^{page 145 note 1} J. A. S. Bengal, 1864, p. 480.

^{page 145 note 2} Col. J. C. Haughton, to whom we are mainly indebted for the knowledge of this trouvaille, has been so obliging as to furnish me with some interesting details of the site of discovery and illustrations of the neighbouring localities. Col. Haughton writes:—“ The place where the coin was found is about three miles S.W. of Deenhatta, not far from the Temple of Kunteswaree (or Komit-Eswaree) on the banks of the river Dhurla. Near to this temple is a place called Gosain Moraee, a short distance from which are the ruins of Kuntesur Raja's capital called Kunteswaree-Pat, consisting of a mound of considerable extent, which has been surrounded with several ditches and walls, which are again protected at the distance, of a mile or two by enormous mounds of nearly 100 feet high. The brass vessels, in which the treasure was deposited, were ordinary brass lotahs, to which the top or lip had not been fixed, but in lieu thereof the vessels were covered by canister tops, secured by an iron spike passing from side to side.”

^{page 146 note 1} I wish to explain the reservations I make in thus stating this total below that given in Rajendra lál's list of 150 coins of seven Dehli kirgs (J.A.S.B., September, 1864, p. 481Google Scholar). In the first place, I greatly mistrust the reading of the sixth king's title. Muhammad bin Tughlak was called Fakhr-ud dín Júnah in his youth only; on his first mission to the Dakhin in 721 A.H. the higher title of Ulugh Khán was conferred upon him by his father, but from the date of his accession to the throne of Hindustan, he contented himself with the use of his simple name and patronymic; no longer the “glory of the faith,” he was the far more humble, or the conventional (Zíá-i-Barni, Calcutta edit., p. 196Google Scholar), both of which were so persistently copied by the independent Bengal Sultan. Certainly no such title as occurs on any of the specimens of the Kooch Bahár collection, that the Bábu has selected for Col. Guthrie, with the exception of those bearing the names of Fakhr-ud-dín Mubárak Sháh.

The second question, of the altogether improbable intrusion of coins of Muhammad ’A'dil Sháh (“new type”), I must meet in a more direct way, by assigning the supposed examples of his money to the potentate from whose mints they really came, that is, Ikhtíár-ud-dín GHÁZí Shah (No. vii. infra), giving a difference in the age of the two kings, as far as their epochs affect the probable date of the concealment of this trouvaille, of more than two centuries (753 A.H. against 960 A.H.). The Bábu has himself discovered his early error of making Shams-ud-dí Fírúz, one of the Dehlí Patháns (as reported in the local news-papers), and transferred him, in the printed proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, to an anomalous position at the end of the Bengal Patháns (p. 483), while omitting to deduct him from the total number of “ eight Dehlí Patháns,” which reckoning has been allowed to stand at p. 480. In the matter of date, we are not informed why this king should be assigned to A.D. 1491, instead of to the true 1320 A.D. which history claims for him.

^{page 147 note 1} Minháj-ul-Siráj, who was resident in Lakhnanti in A.H. 641, writes Tabakát-i-Násiri, p. 149, Calcutta printed edition (1864)Google Scholar. Ibn Batutah gives an account of the collection of the cowrie shells in the Maldive Islands, from whence they were exported to Bengal in exchange for rice; the gradational quantities and values are detailed as follows: =100 cowries. =700. = 12000. =100,000, four bustús were estimated as worth one gold dinár; but the rate of exchange varied considerably, so that occasionally a dinár would purchase as many as twelve bustús, or twelve laks of cowries! (French edit., iv., p. 121.Google ScholarLee's Translation, p. 178.Google Scholar), SirHenry, Elliot mentions that “ in India, in 1740Google Scholar, a rupee exchanged for 2,400 cowries; in 1766, for 2,560 cowries; and (in 1845) as many as 6,500 could be obtained for a rupee.”

Glossary of Indian Terms, p. 373. They were estimated in the currency scheme of 1833 at 6,400 per rupee.—Prinsep's U.T., p. 2.Google ScholarRennell, Major, who was in Silhet in 1767–1768Google Scholar, speaking of the cowrie money, remarks: “I found no other currency of any kind in the country; and upon an occasion when an increase in the revenue of the province was enforced, several boat loads (not less than 50 tons each) were collected and sent down the Burrampooter to Dacca.” As late as 1801 the revenues of the British district of Silhet “were collected in cowries, which was also the general medium of all pecuniary trans-actions, and a considerable expense was then incurred by Government in effecting their conversion into bullion.”—Hindostan, Hamilton's, London, 1820., i. p. 195.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 1} J.R.A.S., vol. i., N.S., p. 473–4.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 1} The name is written in Kutb-ud-dín Aibek's inscription on the mosque at Dehli. (Prinsep's Essays, i. 32Google Scholar). The Táj-ul-Maásir and other native authorities give the word as Hasan Nizámi, the author of the former work, mentions that Kubáchah, ruler of Sind, sent his son with an offering of 100 láks of Dehli-wáls to Altamsh, and no less than 500 láks of the same description of coin were eventually found in Kubáchah's treasury, many of which were probably struck in his own mints. (See Ariana Antiqua, pl. xx., fig. 19; J.A.S.B., iv.Google Scholar, pl. 37, figs. 28, 29, 47; and Prinsep's Essays, iGoogle Scholar., pl. xxvi., figs. 28, 29, 47.)

^{page 149 note 2} Erskine derives this name from the Chagatai Túrki word, tang, “white” (History of India under Báber. London, 1854, vol. i. p. 546Google Scholar). Vullers gives a different and clearly preferable derivation in (fort. ex. S. tenuis, suff. 8). Ibn Batutah carefully preserves the orthography as S. and

^{page 150 note 1} In attempting to ascertain the relation of the weights of ancient and modern days, and to follow the changes that time and local custom may have in-troduced into the static laws of India, the capital point to be determined is the true weight of the rati, as it was understood and accepted when the initiatory metric system was in course of formation. Two different elements have hitherto obstructed any satisfactory settlement of the intrinsic measure of this primary unit—the one, the irregularity of the weight of the gunja seeds themselves, which vary with localities and other incidental circumstances of growth;٭ the other, the importance of which has been rather overlooked, that the modifications in the higher standards, introduced from time to time by despotic authority, were never accompanied by any rise or fall in the nominal total of ratis which went to form the altered integer. From these and other causes the rate of the rati has been variously estimated as 1·3125 grains, 1·875 grains, 1·953 grains, and even as high as 2·25 grains.

We have Manu's authority for the fact that 32 ratis went to the old silver dharana or puráṇa, and we are instructed by his commentator, in a needlessly complicated sum, that the kársha was composed of 80 ratis of copper. We have likewise seen that this kársha constituted a commercial static measure, its double character as a coin and as a weight being well calculated to ensure its fixity and uniformity in either capacity within the range of its circulation. I shall be able to show that this exact weight retained so distinct a place in the fiscal history of the metropolis of Hindustán, that in the revision and re-adjustment of the coinage which took place under Muhammad bin Tughlak, in A.D. 1325, this integer was revived in the form of silver coin, and was further retained as a mint standard by his successors, till Shír Sháh re-modelled the currency about the middle of the sixteenth century. In the same way I have already demonstrated elsewhere, in illustration of an independent question, that a coin retaining with singular fidelity the ponderable ratio of the ancient puráṇa, was concurrent with the restored kársha under Fírúz Sháh (A.D. 1351–1388) and other kings. And to complete the intermediate link, I may cite the fact that when the effects of Greek and Scythian interference had passed away, the 32-rati puráṇa re-appeared in the Punjab and Northern India, as the silver currency of the local dynasty of Syála and Samanta Deva, and furnished in its style and devices the prototype of the Dehli CHOHÁN series of “Bull and Horseman” coins, the Dehliwálas, which were retained, unaltered in weight, by the Muhammadans, in joint circulation with the silver double Dirhams of 174 grains of the:r own system

Extant specimens of Syála's coins in the British Museum weigh 54·4 grains and up wards.

