^{page 268 note 1} Mirchond, Hist. Gaz. ed. Wilken, p. 5; Khalásat al Akhbár (Price), ii. 277; Ferishtah (Dow), i. 21 and 22; (Briggs), i. 13 and 14.

^{page 268 note 2} Or Subuktikin, , as it is written in a carefully engrossed MS. of Utbí in the British Museum.

^{page 270 note 1} Khalásat al Akhbár (Price), ii. 282; Elphinstone's India, i. 538.

^{page 271 note 1} D'Herbelot, , Bib. Orient., p. 533. Paris, 1697.Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 2} De Guignes, ii. 162.

^{page 271 note 3} It still, however, remains a question whether this title may not have been used by Masaúd on some of his provincial Coins. (See p. 343.) Al Bíhekí uses the Amír and Sultán indifferently.

^{page 272 note 1} Extract Táríkh Guzídah, East India Company's Persian MS. Copy, No. 649.

A somewhat similar passage is to be found in the Rauzat al Safá.

^{page 272 note 2} A coin similar to No. 22 has formed the subject of an able essay from the of M. De Saulcy, Conservateur du Musée d'Artillerie, Paris. It is satisfactory to find the general accuracy of M. De Saulcy's inferences regarding the nonrecognition of Al Kádir in the province of Khorasán, confirmed by the additional historical evidence above quoted, as well as by the copious numismatic examples supplied by the present collection. See Journal Asiatique, 1842.

^{page 272 note 3} D'Herbelot quotes the following anecdote from the Táríkh al Khofata, in advertence to the said title of Walí, and the objections to its use supposed to have existed in the case of the Ghaznaví Sultán:—

“Il est rapporté dans le Tarikh al Khofata, ou Histoire des Khalifes, que le Sultan Mahmoud, s'étant rendu maître absolu du pays de Gaznin, et de tant d'autres, par sa valeur, souhaita que le Khalife luy donnast un titre digne de sa puissance, et pour l'obtenir il luy envoya un Ambassade extraordinaire. L'Imam Abou Mansor ayant demeuré un an ou environ à Bagdet sans rien avancer dans láaffaire qu'il poursuivoit, présenta enfin un memoire dans lequel il exposoit au Khalife les grandes conquestes de son maître, sa puissance, et son zéle pour la foy Musulmane, la conversion de plusieurs milliers d'Idolâtres à la religion Mahometane, le changement de leurs temples en mosquées, et qu'enfin il étoit tout á fait indigne que l'on ne reconnut pas le merite d'un si grand Prince par un titre qui coûtoit si peu de chose au Khalife de luy accorder. Ce memoire fit son effet auprés du Khalife, lequel craignant quáun si puissant Monarque ne tournast enfin ses armes contre luy, assembla son conseil, et mit en déliberation quel titre on pouvoit luy accorder, désirant, à cause que ce Prince étoit fils d'um esclave, qu'on luy en donnast un qui fut équivoque. On trouva done que celuy de Veli luy conviendroit bien, parce que ce mot qui signifie Amy et Seigneur, signifie aussi Serviteur et Valet. Mahmoud connut bien la pensée du Khalife, et il luy envoya un present de cent mille écus, afin qu'il ajoûtast seulement une lettre au nom, à sçavoir, un Elif. On luy accorda cette grace, et on luy envoya les Patentes avec le titre de Vali, qui signifie absolument Maítre et Commandant. Doulet Schah.” (Bib. Orient., D'Herbelot, p. 536.)

This story bears an appearance of much improbability when considered in reference to the many early instances of mutual good will evinced on the part of Mahmúd and of his spiritual superior; as well as to the fact, that, later in life, Mahmúd is proved to have received or appropriated titles numerous and laudatory enough to have satisfied the most craving ambition for such empty honours; and finally, Ferishtah notices the receipt at the Court of Ghazní, so late as 417 A.H., of a diploma conferring certain highly complimentary denominations both upon Mahmúd and his three sons ( &c.Briggs's Ferishtah, i. 81), apparently the unsolicited offering of the identical Khalif who is reported to have designed the cutting reproach above described. It is true, it is not stated to what particular period of his reign the occurrence of this episode should be assigned; but Mahmúd's prompt and seemingly voluntary display of the word in immediate connexion with his own name does not look as if he had any seruples regarding its employment, or any dread of consequent imputations on his parentage, even though the Wali was wanting in the so-asserted coveted Alif.

^{page 274 note 1} MS., No. 180, p. 129. East India House Library.

^{page 274 note 2} MS. Tabakát Násirí. East India House Library.

^{page 274 note 3} Silver. Struck at Míáfáríkín. A.H. (3)92.

Fræhn, Num. Kuf. p. 77; Lindberg, Mém. de la Soc. des Antiq. du Nord, 1844, p. 261.

