________________
MODERN PANJABI COINS.
NOVEMBER, 1889.]
At p. 75, in describing it he calls it "a modern Patiala rupee presented to me by the Foreign Minister of the State." It is, however, doubtful whether any such coin was ever current, as it is much larger and must be very much thinner than the regular Pațiâlâ rupee. Most likely the Minister had a medal struck for him exhibiting the whole die or nearly all of it. Its chief value is that it gives the whole legend for all practical purposes.16
We have therefore before us, as regards the Patiala State, a specimen of the coinage of each ruler that has had the right to coin in his own name, or rather on his own account, and so can trace the coins from generation to generation. These rulers reigned as follows:
36 years. 16 years.
32 years.
Raja Alha Singh A.D. 1729-1765 Raja Amar Singh 1765-1781 Maharaja Sahib Singh 1781-1813 Mahârâja Karm Singh 1813-1845 Maharaja Narindar Singh 1845-1862. Maharaja Mahindar Singh 1862-1876
32 years.
17 years. 14 years.
Maharaja Rajindar Singh 1876 to date...
I think the fair inference to be drawn from these coins is that in the 140 years during which they have been issued no material change has taken place in the artistic merit of the die-cutters.
*********....
825
Another interesting result from the study of this set of coins is that, although all of them are modern and many of them quite recent, there is a conflict of competent opinion as to which ruler the various types are to be assigned. This shows how very uncertain and difficult is accurate enquiry into the historical facts connected with semi-barbarous oriental peoples.
Griffin, op. cit. (p. 286, footnote), quoting official documents, says that Amar Singh established the Pațiâlâ mint and was the first to coin rupees:-" in fact in another place in the Pâtiâlâ Reports Samvat 1820 (A.D. 1763) is mentioned as the year." But Amar Singh did not succeed till 1765. And though it is quite possible that in minting the first coin, an old coin (i.e. of the year 4) and not a current coin (i.e. of the year 14 or 16) of Ahmad Shah was taken as the sample, yet the Pațiâlâ and indeed all the Pañjab Rupees bear the date or the year 4, i.e., A.D. 1751. Either date, 1751 or 1763, falls within Alhâ Singh's reign. So I agree with the native bankers in saying that Alha Singh initiated the currency.
a
Again says Griffin:-"Mahârâja Amar Singh's rupee is distinguished by the representation of a kalghi (small aigrette plume); Mahârâjâ Sahib Singh by that of a saif (or two-edged sword); Maharaja Karm Singh had a shamsher (bent sabre) on his coin; Mahârâja Narindar Singh's coin had a katta (or straight sword) as his distinguishing mark. The present Mahârâjâ's rupee is distinguished by a dagger." At Patiâlâ I found that the officials knew very little, but that the bankers knew a great deal, and traditionally knew to whom to assign the various rupees at once. Their statements were that Alha Singh, Amar Singh, Sahib Singh all used the kalghi, Karm Singh the saif, Narindar Singh a spear-head, Mahindar Singh, (the "present Mahârâja" of Griffin,) a halberd-head, and Rajindar Singh, subsequent to the date of Griffin's book, a dagger. It seems to me to be hardly possible that the bankers could err on so recent a coinage as that of Mahindar Singh and Narindar Singh when confronted with it, and I have preferred their statements, as given to me direct, to those of the books.
The next set of coins on the plate belongs to the Rajas of Jind, whose history we will now examine. Tilokha, the eldest son of Phûl, had two sons, Gurdittâ and Sukchain, from the former of whom sprang the Râjâs of Nâbhâ and from the latter the Rajas of Jind.
and
16 Mr. Rodgers gives a hand-drawn illustration, which may not be quite correct. After the word above the word; on the obverse is an inexplicable date vr. This might mean A. H. 1272 which A.D. 1855-6, or St. 1872 which=A.D. 1815, or Saka St. 1772 (very unlikely) which A.D. 1850. All are impossible dates for Rajindar Singh, who came to the throne in 1876. Perhaps we should read for Vr, taking to be a misreading for the latter portion of ", which would make the date St. 1982=A. H. 1292 = A.D. 1875-6.