If this double series of weights, extending over an interval of time represented by 24 or 25 centuries, and narrowed to an almost identical locality, are found not only to accord with exactitude in themselves, but to approach the only rational solution of the given quantities, the case may be taken as proved.

The ancient puráṇa hall-marked silver pieces range as high as 55 grains; copper coins of Rdmadata are extant of 137·5 grains; and other early coins of about 70 grains; while, in parallel exemplification, the latter standard weights, under the Muhammadans at Dehli, are found to be 56 and 140 grains. Hence— 140÷80 ratis= 1·75 grains 56÷32 „ =1·75 „ and this is the weight 1 propose to assign to the original rati; there may be some doubt about the second decimal, as we are not bound to demand an exact sum of even grains, but the 1.7 may be accepted with full confidence, leaving the hundred at discretion, though from preference, as well as for simplicity of con-version of figures, I adhere to the Under this system, then, the definition of each ancient weight by modern grains will stand as follows:— Numismatic chronicle, vol. iv, N.S. p. 131, 03, 1864.Google Scholar

*Colebrooke, , As. Res. v. 93Google Scholar.

†SirJones, W., As. Res., ii. 154Google Scholar, “Rati= 1 15/16 of a grain.” Prinsep, U. T. (180÷96); Jervis, , Weights of Konkan, p. 40;Google Scholar Wilson, Glossary, sub voce Rati.

‡Num. Chron., xv., notes, pp. 138, 153Google Scholar, etc.

§J. A. S. Bengal, iv. 674;Google ScholarJ. R. A. S., ix. 177Google Scholar; Ariana Antigua, p. 428;Google ScholarPrinsep's Essays, i. 313.Google Scholar

║N. C., xv. 136Google Scholar; Prinsep's Essays, U. T., p. 70.Google Scholar

¶Prinsep's Essays, i. p. 216Google Scholar, pl. xx., figs. 47, 48.:

^{page 151 note 1} General Cunningham's deductions are founded on the following estimates: —“ I have been collecting materials for the same subject [Indian Weights] for nearly twenty years, and I have made many curious discoveries. I see that Mr. Thomas quotes Sir William Jones as fixing the weight of the Krisnnala, or Rati seed, at grain; but I am satisfied that this is a simple misprint of Jones's manuscript for or 1·833 grain, which is as nearly as possible the average weight of thousands of seeds which I have tested. The great unit of mediæval and modern times is the táka of not less than 145 grains, of which six make the chha-táka or chhatak, equal to 870 grains, or nearly two ounces; and 100 make the sataka, or ser, the derivation being sat-táka, or 100 tákas. For convenience I have taken, in all my calculations, the rati seed at 1·8229 grain. Then 80 ratis or 145·832 was the weight of the tangka of copper, and also of the golden suvarna, which multiplied by six gives 874·99 grains, or exactly two ounces for the chhatáka or chhatak.”—J.A.S. Bengal, 1865, page 46.Google Scholar

Mr. N. S. Maskelyne, of the Mineral Department, British Museum, Who, some time ago, entered into an elaborate series of comparisons of Oriental weights, with a view to determine the identity of one of our most celebrated Indian diamonds, has been so obliging as to drdw up for me the following memorandum, exhibiting the bearing of an entirely independent set of data upon the question under review, the true weight of the Indian Rati. The value of this contribution in itself, and the difficulty of doing justice to it in an abstract, must plead my excuse for printing it in extenso in this place:—

I shall confine my answer to your question about the rati to the estimate of it as derived from the Mishkâl. The other channel of enquiry, that namely of Hindoo metrology and numismatics, is too complicated, and so far as I have been able to follow it, too unsatisfactory in its results, to justify my urging any arguments derived from it. Indeed, the oscillations in the currencies, and our knowing so few very fine coins of reigns before Shír Sháh, of critical value, make this branch of the subject almost unapproachable to one who is not an Oriental scholar. I would premise, however, that I do not believe very accurate results are to be obtained solely from the weights of coins, except in the few cases where, as in the coins of Akbar, or of Abd-el-Malek ben Merwán, we have some literary statements about them. Nor can you get any result from weighing carob beans to determine the carat, or abrus seeds to determine the rati. I weighed, long ago, hundreds of ratis, that Dr. Daubeny lent me, with an average of 1.694 troy grains. Sir William Jones found, I believe, one of 1.318, and Professor Wilson, I think, another value again. They vary according to the soil and climate they are grown in, and the time and atmosphere they have been kept in.

My investigation of the rati originated in a desire to determine whether the diamond, now the Queen's, was the same that Baber records as having been given to Humáyún at the taking of Agra, after the battle of Paniput, and which had once belonged to Alá-ed-dín (Khilji). I also was led to suppose that the diamond Tavernier saw at the Court of Aurungzebe was the same, and that he had confounded it with one that Meer Jumla gave to Sháh Jehán, and that had been recently found at Golconda. I would here observe that Tavernier's weights. can be very little trusted; I can give you my reasons for this assertion, if you wish for them.

Báber, in h is memoirs, says the weight of Humáyún's diamond, was about 8 mishkâls. In his description of India, he gives the following ratios of the weights in use there:— Jewels and precious stones being estimated by the tang. Furthermore he states 14 tolas = 1 sír, 40 sírs = 1 man, etc. Thus, then, the 8 mishkâls would be 320 ratis.

Tavernier says the diamond he saw weighed 319½ ratis. The Koh-i-Nûr, in 1851 (and, I believe, in Baber's day also), weighed 589.5 grains troy. The theory that it was Alá.-ed-dín's diamond, would demand—

Now, as to the mishkâl—the Mahommadan writers speak of it as not having altered from the days of the Prophet. Doubtless, it has been a pretty permanent weight, and very likely, in Makrizi's time, was but slightly various in different places. At present, the following table represents the different mishkâls, so far as I have been able to ascertain them.

Báber, in speaking of the mishkal, may either mean his own Bokharan mishkâl, or, as seems more probable, the current mishkal as existing at that time in India; in short, the “Indian or Syrian mishkâl” of the Mahommadan writers—which was the Greek mishkâl + 2 kirats. The modern debased mishkâl of Bokhara we may leave out of our comparisons. It is surely a degraded weight in a country that has undergone an eclipse.

