Indian Antiquary Vol 57

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, Krishnaswami Aiyangar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 56

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
-
[ MARCH, 1928
was under the Government of Bengal (or Delhi), or to the period in which the Arakanese sovereigns learnt the kingly practice of issuing coins after the fashion of Bengal, when they held the country under their sway during the reigns of Gaulaya, Datha-Raza, Midzutheng, Alaumaphyu, Mengdi 38 and others." Of the third class he writes :-" The reason may be that either the Kings of Bangal were losing their power over the sovereigns of Arakan or that the latter had improved the art of coinage. These coins date from B.E. 863 (A.D. 1501) or B.E. 963 (A.D. 1601)." The fourth class he says "shows the time that the Arakanese declared their independence of the Bengal Kings or the improvement they made on the previous coins by issuing coinage with purely Burmese characters, and they date from B.E. 1000 (A.D. 1638)."
He then disagrees with Phayre and examines his statement as to the date which Arakanese Kings put on their coins. This he says was "the date of their accession to the throne." It certainly was so as regards the Alompra Dynasty at Amarapura and Mandalay. And then he says that out of 19 coins shown by Phayre, 18 were so dated, and on the odd coin he has an arresting paragraph.
"The other coin reads B.E. 863 as well as B.E. 963. If it were the former then we have a King Meng-ra-dza (Minraza), who came to the throne in that year; but if the latter, then we have no King, to my knowledge (so far as I know], who ascended the throne in B.E. 963. In B.E. 955 (A.D. 1583) Meng-ra-dzâgyi (Minrazaji] became king, and it is supposed by General Sir A. P. Phayre that the coin in question was struck during the eight years of his reign, and thus he held that in some instances the coins bear the date of their coinage .... With all respect for his authority, I am inclined to think that this conclusion is based upon very meagre evidence."
On Feb. 2nd, 1892, I wrote the following letter to the Rangoon Gazette regarding Mr. Htoon Chan's remarks "With reference to Mr. Htoon Chan's interesting notes on Arakanese coinage, I doubt if any of the Persian or Nagari legends are really illegible. Reading coin legends is merely a question of patience and research. With regard to the Arakanese and similar issues, I would remark that we must not attach too much value to the coins as proof of history. The coinages of Oriental minor dynasties are very apt to lead one astray in that respect. What really happens now, and no doubt has happened in the past, is that the ruler issuing the coinage originally either copies as nearly as possible that of his suzerain or of his chief neighbour. Sometimes he merely copies the most famous coin current among his people. His object is, and was, to get currency for, and acknowledgment of, his coins. His successors copy him as nearly as possible with the same views.
“So much has the currency of coins affected rude issues that in India we have the curious instance of the early Musalman conquerors of the Panjab copying the issues of the Hindu kings, whose territories they had overrun. So untrue to actual facts has the blind copying of predecessors been that Raja Mangal Singh of Jaipur, a subordinate of the British Government, struck all his coins from 1837 to 1857 in the name of Bahadur Shah, the last king of Delhi, though Bahadur Shah never was at any time his suzerain. The present Rajas of the Panjab, who are allowed to coin, still [1892] mostly issue their coins as from the fourth year of Ahmad Shah Durrânî, which was 1751. But Ahmad Shah could have only been, even by courtesy, their Suzerain for a short time, and they have been under British rule these many years. This species of false history is almost universal in the coinage of the minor Oriental mints and is not confined by any means to India. The coins of Ancient Britain, for instance, were largely copies of the stater of Philip of Macedon.
"Now the Persian and Nagarî issues of the Arakan kings are close copies of the Bengal issues of certain periods, and probably date from after the date of the coins that were copied. This gives a general clue as to date and perhaps as to the meaning of the "illegible" legends.
38 Gaulaya, Dat'aráza, Mizůthin, Alåmmap'yu and Mindi.