8 TJip Initial Coinage of Bengal. [No. 1, 



or, as is more probable, elaborated out of tlie elements of ancient 



was nomminalVy coined at 69.4 grains. It really issued from the mint at a 

 maximum weight of 68 (a very few of the most finely preserved coins reaching 

 this amount). Now taking Makrizi's statement that the mishkal was 24 kivats, 

 and that of the Ayin-i-Akberi that the Greek mishkal was 2 kirats less than this j 

 we find the weight of the mishkal = 68+ f4 = 74.18 grains troy Again, Mak- 

 rizi mentions that Abdel-nialek-ben-Merwah coined dinars and dirhams in the 

 ratios of 21-2- kirats : 15 kirats. Now this Caliph's gold coins in the British Mu- 

 seum (in a very fine state of preservation), weigh 66. 5 grains, and his silver, also 

 well preserved, 44.5. Taking the former as coined at 67, we have the ratio : 



Dinar : Dirham= 21| : 15 = 67 : 46.2, 

 Which latter gives a probable weight for the dirham as originally coined. (In 

 Makrizi's time the ratio was dinar : dirham = 10 : 7 = 21 .75 : 15.22 ; or supposing 

 the gold coin unchanged at 67, the silver dirham would become 46.88). Then, 

 as the ratio of the dinar (or gold mishkal) to the mishkal weight = 2 If : 24, we 

 have for the mishkal weight a value of 73.93 grains. 



These two values, thus severally adduced from different data — viz., 74.18 and 

 73.93 — sufficiently nearly accord to justify, I think, our striking the balance 

 between them, and declaring of the ancient mishkal — (" the Syrian or Indian 

 mishkal ") to have been very nearly 74 grains. Hence the kirats would be 3.133 

 grains, troy. The modern carat varies from 3.15 ; the modern Indian carat to 

 3.28, the old French carat (made this probably to be an aliquot part of the old 

 French ounce). The English carat = 3.168 ; the Hamburgh = 3.176, and the 

 Portuguese = 3.171. 



The above value of the mishkal accords extremely well with my theory about 

 the diamond. 



That the " Greek Dinar" of Makrizi was the Sassanian gold is not at all 

 likely, although the silver dirham was, no doubt, originally derived from the 

 Sassanian drachma. Of the few gold pieces of Sassanian coinage, the one in the 

 Museum, of Ardashir I., weighs now 65.5, and could not have been coined at 

 less than 66.5 grains — which would give a mishkal of 72.04. But under the 

 Sassanidae, the gold coinage was quite exceptional, and was not lai-ge enough to 

 have formed the basis of the monetary system of the Caliphs, which was 

 professedly founded on Greek coins, current. 



As to the Bokharan mishkal of Baber's time, how are we to arrive at it ? 

 You — and if you can't, who can ? — are able to make little firm ground out of the 

 weights of Sassanian, or Ghasnavid coins — nor will the coins of the Ayubite, 

 Mamluke and Mamluke Bahrite Caliphs (of which I have weighed scores), 

 give any much more reliable units on which to base the history of the progress 

 of change in the mishkal. The limits of its variation in modern times seem 

 to have lain between 74.5 and 72 troy grains ; I believe 74 as a near as possible its 

 true original weight, the weight of the Syrian and of the Indian mishkal. This 

 would give the rati on the goldsmith's standard of 8 to the masha, and 49 to the 

 mishkal, as 1.85 grains, and the limits of this rati would be 1.862 and 1.80. 

 The value of the jeweller's rati (6 to the mashi) would be for the 74 grain 

 mishkal 2.47 grains, and its limits would be 2.483 and 2.40. 



That Baber's and Humayun's now worn and dilapidated coins of 71 and 71.5 

 grains were mishkals, is not improbable ; but they certainly were not coined at 

 less than 74 grains. 



Without entering into the Indian numismatical question, I may remind you of 

 Tuglak's coin of 174 grains (one in the British Museum = 172.25), probably 

 coined at 175 or 176 ; a fair weight of issue for a coin nominally of some 177 or 

 178 grains. These coins, I believe, you consider to represent the tola. A tola 

 of 177.6 would accord on the ratios of Baber's table with a mishkal of 74 grains. 

 I am strongly tempted to enter further into this question of the ponderary 

 systems of India, but I am warned by your own able papers of the difficulties 

 in the path of one who deals only in translations and in the weight of coins* 

 24th Nov., 1865. 



