V 
1904.] W. Haig —Some Notes on the Bahmani Dynasty. 3 
epithet Bahmani, which is used on the coins of his successors and is 
correctly applied to them only, are omitted. The inscription, which 
was cut while Bahman Shah was still alive and reigning, and was 
placed over a mosque in his capital, is far better evidence of the style 
under which he reigned than any statements of historians. Other 
evidence, however, exists. I have a copper coin which bears the in¬ 
scription “ Ahmad Shah bin Ahmad Shah bin Bahman Shah.” This 
inscription needs some explanation—a question which will he considered 
hereafter—but there is no doubt that the words “ Bahman Shah ” 
refer to the founder of the Bahmani dynasty. There is also the 
Bahman-ndma, a versified history of the Bahmani kings, the author¬ 
ship of which is uncertain, but which is often quoted by Firishta. 
The title of this history cannot refer to the epithet Bahmani , but can 
and evidently does refer to the name Bahman. 
The question of the title under which the founder of the Bahman 
dynasty assumed the sovereignty of the Dakan is important as an 
indication of the derivation of the name by which that dynasty is 
known. It is conceivable that a Muhammadan king might have dis¬ 
tinguished himself, from gratitude to a Brahman benefactor, by the 
epithet Bahmani , even though that epithet is never found in its un¬ 
corrupted form Brahmani, but no Muhammadan king would have styled 
himself “King Brahman.” The derivation of the title Bahman Shah 
must, therefore, be sought in Hasan’s claim to descend from the Sasanidise. 
His pedigree, as given by Firishta, is as follows:—‘Ala’u-d-din Hasan, 
the son of Kaikaus, the son of Muhammad, the son of 1 All, the son of 
Hasan, the son of Saham, the son of Simun, the son of Salam, the son 
of Ibrahim, the son of Nasir, the son of Munsur, the son of Rustam, 
the son of Kaiqubad, the son of Minuchihr, the son of Namdar, the 
son of Isfandiyar, the son of Kaiyumars, the son of Khurshid, the son 
of Sa‘sa, the son of Faghfur, the son of Farrukh, the son of Shabryar, 
the son of Amir, the son of Suhaid, the son of Malik Da’ud, the son 
of Hushang, the son of Nik Kardar, the son of Firuz Bakht, the son 
of Nuh, the son of Sani‘, who was descended from Bahram-i-giir the 
Samani, who was descended from Bahman the son of Isfandiyar. This 
pedigree is varied as follows by the author of the Burlian-i-Ma dsir :— 
‘ Ala’u-d-dunya wa-’d-din Hasan Bahman Shah, son of Kaikaus 
Muhammad, son of ‘ Ali, son of Hasan, son of Bahtam, son of Simun, 
son of Salam, son of Nuh, son of Ibrahim, son of Nasir, son of Mansur, 
son of Nuh, son of Sani‘, son of Bahram, son of Shahrin, son of Sad, 
son of Nusin, son of Davad, son of Bahram-i-gur. Both historians 
express some doubts as to the authenticity of the pedigrees which they 
give, and there can be little doubt that both pedigrees are fictitious. 
