Indian Antiquary Vol 61

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 14

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(JANUARY, 1932
Passage (6) Wilâyat to Hindústân, 880 to 125; or 7: 1 nearly.
» (7) Irån to Hindústân, 60 to 6; or 10: 1.
. (9) Khuranan to Hindústân, 80 to 10; or 8:1. It is obvious that Jahangir usually multiplied by 8, whatever the Indian units might be. In one case (6), he must have multiplied accidentally by 7 instead of 8, for the names of the units are the same as in (4), where the factor 8 is used. The only other abnormality is the factor 10 in (7). This may possibly be intentional, since Irân is mentioned once only, but one can picture Jahangir muttering as he wrote: "I drank six sers Hindustani, multiplied by 8, that makes more than a maund of Irán, call it 11."
If this factor 8 was properly applicable to the Akbari maund, then the foreign maunda were just under 7 lb. I know of no such unit prevailing widely over the countries named ; the nearest to it is the local maund of Tabriz, which weighed 6Ib. (Letters Received, v. 248), and this should be multiplied by 9, not 8. On the other hand, the traditional unit in the countries named was certainly the Arab 2-ritl maund, which in this region was slightly less than two pounds. One-eighth of 15 lb., the maund of Hind, is 18 lb., giving a ritl very close to the ordinary value.
Jahangir's figures then, when taken together, can be interpreted as follows, but, ho far as I can see, in no other way. He wrote down whatever Indian weight was given to him, calling it usually Indian'; he multiplied by 8 and rounded to get the foreign equivalent (though he once used the factor 7 by mistake), and his name for the foreign equivalent varied at different periods. Even apart from this interpretation, it is certain that he knew of an Indian maund approximately 8 times the weight of the Arab maund, and thus equivalent to Bâbur's maund; and this 'maund of Hind' was probably used in certain departments of the Palace. If we accept Professor Hodivala's emendation of the text of Gulbadan Begam, we have another reference to the same unit; but even if we roject that suggestion, the evidence for such a maund seems to be adequate.
Two other references to a 'Hindústâni' unit are contained in that portion of the Ain-i Akbari which describes the extreme north of India, and the mountainous country to the north-west. In these regions the commonest unit of weight was not called a maund; the name used was donkey-load' (kharwar), a fact which has a definite bearing on the suggestion made in an earlier section that customary units originated in some feature of packing and transport, for there can be no question that a unit called donkey-load originated in this way. In Kashmir (i. 570), the donkey-load was " 3 maunds and 8 sers Akbarshahi "; the last word leaves no room for doubt that the compiler here meant the Akbari maund, 80 that in this region the unit was 176 lb., a heavy load for a mountain donkey, but not inconsistent with the meaning of the name.
In the district of Qandahår (i. 586) the donkey-load was " 40 maunds of Qandahår and 10 maunds of Hindůstan." This latter unit cannot, I think, be the Akbari, for a donkey. load of anything like 550 lb. is out of the question. We have the fact that one Hindûstani was equal to 4 Qandahåri maunds. In Garmsir (i. 588), 50 Garmsiri maunds were equal to 20 Qandahari; and the donkey-load' was 100 maunds, equal to 10 maunds of Hindústân. If this Hindústânî maund is taken at about 15 lb. the donkey-load in both Qandahår and Garmsir was about 150 lb., quite a probable figure for this region: the Qandahår maund was double the 2-rill maund; and the Garmsir maund was slightly smaller than the usual 2-ritl maund. I bave found no other passages throwing light on these two Afghan maunds, but it would appear that the compiler of this portion of the Rin-i Akbarí understood Hindustani' in the sense already deduced ; and the 15 lb. maund must be accepted as a fact-not, so far as I know, recorded in wholesale commerce, but recognised in the Palace and also in administrative circles.
(To be continued.)
Lame