1923.] Numismatic Supplement No. XXXV11. N. 41 
legends on the reverse of Gujarati coins are read from the 
bottom upwards. All the specimens shown in the Indian 
Museum Catalogue and Dr. Taylor’s article in oe Journal of 
the Bombay Sranch of the Roy al Asiatic Society, 1904, p. 278, 
agree in this. We know then that the ruler who struck this 
coin was Muzaffar, the son of Muhammad, and that the coin was 
struck in Mandi in the year 963 Hijri. The ruler of Gujarat 
from 961 to 968 Hijri was Ghiyagu-d-dunya wa-d-din Ahmad 
Shah Ill. ‘Early in this reign, a party headed by Ikhtiyaru- 
1-Mulk espoused the cause of another aspirant to the throne, a 
person named Shahu, the Sultan’s paternal uncle; but in a 
battle fought near Mahm idabad this Shaht and his supporters 
were defeated.” The Mir’at-i- Ahmadi from which avlor’s 
sentence above quoted is mainly derived, calls Ahead HI, son 
of Latif Khan, who was grandso on of Shukar Khan, son of 
Sultan Ahmad I. But this does not give the name of the 
grandfather of Ahmad Ill. In the genealogy given by Dr. 
Taylor, Ahmad IIT is put down conjecturally as the son of 
Mahmad III, who was son of Latif Khan. In this case if the 
word ‘uncle’ were used strictly Shahi would have been son of 
Latif Khan. Shahi is a priori the person whom one might 
Suppose to have issued this coin. N cmiisriatiate have debated 
about a Muhammad Shah, pretender, who is supposed to have 
struck coin in 963 Hijri. Mr. Oliver, in his article on Gujarat 
coins in the aca of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1889), 
attributed a billon coin to ee Muhammad and the British 
Tuseum Catalogue assigns copper coins to him. Dr. Taylor 
in his article, disbelieves in this alleged ruler Muhammad. 
ere seems no reason to read downwards the reverse of 
the coin now under consideration—if this were done, it might 
be argued that it was the pretender Muhammad re-appearing. 
r. Taylor points out that the Mir’at-i- Ahmadi specifically 
Nibects ‘Bhat during the reign of Mahmiad [[1, (who died in 961), 
a grandson of Ahmad Shah I] was set up as Sultan. Coin was 
struck in his name and he took the title of Muzaffar Shah. It 
is possible that this coin may belong to him No specimen of 
this alleged coinage has yet bee n fo und. But as Muzaffar’s 
rebellion was crushed about 950 it is most unlikely that this 
coin ee e his. 
n Malwa er ‘ Khan whg.had ruled the country for twelve 
ae died in 962 A.H. His three sons Malik Bayazid, Daulat 
Khan and Mustafa Khan at first divided the country between 
them. Daulat Khan had the districts contiguous to Ujjain 
and Manda. Malik Bavazid, however, treacherously killed 
Daulat Khan and was crowned king of Malwa under the title of 
Sultan Baz Bahaduc in 963 A.H. He soon after defeated his 
See brother Mustafa Khan and also ‘Saige rebellions 
Office z Bahadur’s coins are well known in copper but 
dellow the Malwa type and are quite unlike this coin. 
