76 C. J. Rodgers — Some coins from Candahar. [April, 



The 3rd king Taj-ud-Din Harb is stated to have reigned 60 years. 

 Now as all the coins of Harb, and Taj-ud-Din and Nasr have the name 

 of the Khalifah Nasir-ud-Din on them, we can pretty nearly assign them to 

 Nos. 3, 5 and 8. It may be they are the coins of only 3 and 5. They 

 must speak for themselves. If we had the title of No. 8 we should be 

 at no loss. Khadim Ali says of No. 8 that he was besieged two years in 

 the fort of Sistan by the Muguls, and that at the end of that time the 

 Government of Nimroz passed into the hands of the rulers of Changez 

 Khan. Now Nasir-ud-Din reigned from 575 to 622 A. H. So these 

 kings must have reigned in that period. It is evident that the first Taj- 

 ud-Din is excluded from the present coins by the 60 years of Harb. 

 Changez Khan died in 624 A. H. So, if the Taj-ud-Din is not Harb, it 

 follows that the coins of which we have the greater number must be those 

 of No. 8. As the coins of Harb are much worn and the coins of Taj-ud- 

 Din are all nearly new, as if fresh from the mint, I assign them to No. 8 

 and think they must have been buried during the siege of Sistan and only 

 lately exhumed. If this assignment be correct then the title given to 

 No. 8 of Harufi or Khardufi is revealed by the coins. There is no mint 

 on the coins of these three kings. But the coins of Harb have on their 

 reverse the word e>y^ which may be a mint. Prinsep in his tables says 

 it is the name of a Grecian or Syrian month. Mr. King says his Moulvie 

 Ahmad Shah tells him it is the name of a Turkish month. 



As Nimroz came into the hands of Changez Khan at least two years 

 before his death, it is just possible that coins Nos. 3 and 4 may be his. 

 Under Jo^e c>\^ there is a word I cannot make out satisfactorily. It 

 looks like ^H^. It may be <jUji\ In either case I can ascribe no 

 meaning to it. Nos. 1 and 2 are, however, undoubtedly coins of Mangii 

 Khan and, as their style is so near that of Nos. 3 and 4, we may perhaps 

 not be far wrong in ascribing the latter to Mangii Khan also, in which 

 case the uncertain word may be a mint or the name of a ruler. I have not 

 Mr. Ho worth's valuable work at hand and so cannot see what he says of 

 Nimroz in connection with the Muguls. The Tabqat i Nasiri speaks of 

 the Moguls in very strong language indeed. 



I will now transcribe the inscriptions on the coins so far as I can 

 decipher them. I may remind the reader that all are silver except the 

 last three which are a mixture of copper and silver. 





Obverse. 



Reverse, 



1. 



j^jj ^^ J^U u|U» ^£y° 



(sic) &U Jj^j •Xfrs* &U 



2. 



do. do. name omitted. 



do. 



3. 



&\**J J d l> &\ ti 



do. 



4. 



do. 



do. 



