136 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XII, 



no doubt that Diler Khan had been able in 1091 a.h. to extort 

 from its ruler, at the point of the sword, the recognition of 

 both these regal privileges -the Khutbah and the Sikkah— to 

 which Musulman sovereigns have always attached an impor- 

 tance, which may appear to us exaggerated, but which is really 

 based on the fact that in those times ''Stamped moneys ob 

 truding into every bazar constituted," as Edward Thomas has 

 forcibly put it, •« the most effective Manifestoes and Proclama- 

 tions that human ingenuity could have devised to make clear 

 to the comprehension of all classes, the immediate change in 

 the Supreme Ruling power" (Chronicles, ed. 1871, pp. 1-2). 



s. h. hodivala. 



168. The Gulkanda Rupees of Shahjahan. 



The Gulkanda (Golconda) Rupees of Shahjahan have been 

 the subject of some speculation and difference of opinion 

 among students of Mughal Numismatics. Mr. Nelson Wright 

 hnds it impossible to reconcile his reading of the date on I. M. C. 



j- ,T lth the historical statements to which he attaches 

 credit Mr. Whitehead questions the reading itself and is not 

 pressed by the weight of the divergence, because no coins ' « have 

 yet been found bearing a legible date." ( P. M. C, p. xcviii ). 

 Having quoted Mr. Whitehead's words, let me allow Mr. Nelson 

 VV right also to state his own view of the matter. ' « Under Shah- 

 jahan the Qutb Shahs came into collision with the Mughals, and 

 in 1045 agreed to pay tribute and permit the Khutba to be read 

 m the Emperor's name. (E. D. VII. 51). Aurangzeb, when 

 Governor of the Dakhan Subas, lost no time in picking a fresh 

 quarrel which ended in 1067 in Abdullah, the reigning King, 

 consenting to strike coins in Shahiahan's name. * * * Of 

 the Shahjahan period, four coins are catalogued, but only one 

 of them has anything resembling a date, and that a very 



?t°m n T e '!° r lt WOuld P lace the c °in earlier than 1045." 

 (I. M. C. slvm). 



It will be seen that the difficulty centres round the figure 



n nTSS ands for the date on *• M - C No. 947. If Abdullah 

 yutb Shah consented to strike coins in Shahjahan's name only 

 in 1067 a.h what does the ■ 5' mean ? It cannot stand for any 



™n.l g i °u 1067 ' and 5t caMot ^ meant for the 



mdi iS f T ' beCaUse the fifth y ear of Shahjahan was 



o?t l7i t \ a ? n0 u 106? A - H - But is 1067 the c °" ect date 

 n,mp S t M kln f ^ y the Gulka «da ruler of coins bearing the 

 name of his Mughal suzerain ? I venture to say that it is not. 



Ahd„ll7h a f m f * of J . the t^ty which Aurangzeb dictated to 

 he w t t- €d , m E1 P hinsto *e's History. They were that 



wtthTi? glV ^ l S dau § hter in marriage to Sultan Muhammad, 



£1 0^ *K W a «™ «* W? 



