1895.] E. A. Gait —Note on some Goins of the Koch Kings. 
237 
Note on some Coins of the Koch Kings.—By E. A. Gait, I.C.S. 
(With Plate XXIY.) 
[Read July, 1895.] 
Several new coins of the Koch dynasty have recently come to 
light, and as very little is generally known regarding these coins, I 
propose to describe briefly the different specimens which I have seen. 
Marsden describes coins of Laksmi Narayana and Prana Narayana only 
(MCCIII and MCCV), the dates on which he reads as paka 1649 and 
1666 respectively. The symbol read by Marsden as a six is a curious 
figure closely resembling the English figure 5, and strangely enough, 
there can be no possible doubt that it is used to represent 5 on the 
coins-under reference. The symbol in question is a common one, not 
only on Koch coins, but also on the coins of the Ahom, Jaintia and 
Tippera kings. It is not a six, as it often appears in conjunction with 
the usual symbol for that figure, e.g. on the coin of piva Simha 
given in Marsden (MCLIII), who in this case correctly reads it as a 5, 
and on a coin of Yijaya Narayana of Tippera. Again in the case of 
many Ahom coins, where we have a very accurate chronology apart 
from the testimony of coins, the dates on the coins agree perfectly 
with those recorded in the Buranjis if the symbol is read as 5, but not 
otherwise. So with the two Koch coins under discussion. The 
approximate dates of Laksmi Narayana are 1584—1622 A. D. and of 
Prana Narayana 1627-1666 A. D. Now if the symbol be read as 6, 
the dates given above will utterly disagree with those on the coins, 
whereas if it be read as 5, the dates on the coins will be 1549 and 
1555 paka, or 1627 and 1633 A. D. In this case, the latter will fall 
within the period during which the king whose name it bears reigned, 
while in the case of the former there is only a slight discrepancy which 
may be explained either by assuming a small error in the date assigned 
by tradition as marking the close of Laksmi Narayana’s reign, or by a 
mistake in the reading of the third figure. The latter is, I think, more 
likely for the reason given below. 
