On the coins of the kings of Ghazní / by Edward Thomas

8/7/2019 On the coins of the kings of Ghazn / by Edward Thomas

1/123

267

Aut. IX.?On the Coins of theKings of Ghazni. By EdwardThomas, Esq., Bengal Civil Service.

[Read MhMarch, 1847.]T??r coins to which tho following notice refers form part of theextensive collection made in Afghanistan by Mr. Massen, now deposited in the Museum at tho India House. Amid the more importantrelics of tbo Baotrian successor? of Alexander the Great, which constituted tho bulk of this acquisition, slight attention was attractedby the medals of a subsequent Mohammedan dynasty, the events ofwhoso rule were comparatively well known, and whose history in itselfpossessed none of the classic interest attaching to the survival of theGreek monarchies in Central Asia. From this and other causes, ProfessorWilson, inhis description of the antiquities of Ariana, which thelabours of Mr. Masson had placed at his command, but briefly referredto the numismatic monuments of the race of Sabaktagin. Such beingtho case, and adverting both to the numerical amount of these coinsnow available, and to tho very limited number of medals of the

Glutztiavi princes yet noticed, cither by English or continental writers,it scented probable that an attempt at a classification of these minor

antiquities might not be altogether devoid of interest.In additiou to the assistance derived from the free use of thetreasures of tbo East India Company's Cabinet, advantage has beentaken of the equally liberal access afforded to various public andprivate numismatic collections, to fill iu some of the lacuna? in theserial order of the moneys of Z?bulist?n; the aid thus obtained will befound duly acknowledged in the detail of the coins themselves.The eventful period of Mohammedan history comprised in theearly rule of the Ghaznavis; the brilliant successes of the arms ofIslam under Mahniiid; as well as the material encouragement givento literature by tho potentates of the day, have rendered the rise ofthis dynasty the tbcino of ho many Eastern authors, that in the fulnessof their narrations but little remains to bo elucidated by collateral

means; and though in the present instance scanty room is left forspeculation founded on medals, these effectively fulfil their morelegitimate archaeological use of verifying authentic history, and thustesting the comparative accuracy of the various writers on the subjects


2/123

268 ON TUE COINS OF THEwhich, in their boldness and truth of execution, claim homago for thoperfection of ancient art; or if they fail in affording classic allegories,and indirect references to customs and superstitious, suitable for thodisplay of antiquarian ingenuity, they record what is of greater importance,?a proportiouately far more ample circle of facts. If theysupply a more limited field for the exercise of the imagination, andtherefore furnish a less fascinating subject of study, they at the samotime narrow tho possible departure from truth. In so doing they mayfairly claim excuse for want of symbolical or sculptural characteristics,as well as a lenient criticism on the artistic demerits, with which, itmust be conceded, the later portion of the scries especially abounds.Some few specimens of tho early mintages will indeed standcomparison with tho best works of art of their class, both in respectto tho fineness of the lines, and tho elegance and accuracy of theKufic legends; and, taken as a suite, even allowing for the greatdeterioration in execution observable under the less powerful sultansof the dynasty, the produce of tho Ghazni mint must be admitted tohave attained a high degree of excellence in tho order of Asiaticcoinages of its age.Before proceeding to a detail of tho inscriptions to bo found ontho coins, a few points may be alluded to as offering subjects of morogeneral interest than the simple historical illustration afforded by the

major part of the medals of this collection.The opinion advanced by many Mohammedan authors1 that

Sabn-ktagin*should be looked upon as tho first monarch of the Ghaznavi race, is not horno out by the record on his money: on the con

trary, however powerful and virtually independent they may havebeen, Sabaktagin, Ismail, and Mahiniid himself in tho early days ofhis rise, all acknowledged the supremacy of the S?m?n? emperors,and duly inscribed on the currency struck by themselves as localgovernors, the name of the Lord Paramount, under whom they helddominion. It was not until the year 389 A.n. that the House ofGhazni assumed

independence as sovereign princes, which ovent isduly marked on Mahiu?d's met?ais of tho period, in tho rojection ofthe name of the Suzerain Sain?n?, and tho addition of the prefixAmir to his own titles. (See Coins, Nos. 9, 10, 23, &c.)The numerous coins of Mahin?id, in their varied titular superscripiMircliond, Hist. Gaz. cd. Wilkeii, p. 5; Kbal?sat al Akbb?r (Pri?e), ii.277; Ferisbtali (Dow), i. 21 and 22 ; (Briggs), i. 13 and 14.


3/123

KINGS OF GHAZNI. 269tions, mark most distinctly the progressive epochs of his eventfulcareer, commencing with the comparatively humble pr nomcn ofScif al daulah, bestowed on him by N?h bin Mansiir in 384 A.n.,proceeding onwards to the then usual S?m?n? titles of sovereignty,?1 Amir, Al Syid, conjoined with the epithets of Yam?n al daulah,and Amin al Millat, conferred on him by the Khal?f Al K?dir billah,advancing next to the appellation of Nizam al din, and the occasionalprefix of the pompous designations of Malik al Mem?lik and Malik alMuliik, and finally ending in tho disuse of all titular adjuncts, and thesimple inscription of the now truly celebrated name he had received athis birth. (Ex gr,, vido Coins, Nos. 8, 9, 43, 44, 49, 53.)

Tho absence of any numismatic record of the title of Glmzi, said tohave been adopted by Mahmud on his return from some of his earlyexpeditions into India, leads to an inference, not altogether unsupported by other negative evidence, that the term in question was notintroduced into current use, in the full sense of its more modern acceptation, till a somewhat later period.

