Seventeenth Expedition.-Játs of Júd. (A.H. 417.-This expedition is also recorded only by the later authorities, but the attack upon the Játs is not in itself improbable, though some of its attendant circumstances are. It is probable that, on the dissolution of the kingdom of Lahore, the Játs of the Júd hills acquired considerable power, and by predatory incursions were able to harry their neighbours. Their advance so far from their own country to attack the Muhammadan army, and the strength of the force with which they opposed it, show that they possessed no inconsiderable power. From a passage quoted by M. Reinaud from the Kámilu-t Tawáríkh, (416 н.), it appears that they had invaded the principality of Mansúra and had forced the Musulmán Amír to abjure his religion.' It does not quite appear what particular portion of the hilly country is here meant, but most probably the Salt range, on the part nearest to Multán. The Játs have now moved further to the north and east, but some of their clans point to the Salt range as their original seats. The chief improbability, and it is almost insurmountable, consists in Mahmud's being able to organise a powerful fleet of fourteen hundred boats at Multán, and in being opposed by at least four thousand boats manned by mountaineers. Even in a time of the briskest trade, fourteen hundred boats could not be collected in all the rivers of the Panjab. It is also remarkable that Mahmúd should choose to fight at all on the river, when his veteran troops would have been so much more effective on land than on water. If he could have equipped so large a fleet on a sudden emergency, it adds to the surprise which Elphinstone invites us to entertain, that Mahmud. neither in going to or returning from Somnát availed himself of the Indus. On his return, however, he does seem to have come for some way on the banks of the Indus. As the year 417 H. began on the 22nd Feb., 1026, there was ample time for Mahmúd to have returned to Ghazní in order to escape the heats and rains of Hindústán, and return again to Multán before the Ghazní winter, all within the same year. : The following account is taken from Nizámu-d dín Ahmad :"In the same year (417 н.), the Sultán, with a view to punish the Játs, who had molested his army on his return from Somnát, led a 1 Mémoire sur l'Inde, p. 272. large force towards Multán, and when he arrived there he ordered fourteen hundred boats to be built, each of which was armed with three firm iron spikes, projecting one from the prow and two from the sides, so that anything which came in contact with them would infallibly be destroyed. In each boat were twenty archers, with bows and arrows, grenades, and naphtha; and in this way they proceeded to attack the Játs, who having intelligence of the armament, sent their families into the islands and prepared themselves for the conflict. They launched, according to some, four, and according to others, eight thousand boats, manned and armed, ready to engage the Muhammadans. Both fleets met, and a desperate conflict ensued. Every boat of the Játs that approached the Moslem fleet, when it received the shock of the projecting spikes, was broken and overturned. Thus most of the Játs were drowned, and those who were not so destroyed were put to the sword. The Sultán's army proceeded to the places where their families were concealed, and took them all prisoners. The Sultán then returned victorious to Ghaznín.”Tabahut-i Akbar. NOTE E. Coins of the Ghaznivides and Ghorians. ["The Coins of the Kings of Ghazní” form the subject of two valuable papers by Mr. Thomas in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, the last of which is followed by a supplement on the Coins of the Ghorí dynasty. The same writer has also published two papers on the Coins of the "Patan Sultáns of Hindústán,” beginning with Muhammad Ghorí (1193 A.D.), and extending to Sikandar Shah (1554 A.D.) These articles contain so much that is useful by way of correction and illustration, that a few extracts and a general summary of the results so far as they relate to the reigns noticed in the present volume are here given. 1 For a similar mode of armament about the same period, see Chronicles of the Crusades, p. 199. 2 [8. Apparently some explosive or inflammable missile.] قاروره ] Firishta adds that some of the Ját boats were set on fire. [Vol. ix. p. 267, and Vol. xvii. p. 138.] Among the coins noticed by Mr. Thomas is an important one described by M. Dorn in the Bulletin de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de Saint Petersbourg, Tom. xii., 1855. This is a coin struck at Ghazní in 359 A.H., bearing the name of the Sámání suzerain Mansúr bin Núh and of Bilkátigín as ruler in Ghazní. The succession of Bilkátigín after the death of Alptigín has been passed unnoticed by almost all historians, but the Jámi’u-l Híkáyát has two stories (pp. 180-181 supra) in which he is spoken of as ruler, and the Tabakát-i Násiri (p. 267 supra), on the authority of Baihakí, states that Bilkátigín was raised to the throne on the death of Alptigín's son, Abú Isʼhák (in 367 à.¤.), and that he reigned two years. Firishta's version is that Alptigín conquered Ghazní in 351, and died in 365, when he was succeeded by his son, Abú Is'hák, who dying two years afterwards, was followed by Subuktigín. account is consistent in itself, but it is not reconcilable with the fact of Bilkátigín's coin bearing the date of 359. It can hardly be supposed that the name of Bilkátigín would be found upon a coin struck at Ghazní in the life time of Alptigîn, although indeed there are coins extant bearing the same name Bilkátigín which were struck at Balkh twenty-five years earlier in A.