Mahmúd, the son of the Emperor Balban, who subsequently came to prefer the easy dignity of Viceroy, in the more even climate of the south, in derogation of his birth-right's higher honours, and the attendant dangers of Imperialism at Dehli. One of the most touching chapters of Indian history is contributed by the incidents of this monarch's meeting with his own arrogant son, Muiz-ud-dín Kaikubád, who had succeeded to the superior dignities abjured by the father. They then met as nominal Vassal and Suzerain, but little unequal in power, and each occupying independent and preparedly hostile camps, on the ordinary route between their respective capitals. Oriental etiquette, and more reasonable distrust, for a time delayed the interview, in which, at last, nature was destined to re-assert its laws, and to reconcile even conflicting royal interests, by subduing, for the moment, the coarse vices of the son in the presence of the tempered virtues of the father. Repeated amicable conferences, however, merely resulted in each returning on his way, with but little change in the relative political position of either; and the comparatively obscure repose of Násir-ud-dín Mahmúd remained undisturbed, while other successors filled his son's throne at Dehli. The more immediate question bearing upon the attribution of the earliest coins in the Kooch Bahár treasure, is exactly how long did Násir-ud-dín continue to live and reign. Zíá-i-Barni,† and those who follow his ill-digested history, affirm that he retained his provincial kingship till 699 A.H., when he divested himself of all symbols of royalty in the mere dread of the confessedly overwhelming power of Alá-uddín Muhammad Shah, to be, however, reinstated by that Sultán; and, finally, it is asserted that Násir-ud-din was still in existence, and once again reinvested with the full insignia of a king, by Tughlak Sháh, in A.H. 724.

Ibn Batutah, a higher authority in proximity of time, and obviously more intimate with the purely indigenous history, states that Násir-ud-dín, on his ruturn from his interview with his son, reigned. some years (i), an expression which is scarcely compatible with * Zíá-i-Barni, p. 142; Ibn Batutah, iii., p. 178; Lee's Translation, p. 117;

.of Amir Khusri, Dehlivt قران السعدين and

† Printed edition, p. 451; Budauni MS.; Ferishtah (Briggs, i. p. 406). French edition, iii., p. 179, and xiii. Dr. Lee's "two years," p. 118,

is an error.

the idea of a nearly continuous rule of "forty-three solar years," and a decease in A.H. 725, as adopted by Stewart:* a prolongation of administrative functions indeed altogether inconsistent with the direct evidence of the dates on the money of Kai Káús, or the parallel proof of Shams-ud-din's exercise of the functions of sovereignty in 702 A.H., associated as they are with the uncontested historical and numismatic demonstration of the succession of one grandson, Shaháb-uddín, whose ejection from his inherited section of the kingdom by his more powerful brother, Bahádur, formed so prominent a ground for imperial interference in the affairs of Bengal. There facts are each and all too well ascertained to leave any doubt that the authors who make Násir-ud-dín's reign extend to 725 must be in error; the source of the mistake seems as simple as it is obvious, the mere omission of the son's name as preceding that of the father, in Persian MS. writing, or simple ignorance of the order of local successions, would account for the whole difficulty. And, as is obvious, Ibn Batutah's own personal knowledge, and possibly correct autograph version, reproduced independently in other lands, have not saved later transcripts of his work from analogous imperfections.†

But there are other and more direct internal evidences in the texts of the Indian authors, of confusion and imperfect knowledge in the relation of the incidents attendant upon the re-settlement of Bengal by Alá-ud-din A.H. 699, where it is stated that "a chief, named Bahadur Khán," was at this time appointed to "the eastern districts of Bengal," with the object of dividing the province, and thus rendering its rulers" more subservient to the Court of Dehli." It is highly improbable, had Násir-ud-din been living at the epoch in question, that a grandson of his should have been selected for such a charge to the supercession of his own father, Shams-ud-dín, or in priority to the son of that father, Shaháb-ud-dín, who was the elder or perhaps better-born brother of Bahádur, each of whom, Ibn Batutah

*Stewart's Bengal, p. 80.

+ Ex. gr., Bahadur is made the son of Násir-ud-dín, at p. 179, vol. iii., instead of the grandson, which the text at p. 210, vol. iii., and p. 213, vol. iv., affirms him to have been. Lee's MS. authorities again, in omitting the intermediate name of Násir-ud-din, skip a generation, and ante-date Shams-ud-din (Fírúz) in constitating him a son of Ghiás-ud-din Balban (p. 128).

‡ Ferishtah, Briggs, i., p. 406; Stewart, p. 79.

certifies, in turn succeeded to royal honours in the old capital of Bengal.

Having completed this simple outline of the historical data, I now proceed to describe the coins in their due order; first on the list in priority of time is a piece which I can only doubtfully assign to Bengal, and whose individual appropriation, moreover, must remain to a certain extent inconclusive. The coin itself will be seen to bear the hereditary name of the first Moslem Conqueror of India, Mahmud of Ghazní, and the oft-revived title of the founder of the dynasty, Násir-ud-din Subuktagín, a conjunction of royal designation already seen to have been applied to a succession of Pathán princes, whose intitulation followed antecedent conventionalisms.

Násir-ud-din. Mahmud Sháh.

No. 1.

Silver. Size, viii. Weight, 163.1 grs. Unique, British Museum.

