214 A. F. Rudolf Hoernle— A new find of Muhammadan Coins. [No. 8, 
“ Abul Muzaffar”.* Blochmann suggests that the Barbak Shah here in¬ 
tended may be “the Barbak Shah of Jounpur who ruled in Jounpur from 
879 (the year when the Bengal Barbak Shah is said to have died) to 881, 
etc.” But this is not very probable. In any case, the testimony of the 
inscription, which is really unimpeachable, is confirmed by the coins, now 
found, which give Ruknu-d-din’s full name and date. Indeed, from the 
fact that not less than 18 coins of 4 different types (Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16) 
give him the lcunyat Abul Muzaffar, while only 2 coins of 1 type (No. 12) 
style him Abul Mujahid, as w’ell as from the fact that the author of the 
Persian Dictionary, in dedicating his work to Barbak Shah, addresses him 
by the name Abul Muzaffar, it would almost seem that Ruknu-d-din pre¬ 
ferred that lcunyat to Abul Mujahid, albeit he is better known by the 
latter lcunyat in the histories. Out of four known inscriptions, three call 
him Abul Mujahid, while in the fourth he is called Abul Muzaffar.f 
(d). In Yol. XLIV of this Journal, Blochmann published a coin 
(his No. 8) which clearly reads Abul Mujahid. J This he himself admits ; 
his words are : “ if the last had not been found together with the others, 
I would be inclined to attribute it to Mahmud Shah II, as the lcunyat 
looks more like Abul Mujahid than Abul Muzaffir.” Still for the reason 
mentioned, and under the prejudice that a king could not use two different 
leunyats, he reads Abul Muzaffar. Probably the same reasons prevented 
Blochmann from recognizing that his coin No. 3 (or fig. 4 of his Plate) 
also reads “ Abul Mujahid,” though the letters, in this case, are not quite 
so clear as in the case of his No. 8. But an imperfectly preserved “Abul 
Mujahid” can generally be almost certainly distinguished from an imper¬ 
fect “ Abul Muzaffar” by the presence or absence of the connecting stroke 
after the Id za and respectively, which otherwise have a great resem¬ 
blance to each other. The difference can be very clearly seen by compar¬ 
ing No. 3 with No. 4 in Blochmann’s Plate ; the former has Abul Muzaffar, 
the latter, Abul Mujahid. Moreover, there is fortunately among the 
newly found coins one (No. 10) which is a duplicate of Blochmann’s No. 
3 and on which the word “ Mujahid” is clear enough. Now Blochmann’s 
No. 3 is dated 852 A. H. ; and my three specimens of No. 8, of the 
Mujahid type, are dated 86[*] 862, 865. The only king with whom all 
these dates agree is Nasiru-d-dxn Mahmud Shah I, who reigned from 
846-S65 A. H. ; and these coins, therefore, clearly prove that Mahmud 
Shah I made use of the lcunyat Abul Mujahid as well as of the lcunyat 
Abul Muzaffar, though in the histories lie appears to be only known by 
* J. A. S. B., Yol. XXXVIII, p. 8, Yol. XXXIX, p. 296, footnote, 
t J. A. S. B., Vol. XLII, p. 272, Vol. XLIII, pp. 295, 296, Vol. XLIY, p. 291. 
J J. A. S. B , Vol. XLIV, pp. 288, 289 ; Plate XI, fig. 9. 
