170 C. J. Rodgers— Notes on the coins of the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri. [No. 3, 
with the inscriptions they are said to haye borne, giyes the following 
as a specimen of Kutb-ud-Dln’s coins ” :— 
T • f* fc-Jai j j j 
M 
I k9&sJ\Ji& ^yb 
H ^ 
About this inscription I wish to say: (1) the word sikfcah in all 
Pathan coins, when used, comes after the word zarb, thus ^^ 
(see Thomas). (2) Again the year on early coins is never given in 
figures and never with the Sultan’s name. (3) The word julus never 
occurs on a Pathan coin. (4) Dehli is never called Daru-l-khilaf at 
until the time of Qutbu-d-Din Mubarak Shah (716-720 A. H.), the 
vilest of Sultans, who called himself “ Khalifah TJllah ■” and “ Khalifah 
i Rabbu-l-Alamin ” on his coins, and who changed the simple Hazrat 
Delili to Hazrat D aru-l-khilaf at. After his time D aru-l-khilaf at was 
not used as the title of Delili on coins, until the time of Shah Jahan 
who calls it, “ D aru-l-khilaf at Shdhjahdndbdd .” It is sometimes called 
Hazrat Dehli simply, or Ddru-l-mulk , Dehli , or Ddru-l-mulk Hazrat 
Dehli. 
Hence it would seem that Major Raverty must have got hold 
of a book written by a native later than the time of Aurangzib, who 
began the use of the word julus , who used the whole of the reverse 
of his coins for the mint name and year and who 
occupied the obverse with his name and titles and the year of the 
Hejirah. It is altogether incredible that a series of coins of the first 
years of a series of kings should be found, (those kings the earliest 
Sultans of Labor and Dehli), bearing inscriptions dissimilar to all 
known coins of the period, but agreeing with the coins of the time of 
Aurangzib and his successors. At least, if a series of such coins bo 
found by one man, it is probable that some other collectors may obtain 
an odd specimen of the series. Now, as yet, no one has ever found a 
coin of tins kind, except the anonymous and unknown author of a book 
in Major Raverty’s possession. It would bo a real benefit to the 
numismatic world to publish the book, and put an end to tlie doubts 
which are entertained about it. Besides this, we want to see drawings 
of coins, such as the following (see note, p. 530) : 
£JaLJ| 
This coin makes no mention of flie Klnilifuh, a fact always sfnfed on 
the coins of the period: the year iH on (lie same side as I ho king's 
name, contrary to the usage of the period; tlie word maskuk is used 