The unique bilingual coin of Mahm?d, No. 42, claims a morothan passing notice, though in the uncertainty regarding the date,and the erasure of the place of coinage, no satisfactory inference canbe deduced as to the possible circumstances under which it was struck.Hence, viewing it on the ono hand as a coin minted in reference tosome particular occasion, it avails but little to speculate on the precisosection of Mahmuds Indian couquests, which was judged of suchimportance by tho victor, as to bo dignified by a commemorativomedal; or, on the other hand, recognizing this piece as the existingrepresentative of a local currency, it is equally unprofitable to hazardan opinion as to tho identical people upon whom it may have beenthought desirable to impress an exalted idea of the greatness of theirnow master, by thus communicating the sound of his titles through tho

medium of the characters of the lauguago in vulgar use. The letterson tho reverse assimilate in a measure to tho form of the Sanskritalphabet denominated "Kutila," which is proved by the date on theRohilkund inscription to Imvo been in local use in the tenth century:at tho samo timo tho Kutila alphabet by no means suffices for theirfull identification, many of the characters employed approaching thestyle of writiug attributed to a period, antecedent by many centuriesto the precise epoch at which these letters were fashioned; somecharacters agreeing accurately with the corresponding letters in the


4/123

270 ON THE COINS OP THEexhibit the local modifications incident to the dialect of the countryto which they referred, and amid thomany Hind? kingdoms subduedby M ahm lid'sprowess, itwas scarcely to be hoped, that the legend inquestion should be fully explicable by means of any given form of thestill limited number of recognized systems of Devauagari Palaeography;but the present difficulty extends beyond this, inasmuch as the expression of the characters is in itself undecided, and by no means uniform.For tho rest, making allowance for a considerable degree of malformation, these letters may bo looked upon as generally identical with thoseemployed by the Brahmanical kings of Kabul, and subsequently by theHind? princes of Northern India. In as far as the legend has yet beendeciphered, it would appear to bo nothing moro than a partial transcript of the Kufic inscription on the opposito surface of the coin.From the imperfection of the form of many of the Sanskrit characters,it would seem that the die engraver must have been somewhat unskilled in the language, the symbols of which he was called uponto imitate. This deduction, if not justified by tho crudo shape of

several of the letters themselves, and the unsuccessful attempt at arepresentation of the due sound of the corresponding words of the

Arabic legend, evidenced in tho whole tenor of the transcript, is conclusively proved by thowant of uniformity inwhat must be taken tostand for one and the same letter, in different parts of the inscriptionitself. Tho result arrived at from this fact, as well as from thesuperiority of tho execution of tho Kufic sido of tho coin, is simply,that the piece in question was not the work of native moncyers, butrather the production of an artist whose aptitude had been derivedfromMohammedan mints; and hence, that thismedal should be viewed,not as a new adaptation of the coinage of a subdued country, but asa specimen of money fabricated in reference to some peculiar occasion,to mark somo particular victory, or perpetuate some notable conquest.Mahm?d is related to have assumed the title of "Sultan," andto have been the first Oriental potentate who appropriated thisterm1. A reference to the coins of this prince, however, leads to somedoubt on the subject, and although their testimony in no wiso militatesagainst the generally received account of the origin of the designation,yet it inferentially controverts the assertion of its immediate adoptionand use by Mahm?d himself. D'Herbelot avers that Mahm?d wasfirst designated by this epithet in 393, by Khalaf, Governor of Seist?n,on the occasion of his surrendering himself to Mahm?d's mercy aftera futile "


5/123

KINGS OF GHAZNI. 271encor? en usage, plut ?i fort ?Mahmud, qu'il le prit toujours depuis cetemps-l?, et pardonna, non seulement ? Khalaf

sar?volte, mais ler?tablit encore dans son gouvernement1." De Guignes, accepting the

samo narrative of the first enunciation of the word in its new sense,adds a more probable and less express assertion of the degree of Mahin?d's self-application of the term in question?"Et ce titre jusqu'alorsinconnu, devint en usage parmi les Princes Mahometans, il plut

Mahmoud qui le porta le premier. Auparavant les Princes preuoientcelui de 'Malek ' ou do 'Roi.' Dans la suite celui-ci s'avilit et nefut plus donn? qu'? des princes tributaires et soumis aux SulthansV

From tho numismatic evidence available, itwould appear that, althoughit may reasonably have pleased Mahm?d to bo called by this noveldenomination, ho docs not seem directly to have caused himself to bethus officially designated. Had M ahm ltd either himself assumed thispnenomen, or had he received it from any competent authority, hewould most probably have inscribed the appellation on his coins,whereon it will be seen he at one time much rejoiced to record hisgreatness. Moreover, had this title been adopted and employed byMahm?d in the sense in which it was subsequently used, it is butreasonable to infer that it would have been continued by his immediate successors, and, as such, would have appeared on their money;whereas, the first Ghaznavi sovereign who stamps his coinage wilh theterm, is Ibrahim", 4/>l A.if. (See Coins, Nos. 117, 119, &e.) Duringtho interval, the designation had already been appropriated by nnother

dynasty, the Soljiik Toghral Reg having entitled himself Sultan soearly as 437 A.n., if not before that date, after having in the firstinstance, on his conquest of Khoras?n from Mnsa?d, contented himselfwith the usual style of Amir. (See note to Coin 59.)The coins of Mahm?d, in addition to the illustration afforded ofthe various phases of his immediate reign, ofFcr evidence on two

points of contemporaneous history, one of which at least, under ordinary circumstances, should not have been dependent for elucidationupon tho medals of a separate dynasty. The first of these refers totho non-recognition of tho Khalif Al K??dir billah, in the province ofKhorYtsan, until about eight year? subsequent to his virtual accession.It is necessary to premise, that in the year 381 A.n. the Khalif AlTnTh lillah was dethroned by tho B??ali Bah? al daulah, the thenAin?r al Amar? of the court of Baghdad, and his place supplied by

? *


6/123

272 ON THE COINS OP THEAhmed bin Ishak, who was elevated to the Khil?fat under the denomination of Al K?dir billah. The author of the T?r?kh Guz?dahrelates that " the peoplo of the provinco of Khor?s?n objecting to thissuperce?sion, which was justified by no offence on the part of thelate pontiff, continued to recite the public prayers in his name; andit was not until Mahm?d of Ghazni, in disavowing his allegiance tothe S?m?n?s, became supreme in that country, that any alteration inthis practico was ellccted, when Mahm?d, between whom and tho nowImam there existed a friendly understanding, directed thoKhutbah tobe read in the name of Al K?dir1."

