296 Arabic and Persian Inscriptions in the Huyli District. [No. 4, 



Of Barbak Shah, Marsden (II., 573) has published a coin, dated 

 A. H. 873, which seems to agree with the statement of the histories 

 that he reigned from A. H. 862 to 879. Inscr. VII. gives 860 ; but 

 should no coin confirm this early date, I would almost doubt the relia- 

 bility of the inscription which, as I said above, is full of mistakes. 

 The unit might have been omitted. Besides, the year 860 seems to 

 be rendered impossible by Inscr. IX., unless we assume that Barbak 

 proclaimed himself king during the lifetime of Naqiruddm Husain 

 Shah. As correctly observed hy Marsden, the histories make 

 Barbak Shah the son of Nacir Shah, against the testimony of coins 

 and Inscr. VII., which call his father Mahmiid Shah. But Mahmiid 

 Shah has not yet been assigned a place among the Bengal kino-s.* 



The third king, Naciruddin Abul Muzaffar Husain Shah is called 

 in the histories Nacir Shah, and is said to have reigned from A. H. 

 830 to 862. Inscr. IX. mentions clearly 861, and thus confirms the 

 histories as far the end of his reign is concerned. Bat the histories 

 are wrong in calling him Nacir Shah, for the full name given in the 

 inscription shews that he should be called Husain Shah (I). A similar 

 confusion occurs in the name of 'Alauddin Abul Muzaffar Husain 

 Shah al Husaini, father of Nugrak Shah, whom the histories call 

 likewise by the first name 'Alauddin, instead of Husain Shah (II). f 



The fifth king, Fath Shah, appears like the preceding, with his 

 full, or julus , name. Inscr. X. confirms the fact, mentioned by 

 Marsden and Laidley, that Fath Shah was the son of Mahmiid Shah, 

 and therefore brother of Barbak Shah. According to the histories, 

 Barbak Shah died in 879, and was succeeded by his son Shamsuddfn 

 Abul Muzaffar Yusuf Shah, who is mentioned in Graur Inscriptions 

 of A. H. 880 and 885. He is said to have died without issue, and 

 the throne was claimed by a member of the royal family, of the 

 name of Sikandar Shah. But he was immediately deposed, and 

 Fath Shah, uncle of Yusuf Shah, ascended the throne. 



* The author of the Sharafndmah i Ihrdliimi, a Persian dictionary, praises 

 Barbak Shah and calls him Abul Muzaffar Barbak Shah. But the only (incomplete) 

 MS. which I have seen of the work, mentions no year. In Marsden's reading of a 

 Barbak Shah coin, Area I., we find by mistake ti.+sr' for j )*+/s. M , though his 

 translation has correctly Mahmiid. 



The numerous Barbakpurs, Barbak Singhs, &c, in Bengal seem to refer to 

 Barbak Shah. 



+ For a similar incorrectness in Malvvah History, vide Proceedings A. S. 

 Bengal, for 1S69, p. 267, note 3. 



