|
|
Note the word majulus instead of julus
|
|
Struck at Bijapur in
the 23rd tranquil and prosperous year of reign of the now acknowledged
monarch Aurangzeb Alamgir |
|
|
Jan
Lingen wrote: Majulus
seems only inscribed on the rupees 1091 AH/Ry.23. Similar rupees of
1091/Ry.23 with correct inscription are known as well (See Nagpur Museum
Catalogue #1374). Coins with Ry.24 (see ONS NL#158, p.22-23) have the correct
Julus inscribed on them as well. This type of rupee, without the mint epithet
"Dar al-Zafar" was struck while Bijapur was under siege by the
Mughal army and struck as a public obedience to the Mughal Emperor by the
Bijapur government. Whether the Majulus inscription is a die-cutters error or
it has a political meaning, I just don't know, but it must be one of the
earliest issues, struck under Sikandar Shah of Bijapur, acknowledging the
Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. For further reading regarding the historical
background of the rupees of Bijapur dated 1091 AH in the name of Aurangzeb
Alamgir, see ONS-NL#158, p.22-23. In
addition he wrote: Rupees without epithet were struck from 1680 (AH1091, which date
became frozen on the coins) by Sikander Shah of Bijapur as acknowledgement of
the Great Mughal. The intial issue has a peculiar reverse formula: Zarb Bijapur Sanah Majloos Maimanat Manus (Struck at Bijapur in the year 23 of the acknowledged monarch's
tranquil prosperity). This particular formula may have been used to acknowledge the
Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, as the ruling or sitting monarch but still
regarding themselves independent. The normal Julus formula reads as: Zarb Bijapur Sanah Jalus Maimanat Manus (Struck at Bijapur in the year 23 of his reign of tranquil
prosperity) Thanks to Admirtal Sohail Khan on the SACG, who provided the
following information regarding the reading: The word "majloos" on the coin of Aurangzeb is an
interesting phenomenon. I can offer one explanation which seems to me to fit in. My
explanation may appear a bit dry though. In Persian and in Urdu, an impersonal noun is used to make an
objective personal attribute. [I believe that the practice is same/similar in
Arabic]. This is generally always achieved by simply adding an
"Meem" to the base word. Not to bore you, but to clarify the point,
I give a few simple examples which probably all those with even working
knowledge of Persian/Urdu/Hindi will quickly recognize. Hifazat ...........to.....Mahfooz (protection to ...one who is
protected or the protected one) Muhabbat ......to.....Mahboob (one who is loved, or the loved
one) Ikhtiyar ...........to ....Mukhtar (one who is given the choice) Hamd ............to .....Mahmood (one who is praised) Khitab ............to ....Mukhatib ( one who is addressed) Majlis .............to.....Majloos (one who is sitting or made
to sit) Jazb ..............to .....Majzoob (one who is absorbed --used
for Saints--Bu Ali Shah Qalandar at Dehli) and there are so many other words in day to day use in
India/Pakistan. I must admit that I have not come across the use of word Majloos
anywhere and even in dictionaries/Lughat. This derivation, however, seems
very logical, and seems to be Arabic rather than Persian. Hence, I think that the use of word MAJLOOS is not an error of
the mintmaster but a novel use of a word conveying the same meanings. He may
be hinting that 'it is a recent phenomenon ....sarcastically....that here in
Bijapur Aurangzeb was not reigning for past 23 years, but has recently been
installed/acknowledged as sitting monarch etc etc being the hidden meaning
that Aurangzeb's Jaloos here is a recent one. It was however not an
acknowledged practice in Mughal territories and probably remained a totally isolated
example. Grammatically this word differs from JALOOS which was " a
statement" to a word that is attributed to person of Aurangzeb. The
translation could also be "Aurangzeb who has now been enthroned
.........." [ again implying ---has not been in the past in 22 years..].
God only knows the Truth. This probably becomes one of the very interesting Persian/Arabic
word used on Mughal coins.Further information for these specific rupees see
the article in the ONS Newsletter #158 (p.22-23) "Rupees of Bijapur
dated 1091H. in the name of Aurangzeb Alamgir". |
|
|
|
|
|
Photo from Zeno 157070, posted by
Lingen (from Shailesh P Jain |
|
