Rasmir » 21-July-2016 3:53pm

NM, 6xxAH

Vladimir Suchy » 21-July-2016 4:34pm

On obverse, above Kalimah, seems to be Ögedey's tamgha.

vaxtankava » 21-July-2016 9:20pm

As nper discussion on this coin at RASMIR.COM (Rus), final attribution accorded to this piece is "Badakhshan, Dawlatshah, 690AH" (thanks to experts "Rasmir" and "sveklavod" aka "dirhem").

Vladimir Suchy » 21-July-2016 10:06pm

Given link is not working - Извините, по вашему запросу ничего не найдено!

In any case this dirham bears legend

al-qá'án al-`ádil sikkah

and if it is dated 69x h. the mentioned qá'án was Qubilay.

charm » 21-July-2016 10:08pm

It works for users registered at rasmir.com.

Vladimir Suchy » 21-July-2016 10:19pm

Well, name of Šamsaddín Dawlatšáh b. `Alíšáh is on the obverse in circular legend. But like on #20981, there is no Čaghatayid tamgha - reference on this coin is to Qubilay qa'an. It is strange that the coins where is nothing indicating their connection to s.c. "Great Mongols" are referred to them and the coin which claims to be that of qa'an is in category of subordinate governor of subordinate dynasty.

charm » 22-July-2016 8:24am

Comments by P.Petrov: If at the coin of 690s absent Chaghatayid in Badakhshan's tamgha and is citing qa'an al-adil - this means the riot against Chaghatayids power or flirting and submission to Ilkhans.
Is it real or fictitious date on the coin - we do not know now. But the riot was brutally suppressed - this can be seen by coins. I've studied this question in the history of coinage in Badakshan during Mongols.
We have to recollect that in 693 coins in Badakshan were struck from the name of Nawruz and Qaidu's tamgha. This is not accident.
Formally this coin should be defined as Ilkhan's or Badakhshan shah's issue.

charm » 22-July-2016 8:42am

We see that in certain periods there were different signs of vassalitet of Badakshan shahs:
- Dawlatshah, 690-691, Duwa's tamgha;
- Dawlatshah, 692, qa'an al-adil title;
- Nawruz, 693, Qaidu's tamgha;
- `Alishah II, fl. 710s, no tamgha;
- Arghunshah, 710?, Duwa's tamgha;
- Bakht, Duwa's tamgha;
- Shah Baha al-Din, fl. 745-759, no tamgha;
- Bahramshah, fl. 760-770s, no tamgha.

Perhaps it is better to move whole sub-section to the general section of Islamic coinage with cross-links from Chaghatayids, Ilkhans and Great Mongols, and name it 'Shahs of Badakshan'.

charm » 22-July-2016 8:47am

Second decision is to leave it as is, but with adding of sub-section for riot in 692, as we have Abbasid revolution sections in Abbasids or rebels in the Yuan dynasty section etc.

Vladimir Suchy » 22-July-2016 11:33am

Well as mentioned above on this coin is something which could be Ögedeyid, but not Qaydu's tamgha (above Kalimah) as well.

BTW, who was a progenitor of Badakhšán's dynasty of rulers. Were they Čingizids/Čaghatayids at all?

"flirting and submission to Ilkhans" is fictious since nothing on known relevant coinage supports it.

vaxtankava » 22-July-2016 12:12pm

Dear Vladimir, I think, its some kind of floral element above Kalima, although it really resembles S-shaped tamgha of Ögedei. A sort of ornament is also here.
As for Qaydu - he was also Ögedeyid, grandson of Ögedei Khan.

Vladimir Suchy » 22-July-2016 5:42pm

Dear vaxtankava, in my opinion on #157669 is also Ögedey's tamgha, you ascribed this coin to the reign of this qá'án, so why it would be "a sort of ornament"?

vaxtankava » 22-July-2016 6:20pm

Dear Vladimir, I was hesitant to assume #157669 has a tamgha, since this coin's field contains other elements of floral nature, and this "tamgha" could be one of those.
But "tamgha" on #170466 is actually only one decorative element present, so, I think it may be another indication it's indeed a tamgha.

vaxtankava » 27-July-2017 8:11pm

Unearthed in Takhar province, Northeast of Afghanistan.

A couple of coins of this type offered at SARC Auc., identified as "GREAT MONGOLS: Anonymous...the first reported silver coins of Badakhshan for the Great Mongol period".