18S1.] A. E. It. Hoe rule —A New Find of Early Muhammadan Coins. 63 
Mughis-ud-din, who, for a certain time, had made themselves independent. 
During that time, they replaced the Emperor’s name with their own ; but 
while they were mere Governors, they did not venture to interfere with the 
Emperor’s superscription. Thus Ghiyas-ud-din’s name does not appear on 
the coins before or after his revolt, but that of the Sultan Altamsh. Simi¬ 
larly Mughis-ud-din’s name does not appear on No. 10, which was struck 
before his revolt, but Nasir-ud-din’s. The utmost a Governor might 
venture to do was to place his own name as an appendix to that of his 
Emperor; as shown in No. 110 in Chronicles } p. 129, where Ikhtiyar- 
ud-din Yuzbak («’. e., Mughis-ud-din) adds his name after that of his Em¬ 
peror Nasir-ud-din ; in this case, indeed, there was a special reason for it ; 
for, as the date of the coin shows, Yuzbak was at that time already on the 
eve of his revolt (see below, page 65) and the conjunction of his own 
name with that of the Emperor was the first step towards it. Again 
though ’Izz-ud-din Tughril was the Governor of Bengal during the time 
when a woman, Riziyah, sat on the imperial throne, yet his name does not 
appear on the contemporary coins, but that of the Empress Jalalat-ud-din. 
It is clear, therefore, that the coins, which were struck during the •Bengal 
Governorship of the elder Nasir-ud-din, could not have borne the latter’s 
name, but that of his father Altamsh, who was the Emperor of that time. 
But in addition to this inferential proof, there is direct evidence of 
the fact. Mr. Thomas, Initial Coinage , Pt. II, pp. 360 361 (Plate X, Nos. 
7 and 8) describes and figures two coins, struck at Laknauti,* in the year 
621, that is, in the year when the elder Nasir-ud-din was already Governor 
of Bengal ; but both coins do not bear his name, but, as usual, that of ther 
contemporary Emperor Altamsh. It is clear, therefore, that the Nasir- 
ud-din, who describes himself as “ Sultan” and puts his name on the coins 
under discussion, cannot have been a mere Governor of Bengal, but must have 
been an Emperor of Dehli. Whence it follows, that he must be the younger 
Nasir-ud-din ; for he alone of the two namesakes ever was Emperor. 
In the second place, when describing the coins, I have shown (see p. 
59) that Nasir-ud-din’s coin, No. 9, is a close imitation (barring the 
ruler’s name, of course) of ’Ala-ud-din’s coin, No. 8, and also (through No. 
10) a more or less close prototype of Mughis-ud-din’s coins, Nos. 11 and 12. 
This fact accurately fixes Nasir-ud-din’s position between ’Ala-ud-din and 
Mughis-ud-din (that is, between 611 and 653) and proves him to be the 
Emperor of that name, but not the Governor of Bengal of that name, who 
died 18 years previously (626). Moreover, it should be remembered, that 
points quite peculiar to themselves ; thus, the absence of any indication of 
* The imperfect word, in No. 7 on PI. X, which Mr. Thomas reads as 
is probably^and the preceding lacuna is 
