258 H. Blochmann —Geography and History of Bengal. [No. 3, 
to Ghiyasuddm A’zam Shah, ‘king’ of Bengal; and as Hafiz died in 791 
(^Ra/o vMA being the date of his death), the ghazal must have been sent 
to Bengal during Sikandar Shah’s lifetime. The fact that A’zam Shah’s 
early coins (of A. H. 772) were struck in Mu’azzamabad (vide above), 
agrees with the statement of the Riyaz that he rebelled in Eastern Bengal, 
where he remained “ nominally subordinate or covertly resistant to paternal 
authority.”*' 
VI. Ghiya'suddi'n Abul Muzaffar A’zam Sha'h. 
The only fact given in the Biyaz and omitted by Stewart is that “ A’zam 
“ Shah was treacherously murdered ( ba-daghd Jcuslitah) by Rajah Kans 
“ after a reign of seven years and some months,! or, as I have seen in a 
“ little book, after a reign of sixteen years, five months, and three days.” 
The coins of this king, as mentioned before, go to 799 ; the latest figur¬ 
ed by Mr. Thomas (Initial Coinage of Bengal, Pl. II, No. 15) is of 795. J 
No inscription of this and the following two kings have been found. 
* It is also curious that in the inscription of 777, published by me in this 
Journal for 1870, p. 292, no king is mentioned, as if it had been doubtful who the real 
king was. 
In order to remove all doubts regarding a confusion of and ^jjuJ in the 
reading of Sikandar’s and A’zam Shah’s coins, a few clear drawings of Sikandar 
Shakis struck between 783 and 792, and of A’zam Skahis, struck in 772, 775, 776, 
would be required. A’zam Shah’s reign, according to the common statement, lasted 
7 years, which we certainly get when we subtract 792 (the latest year cited by Mr. 
Thomas for Sikandar Shah) from 799 (the latest year cited for A’zam Shah) ; but if 
we take the second statement, given in the Riyaz, regarding the length of A’zam 
Shah’s reign, viz. 16 years, 5 months, and 3 days, and subtract it from 799, we get 
783, the year of Mr. Thomas’s latest figured coin. 
t T e -> according to the wrong chronology of the Tabaqat and the Riyaz, in 775. 
t I may here suggest a few unimportant alterations in Mr. Thomas’s readings 
of A’zam Shah’s coins (‘Initial Coinage,’ J. A. S. B., 1867, pp. 68 to 70). First , 
is to be corrected to iAgain, the mysterious {loc. cit } 
p. 68) is nothing but ycimin. Lastly the reverse of coin No. 38 {loc. cit. 
p. 70), as I see from a specimen in the Society’s Coin Cabinet, is 
A^l/o &Uf <xlA. j iJU| cXj| 
May God render his power everlasting, and may God perpetuate his reign, _ abbada alldhu 
not the name ’ Abdullah ,—which removes from the mint officials the charge of 
ignorance. It was only Akbar who, in his hatred of everything that was Arabic, 
recommended the substitution of Alif for ’Ain, and $ for &c. 
In the reverse of the Sikandar Shahi {loc. cit., p. 64, No. 23), as I also see from a 
coin in the possession of the Society, there is a wrong Alif before and a 
{waw) is omitted before Alqdhiru,— ( Who renders assistance to the religion of God 
and who is victorious over the enemies of God.’ This cancels the footnote. 
