페이지 이미지
PDF

is confirmed by the fact that there are other villages named Albābās or Ilahābās in the Doāb. When the name was written in Persian, as on the copper coins, somebody noticed the fact that it could be read Ilahābās and the circumstance that it was close to a very holy place of the Hindus easily led to the conversion into Ilahābād (founded by a god, not the God). BINDRABAN.—See also Müminābād. It has been suggested that Müminābād is the town of that name in the Dekhan, and also that it is Bindrabân. My silver coin of Shāh ‘Alam II gives both Mūminābād and Bindräban. PATNA.—I am not quite satisfied with the reading of Patna on B.M., Nos. 209 and 215 (see Plate VI). The name is written differently from the ordinary way. I have a coin of Aurangzeb in which the same difference is to be observed, but cannot suggest a satisfactory reading. PESHAWAR.—The coin of Akbar noted from this mint is B.M., No. 177, which is not very rare. The B.M. Catalogue gives Sitāpār as a preferable reading, while Rodgers read Sitpār, and identified it with a town of this name in the Muzaffargarh District. * JAUNPUR.—The mint on a copper coin of Akbar II was read by Vost and White King” as Dār-ul-Musawwir, Deh, Jaunpär. Major Wost now agrees with me that the correct reading of the mint on that coin should be Dār-ul-Manşūr, Jodhpūr. The title Dār-ul-Mansir appears on coins struck in the name of ‘Alamgir II,” and also on coins struck in the name of Shāh ‘Alam II,” while the sword on the obverse of the coin under discussion is one of the special marks of the State.” I have, therefore, shown this coin under Jodhpūr not Jaunpür. CHACHRAULI.-This is probably the capital of the Kalsia State in the Panjab, and it seems to me most likely that the name on the coin in the P.M. read Kachrauli is really Chachrauli. I have not been able to find any place called Kachrauli. The descriptions of the coins (Panjab Catalogue, No. 24, p. 236, and Calcutta Catalogue, No. 13106, p. 83), correspond very closely. HAFIZÄBAD.—From the style of the coin, that marked under ‘Alamgir II appears to be rightly assigned to that king and not to ‘Alamgir I. HUSAINABAD.—I have marked the copper coin of this mint of Shāh Alam II, published by Major Vosţl as doubtful. It seems to me more probably a coin of Najibābād. The silver coins of Husainābād are unmistakable. - DEOGARH.—The reading of this name by Oliver on a dām of Akbar is doubtful, and it is possible that Dogâm is the correct reading. There is no doubt about the name on rupees of Shāh ‘Alam II. - . . ZAIN-UD-BILAD.—Dames * quotes Zinat-ul-bilād as a mint of Rafi’ud-darjāt. Taylor has, however, shown” that that mint is really Ahmadābād. The coin here referred to is different. . . . . FATHKBAD.—I have only seen a rubbing of the coin with this mint, and there is something besides this name, which Mr. Nelson Wright has suggested may possibly be Dharwar. - *FARRUKHABAD.—This mint is at first without any other name, but from ‘Alamgir II it is called Ahmadnagar Farrukhābād. The earliest date I have seen from which the second name is used is the third year of ‘Alamgir II, while Farrukhābād alone occurs as late as the seventh year of Ahmad Shāh or 1167 A.H. The Bangash territories of Farrukhābâd were confiscated in 1163 A.H. under Ahmad Shāh, of Delhi, but were recovered by Ahmad Khān Bangash the next year. It seems to me probable that the latter gave his name to the town, in view of his later successes. - - • MUHAMMADNAGAR.—In the inscription on the coin of this mint in the Panjab Museum as given in the Catalogue, p. 226, No. 16, it does not appear that there is also another name. That coin is dated in the 11th regnal year and 1183 A.H. I have seen two other coins of Muhammadnagar, one dated 11 and 1184, and the other 12 without a Hijri year which exactly resemble this in type, but in addition to Muhammadnagar there is a name which may be read as Bānda or Tānda, viz., 33b. As one of these coins turned up in a treasure trove in which all the coins were fairly new, and all the known mints were in Rohilkhand, it seems probable that this mint is to be placed there, but so far I have been unable to trace in. Tânda seems to me the most likely name, as this is fairly common in the sub-montane districts and means an encampment of Banjāras, who are especially numerous there. - MUSTAFA-ABAD.—Dames refers4 to three places of this name: “One is in the Dekham, being another name for Chopra (see E.D., VII, 307); one is in the Doāb between Agra and Mainpuri, and one in what is now the Ambāla District, which was plundered by the Sikhs in A.H. 1121 1 J.A.S.B., 1895, p. 46, and Pl. III, fig. 30. 2 Num. Chron., 1902, p. 278. • 3 J. Bo. Br. R. As., 1900, p. 436. 4. Num, Chron., 1902, p 282.