The accuracy of this relation is fully borne out by the archaeological evidence furnished by the collection under notice, Mahmuds coinsinvariably bearing the designation of tho superseded Khal?f, Al-T??'h,iu conjunction with his own early title of Seif al daulah, up to the

year 387 (Nos. 8 and 22*); while his money of a closely subsequentperiod is marked by the simultaneous appearance of the name of AlK?dir, in association with his own newly-received titles of Yaminal daulah and Am?n al Millat. (See Coins Nos. 9, 10, 23, and2d.) The second medal just cited bears uuusually explicit testimonyto this self-imposed submission, in tho addition made to Mahm?d'sdetailed honorary denominations which are here seen to conclude withthe novel designation ofWal?3 Amir al M?miu?n (Servant of theCommander of theFaithful).

1Extract T?r?kh Guz?dah, East India Company's Persian MS. Copy, No. C4?).

J - y

A?y^ %J? tj l^i ^ iX-u? J^.?av>^o iJL? ^. ^1j.j /^^/X?Xaam ?^+sS

A sonfewhat similar passage is to be found in tbo ltuuzat al Safa.8 A coin similar to No. 22 has formed the subject of an able essay from the

pen of M. De Saulcy, Conservateur du Mus?e d'Artillerie, Paris. It is satisfactory to find the general accuracy of M. Do Saulcy'a inferences regarding the nonrecognition of Al K?dir in the province of Khor?s?n, confirmed by tho additionalhistorical evidence above quoted, as well as by the copious numismatic examplessupplied by the present collection. See Journal Asiatique, 1842.3 D'Herbelot quotes the following auecdote from the T?r?kh al IChofata, inadvertence to the said title of Wall, and the objections to its use supposed to haveexisted in the case of the Ghazuav? Sult?n:-?


7/123

KINOS OF GHAZNI. 273Tho second circumstance referred to, which has now to be noticed,also regards the dynasty of tho Khalifs of Baghdad. The Nisli?p?rcoins, Nos. 12, 19, 20, and 20, display the title of Al Gh?lib billah,indicated as "designated successor" to Al K?dir. Who the individual thus nominated may have been, is not recorded in any of thohistories of the time usually accessible to English readers, but a

manuscript copy of the Tarikh Guz?dah, in the Library of the EastIndia House, fortunately supplies the omission in the following passage,which readily leads to an identification of the person in question, andat the same time accounts for the disappearance of his name from thomoney of subsequent years, and tho eventual accession of a son ofAl K?dir, other than the one thus appointed.puissance, et pour l'obtenir il luy envoya un Ambassade extraordinaire. L'ImamAbo? Maiisor ayant demeur? un an ou environ ? Bagdet sans rien avancer dansl'affaire qu'il poursuivoit, pr?senta enfui un m?moire dana lequel il exposoit auKlialifc les grandes conquestes do son ma?tre, sa puissance, et son z?l? pour la foy

Musulmane, la conversion de plusieurs milliers d'Idol?tres ? la religion Mahometano, le changement de leurs temples en mosqu?es, et qu'enfin il ?toit tout ?fait indigno que l'on ne reconnut pas le m?rite d'un si grand Prince par un titrequi co?toit si peu de chose au Khalife de luy accorder. Ce m?moire fit son effetaupr?s du Khalife, lequel craignant qu'un hi puissant Monarque ne tournant enfinses armes contre luy, assembla son conseil, et mit en d?lib?ration quel titre onpouvoit luy accorder, d?sirant, a cause que ce Prince ?toit fils d'un esclave, qu'o?luy en donnast un qui fut ?quivoque. On trouva donc que celuy de Veli luyconviendroit bien, parce que ce mot qui signifie Amy et Seigneur, signifie aussiServiteur et Valet. Mahmoud connut bien la pens?e du Khalife, et il luy envoyaun present de cent mille ?cus, afin qu'il njoutast seulement une lettre au nom, ?stjavoir, un Elif. On luy accorda cette grace, et on luy envoya les Patentes avecle titre do Vali, qui signifie absolument Ma?tre et Commandant. Doulet Schah."(Bib. Orient., D'IIcrbelot, p. 53??.)This story bears an appearance of much improbability when considered inreference to the many early instances of mutual good will evinced on the part ofMahmud and of his spiritual superior; as well as to the fact, that, later in life,Mahmud is proved to have received or appropriated titles numerous and laudatoryenough to have satisfied the most craving ambition for such empty honours; andfinally, Fcrishtali notices the receipt at the Court of Ghazni, so late as 417 A.n.,of a diploma conferring certain highly complimentary denominations both upon

Mahmiid and his three sons (?LjJJ t~*4^ ^cc#> Briggs's Fcrishtah, i. N|),apparently the unsolicited offering of the identical Khalif who is reported to havedesigned tho cutting reproach above described. It is true, it is not stated towhat particular period of his reign the occurrence of this episode should beassigned; but Mahm?d's prompt and seemingly voluntary display of the word


8/123

274 ON THE COINS OP THE?-??All y>\ \jy ?s*\ tfjW +f+j? j ^lx?i> ?U* j? Sj&kxhLj?\$Lei iXxjb^T *\?c J^ *N^ ?>^ ?^ Lr)3^ 3^ c^ ***^

$jf L?~~L?j fli ?JuX?> *Aj^ ?J^tXll^l^^X-Li"In the year (3)83, a son was born to Al K?dir, who was named

Ab?l Fazl Mohammed, and when he arrived at years of puberty hewas created Wali Ah'd ; he, however, died during tho life-time ofAl K?dir, who, in this same yoar, 83, married Sukinah, the daughterof Dahii al daulah D?lem?."

The Tabak?t N?sir? furnishes the following additional informationregarding the titular designations of Al K?dir's sons, and conclusivelyfixes the identity of the first successor elect :?

j^mJ y j ?yj aML ^jjlXH ?duL? $}+*? *X#? cHaôUj^)^ îjJli ?to uSi ?ML JUJt \jy j ?jf ?) ?^ y6y?j j? [>?y?

