Vol, XI, Nee. 10 & 11.] Numismatic Supplement No. XX VI, 487 
[N.S.] 
ipod] 
ass le 
There is no sign of a date or in fact of any margin at all. The 
legend is almost identical with that of the Firozabad issues 
(type H) of Sikandar, but I can find no similar coins of his 
son. 
A variant of type A, No. 66 of the Catalogue, is undated. 
It is almost certainly from Firozaibad, but differs from No. 66 
in the arrangement of the bottom line of the obverse, the word 
‘Shah’ following ‘ Ilias’ and not preceding ‘ Sultan,’ while the 
square on the reverse is larger than in the coin quoted and 
the margins are consequently cramped. 
There remains one coin of A‘zam which is unlike any other 
eel a 
yeh adals wre! 
ure 
9 pda eye 521! 
AUS old Cprolne! 
eye alll iyna? 
ALE cyt 
If the reading of the two last lines is correct—and I am far 
from assured of this—the coin is not only posthumous, but 
extremely unusual. The date too is blurred, and possibly is 
not a date at all; but there can be no question that the 
obverse legend is of no ordinary type. : 
The Tact Museum Catalogue deals with only two coins 
of Saifu-d-din Hamza, and both are of the same type. This 
type is represented in the present find by a posthumous coin 
of 814. identical with that in the Museum. The remain- 
ing nine are all different, and so far as 1 can discover none has 
been published with the exception of the crudely executed issue 
noted by Blochmann in Journal Asiatic Society, Bengal, 1873, 
page 259. This coin was then in the cabinet of the Society 
but is not shown in the catalogue of the collection in the 
Museum. : 
This coarse and clumsy type 1s represented by three speci- 
mens with minor variations. One resembles that illustrated by 