^{page 276 note 1} If it were necessary to cite foreign and earlier examples of an analogous absence of more modern Moslem scruples in similar cases, it might be advantageous to point, among others, to the remarkable departure from the supposed absolute rule on the subject, instanced in the retention by the Arabs, for the first twenty years after their conquest of the country, of the Byzantine types of tho money of Mauritania, extending not only to the use of the general device of the prototype, and the expression of Arabic names by means of Latin letters, but even to an acceptance of a but slightly modified form of the cross itself. It is to be observed, moreover, that this enduring instance of freedom from the prejudice above referred to, occurred at a period closely subsequent to the difference between the Khalíf Abdal Malik and the Greek Emperor, which, in A.H. 76, led to the first fabrication of pure Arabic money, when, if there had been the most remote feeling of objection to the use of symbols on the part of the then followers of Islam, it must have been expected to have shown itself with peculiar force. An interesting paper on this subject may be referred to in letter No. 5 of M. de Saulcy à M. Reinaud, Journal Asiatique, A.D. 1840.

^{page 276 note 1} Journ. Roy. As. Soc., No. XVII., p. 184.

^{page 277 note 1} To obviate the confusion incident to detached notices, and to present at one view a detail of the various historical writers to whom reference is made in the present paper, the following summary of the several authorities quoted is here subjoined:—

1. The Biography of Masaúd, the son of Mahmúd of Ghazní, catalogued in the Royal Library, Paris, as the Táríkh Masaúdí, by Abúl Fazl Mohammed bin Al Husén Al Bíhekí. The work contains a full and voluminous account of the reign of Masaúd, interspersed with occasional digressions upon the occurrences of the day: it was chiefly written and finally completed after the accession of Ibrahím, 451 A.H. The writer also refers to his own Táríkh Yamíní. Hají Khalfa has a notice of this author's compositions, to the following effect:—“ Táríkh A'l Subektegin, Historia magna Ghaznavidarum pluribus voluminibus comprehensa, Auctore Abuálfadhl Al Beihacki.” The Paris MS. is of modern transcription (A.H. 1019), and, as far as the contents of European Public Libraries are known, it is believed to be unique. The existence of this MS. only became known to the author of the present notice after the major part of these sheets had been prepared for the press; and even then the time disposable for its examination only admitted of a partial perusal.

2. Tabakát Násirí, by Minháj bin Suráj Jurjání, dedicated to Násir al dín Mahmúd of Delhí. A.H. 658.

3. Tárikh Moktasar al Daul, by the Armenian Abúl Faraj. Latest date, 683 A.H.

4. Jámi al Tawáríkh, by Rashíd al dín, Vizír of Gázán Khán, and subsequently of Oljáitú Khán. A.H. 710.

5. Táríkh Binákití, otherwise entitled Rauzat álí al Albáb, an Abridgment of the Jámi al Tawáríkh, by Abú Solímán Fakhr al dín Dáúd (vulg. Binákití). A.H. 717.

6. The original of the Annales Muslemici of Abúl Fedá of Hamát was written between 715 and 732 A.H.

7. Táríkh Guzídah, by Ahmed bin Abú Bekr Al Kaswíní. 730 A.H.

8. Rauzat al Safá, by Mír Kháwand Sháh (otherwise Mirkhond), dedicated to Alí Shír, Vizír of Sultán Hussén. The author died in Khorásán, in 903 A.H.

9. Khalásat al Akhbár, an Abridgement of the Rauzat al Safá, 905 A.H.;

10. Habíb al Sair, about 927 A.H., dedicated to Habíb Ullah, Vízír of Ismaíl Shah Sufaví, King of Persia; both by Ghíáth al dín bin Hamid al din, Khondemír.

11. Jemál al dín Abúl Mahásan Yúsaf bin Taghrí Bardí (Egypt). Middle of ninth century A.H.

12. Táríkh Nigáristan, by Ahmed bin Mohammed, Al Kaswíní. Middle of tenth century A.H.

13. Tabakát Akberí, by Nizám al dín Ahmed bin Mohammed Mokim, of Heriát, written at Agrah, in the time of Akber (about) 991 A.H.

14. Táríkh al Jenábí, by Abú Mohammed Mustafí (vulg. Al Jenábí). Latest date 997. The author died in 999 A.H.

15. Mirát al A'lem, by Bukhtáwur Khán. Time of Aúrungzíb.

16. Táríkh Ferishtah, (Bíjápúr). A.H. 1018 = A.D. 1609.

^{page 278 note 1} Or Bahá al daulah Alí, as he is called by the Guzídah and Habîb al Sair.

^{page 278 note 2} Násírí, Abúl Faraj, Jenábí, Tabakát Akberí, and Ferishtah, nine years; Abúl Fedá, nine years and ten months; Rauzat al Safá, nine years and eleven months; Taríkh Guzídah, Habíb al Sair, and Khalásat al Akhbár, seven years.

^{page 279 note 1} Táríkh Masaúdí, Bibl. du Roi, Paris.

