62 A. F. R. Hoernle —A New Find of Early Muhammadan Coins. [No. 1, 
There are two points, especially, on which the coins of this new Find 
throw light, viz., the dates of Nasir-ud-din and those of Mughis-ud-din. 
1. From a comparison of the dates of these coins, it will be seen that 
they embrace a period of about 40 years, i. e., from A. H. 6Id to 
653 ; viz. : 
Sultan 
Altamsh before Ghiyas’ revolt, 
2 
coins, 
A. H. 614 or 616 
Ghiyas-ud-din of Bengal, 
1 
jj 
„ 621. 
>) 
Altamsh after Ghiyas’ revolt, 
2 
JJ 
„ 626, 630. 
>) 
J alalat-ud-din (Riziyah), 
2 
JJ 
„ 634, 635. 
’Ala-ud-din, 
1 
JJ 
„ 640. 
Nasir-ud-din, 
3 
• 
JJ 
,, 641, 645. 
Mughis-ud-din of Bengal, 
3 
JJ 
,, 653. 
For all practical purposes, these dates are certain, except that of the 
two undated coins of Nasir-ud-din (No. 9 and its duplicate), which 1 have 
put down to the year Gdd. 
There were two brothers of the name of Nasir-ud-din, sons of Sultan 
Altamsh. The elder was Governor of Bengal for a short time ; viz., two 
years, A. H. 624-626.* The younger, born A. H. 626 (the year of the 
death of his namesake brother), was Emperor of Dehli, after ’Ala-ud-dm 
Mas’aud Shah, for 20 years, A. H. 644-664. During his reign the Bengal 
Governor Ikhtiyar-ud-din Tughril Khan revolted and made himself in¬ 
dependent under the title of Sultan Mughis-ud-din. 
It is quite certain that the coin No. 10 belongs to the yQunger Nasir- 
ud-din. For firstly, the Khalif Musta’sim, mentioned on it, succeeded in 
A. H. 640, while his predecessor Mustansir was Khalif during the two 
years of the elder Nasir-ud-din's governorship of Bengal. Secondly, there 
is the striking resemblance between this coin and those of Sultan Mughis- 
ud-din, who was a contemporary of the younger Nasir-ud-din, and who 
clearly imitated the latter’s coins. 
The case is very much more doubtful, as regards the other coins of 
Nasir-ud-din (No. 9 and its duplicate). Mr. Thomas ( Chronicles , pp. 82, 
83, Initial Coinage , Pt. II, pp. 360 ff.) considers that the type of coin, 
to which they belong, must be ascribed to the elder Nasir-ud-din. It is 
with some diffidence that I venture to differ from so great an authority 
on Numismatics ; but I am inclined to ascribe these coins to the younger. 
My reasons are the following : 
In the first place, the present coins clearly show that the Bengal 
Governors never struck coins in their own name, except when they had re¬ 
volted and established an independent Saltanat. Thus all the present coins 
bear the names of Dehli Emperors, except those of Ghiyas-ud-din and 
* See Major Raverty’s Translation of the Tabaqat i Nasiri, pp. 594, 629 ff. Also 
E. Thomas, Initial Coinage , Pt. II, p. 35, Pt. II, p. 350, Chronicles, p. 82. 
