1880.] 



C. J. Rodgers — Coj)])er Coins of Alclar. 



215 



not be used in revenue returns. It became incumbent on Akbar, therefore, 

 when he made a demand from his ministers for revenue returns to fix 

 a standard. The yah tdnlce i Aklar ShdM seems to be such a standard 

 value. In the Ain i Alchari we are told that the dam was a coin of 

 the value of five tdnJces. And further we are told that there were forty 

 dams to the rupee. Hence we may judge that there were 200 tdnlces to 

 the rupee. Now the total revenues of Akbar are put down by Nizam-uddin 

 at 640,00,00,000 tdnlces. This at the rate of 200 to the rupee would be 

 equal to 3,20,00,000 rupees or £3,200,000. 



Now in our list of coins we have a dam which weighs only 76 grains. 

 And Abul Fazl gives Akbar's revenues as 5,67,63,83,383 dams. Now 

 if a coin of 59 grains is valued at 200 to the rupee, a coin of 76 grains 

 would be woi'th about 160 to the rupee. According to this account Abiil 

 Fazl's statement stands at about 3 krors 54 lacs of rupees or £3,540,000. 



These statements are small compared with those arrived at by Thomas 

 who makes the first equal to 32 millions and the latter to 16 millions, a 

 discrepancy rather startling. And the magnitude of the sums is somewhat 

 appalling. For when we turn to the prices of the produce of the land we 

 are astonished to find that wheat sold for two maunds per rupee, barley at 

 four maunds, mutton at about a fortieth of a rupee per Ife. And we must 

 remember that nearly all Akbar's revenues were from land. 



Now if things sold so cheaply there must have been a vast amount of 

 land under cultivation, in order to realize a revenue of £32,000,000, which 

 is only a fractional part of the value of the wliole of the crops. And India 

 in those days must have been an enormously rich country, for Akbar had 

 only a fraction of it in hand. 



Thomas in his calculations does not give one coin of Akbar's. He 

 gives statements from contemporary writers. These men were often wrong. 

 Certainly five yaJc tdnlce pieces of 59 grains could not be equal to the dam 

 of 76 grains.* 



Akbar's copper coins seem to follow the copper coins of the Suri dynas- 

 ty. Sher Shah put an end to a mixed currency. But on no one of Sher 

 Shah's copper coins have I as yet been able to find a coin-name. 



Abul Fazl's statement is for the year 1003 A. H. or Akbar's 40th year 

 and Nizam-uddin's is for 1002 or for his 39th year. The ddin I figure is 

 for the 33rd year and the yah tdnlce piece is for the 46th year. It is quite 

 possible that these values were those the authors had in view. 



I leave this part of the subject. It is one of great importance and one 

 on which authorities differ widely. If Akbar out of the portion of India 

 which he conquered could realize three hundred years ago 32 millions 

 Bterling, he in fact realized more than the English Goverunient of India 

 now does. For if we take away from the revenue all the extra sources 

 * See note on page 191. 



