1887.] C. J. Bodgers —Notes on the coins of the Tabacqat-i-Nasiri. 173 
Mahmud, inscriptions which vary only in one word (year of course 
excepted),—is used for ^1. 
The Tabaqat was written in the reign of Nasiru-d-din Mahmud 
Shah, and hence his coins are the last given from the book in the posses¬ 
sion of Major Raverty. This book is of course responsible for the 
inscriptions. The Major says very judiciously about each coin that “ it 
is said in the book in my possession to have the following inscriptions.” 
Who the author may be, I cannot tell. I can only judge from what he 
puts before me. He says the coins are of a certain number of kings. 
The first suspicious thing about them is, that they are all of the first 
year. How if the author obtained coins of the first year, he must have 
obtained coins of other years. After twenty years of diligent search 
I have obtained few rupees of the early Pathans of Dehli and not one 
of the 1st year of any king. I never heard of any one having a first 
year of any of these kings, though some of my correspondents have rupees 
of these early Sultans. They all follow one formula. 
Obverse :—Name and title of Sultan. 
Reverse :—Name of Eli al if ah. 
r, °T-i':^ar'-r -Mint and year. 
In the case of gold mohurs the margins are on both sides in several 
instances. 
In the series given by Major Raverty’s author not one coin follows 
the formula. But as I have shown the author has followed the formula 
of the rupees of Aurangzib and of those who succeeded him. Hence I 
am led to the conclusion that Major Raverty, ignoring the great labours 
of Mr. Thomas and desiring to give something new and striking to the 
world, has been taken in by a most impudent series of forgeries, the work 
of a man almost, if not altogether, unacquainted with the coins of the 
later Ghazni kings and of the early Pathan Sultans of Dehli. Mr. Thomas 
gives six plates and a number of detached wood cuts to illustrate his 
text. If Major Raverty will publish his author with illustrations, the 
two works can then be compared. It is unfair on the part of Major 
Raverty, not to give the name of his author and to pit him against Mr. 
Thomas. It is only fair perhaps for me to state in conclusion that I 
think Major Raverty has been duped. A careful stud}" of the chro¬ 
nicles of the Pathan kings would have compelled Major Raverty to put 
the book in his possession into the fire. Nothing in it is of the slightest 
value. 