The distinct information afforded by the money of Mahm?d onthis head, simply amounts to the fact that Al Gh?lib billah was recognized heir to the Khilnfat from 309 to 409 A.n. It would also seemprobable, from the occurrence of this title on a coin of Munich id aldaulah Mcrw?n?, dated 392, that the nomination of Al Gh?lib as"Wali Ah\l," must have taken place prior to this last epoch. Thopiece here referred to has been described by Fradin and Lindberg3, and

1MS., No. MO, p. 120. East India House Library.1MS. Tabakut N?sir?. East India House Library.9 Silver. Struck at M??f?r?k?i. A.n. (3)02.Areas?

m yt **_J Aj-^^ JtiVs..3aHL-i JL Ji^.J.iX-JI *X

*N1 m-Vy ?X*.?\ô

?JH_j /tM_?_IIJLJ^JcJI'I^j ?MJH


9/123

KINOS OF ?IIAZNI. 275the title of Al Glu?lib billah was imagined by these authors to appertain to the Mcrwan Amir himself; but the

moreexplanatory legendson tho Ghaznavi coins indicate cl?arly the personage to whom the

epithet belonged. In 416 A.n. Abdallah, the son of Al K?dir, thenin the twenty-seventh year of his age, entitled Al K?im beamerillah,was nominated successor, and acceded to the throne of his father inthe last month of 422 A.U.The ample materials supplied by Mr. Massons collection, in lead

ing to the identification of previously unafctributcd medals, shew thatthe appropriation by the Ghaznavi monarchs of tho device of Nandi(Bull of Siva), superscribed by the words Sri Samanta dev, as firstused on tho coins of tho Brahmanical kings of Kabul, took place somewhat earlier than has hitherto been supposed; and that, whereasIbrahim was imagiucd to have been the first king who associated himself thus far with his Indian possessions, it uow appears that the conjunction of Mohammedan titles with the Hindu Bull of Siva on oneand the same piece, took place in the reign of Modiid (432 a. u. =1041 A.D.), if not at a still earlier period. (Sec Coins, Nos. .91,92.)

Several conjectures have been advanced to account for the seeminganomaly of a sect, usually so prejudiced on such subjects as the followers of Islam, accepting as a device for their money, a symbol(adverting to the source whence it was derived) so purely idolatrous asthe one in question. In this instance a reference to the other coins oftho collection assists in elucidating this apparent difficulty, it is tobe remarked, that, throughout all the conquests and consequent acquisitions of new territory effected by the House of Ghazni, there is tobo seen a general indisposition to disturb the existing currency of thekingdoms subdued. Financial motives may probably have firstprompted this conservatism ; but from whatever cause arising, theefiects arc manifest throughout the period of the more extended domination of this dynasty. What description of currency Alptcgin mayhave found in use, or may himself have introduced at Ghazni, therearo no means of knowing,

as the only coin now extant, which bearshis distinct name, is a piece struck at Andcrabch in 347 A.n. (see CoinNo. 1); but Sabaktagin's coins, minted in the province of B?m??n,vary considerably from the currency of his masters, the Sam?n is, andapproximate in weight and size to the local coinage of Kabul, undertho Hind? kings of that city. Mahmud's Ghazni coins come in thesame category ;while themoney of his N?sh?p?r mint differs materially


10/123

276 ON THE COINS OP THErespective provincial peculiarities. The same remarks also applygenerally to the coins of Masa?d. The conclusion deducible from thesefacts is, that there existed on the*part of the Moslem potentates ofCeutral Asia at this period a desire to retain, as little changed as needbe, the local currency of the various provinces of their dominions1.Thus, if it be admitted, that it was not tho custom to alter the coinageof a newly-conquered country, the Ghaznavi monarchs, in stampingthe coins of the Hindus with their own names and titles, must be considered, not as having placed the figuro of a Bull upon their own

money, but as having " caused the coin of these provinces to be struckin their own names.'* The feeling of vanity incident to OrientalPrinces, which so uniformly led to this ceremony on the first acquisition of now territory, need not be enlarged upon, further than tonotice that, under this plan of retaining for the obverse, the device o?the existing currency, in conjunction with the proof of their own supre

macy, evidenced by tho legend on the reverse, a more explicit recordof the conquest itself was attained, than would have resulted evenfrom a radical change of the entire coiuago.The identification of tho name of the city of Labor on tho imperfect margins of coins Nos. 92 and 129, points out distinctly the province to which these bilingual coins refer ; and a proof is thus furnished of the accuracy of the previous attribution of an intermediateclass of medals, bearing tho device of the Bull with tho Horsemanreverse, which have been assigned to the Hind? Sovereigns of tho

Punjab*,and which aro now seen to form the

connectinglink between

the original coins of the Brahmanical Kings of Kabul and the Mohammedan adaptation of this species of money now under review.

i If it were necessary to cite foreign and earlier examples of an [analogousabseuce of more modern Moslem scruples in similar cases, it might be advantageous to point, among others, to the remarkable departure from the supposedabsolute rule on the subject, instanced in the retention by the Arabs, for the firsttwenty years after their conquest of the country, of the Byzantine types of the

money of Mauritania, extending not only to the use of the general device of theprototype, and the expression of Arabic names by means of Latin letters, but evento au acceptance of a but slightly modified form of the cross itself. It is to boobserved, moreover, that this enduring instance of freedom from the prejudiceabove referred to, occurred at a period closely subsequent to the difference betweenthe Khalif Abdal Malik aud the Greek Emperor, which, in A.n. TO, led to thefirst fabrication of pure Arabic money, when, if there had been the most remotefeeling of objection to the use of symbols on the part of the then followers of


