Merge Tinnevelly with arcot

There are multiple issues with this category: 

Numista › Catalog › India › Indian states › Tinnevelly
 

Tinnevelly is modern day Tirunalvelli

The coins in there say Tiruchchirappalli EIC (Ganesha). Tiruchirapalli is modern day Trichy. 
 

Trichy is close to Madurai. It has a famous fort that was the capital of the Madurai Nayaks. The last Nayak queen was cheated by Chanda Sahib, pretender to the Arcot throne. He even declared himself Sultan of Madurai according to the book by RajMohan Gandhi. This then eventually ended up with Wallajah, Nawab of Arcot After the Carnatic Wars. He set up his capital there and moved it from Arcot. 
 

Tirunalvelli is further down south and is famous for the polygar wars.  This is the land of Puli Thevar and Veerapandiya Kattabowman.
 

Alternatively these coins could belong to the Madurai Nayaks.  So either Nayaks or Arcot. There was no independent Trichy or Tirunalvelli kingdom

Thank you for pointing this out.

First, what I could find on Tinnevelly.  The KM catalog has Tinnevelly as an Independent Kingdom with a few small copper issues (kasu, 2 kasu).  Zeno does not have a section for it under India > Local and Princely States > Peninsular . 

The coins listed in KM can be found attributed to Tinnevelly in auction sales:

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=14117691 ;

https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=2606800

So, perhaps we keep this section.

But as you say, the coins we have in this section are attributed as Tiruchirappally, and do not fit the description of the Tinnevelly coins listed in KM. 

I cannot find small coppers like this on acsearch attributed as Tiruchchirappally (or Tirchanapally).  But  there is some info on Zeno on them, and there is also rupee attributed to this mint under the Mughal Empire:  https://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=186883 , https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=3562891  

@sujit_kumar   do you think these coins should be moved?  And does Mughal Empire make sense, or some other place?

Oh! The Mughals never got down to Trichy.  These area where under Vijaynagara. After Vijaynagara, the Madurai Nayak took over.  Now the Nayak might have pledged allegiance to the Golconda sultanate. And when they fell to Aurangazeb, he appointed the Nawab of Carnatic who reported to Nizam of Hyderabad. But, the Nawab struggled to get these areas to pay taxes.

So the equivalent of “Mughals” in this area was the Nawab of Arcot

Thank you.

It looks like there was Mughal control of the area only very briefly, so as you say this is not the correct placement in the catalog.  

Here is the comment from the Zeno listing for the rupee I mentioned:

Tirchanapali' on the coin is modern Tiruchchirappalli. Extremely rare Mughal style coins were struck bearing this mint-name after 1693-94 when Mughal forces under Zulfiqar Khan, pursuing a campaign against the Maratha Chhatrapati Rajaram besieged at Gingee, threatened Queen Mangammal, the regent of the Nayaka kingdom of Madurai, whose capital at the time was based at Tiruchi. The queen warded off the Mughal danger by paying a tribute, some of which might have been paid in form of these coins which were struck to acknowledge her obeisance to the Mughals.

If that’s the genesis of this category then it should be Nayaks of Madurai. She was the last regent. 
 

Also unrelated: I am trying to develop a new mental model (probably over simplified) on how a lot of conquests snd control worked back in the days :) My mental model is that these kingdoms were less nation states and more mafia families. So the Mughal mafia family sent their henchmen down south to shakedown the local mafia there :)  This seems pretty routine and core to their business models 

@Quant-Geek would have strong POV since he maintains the Zeno categories 

Let's not start changing things until we get Zeno.ru updated. Its a complicated region with multiple rulers in play. Due to this, the issuance of coins gets really complicated. Once I get the categories setup across Southern India in Zeno.ru, then we can replicate it here, if you like. Before that, it best to leave it alone…

But trichy coins today are under thirunelvelli :) We should at least fix that 

I see what you are saying. Tinnevelly should be renamed to Tiruchirappalli and be added as a sub-section under the East India Company instead as the coins under it are early EIC coins indicating the allegiance to the “company”.

You mean Madras Presidency  :) 

Sramsrin

You mean Madras Presidency  :) 

Correct. These coins were minted around 1801 - 1835, prior to the ubiquitous 1835 issues that standardized the coinage. This should be separated from those coins. 

If there were coins struck by Tinnevelly, we can keep that section, but move the current Tiruchirappalli coins.  According to KM, there are a few Tinnevelly Princely State coins.

If KM is wrong about Tinnevelly, then we proceed differently.  

In any event, if Tiuchirappalli was a local mint in the Madras Presidency, we can just move the coins there, leaving the mint name in their titles, and adding the date range provided by Quant-Geek.  From the Wikipedia article, it soulds like it was a leading city of the Madras Presidency:

The Carnatic kingdom was annexed by the British  in July 1801 as a consequence of the discovery of collusion between Tipu Sultan—an enemy of the British—and Undat Ul-Umra, son of Wallajah and the Nawab at the time, during the Fourth ANglo-Mysore War. Trichinopoly was incorporated into the Madras Presidency the same year, and the district of Trichinopoly was formed, with the city of Trichinopoly (or Tiruchirappalli) as its capital

We would create a sub-section only if it was an independent issuer of some kind.  If these belonged to a different currency system than the later Madras coins, we can segregate them that way.  

I’ll let the experts here take the final call on whether it should be a sub category under Madras Presidency. I think it should be. Primarily because I feel we will revisit this in a few years 

I looked at https://a.co/d/07dwYqHj and there are no mention of these coins.   I wonder if we should publish a paper with these issues. @Quant-Geek i couldnt find these in Zeno. Just curious why we think it’s EIC issues 

Example: https://www.zeno.ru/showphoto.php?photo=75244

is listed under Arcot x Mufaz Khan. 

It depends on the coins, but most of the have “Company” in Persian to reflect the East India Company after it was seceded to them.  These have already been published accordingly in Mitchiner and other sources.

https://en.numista.com/forum/topic174861.html Bruh thread already made, and tinnevely is an actual issuer that is temporarily being used to store the coins of trichuiliapilay. However, I don't know any for certain issues of tinnevely, as the only difference is the different way of writing “sri vira”, regards 

https://archive.org/details/studies-in-vijayanagar-coins/page/n3/mode/2up

could not find the other book written by Military genral Mr R J P for the coinage of South India

@Coinwalla i seem to ask the same thing about a week later :) you are one step ahead of me

@Quant-Geek  where does the “shah e munbai” inscription come from as the reverse of the trichipilai coins seem to feature a legend relatable to N#144815, regards 

Currently traveling, so I am away from my books. Once I return, I'll respond accordingly…