^{page 279 note 2} M. De Gnignes (ii. 177), in quoting from various authors at one and the same time, has placed himself in a difficulty in respect to this question. He takes Abúl Faraj's statement, which he cites as A.H. 433, for the date of Mohammed's second accession; then mentioning Módúd's death and quoting from Abúl Fedá, he states that this monarch died in 440, after a reign of nine years and ten months. The seven years actually adopted from date to date, as the duration of Módúd's reign, in which also must be included the brief sway of Mohammed, is thus, in the confusion of authorities, amplified by two years and ten months. Moreover, the quotations themselves are both incorrect; the printed texts of Abúl Faraj and Abúl Fedá, severally give 432 as the epoch of the revolt against Masaúd and the elevation of Mohammed [see p. 343 (Pococke, Oxon. 1643), and p. 132, vol. iii. (Reisk), respectively]. In like manner, the period of 440 will be seen in the printed text of the original to be 441 (see Abúl Fedá, iii. 132).

^{page 279 note 3} Mirát al A'lem, No. 7657, Rich Collection, British Museum.

^{page 279 note 4} Shawál, 431., Abúl Fedá.

^{page 280 note 1} Date of Ibrahím's death, according to different authors: Násirí, 492; Táríkh Guzídah, idem; Táríkh Binákiti, idem; Abúl Fedá, Mirkhond, and Jenábi, 481; Abúl Mahásan, 492; Ferishtah, doubtful!! De Guignes, 481.

^{page 280 note 2}

^{page 281 note 1}

Persian Jámi al Tawáríkh, British Museum, No. 7628.

^{page 281 note 2} The following description of the process of coining, as in use at Delhí at a somewhat later period, probably represents pretty accurately the mode employed in the fabrication of the coins of the present series:—

“The Melter melts the refined plates of gold [silver, &c.], and casts them into round ingots.

“The Zerráb cuts from round ingots, pieces of gold, silver, and copper of the size of the coin. * * * It is surprising, that in Iran and Turan they cannot cut these round pieces without an anvil made on purpose; and in Hindoostan, the workman, without any such machine, performs this business with such exactness, that there is not the difference of a single hair.

“The Seal-engraver engraves the dies of coins on steel and such like metals.

“The Sickchy places the round piece of metal between two dies , and, by the strength of the Hammerer, both sides are stamped at one stroke.” Gladwin's Ayin í Akberí, i. 15.

^{page 282 note 1} See Coins, Nos. *75 (A.H. 294) and *133 (A.H. 302), Fræhn's Recensio.

^{page 283 note 1} In citing the subjoined extracts from different geographical authors, it will be useful to premise the dates at which these writers severally flourished, as without full advertence to this particular, many of their assertions regarding the state of backwardness or advancement of the various localities described may appear inconsistent, and even conflicting.

In judging also of the credibility of the more modern geographers, close attention must be paid to discriminate between the original observations of the author himself and the incorporated transcripts from earlier authorities: these last are often acknowledged, but when not admitted to be quotations, are manifestly liable to mislead.

The earliest production to which it is necessary to refer, is the Arabic original of the Persian MS. translated by Ouseley, and published by him in the year 1800, as “The Oriental Geography of Ebn Haukal.” Ouseley's MS. was at that time supposed to be a Persian version of Ibn Haukul's Arabic Musálik wa Mumálik; intermediately, the text in question has been attributed by Uylenbroek to Ibn Khordadbah, whose original composition was supposed to bear a similar title, viz., Gildemeister has, however, determined that “Istakhrí auctor libri climatum qui inter annos 900 et 825 Chr. scripsit. Sindiam invisit ejusque terræ tabulam delineavit. Editus est ejus liber ex versione Persica in Anglicam linguam translatus ab Ouseleyo.” (Scriptorum Arabum De Rebus Indicis, p. 76.) Mœller also, the Editor of the lithographed facsimile of the original Arabic text of Istakhrí, testifies that “Idem est opus geographicum, quod vir cel. W. Ouseley in Anglicum sermonem translatum anno 1800 hoc nomine ‘The Oriental Geography, &c.,’ Londini edidit;” and he adds, regarding the date of the composition itself, “Inde apertum est, Abu Ishakum annum 303 inter et annum 307 vel 309 H. ( = 915—921 p. Chr.) opus suum geographicum confecisse.” (Liber Climatum, &c, J. H. Mœeller, Gothæ, 1829, p. 22.)

Ibn Haukul began his travels in 331 A.H. “scientiæ cupiditate ductus longis itineribus fere omnes terras Muslimicas invisit, ex quibus redux sub annum 366 (inc. 29 Aug., 976) opus suum geographicum inscriptum concinnavit ita, ut id Içthakhrii libro quasi fundamento superstrueret suis observationibus aucto et perfecto.” (Gilde., p. 78.)

In like manner, Mœller observes—” Diserte igitur Ibn Haukalides unice ad opus Abu Ishaki el faresii se applicasse, ejusque formam et expositionem sequutum esse profitetur, ita ut Ibn Haukalidis opus non nisi altera sit auctior et emendatior Abu Ishaki operis editio. (p. 4.) Ibn Haukalidem opus suum anno deinum 366 —367 H. (=976—977 P. Chr.) ex itineribus suis, quæ anno 331 H. ( = 942 p. Chr.) ingressus erat reducem composuisse, cujus rei nullam clarissimi Uylenbroekii sagacitas reliquit dubitationem.” (Mœller, p. 22.)