The old “Greek Dinar” is of course the Byzant, or solidus aureus—the denarius of Byzantium. It was nominally coined 72 to the Roman lb. The Byzantian Roman lb. in the British Museum weighs 4995 grains, so the solidus was nominally coined at 69.4 grains. It really issued from the mint at a maximum weight of 68 (a very few of the roost finely preserved coins reaching this amount). Now taking Makrizi's statement that the mishkâl was 24 kirats, and that of the Ayin-i-Akberi that the Greek mishkâl was 2 kirats less than this; we find the weight of the mishkâl grains troy. Again, Makrizi mentions that Abd-el-malek ben Merwan coined dinars and dirhams in the ratios of 21¾ kirats: 15 kirats. Now this Caliph's gold coins in the British Museum (in a very fine state of preservation), weigh 66.5 grains, and his silver, also well preserved, 44.5. Taking the former as coined at 67, we have the ratio: Dinar: Dirham = 21¾: 15 = 67: 46.2, which latter gives a probable weight for the dirham as originally coined. (In Makrizi's time the ratio was dinar i dirham = 10: 7= 21.75: 15.22; or supposing the gold coin unchanged at 67, the silver dirham would become 46.88). Then, as the ratio of the dinar (or gold mishkâl) to the mishkâl weight = 21¾: 24 we have for the mishkâl weight a value of 73.93 grains.

These two values, thus severally adduced from different data—viz., 74.18 and 73.93—sufficiently nearly accord to justify, I think, our striking the balance between them, and declaring the ancient mishkâl—(“the Syrian or Indian mishkâl” ) to have been very nearly 74 grains. Hence the kirat would be 3.133 grains, troy. The modern carat varies from 3.15, the modern Indian carat, to 3.28, the old French carat (made thus probably to be an aliquot part of the old French ounce). The English carat= 3.168; the Hamburgh= 3.176, and the Portuguese= 3. 171.

The above value of the mishkâl accords extremely well with my theory about the diamond.

That the “Greek Dinar” of Makrizi was the Sassanian gold is not at all likely, although the silver dirham was, no doubt, originally derived from the Sassanian drachma. Of the few gold pieces of Sassanian coinage, the one in the Museum, of Ardashir I., weighs now 65.5, and could not have been coined at less than 66.5 grains—which would give a mishkal of 72.04. But under the Sassanidæ, the gold coinage was quite exceptional, and was not large enough to have formed the basis of the monetary system of the Caliphs, which was professedly founded on Greek coins, current.

As to the Bokháran mishkál of Báber's time, how are we to arrive at it? You—and if you can't, who can? —are able to make little firm ground out of the weights of Sassanian, or Ghasnavid coins—nor will the coins of the Ayubite, Mamluke, and Mamluke Bahrite, Caliphs (of which I have weighed scores), give any much more reliable units on which to base the history of the progress of change in the mishkál. The limits of its variation in modern times seem to have lain between 74.5 and 72 troy grains; I believe 74 as near as possible its true original weight, the weight of the Syrian and of the Indian mishkál. This would give the rati on the goldsmith's standard of 8 to the másha, and 40 to the mishkâl, as 1.85 grains, and the limits of this rati would be 1.862 and 1.80. The value of the jeweller's rati (6 to the másha) would be for the 74 grain mishkál 2.47 grains, and its limits would be 2.483 and 2.40.

That Báber's and Humáyún's now worn and dilapidated coins of 71 and 71.5 grains were mishkáls is not improbable; but they certainly were not coined at less than 74 grains.

Without enlering into the Indian numismatical question, I may remind you of Tuglak's coin of 174 grains (one in the British Museum = 172.25), probably coined at 175 or 176; a fair weight of issue for a coin nominally of some 177 or 178 grains. These coins, I believe, you consider to represent the tola. A tola of 177.6 would accord on the ratios of Báber's table with a mishkâl of 74 grains. I am strongly tempted to enter further into this question of the ponderary systems of India, but I am warned by your own able papers of the difficulties in the path of one who deals only in translations and in the weight of coins.

24th Nov., 1865.

^{page 154 note 1} There are three varieties of Altamsh's silver coinage, all showing more or less the imperfection of the training of the Indian artists in the reproduction of the official alphabet of their conquerors. The designs of these pieces were clearly taken from the old Ghazní model of Muhammad bin Sám's Dirhams and Dínárs, and the indeterminate foroi of the device itself would seem to indicate that they mark the initial effort of the new Muhammadan silver currency which so soon fixed itself into one unvarying type, and retained its crude and unimproved lettering for upwards of a century, till Muhammad bin Tughlak inaugu-rated his reign by the issue of those choice specimens of the Moiieyer's art, which stand without compeers in the Dehli series.

No. 1, Silver. Size, vii.,; weight, 162·5. Supposed to have been struck on the receipt of the recognition of the Khalif of Baghdád in 626 A.H.

Obverse: Square area, with double lines, within a circle.Legend,

Reverse: Square area, with double lines, within a circle. Legend,

No. 2, Silver. Size, viii.; weight, 168·5. Date, 630 A.H. Obverse: Square area, with double lines, Legend,

Reverse: Circular area. Legend, Margin,

Mr. Bayley notices the occasional change of the name of the piece to the generic as well as the ignorant substitution of for the Khalif's true title. J.A.S.B., 1862, p. 207.Google Scholar Col. Guthrie's coin (Type No. 2) discloses a similar error.

No. 3, Silver. Size, viii.; weight, 163·5 gr. Obverse, as No. 2, but the square area is enclosed in a circle. Reverse: Square area enclosed within a circle, identical with the obverse design.

^{page 158 note 1} This coin is similar, but not identical in its legends with the gold piece, No. 84, of 736 A.H., p. 50, Pathán Sultáns. The following are the inscriptions:

^{page 159 note 1} Báber has left an interesting account of the revenues of his newly-acquired kingdom in India, as estimated after the battle of Panipat, in A.H. 932, to the effect that “the countries from Bhíra to Bahár which are now under my dominion yield a revenue of 52 krores” of Tankas. la the detail of the returns from different provinces. Tirhút is noticed as Tribute (Khidmatána) of the Tirhúti Raja 250,000 tankah nukrah, and 2,750,000 tanlcah síh. Erskine, William, History of India under Báber and Humáyun, London, 1854, vol. i., p. 540.Google Scholar See also Leyden's Memoirs of Baber, London, 1826, p. 334.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 1} The Province of Karaian. “For money they employ the white porcelain shell found in the sea, and these they also wear as ornaments about their necks. Eighty of the shells are equal in value to a saggio of silver, or two Venetian groats, and eight saggi of good silver to one of pure gold.” Chap, xxxix.

The Province of Kauazan. “Gold is found in the rivers, both in small particles and in lumps; and there are also veins of it in the mountains. In consequence of the large quantity obtained, they give a saggio of gold for six saggi of silver. They likewise use the before-mentioned porcelain shells in currency, which, however, are not found in this part of the world, but are brought from India.”—Chap. xl.; also Pinkerton (London, 1811), vol. vii., 143.Google Scholar

The Province of Kardandan. “The currency of this country is gold by weight, and also the porcelain shells. An ounce of gold is exchanged for five ounces of silver, and a saggio of gold for five saggi of silver, there being no silver mines in this country, but much gold; and consequently the merchants who import silver obtain a large profit.” Chap. xli.

The Kingdom of Mien (Ava). “You then reach a spacious plain [at the foot of the Yunnan range], whereon, three days in every week, a number of people assemble, many of whom come down from the neighbouring mountains, bringing their gold to be exchanged for silver, which the merchants who repair thither from distant countries carry with them for this purpose s and one saggio of gold is given for five of silver.” Chap, xliii. Travels of Marco Polo, by Marsden, W., London, 1818Google Scholar; and Bohn's Edition, 1854.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 1} “J'ai vu vendre le riz, dans les marchés de ce pays [Bengale], sur le pied de vingt-cinq rithl de Dihly pour un dínár d'argent: celui-ci vaut huit drachmes, et leur drachme équivaut absolument à la drachme d'argent” (iv. 210).

