1864.] 



Proceedings of the Asiatic Society, 



579 



tions, as will tend to settle the point, and it will materially aid in the 

 elucidation of the question if Dr. Oldham will communicate these, for 

 record in the Society's proceedings, in order that their authenticity 

 may he thoroughly sifted, and the question of genuineness, if possible, 

 thereby set at rest." 



Babu Bajendralal Mitra made the following remarks on four unde- 

 scribed coins, which were exhibited by him. 



" Since the last meeting, I have had occasion twice to examine the 

 Cooch Behar trove at the Mint, in order to select a few sets of coins 

 for a friend ; and while so employed, I discovered two varieties of 

 coins, which had before escaped my notice. Both of them appear to 

 me to be unknown to numismatologists, I take this opportunity, 

 therefore, to submit them to the inspection of the meeting : one of 

 them has on the obverse the name of one Sultan Ruknuddin Kaikaus, 

 the son of a Sultan, and the grandson of a Sultan ; and on the reverse, 

 that of the Khalif Mostasim. The margin of none of the four speci- 

 mens that I have seen is perfect, but on one of them the words Sulsh 

 and Satamdyd, or il six hundred and three," are distinct, with a word 

 in the middle, which appears to me to be very like Tasaayin or ninety. 

 On a second, the words Saneh ah ad , " In the year one," are clearly 

 legible, and traces exist of Tasaayin Satamdyd. The third specimen 

 has Tasaayin or " ninety," the rest being illegible. Beading the dates 

 with the help of each other, I take them to be 691 and 693 respective- 

 ly. The place of coinage, I read with some doubt to be Sonargaon, 

 It follows hence, that the king who issued these coins must have lived 

 in the last decade of the 7th century, and exercised sway either at 

 Delhi or Grour. Now it is well known that Nasiruddin B agora, the 

 second son of Balban, was in undisputed possession of Bengal from 

 the Hejira year 681 to 698, or A. D. 1282 to 1299 ; and our Kaikaus, 

 therefore, could not have been a King of Bengal at that time. At 

 Delhi, Grhyasuddin Balban died in the year 1286, leaving his Empire 

 to his grandson, Kai Khusro, son of Muhammad. But his nobles set 

 aside his will, and raised another of his grandsons, Kaikobad, son of 

 Nasiruddin of Bengal, to the throne. That dissolute prince reigned 

 for only three years, and was succeeded by Jellaluddin Firuz, the 

 Khilji, inH. 687, or A. D. 1288. Ziaa-i-Barni, the historian and 

 contemporary of this Firuz, says, that during the last illness of Kaiko- 



I 