Albírúní's Kánún is the next in order of antiquity; the exact epoch of its completion is not known, but an approximate estimate may be formed from the fact of the author's death having occurred shortly subsequent to 430 A.H. = 1038—39 A.D.

Edrisi's work received its finishing stroke in Shawál, 548.A.H. = 1154 A.D.

Kaswíní (Zakaria bin Mohammed bin Mahmúd), the author of the Athár al belád, died in 674 A.H. = 1275 A.D.

And, lastly, Abúl Fedá concluded his geographical compilation (Takwím al Baladán) in 721 A.H. = 1321 A.D.

(Liber Climatum Auctore El Issthachri, J. H. Mœller, Gothæ, p. 110.)

The sentence regarding the inhabitants of Kábul appears in the following form in the Persian Mesálik wa Memálik.

“Kábul is a town with a very strong castle, accessible only by one road: this is in the hands of the Mussulmans; but the town belongs to the infidel Indians. They say,” &c. (Ouseley's Translation, p. 226.)

Ibn Haukal follows Istakhrí with sufficient precision in the main point of the occupancy of the town and castle; but he seems, intentionally or otherwise, to have made the

Ibn Haukal. Bodleian Library, No. 538, Hunt.

Kaswíní does not throw any new light upon this subject, his version of the matter being much to the same purport as the following mis-quotation of Ibn Haukal by Abúl Fedá, where it will be seen that the nice distinction of the tenure of the castle by the Mohammedans, while the Hindús still occupied the town, is entirely lost sight of.

Judging from the French translation (Géographie D'Edrisi, par M. Amédée Jaubert, pp. 182, 183; see also p. 459), the passage in Edrisi, corresponding with the first part of the above quotation, appears to be somewhat confused, and a simultaneous reference to the city of Kandahar, is strangely mixed up with many local details, which manifestly apply to the town of Kábul.

(Géographic D'Abonlfeda, Texte Arabe, par MM. Reinaud et De Slane, Paris, 1843, p. )

“Ibn Haukul said: Kabul is in the jurisdiction of Bámíán, and in it are Moslems and infidel Hindús. The Hindús are of opinion that the King, who is the Sháh, is not rightly entitled to the dignity of Sháh, unless the sovereignty he covenanted to him in Kábul. It is said in the Kánún (Albíruní), that the Castle of Kábul was the residence of (the) Princes of the Túrks, then of the Bráhmans * * it is one of the frontiers of the Moslems towards India: to the west of it also is the city of Ghazní.”

Before taking leave of the geographical authors who illustrate the various subjects connected with the age immediately preceding that to which the present paper refers, it is desirable to attract the attention of the curious in such matters to the valuable but little known MS. of Ibn Khordadbah, in the Bodleian Library, which contains much miscellaneous information regarding India and Central Asia; the work is entitled The Oxford MS. was engrossed in 630 A.H. Ibn Khordadbah died in 300 A.H. (= 912 A.D.); his compositions are largely praised, and were extensively used by Masaúdí, 332 A.H. (Vide Meadows of Gold, &c., Oriental Translation Fund Edition.)

^{page 285 note 1} “In the year 107, under the Khalifat of Hesham, the son of Abdulmullick, his Governor of Khorasan, Ameen, the son of Abdallah Casheery, conquered Ghour, Ghurgistan, and Neemroz of Cabul. From that time, under the Khalifs of the Houses of Ommiah and Abbas, these provinces continued to be dependent upon Khorasan.” Gladwin's Ayin í Akberí, ii. 209.

MS. Tabakát Násirí. East India House.

^{page 286 note 1}

MS. Rauzat al Safá, Royal Asiatic Society, No. 43.

^{page 286 note 2} For instance, the passage which should correspond with the text of Istakhrí, p. 110, line 7, Mœller, and which is translated from the Persian version by Ouseley, p. 225, last line, and two first lines of 226, runs thus in Ibn Haukal:—

And among his many additional observations on Kábul, he in one place thus expresses himself:—

The few passages cited, in the present paper, from the Oxford MS. of Ibn Haukal have been carefully collated with a copy of the Leyden MS. of that author in the possession of M. Reinaud.

^{page 287 note 1} Journ. Roy. As. Soc., No, XVII., p. 179.

^{page 288 note 1} As far as can be ascertained from the numismatic records they have left behind them, the currency of the Brahmans would seem to have formed a very large proportion of the circulating medium of the surrounding hills. It is to be noted also, en passant, that the precise Dynasty that ruled at Ghazní at the time of its capture by Alptegín has not yet been identified, but judging from Istakhrí's statement (Ouseley's Oríent. Geog., p. 208), the future capital of the empire of Mahmúd was a place of but small importance in the early part of the fourth century of the Hijera.

