No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Of the many questions connected with the history of the Tughluq dynasty of Dihlī which have not been thoroughly investigated or conclusively determined I propose to deal in this paper with five, viz. :—
1. The name of the dynasty.
page 320 note 1 Probably the Mulḥaqāt of Shai
‘Ain-al-dīn Bījāpῡrī, which Firi
ta cites (i, 6) as one of his authorities.
page 320 note 2 See Thomas, , Chronicles of the Pathan Kings of Delhī, ed. 1871, pp. 186, 187Google Scholar.
page 321 note 1 Thomas, Chronicles, p. 192.
page 321 note 2 Mohammadan Dynasties, pp. 300, 302.
page 322 note 1 References to Baranī are to the Bibliotheca Indica text.
page 322 note 2 Ibn Baṭῡṭah describes in detail the admirable system of posts existing in the empire under the Tu
luq dynasty.
page 326 note 1 Mr. Thomas accepted it. See Chronicles, p. 108.
page 329 note 1 According to other accounts the 
ai outlived 
iyā
-al-dīn Tuluq by a month or two, and it was only his son's general relations with the ai that displeased him.
page 331 note 1 iii, 235.
page 331 note 2 i, 300, n. 3.
page 332 note 1 Bibliotheca Indica text, i, 224. Lieut.-Col. Ranking's translation i, 300.
page 333 note 1 i, 235.
page 339 note 1 Another author, Sirāj-al-dīn Abῡl Fatḥ ‘Umar, enumerates twenty-three provinces in the empire of Dihlī. See Thomas, Chronicles, p. 203.
page 341 note 1 Ibn Baṭῡṭah says that the stuffed skin of iyā-al-dīn Bahādur accompanied that of Gurshāsp, but this is a mistake, for Bahādur did not rebel until A.H. 731 (A.D. 1330–1). Ibn Baṭῡṭah had not yet arrived in India and wrote his account of this event from hearsay.
page 344 note 1 One coin is said to bear the date 734, but this is doubtful. See JASB. pt. i, lxiv, 49, and JRAS. 1909, p. 667.
page 346 note 1 Ibn Baṭῡṭah says Badarkot (Bīdar), but here the authority of Baranī is to be preferred.
page 347 note 1 Khor was situated in 27° 33′ N. and 79° 35′ E., about 6 miles to the east of Shamsābād. Sargadwārī was the Sanskrit Swargadwāra.
page 354 note 1 In the Bibliotheca Indica text of Baranī ‘ Azīz is styled Ḥimār (“ the Ass”). In the Cairo text of Ibn Baṭῡṭah, the Bibliotheca Indica text of Budāonī, and the Bombay text of Firita he is called 
ammār (“ the Vintner”). One dot only constitutes the difference between the two words, as usually written, and its omission may be due to a scribe's error or an author's deliberate pleasantry. ammār was more probably his designation.
page 355 note 1 This word literally translates the ‘amīrs of hundreds, or yῡzbā īs, who were not, however, purely military officers, but civil officials responsible for the collection of the revenue in groups of about a hundred villages each. Ibn Baṭῡṭah had had dealings with ‘ Azīz ammār when the latter was collector of revenue in the “ thousand ” of Amroha, which contained about 1,500 villages. The collectors were entitled to a commission of five per cent on their collections. The “ centurions ” were, of course, military officers as well, or they would not have been able to collect the revenue.
page 358 note 1 Another authority gives Sha‘bãn 28, 748 (Dec. 3, 1347) as the date of this event, but the earlier date is usually accepted. The adoption of the later date would not affect the argument.
page 360 note 1 Two towns immediately to the east of the Little Rann. Mandal is in 23° 16′ N. and 71° 55′ E. and Pātrī is in 25° 10′ N. and 71° 48′ E.
page 360 note 2 In Kathīāwār, situated in 21° 58′ and 70° 48′ E.