Governors and Sultans of Bengal up to the Mughal Conquest

[neolithic]

The Mahasthan Hoard II of Silver Punch-Marked Coins



Contents: Preface. Abbreviations. Key terms. 1. Introduction. 2. A brief description of punch marked coin. 3. Methodology. 4. Description, analysis and discussion of Mahasthan Hoard II. 5. Conclusion. Annexure I. Obverse symbols. Annexure II. Reverse symbols. Annexure III. Catalogue of Mahasthan Hoard II. Plates of coins of Mahasthan Hoard II. Bibliography. Index.

Mahasthan Hoard II (275 coins) is the grand collection of punch marked coins in Bangladesh. The main focus of this research is to catalogue and classify the coins of this hoard. A descriptive and illustrated catalogue of this hoard is prepared and attached in annexure III. It may serve the future researchers as a useful resources.

In respect of symbol, symbol orientation and weight standard, it seemed that all the coins of Mahasthan Hoard II are imperial issues. Among the issues thirty two coins are of the Pre-Mauryan dynasties i.e. two coins of the Brihadratha, one coin of the Sisunaga and twenty-nine coins of the Nanda dynasty. Except these thirty two coins, no other archaeological or literary evidence of the above mentioned three dynasties are found in Bangladesh. The hoard represents sixty five types of imperial punch marked coins. These types of coins are well distributed in the entire Indian sub-continent. These factors suggest that the Mahasthan region of Bangladesh seemed to be a part of all Indian currency system during the circulation period of punch marked coins i.e. in the Early Historic period.

Related link

 

[neolithic]

Historical Coins
(post by Webmaster about coins of Bengal and it mentions "Bengal" 134 times)

 

[eastwatch]

Why do Muslims in our sub-continent always in a perpetual identity crises? Admit that you are basically people of the Indian sub-continent who converted or were converted and get over your pan Arabic obsession.

Considering how the Arabs treat you, you are much better off with your existing identity instead of creating a make believe one

We are talking here about the historical events. It is not about to establish identity. Like in every society in the older days people from dry and parched land moved towards the lands of green with ample food. This is how stock of the population changed a bit or two here and there. The same happened also in Bengal.

Is it a crime to discuss about the past? Excuse me, why should it hurt you if Arabs hate us? We also despise them, the same as many of us hate Indians. But, history is history. Should we refrain from talking about India when we discuss history of Bengal only because we hate Indians? Please talk sense.

 

[khair_ctg]

We are talking here about the historical events. It is not about to establish identity. Like in every society in the older days people from dry and parched land moved towards the lands of green with ample food. This is how stock of the population changed a bit or two here and there. The same happened also in Bengal.

Is it a crime to discuss about the past? Excuse me, why should it hurt you if Arabs hate us? We also despise them, the same as many of us hate Indians. But, history is history. Should we refrain from talking about India when we discuss history of Bengal only because we hate Indians? Please talk sense.

we don't despise Arabs

And you are much better off ignoring his hateful comments. I still hope Al-Zakir will realize someday that peaceful "non-allergic" coexistence with non-muslim people and "scripts" is possible.

what you mean is co-existence with Hindu supremacy, which is not justifiable. only people who are allergic to Muslim scripts (in a broader sense) are people who are allergic about coexistence