Catalog
88 Ratti - Hamsavati
| Issuer | Kingdom of Hamsavati |
|---|---|
| Year | 350-400 |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | Log in to see details |
| Diameter | Log in to see details |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Technique | Log in to see details |
| Orientation | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Mitch EA#517/18 |
| Obverse description | Central field features a standing anthropomorphic figure, possibly a deity or royal personage, depicted in frontal or three-quarter view with elaborate tiered headdress or nimbus rendered in concentric arched lines. The figure appears draped and is rendered in a stylized, archaic South Asian artistic tradition characteristic of early Mon coinage. The entire design is enclosed within a border of raised pellets arranged in a continuous ring near the coin's periphery. The hammered flan exhibits an irregular, slightly convex surface with typical die-struck relief. No legible inscription or legend is present on this side. |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Reverse description | Log in to see details |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Plain |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
Hamsavati — identified with the Mon kingdom centered near modern Thaton in Lower Burma — issued these silver punch-marked pieces during a period when Indian mercantile and religious networks were actively reshaping political authority across mainland Southeast Asia. The ratti unit itself derives from the weight of the Abrus precatorius seed, a standard carried overland and by sea from the Subcontinent.
Mitchell's Eastern Attribution series remains the primary reference for this type, though attribution of specific pieces continues to generate scholarly disagreement over which issues belong to Hamsavati proper versus contemporaneous Mon polities in the same region.