178 A. F. R. Hoernle — On some new or rare [No. 2, 
torically noticeable, showing that Nadii’ retained his hold on Peshawer, 
at least, till the year before his death. Weight 173.86 grs. 
The other is a rnpee of somewhat doubtfal attribution. It shows 
the title of ‘ Shdh Jahan the Second ’ (Shdhjahdn sdtn) ; and for this 
reason, I was disposed to ascribe it to Rafi’u-d-daulah, who is commonly 
known as Shahjahan the Second. But being doubtful, I referred the 
coin to Mr. Rodgers. Ho informs me, that he also possesses a specimen 
of this coin, which ho also had hitherto attributed to Rafi’u-d-daulah. 
But he now prefers to attribute these coins to Shah ’Alam I, who, he 
says, in the beginning of his reign, called himself Mu’azim Shah, — a 
name that occui’S on the coin. The coin is dated on the reverse in san 
ahad joins, ‘ the first regnal year ’ ; on the obverse it has *** 9 A. H., 
which would agree with 1119, the first year of Shah ’Alam’s reign. 
The mint is Tattah. I believe, my coin and that of Mr. Rodgers are the 
only two specimens at present known to exist. Neither is in perfect pre- 
servation, and I give them both in Plate VII, fig. 15 a and b. Weights 
175.76 and 176.47 grs. respectively. Mr. Rodgei’s reads the verse on 
the obverse as follows : 
Obverse ; sl-* * j y, ej cufiA y 
With regard to one of the coins (No. 3), described in my first 
paper (see ante, p. 32), I have to make a correction.* At that time, I 
believed it was unique or at least unpublished. In fact, however, it 
had been twice published before ; once by Mr. Delmerick in this 
Journal, Vol. XLIV (for 1875), p. 126 (pi. IX, fig. 4), and afterwards 
by Mr. Rodgers, in the Proceedings, A. S. B., 1879, p. 179 (pi. IV, fig. 11). 
Mr. Rodgers was kind enough to point this out to me ; and I much 
regret the oversight. With the evidence of these two coins before me, 
I agi’ee with Mr. Rodgers, that that particular coin should bo attributed 
to Tughlaq I. I was misled by the title al-Miitawakhil 'All Allah, which, 
I 8upj)osod, might have been assumed by Tughlaq, in allusion to the 
comtemporary Khalif. Now it was the Khalif Abi ’Abdullah who 
bore that title, and who reigned, with an interruption of several years, 
from 763 till 808 A. H. ; see Chronicles, p. 258. And his date only 
agrees with Tu gh laq II. However, the date on Mr. Delmerick’s coin 
decides the question. It shows clearly the number twenty, 
and though the unit and hundred figures are indistinct, it certainly 
places the coin somewhere between 720 and 729. This only agrees 
with Tughlaq I, who reigned from 720 — 725, but not with Tughlaq II, 
* This coin, as well as the others from the Hoshangabad find, noted as xiui<iae, 
are now phiced in the British Museum, London. 