The difficulty of arriving at any thoroughly satisfactory interpretation of the obscure Arabic text, as it now stands, may be frankly admitted, nor do I seek to alter or amend the French translation, further than to offer a very simple explanation of what probably the author really designed to convey in the general tenor of the passage in question. It was a crude but established custom among the early Muhammailan occupying conquerors of India, to issue gold and silver coins of equal weights, identical fabric, and analogous central legends; hence, whenever, as in the present instance, the word Dínár is used in apposition with and contrast to the secondary term Dirham, the one primâ facie implies gold, the other silver; and there can be little doubt but that the original design of the text was to specify that one gold piece of a given weight passed in situ for eight silver pieces of similar form and of slightly greater bulk. It is possible that the term Dínár may in process of time have come to stand for a conventional measure of value, like the “pound sterling,” susceptible by common consent of being liquidated in the due equivalent of silver; but this concession need not affect the direct contrast between the Dínárs and Dirhams so obviously marked in the case in point.

Batutah, Ibn in an earlier part of his work (iii. 426) [Lee's edition is imperfect at this portion, p. 149]Google Scholar gives us the comparative Dehli rate of exchange—of which he had unpleasant personal experiences: he relates that he was directed to be paid (55,000 + 12,000 =) 67,000 pieces of some well understood currency neither the name or the metal of which is denned, but which may legitimately be taken to have been “Silver Tankahs,” and in satisfaction of this amount, deducting the established one-tenth for Dástúrí, which left a reduced total of 60,300, he received 6,233 gold tankahs. Under this scale of payment the gold must have borne a rate of exchange of one to 9·67 of silver, or very nearly one to 10, a proportion which might be supposed to clash with the one to eight of the more southern kingdom, but the existing state of the currencies of the two localities afford a striking illustration of the consistency of the African observer's appreciation of money values in either case. His special patron, Muhammad bin Tughlak, Emperor of Dehli, had, from his first elevation to the throne, evinced a tendency to tamper with the currency, departing very early in his reign from the traditional equality of weights of gold and silver coins; he remodelled both forms and relative proportions, introducing pieces of 200 grains of gold, styled on their surfaces dínárs, and silver coins of 140 grains, designated as adalis, in supersession of the ancient equable tankahs, both of gold and silver, extant examples of which in either metal come up to about 174 grains. More important for the present issue is the practical result, that, from the very commencement, Muhammad Tughlak“s silver money is invariably of a lower standard than that of his predecessors, whether this refers to the early continuation of the full silver tankah, or to his own newly devised 140 grain piece, a mere reproduction of the time-honoured local weight, which the Aryan races found current in the land some twenty-five centuries before this Moslem revival, but in either case, this payment to Ibn Batutah seems to have been made after the Sultan had organised and abandoned that imaginary phase of perfection in the royal art of depreciating the circulating media, by the entire supercession of the precious metals, and following the ideal of a paper currency, the substitution of a copper simulacrum of each and every piece in the order of its degree from the Dínár to the lowest coin in the realm, the values being authoritatively designated on the surface of each. This forced currency held its own, more or less successfully from 730 to 733, when it came to a simple and self-developed end. Taking the probable date of this payment as 742–3 A.H. (Ibn, , B. vi., p.4Google Scholar, and vol. iii., p.xxii.),it maybe assumed that the 174 (or 175) grain old gold tankah, which had heretofore stood at the equitable exchange of one to eight tunkas of good silver, came necessarily, in the depreciation of the new silver coins, to be worth ten or more of the later issues. Pathán Sultáns, p. 53).

^{page 162 note 1} “All the gold and silver which is brought into the territories of the Great Mogul is refined to the highest perfection before it be coined into money.”—Tavernier, , London Edition, 1677, p, 2Google Scholar. “The roupie of gold weighs two drams and a half, and eleven grains, and is valued in the country at 14 roupies of silver.”—Page 2. “But to return to our roupies of gold, you must take notice that they are not so current among the merchants. For one of them is not worth above fourteen roupies.” The traveller then goes on to relate his doleful personal experiences, of how, when he elected to be paid for his goods in gold, “the king's uncle” forced him to receive the gold rupee at the rate of fourteen and a half silver rupees, whereby he lost no less than 3428 rupees, on the transaction. Sir James Stewart, writing in 1772, also estimates the conventional proportionate value of silver to gold, as fourteen to one—“The Principles of Money applied to the present state of the Coin of Bengal.” Calcutta, 1772.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 2} Prinsep's, Useful Tables, pp. 5, 72, 79.Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 1} Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, 1864, p. 517.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 1} U.T., vol. ii., p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 2} Gladwin, i. 44.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 3} 4to., Calcutta, 1783.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 4} Purchas' Travels, folio, 1626–1926, i. 217.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 1} In other examples of the forced currency, he exhorts his subjects in more urgent terms to submit to the Almighty, as represented in the person of the ruling monarch, and to adopt, in effect, the bad money he covers with texts from the Kurán—the “Obey God and obey the Prophet and those in authority among you,” and “Sovereignty is not conferred upon every man,” but “some” are placed over “others”—were unneeded on his coinage of pure metal.

^{page 167 note 1} Num. Chron. iv. 58Google Scholar; J. A. S. B. xxxiii. 266.Google Scholar

^{page 167 note 2} There is a coin called a “Do-gáni or Doodee,” still quoted in the Madras Almanacks.

^{page 168 note 1} Vol. xv. 1852, p. 121, et seq.

^{page 169 note 1} Manu, viii. 131.Google Scholar—“Those names of copper, silver, and gold (weights) which are commonly used among men for the purpose of worldly business, I will now comprehensively explain. 132.—The very small mote which may be discerned in a sunbeam passing through a lattice is the first of quantities, and men call it a trasareṇu. 133.—Eight of those trasarṇus are supposed equal in weight to one minute poppy-seed (likshá), three of those seeds are equal to one black mustard-seed (rájasarshapa), and three of these last to a white mustard-seed (gaura-sarshapa). 134.—Six white mustard-seeds are equal to a middle-sized barley-corn (yava), three such barley-corns to one kṛshṇala [raktika], five kṛshṇalas of gold are one mâsha, and sixteen such máshas one suvarṇa. 135.—Four suvarṇas make a pala, ten palas a dharaṇa, but two kṛshṇalas weighed together are considered as one silver máshaka. 136.—Sixteen of those máshakas are a silver dharaṇa or puráṇa, but a copper kársha is known to be a paṇa or kárshápaṇa. 137.—Ten dharaṇas of silver are known by the name of a ṡatamána, and the weight of four suvarnas has also the appellation of a nishka.” These statements may be tabulated thus as the

^{page 170 note 1} As. Res. v. 95Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 2} Shams-i-Siráj, in his work entitled the Táríkh-i-Fírúz Sháhi, gives the following incidents regarding Fírúz Sháh's coinages:—

The original and unique MS., from which the above passage is extracted, is in the possession of the Nawáb Zia-ud-dín of Lohárú, in the Dehli territory.

^{page 171 note 1} I once supposed these two coins to be whole and half Chitals, instead of the half and quarter pieces now adopted.

