Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T23:29:35.981Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The fate of Dāniyāl, prince of Bengal, in the light of an unpublished inscription

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

Simon Digby
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The quantity of Oriental, and particularly Indian curiosities brought to the British Isles in two centuries of imperial rule has till very recently exceeded the interest of the educated British public in them. Many have lain unregarded for long periods in the attics and basements of the descendants of those who originally brought them back. Hence amid a mass of worthless or commonplace objects there are still pieces of historical or stylistic interest, in private ownership as well as in our great public collections, which have not yet attracted scholarly interest.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , October 1973 , pp. 588 - 602
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I am indebted to my friend Mr. Hodgkin for permission to publish this inscription, the gift of a photograph of it, and the assistance of himself and his son Louis in making the rubbing, besides hospitality while examining the inscription.

2 I am indebted to Mr. Erskine for permission to publish this second inscription and similar hospitality; to Mr. Robert Skelton for drawing my attention to Mr. Erskine's inscription and discussing the composition of the stone with me; and to Mr. John Burton-Page for help in compiling this paper.

Although these two stone epigraphs passed through the hands of the same London dealer around the same time and are therefore probably of identical provenance (and though also executed within the same calligraphic tradition), in the second inscription here published the Jess symmetrical curves of the ‘bows’ of the upper register and the more angular rendering of such groups as in the lower register make it unlikely that they were laid out by the same calligrapher.

3 Dictionary of national biography, XXVII, s.v.

4 Numerous articles by H. Blochmann, Principal of the Calcutta Madrasa, upon the history and epigraphs of the sultans of Bengal mostly appeared in JASB in the latter half of the nineteenth century: for J. H. Ravenshaw, B.C.S., Magistrate and Collector of Malda, see the preface of J. H. and Ravenshaw, C., Gaur: its ruins and inscriptions, London, 1878Google Scholar .

5 Tarafdar, M. R., Husain Shahi Bengal: 1494–1538 A.D., Dacca, 1965, 287Google Scholar .

6 In the transcription the missing dots of the Arabic letters have been supplied, but vowelsigns, tashdīd, tanwīn, and sukūn have been indicated only where they are visible upon the inscription.

7 See Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement, 1957 and 1958, pp. 29, 38, for two inscriptions with this ḥadīth from mosques in Gujarat built during the reign of Muḥammad b. Tughluq. It was observed on a lintel of a Hindu temple near the tomb of Madin Ṣāḥib, Srinagar, Kashmir, probably converted into a mosque during the fifteenth century and ruined in the Sunnī-Shi'a riots of the close of the seventeenth century. It is frequently to be seen on nineteenth- and twentieth-century mosques in the Panjab.

See also Becker, , Christianity and Islam, London, 1909, 71Google Scholar ; van Berchem, , ‘Une inscription du Sultan Mongol Uldjaitu’, in Mélanges Derenbourg, Paris, 1909, 4–5Google Scholar .

8 For the forms of this ḥadīth see Wensinck, A. J., Concordances et indices de la tradition musulmane, Leiden, 1936, I, 221Google Scholar , s.v.; Diez, E., ‘Masdjid’, El, first ed., III, 324Google Scholar ; Bukhārī, , Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. Krehl, M. L., Leiden, 1862, I, p. 124Google Scholar (—one isnād); Muslim, Ṣaḥīḥ, [Cairo], al-Azhar, 1940, II, 68Google Scholar (—one isnād each); Māja, Ibn, Sunan, ed. al-Bāqī, M. F. 'Abd, [Cairo], 1372/1952, I, 253Google Scholar (—one isnād; —three isnāds).

The form in this inscription appears to be a conflation with a different ḥadīth promising rewards in paradise, viz.: See Māja, Ibn, Sunan, I, 539Google Scholar : also Tirmidhi, acc. Wenainck, loc. cit.

