S50 
E. Thomas —The Initial Coinage of Bengal .— Bl. II. [No. 4, 
dominions,—an aggression which was met, in A.n. 624, by the advance of 
Nagir-ud-din Mahmud, the eldest son of Altamsli, in force, who, in the 
absence of Ghiyas-ud-din Twaz on distant enterprises, succeeded in obtaining 
possession of the new seat of government. In the subsequent engagement, 
the Bengal army was defeated, and Ghiyas-ud-din killed, after a reign 
estimated by the local annalist at 12 years.* 
This is all the information we are able to gather from the incidental 
biographical notices furnished by our sole authority, Minhaj i Siraj, that 
most intelligent employe of the rulers of Dilili, and welcome visitor at the 
Court of Lak’hnauti in a.ii. 641, where he saw and appreciated the material 
undertakings of this self-made king, whose memory he lauds enthusiastically. 
A tribute Altamsli had virtually anticipated, when he was at last permitted 
to behold the glories of his adversaries’ capital, in 627 a.ii., and then conceded 
the tardy justice of decreeing, that in virtue of liis good works, Ghiyas-ud- 
din Twaz should, in his grave, be endowed with that coveted title of Sultan, 
which had been denied to him while living.f 
We have now to examine how far the recently discovered coins will fdl 
in this defective historical outline. 
Coins struck in the name of Altamsh, in Bengal. 
No. 1. Silver. Size, l\. Weight, 168 grains. Unique , in this date. 
PL x. fig. 1 . a.h. 614. 
Reverse. 
Obverse. 
p —hi 
J | jj f 
Device. 
Horseman at the charge. 
liargin — 
* Allowing ’All Martian from 607—8 to 609—10, this leaves an interval up to 612 
during which Husam-ud-dm Twaz was content to remain head of the Ivhilji oligarchy and 
local governor. 
f Tabaqat-i Nagirl, Text, p. 163. Mr. Blochmann has an interesting paper, in the 
September number of the Indian Antiquary (p. 259), on Muhammadan Titles. Among 
other questions discussed is the derivation and early application of the title of Sultan. The 
author remarks that “ the first clear case of Sultan having been used as a title belongs to 
the time of Itukn-ud-daulali, deputy over Bars, under the Khalifah A1 Mutfi billali,” A.n. 
338, or A.n. 949. MM. Oppert et Menant were under the impression that they had 
discovered the title so early as the time of Sargon, who, in his grand inscription at 
Khorsabad, is said to speak of Subaco as “ Silt an, or Sultan d’Egypte.”—Journal Asiatique, 
1863, p. 9, and text, p. 3. Commentary, 1864, p, 10. Some doubt has, however, since 
been thrown upon this identification, as the designation reads optionally, if not preferably, 
imn- Schrader, Cuneiform and Old Testament Studies (1872), p. 157- 