1 Panjab Catalogue, p. 86. 8 Num. Chron., 1896, p. 178, and Pl. XII, fig. 13. 8 Num. Chron., 1896, p. 175, and Pl. XII, fig. 8. * Webb, currencies of Rajputana, pp. 43, 45, and 48 5 Ditto, p, 42.

(E.D., VII, 423). It is not far from Sādhaurá (wrongly spelt Shādhārā in E.D.), and will not be found on most modern maps, but is given in Rennell's map of Hindostan of 1782. This is no doubt the place which Capt. Wost mentions' as between Sahāranpur and Ludhiana, and it seems to be a probable position for a mint in Shāh ’Alam's time, although the site near Agra is also a possible one.” I am unable to find anything at all in favour of Chopra being a mint of the Mughals. The Mustafa-ābād of the Mainpuri District only appears on our maps as it is the village at the headquarters of a tahsil (since 1824) and gives its name to a pargana. The Mainpuri Gazetteer (p. 746) gives no historical connections with the place. The reference to Elliott's mention of Mustafa-ābād in the Panjab does not help much, as it refers to the impoverished people of the place, and includes it with others as “old seats of population; ” I can find no later reference of any importance attaching to it. Mr. C. S. Delmerick, however, called my attention to the fact that Râmpur, capital of the native state of that name in the United Provinces was also known as Mustafaâbâd.” A possible objection to this identification is that a native history says the city was founded in 1189 A.H. (1775 A.H.) while the coins are dated as early as 1184 A.H. On the other hand the history of the Rohillas used by Hamilton,” shows that Faizullah was settled at the city of Râmpur as early as 1165 or 1168 A.H. (1754), and this is accepted by all writers.” We know that the towns occupied by the other heads of the Rohillas, Bareilly, Aonla, Bisauli, Murādābād, and Najibâbâd were all issuing coins, and it seems to me most probable that the Mustafa-ābād mint was at Râmpur. * MUMBAI.-As in the case of Arkat I have included coins of the East India Company. * NAGPüR.—I think there can be no doubt that the coin on which the mint was read by Rodgers" as Dār-ul-barat Kāndi is really Dār-ul-barakät Nāgpür, as read by Vost and King," and I have therefore omitted Rândi. It has been suggested to me by Mr. Nelson Wright that Nāgor should be read for Nāgpúr, and he prefers that reading on his coin of ‘Alamgir II. NASRULLANAGAR.—A coin of this mint was in the find referred to under Muhammadnagar and I expect the place was somewhere in Rohilkhand

1 See J.A.S. B., 1895, p. 46.

* See also Râmpur Gazetteer, p. 40.
3 Hamilton’s history of the Rohillas, pp. 120 and 122.
* Compare Strachey's Rohilla War, p. 18, Bareilly Gazetteer, p. 663,
5 Panjab Catalogue, No. 30, p. 228.

6 Num. Chron., 1896, p. 176,

[ocr errors]

HANSI (SâhibRBAD).--The reading of the inscription given by Cunningham in Compton's Military Adventurers, p. 143, is not correct. Sâhibābād is quite clear on a coin of Mr. Nelson Wright's.

UNCERTAIN MINTs.-I have only included one of the numerous uncertain names we have, because it seems possible that this may be read and identified. *

Note.—Since this paper was written, the valuable collection of Mr. Ellis has been acquired for the Lucknow Museum, * *

« 이전계속 »