54 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [January, 1907. 



L 



No. 21 B. of 1906, from wliicli the following notes are extracted 

 as they refer to novelties. In quoting Dr, Codrington's paper, 

 the initial O.O., with the page of the Numismatic Chronicle and 

 the numbers of the coin-type there quoted, will be used. The 

 British Museum Catalogue, Muhammadan States, is referred 

 to as B.M.C. 



FiRoz Shah, 8th King. 



The type B.M.C. No. 453 is represented by 22 specimens. 

 The B.M.C. notes that the reverse has traces of a marginal 

 inscription. O.G. No. 1, p. 266, does not refer to tliis. One of 



the coins now found reads... j^ *>^f and the other... j*»^ 



It is uncertain whether these dates should be read as (8)11 and 



(8)15 or as (8)21 and (8)25. 



Ahmad Shah I, 9th Kixa. 



(a) The parentage of this ting is discussed by Major 

 Haig (p. 8), who refers to a copper coin hearing the inscription 

 'Ahrnad Shah bin Ahimad Shah bin Bahman Shah.' Unfortu- 

 nately that coin is not dated, and tlie Kunya (not quoted) is 

 said to differ from that on coins which can certainly be attri- 

 buted to Ahmad Shah L Dr. Codrington publishes a coin with 

 the following inscription: 





AfA 



He ascribes it to A!^mad Shah II, bnt gives no grounds 

 for this assumption (No. I, p, 267). A coin in the find now 

 being described bears exactly the same inscription, but is dated 

 (8) 33. The new date is fairly conclusive that both these 

 coins should be assigned to Ahmad Shah I, while other evidence 

 confirms this ascription. In the first place, the coins are of 

 what is known as the first size (weight about 245 grains), but 

 their inscription differs completely from that of the coins of 

 this size, which can positively be assigned to Ahmad Shah II 

 (O.C. No. 2, p. 268; B.M.C. No. 461), and I cannot trace 

 another example of such a variation in the Bahmani coins of 

 a given standard during the reign of a single king. Secondly, 

 Major Haig pointed out that the ascription of his coin to Ahmad 

 Shah I. was rendered doubtful by the fact that this king was 

 apparently the son of Ahmad Khan. The latter never asc'ended 

 the throne, and it was improbable that he would be described 

 as *Shah' on his son*8 coin. The two coins, which I now^ 

 propose to assign to Ahmad Shah I, purport to be of Ahmad 

 Shah, son of Ahmad, the fathers name having no title, either 