н. 324. The Tabakát-i Násirí (page 267 supra) states that Alptigîn died eight years after the conquest of Ghazní, which is placed by Firishta in 351 (962 A.D.) This would make the year of his death to be 359 (969 A.D.), the date of Bilkátigín's coin. Mr. Thomas, therefore, places the death of Alptigín in 359, leaving the interval between that year and 366, the date of Subuktigín's accession, to be filled up by Abú Is'hák and Bilkátigín. "The opinion advanced by many Muhammadan authors that Subuktigín should be looked upon as the first monarch of the Ghaznaví race, is not borne out by the record on his money on the contrary, however powerful and virtually independent they may have been, Subuktigín, Ismá’il, and Mahmúd himself in the early days of his rise, all acknowledged the supremacy of the Sámání emperors, and duly inscribed on the currency struck by themselves as local governors, the name of the Lord Paramount, under whom they held dominion. It was not until the year 389 A.H. (999 A.D.) that the house of Ghazní assumed independence as sovereign princes, which event is duly marked on Mahmúd's medals of the period, in the rejection of the name of the Suzerain Sámání, and the addition of the prefix Amír to his own titles. "The numerous coins of Mahmúd, in their varied titular superscriptions, mark most distinctly the progressive epochs of his eventful career, commencing with the comparatively humble prænomen of Saifu-d daula, bestowed on him by Núh bin Mansúr in 384 A.H., proceeding onwards to the then usual Sámání titles of sovereignty, Al amir, As Saiyíd, conjoined with the epithets Yamínu-d daula and Amínu-1 millat conferred on him by the Khalif Al Kádir-bi-llah, advancing next to the appellation Nizámu-d dín, and the occasional prefix of the pompous designations of Maliku-l Mamálik and Maliku-l mulúk, and finally ending in the disuse of all titular adjuncts, and the simple inscription of the now truly celebrated name he had received at his birth. "The absence of any numismatic record of the title of Ghází, said to have been adopted by Mahmúd on his return from some of his early expeditions into India, leads to an inference, not altogether unsupported by other negative evidence, that the term in question was not introduced into current use, in the full sense of its more modern acceptance, till a somewhat later period. * "Mahmud is related to have assumed the title of 'Sultán,' and to have been the first Oriental potentate who appropriated this term.1 A reference to the coins of this prince, however, leads to some doubt on the subject, and although their testimony in no wise militates against the generally received account of the origin of the designation, yet it inferentially controverts the assertion of its immediate adoption and use by Mahmúd himself. ❤ ❤ Had Mahmúd assumed this prænomen, or had he received it from any competent authority, he would most probably have inscribed the appellation on his coins, whereon it will be seen he at one time much rejoiced to record his greatness. Moreover, had this title been adopted and employed by Mahmúd in the sense in which it was subsequently used, it is but reasonable to infer that it would have been continued 1 Khulásatu-l Akhbán (Price), ii. 282; Elphinstone's India, i. 538. by his immediate successors, and, as such, would have appeared on their money; whereas, the first Ghaznaví sovereign who stamps his coinage with the term is Ibráhím, 451 A.H. During the interval, the designation had already been appropriated by another dynasty, the Saljúk Tughril Beg having entitled himself Sultán so early as 437 A.H., if not before that date. 0 "The coins of Mahmúd also afford evidence on the non-recognition of the Khalif Al Kádir-bi-llah in the province of Khurásán, until about eight years subsequent to his virtual accession. It is necessary to premise that in the year 381 A.H. the Khalif Al Taia'li-llah was dethroned by the Buwaihide Baháu-d daula, the then Amíru-l umará of the Court of Baghdad, and his place supplied by Ahmad bin Is'hák, who was elevated to the Khiláfat under the denomination of Al Kádir-bi-llah. The author of the Táríkh-i Guzida relates that the people of the province of Khurásán objecting to this supercession, which was justified by no offence on the part of the late pontiff, continued to recite the public prayers in his name; and it was not until Mahmúd of Ghazní, in disavowing his allegiance to the Sámánís, became supreme in that country, that any alteration in the practice was effected, when Mahmúd, between whom and the new Imam there existed a friendly understanding, directed the Khutbah to be read in the name of Al Kádir.' "The accuracy of this relation is fully borne out by the archæological evidence furnished by the collection under notice, Mahmúd's coins invariably bearing the designation of the superseded Khalif Al Taia' in conjunction with his own early title of Saifu-d daula, up to the year 387 H., while his money of a closely subsequent period is marked by the simultaneous appearance of the name of Al Kádir in association with his own newly-received titles of Yamínu-d daula and Amínu-l millat. Another medal bears unusually explicit testimony to this self-imposed submission, in the addition made to Mahmud's detailed honorary denominations which are here seen to 1 [These passages are very suggestive. The honours and high sounding titles conferred upon Mahmúd as a champion of the Faith had been well earned, but his merits might perhaps have passed unrewarded, but for the personal service rendered to the usurping Khalif.] VOL. II. 31 |