1921 | Numismatic Supplement No. XX XV. eee, 
scheme of substitution the unfortunate victims of caprice were 
taught by size and weight the orders of the sovereign. 
A fresh complication ensues with the accession of Bahlol 
Lodi. This ruler appears to have been very modest in assum- 
ing the outward signs of sovereignty, and the absence of the 
gold and silver tanka bearing his name is very remarkable. 
Moreover, it is very unfortunate from a numismatic point of 
view, for we require evidence as to the relationship of silver 
to copper during the period, and more solid ground on whic 
to trace the transitional stage from the old currencies of Delhi 
to the reforms inaugurated by Sher Shah. 
There would be little difficulty in regarding the billon of 
Bahlol and Sikandar as the lineal descendant, degenerate it may 
be, of the hashtgan?, were it not for two facts. While we can 
find coins bearing a close approximation to the requisite pro- 
portion of 18°4 grains of silver to 121°6 grains of copper. it is 
obvious that in many specimens the amount of silver has been 
reduced to a wholly unwarrantable extent, that is, if the coin 
is intended to be one-eighth of a tanka. On p. 368 Thomas 
gives a statement which must be regarded as authoritative. 
The assay conducted at the Calcutta mint supports the theory 
that the 140-grain billon of Sikandar was intended to pass as 
a hashigani, but only if the coins of the first ten years of his 
reign be ignored. In the case of these coins we get the miser- 
able average of 2°7 grains of silver, and this would warrant the 
contention that these billons are no better than dams and ran 
at 40 to the rupee. The coins of the subsequent years could 
. not possibly have had this low value. They are better than 
shashganis, and are very fair specimens of the hashtgaint. The 
odd thing is that the coins of the early years of Sikandar, that 
is, those struck at Delhi, look to me as if they contained much 
more silver than the later products of his Agra mint. Some 
years ago I had to examine some thousands of these coins, and 
the resemblance in weight and colour between the latter coins 
of Bahlol and the earlier issues of Sikandar, as compared with 
the coarser coins of his later years, was very striking. 
Thomas definitely accepts the view that the billon of 
any silver at all, but this single example proves nothing, and 
if we are to take forty of the ordinary billons of Bahlol we 
value assigned by Thomas. 
Further it is incredible that the value of the sikandart 
should have been twice that of the bahlolt ; yet Thomas is posi- 
tive that the former coin was raised in value to one-twentieth 
of the silver tanka. On his own showing this is wrong, for 