The ḥadīth is found in a considerable variety of forms on Bengal mosques of the period: these include:

… Ravenshaw, , op. cit., plate 48a, p. 22Google Scholar

… … Ravenshaw, plate 49a, p. 76

… … Ravenshaw, plate 58, pp. 10, 58; Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica, 1951–2, plate xia, p. 26

… … Ravenshaw. plate 48b, p. 74

… … Ravenshaw, plate 46a, p. 72; EIM, 1933–1934, plate xia, p. 23Google Scholar ; EIM, 1953–1954, plate VIII, p. 22Google Scholar

… … EIM, 1929–1930, plate viiia, p. 13Google Scholar , but read

9 Ravenshaw, , op. cit., plates 50a and 50b, p. 78Google Scholar .

10 Ravenshaw, , op. cit., plate 55a, p. 88Google Scholar .

11 EIM, 1933–1934, plate xia, pp. 23–4Google Scholar .

12 Ravenshaw, , op. cit., plates 53, 54a, 55a, 56a, and 56b: pp. 84, 86, 88, 90Google Scholar .

13 Ravenshaw, , op. cit., plate 51a, p. 80Google Scholar ; it is conjectured to have come from a madrasa at Gauṛ.

14 Blochmann, H., ‘On a new king of Bengal ('Aláudím Fírúz) and notes on the Hosainí kings of Bengal and their conquest of Cháṭgáon (Chittagong)’, JASB, XLI, I, 4, 1872, 335Google Scholar ; see also Dani, A. H., Bibliography of the Muslim inscriptions of Bengal (down to A.D. 1538), Dacca, 1957Google Scholar (supplement to JAS Pakistan, II, 1957), 47Google Scholar .

15 Aḥjmad, Nizām al-Din, Tabaqāt-i Akbarī, Calcutta, 1913–1939, I, 320Google Scholar . The lost Ta'rīkh-i Ibrāhīm Shāhī is mentioned by this author among his sources, I, 4.

16 'Badāyūnī, Abd al-Qādir, Muntakhab al-tawārīkh, Calcutta, 1864–1869, i, 316–17Google Scholar ; Farishta, Muḥammad Qāsim Hindūehah, Ta'rīkh-i Farishta, Cawnpore, 1874, I, 181–2Google Scholar .

17 Niām al-Din Aḥmad and Farishta, locis citatis.

18 al-Din¦Aḥmad, op. cit. III, 271; Farishta, II, 302.

19 Naṣir al-Dīn Nuṣrat Shāh, 925–38/1519–31; Ghiyāth al-Dīn Maḥmūd Shāh, 939–45/1532–8.

20 Blochmann, H. in JASB, XLI, i, 4, 1872, 335–6Google Scholar ; for an earlier stage in this identification, see his ‘Koch Bihár, Koch Hájo and Ásám, in the 16th and 17th centuries’, JASB. XLI. I, 1, 1872, 79Google Scholar .

21 Prinsөp, J., Useful tables. Pt. II, chronological and genealogical tables of ancient and modern India, Calcutta, 1836, 117Google Scholar .

22 Shihāb al-Dīn¦Tālish, Fatḥīya-i 'ibrīya, Calcutta, 1265/1849, 66Google Scholar .

23 Muḥammad¦Kāzim, , ‘Ālamgīr-nāma, Calcutta, 1865–1873, 731Google Scholar .

24 Salīm, Ghulām Ḥusayn, Riyāḍ alsalāṯīn, Calcutta, 1890, 133–4Google Scholar .

25 Tarafdar, M. B., ‘The dates of Ḥusain Shāh's expeditions against Kāmrūpa and Orissa’, JNSI, xix, 1, 1957, 54–8Google Scholar , especially 55.

26 Prinsep, loc. cit.

27 Chukruvarttee, Tarachand, ‘History of Assam’, Asiatic Journal, NS, II, 05–08 1830, 297–303Google Scholar . The passage here quoted is on p. 299. According to the prefatory remarks this review was previously printed in the India Gazette, Calcutta.

