« السابقةمتابعة »
bāz, and Khwāja Nizāmu-d-Din Auliyā were contemporaries. Bahäud-Din Zakariyā lived between 578 and 666 H. It is, therefore, likely that the Shāhzādpür Makhdūm Sāhib, too, was one of their contemporaries—if the tradition is to be believed—and came to, and settled in, Bengal in the sixth century of the Hijri—about the time of Muhammad Bakhtyār Khilji's conquest of Lakhnauti in 600 H. = 1203 A.D. He might have come in the 8th century Hijri, when Shāh Jalāluddin’s grandson was living at Multan. It is a significant fact that most of the saints of the time, who came to India, were from the Empire of Bokhārā, that is, Turkistan or Central Asia, and were originally Arabs and entitled “ Khwāja.” It is more striking that, because one of the forefathers of Khwāja Faridu-dDin Ganj-i-Shakar was a Prince of Kābul, all his descendants, for many generations, used to be called either Shāhzāda or Shāh. I am, therefore, led to suppose that the Makhdūm Sahib too was from Central Asia, closely related to some of the Khwājas of the time, and that he too was by descent an Arab of the family of Mu‘azz-ibnJabal. His settling at Yūsufshāhī may be said to synchronise with the conquest of Bengal by the Khilji General, Muhammad Bakhtyār.
Proposed identification of the name of an Andhra King in the Periplus-By C. R. WILSON, Esq., M.A.
In an article by M. Boyer in the Journal Asiatique, for Juillet-Août, 1897, the arguments are well set forth which show that the anonymous author of the Periplus wrote his work about 90 A.D. M. Boyer also argues well that the name of the king mentioned in section 41, which is usually read as Mambanos, should be corrected to Nambanos, and identifies Nambanos with Nahapāna, the great Ksaharāta satrap. In this note I venture to suggest a further identification. In section 52 of the Periplus it is stated that Kalliena, or Kalyan, was raised to the rank of a regular mart in the times of the elder Saraganes, but that after Sandanes became its master its trade was put under the severest restrictions. I think it can hardly be doubted that the reference is here to the Andhra dynasty, and that the name Saraganes must be identified with the well-known title Sri Sātakarni, or Svätikarna. Which of the earlier kings bearing the title Sri Sātakarni is referred to as the elder Saraganes must be a matter of doubt, but I think there should be no doubt about Sandanes, who by implication is the younger Saraganes. Sandanes is obviously meant for Sundara Sātakarni, or Svätikarma, and the name Sandanes may be unhesitatingly corrected to Sandares. The Brahmānda and the Matsya Purānas agree in stating that Sundara Sātakarni reigned one year; the Vāyu Purāna gives him three years The Wisnu Purāna gives the names of the kings but not the years of their reigns. After Sundara Sātakarni the Visnu Purāna places Cakora Sātakarni. The other Purānas seem to agree, and this Sātakarni is given a reign of six months. After Cakora Sātakarni comes Sivasvāti who reigned twenty-eight years. After Sivasvāti comes Gautamiputra whose initial date has been determined as 113 A.D. approximately. As the Purānas practically agree in placing Sundara Sātakarni 29 years and 6 months before Gautamiputra, the year of his reign falls in the years 83-84 AD. The Periplus makes no mention of Cakora Sātakarni. Hence it may be argued that he had not come to the throne when the information given in section 52 was collected, and as Sundara Sātakarni only reigned one year, the date of the state of things described in this section is about the beginning of 84 A.D. or the end of 83 A.D. This date is in complete and striking harmony with the views of C. Müller and Boyer, who have independently placed the Periplus between 80 and 89 A.D. I may also add that since I first made this identification I have had the advantage of reading Mar. Vincent Smith's views on the subject of the Andhra History and Coinage in the Z.D.M.G. for September, 1903. He agrees completely as to chronology. He identifies Cakora. Sātakarni with Väsisthiputra Wilivāyakura, whose initial year he reckons to be 84 A.D. Consequently Sundara Sātakarni must have reigned in the last half of 83 A.D. and the first half of 84 A.D.
On the names hitherto unidentified in four Dutch monumental inscriptions, —By C. R. WILSON, Esq., M.A.
.* [Read June, 1904.]
In the Proceedings of the Society for the year 1888 there is a short note by Beames on the Old Dutch hatchments in Chinsurah Church. He points out that in many cases they give only the initials and not the name of the deceased. As, however, the hatchments show the arms and crests, Beames suggests that anyone acquainted with Dutch heraldry can identify the name. The task is by no means so easy as is suggested; but while I was in England last year, I took advantage of a visit to Bolland to attempt it.
I herewith give the results :
1. Obijit W.A. den 13th Augustus an° 1668.1 Crest: a Moor's head couped sable filletted or. Arms: two fleurs-de-lys gules.
The letters W.A. most probably represent Willem Andries. The state records at the Hague preserve a letter from Director Mattheus van den Broucke of Chinsurah to the Governor-General at Batavia, in which mention is made of an assistant named Willem Andries. A Moor's head is part of the crest of the modern families Beucker Andreae and Bothnia Andreae who descend from Andries Gadzeszoon, 1620-78.
2. Obijt R.W.H. den 9 Juni anno 1665. Crest: a lion decouped gules. Arms: or, in chief a lion decouped gules, in base three pellets. This is obviously Rogier van Heyningen. The date agrees with the dates of his death as stated by Valentyn, and the armorial bearings are those of the family. to
3. R. B. Obijt 28th Nov. a. 1733. Crest: a bear sejant sable. Arms: gules two bears sejant sable. Knight's helmet. The letters R.B. appear to stand for Rogier Berenaart. Originally from Amsterdam : it appears from the state records at the Hague, that he left Holland for
1 So Beames reads the date. In my list of Indian Monumental Inscriptions (Bengal) I made the year 1662.
India in 1725. He became Director of the Dutch factory at Chinsurah, His name is found on the rolls of the factory for June, 1732, and June 1734, but not afterwards. This agrees with the date of death. The armorial bearings obviously pun upon the name. Besides these three monumental inscriptions at Chinsurah there is a large tomb at Chapra with the inscription J.V.H. 26 Junij, A.D.
The letters J.W.H. stand for Jacob van Hoorn. In the Bengal Consultations Book for 1712 we find that on July 7th the Council received news from Patna of the death of Mr. Wan Lorne and the seizure of the Dutch goods. This agrees with the date on the tomb, which places the death in June. But Mr. Irvine writing on the Later Mughals in the J.A.S.B. for 1896, p. 183, says that Jacob van Hoorn died at Patna in July. If this were so the identification of the letters as standing for Jacob van Hoorn, which I have already suggested in gly English in Bengal, II, 1, 64, could not hold. To settle the point I referred to the records.in the Hague. After a good deal of search Dr. de Huller, the assistant archivist, has found a letter from the Chief and Council of Hughli to the Directors-General at Amsterdam, from which he has kindly furnished me with the following extract:— *
“The Hon’ble Company will ågain have to suffer a deplorable loss. Two days after the death of the merchant in-chief, van Hoorn, that is to say, the 28th June, Prince Farochsier has seized by force without the least reason the Company's goods and servants at Pattena; the value of the goods amounting to more then 220,000 rupees.” From this letter it is clear that Jacob van Hoorn did die on June 26, 1712, and I think there can now be no further doubt as to the identification of the letters J.W.H.