^{page 171 note 2} It may be as well to state distinctly that the most complete affirmation of the numismatic existence of a Chital of a given weight and value, supported even by all anterior written testimony, in no wise detracts from the subsequent and independent use of the name for the purposes of account, a confusion which perchance may have arisen from the traditional permanency of the term itself, which in either case might eventually have been used to represent higher or lower values than that which originally belonged to it. Zíá-í-Barni at one moment seems to employ the term as a fractional fiftieth of the Tankah, while in other parts of the same or similar documents he quotes a total of “sixty Chitals,” and in his statement of progressive advances of price, mentions the rise from twenty Chitals to half a Tankah. Ferishtah following, with but vague knowledge, declares that fifty Chitals constituted the Tankah; while Abúl Fazl, who had real information on these matters as understood in his own day, asserts that the dáam was divided “in account” into twenty-five Chitals. (See Suppt. Pathan Sultáans, p. 31Google Scholar; N. C. xv. 156Google Scholar; Ferishtah, , p. 299Google Scholar; Gladwin, A. A., I., p. 36.Google Scholar) Then again there seems to have been some direct association between Chitals and Káṇis, as General Cunningham has published a coin which he as yet has only partially deciphered, bearing the word on the one side, and on the other. J. A. S. B., 1862, p. 425.Google Scholar

I have received from Mr. C. P. Brown the following note in reply to my queries as to the probable derivation of the word Chital:—

“I have been considering the inquiry you. make regarding chital You probably are aware that it is mentioned in the Ayín-i-Akbari, in the chapter on coins. There it evidently is an ideal money, like the farthing. You believe it may be connected with chhe tol but I rather judge it to be merely the Sanskrit chitra meaning ‘odd’ as a species; or as an odd sum, a fraction; the smallest coins in copper, which in Marata and Dakhni are called khurda (see Wilson's Glossary, p. 288)Google Scholar, and in America bits; or a fraction even of these, which in the bazar are often represented or paid in a few pinches of grain. As the Sanskrit month Chaitra is in Bengali Chait, and the Chitra-durgam, or ‘odd coloured hill,’ is in Dakhni called Chittle droog, I think this may be the true derivation. The eauri, kowry, is not mentioned in the Ayín-i-Akbari, and probably was not yet introduced into India. We still call the smallest fractions ‘grains;’ and that which is indefinite would be chitra, or, according to the Musulmáni pronunciation, cheetul. There is also a form, of it, chillara or chilra used in the Madras countries. “Wilson notices it in his Glossary, p. 112Google Scholar, but fails to perceive its origin. It is precisely the same in sense. In Sanskrit scientific treatises, after a general rule, chitram is given as being a species, or sub class: chillara may often be rendered miscellaneous; and this is the same in idea.”

^{page 174 note 1} Journal Asiatique, Paris, vol. iii., p. 272.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 2} Numismata Orientalia, London, 1825, pp. 561–585.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 3} Vol. xv. (1846), p. 323.

^{page 174 note 2} Wertheimer, London, 1847, pp. 37, 42, 82,Google Scholar and Supplement printed at Dehli in 1851, p. 15. See also Numismatic Chronicle, vol. ix., pp. 176, 181Google Scholar; vol. x., p. 153; and vol. xv. p. 124.

^{page 175 note 1} The Tabakát-i-Násiri of Abú Umar Minháj-ud-díin bín Siráj-ud-dín, Juzjám, has been printed and published in the Persian series of the Bibliotheca Indica. under the auspices of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (Calcutta, 1864, pp. 453Google Scholar). The chapters on Indian and Central Asian affairs, with which the author was more or less personally conversant, have alone been reproduced. The usual Oriental commencement with the history of the world, the rise of Muhammadanism, etc., being mere compilations from secondary sources, have been very properly excluded from this edition. A full notice of the original work will be found in MrMorley's, Catalogue of the MSS. of the R. A. S., p. 17 (London, 1854)Google Scholar. Several other works of native historians, bearing upon the subject of this paper, have also been made accessible to the public in a printed form in the same collection, among which may be noted the Táríkh-i-Fírúz Sháhí (the third king of the name in the Dehli list), by Zía-i-Barni (Calcutta, 1862, pp. 602Google Scholar), and the Muntakhab-ul-Tawáríkh of Abd ul Kádir, Budáúni (Calcutta, 1865, pp. 407Google Scholar). The editors have unadvisedly, I think, omitted the early portions of the original relating to India, and commence the publication with the accession of Akbar. An outline of the entire contents of the work will be found in SirElliot's, H.Historians of India (Calcutta, 1849, p. 305).Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 2} An English version of Ibn Batutah's Travels (taken from an abridged text), by DrLee, S., was published in the series of the Oriental Translation Fund in 1829 (1 vol., 4to., London).Google Scholar A new and very complete edition of his entire Arabic Text, with a French Translation, chiefly the work of the late Defrémery, M.C., has been issued within the last few years by the Société Asiatique of Paris (4 vols. 8vo., Paris, 1853–1858Google Scholar).

^{page 176 note 1} The History of Bengal, by Charles Stewart. London, 1813. 4to.Google Scholar

^{page 177 note 1} Minháj-ul-Siráj, who treats of the history of his own and immediately preceding times, introduces the reigns of the more powerful sovereigns with a full list of the Court notabilities, forming a sort of Almanack de Gotha of Muhammadan India. These lists embrace the various branches of the Royal Family, Ministers, Judges, and Governors of Provinces. The following names of the or military administrators of Bengal, which appear in the official returns, may serve to check or confirm the imperfect data obtained from the casual notices of local history to be met with in the general narrative of the events of the Empire at large. There is this discrimination, however, to be made that these imperial nominations were often merely titular, while the effective executive was in other and independent hands:

Under Altamsh, A.H.607–633.Google Scholar

Under Násir-ud-dín Mahmúd, A.H.644–664.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 1} Ziá-i-Barni in one place, page 53, calls him and again, at page 66,

^{page 178 note 2} Zíá-i-Barni, pp. 82–92.Google Scholar

^{page 180 note 1} Zíá-i-Barni, p. 142;Google ScholarIbn Batutah, iii., p. 178;Google ScholarLee's Translation, p. 117;Google Scholar and of Amír Khusrú, Dehliví.

^{page 180 note 2} Printed edition, p. 451; Budauni MS.; Ferishtah (Briggs, i. p. 406).Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 1} French edition, iii., p. 179,Google Scholar and xiii. DrLee's, “two years,” p. 118Google Scholar, is an error.

^{page 181 note 2} Stewart's Bengal, p. 80.Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 3} Ex.gr., Bahádur is made the son of Násir-ud-dín, at p. 179, vol. iii.,Google Scholar instead of the grandson, which the text at p. 210, vol. iii., and p. 213, vol. iv., affirms him to have been. Lee's MS. authorities again, in omitting the intermediate name of Násir-ud-dín, skip a generation, and ante-date Shams-ud-dín (Fírúz) in constituting him a son of Ghíás-ud-dín Balban (p. 128).Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 4} Ferishtah, Briggs, i., p. 406;Google ScholarStewart, p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 1} Tabakát Násirí, p. 181;Google Scholar p. 201.

^{page 183 note 2} Pathán Sultáns of Dehli, coin No. 33, p. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 183 note 3} His title is usually limited by Minháj-ul-Siráj to pp. 177, 181, 201;Google Scholar but on one occasion crops out incidentally in the Court list where, in his place among the sons of the Emperor Altamsh, he is so designated, p. 178Google Scholar.