28 Phukkan, Halirāma Dhakiyāl, Āsām burañji, Calcutta, Bengali Faṣli 1236/A.D. 1829, 12–14Google Scholar . I am indebted to Dr. P. Chaudhuri for examining this text with me. In the British Museum's Catalogue of Bengali printed books, Blumhardt has quite wrongly called the author Ṣarma in place of Phukkan.

29 Barua, Rai Sahib Golap Chandra (ed. and tr.), Ahom-burañji, Calcutta, Baptist Mission Press, 1930, 67–73Google Scholar .

30 Dani, A. H., Bibliography of the Muslim inscriptions of Bengal (down to A.D. 1538), Nos. 94, 144Google Scholar ; JASB, NS, v, 7, 1909, 260Google Scholar ; JASB, XLI, i, 4, 1872, 332Google Scholar ; JASB, Proceedings, 1872, 132.

31 For Mohammad b. Tughluq's Qarāchal expedition see Baranī, , Ta'rīkh-i Fērōzsahāhī, Calcutta, 1862, 447–8Google Scholar ; ‘Iṣāmī, , Futūḥ al-sclātīn, Madras, 1948, 466–8Google Scholar ; Sihrindi, , Ta'rīkh-i Mubārahshāhī, Calcutta, 1931, 103–4Google Scholar ; Baṭṭūta, Ibn, Riḥla, Paris, 1853–1857, in, 325–8Google Scholar (tr. A. M. Husain, Baroda, 1953, 98). For Muḥammad Bakhtyār's expedition, see Jūzjānī, , Tabaqāt-i Nāṣirī, Calcutta, 1864, 194–6Google Scholar (tr. H. G. Raverty, Calcutta, 1897, 562–8); for modern writings about the latter expedition see Digby, S., War-horse and elephant in the Dehli sultanate, Oxford, 1971, p. 46Google Scholar , n. 124.

32 JNSI, XIX, 1, 1957, 55–6Google Scholar .

33 Niām al-Dīn Aḥmad, loc. cit.

34 Farishta, , op. cit., II, 301Google Scholar .

35 The latest known inscription which mentions his predecessor Muaffar Shāh as the reigning sultan is dated Ramaḍān 898/July 1493: the first with Ḥusayn Shah as the reigning sultan is dated Dhū ‘l-Qa'da 899/August 1494: see Dani, op. cit., Nos. 72, 73 .

36 Lane-Poole, S.. The coins of the Muhammadan stales of India in the British Museum, London, 1885, p. 48Google Scholar , Nos. 123–5, plate viH; Wright, Nelson, Catalogue of the coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, II (section ii), Oxford, 1907, p. 175Google Scholar , No. 175. On other coin-types of the reign the three digits of the date 899 are occasionally distinctly visible—ө.gg. in the British Museum holdings Lane-Poole No. 113, Eden No. 1077 (a type apparently unrecorded in silver—for this collection see p. 599, n. 40, below) and an unnumbered coin given by Nelson Wright in 1935: on many other coins the third digit is not visiblo—ө.gg. Lane-Poole, Nos. 110, 119, 120.

37 See p. 591, n. 13, above: Dani, op. cit., No. 83.

38 Lane-Poole, , op. cit., p. 46Google Scholar , No. 118, plate v: Wright, Nelson, op. cit., II, p. 176Google Scholar , No. 201: for readings see p. 600, n. 41, below.

39 Many coins of the Bengal sultans are much defaced by punches and knife-slashes: the phrase is used by Bhattasali, N. K., Catalogue of coins collected by A. S. M. Taifoor, Dacca, 1936, 27Google Scholar .

40 Eden No. 1076. I am grateful to the Trustees and Director of the British Museum for permission to publish and to Mr. Lowick of the Department of Coins and Medals for assistance: also to the photographic department of the Museum for supplying the illustration. ‘10’ is visible painted on the obverse of the coin, evidently as a preliminary to photography.

