H.—On the Countermark Bih Būd on Coins.
As coins of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā Bāī-qarā and other rulers do actually bear the words Bih būd, Bābur’s statement that the name of Bihbūd Beg was on the Mīrzā’s coins acquires a numismatic interest which may make serviceable the following particulars concerning the passage and the beg.2782
a. The Turkī passage (Elph. MS. f. 135b; Ḥaidarābād Codex f. 173b; Ilminsky p. 217).
For ease of reference the Turkī, Persian and English version are subjoined:—
(1) Yana Bihbūd Beg aīdī. Būrūnlār chuhra-jīrga-sī-dā khidmat qīlūr aīdī. Mīrzā-nīng qāzāqlīqlārīdā khidmatī bāqīb Bihbūd Beg-kā bū ‘ināyatnī qīlīb aīdī kīm tamghā u sikka-dā ānīng ātī aīdī.
(2) The Persian translation of ‘Abdu’r-raḥīm (Muḥ. Shīrāzī’s lith. ed. p. 110):—
Dīgar Bihbūd Beg būd. Auwalhā dar jīrga-i-chuhrahā khidmat mikard. Chūn dar qāzāqīhā Mīrzārā khidmat karda būd u ānrā mulāḥaẓa namūda, aīnrā ‘ināyat karda būd kah dar tamghānāt sikka2783 nām-i-au būd.
(3) A literal English translation of the Turkī:—
Another was Bihbūd Beg. He served formerly in the chuhra-jīrga-sī (corps of braves). Looking to his service in the Mīrzā’s guerilla-times, the favour had been done to Bihbūd Beg that his name was on the stamp and coin.2784
b. Of Bihbūd Beg.
We have found little so far to add to what Bābur tells of Bihbūd Beg and what he tells we have not found elsewhere. The likely sources of his information are Daulat Shāh and Khwānd-amīr who have written at length of Ḥusain Bāī-qarā. Considerable search in the books of both men has failed to discover mention of signal service or public honour connected with the beg. Bābur may have heard what he tells in Harāt in 912 AH. (1506 AD.) when he would see Ḥusain’s coins presumably; but later opportunity to see them must have been frequent during his campaigns and visits north of Hindū-kush, notably in Balkh.
The sole mention we have found of Bihbūd Beg in the Ḥabību’s-siyar is that he was one of Ḥusain’s commanders at the battle of Chīkmān-sarāī which was fought with Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā Mīrānshāhī in Muḥarram 876 AH. (June-July 1471 AD.).2785 His place in the list shews him to have had importance. “Amīr Niz̤āmu’d-dīn ‘Alī-sher’s brother Darwesh-i-‘alī the librarian (q.v. Ḥai. Codex Index), and Amīr Bihbūd, and Muḥ. ‘Alī ātāka, and Bakhshīka and Shāh Walī Qīpchāq, and Dost-i-muḥammad chuhra, and Amīr Qul-i-‘alī, and” (another).
The total of our information about the man is therefore:—
(1) That when Ḥusain2786 from 861 to 873 AH. (1457 to 1469 AD.) was fighting his way up to the throne of Harāt, Bihbūd served him well in the corps of braves, (as many others will have done).
(2) That he was a beg and one of Ḥusain’s commanders in 876 AH. (1471 AD.).
(3) That Bābur includes him amongst Ḥusain’s begs and says of him what has been quoted, doing this circa 934 AH. (1528 AD.), some 56 years after Khwānd-amīr’s mention of him s.a. 876 AH. (1471 AD.).
c. Of the term chuhra-jīrga-sī used by Bābur.
Of this term Bābur supplies an explicit explanation which I have not found in European writings. His own book amply exemplifies his explanation, as do also Khwānd-amīr’s and Ḥaidar’s.
He gives the explanation (f. 15b) when describing a retainer of his father’s who afterwards became one of his own begs. It is as follows:—
“‘Alī-darwesh of Khurāsān served in the Khurāsān chuhra-jīrga-sī, one of two special corps (khāṣa tābīn) of serviceable braves (yārār yīgītlār) formed by Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā when he first began to arrange the government of Khurāsān and Samarkand and, presumably, called by him the Khurāsān corps and the Samarkand corps.”