^{page 289 note 1} Prinsep, , Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, Vol. IV. p. 627 (50 grains, or the tank of 3 mâshas.)Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 2} Idem, p. 671.

^{page 289 note 3} Idem, 677.

^{page 289 note 4} There are some unaccountable exceptions to any possible rule of even partially equivalent weights, as, for instance, No. 65. The silver coin, No. 37, which weighs 75 grains, may possibly have had an original mint value of 1½ Ghazní Dirhems.

^{page 289 note 5} “The Unit of the Hindú system [India] was of gold, and the old specimens found are of 60 or 120 grains in weight.” Prinsep's Useful Tables, p. 15.

^{page 289 note 6} The Níshápúr gold coins of Mahmúd, Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 12, average 68·4 grains. No. 9 differs in weight from No. 10 as much as 20·1 grains. Masaúd's Coin, No. 58, and three other similar Níshápur pieces, the latter actually the produce of the same dies, average 64·85 grains; but vary in different specimens to the extent of 23·2 grains.

^{page 289 note 7} Nos. 77, 78, 93, and 98, average 65 grains.

^{page 289 note 8} The Cabinets in the British Museum, amid an ample series of Sámání silver coins, contain only five specimens of the gold coinage of the Monarchs of this House, and these are, without exception, the produce of the Nísápúr mint; their weights are as follows:— A.H. 345, 66·4 grains; A.H. 365, 62·0 grains; A.H. 376, 75·0 grains; and A.H. 384, two specimens, 54·5 and 48·0 respectively.

^{page 290 note 1} It seems probable, from the frequent and, at times, almost uniform use of the word on the dies of Kufie Coins, that its employment was designed to refer to the integral value of the piece to be impressed, and, as such, that it should be read as Just, and not as Justice. The appearance of other distinct substantives, such as , which occasionally take the place of though these also may be taken to refer, less directly perhaps, to the Coins so inscribed—certainly militates against the entire conclusiveness of this suggestion; but, on the other hand, the early history of Arab money, and the subsequent numismatic employment of the word and its derivatives, tend to show that the present may very fairly be admitted to be an open question.

The earliest coinage of copper money under the Arabs (ante, A.H. 76), or rather the but slightly-modified adaptation by the followers of Mohammed of the existing currency of the Syrian provinces of the Byzantine Empire, in which are associated Arabic words in conjunction with the old devices and partially retained Greek legends, shows that the probably initiatory application of the Arabic alphabet to these Coins was employed to denote simply the place of issue and the full and fair measure of the value of the piece; the one conveyed by the curt inscription of the name of the mint city, the other in the record of either of the following words: current, lawful; good; full (weight). Occasionally the Arabic words are used in direct reference to, and correspondence with, the customary Greek word , to be found on the opposite surface of one and the same Coin, evidencing thereby their meaning—long unknown—as well as their use and origin. (M. de Saulcy, Journal Asiatique, 1839; see also Marsden, Pl. XVII., Nos. CCCIV., CCCII., and Nos. CCXCVI., CCXCVIII.)

The primary examples of the inscription of are noticed in Fræhn's comprehensive Recensio Numorum Muhamedanorum, as discovered on certain Bokhárá copper Coins of the Khalifs—A.H. 185, 190, and 209—which may be supposed, from the tenor of the legend, and the circumstances under which they were struck, to have required some unusual authentication; thence the use of the word may be traced as of constant recurrence on the medals of the Sámánís, whence it must have found its way to the anomalous position it is seen to hold on the Nágarí Coins of the Hindú Kings of Kábul (Journ. Roy. As. Soc., No. XVII., p. 187).

Whatever may have been the previously accepted signification of this monogram, its adoption in this case admits of but one explanation, namely, that it was intended to attest the current value of the coinage thus marked. Had it been the object of the Kábul Monarchs in any way to refer to their own justice, or to equity in the abstract, as a virtue to be inculcated in the every-day transactions of those who were to use this money, the monogrammatic word would have been put forward in a form and character intelligible to those who were expected to profit either by one or the other—the subjects of the Sovereign with whose device it was thus identified—and not, as is here seen, in the superscription of an isolated word in a strange language, the very letters of which the native die-engravers were scarce able to imitate; whereas, in adopting the attestation mark of his neighbours, the Ruler of the day may well have proposed to himself to ensure the free circulation of his own money, if not in the adjacent dominions, still, unobstructed by undue depreciation in the marts and bazaars of the conterminal cities.

For the after adaptation of the import of it may be sufficient to refer generally to its frequent appearance on Coins authoritatively passed into circulation in a country for whose express use they were not in the first instance designed. The currency marks in these cases were given by a subsequent punch impression, and the adjective meaning of the most common of these stamp words, is indirectly attested by the oft-recurring use of the nearly analogous contre-marque current (Fræhn, pp. 463, 499); more rarely is to be seen the punch-mark of victory, which, though convertible as victorious, may be accepted as a substantive denoting perchance the acquisitions of victory. in the same way that the original die use of this word and its synonyme may be supposed to have referred to a similar means of attainment of the component materials, or to have conveyed the less direct allusion, implied in the mere commemorative record of a recent conquest.