The incidental details of the legends restrict the assignment of this piece to one of two individuals, the eldest or the youngest son of Altamsh, the latter of whom was authoritatively designated by the like name and title on the decease of his brother, in 626 A.H.* The

سلطان اسلام ناصر الدین محمود چنانچه وارث اسم ولقب او است * 201 .p بلقب و نام پسر مهدر مخصوص گردانیده ; 181 .Tabakat Nasiri, p

citation of the formula, "during the reign of (the Khalif) Al Mostansir billah," on the reverse, limits the final period of the issue of the coin, not exactly to the 5th month of the year A.H. 640, when that Pontiff died, but with clear precision to A.H. 641, when the knowledge of his death was officially declared by the substitution of a new name in the Mintages of the capital of Hindustán.*

This younger son was destined eventually to succeed to the throne of his father at Dehli, in 644 A.H., after the intervening reigns of Rukn-ud-din Fírúz Sháh, Rizíah, Muiz-ud-dín Bahrám Sháh, and Alá-ud-din Masaúd Sháh, in all, however, extending only over a space of eleven years, posterior to the death of Altamsh. The second Mahmúd, must, under these conditions, have been but of tender years, and though, at this conjuncture, promoted to the titular honours of an elder brother, not in any position to exercise authority in his own person, and less likely to have had medallic tribute paid to him by his father, should such have been the origin of the exceptional specimen under review. To the first-born Násir-ud-dín Mahmúd, no such objections apply; he was very early invested by his sire with the administration of the important government of Hánsi, and in 623 A.H., advanced to the higher charge of the dependencies of Oudh, from which quasi frontier, he was called upon to proceed against Hisámud-din Avaz, (No. 4 in the list of Governors, supra), who had already achieved a very complete independence in the province of Bengal. Here, his arms were fortuitously, but not the less effectually, successful, so that he had honours thrust upon him even to the Red Umbrella, and its attendant dignities,† whatever the exact measure of these may have been. Under such triumphant coincidences, it is possible that the universal favourite, the still loyal heir-apparent, may have placed his own name on the coinage, without designed offence, especially as at this time Moslem Mints were only beginning to adapt themselves to their early naturalization on Indian soil, and when the conqueror's camps carried with them the simple machinery, and equally ready adepts, for converting bullion plunder on the instant into the official money of a general, or his liege sovereign. Altamsh's *Pathán Sultáns of Dehli, coin No. 33, p. 22.

+ His title is usually limited by Minháj-ul-Siráj to ello pp. 177, 181, 201; but on one occasional crops out incidentally in the Court list where, in his place among the sons of the Emperor Altamsh, he is so designated, p. 178.

own circulating media were only in process of crude development at this period, and had scarcely risen superior to the purely Hindu currencies it had served the purpose of his predecessors to leave virtually intact his own strange Túrkí name,' : *and that of many of his successors, continued to figure in the Nágarí letters of the subject races on the surfaces of the mixed silver and copper coins of indigenous origin, at times commemorative of imperfectly achieved conquests, and the limited ascendancy implied in the retention of the joint names of the conqueror and the momentarily subject monarch; while the Sultan's own trial-pieces, in silver, were indeterminate in their design and legends, as well as utterly barbarous in their graphic execution.

Had the coin under review followed the usual phraseology and palæography of the Imperial Násir-ud-dín Mahmúd's Mint legends, it might have been imagined that an ancient and obsolete reverse had been, by hazard, associated with a new obverse. But the obverse inscription in the present instance differs from the latter Dehli nomenclature in the addition of the word Shah after the name of Mahmúd, and contrasts as singularly in the forms of the letters, and the

* This name I have, as a general rule, retained in the form accepted as the conventional English orthography-Altamsh. The correct rendering of the original is still an open question, but the more trustworthy authors reproduce the designation as, a transcription supported in a measure by the repetition of the third letter in the Kufic diés, and made authoritative, in as far as local pronunciation is concerned, by the Hindí correlative version of fafafafafa (Pathan Sultáns, Coin No. 14). The inscription on the KUTB MINÁR, at Dehli, hasil, which accords with the Arabic numismatic rendering on the reverses of the Hindí Coins now cited.

See also Táj-ul-Maásir, Alitimish: Wasáf, Alitmish, and at times Badauni, Altitimish.

Elliot's Historians of India, p. 111.

+ See coins of Chahir deva.

Obverse. Bull. Legend:

Reverse. Horseman. Legend: DIES ÈT I

-Pathán Sultáns, No. 15; Ariana Antiqua, pl. xix. 16. 31, 34; Prinsep's Essays, i. 333, pl. xxvi. 31; Minhaj-ul-Siráj, pp. 215, 240; Tod's Rajasthan, ii. 451; and J. A. S. Bengal, 1865, p. 126.

So, in written history, Násir-ud-dín Mahmúd, the Emperor, is called by his own

سلطان المعظم ناصر الدنيا والدین محمود بن السطان ,special biographer

(pp. 9, 177, 178, 201, etc.) which is in contrast to the nominal adjunct so constant with his predecessors, Fírúz Shah, Bahrám Sháh, Masáúd Sháh. On one occasion only does the additional Sháh appear in a substituted list of Altamsh'a Court (p. 178), where the text gives-1. Sultán Násir-ud-din * * 2. Sultán Násirud-din Mahmúd; and at the end, after the name of Rukn-ud-din Firúz Shah, comes" Násir-ud-din Mahmúd Sháh."