Vol. X, No. 11.] Numismatic Supplement No. XXIV. 465 



[NJB.] 



It runs as follows : 



rnasnad 



his father in Samvat 1625 (a.d. 1557) and was allowed 



to coin money by Sultan Muzaffar, whose name it bore ; but he 



ordered it to be called Mahmudi, after his father The 



Sultan ordered it to be called Kunvari in the Hindu langu- 

 age and by the mispronunciation of the vulgar it is now 

 called <Korl\ 



The coin had therefore a Muhammadan or official name 

 and a Hindu or popular name. There would be nothing 

 surprising in the two names existing side by side. Examples 

 of this universal tendency will occur readily to every mind. 

 ''Pound sterling" and *' sovereign ", " two-shilling piece" 

 and u florin " , " franc " and lc vingt-sous '\ besides innumer- 

 able slang or colloquial synonyms, may be instanced. 



The statement in section III, para. 3, that" this designa- 

 tion (Mahmudi) soon gave place to the term ' korl ' " is there- 

 fore difficult to accept in the absence of any definite evidence. 



The last argument against the korl (para. 4) is that it 

 was considerably inferior in value to the " Surat Mahmudi." 

 The value of the latter is stated to be I2d. as compared with 

 the 21d. of the rupee. " The Cutch korl is now and was prob- 

 ably then too appraised at 1'ld. (and that) of Navanagar at 

 7*6c£." (In making this quotation I omit Junagadh, as its 

 coinage of korls appears to be of no great antiquity ', and 

 Porbandar, as it is known when the coining of korls was 

 commenced.) 2 



But it seems unsafe to assume that the value of the 

 old kori was the same as the value of the korl of to- 

 day. In the absence of the data on which 

 made his calculations, I cannot venture to s . _ 

 is possible, they are derived from the Bombay Gazetteer, 

 written about a.d. 1875, when the rupee was worth 24d., they 

 seem to be, if anything, over-liberal to the korl, that is to 

 say, its value is even smaller than has been stated by the 

 author. To-day it is reckoned to be worth 4d. only (vide 

 Imperial Gazetteer s.v. Cutch). 



I admit the depreciation of the korl, but not a consistently 

 low value from the time of its being minted. 



Looking to the relative values of the silver in the korl 

 and the rupee of Akbar and Jahangfr and taking average 

 weights as grs. 70 * and grs. 175 *, we find that 2 J korls equal 



1 Vide Codrington, Coinages of Cutch and Kathiavar (Reprint 

 i Numism. Chron., vol. XV, third series, pp. 59-88), p. 28. 

 Vide id. , p. 25. 



c 



as 

 as 



r cue >vrigxiL j..±*i.^. AKuar anu u anaug^ , j^ 



quotations would naturally be based on worn 

 ^hich form but a small nart of the total currenc 



coins 