^{page 184 note 1} This name I have, as a general rule, retained in the form accepted as the conventional English orthography—Altamsh. The correct rendering of the original is still an open question, but the more trustworthy authors reproduce the designation as , a transcription supported in a measure by the repetition of the third letter in the Kufic dies, and made authoritative, in as far as local pronunciation is concerned, by the Hindí correlative version of (Pathán Sultáns, Coin No. 14). The inscription on the Kutb Minár, at Dehli, has , which accords with the Arabic numismatic rendering on the reverses of the Hindí Coins now cited.

See also Táj-ul-Maásir, Alitimish: Wasáf, Alitmish, and at times Badauni, Ailtitimish.

Elliot's Historians of India, p. 111.Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 2} See coins of Chahir deva.

Obverse. Bull. Legend:

Reverse. Horseman. Legend:

—Pathán Sultáns, No. 15; Ariana Antiqua, pl. xix. 16. 31, 34; Prinsep's Essays, i. 333,Google Scholar pi. xxvi. 31; Minháj-ul-Siráj, pp. 215, 240;Google ScholarTod's Rajasthan, ii. 451;Google Scholar and J.A.S. Bengal, 1865, p. 126.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 1} So, in written history, Nâsir-ud-dín Mahmúd, the Emperor, is called by his own special biographer, (pp. 9, 177,178, 201, etc.) which is in contrast to the nominal adjunct so constant with his predecessors, Fírúz Sháh, Bahrám Sháh, Sháh. On one occasion only does the additional Sháh appear in a substituted list of Altamsh's Court (p. 178),Google Scholar where the text gives—1. Sultán Násir-ud-dín * * Sultán Násirud-dín Mahmúd; and at the end, after the name of Rukn-ud-dín Fíl;rúz Sháh, comes “Násir-ud-dín Mahmúd Sháh.”

^{page 186 note 1} Tabakát Násiri, pp. 183, 185, 251.Google Scholar See also Ibn Batutah, iii. pp. 167, 168.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 2} Pathán Sultáns, Nos. 28, 29.

^{page 187 note 1} It would seem from the orthography adopted in this earliest record of the name of Laknauti that the original Semitic transcription was designed to follow the classical derivation of Lakshmaṇavati which was soon, however, adapted to the more colloquial Luchhman by the addition of an h after the k, as in which form it appears under the first local Sultáns (coin No. 3, etc.), Minháj-ul-Siráj relates its elevation to the rank of the capital in supercession of Nuddeah by Muhammad Bakhtíár in the following terms: Printed edit. p. 151. The same author at p. 162 gives a full account of the remarkable size, progress, and general topography of the city as existing in 641 A.H. on the occasion of his own visit.

It is difficult to say when the name of the city was changed to Gaur, a denomination which is never made use of by the older authorities. Abul Fazl says, “Formerly it was called Lucknouty, and sometimes Gour” (A. A. ii. p. 11); while Budáuni gives a ridiculous version of the origin of the designation as being derived from He writes The obvious imperfection of the critical philology of the derivation, however, debars it reception, as does the caustic alternative of “grave,” which the often deserted site, under the speedy action of water and a semi-tropical vegetation, may have deservedly earned for it. But it is quite legitimate to infer that as was the ancient name for central Bengal (Wilson, Glossary, sub voce; Albírúní, quoted J.R.A.S. i., N.S., p. 471)Google Scholar, and so intimately associated with the tribal divisions of the indigenous Brahmans, that the designation originated in the popular application of the name of the country to its own metropolis, and that the town continued to be called Gauṛ in vernacular speech in spite of the new names so frequently bestowed upon it by its alien lords.

^{page 188 note 1} Jour. As. Soc. Beng., 1864, p. 508.Google Scholar

^{page 188 note 2} Rajendra lál says, “the units one and three are perfectly clear.” Col. Guthrie“s three coins are imperfect in the word for the unit. I observe traces of a four on two specimens; and I read, with some certainty, 695 on another.

^{page 189 note 1} The following is the genealogical tree, according to Ibn Batutah. See vol. iii., pp. 174.5, 179, 210, 462; vol. iv., p. 212.

^{page 189 note 1} The name of the son of Kai Kobád, who was elevated to the throne of Dehli on the death of his father, is variously given by Oriental-writers as Shams-ud-dín and Budáuní and the Mirát-ul-Alam (MS.) give Kai Kúús, but the majority of authors prefer the Kaiomurs. Zíá-i-Barni does not state the name of the boy, but mentions a son of Altamsh, in the previous generation, as having been called Kaiomurs (printed ed, p. 126).

^{page 190 note 1} The Bengal Mints, after the initial uncertainty, soon settle themselves down to follow the established Dehli models. In the latter, it will be seen, great care was taken by all those sovereigns who could boast of a Royal descent, to define the fact upon their coins. Bahrám Sháh, Sháh, Násir-ud-dín Mahmúd bin Altamsh, and Ibrahim bin Fírúz all entitle themselves Balban, Kai Kubád, Jalál-ud-dín Fírúz, and the great Alá-ud-dín Muhammad Sháh have to be content with their own self-achieved

^{page 190 note 2} Minháj-ul-Siráj, p. 263;Google Scholar ditto, p. 181, A.H. 625.

^{page 190 note 3} Babu Rajendra lál Mitra notices four coins of this king with the dates 691 and 693. Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, 1864, p. 579.Google Scholar He was disposed to read the mint as Sunárgaon. Of Col. Guthrie's three specimens, two bear distinct traces of the name of Lakhnautí.

^{page 191 note 1} As this passage presents no particular difficulty, beyond the difference of the texts from which English and French translators have drawn their inspiration, I merely annex the rendering given in the amended Paris edition, vol. iii., p. 210.Google Scholar “Les autres émirs s'enfuirent près du Sultan Chems eddîn, fils du sultan Nâcireddîn, fils du sultan Ghiyâth eddîn Balaban, et se fixèrent à sa cour… Les émirs fugitifs séjournèrent près du sultan Chems eddîn, Dans la suite, celui-ci mourut, léguant le trône à son fils Chihâb eddîn. Ce prince succéda à son père; mais son frère cadet, Ghiyâth eddîn Behâdoûr Boûrah (ce dernier mot signifie, dans la langue indienne, le noir), le vainquit, s'empara du royaume, et tua son frère Kothloû Khân, ainsi que la plupart de ses autres frères. Deux de ceux-ci, le sultan Chihâb eddîn et Nâsir eddîn, s'enfuirent près de Toghlok, qui se mit en marche avec eux, afin de combattre le fratricide. Il laissa dans son royaume son fils Mohammed en qualité de vice-roi, et s'avança en hâte vers le pays de Lacnaouty. Il s'en rendit maître, fit prisonnier son sultan Ghiyâth eddîn Behadoûr et reprit avec ce captif le chemin de sa capitale.” See also Lee's, Translation, p. 128.Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 2} Ibn Batutah in the following extract tells us so much about the real history of Bengal at, and previous to his own visit, that I quote the Arabic text in extenso; I feel it is the more necessary to reproduce the original version on this occasion, as Dr. Lee's translation is altogether deficient in any reference to the passage, which was clearly wanting in the MSS. at his disposal. Vol. iv. p. 212, Paris edition.