11/123

KINOS OF GHAZNI. 277There is considerable discrepancy observable in the statements oftho various authors' of the history of the family of Ghazni in the

recognition of the exact date of Abdal Itashid's succession; though thocoins of tho series under notice are insufficient to fix with precisionwhen the event occurred, yet as they suffice to prove when it actuallyhad taken place, they assist in dissipating errors which it might1To obviato tho confusion incident to detached notices, and to present at oneview 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 heresubjoined t?1. Tho Biography of Masn/id, the son of Mahm?d of Ohazni, catalogued intho Royal Library, Paria, as the T?r?kh Masa?di, by Ab?l Fazl Mohammed binAl Ilus?ti Al B?hok?. The work contains a full and voluminous account of thoreign of Masa?d, interspersed with occasional digressions upon the occurrences ofthe day: it was chiefly written and finally completed after the accession of Ibrahim, 451 A.n. Tho writer also refers to his own T?r?kh Yam?u?. Ilaj? Khalfahas a notice of this author's compositions, to the following effect:?"T?r?kh A'lSubcktcgin, Historia magna Ghaznavidarum pluribus voluminibus comprehensa,Auctoro Abu'lfadhl 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 isbelieved to be unique. The existence of this MS. only became known to the authorof the present notice after the major part of these sheets had been prepared for thepress; and even then the time disposable for its examination only admitted of apartial perusal.2. Tabak?t N?sir?, by Minh?j bin Sur?j Jurj?n?, dedicated to N?sir al dinMahm?d of Delhi. A.n. C?O.

3. T?rikh Moktasar al Daul, by tho Armenian Abul Faraj. Latest date, f?fl3 a.h.4. J?mi al Taw?r?kh, by Rash?d al din, Vizir of G?z?n Khan, and subsequently of Olj?it? Khan. a.h. 710.5. T?r?kh Bin?kit?, otherwise entitled Rauzat ?l? al Alb?b, an Abridgment ofthe J?mi al Taw?r?kh, by Abu Soliman Fakhr al din D??d (vulg. Bin?kit?).a.h. 717.

6. The original of the Annales Muslemici of Ab?l Fed? of Ilam?t was writtenbetween lift and 732 A.n.7. T?r?kh Guz?dah, by Ahmed bin Ab? Bekr AI Kasw?n?. 730 A.n.8. Rauzat al Safa, by Mir Kh?wand Shall (otherwise Mirkliond), dedicated toAli Shir, Vizir of Sult?n Iltissen. The author died inKhor?s?u, in 903 A.n.9. Khal?sat al Akhb?r, an Abridgement of the Rauzat al Safa, 905 A.n.;10. Habib al Sa?r, about 927 A.n., dedicated to Habib Ullah, Vizir of Inma?l Shall

Sufavf, King of Persia; both by Gh??th al din bin Hamid al din, Khondem?r.11. Jemal al din Ab?l Mah?san Y?saf bin Taghr? Bard? (Egypt). Middle ofninth century a.h.12. T?r?kh Nig?ristan, by Ahmed bin Mohammed, Al Kasw?n?. Middle oftenth century a.h.13. Tabak?t Akber?, by Niz?m al din Ahmed bin Mohammed Mokim, ofHerat, written at Agrah, in the time of Akber (about) 991 a.h.


12/123

278 ON THE COINS OF THEotherwise have been somewhat dillicult to rectify. Minh?j al Sur?j(the author of the Tabak?t N?sir?), Ab?l Faraj, Ab?l Fed?, andRash?d al din, unite in a?lirming that both M?d?d's death and Abdal

Rash?d's accession took place in the year 441 a.ii. The three latterauthorities, indeed, assume a direct succession, but the probably moreaccurately informed Minh?j al Sur?j allows an interval of two monthsfor the joint reigns of Masa?d II. and Ab?l Hasan Ali1. TheT?r?kh Guz?dah gives tho year 441 A.n. (Rajah) as the date of thedeath of M?d?d, and 443 for tho accession of Abdal Rash?d, and theseperiods have been accepted with little variation by the authors of theRauzat al Safa, Habib al Sair, the Khal?sat al Akhb?r, and the T?r?khFcrishtah. The evidence derivable from coins would indicate thatthese historians are one and all, to a certain extent, incorrect in theirdetermination of the epochs in question, inasmuch as the medal ofAbdal Rashid (No. 93) clearly displays the written numbers 440,thereby proving iucontestably, that tho prince, under whoso auspices itAvas struck, had obtained full possession of regal honours somo time inthe year recorded. In thus approximately fixing the timo of tho accession of Abdal Rash?d, and in so doing ante-dating the period usually

assigned for M?d?d's death by at least seven months, some assistancemight have been anticipated therefrom in tho solution of anotherdoubtful point, viz., the duration of the reign of this last-named prince.The averments of different historians on this head vary to the amountof no less than two years and ten months5'. Of courso this discrepancyimplies to a. certain oxtont a corresponding di?lbronco of opinion as tothe date of accession. Thero is, however, less variation in the assign

ment of this aira than might have been expected from the contradictions adverted to ; the period of tho decease of this monarch beingnow in a manner fixed, demands an acceptance of tho testimony of thosoauthors whoso relation assimilates most nearly with tho probabilitiesresultiug from the facts available. The year above assigned as havingwitnessed M?d?d's death, 440 a.m., placed in reference to even thoearliest date proposed by any one of tho writers whoso conflicting assortions it is desirablo to reconcile, does not admit of tho possibility of his

having reigned nine years. It becomes, therefore, necessary to ascertain how far tho shorter period of seven years will meet tho exigenciesof the case. Here again, a weighty objection presents itself, inasmuchas the corroborative detail of contemporaneous events, and the means

1 Or Xc ?J?i)Jl \.AS Bah? al daulah Ali, as he is called by the Guz?dah


13/123

KINOS OF OHAZN1. 279of accurate knowledge possessed by the author of the T?r?kh Masa?d?,scarcely admit a question as to the correctness of his statement, andthis is to the effect that Mddud captured and killed his uncle Mohammed in Shab?n, 432 A.n.1 If this is to be taken as the actual date ofaccession, it leaves an interval to be filled up of eight years, more orless; the exact duration of the asserted seven years' sway, is thus

manifestly unsupported by tho evidence cited; it is true that, by antedating still more the epoch of the decease of M?d?d, the use of theterm seven years, or less than eight, might possibly be justified; but itmust at the samo timo bo admitted that thero is no direct testimony tosupport any such solution of tho matter at issue*.

