64 A. F. R. Hoernle —A New Find of Early Muhammadan Coins . [No. 1, 
mint-place and date, the omission of the article before Sultan, the addi¬ 
tion of illah Now it is extremely improbable, that the Emperor ’Ala- 
ud-dm should appropriate, for one type of his coins, not only the general 
style, but also the peculiarities of a coin of a mere Governor of Bengal, and 
that, of a Governor who had died 13 years previously (for Nasir-ud-dm, 
the Governor, died A. H. 626, while ’Ala-ud-din became Emperor in 639). 
On the other hand, it is perfectly natural that the Emperor Nasir-ud-dm 
should (temporarily) appropriate the style and peculiarities of the coins of his 
immediate predecessor ’Ala-ud-din, whom he succeeded in 644. He probably 
very soon discarded the imitation. His coins, No. 10 of A. H. 645 (in the 
present lot), and No. 110 of 651, No. 106 of 654 (in Chronicles , pp. 127, 
129) already show different styles, without the peculiarities of ’Ala-ud-din’s 
coin. We shall probably not go far wrong, if we assume that his coins of 
the style No. 9 belong to the very commencement of his reign and are to 
be ascribed to A. H. 644. This is further made probable by the fact that 
coin No. 9 shows an anachronism in preserving the name of the Khalif 
A1 Mustansir b’illah, who had already died in 640. This would seem to 
show that ’Ala-ud-din’s coin was adopted by Nasir-ud-dm in some haste, 
merely changing the imperial names, but leaving all the rest undisturbed ; 
but as soon as his affairs had become settled, the needful change must have 
been made,f as shown, e. y., in the very similar coins, noticed by Marsden, 
Oriental Coins , p. 523 (Plate XXV, No. DCXLIV). ’Ala-ud-din’s 
coin would lend itself all the more easily to this anachronism, since no 
date is mentioned on it. Indeed, judging from its peculiarities, I am 
inclined to think that the omission of the date was intentional, so as to 
allow of its being struck continously throughout the reign of ’Ala-ud-din, 
up to 644, when Nasir-ud-dm succeeded him. Which again would account 
for the fact of its being adopted so easily by the latter emperor. That 
it, however, was only adopted by him as a very temporary measure, is 
shown by his coin, No. 10, which (see page 60) in all probability was 
already struck in 645, and which preserves the reverse of his (temporary) 
coin, No. 9, but exchanges the anachronical name of Mustansir, for the 
correct Musta’sim. 
In the third place, most of the arguments, which Mr. Thomas adduces 
for his belief that the coin belongs to the elder Nasir-ud-dm, are taken 
* Also the addition of V illah ; though this occurs also on a few coins of Altamsh ; 
e. y., No. XXX, in Chronicles , p. 53. 
f There still remains some difficulty about this anachronism. For ’Ala-ud-din him¬ 
self changed the Khalif’s name on his coins, from 641, see Chronicles , p. 122. And it 
seems strange, why Nasir-ud-dm, when he wanted to imitate ’Ala-ud-din’s coins, did 
not make a more appropriate selection. But the peculiarities of the coin, and the ease 
of its adoption on account of the omission of any date, may have influenced him. 