^{page 193 note 1} See also Pathán Sultáns of Hindústán, p. 37,Google Scholar coin dated 702 A.H. This coin was published by me in 1848. I then read the date as 702 A.H. I was not at the time unversed in the decipherment of Arabic numbers, and probably from the very difficulty of placing the piece itself, I may the more rely upon the accuracy of my original interpretation. I mention this fact as I am at present unable to refer to the coin itself.

^{page 194 note 1} The name of this king does not appear in any of Rajendra lál's lists.

^{page 194 note 2} The ancient name of of Bokhára notoriety in 350 A.H. (Fræhn Recensio Numorum Muhammadanorum, pp. 139, 593, 678),Google Scholar was subjected to strange mutations on Indian soil. My authority for the substitution of the final in place of the vowel is derived from Ibn Batutah, who uniformly writes the word with an (iii. 231, 5, 293). Ferishtah (text, p. 131) has whence Stewart's Bagora (p. 74). Dow gave the name as Kera, and Briggs as Kurra (i. pp. 265, 270, etc.Google Scholar).

^{page 194 note 3} Those who delight in interesting coincidences might see, in this name of Shaháb-ud-dín, a most tempting opportunity for associating him with a really important record by the Indigènes themselves, inscribed on a stone slab in then fort of Chunár, setting forth their victory over a “Malik” Shaháb-ud-dín, quoted as acting under Muhammad bin Tughlak, in Samvat 1390 (A.H. 734); but I confess I do not myself encourage the identification. Chunár is certainly not out of the range of access from Bengal; but other men of mark may have filled this command, and the name of the fortress itself is never heard of in reference to the affairs of the kingdom of Lakhnauti, in those early days, though the main road of communication between the two capitals of the north and the soutḥ took its course through Budíun or Kanauj and Jaunpore. The inscription is otherwise well worthy of further examination, in as far as it concerns the history of imperial influence upon proximate localities; and as such I transcribe both the text and Dr. Mills' translation of the brief passages which may chance to illustrate the general subject.

Verse 5:

“By Muhammad, lord of the hostile Yavanas, ShaháB-ud-dín and the rest, though an enemy, was Sairája, the treasure of benignity, employed as prime minister.”

Verse 11:

“Samvat 1390, in the month of Bhadra, fifth day of the waning moon, on Thursday, was the kingdom set free from Malik Shaháb-ud-dín, acting under the protecting favour of SaibÁja deva aforesaid.”

—(See Journal As. Soc. Bengal, vol. v., 1836, p. 341).Google Scholar

A subordinate but still more open inquiry also suggests itself in connexion with the mention of Shaháb-ud-dín in 731 A.H., as to whether, amid the strange confusion of names and titles, the “Kadr Khán,” who is noticed by Ferishtah under the original designation of Malik Bídar Khilji, may not, perchance, have been the identical Shaháb-ud-dín Bughrah reinstated as simple governor in Lakhnauti as his brother Bahádur was restored to power in Sonárgaon. I am aware that this is treacherous ground to venture upon; but such a supposition is not without other incidental support, especially in Ibn Batutah's passage (original, iii. 214, quoted at p. 192),Google Scholar where Kadr Khán is spoken of as if he had been in effect the last scion of the family of Násir-ud-dín Mahmúd Bughrah.

The original passages in Ferishtah are as follows (i. p. 237)Google Scholar:—

See also Briggs', Translation, i. pp. 412, 423.Google Scholar

The Táríkh Mubárak Sháhi has the name in manifest mistranscription as Bandár.

A difficulty necessarily suggests itself in regard to the tribe of Khilji, but the use of the name in its non-ethnic sense might readily be explained by the old subordination of the Bengal family to the Khilji dynasty of Fírúz, or the specially Khilji serial succession of the earlier governors of Bengal.

^{page 196 note 1} Tabakát-i-Albari.

See also Zíá-i-Barni, printed edit. p. 461.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 2} Stewart, , p. 75.Google ScholarFerishtali, (Briggs) i. 406.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 1} Among more critical Arabic scholars than the Bengal Mint Masters ever affected to be, this point would have been easily determined by the insertion or omission of the conjunction vau, which, as a rule, is required to couple the units and the twenties, but is not used with the units and tens.

^{page 198 note 1} Ibn Batutah gives the following additional particulars of Bahádur's reinstallation:— “Il [Muhammad bin Tughlak] lui fit de nombreux cadeaux en argent, chevaux, éléphants, et le renvoya dans son royaume. Il expédia avec lui le fils de son frère, Ibráhím Khán; il couvint avec Behâdour Boûrah qu'ils posséderaient ledit royaume par égales moitiés; que leurs noms figureraient ensemble sur les monnaies; que la priére serait faite en leur nom commun, et que Ghiyâth eddîn enverrait son fils Mohammed dit Berbath come ôtage près du souverain de l'Inde. Ghiyâth eddín partit, et observa toutes les promesses qu'il avait faites; seulement, il n'envoya pas son fils, comme il avait éte stipulé. Il prétendit que ce dernier s'y était refusé, et, dans son discours, il blessa les convenances. Le souverain de l'Inde fit marcher au secours du fils de son frère, Ibrâhîm Khân, des troupes dont le commandant était Doldji altatiry Elles combattirent Ghiyâth eddîn et le tuèrent; elles le dépouillèrent de sa peau, qu'on rembourra de paille, et qu'on promena ensuite dans les provinces.”—Vol. iii. p. 316.

^{page 199 note 1} The dates 7–3, 7–4, may perchance be obliterated records of 723 and 724. I have placed them among the lower figures, but I have no sanction for retaining them in that position.

^{page 200 note 1} Nizám-ud-dín Ahmad says, Mubárak killed Bahrám Khán; while Abnl Fazl affirms that Mubárak put Ḳadr Khán to death.—Ayín-i-Akbari, ii. 21.

^{page 201 note 1} Ferishtah, Briggs, i. pp. 412–423;Google Scholar iv. 328. Stewart, , pp. 80–83.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 2} See also an engraving of his coin (dated 750) Pathán Sultáns, fig. 151 and page 82.

^{page 201 note 3} Budauni MS. Ferishtah, iv. 329.Google ScholarStewart, , p. 82.Google ScholarAyín-i-Akbari, ii. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 1} Stewart, speaking of Fírúz's advance against Ilíás, says, “the Emperor advanced to a place now called Feroseporeábad, where he pitched his camp and commenced the operations of the siege of Pundua,” p. 84. There is a Mahal Fírúzpúr in Sircar Tandah, noticed in the Ayín-i-Akbari, ii. p. 2.Google Scholar See also the note from Shams-i-Siráj, quoted below (p. 205), under the notice of Ilíás Sháh's reign.

^{page 202 note 2} Stewart, , p. 83.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 1} Stewart, , p. 83.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 2} Shams-i-Siráj, speaking on hearsay, affirms that Shams-ud-dín Ilíás captured and slew Fakhr-ud-dín after Fírúz III.'s first expedition into Bengal; and that the main object of the latter's second invasion of that province was for the purpose of reasserting the rights of Zofar Khán, the son-in-law of Fakhr-ud-dín (who had fled for protection to Dehli), to the kingdom of Eastern Bengal. It is asserted that although Fírúz succeeded in obtaining this concession from Sikandar, who, in the interval, had succeeded to his father's throne, Zafar Khán himself was wise enough to decline the dangerous proximity to so powerful a rival monarch, and to return in the suite of the Sultán. The Bengálí troops, under Zafar Khán, subsequently distinguished themselves in an opposite quarter of India, near Tattah, and their commander was eventually left in charge of Guzrát. —Shams-i-Siráj, book ii. cap. 9, etc.—See also Journal Archæological Society of Dehli (Major Lewis' abstract translation), 1849, p. 15.Google Scholar

The Táríkh-i-Mubárak Sháhi (dedicated to Mubárak II.), the concluding date of which is 838 A.H., also declares that Hájí Ilíás killed Fakhr-ud-dín in 741 A.H. This last date is a manifest error; as is also, probably, the omission, by both authors, of the words son of before the name of Fakhr-ud-dín.