The is also often conjoined in these second impressions with the name of the Monarch who wishes to stamp the authenticity of the medal. (See Numismatic Chronicle, Coin of Humáyún, Article “Patán Kings of Delhí, 1847.)

And, lastly, the term seems so to have passed into mint parlance, that it is to be seen as and (Fræhn's Recensio, pp. 431, 432) on the moneys of the descendants of Timúr; and by Mohammed Tughlak of Delhí the word is applied as the direct name of a novel species of Coin introduced by himself. (Num. Chron., 1847.)

^{page 292 note 1} Professor Fræhn at one time advocated the opinion that the isolated Kufic letter or letters and occasionally to be seen on ancient Mohammedan Coins, were intended to denote the month in which the pieces thus marked were struck (Fræhn, Prol., i., 15), these being supposed respectively to stand for the initial letters of Jumád al Awal, Shabán, Zí'l Hajah, Rabí al Awal, and for the final letter and representative of Shawál. Setting aside the admittedly unsatisfactory character of this theory, its application to the present series is clearly shown to be inadmissible, by the fact of the occurrence of one of these supposed initial indices in conjunction with other single consonants, which might also stand for the first letter of the name of a month, as in No. 3; but, in addition to this, the same is seen on three several Coins, Nos. 84, 85, 86, in association with the full names of three distinct and varying Mohammedan months.

^{page 296 note 1} With a view to avoid textual recapitulation, and future references to the original authorities, a detail list of the Sámání Monarchs is here annexed:—

The months given generally indicate the date of the death of the preceding monarch, and do not always so accurately represent the time of the inauguration of the successor.

^{page 296 note 2} “Assistance from God, and speedy victory.” Korán, surah lxi. ver. 13.

^{page 297 note 1} Vide Istakhrí (Moeller,) pp. 109, 112 Text, and Map No. XVIII, p. 111. See also Persian MS. Mesálik wa Memálik, East India House Library, p. 91.

“The river of Penjhir runs through the town, and passes from Jarianeh till it comes to Ferouan, and so proceeds into Hindoostan.‘ Ouseley's Oriental Geography, p. 225.

“La ville de Carwan est peu considérable, mais jolie; ses environs sont agréables, ses bazars fréquentés, ses habitants riches; les maisons y sont construites en argile et en briques. Située sur les bords de la rivière qui vient de Bendjehir cette ville est l'un des principaux marchés de l'Inde.” Geographie d'Edrisi, p. 476. Paris Edit. 1836.

Abulfedá, quoting Ibn Haukal and Abúl Majd Ismaíl al-Mósalí, also mentions (Feráwan) as a considerable town in the province of Bámián; vide p. 464 and 467, Géographic d'Aboulféda, Texte Arabe. Paris, 1840.

“Barwan,” Ibn Batuta (Dr. Lee's Translation, pp. 97 and 98).

“ Another route [from Balkh to Kábul] is that of Perwân. Between Perwân and the high mountain, there are seven minor passes, which they call the Heftbecheh (the seven younglings). As you come from the Anderâb side, two roads nnite below the main pass, and lead down on Perwân by way of the Seven Younglings. This is a very difficult road.” Erskine's Báber, p. 139.

“On the skirts of the hills [of Ghûrbend] there are some districts; in the upper part are Mîteh, Kacheh, and Perwân.” Idem, p. 146.

“A city of magnitude must have existed at Perwán, about eight miles, bearing north nineteen west from Bégrám. * * * Coins are discovered there in large quantities. * * * The site in Perwân is called by Máhomedans Merwân, and by Hindús Milwân.” Masson, , vol. III., p. 166.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 1} The Guzídah does not notice the exact epoch of Alptegín's decease, though, in affirming that he held dominion in Ghazní for sixteen years, it in effect accepts the year 366. The Chronicle of Ibn Haidar (quoted by Wilken, “Mirchond Hist. Gaz.”) also adopts sixteen years as the duration of this Chieftain's independent sway. The Rauzat al Safá does not give the date of the death of Alptegín with any precision, merely reporting that event as taking place shortly after the accession of Núh bin Mansúr, in Rajab 365 A.H. It will be seen, however, that there is reason to question this last date, as Abúl Faraj and Abúl Fedá assign the decease of Mansúr bin Núh I. to the year 366, instead of to 365, though Mirkhond's statement as regards the survival of Alptegín, and his consequent contemporaneous existence with Núh bin Mansúr, which is at present the real point at issue, tallies well with the other evidence. Jenábí most erroneously places even the first assumption of independent power by Alptegín so late as 366 (Dorn, Hist. Afgháns, Notes, p. 79). And Ferishtah, though he boldly affirms that this Chieftain died in 365, yet, in the very context of his narrative (351 Revolt + 15 years' reign = 366, and not 365; Briggs, , vol. I. p. 13Google Scholar,) he conveys a palpable doubt as to the accuracy of his own definite assertion.