Whatever may bo the correct estimate of the length of thoroign of this Prince, the origin of tho diff?rences to bo detected intho assertions of the historians above noted seems to be clearly explained by a casual observation to be found in the Mir?t al A'leru ;viz., that "M?d?d reigned for seven years subsequent to the deathof his uncle Mohammed, and in all nine years3." Hence it wouldappear that it was the practico among some writers to compute thecommencement of M?d?d's reign at an epoch much prior to his fullaccession, that is to say, from the time when he was first placed incharge of Balkh, &c, on his father's departure for Ghazni, in 431 *,or

T?r?kh Masa?d?, Bibl. du Roi, Paris.1M. De Guignes (ii. 177), in quoting from various authors at one and thosame time, has placed himself in a difficulty in respect to this question. Hetakes Ab?l Faraj's statement, which he cites as a.h. 433, for the date of Mohammed's second accession ; then mentioning Madrid's death and quoting fromAb?l Fcd?, he states that this monarch died in 440, after a reign of nine yearsand ten months. The seven years actually adopted from date to date, as theduration of MoMud's reign, in which also must be included the brief sway ofMohammed, is thus, in the confunion of authorities, amplified by two ycirs and tenmonths. Moreover, tho quotations themselves are both incorrect; the printedtexts of Ab?l Faraj and Ab?l Fcd?, severally give 432 as the epoch of the revoltagainst Masa?d and the elevation of Mohammed [see p. 343 (Pococke, Oxon.1043), and p. 132, vol. iii. (Rcisk), respectively]. In likemanner, the period of 440will be seen in the printed text of the original to be 441 (sec Ab?l Fcd?, iii. 132).

?fi\* if?Jy2>- +*?. v3^it> \\ tSxj SyXi+t.* (-yt *3^3* I v*2**"


14/123

280 ON THE COINS OF THEpossibly from a period still earlier, as Ferishtah asserts that M?d?dwas invested with tho "ensigns of royalty"

some timo previous to thisoccasion.The next circumstance which is capable of elucidation from tho

coins of this scries, although a matter of no particular weight, is a fitsubject of remark, as showing the possible value of numismatic studiesin historical investigations of greater importance. A single medal ofFerokhz?d is adequate at this distance of time, and in tho hands of astrange people, to decido with certainty what tho authors of tho Guz?dahand the J?mi al Taw?r?kh, writing with all tho advantages incidentto their positions, were unable to pronounce a correct opinion upon,viz., the parentage of tho prince in question, who is hero distiuctlyannounced as "the son of Mnsai'id." (No. i)7, &c.)

Another inquiry which has attracted much notice from tho variousauthors whose evidence is extant, is the duration of tho rule of Ibrahim.This difficulty, even in the absence of any direct medallic dates, iscapable of solution from the collateral record borne by coins. Fortunately for the facility of present proof, the discussion of the question ismuch simplified by the circumstance of the debated point being, notup to what time the reign extended, but as to which of the two periodsof thirty or forty-two years', is the correct representative of its totalduration. All writers concede that one of those two given quantitiesis the true one: heneo a settlement of the matter is reduced to thesimple acceptance of one or the other. There seems to be little groundfor hesitation in tho admission that either the year 450 or 451 a.m.,(probably tho latter,) witnessed tho accession of this Sultan. If thirtyyears be taken as the limit of his reign, Ibrahim should have ceasedto rule in 480-481 A.n.; but as the coin, No. 125, exhibits the nanioof the Khalif Al Mostazher billah, as contemporary with Ibrahim,whose money it purports to be, and as this Khalif did not ascend hisown pontifical throne till 187, it is clear that Ibrahim of Ghaznilived and ruled subsequent to this last epoch. The inference that hereigned his full forty-two years is, under tho circumstances, sufficientlylegitimate.

It remains to notice one more fact, illustrated by tho money of thoperiod,?that Bahrain Shall held his kingdom under Sanjar, governorof Khor?s?n. Ab?l Fed? refers2 distinctly to this point, and evengoes somewhat beyond what the coins of Bahrain (Nos. 142, 144, &c.)1Date of Ibrahim's death, according to different authors: N?sir?, 492; T?r?kh


15/123

KINOS OF OIIAZNl. 281altogether support, in respect to the mention of the recital in the Khutbah, and consequent inscription on the coinage, of the name of Sanjarsbrother, Mohammed, the Selj?k emperor. The J?mi al Taw?r?kli,

more accurately, confines its assertion to the now affirmed recognitionof Sanjar's supremacy alone1. Mirkhond gives no information on thesubject of this vassalage; and Ferishtah only alludes to it indirectlyin noticing the original grant of the kingdom of Ghazni to Bahrain bySanjar on the occasion of the latter1? defeat of Arsl?n Shah. Themedals of Khtisn'i Shall (Nos. 148, 149) indicate that this feudal subjection extended to the early part at least of the reign of this, thesucceeding king.

Adverting to the numerical amount of the Ghaznavi coins in theEast India Houso Cabinet, some explanation is due, regarding theapparently limited result obtained inactual dates. But this deficiencyis readily to be accounted for. It will be seen that in the silvermoney of the kingdom of Ghazni itwas the custom to record both thedate and place of coinage on margins forming the extreme edge of thepiece. Two causes have combined in the present instance to renderthe inscriptions on these margius generally illegible. First, to judgefrom the specimens extant, the insufficient breadth of the planohet initsolf could have afforded but little probability of securing a completemarginal legend on any given piece, the dies being usually larger thanthe surface of the metal to be impressed2. Second, the coins of Mr.

?XaX^ ? v^^ (v>^ $}X"~o (?yl *\>?*o\yQx\ ?UlaLwdt yy*3j?aX\ A?k*\jQj (^jU?AmJ? +.J jî~? JS.+JJ *J> ?X*:s2QjllaA.îJAb?l Fed?, Ann. Mos., iii. 384.3 ,

??sy j.zs\~s ^Maxî *Uj Xa.Io=? ?j$ jPersian J?mi al Taw?r?kh, British Museum, No. 7028.8 The following description of the process of coining, as in use at Delhi at asomewhat later period, probably represents pretty accurately the mode employedin the fabrication of the coins of the present scries:?