^{page 204 note 1} Stewart, , p. 83.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 1} Stewart felt a difficulty about the right position of Akdálah, the real point of attack, and a place of considerable importance in the local history of Bengal. The following is Ziá-i-Barni's description of the place, taken from the concluding chapters of his history on the occasion of Firúz Shah's (III.) invasion of Bengal in 754 A.H.:—

P. 588, printed edit Rennell gives another Akdallah north of Dacca. “Map of Hindoostan.”

In the following passage Shams-i-Siráj desires to make it appear that Fírúz III. gave his own name to the city of Pandua; but, as we have seen that the designation was applied to the new capital either in 740 or 742—that is, long before Fírúz became king of Dehli, it will be preferable to conclude that the name was originally bestowed in honour of the Shams-ud-dín Fírúz of Bengal, of the present series. The quotation is otherwise of value, as it establishes, beyond a doubt, the true position of the new metropolis:—

From the original MS. in the possession of Zíá-ud-dín Khán of Lohárú.

^{page 209 note 1} “Præsentia, Majestas; urbs, in qua est regis sedes.”

^{page 209 note 2} in Persian, means “surface of the earth.” Sir Henry Elliot remarks, “The words used before Akbar's time to represent tracts of country larger than a Pergunnañ were , and —Glossary of Indian Terms, sub voce, “Circár.”

^{page 209 note 3} Zíá-i-Barni, in introducing his narrative of Tughlak Sháh's expedition to Bengal (A.H. 724), speaks of that province as consisting of the three divisions of “Lakhnauti, Sunárgaon, and Satgaon” (p. 450, printed edit.).

The Ayín-i-Akbari, in the xvi. cent, A.D., thus refers to Satgaon, “There are two emporiums a mile distant from each other; one called Satgaon, and the other Hoogly with its dependencies; both of which are in the possession of the Europeans.”—Gladwin, , ii. p. 15.Google Scholar See also Rennell, , p. 57.Google ScholarStewart's, Bengal, pp. 186, 240, 243, 330.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 1} From “amputavit:” hence “oppindum, vel potior, præcipuapars oppidorum.”

^{page 210 note 2} The decipherment of the name of this mint (as Col. Yule reminds me) determines for mediæval geography the contested site of Nicolò Conti's Cernove. The Venetian traveller in the East in the early part of the fifteenth century is recorded to have said that “he entered the mouth of the river Ganges, and, sailing up it, at the end of fifteen days he came to a large and wealthy city called Cernove. … On both banks of the stream there are most charming villas and plantations and gardens. …Having departed hence he sailed up the river Ganges for the space of three months, leaving behind him four very famous cities, and landed at an extremely powerful city called Maarazia. …having spent thirteen days ‘on an expedition to some mountains to the eastward, in search of carbuncles’ …he returned to the city of Cernove, and thence proceeded to Buffetania.”—The travels of Nicolò Conti, Hakluyt Society, London, pp. 10, 11.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 2} See also Purchas, vol. v. p. 508Google Scholar; and Murray's, Travels in Asia, ii. 11.Google Scholar

There are also many interesting details regarding the geography of Bengal, and a very full and lucid summary of the history of the period, to be found in “Da Asia de Joāo de Barros” (Lisboa, 1777, vol. iv. [viii.], p. 465Google Scholaret seq.). At the period of the treaty of Alfonso de Mello with, “El Rey Mamud de Bengala” (the king whom Shír Sháh eventually overcame) the name of Shahr Nau had merged into the old provincial designation of Gaur, which is described as “a principal Cidade deste Reino he chamada Gouro, situada nas correntes do Gange, e dizem ter de comprido tres leguas das nossas, e duzentos mil vizinhos” (p. 458). Satigam makes a prominent figure on the map, and Sornagam is located on a large island within the Delta, the main stream dividing it from Daca, which is placed on the opposite or left bank of the estuary.

More modern accounts of the old city may be found in Purchas, i. 579Google Scholar; Churchill, viii. 54Google Scholar; also Rennell, , Memoir of a Map of Hindoostan, London, 1788, p. 55Google Scholar; Stewart, , p. 44,Google Scholar and in a special work entitled “The Ruins of Gour,” illustrated with maps, plans, and engravings of the numerous Muhammadan edifices extant in 1817, by Creighton, H., 4to., London, Black, Parbury and AllenGoogle Scholar. See also Elliot's Glossary of Indian Terms, sub voce, Gour Brahmin.

^{page 210 note 3} The adjective (derived from , Coluit) will admit of other meanings, and, if understood as applying to a town, might signify “well-built,” locally Pakká.

^{page 211 note 1} Ayín-i-Akbari, ii. p. 11Google Scholar; Stewart's, Bengal, 124.Google Scholar Bengal itself was called , “The Paradise of Regions.” Batutah, Ibn, iv. p. 210,Google Scholar says the Persians called Bengal “ce qui signifie,” en arabe, “un enfer rempli de biens.” Marsden, , Num. Orient, p. 578,Google Scholar gives a coin of 'Alá-ud-dín Husain Sháh, of A.H. 917, purporting to have been struck at “Jannatabad.”

^{page 211 note 2} “regio;” also “oppidum.” The plurals are said to vary, in correspondence with the independent meanings, as and .

^{page 214 note 1} The pattern legend of this mint-die seems to have been taken from oral data, as it is engraved as instead of the more critical The increased facilities of intercourse by sea probably aided the colloquial knowledge of Arabic in the estuaries of Bengal; while the learned of Dehli had to rely more upon books and occasional teachers. Ibn Batutah tells us, that Muhammad bin Tughlak, though pretending to speak Arabic, did not distinguish himself in the act, while Hújí Ilíás must himself have performed the pilgrimage to Mecca.

^{page 216 note 1} Reinaud, M. interpreted the word as Defensor (Journal Asiatique, 1823, p. 272), in which he is followed by Marsden (ii. p. 567).Google Scholar Sayud Ahmad again, in his transcript of 'Alá-ud-dín's Inscription of 710 A.H., reproduces the title as , which, in effect, carries a nearly identical meaning (Asá-ul-sunnádíd. p. 58).

^{page 216 note 2} The only other Bengal gold coins I am at present able to refer to are a wellpreserved piece of Jálál-ud-dín Fatah Sháh bin Mahmúd (dated A.H. 890), now in the possession of Colonel Guthrie, weighing 161.4 grains, and a coin in the B. M. assigned to 'Alá-ud-dín Husain (A.H. 905–927) which weighs 159.5 grains.

^{page 217 note 1} in many instances is replaced by while follows the name of .

^{page 218 note 1} Stewart supposes that Sikandar met his death in 769 A.H. (p. 89); and an even more patent error places the decease of Aâzam in 775 A.H. (p. 93). The Tabakát-i-Akbari, which devotes a special section to the history of Bengal, implies an amiable and undisturbed succession in this instance.