1881. J A. F. R. Hoernle —A JSTew Find of Early Muhammadan Goins. 65 
from its peculiarities, which, he considers, point to an early period (see 
Chronicles , pp. 82-8-1). Much of the force of these arguments disappears, 
when it can be shown, from the present Find, that all those peculiarities 
occur in a coin of ’Ala-ud-din, that is, at a date quite as late as the younger 
Nasir-ud-din. With regard to the peculiar phrase bnu-Sultan (Chronicles , 
p. 84), the case is even stronger • for the present Find shows, that it also 
occurs in No. 10, which is an undoubted coin of the younger Nasir-ud- 
din. Whence it is clear, that its occurrence in No. 9 in no way tends to 
prove that the latter is to be ascribed to the elder brother of that name. 
In the fourth place, the omission of any mention of a place of mintage 
appears to me to point to Dehli as its mint-place. For no one would 
think of the provincial mint of Lakhanauti, unless that place were specially 
indicated. But if the coin was struck at Dehli, it could not have proceed¬ 
ed from the elder Nasir-ud-din, who, if he coined at all any coins in his 
own name, must have done so in Lakhanauti, the capital of his Bengal 
governorship. 
2. Regarding Sultan Mughis-ud-din, it has been already mentioned 
that he made himself independent under that title during the long reign 
of the Emperor of Dehli, Nasir-ud-din. His history is narrated at length 
in the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, where however, unfortunately, no dates are given, 
and the exact period of his independence has not been known hitherto 
(see H. Blochmann, Geography and History of Bengal , in J. A. S. B., 
vol. XLII, j). 246). The coins, now discovered, however, help to clear 
up this obscurity. They show that in 653 he was already independent. 
Further the coin of Nasir-ud-din, No. 110, in Thomas’ Chronicles, p. 129, 
bearing the joint name of Ikhtiyar-ud-din Yuzbak (as Mughis-ud-din 
was called before he made himself independent), which is dated either 651 
or 652, shows that his independency cannot have commenced earlier than 
either of those two.years, more probably towards the end of 652. Lastly 
there is a coin of Nasir-ud-din in the Society’s Cabinet,* which was 
struck at Lakhanauti and bears date the second month of the year 655, and 
which shows therefore that at that time Mughis-ud-din’s independence 
must have been ended and the Dehli Emperor’s sovereignty again acknow¬ 
ledged. According to the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, Mughis-ud din lost his life 
in an unsuccessful war with the Rai of Kamrud. This probably happened 
at the commencement of the year 655f and led to the re-establishment of 
* See No. 30 in the Supplement, page 69. 
t The second month or Safar of the year 655 A. H. corresponds, as far as I can 
make out, to July of 1256 A. D. In the Tabaqat i Nasiri (pp. 765, 766) it is stated 
that Mughis-ud-din was wounded and died not long after the spring/ harvest . This 
bring us towards the middle of the year (1256 A. D.) according to our reckoning, the 
spring harvest being in March or April. 
I 