^{page 298 note 2} al Safá, Rauzat, History of Sámánís; Elphinstone, vol. I., p. 525.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 3} Alptegín would appear to have been unable to retain Anderábch. See coins, No. 315, Fræhn Recensio; No. 39, Nov. Symb.; and No. 44, Num. Kuf.

^{page 299 note 1} It is pertinent to the matter in hand to observe, with reference to the peculiarly local characteristics of Mr. Masson's collection, already referred to, that in an accumulation of medals, numbering thousands, there are not ten proper coins of the Sámání Emperors—a race, occupying territory, the boundaries of which were immediately proximate to the country whence the present monuments were culled, and whose money is in other places so plentiful that the published notices alone of the partial contents of different European cabinets, admit of the possibility of the citation of a coin corresponding with nearly every single year of the domination of the family. This fact, though remarkable, is strictly in accordance with the inductions which should result from the testimony of written history, viz., that the pure Bokhárá Imperial money obtained but little currency in the hill country of Zábulistán prior to the conquest by Alptegín, and that after the fall of Ghazní to the arms of that Commander, the circulating medium was supplied from sources other than the mints of the Sámání dominions.

^{page 299 note 2} Assuming that Professor Fræhn has not fallen into the very facile error of reading from a possibly worn coin the legend &c., (Korán, surah xxx. ver. 4, 5,) in place of &c., of Coins (B), (C), and (D).

^{page 300 note 1} It is right to notice, though it is difficult to explain, the appearance of a seemingly similar incomplete marginal legend on a coin of Mansúr bin Núh, struck at Bokhárá 358 A.H. The inscription reads—

Frœhn, Die Münzen, &c., p. 51, pl. xiv., fig. 22.

^{page 300 note 2} The notices of Alptegin's early history are naturally somewhat scanty; it seems to be admitted, however, that in his youth he was the slave of Ahmed bin Ismaíl, the third Sámání monarch. It is stated in the Táríkh Guzídah that, during the reign of Núh bin Nasr, he was promoted to the command of the Imperial Army:

Under Abdal Malik, he rose to be Governor of Khorásán, and on the elevation of Mansúr bin Núh I. to the throne of Bokhárá, in 350 A.H. he revolted, and erected a quasi-independent chieftainship at Ghazní.

^{page 301 note 1} This reading is confirmed by the marginal legends of four specimens of coins similar to the above.

^{page 302 note 1} The name of the mint city is nearly obliterated.

page 303 note * The subjoined account of the succession to Alptegí's Chieftainship is given entire from the Tabakát Násirí, as offering a version of the question to which it refers, widely differing from that to be found in the writings of the more generally known Authors; and although there are many objections to the unqualified admission of its verity, yet the Násirí's undoubted antiquity and usual accuracy entitle the statement to full consideration.

^{page 304 note No. 1}

^{page 304 note No. 2} and

^{page 304 note No. 3}

^{page 304 note No. 4}

^{page 304 note 5}

^{page 304 note No. 6}

^{page 304 note No. 7}

^{page 304 note No. 8}

^{page 304 note No. 9}

^{page 304 note No. 10}

^{page 307 note 1} an Asylum.

^{page 317 note 1} MS. Bibl. Bodl., No. 538. Hunt.

^{page 318 note 1}

Abúl Fedá, p. 456.

^{page 318 note 2} See Rauzat al Safá, History of Jellál al din Khwárizmí; also Price, from Khalásat al Akhbár, Vol. II. p. 410.

^{page 318 note 3} Erskine's Báber, p, 139.

page 320 note * Many of these several classes of small silver Coins have mere careless imitations of the usual marginal inscriptions, such as obviously could never have been intended to be legible, the scroll between the parallel circles being at times made up solely by the repetition of certain characters that may be taken to represent the word and in other instances filled in with a confused jumble of consecutive masses of the common form of interspersed with an occasional

^{page 326 note 1} Zaranj; called also Sejistáan, as capital of the province of that name; the Doashak or Jellalabad of the modern maps.—See Edrisi, p. 431 and 432. Abúl Feda has the following:—

Texte Arabe, p.

“Zaranj, Capital of Sejistán. Ibn Haukul said Zaranj is a large city of Sejistán; and it is further said that (the name of) Sejistfán is applied to Zaranj itself.”

For examples of the numismatic use of the name in this sense see Coins of Harún al Rashíd, Nos. 135*, 136*, p. 11*, and 145*, p. 13*, Fræhn's Recensio.

The Táríkh Masaúdí quotes the following authorized detail of Mahmúd's titles in a copy of a Missive from the Khalif Al Káim be amerillah to Masaúd, in which the recognized designations of the latter's father are thus given at full length—

With the single exception of the all these several titles are to be found on the Coins above described.

