6 2 



Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal [N.S., XIII, 



Obverse* 



Reverse. 



31r<t May, 1916. 



FURDOONJEE D. J. PaRUCK, 



175. The Weights of Aurangzeb's Dams. 



I do not know if the attention of students of Mughal numis- 

 matics has been ever arrested by the change which is observ- 

 able in the weights of all those Dams of Aurangzeb's which were 

 issued after the fifth regnal year. There are four examples 

 only of Aurangzeb's copper coinage in the Indian Museum. 

 All the four weigh between 210 and 215 grs. only (Nos 1646— 

 1649), and the two which bear dates are of the 8th and 

 39th years. The Panjab Museum contains in all 41 specimens, 

 of which six are fractional pieces of 30, 37, 61, (2), 90 and 150 

 grs. (Nos. 1980, 1991, 1986-7, 1953 and 1970). Of the rest, 

 only nine have weights ranging from a minimum of 285 to a 

 maximum of 320 grs. It is unfortunate that all but three of 

 them are not dated, but those three (Nos. 1967, 1968, 1978) areof 

 the fourth and fifth years. An overwhelming majority, viz. 25. 

 weigh much less; No. 1969 falls so low as 190 grs., and the 

 heaviest (No. 1982) does not rise above 217. These light coins 

 come from different mints in all part3 of the Empire — Akbara- 

 bad , Bairat , Haidarabad , Surat, Shahjahanabad , Katak , Lahore 

 Macchlipatan, Multan and Narnol, and their dates range from 

 the seventh year to the forty-ninth. At the same time, there is 

 not a coin of the heavy type which is of any year subsequent 

 to the fifth. It is evidently impossible, under the circumstances 

 to attribute the decline in weight to the dishonesty or caprice of an 

 individual mint-master or governor of a province. It is equally 

 difficult to suppose that it was part of a scheme for the debase- 

 ment of the currency, by a government hanging on the verge 

 of bankruptcy, for no synchronous diminution in the weight 

 or standard of fineness of the Muhr or the rupee is perceptible. 

 Nor are there any signs, at least in the first five years of this 

 very long reign, of an exhausted treasury or even of financial 

 embarrassment. What then is the explanation ? I beg permis- 

 sion Jbo quote in extenso two passages on the subject from the 

 MiraUi A hmadi : 