This shews the circle to have consisted of fighting-men, such serviceable braves as are frequently mentioned by Bābur; and his words “yārār yīgīt” make it safe to say that if instead of using a Persian phrase, he had used a Turkī one, yīgīt, brave would have replaced chuhra, “young soldier” (Erskine). A considerable number of men on active service are styled chuhra, one at least is styled yīgīt, in the same way as others are styled beg.2787
Three military circles are mentioned in the Bābur-nāma, consisting respectively of braves, household begs (under Bābur’s own command), and great begs. Some men are mentioned who never rose from the rank of brave (yīgīt), some who became household-begs, some who went through the three grades.
Of the corps of braves Bābur conveys the information that Abū-sa‘īd founded it at a date which will have lain between 1451 and 1457 AD.; that ‘Umar Shaikh’s man ‘Alī-darwesh belonged to it; and that Ḥusain’s man Bihbūd did so also. Both men, ‘Ali-darwesh and Bihbūd, when in its circle, would appropriately be styled chuhra as men of the beg-circle were styled beg; the Dost-i-muḥammad chuhra who was a commander, (he will have had a brave’s command,) at Chīkmān-sarāī (see list supra) will also have been of this circle. Instances of the use by Bābur of the name khaṣa-tābīn and its equivalent būītīkīnī are shewn on f. 209 and f. 210b. A considerable number of Bābur’s fighting men, the braves he so frequently mentions as sent on service, are styled chuhra and inferentially belong to the same circle.2788
d. Of Bih būd on Ḥusain Bāī-qarā’s coins.
So far it does not seem safe to accept Bābur’s statement literally. He may tell a half-truth and obscure the rest by his brevity.
Nothing in the sources shows ground for signal and public honour to Bihbūd Beg, but a good deal would allow surmise that jesting allusion to his name might decide for Bih būd as a coin mark when choice had to be made of one, in the flush of success, in an assembly of the begs, and, amongst those begs, lovers of word-play and enigma.
The personal name is found written Bihbūd, as one word and with medial h; the mark is Bih būd with the terminal h in the Bih. There have been discussions moreover as to whether to read on the coins Bih būd, it was good, or Bih buvad, let it be, or become, good (valid for currency?).
The question presents itself; would the beg’s name have appeared on the coins, if it had not coincided in form with a suitable coin-mark?
Against literal acceptance of Bābur’s statement there is also doubt of a thing at once so ben trovato and so unsupported by evidence.
Another doubt arises from finding Bih būd on coins of other rulers, one of Iskandar Khān’s being of a later date,2789 others, of Tīmūr, Shāhrukh and Abū-sa‘īd, with nothing to shew who counterstruck it on them.
On some of Ḥusain’s coins the sentence Bih būd appears as part of the legend and not as a counterstrike. This is a good basis for finding a half-truth in Bābur’s statement. It does not allow of a whole-truth in his statement because, as it is written, it is a coin-mark, not a name.
An interesting matter as bearing on Ḥusain’s use of Bih būd is that in 865 AH. (1461 AD.) he had an incomparable horse named Bihbūd, one he gave in return for a falcon on making peace with Mustapha Khān.2790
e. Of Bābur’s vassal-coinage.
The following historical details narrow the field of numismatic observation on coins believed struck by Bābur as a vassal of Ismā‘īl Ṣafawī. They are offered because not readily accessible.
The length of Bābur’s second term of rule in Transoxiana was not the three solar years of the B.M. Coin Catalogues but did not exceed eight months. He entered Samarkand in the middle of Rajab 917 AH. (c. Oct. 1st, 1511 AD.). He returned to it defeated and fled at once, after the battle of Kūl-i-malik which was fought in Ṣafar 918 AH. (mid-April to mid-May 1512 AD.). Previous to the entry he was in the field, without a fixed base; after his flight he was landless till at the end both of 920 AH. and of 1514 AD. he had returned to Kābul.
He would not find a full Treasury in Samarkand because the Aūzbegs evacuated the fort at their own time; eight months would not give him large tribute in kind. He failed in Transoxiana because he was the ally of a Shī‘a; would coins bearing the Shī‘a legend have passed current from a Samarkand mint? These various circumstances suggest that he could not have struck many coins of any kind in Samarkand.
The coins classed in the B.M. Catalogues as of Bābur’s vassalage, offer a point of difficulty to readers of his own writings, inasmuch as neither the “Sult̤ān Muḥammad” of No. 652 (gold), nor the “Sult̤ān Bābur Bahādur” of the silver coins enables confident acceptance of them as names he himself would use.