34 TJt-e Initial Coinage of Bengal. [No. 1, 



the idea of a nearly continuous rule of " forty-three solar years," and 

 a decease in a.h. 725, as adopted by Stewart :* a prolongation of 

 administrative functions indeed altogether inconsistent with the direct 

 evidence of the dates on the money of Kai Kaus, or the parallel proof 

 of Shams-ud-din's exercise of the functions of sovereignty in 702 

 A.H., associated as they are with the uncontested historical and nu- 

 mismatic demonstration of the succession of one grandson, Shahab-ud- 

 dm, whose ejection from his inherited section of the kingdom by his 

 more powerful brother, Bahadur, formed so prominent a ground for 

 imperial interference in the affairs of Bengal. There facts are each and 

 all too well ascertained to leave any doubt that the authors who make 

 Nasir-ud-din's reign extend to 725 must be in error ; the source of the 

 mistake seems as simple as it is obvious, the mere omission of the son's 

 name as preceding that of the father, in Persian MS. writing, or simple 

 ignorance of the order of local successions, would account for the whole 

 difficulty. And, as is obvious, Ibn Batutah's own personal knowledge, 

 and possibly correct autograph version, reproduced independently in 

 other lands, have not' saved later transcripts of his work from analo- 

 gous imperfections, f 



But there are other and more direct internal evidences in the texts 

 of the Indian authors, of confusion and imperfect knowledge in the 

 relation of the incidents attendant upon the re-settlement of Bengal 

 by Ala-ud-din a.h. 699, where it is stated tbat " a chief, named 

 Bahadur Khan," was at this time appointed to " the eastern districts 

 of Bengal,"^ with the object of dividing the province, and thus 

 rendering its rulers " more subservient to the Court of Dehli." It is 

 highly improbable, had Nasir-ud-din been living at the epoch in ques- 

 tion, that a grandson of his should have been selected for such a 

 charge to the supercession of his own father, Shams-ud-din, or in 

 priority to the son of that father, Shahab-ud-din, who was the elder 

 or perhaps better-born brother of Bahadur, each of whom, Ibn Batutah 



* Stewart's Bengal, p. 80. 



f Ex. gr., Bahadur is made the son of Nasir-ud-din, at p. 179, vol. iii., instead 

 of the grandson, which the text at p. 210, vol. iii., and p. 213, vol. iv., affirms him 

 to have been. Lee's MS. authorities again, in omitting the intermediate name of 

 Nasir-ud-din, skip a generation, and ante-date Shams -ud- dm (Firuz) in consti- 

 tuting him a son of Ghias-ud-din Balban (p. 128). 



J Ferishtah, Briggs, i., p. 406 ; Stewart, p. 79. 



