time. Careri's qualification that this revenue of eighty crores was derived only from Aurangzíb's 'hereditary countries' does not in any way confuse the result, for it is unlikely that he drew much from the Deccan during the stormy period of conquest and devastation, and extremely improbable that he drew even as much as the ten crores which formed the tribute from Bíjápúr and Golkonda in Catrou's total of 43½ millions of revenue. From the three statements[1] of Hawkins, Catrou, and Careri, we may conclude that the gross revenue from all sources was equal to at least double the land revenue of the Great Mogul, and to obtain the total income we must double the sums given in the returns quoted above. In other words the gross revenue of the Mughal Empire may be taken at fully £36,000,000 in 1594, and gradually rose to £90,000,000 in 1695.
- ↑ I have not mentioned Thomas's theory that the gross income of Akbar in 1593 was (at 2s. 4d, the rupee) £36,000,000, because it is based on the assumption that the 640,00,00,000 murádí tankas of Nizám-ad-din Ahmad's return for that year (which I have purposely omitted in the list given above) were equivalent to double dáms. The terms dám and tanka are interchangeable, as in proved by the inscriptions on the coins themselves, and though there were undoubtedly double dams, as well as double tankas, there is really no valid ground for assuming in this single instance a different fiscal unit from that employed in all the other returns. Thomas's doubling of the 640 crores in 1593 is, moreover, rendered still more improbable by the fact that 662 crores form the total for 1594 — a perfectly possible increase, I therefore take Nizám-ad-din's return to represent £18,000,000. Whilst disbelieving in the murádí tanka theory, however, as a ground for the higher estimate, I do not doubt that the gross revenue of Akbar in 1593 may have been quite thirty-six millions.
