17 I Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XIII, 



Kh 



Khusrau 



on both sides. Drouin admits (Revue Archeologiqne, 1898) 

 that <fc It is not impossible, nevertheless, that the fact of the 

 issue is accurate, that among the coins we have of Khusrau II 

 with the date of year one lc aioki," the figure and the youthful 

 appearance indicate that they appertain to this issue." In my 

 opinion those without the monogram and without the winged- 

 crown are actually the coins mentioned by Tabari, but with the 



Khusrau 



•^L3Dj 



fc# * 



The mint is expressed on this coin in four letters NIHCh. 

 Ed. Thomas (Journal R.A.S., 1852, p. 402, PI. I. No. 39) con- 

 founded this monogram with NIH ; ignoring the bent form of 

 the extremity of H which presents itself verv clearly on the 

 coins. This curve in the form of C can only be the letter Qh. 



Mordtmann (Z.D.M.G., 1879, p. 120, No. 25) followed 

 Thomas in taking both the monograms together and read NIH. 

 He identified them with Nishapur and added that in Pahlavi 

 Nishapur was also written Nhshapur. But some hesitancy is 

 revealed by his remark that it is not clear whether both these 

 monograms mark the same locality as both of them are found 

 in the same years, viz., Khusrau I, year 14, 28. 32; Hormazd 

 IV, year 10, 11; Khusrau II, every year. 



Subsequently (Z.D.M.G., 1879, p. 125, No. 45) he read this 

 same monogram on a coin of Khusrau II, year 9 as NAQh and 

 expressed his belief in the identity of the monogram with the 



or oL>».ai. Nakhjevan on the Araxes on the 

 Kusso-Persian frontier, the NatWm of Ptolemy (V. 13). 



These readings are no longer tenable in view of the conclu- 



?Tt«? rg ?^ tS ° f De Mor § an ( Revue Numismatique, p. 360, 

 * 118). This reading (NAQh) seems very doubtful, if we take 

 into consideration the numerous specimens which have passed 

 through our hands. The presence of C (CL) is certain, while 

 Za * he _ lnte !; me d'at© letter, it is composed of two strokes 

 rounded off and not squared as in A. Frequently the first is 

 completely separated from the second, which forms the head 

 of H. We think therefore that it must read NIHC and not 



Wet a tLn hiS re u iQg °, f Mord tmann were acceptable, his in- 

 tKll a U l d m I° lve the attribution of the value Kh for 

 tne Fahlavi A, which does not take place in this instance. 



cheran h !S ? g ? A ?, U adm ittedly suppresses the A in Nakh- 

 cneran but it should be noted that the Arabs occasionally 



wrote the name of this town as ^ and in no case did they 

 NIHCavan^ 6 mtervenin § alif. We therefore get the result 



Owlwt^M 7 ^ d ° e8 not ^ ive the situation of this town, 

 uwing presumably to an error on the part of the printer the 



