270 
H. Blochmann —Geography and History of Bengal. [No. 3, 
town, like No. 8 of Laidley’s Plate of Bengal coins (Journal XY, for 1846? 
PI. iv). Some have the Muhammadan creed on one side in (so called) 
Tughra characters, and, on the other side, the name of the king Nagirud- 
dunyd waddin Abut Muzaffar Mahmud Shah. The margin of the specimen 
is unfortunately cut away. Mr. Laidley’s No. 7 has the same obverse; 
the reverse is the same as on Hamzah Shah’s coins—* 
But the three inscriptions of this king are very valuable, viz., one from 
Satgaon, dated A. H. 861, or 1457 A. D. ; one from Dhaka, dated 20th 
Sha’ban, 863, or 13th June, 1459 ;f and one from Graur, discovered by General 
Cunningham, dated 28th Zil Hijjah, 863, or 26tli October, 1459. 
No. 9. The Mahmud Shah Inscription of Satgaon (A. H. 861).£ 
^ dilj t^i) <m| J15 
ly/i u)l < _ s ^^ aU| si r l , S^jJI ^sT , 
w-J wW sjj WW <*> 
All) £/o Hi &U j ^Js^. ^Ai ^ yz jJlj ^ 
_ kV W <JJ UJ xjo 
J ^ el5^ c 2 J l <? ^ i <; A J 
s/J ^ f ^ U> 
aALL A-'Ad) # # # # &AS-') 9 Uju <xJ <UJ) , Aj alf 
j f u*i l»Aw * * * * * [ ] 
\JJ <jj vJJ VjO 
aAIsI.w' 2 A-' a< •> i>*- 3 yikjly) ^M); UJM) jAd 
s — ^3obs' 0 ^) ^la£$) ^-s^l AL &ibvt j 'by'*} ^JLc) ^ 
* I am doubtful whether Laidley’s Nos. 11 and 12 belong to this king. The 
obverse of No. 11 consists of seven circles, four with * Na<jir Shah,’ and three with 
f assultanthe reverse is illegible. It is unlikely that the king should have called 
himself Na<jir Shah on some coins, when other coins and all inscriptions give his royal 
name ‘Mahmud Shah.’ Laidley’s No. 12 is curious j it shews on the reverse the 
kalimah in clumsy Kufic characters, and on the obverse five circles with ‘ Mahmud 
Shah assultan In the centre of the piece are three rings, thus— ° 0 °. Three rings 
thus arranged are Timur’s arms j vide Vamb^ry’s Bokhara, p. 205. 
f Received from Dr. J. Wise. It was published in Journal, As. Soc. Bengal, 
1872, Part I, p. 108. 
J This inscription was first published by me in Journal, As. Soc. Bengal, for 
1870, Part I, p. 293, where notes will be found on the locality. The name * Mahmud’ 
is broken away, only the dal is left, which in 1870, when I copied the inscription from 
the stone, I mistook for a ntin. General Cunningham’s rubbing leaves no doubt that 
it is a dal. I therefore republish the inscription with this important correction. 
