238 
A. F. R. Hoernle — Muhammadan and Hindu Coins. [No. 3, 
tionably wrong, as the letters on the coins are not so many. The 
British Museum Catalogue (p. 39) reads it Al-Husain 
Shdhi. On the coins, however, there is no letter (s) but the letter (m). 
The latter is distinct enough, even in the photograph of the British 
Museum specimen, but it is quite unmistakable on the present specimen. 
Accordingly I prefer to read al-Hamid Shdhi. This phrase al-Hamid 
Shdhi is probably of some historical importance. The similar phrase 
al-Husaini is found on coins of the king ’Alau-d-din Husain Shah, 
where it is applied to Sayyid Ashraf, the father of Husain Shall. It dis- 
tinguishes Sayyid Ashraf as belonging to the line of Husain. In tlio 
present case the term al-Hamid Shdhi is applied to Mahmud Shah, the 
father of Fath Shah, and distinguishes him as belonging to the guild of 
Hamid Shah. Now the Riyazu-s-Salatin (Bibl. Indica ed., p. 108, see 
also Stewart’s History of Bengal, p. 93, and Journal, Yol. XLII, p. 260, 
footnote) relates that the king Gliiyasu-d-din ’Azam Shah was a pupil of 
a Shaikh Hamidu-d-din of Nagor, whom he used to visit to be taught 
divinity. Such holy men are not uncommonly popularly called by the 
title of Shah. Accordingly Hamidu-d-din would be popularly known as 
Plamid Sliah, and pupils of his, or men professing his guild, would be 
called Hamid Shahi. Sultan ’Azam Shah would be known as al-Hamid 
Shdhi or ‘ the pupil of Hamid Shah ’ ; and this honorific epithet would 
be retained by his direct descendants. It would, thence, follow that, 
in all probability, Mahmud Shah was a younger son of ’Azam Shah, his 
elder brother, who succeeded ’Azam Shah, being Hamzah Shah. Mah- 
mud Sliah, in the histories, is simply described as a son of one of the 
descendants of Ilyas Shah ; and he took possession of the throne, after 
the short-lived usurpation of the Hindu family of Raja Kans, on that 
title of being a descendant of the old legitimate royal family. If I am 
coirect in my combinations, this coin of Fath Shah would thus prove that 
Mahmud was a son (if not a grandson) of ’Azam Sliah. ’Azam Shah, 
probably reigned up to 799 H, and Mahmud Shah’s usurpation, probab- 
ly (see supra), commenced in 833 H. He may, therefore, have very well 
been a j ounger son of Azam Shah, being, at the time of his usurpation, 
a man of between 40 and 50 years. In fact, Mahmud Shah may, in 
his early youth, have still known Hamid Sliah, and have accompanied 
his father in his visits to the saint. 
(XLV.) Siiamsu-d-din Muzaffar Shah. 
896-899 A. H. = 1490-1493 A. D. 
1. Plato IX, fig. 14. Now in the Indian Museum ; only one coin 
of this kind. It is a new variety of the type published in the British 
Museum Catalogue, No. 105, and by Laidlay in this Journal, Yol. XV, 
