Catalogus
Waarom registreren? Alleen om bots buiten ons catalogus te houden. Uw e-mail blijft privé — we delen het nooit en sturen u niets zonder uw toestemming. Dat garanderen wij u!
| Uitgever | Chagatai Khanate - Ghazna Mint |
|---|---|
| Jaar | 1260 |
| Type | Log in om details te zien |
| Waarde | Jital (1⁄50) |
| Valuta | Log in om details te zien |
| Samenstelling | Log in om details te zien |
| Gewicht | Log in om details te zien |
| Diameter | Log in om details te zien |
| Dikte | Log in om details te zien |
| Vorm | Log in om details te zien |
| Techniek | Log in om details te zien |
| Oriëntatie | Log in om details te zien |
| Graveur(s) | Log in om details te zien |
| In omloop tot | Log in om details te zien |
| Referentie(s) | Log in om details te zien |
| Beschrijving voorzijde | Log in om details te zien |
|---|---|
| Schrift voorzijde | Log in om details te zien |
| Opschrift voorzijde | Log in om details te zien |
| Beschrijving keerzijde | A bold Arabic inscription occupies the central field within a square frame or cartouche, the text rendered in angular Kufic-influenced script. The area between the square border and the coin's irregular outer edge is filled with decorative foliate or geometric elements. The overall layout is typical of anonymous Chagatai jitals struck at Ghazna, with strong central legend placement and characteristic billon surface oxidation. |
| Schrift keerzijde | Log in om details te zien |
| Opschrift keerzijde | Log in om details te zien |
| Rand | Plain |
| Muntplaats | Log in om details te zien |
| Oplage | Log in om details te zien |
| Aanvullende informatie |
The anonymous "Jou" jitals of Ghazna were struck during one of the most administratively fractured periods in the region's history — the 1260s saw Mongol authority over the former Ghaznavid heartland contested between the Chagatai Khanate and the Ilkhanate following the death of Möngke Khan and the civil war that split the empire. Ghazna itself changed hands more than once in these decades, and the anonymity of this issue likely reflects deliberate ambiguity about which Mongol overlord was formally recognized at the mint.