328 On the Coins of the Independent [No. 173. 



unable to record a royal paternity on his coinage, he seems to have con- 

 tented himself with the simple repetition of his name and title — joUaJLo 

 sL& yj&\>i in seven little circlets, occupying the obverse of his coin 

 No. 1 1 . The reverse is illegible. I have met with no other coin of this 

 prince. 



The next king of Bengal recorded by historians is Barbek Shah, 

 whom they designate the son of Nasir Shah. But there is reason to 

 reject this affiliation as incorrect ; for Barbek Shah describes himself on 

 his coinage as the son of Mahmud Shah, as does also Yusuf, the son 

 of Barbek, as will be seen. The same Mahmud is also recorded on a 

 subsequent coin of Fatteh Shah. But historians make no mention 

 of such a prince. Can it be that his reign has been entirely overlooked 

 by history ? or did Nasir Shah, at any period of his life subsequent to 

 ascending the throne, change his name for that of Mahmud ? There 

 are great difficulties in either view of the matter, but it does not seem 

 a very bold conjecture, considering the imperfect history of those times, 

 that Mahmud Shah may have been omitted in the roll of princes that 

 has reached us.* The remarkably long reign ascribed to Nasir Shah 

 seems to afford room enough for the interpolation of another king ; but 

 on either supposition, I incline to ascribe to the father of Barbek Shah 

 the coin No. 12 ; for an impression of which, I was indebted to the kind- 

 ness of the late James Prinsep. The cufic characters on the reverse are 

 not usual upon the Bengal coinage ; but the small circlets, with the 

 monarch's name on the obverse, seem to establish a relationship between 

 this coin and the preceding one of Nasir Shah. The only words legible 

 on the obverse are — 



On the reverse, the Kalmeh. 



Of the coins of Barbek Shah, I have met with none ; but to render as 

 complete as possible the present series, I borrow that figured in plate 

 No. 13, from Marsden's work — 



* That there is nothing very extravagant in this conjecture may be inferred from 

 the circumstance of the omission of one entire reign (that of the last Mahmud) by 

 Ferishteh. The reign of Yusuf Shah is in like manner omitted in the Tabqat-i- 

 Akbari ; but this may possibly be the fault of the transcriber who made the copy in the 

 Society's Library. Since the above was printed, 1 have met with a coin of Mahmud, 

 which bears a strong family likeness to those of Fatteh Shah in the Plate. 



