8 
W. Haig —Some Notes on the Bahmani Dynasty . [Extra No. 
(6) The Parentage of Firuz Shah and Ahmad Shah, the Eighth 
and Ninth Kings. 
Firishta says 1 that Mahmud Shah (Da’ud is evidently meant) had 
three sons : (1) Muhammad Sanjar, who was blinded ; (2) Firuz Khan; 
and (3) Ahmad Khan; and that the uncle of these boys, Muhammad Shall 
II (whom Firishta calls Mahmud) before he had sons of his own, 
brought up Firuz and Ahmad as his sons, married them to two of his 
daughters, and led Firuz to believe that he would be his heir, but that 
after the birth of his own sons he made Firuz and Ahmad swear alle¬ 
giance to Grhiyasu-d-din. This plausible story accounts for Firuz 
Khan’s ambition, but for various reasons it cannot be accepted as true. 
In the first place the author of the Burhan-i-Ma asir, who is a better 
authority than Firishta in genealogical questions, makes 2 Firuz and 
Ahmad the sons of Afymad Khan, the son of ‘ Ala’u-d-din Bahman 
Shah, and he is supported 3 by the author of th q Tazkiratu-l-Muluk. 
Firishta does not explain why the two younger sons of Da’ud should 
have been brought up as princes in the line of succession to the throne 
when it was found necessary to blind their eldest brother, Muhammad 
Sanjar. There is good evidence, of a negative nature, in favour of 
the statements of the authors of the Burhan-i-Ma’cisir and the Tazkiratu- 
l-Muluh. Among Oriental rulers the pride of descent is more exacting 
than it is in the West, and descent from those who are merely members 
of a royal house is less highly regarded than a descent whieh can be 
traced through an unbroken line of actual wearers of the crown. This 
pride finds its expression in the common formula o'M-Jl 
^'kUslj ^Jt and, when a king can establish such a line of descent, he 
rarely fails to mention his father’s name on his coins and in his inscrip¬ 
tions. So far as I know, neither Firuz Shah nor Ahmad Shah ever 
mentions his father’s name in such inscriptions. Ahmad Shah’s name 
appears in the inscriptions in his fine tomb at Bidar, but his father’s 
does not. If the brothers had been sons of Da’ud, a king who actually 
reigned, they would certainly have mentioned the fact, either on their 
coins or in their inscriptions. As they have not done so it may be 
safely held, with the authors of the Burhan-i-Md cisir and the Tazkirutu- 
s-Salatin , that Firuz and Ahmad were the sons of Ahmad Khan, the 
son of ‘Ala’u-d-din Bahman Shah. 
I have referred above to an exceptional coin. This is the coin 
winch I have already mentioned in the account of the founder of the 
Bahmani dynasty. The reverse bears the inscription, “Ahmad Shah 
bin Ahmad Shah bin Bahman Shah,” but no date. I was inclined to 
1 Firishta, i. 583. 2 King, pp. 36, 49. & King, p- 47. 
