313 
1873.] Honble. E. C. Bayley —Note on two Muhammadan Coins. 
of his courtiers, whom lie had disgusted hy his cruelty ; another story is that 
emboldened by success he rashly hazarded a battle outside his fortification, 
and fell in the contest. 
The popular dates assigned to this king vary very much, but it is speci¬ 
fically stated that his reign lasted three years and five months. 
One set of dates, that most generally accepted, carries his reign as far 
down as 903, which would place his accession in either the beginning of 899 
or end of 898, A. H.; but, as will be seen, this is probably too late. 
The only one point on which there is no doubt is that he erected a 
building at Gfaur in 898. This is testified by the inscription published in 
the Society’s Journal, Yol. xlii, p. 291, by Mr. Bloclnnann from the Gaur 
impression furnished by General Cunningham. 
Another piece of evidence, but a less conclusive one, is the coin publish¬ 
ed by Marsden, PI. xxxviii, No. dccxcii, and which is dated in 899. It 
is attributed by Marsden to ’Ala-uddin Husain ; but if correctly attributed, 
as is probable, it is, I think, indirect evidence, not that Muzaffar Shah was 
then dead, but that he was still alive in possession of Gaur. For this coin 
of ’Ala-uddin is struck at Fatliabad, a mint of which I believe no other 
specimens exist, whereas his later coins bear the mint mark usually of 
“ Jannatabad,” the well known mint name of new Lak’lmauti or Gaur. 
It is of course more than probable that ’Ala-uddin Husain, in the flush of 
victory and with his adversary penned up and beleaguered in a fortress, at 
once assumed, while himself in camp or at some obscure town, the regal style 
and struck coins, while Muzaffar Shah might still have done the same inside 
his strong fortress. 
The facts we have then are these: Muzaffar Shah was reigning in S98. 
He was probably still reigning but penned up in Gaur at some period 
in 899. He reigned three years and five months. 
All of these facts are consistent with the dates either of 89G or 901 A. H., 
but in either case this coin must mark one extreme limit of Muzaffar’s 
Shah’s reign. My own feeling is rather to read the date as 901 A. H., rest¬ 
ing mainly on the general assignment of a later date to him by native histo¬ 
rians, and on the appearance of the date itself. I am bound to state, how¬ 
ever, that such authorities as General Cunningham and Mr. Bloclnnann 
prefer to read S9G. 
This coin was found at Gaur some years ago, and is in the possession of 
E. Lowis, Esq., C. S. 
