1SS3.] A. F. Rudolf Hoernle —A new find of Muhammadan Coins. 215 
the latter. This being so, it becomes very probable that the coins of the 
same (*. e., Mujahid) type which bear no date or the date of which is no 
more legible, must be ascribed to the same Sultan Mahmud Shah I. To 
this class belong my coins Nos. 9 and 11, Blochmann’s No. 8 (his fig. 9), 
aud the coin No. DCCXX1V published by Marsden in his Numismata 
Orientalia. The latter was republished by Laidlay in Yol. XY of this 
Journal.* Both he and Blochmann ascribe it to Nasiru-d-din Mahmud 
Shah II,f commonly known as Abul Mujahid, probably a grandson of the 
first Nasiru-d-din Mahmud Shah, who is supposed to have reigned in 896 
A. H. As they had not the advantage of the present evidence of dated 
coins, their error is not surprising ; nor, indeed, in the absence of legi¬ 
ble dates, can their ascription be said to be impossible, but probability 
is greatly the other way. The second Nasiru-d-din, as Blochmann shows, 
can only have been about seven years old at the time of his accession; 
for at his father Fateh Shah’s death (probably in 892) he was two years 
old; and he was murdered after a reign of only about six months. 
Under these circumstances there is little probability, that coins—and coins 
too of various types—were struck in his name. Moreover, it will be 
observed that the coins of the present find, are nearly all of Mahmud I 
and Ruknu-d-din ; there are only five of previous reigns, but none of 
any reign after Ruknu-d-din. If the undated coins of the Mujahid 
type were ascribed to Mahmud II, there would be a large gap in the 
series of coins, extending over no less than five reigns, between Ruknu-d- 
din and Mahmud II. For this reason, too, it is more probable that the 
undated coins belong to Mahmud I. 
(e). In Yol XLII of this Journal, p. 289, Blochmann has given an 
inscription of Nasiru-d-din Abul Mujahid Mahmud Shah. He was unable 
to read the date, and ascribed the inscription to Mahmud Shah II, on 
account of the Tcunyat Abul Mujahid, mentioned in it, while the hunyat 
of Mahmud Shah I, as he says, was Abul Muzaffar. The date, however, 
is not so illegible as Blochmann makes it out to be. It is in all pro¬ 
bability 84-7 or 849 ; see his Plate VII, No. 3 ; in the left-hand lower 
corner the word <*>•-«> “ year” is distinct; just above it is clearly 
enough the word “ seven” or “ nine” ; and above that, again, is 
the word (rather indistinct) “ eight hundred” ; lastly to the im¬ 
mediate right of is the word “ forty” ; the whole date being 
j j 847 or ^ j £—3 849. Indeed the date is so 
clear, that I suspect it was merely because Blochmann felt himself unable 
* J. A. S. B., Vol. XV, p. 331 ; Plate Y, No. 18. 
f J. A. S. B., Yol. XLII, p. 289. 
+ See J. A. S. B., Vol. XLII, p. 288. 
