466 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [December, 1914. 



1 rupee. The intrinsic value of the kori falls therefore well 

 within the limits defined by Dr. Taylor for the Surat Mah- 

 mudi. 



I may put this argument in another way. The kori is 

 to-day worth 4d. in a Gujarat bazar. A Mughal rupee is worth 

 from lid. to I2d. The relative ratios of the two coins are 

 therefore 2|: 1 or 3 : 1. 



I have assumed that the quality of the silver in the 

 kori is as good as that of the Akbarl rupee, but I do not 

 think that this will be disputed. The korls in my posses- 



sion all seem excellent silver. 



Why 



nearly half a rupee in a.d. 1638, should it have in a.d. 1744 

 an average value of four to a rupee (vide Capt. Hamilton's 



remarks quoted in Codrington op. cit. (p. 9)"?" 



The relative values of currencies is largely a matter of 

 sentiment, which has from early times been exploited by 

 money-lenders. In a.d. 1850 the Broach rupee was the 

 favoured currency in Broach. Its intrinsic value was 5% 

 below par, but local prejudice had so far depreciated the 

 company's rupee that often for months together both curren- 

 cies exchanged at par. (Bombay Gazetteer, vol. IT, Broach, 

 p. 446). 



The fluctuations of the Mahmudl were still more violent. 

 The author of the article has shown that it fluctuated from 

 I0 m 8d. to 13 d. in relation to foreign coins, when apprecia- 

 ted by the Surat demand, and there is, at least, quite a possi- 

 bility of a depreciation even to Id. (a quarter approximately 

 of 21d.) by the universal demand for the Mughal rupee, which 

 must have been established by a.d. 1744 in S. Gujarat. 



It is possible that Capt. Hamilton's estimate is put 

 only in integers for convenience sake and the value of the 

 kori was rather more than | rupee. If we take the intrinsic 

 value of the kori to be 108d. (or $ of the rupee of 27d.) 9 it 

 gives a figure midway between the two extremes of 13d. 

 and Id. 



There seems, in short, no reason why the Surat Mah- 

 mudl should not be the Mahmudi kori of Cutch and Navanagar. 



(3) But cannot the term have also been applied to 

 the coins of the Gujarat Saltanat ? I do not wish to make out 

 a case for any coins of the Saltanat, except for that of which 

 the kori was a copy, the silverling of Muzaffar III- The 

 arguments which affect the kori hold good also for the coin 

 of Muzaffar and need not be repeated. 



But a few words may be said on the improbability of 

 " the coinage of the conquered province of Gujarat— never very 

 plentiful" — maintaining " its standing as the recognised curren- 

 cy of the Southern districts " (section IV, para. 3 of the article). 

 Old currency is apt to linger longer in the backwaters of a 



