218 A. F. Rudolf Hoernle —A new find of Muhammadan Coins. [No. 3, 
No. 3. (Plate XYI, fig. 3). Five specimens; in all respects like 
No. 2, except that the latter are small, thick pieces, while No. 3 are large 
and thin with broad ornamented margins. On two specimens the dates 
are legible ; one (fig. 3) has 860; the other probably 8[5]9. 
No. 4. (Plate XVI, fig. 4). One specimen ; a small thick piece, 
like No. 2 ; also with the same legends ; but that on the obverse differently 
arranged, in a rather curious way. Date, probably on reverse, obliterated 
by shroff-marks. 
No. 5. (Plate XVI, fig. 5). Three specimens ; very crude pieces, 
one of them broken in two. Obverse legend as usual ; the reverse entirely 
illegible through shroff-marks. 
No. 6. (Plate XVI, fig. 6). Five specimens; with very slight 
variations; broad, thin pieces, like No. 3, hut without any margin on the 
obverse. The lettered surface of the latter shows the well-known orna¬ 
mental elongated strokes. The legends on both sides are the same as on 
No. 1. On one coin (fig. 6) the date is 847, on another apparently 84[8]. 
(b). Mujdhid Type. 
No. 7. (Plate XVI, fig. 7). One specimen ; in all respects like 
No. 6, except that the word Mujdhid is substituted for Muzaffar. The 
date is 862. A similar coin was published by Laidlay in J. A. S. B., 
Vol. XV, Plate IV, No. 7, but its reverse legend is different, viz., that of 
No. 2 of the present series. He wrongly ascribed it to Jalalu-d-din Mu¬ 
hammad Shah. Blochmann appears to have read on it Abul Muzaffar, but 
the name is exactly as on my coin, and is clearly Abul Mujahid. 
No. 8. (Plate XVI, figs. 8a and 8 b). Three specimens ; in general 
appearance, like Nos. 6 and 7 ; the obverse legend is also the same, but 
the reverse has the following inscription of which the latter portion is 
continued from the area on to the margin : 
in margin in area 
r -^ \ / - A -n 
j Axl/o <XiJ| /\ «]fc ^UaJLjl ^j| 
They are all dated ; one has 862, another (fig. Sb) has 864, the date 
of the third (fig. 8a) is mutilated 86[*]. 
No. 9. (Plate XVII, fig. 9). One specimen ; in general appearance 
like No. 2 ; both legends also the same as on No. 2, except that the word 
Mujdhid is substituted for Muzaffar. The date which would have been 
on the reverse margin is unfortunately lost. The coin, No. 8, published, 
by Blochmann, in J. A. S. B , Vol. XLIV, p. 289 (fig. 9 of his Plate) 
appears to have been identical with the present one. He makes the legend 
