1883.] A. F. Rudolf Hoernle —A new find of Muhammadan Coins. 213 
No. 28 is a coin of Nasiru-d-din Abul Mujahid Mahmud Shah. Prin- 
sep reads “ Mahomed Shah’ 5 , and adds that “ he appears to be Mahomed 
Shah, afterwards king of Hindustan whe reigned from A. H. 627-631.” 
This shows that his “ Mahomed Shah” is an error for “ Mahmud Shah”. 
It is clear, however, from the style of the legend on the obverse, that the 
coin is not one of the Dehli Emperor Nasiru-d-din Mahmud Shah, hut of 
the Bengal king of that name, in fact, of the same Nasiru-d-din Mahmud 
Shah I, to whom the coins of the new find belong. 
Unfortunately these coins were not figured, and it will perhaps not 
be quite safe to rely implicitly on the correctness of Mr. Prinsep’s read¬ 
ings. If the leunyat Abul Mujahid was read correctly, his coin of Nasiru-d- 
din Mahmud may have been one like No. 7 or No. 12 of the present set. 
(b). Mr. Thomas, on p. 136 of his “ Chronicles of the Pathan kings 
of Delhi”, describes a gold piece of Mahmud Shah, the grandson of Firuz 
Shah, on which he reads the leunyat as Ahiil Mahamid. The letters, 
however, on the figure of the coin (his PI. IV, fig. 113), I think, are quite 
susceptible of being read as Abul Mujahid; and still more so on a coin 
of Mahmud’s father Muhammad Shah (Mr. Thomas’ Plate IV, fig. 131).* 
But however that may be, there is a gold piece of Mahmud in the Society’s 
collection, which clearly gives him the leunyat Abul Muzaffar, as shown 
in the wood cut. It, at all events, shows that Mahmud assumed two 
leunyats, Abul Muzaffar and Abul Mujahid or Abul Mahamid, which¬ 
ever of the two latter be the correct reading. 
(c). Blochmann, in Vol. XL1II of the Journal, quotes an inscrip¬ 
tion of Barbak Shall, of the year 868 A. H., which gives that Sultan the 
leunyat Abul Muzaffar.f On this he observes in a footnote, that “ it seems 
to be a mistake for Abul Mujahid.” But there is an old Persian Diction¬ 
ary, the Sharafnamah-i-Ibrahimi which, as Blochmann himself informs us, 
is dedicated to Barbak Shah and, in the concluding verse, also styles him 
* Thus the large, elongated dot over ■sr'* 5 can certainly not he the “ zabar” of 
Mahamid, though it may be the worn “pesh” of Mujahid. I have referred to both 
Badaonf and Ferishtah ; but neither of them mentions the leunyat of Mahmud, 
t J. A. S. B., Vol. XLIII, p. 297. 
F F 
