232 
Numismatic Supplement. 
[No. 2 , 
of the coin. Instances of a similar omission are to be found on other 
coins of the period, cf. Chronicles Nos. 173 and 174 and J.R.A.S. 1900, 
p. 775, where the margins commence (<xb or |^> 
(5) M of “ Miat ” is omitted. 
This “ m ” is clear enough on the coin now figured. 
(6) The usual forms of the letters alif, lam , toe , had thick clavate 
shapes; in this coin they have the more elegant form first introduced 
on his coins by Slier Shah. 
It is possible that Major Stubbs had not seen any of Muhammad 
bin Tughlak’s more finely engraved coins. Anyone who had handled 
many of these could not fail to be struck by the similarity between 
them and the reverse of the coin now figured. In fact it would not be 
too much to say that the form of the letters on the reverse is charac¬ 
teristic of the coins of Muhammad bin Tughlak. Compare especially 
nos. 173, 174, 179, 180 and 182 in Thomas’s Chronicles. It is pro¬ 
bable that for the obverse either the actual die of one of Ghiyasu-d-din 
Tughlak’s coins was employed, or that one was used as a pattern. 
It will thus be seen that the conclusions at which Major Stubbs 
has arrived will not bear close examination, and it is a little surprising 
that they have been allowed to lie for 34 years unchallenged. The 
rarity of the coin may be the reason. During the past ten years I 
have heard of only two. One of these is the present coin which I 
obtained by exchange from Mr. Bleazby who has the second specimen. 
Both were obtained at Lahore. Mr. Bleazby and Mr. Burn, C.S., who 
have devoted much time to the study of “ Pathan” coins, have autho¬ 
rised me to say that they share in my opinion that the coin now figured 
is a genuine one struck in memory of his father by Muhammad bin Tugh¬ 
lak. H. N. Wright. 
12. Muhammad IV. bin Farid. 
In the British Museum Catalogue Muhammad bin Farid is said to 
have reigned from 837 to 847 A.H., but a coin—No. 458—therein, and 
another in the catalogue of the Lahore Museum, give a later year, 848 
A.H. His reign was almost certainly from 837 to 849 A.H. Compare 
Elliot’s History of India, Yol. IV, p. 86, note 1, where the years 844, 847 
and 849 A.H. are mentioned as the last years of the reign. The refer¬ 
ence to Budaoni is to the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh (Ranking) p. 399, 
which gives 847 A.H. The date (849) given by Ferishta for Muhammad 
IV’s concluding year may safely be accepted as the most correct. A 
coin of that year struck in the name of Muhammad bin Farid is, however, 
required to settle the matter definitely. 
W. Yost. 
