70 A. F. R. Hoernle— A New Find of Farly Muhammadan Coins . [No. 1, 
While examining these coins I have been led to make two observa¬ 
tions which I should like to mention. 
1. As to the place of mintage. In the case of Shams-ud-din’s coins 
of the horseman type no mint-place is mentioned (unless indeed it be 
contained in one of the illegible scrawls). Mr. Thomas ascribes the coins 
of this type to a Bengal mint (see Initial Coinage , Pt. II, p. 352), on 
two grounds : first , because these coins have been found in conjunction 
with others which are undoubtedly of Bengal mintage ; and secondly , 
because a unique gold coin of this type actually bears the mint name 
“ Gaur” on its reverse (j>^& Neither reasons, however, appear to 
be quite conclusive. As to the former, coins of undoubtedly Dehli mintage 
also have been found in conjunction with them; e. g., Nos. 3 and 4, coins 
of which type Mr. Thomas himself ascribes to Dehli. Then secondly, though 
the reading Zarh ha Gaur (not Zarb Nagor ) is most probably the true 
one, it only proves that particular (unique) gold coin to be Bengal-struck; 
it may be an exception ; it does not show that the silver coins of the same 
type were also struck in Bengal. It is certain from coins of other types, 
that Shams-ud-din struck coins of the same type, both at Dehli and at 
Lakhanauti; and it is to be observed that those struck at Dehli bear no 
mint name, while those struck at Lakhanauti bear that name. Thus the 
coins, Nos. 4 and 19, are of exactly the same type ; but No. 4, which does 
not name any mint, is admittedly of Dehli, while No. 19 is of Lakhanauti, 
because it expressly names that mint. Speaking generally, it seems but 
reasonable that in the case of coins of Dehli Emperors, when no mint 
is named, it should be the Imperial mint of Dehli. In their case no one 
would think of another mint, but the Imperial one, unless it were 
expressly mentioned that they were struck at a provincial mint (Gaur or 
Lakhanauti). On the same principle (though the result is different), in 
the case of the coins of the Bengal Sultan Ghiyas-ud-din Twaz which 
name no mint, the latter must be a Bengal mint (Gaur or Lakhanauti) ; 
because Ghiyas-ud-din being merely the ruler of Bengal, no one could 
think of any other but the principal Bengal Mint. Accordingly I 
incline to the opinion, that all coins of Shams-ud-din of the Horseman 
type, which bear no mint name, are to be ascribed to Dehli ;f and further, 
generally, that all coins of Dehli Emperors, without any mint name, must 
be thus ascribed. Major Raverty, in his Translation of the Tabaqat-i- 
Nasiri, p. 772, while questioning Mr. Thomas’ ascription of these coins to 
Bengal mints, thinks they may have been struck in Bihar, on the occasion 
* Maulvi Abdul Hai of the Madrasah, however, informs me that the correct 
Muhammadan spelling of this name is Ghaur 
f Their connection with Shams-ud-dm’s Dehli copper coins of the Horseman type 
( Chronicles, p. 71) is obvious. 
