414 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. {November, 1912. 
It is not, I think, commonly known that on these coins 
three variant forms of the mint-name are recorded :— 
(a) We find the name written as Say,= Jinagar (or 
Junagad), throughout the reign of Shah Jahan I, 
also from 1099 H. onwards ; 
(b) then as 38ay2, Jiinagadh, from 1070 to 1072, 
also from 1077-1096; 
(c) and lastly, as 8 $ & >, Jinagar-gadh (or Jinagad- 
gadh) in 5-1074 and 6-1074. 
In Gujarati the name is nowadays generally spelt TYAAG, 
Junagadh,' but what precisely is the origin of the word Gadh, 
‘a fort,’ I have not yet been able to discover. The Sanskrit 
Ci 
aa, ‘a hole,’ ‘a cave,’ and aw, ‘a fence,’ ‘a moat,’ would 
indeed, in the Kathiawad volume of ‘‘ the Bombay Gazetteer ’’ 
(vol. viii) the name both of the city and of the state is invari- 
ably spelt Junagad. It is thus not surprising that on the coins 
the name occurs sometimes as rs &iga and sometimes as 80S a>.” 
The third, and longest, form s3$ yS4iy> means, of course, just 
‘ Jinagad Fort.’ 
It is further noteworthy that the first element, Jina, of 
the compound name, is on the coins always written 4 = with 
final ‘he,’ not ‘alif.” On the other hand, the Hindastani 
word for ‘old’ is 4y={ with final <alif.’ Aecordingly it may be 
that 338 copes means not ‘the Old Fort’ but''<the Fort of 
Jtina’; and Jina, as Mr. Lane-Poole reminds ‘us, was the birth- 
name of Muhammad ibn Tughlaq, the Sultan who in 1350 
successfully invested Jiinagadh. Ibn Batiita writes of him, 
He was called Jaund, the sun: when be became king he 
called himself Muhammad Shah.’’* That the city derives its 
name from the name of its erstwhile conqueror is an attractive 
conjecture, but, as we have already seen, long before that 
conqueror’s invasion the city had been known as ‘the Old 
ea * Colloquially, indeed, the name Jinagadh is often shortened to 
member of this name is in like manner variously written dof and goof ? 
See B.M.C. No. 985. Or is the final ‘ he’ simply wanting on this speci- 
men? Of the nine rupees from this mint in my collection two show the 
‘he ’ fairly ¢ y- 
é wson’s Elliot, iii, 606, 611, 
