail at:
Any material supplied, if unpublished at the time, will, with the supplier’s permission, be included in any future article, and duly acknowledged.
Thanks are due to Stan Goron and Shailendre Bhandare, whose help and guidance in the writing of this note is hereby gratefully acknowledged.
 Barry Tabor