« PreviousContinue »
No. 7.-Three coins ; much defaced ; the same legend as in the last, but the dates are not distinguishable, and they cannot be classed.
No. 8.-A very curious coin ; the shape and appearance of it is more like one of Akbar's than any of Aurunyzeb depicted in Marsden, or any silver one of Aurungzeb that I have ever seen. However, the name
Aurungzeb Alumgeer" is perfectly distinct. I have in my collection a gold mohur of his very like it, though there are no dates upon it. My gold coin is dated A.R. 3.
A coin of Jehandar Shah, A.H. 1124, A.R. 1. Legend on Area I. as in Marsden's DCCCCIV., except here it is of woo for gfnogo Area II.
foo not so distinct as to where it was struck ; apparently Jehanabad.
A coin of Farrukhseer, A.H. 1126, A.R. 3. The legend the same as Marsden's DCCCCVII., ex that this appears to have been struck at Ahmedabad, though the name is not clearly legible.
Another coin of Furrukhseer, A.H. is illegible, but A.R. being 6, it must be 1129. The legend is the same as Marsden’s DCCCCVIII., except that the place of coinage is different, and what the place on this coin is I cannot make out; the only letters legible being so.
These coins having been dug up at Wulli, I expected to find some very old ones,—that city, or rather “Wullabhi,” having been destroyed in A.D. 524; but these coins could not have been buried then but some 1200 years later. As the Society have no silver coins of either Aurungzeb, Jehandar, or Furrukhseer, these will be an acceptable addition to their collection, although they are not of the same value to antiquaries as they would have been had they been coins of any king that could have been buried when Wullabhi was destroyed.”—13th August 1857.
Read the following letter from J. Romer, Esq., to the address of the Secretary of the Society :
"48, Gloucester Square, Hyde Hark, 18th July 1857. “Sir,-By book-post' I have the pleasure to send to the Society a No. of the · Révue de l'Orient' for India.
“It contains a paper from me on the Pahlavi of the Zend Avesta, put into French by a friend.
“In a letter to the Royal Asiatic Society taking leave of the subject, I say, 'this paper will close my examination of the contested question of Zend (now Pahlavi) authenticity.'
“On looking over what I have written in endeavouring to dispel the obscurity, and to correct the errors in which the subject is involved, I
am encouraged in the belief of having sufficiently established this fact --it may not be doubted that remains of writings extant in the fifth century, when the Armenian Bishop Essick carried on a religious controversy with the Persian Magi,* have, as shown by their agreement, furnished materials for the composition of some parts of the sacred books of the Parsis, whilst it is manifest, by the testimony of undisputed facts, that the languages named Zend and Pahlavi, in which these books are written, are artificial, not genuine, original, or indigenous tongues at any time spoken by any people or nation known to history. At this conviction I have arrived after diligent, but, from circumstances, somewhat desultory search for truth:
(Signed) JOAN ROMER. "P.S.-I have seen Spiegel's book on Dhunjibhoy Framji's Huzvarash, published under the following title, Grammatik der Huzvarasch Sprache, von Fr. Spiegel: Wien,' 1856:
“On the title-page of the original, we read - In the year of Zoroaster 2244.' It were useless to ask for the authority on which the era here given of an imaginary personage rests. It is no other than a palpable forgery quietly put forward with an air of truth.-J. R.”
The President then read the following result of his examination of 65 silver and copper coins from the Hoozoor Treasury, Ahmedabad, submitted for the Society's Report by the Goverument, with their letter No: 140, dated 17th January 1856 :
“I feel that an apology is due to Government for my having detained these coins so long, and a further apology for their number having become diminished from 65 to 46; nineteen of them, which were all copper ones, having been so corroded, that they were reduced to powder in my attempt to clean them.
“Although not one of these is half perfect, I have, from placing them altogether, been able to make out the legend that we should find on the perfect one. The annexed drawings of the coin will show the legend, (see original M.S.] which appears to me to be as follows :
“There are none of the coins in the Society's collection, and they evidently belong to that Surashtran sub-species mentioned by Mr. Thomas, Vol. XII. of the Journal of the R.A.S., page 63, as yet unattri. buted. The obverse has no legend upon it; but I observe a peculiarity
* Wilson's “ Parsi Religion," p. 123; Révue de l'Orient,” April 1857.
in it that, there appears to be a crescent in the front of the cap which there is not in the Sah coins; while on the reverse, instead of the Chaitya symbol, we have what Mr. Thomas calls the figure of a manthe appropriate sign of the Buddhist layman. Prinsep (Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Vol. IV. p. 687) remarks that, the legend where best preserved appears a mere repetition of the letter "p," with the prefix "1," "," and "y." Having succeeded in making the legend complete, I was in hopes that I might be able to decipher it."