"The Mcltcr melts the refined plates of gold [silver, &c], and casts them intoround ingots."The Zerr?b je-dâS 1 cutR from round ingots, pieces of gold, silver, and

copper of the Bize of the coin. * It is surprising, that in Iran and Turanthey cannot cut these round pieces without an anvil | IjJLaJ mad"6 on purpose; and in Ilittdoostan, tho workman, without any such machine, performs thisbusiness with such exactness, that there is not the difference of a single hair."The Seal-engraver ongraves the dies of coins on steel and such like metals.


16/123

282 ON THE COINS OF THEMasson's collection were gathered on the locale of their original issueand

subsequentmore immediate

circulation,and unlike the reserved

store of less-freely current foreign coin, or the choice specimens of amiser's hoard, they have, in the majority of instances, been inhumed

in detail, apparently, after having been subject to an extensive seriesof successive transfers in the ordinary commerce of their day. Thecoins have suffered accordingly; and much of what was probablyoriginally clear, is now often wholly obliterated.

The same causes have offered obstacles to the full examination oftho geographical questions involved in a comprehensive deciphermentof the names of tho mint cities. There, however, seems to bo less

ground to regret this circuinstanco, as, judging from tho names alreadyidentified, there is reason to suppose that, dating from the reign of

M?d?d, with tho single exception of the produce of the city of Laho'r,tho monetary circulation of the empire was supplied solely from tho

mint of the capital. It is not proposed to enter into a lengthenedexamination of the positions and relative importance of the differentcities recorded on these coins. They are sufficiently in accordancewith accepted history to require but little separate notice; where anydifficulty in regard to due identification suggests itself, full geographicalreferences are appended in the notes pertaining to the coin on whichthe name first occurs.

In the detailed enumeration of these cities, tho abseuco of tho nameof Kabul, looking to its magnitude and local importance, might benoticed as somewhat singular; but it would seem, from the limitednumismatic evidence at present available, as if Ferw?n, in the firstinstance, and subsequently Ghazni, had satisfied the monetary wantsof tho entire Hill country in which they were situated. The political value of the position of the former, in reference to tho S?m?n?possessions immediately to tho northward, together with its advantageous proximity to the silver mines of Punjhir, may probably havefirst inlluenccd the adoption of Fcrw?n as a leading mint city, in

which respect it would seem to havo superseded tho functions ofPunjhir itself, which was at one time a place of coinago of thoEmperors of Bokhara1. By tho timo Mahm?d had ascended thothrone, tho regal city of Ghazni may be supposed to havo risen to asufficiently elevated position as a capital to do away with the necessityof the services of a second mint in the circumjacent territory.

Though not strictly within tho limits of the prominent subjectunder as a matter connected with the rise of


17/123

KINGS OF GHAZNI. 283tho Moslem power in an integral portion of the Ghaznav? dominions,itmay he useful in regard to tho closely previous history of Kabul1itself, to examine briefly the narrations of tho contemporaneous as

1In citing the subjoined extracts from different geographical authors, it will beuseful to premise the dates at which these writers severally flourished, as withoutfull advertence to this particular, many of their assertions regarding the state ofbackwardness 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 authorhimself and tho incorporated transcripts from earlier authorities: these last areoften acknowledged, but when not admitted to be quotations, are manifestly liableto mislead.

The earliest production to which it is necessary to refer, is the Arabic originalof the Persian MS. translated by Ouselcy, and published by him in the year 1800,as " The Oriental Geography of Ebn Haukal." Ouseley's MS. was at that timesupposed to be a Persian version of Ibn Haukul's Arabic Mus?lik wa Mum?lik ;intermediately, the text in question has been attributed by Uylenbroek to Ibn

Kbordadbah, whose original composition was supposed to bear a similar title, vi*.,J?llr^ J?UU uÛf or J?llrl J\ J?UJ.1. Gildemeister has, however,determined that " Istakhri c^ysîa*^! âmA?II Ob&l ?A auctor libriclimatum ^JIj^JJ (_?jS Oju inter anuos 900 et 025 Chr. scripsit. Sindiamiuvisit ejusque terne tabulam deliueavit. Editus est ejus liber ex versione P?rsicain Auglicam linguam translatus ab Ouselcyo." (Scriptorum Arabum De RebusIndicts, p. 70.) Mailler also, the Editor of the lithographed facsimile of theoriginal Arabic text of Istakhri, testifies that "Idem est opus gcographicum, quodvir eel. W. Ouselcy in Anglicum sermonem translatum anno 1000 hoc nomine'The Oriental Geography, &c.,T Londini edidit;" and he adds, regarding the dateof the composition itself, " Inde apertum est, Abu Isbakum annum 303 inter etannum 307 vel 309 h. (= 915?921 p. Chr.) opus suum geographicum confecisse." (Liber Climatum, &c, J. II. M ller, Gothic, 1029, p. 22.)Ibn Haukul began his travels in 331 A.n. "scieutia? cupiditate ductus longisitiner?bus fere omncs terras Musl?micas invisit, ex quibus redux sub annum 366(inc. 29 Aug., 976) opus suum gcographicum J?lcL J?LgJLi i_t\Xfinscriptum coucinnavit ita, ut id I?thakhrii libro quasi fundamento superstrucretsuis observation ibus aucto et perfecto." (Gilde., p. 70.)In likemanner, Mueller observes?" Diserte igitur Ibn Haukalidcs unice ad

opus Abu Ishaki el faresii se applicasse, ejusque formam et expositionem scquutumesse profitetur, ita ut Ibn Haukalidis opus non nisi altera sit auctior et emendatiorAbu Ishaki opcris cditio. (p. 4.) Ibn Haukalidcm opus suum anno demum 366?367 H. (=976-977 p. Chr.) ex itiucribus suis, qu anno 331 h. (= 942 p.erat reducem rei nul lam clarissimi


18/123

284 ON THE C01N3 OF THEwell as the more modern writers who refer to its conquest by theMohammedans, as it is by no means clear from their varied assertions

fact of the author's death having occurred shortly subsequent to 430 A.n. = 1038?39 A.D.KdrisPs work received its finishing stroke in Shaw?l, 548 A.n. = 1154 A.D.Kasw?u? (Zakaria bin Mohammed bin Mahm?d), the author of the Ath?r al

bel?d, died in (?74 A.n. = 1275 a.D.And, lastly, Ab?l Feda* concluded his geographical compilation (Takwim al

Balad?u) iu 721 A.n. = 1321 a.d.

