4 
W. Haig —Some Notes on the Bahmani Dynasty. [Extra No. 
We are not concerned, however, with the genuineness of IJasan’s 
claim, for this is a question which cannot now he decided. It is cer¬ 
tain that he put forward the claim and that his title “ Bahman Shah ” 
was an embodiment of its assertion. The author of the Burhav- 
i-'Ma'asir says (King, p. 1) “ in consequence of his descent the king was 
known as Bahman,” and subsequently (King, p. 17) refers to him as 
“ the cream of the race of Bahman.” 
I believe that I have shewn that the epithet “ Bahmani ” applied 
to the great dynasty of the Dakan has no connection with the caste- 
name “ Brahman,” but is derived from the old Persian name Bahmani 
which was borne, as a title, by the founder of the dynasty. 
(2) The Offspring of ‘Ala’u-d-dIn Bahman Shah. 
According to the author of the Burhdn-i-Ma > dsir 1 Bahman Shah 
had four sons of whom three, Muhammad the eldest, Mahmud* and 
Ahmad 3 are named. Firishta does not give the number of the sons, 
but names three, MAhammad 4 the eldest, Da’ud, 5 who afterwards 
ascended the throne as the fourth king of the line, and Mahmud 6 the 
youngest. Khafi Khan, in the third volume of the Muntakhabu-l- Lubdb , 
says that Bahman Shah had four sons, but he mentions three only. 
Muhammad the eldest, Mahmud and Da’ud. No list of Bahman Shah’s 
sons is given in the Tabaqdt-i-AJcbarz , and Muhammad is mentioned 
as his son, without being distinguished as the eldest. 7 Elsewhere, 8 
however, Muhammad Shah, the fifth king of the dynasty is referred 
to as “ the son of Mahmud, the son of Hasan Shah ” ( sul . Bahman 
Shah). It is clear, from the general consensus of authorities, that 
Muhammad, Bahman Shah’s successor, was his eldest son, and it is 
also clear that Bahman Shah had a son named Mahmud. The state" 
ments of the authors of the Burhan-i-Ma’asir and the Munta kh abu-l - 
Lubdb as to the number of his sons may be accepted as correct, in spite 
of the fact that no one authority names more than three sons. We 
have, therefore, two sons to account for, viz., Ahmad, mentioned by 
the authors of the Burhan-i-Ma'dsir , the Tazkiratu-l-Muluk , 9 and 
Da’ud, mentioned by Firishta and Khafi Khan. There seems to be little 
doubt that Bahman Shah had a son named Ahmad, but this question will 
be considered in connection with that of the parentage of the eighth and 
ninth Sultans of the dynasty. I cannot, however, find any sufficient 
reason for believing that Ahmad was the youngest son, as stated by 
1 King, p. 22. 
£ Ibid, p. 31. 
8 Ibid, p. 36. 
* Firishta, i. 627. 
* Ibid, i. 633, 673. 
« Ibid, i. 533. 
1 King, p. 408. 
8 Tabaqdt-i-Alibarl , p. 410. 
5 King, p. 47. 
I 
