112 Numismatic Supplement. [Extra No. 
This latter sentence suggests the question: if rupees of the llth ? 
12th and 15th san were to be considered current along with the 19th 
san rupee, why should rupees of earlier sanwat have been exclu¬ 
ded, if equally struck in the Calcutta mint? A possible answer is, I 
think, disclosed by a close examination of the earlier Murshidabad 
rupees. The coins of the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th years in the 
Dinajpur find bear, without exception, on the obverse, between the 
upward curve of the <J of <JlA* and the 55 of a mint mark which 
is probably meant to represent a rayed sun. Out of 19 rupees of 
the 10th year, however, only three coins bear this mark. In the other 
16 it is replaced by a crescent. This crescent is borne on all the rupees 
of the 12th (7), 15th (12) and 19th (51) san. Quaere : Does the change 
from the sun to the crescent mark the closing of the Murshidabad mint 
and the transfer of the coinage of Murshidabad rupees to the Calcutta 
mint ? It is of course possible that this change in mint marks was only 
a consequence of a change in mint masters, 1 but it is often a straw 
which shews the way the wind blows, and the suggestion I have 
thrown out seems to some extent supported by other circumstantial 
evidence. We know that the Murshidabad mint was not closed till 
“ soon after the commencement of the Company’s administration,” i.e , 
soon after 1765 (the 6-7th year of Shah’Alam’s reign). We find that 
the earliest European style coinage (indubitably from the Calcutta 
mint) begins in the 10th year or 1768-9 A.D. (see No. 25 of Mr. 
Johnston’s list); and, thirdly, we have the exclusion in 1793 from the 
currency of rupees of years prior to the 11th regnal year of Shah- 
’Alam. (It would be natural to exclude the Calcutta-struck rupees of 
the 10th year because their inclusion would render difficult the exclu¬ 
sion of the Murshidabad-struck rupees of the same year, and the inten¬ 
tion of the legislature seems to have been to render obsolete all native 
mint coins). These three points may not individually be strong ones, 
but when taken together and in combination with the change of mint 
mark also in the 10th regnal year of Shah’Alam, they seem to me suffi¬ 
cient to warrant an inference that the coinage of native style Mur¬ 
shidabad rupees was transferred to Calcutta in 1768 or 1769, and that 
probably before that date the issue of those coins was confined to 
Murshidabad. 
The Dinajpur find is also interesting in another way. Mr. John¬ 
ston, on p. 76 of his paper, suggests another method of distinguishing 
between native issues and Company’s coinage. He says : “ Fortunately 
1 The sun mint mark first appears on the coins of Murshidabad in the reign of 
’ Alamgir II. (1168 A. H.) and continued without interruption till the 10th year of 
Shah’Alam (1183) A.H. 