This is one of more than 1500 Oriental coins recorded as having been purchased for £250 from the Hon. Miss Eden on 1 March 1853—see ledger, B. M.Acquisition: coins, V, 1852–1853, 62–115Google Scholar ; p. 96, No. 1076, described as ‘Galkanda—Ibrahim’. The seller must have been the Hon. Emily Eden (1797–1869), sister of George, second Baron Auckland and first Earl of Auckland (1784–1849). Lord Auokland was Governor-General of India from 1836 to 1842 and during these years was accompanied by his talented sisters Emily and Fanny (the Hon. Frances Eden—1801–49): see the HonEden, Emily, Up the country: letters written to her sister from the upper provinces of India, London, 1866Google Scholar ; Dunbar, Janet, Golden interlude: the Edens in India, London, 1955Google Scholar . From these published letters both sisters, but particularly Emily, appear as passionate and discriminating collectors of Oriental jewels and objects of luxury, but there is no mention of a coin collection. There is no evidence that either of the sisters could read the Arabic script but there were, of oourse, officers in Lord Auckland's entourage who did so (e.g. the ill-fated SirMacnaghten, W.—cf. Up the country, I, 4–5)Google Scholar .

The entry in the BM acquisitions ledger refers to Sultan Ibrāhim of Golkonḍa (957–88/1550–80). This is a curious error, for to the present day no silver struck in the name of any of the dynasty of Golkonḍa has come to light. This and other coins of the Eden collection appear to have escaped the attention of Lane-Poole when, some 30 years after their acquisition, he was compiling the catalogues of the British Museum holdings. What is even more curious in view of this omission is that Eden No. 1076 was among a group of Indo-Muslim gold and silver coins seleoted at some time late in the nineteenth century for reproduction by electrotype. In the corridor of the Indian Section Offices in the Victoria, and Albert Museum, South Kensington, there hangs on the wall a montage of a set of these electrotypes. The two faces of our coin are at the extreme bottom right of this and the label repeats the erroneous ascription to Sultan Ibrāhīm of Golkonḍa.

41 Lane-Poole and Nelson Wright, locis oitatis. The following variant details may be noted.

On the obverse the clearly visible double octofoil on the present coin is less firmly rendered upon the other two, ‘a wavy double circle’(Lane-Poole) and ‘a double circle of which the outer is ornamented’ (Nelson Wright). On the coin described by Lane-Poole, examined by the present writer, there is no space within the central area for the legends and the issue is therefore dateless. This may also be the case with the coin described by Nelson Wright, which he does not illustrate.

On the reverse Lane-Poole reads:

The reverse legends, as read in these two catalogues, were recognized as identical by Karim, Abdul, Corpus of the Muslim coins of Bengal (down to A.D, 1538), Dacca, 1960, p. 108Google Scholar (legend no. 8: type H of the silver coins of the reign in his scheme). Dr. Karim from the catalogues and collections to which he had access did not know of other specimens of this issue, cf. pp. 110, 111, 112.

On the three coins the following variants of the reverse legend may be noted.

Line 1: clearly visible on Eden No. 1076 makes it likely that on all three coins we should read in place of

Line 4: Nelson Wright No. 201 apparently omits after

Lines 4–5:appears at the end of the fourth line on Lane-Poole No. 118: from Nelson Wright's reading it should be at the beginning of the fifth line of his No. 201, as on Eden No. 1076.

Line 5: on Lane-Poole's No. 118, when examined by the present writer, was legible after

There is no significant difference in the weights of the three coins. Eden No. 1076 weighed 10·70 grammes (just over 165 grains). Nelson Wright records his No. 201 as weighing 164 grains (= 10·626 grammes). Lane-Poole's No. 118 (a worn coin) is recorded by him as weighing 169 grains, which corresponds closely to its actual weight of 10·30 grammes.

42 Locis oitatis: see p. 592, n. 15, 16, above.

43 Farishta, II, 299, 302.

44 Locis citatis: see p. 592, n. 15, 16 above.

45 Niām al-Dīn Aḥmad, III, 271.