^{page 330 note 1} In concluding that the doubtful letters on the Margin of Coin No. 51 represent the name of a month—and looking to their position immediately following the record of the mint city, and preceding the year of the date, they cannot well be taken to import anything else—it is to be conceded that, setting aside the worn state of the writing, the expression of the words is by no means perfect, the being abbreviated to (which, however, is not unusual in MS.), and the of in its present shape would more accurately perform the function of an or any other of the convertible letters for which the Kufic medial stands sponsor, rather than the which the context seems to require.

^{page 331 note 1}

MS. Bib. du Roi, Paris.

The following authorities also cite Rabí al A'khir as the period of Mahmúd's decease:—Abúl Fedá, Annales Muslemici (Reisk), Vol. III. p. 76; Rauzat al Safá (Wilken), p. 231; Habíb al Sair, MS., No. 17, East India House; Akberí, MS., East India House; Ferishtah (Briggs), Vol. I. p. 84.

^{page 331 note 2} Ibn Haidar, quoted by Wilken, Hist. Gaz., p. 227.

^{page 331 note 3}

Lithographed at Bombay, in 1829.

^{page 331 note 4} Quoted by De Guignes, Vol. I. p. 240, and Vol. II. p. 170.

The Násirí, Abúl Faraj, and the Guzídah fail in mentioning the month in which Mahmúd died.

^{page 332 note 1} It may assist in the due determination of the value of the above suggestion to note that, at Mahmúd's death, there was not only a disputed succession, but that at the moment, both Mohammed and his brother Masaúd were absent from the capital—and equally so from Balkh, the mint city wherein the Coin No. 50, if not 51, was struck—the one brother being in Jurján, the other near Hamadán; and that it was not until a certain interval after the decease of Mahmúd that Mohammed was elevated to the throne at Ghazní: the exact duration of this interval is not stated. Vide Ferishtah (Briggs), Vol. I. p. 93.

^{page 332 note 2} It would be useless to speculate on the almost unique Coin of Mohammed (No. LVII.)

^{page 335 note 1} Weights of other analogous specimens—73·6 gr., 57·6 gr., 52·5 gr.

^{page 335 note 2} in original. The (10) is assumed to be a mistake for (20), for various reasons, notwithstanding that Masaúd is known to have been Governor (on the part of his father) of the province of Herát, and possibly Níshápúr itself, so early as 407. In the first place, it is highly improbable that the use of Mahmúd's name should have been discontinued on the provincial Coins during his lifetime; indeed, the binominal medal, No. XXI., seems to prove a contrary practice to have prevailed. In the second place, it is known that Al Káim be amerillah, whose titles are to be seen on the Coin immediately in question, was not appointed Walí Ah'd till 416. (Mirkhond.) And, lastly the very existence of the wau after the would in itself evidence an error, taking the sentence as it now stands, as this conjunction is not usually employed to join the two Arabic words forming any given number between 10 and 20!

^{page 336 note 1} a mark or symbol used to distinguish the votaries of any particular creed.

^{page 348 note 1} Hope (faith).

^{page 349 note 1} The Lubáb of Ibn Alatír is not extant. Reinaud et MacGuckin de Slane, Préface. Idem, p. 37.

^{page 367 note 1} This marginal legend has been restored from the collation of different specimens.

^{page 367 note 2} Light.

^{page 370 note 1} Sic in orig.

^{page 373 note 1} Sic in orig.

^{page 377 note 1} Ferishtah (Dow), i., 127; Briggs, i., 169; Price, ii., 313; Price, quoting the Khalásat al Akhbár, ii., 455. Dora's Hist. Afghans, Annotations. Elphinstone, i., 603.

^{page 378 note 1} Rauzat al Safá, quoted by Dora, ii., 91; see also original MS., No. 43, Roy. As. Soc.; and MS. Khalásat al Akhbár, Idem.

^{page 379 note 1} Ferishtah [Dow, i., 138; Briggs, i., 200]; D'Herbelot, Article “Ildiz;” Elphinstone, i., 616.

^{page 381 note 1} De Guignes: see also D'Herbelot, Article “Mohammed Koth beddin.”

^{page 381 note 2} Or according to the Khalásat al Akhbár, in 607 A.H.; Price, ii., 399.

^{page 381 note 3} Anno duodecimo, mense Shaabano, potitus est Soltan Mohammed urbe Ghazna; cum antea maximam Chorasani partem et regnum Bamianæ possedisset. Abúl Faraj [Pocock], p. 287.

^{page 381 note 4} See a, somewhat similar figure on a coin of this Monarch, Plate, p. 177, fig. 23, Journ. Roy. As. Soc., No. XVII.; and Journ. As. Soc., Bengal, fig. 2, Pl. XIV., Vol. VI.

^{page 383 note 1} Ferishtah [Briggs], iv, 415.

^{page 383 note 2} Price, from Khalásat al Akhbár, ii. 410; D'Herbelot, Article “Gellaleddin.”

^{page 384 note 2} Price (Habíb al Sair), ii. 486, 518, 520, &c.; D'Herbelot, Article “Genghiz Khan.”

^{page 385 note 1} Price, ii. 520; De Guignes, ii. 278, et seq.; Abúl Faraj, p. 293, &c.