Mr. Thomas found those "admirable test-letters which were to form the word राज्ञो" and the highly important words महा छचपन which conclusively establish the connection existing between those he had and the pure Sah money ; but even with this assistance and that afforded me by the modifications of the Sanscrit alphabet from the 5th cent. B. C. (Jour. Beng. Asiat. Soc. Vol. VII. p. 276), I was unable to make out the legend, and therefore called in the aid of Venaik Shastree who gave me the following reading of it :
Boopatee Prutoo or Prutap raj Pompapore Aseer, which would agree with what Prinsep says, as I have above quoted ; but I could not reconcile myself with the legend, and therefore recommended him to reconsider it. This he has done and now suggests as the reading :
Gupta Umerpoor Gupta Dama Poora Nurpooram, but that neither corresponds with what Mr. Thomas has made out nor is it altogether consistent with itself; the letters to which he gives the same equivalents having different forms, and I therefore must confess myself baffled, and would inform Government :
“That the coins belong to a group as yet unattributed; that we have separated ten out of the 19 coins and placed them in three packets ; as from them, when all placed in order, the whole legend becomes complete ; and that we hope that if sent to the Museum at the East India House, Dr. Wilson will be able to pronounce if these coins throw any light on history; whether they supply the name of a new king, or whether the barbarization is so utter that, what appear to be letters are only a rude and ignorant imitation of the perfect coins of the Sah dynasty."-10th September 1857.
Report by the President, on a gold coin discovered in 1854, in the Inaum Field of Khunderow bin Mulharow, Patel of Sickoree, (Poona Collectorate,) submitted for examination by the Government.
“ The legend on the obverse of this coin is
“ The Sultan Mahomed Shah bin Luteef Shah, 55. “ On the reverse
“There is no other strength but in the Omnipotent, the author of the World and Religion.”
“ From which I conclude that this beautiful coin is one of Mahomed Shah III., King of Ahmedabad, who reigned from A.H. 944 (A.D. 1538) to 961 (A.D. 1853-4). He is called in Prinsep's Tables "Mahmood bin Luteef,” but no such name is known on this side of India. In Ferishta and the Miratee Ahmed, as well as on this coin, the name is evidently « Luteef.” I have never seen the coin in any numismatic description, and look upon it as very valuable. In my private collection is a copper coin of this same king, which was found at Cambay, and also two silver coins of this dynasty, one of Muzuffer Shah II., and the other of the last king of Ahmedabad, viz. Muzuffer Shah III., which were found at Ahmedabad. The characters of these very much resemble this one, but they are neither so perfect nor so beautiful. Those of Muzuffer Shah III. have the legend in Sanscrit as well as in Arabic.”
The Rev. Dr. Wilson, Honorary President, having observed that he thought the former coin from the same parcel which had been mislaid was different from that examined by Mr. Frere, the Secretary was directed, in forwarding a copy of Mr. Frere's report to Government with the gold coin, to state that, if there were any different from the one returned, the Society would feel grateful to Government for being allowed to examine those also.
Dhunjibhoy Framjee, Esq., then read his paper on the “Authenticity of the Iranian Family of Languages," of which the following is a short abstract :
“The author stated that it was the first of a series of papers on this subject which he intended to bring before the Society. He confined himself on the present occasion to the Zend language, questioning the opinion of W. Schlegel, Sir W. Jones, Richardson, Van Kennedy, and Mr. Romer, that the language was fabricated by the Parsis after their emigration from Persia. He maintained that the language did formly exist in Persia. He strengthened this assertion by saying that we meet with several Zend characters on blocks of stones at Behistun in Persia as well as with the cuneiform inscriptions. He advanced various ancient and modern authorities in support of his observations, forming his argument, more or less, on the representations of the following writers :-
" Plato, Aristotle, Theopompus, Hermippus, Strabo, Pliny, Eusebius, St. Clement, Adelung, Henry Lord, Gabriel de Chinon, B. Taverner, D. Sanson, Chevalier Chardin, E. Burnouf, E. Rask, H. Brockham, Sir G. Ousley, Sir H. Rawlinson, N. L. Westergaard, Dr. Rhode, H. H. Wilson, A. Trayer, D. Shen, Dr. Hyde, A. Du Perron, J. F. Klenker, Dr. John Wilson, F. Bopp, C. Lassen, Heeren, F. Spiegel, and others.
“ He maintained that the Zend language was introduced by Zoroaster into Bactria, the ancient capital of Iran, in the reign of Gushtasp or Hystaspes. He argued that as Plato, Aristotle, Theopompus, and others who lived four centuries before Christ, showed a knowledge of the sacred language of the Parsis, the language must be of very remote time. He observed that, had the language been forged by the modern Parsis, it could scarcely have stood the test when examined by the light of comparative philology. He made some observations on the views of Mr. Romer and others on the subject, and concluded by saying that some learned Orientalists are very much mistaken in believing that a language so copious and expansive as the Zend could be forged by the modern Parsis.”
The Rev. Dr. Wilson, Honorary President, at the close of the reading of Mr. Dhunjibhoy's paper, observed that he was sure that it would meet with the indulgence of the members of the Society, even though it dealt almost exclusively with European authorities, and added nothing to their representations and reasonings on the matter to which it referred. This he did on the ground that it is desirable that European scholars should know the position which the modern Parsis are desirous of occupying in reference to the history of their own religion and literature. It was not necessary to submit the article to rigid criticism. The questions at which it glanced are all coming to a rapid solution, and they are best in the hands of those who are able and willing to treat them on their own merits.- 8th October 1857.
MONDAY, 30th Nov. 1857. The Secretary, at the request of the President, read the following report of the committee of management for the past year :
GENTLEMEN, ---During the past year only three resident members have been elected, and no non-resident member.
There have been 127 books and pamphlets presented to the Library, and fifteen donations for the Museum,