1892.] 
95 
H. G. Raverty —Some Muhammadan Coins. 
It will be seen, therefore, that a great and curions connection 
exists between the whole of the persons here mentioned, and the rulers 
whose names are impressed on these coins, from Sultan Takish IDian 
of Khwarazm, to the Malik-us-Salih ’Isma’il of Mausil. 
Coins of Sijistan. 
Coin No. 149, read as that of “ Asadu-d-din bin Harab,” cannot 
possibly refer to Asad-ud-Din, for Asad, which I presume the top 
word on the reverse is supposed to represent, is written not 
as on the coin, and this last is certainly meant for } uzd —‘ support, 
‘assistance,’ also c an aider or supporter,’ and part of the title, ’Uzd- 
ud-Din. When Malik Shihab-ud-Din, Mahmud, son of Harab (Malik 
IX in the list), took possession of Sistan, another party set up Shah 
’Usman, a grandson of Nasir-ud-Din, ’Usman, son of Taj-ud-Din-i-Har- 
ab, who sought assistance from the Khwarazmi officers of Kirmans, 
and when Malik Shihab-ud-Din, Mahmud, was put to death, his brother, 
Amir ’AH, the Zahid or Recluse, was set up. Subsequently we are told 
(page 200 of the Tabakat-i-Nasiri,) that, “ the rival Maliks of Nim-roz 
were struggling against each other,” and, that, “ the grandson of Nasir- 
ud-Din, ’Usman, whom they styled by the name of Shah, sought assist¬ 
ance from the Malik of Kirrnan,” etc. The coin in question may pos¬ 
sibly have been coined by one of these rivals, who assumed the titles 
of ’Uzd-ud-Din, and Abu-l-Mnzaffar. It must also be remembered that 
the Khwarazmi officer sent to the aid of Shah ’Usman, Binal-Tigin, 
the Turk, who appropriated Sijistan on his own account, was entitled 
Taj-ud-Din. Be these speculations what they may, I can only say, 
that the names given in my list in the Journal Part I, for 1885, are the 
whole of those mentioned in history; and I have left no accessible 
history unsearched. 
“ Mongol Il-Khans of Persia.” 
I am much puzzled to understand why some European writers, 
who surely must know better, will persist in styling the Chingiz or 
Great Khan—for that is the meaning of the word Chingiz—“ Jinjis ” 
Khan (see Journal No. 2 of 1887, page 90, first line in the lower 
inscription,)* and why they suppose that he coined money, more 
particularly coupled with the name of the Khalifah, “ Un-Nasir- 
ud-Din U’llah, Amir-ul-Mumlnin ” thereon. The title Khakan-i- 
A’zam ” is much more applicable to the Ka’an, Uktae, or even to Hula- 
* When it is even cut in stone or marble on a tomb not^xGa^ people 
will still call it Jingiz and Jinjis . 