1^x3^ 4Xs?l?uXi^k ?bi\j /^*a:?UL ?^KOy* J


19/123

KINGS OF GHAZNI. 285at what exact period the city first passed from the hands of its ancient

masters. Leaving unnoticed the early attacks of the generals of thefirst Khalifs, the wars of Uejaj, and even the conquest** of Arnin',

which scarcely affected the permanent independence of the monarchy,the explicit statements of tho Tabak?t N?sir?2, and the Rauzat al

^? ?aM?ji ?jb?wt^ ?i?n y&2 l?+\\ ^s ?y$\ p^j-? ^>*4"3

?JVJC ?AJtX* IgAJjX ?jj ?Agit *^>} ? ^ Xaw^H jyXJ ?y^(GCographio D'Aboulfcda^Tcxtc Arabe, par MM. lteinaud et De Slane,

Paris, 1043, p. f HS )"Ibn 11.m lui I said: Kabul is in the jurisdiction of Dami?n, and in it arc

Moslems and infidel Hindus. The Hindus are of opinion that the King, who isthe Shall, is not rightly entitled to the dignity of Shah, unless the sovereignty becovenanted to him in Kabul. It is said in the K?n?n (Albiruni), that the Castleof Kabul was the residence of (the) Princes of the Turfes, then of the Brnhmans* * it is one of the frontiers of the Moslems towards India: to the west ofit also is the city of Ghazni."

Before taking leave of the geographical authors who illustrate the varioussubjects connected with the age immediately preceding that to which the presentpaper refers, it is desirable to attract the attention of the curious in such mattersto the valuable but little known MS. of Ibn Khordadbah, in the Jlodlcian Library,which contains much miscellaneous information regarding India and Central Asia ;~ 3thework is entitled \jhy}\ ?iu?? ^i J?LJII tylxT |>v^.j ?Ml tX*.*x?oM^yis- j aJJl tX*x . The Oxford MS. was engrossed in 630 a.h. Ibn

Khordadbah died in 300 a.h. (= 912 A.n.); hi* composition? are largely praised,and were extensively used by Masa?d?, 332 a.11. (Vide Meadows of Gold, &c,Oriental Translation Fund Edition.)1 " In the year 107, under the Khalifat of Hesham, the son of Abdulmullick,his Governor of Khorasan, Amccti, the son of Abdallah Cashecry, conqueredGhour, Ghurgistan, and Nccinroz of Cabul. From that time, under the Khaltfsof the Houses of Ommiah and Abbas, these provinces continued to be dependentupon Khorasan.*' Gladwin's Ayin i Akber?, ii. 209.3 ca^H^'k v^-r^. '-??"'j* 3 * * ?r^ vy^v. A?^


20/123

286 ON THE COINS OF THESafa', show that Kabul was completely subjugated, in the middle ofthe third century of tho Hijrah, by Yak?ib Lith, the first of theSofnrians of Sejist?n.

Istakhr?, writing early in the fourth century of thoHijrah (303 to309), notices the citadel of Kabul as being in the hands of the Mohammedans, the town being still occupied by the Hindus, and he goeson to add that the King is not entitled to the sovereignty unless it becovenanted to him at Kabul; both the one and the other expressionimplying that the king, to whom the latter sentence refers, did notreside at Kabul, his castle being in the occupancy of people of anotherrace, and the very fact of the necessity of his coming to Kabul forinauguration, evidencing generally that he held his court in some othercity. Ibn Haukul, in reproducing almost verbatim the exact expressions of Istakhr?, gives additional authenticity to tho original text,

which he recognises as the basis of his own work, appending theretosuch observations as the progress of time aud his own more extendedknowledge enabled him to supply*.

Alb?r?nfs averment, in tho K?u?n, which has been preserved?\JUj 8^4j Jai? iyLc **jf ci~KX2>\j^ (j-jU y vy^? ^

clx?s yy?~~o jLs y ^ 3 cl?, ca^* ^i yMS. Rauzat al Safa, Royal Asiatic Society, No. 43.* For instance, the passage which should correspond with the text of Istakhr?,p. 110, line 7, M ller, and which is translated from the Persian version byOuseley, p. 225, last line, and two first lines of 220, runs thus in Ibn Haukal:?W ?^1 LS^]y iS* iS^S CU^l* 15^1^ *


21/123

KINGS OF GHAZNI. 287by Ab?l Fed?, is strictly consistent with his assertions in the T?r?khHind; but at open variance with the deposition of Istakhr?; somuch so, that it is difficult to reconcile the obvious discrepancies. IfIstakhr? be correct, the castle of Kabul was in the possession of theMoslems in the early part of the fourth century of the Hijrah; it hadpossibly remained so from the time of its capture by Yakub Lith.Alb?rnn?Vj mention of its being the residence of the Turk, and subsequently of the Brahman Kings, would appear to indicate, that, however much of continuity there may have been in its occupancy by theroyal line of the former race, and whether they wore the parties losingand recovering it, or not, one fact is clear, that the Brahinan.s, as wellas tho Turks, onco possessed it. Alhiruni's position iu the suite ofMahm?d of Ghazni, and his consequent opportunities of obtainingprecise information on the spot, to the closely preceding history ofwhich his observations refer, together with his admitted knowledge ofthe language of the country itself, render his evidence on this pointunassailable. Recognizing this, and at the same time holding deservedconfidence in the accuracy of Istakhr?, who, it is to be noted, was alsoan original observer, the apparently conflicting statements are explicable only by concluding that Kabul having once been subdued bythe Moslems, was recovered by the indigenous rulers some time aftertho visit of Istakhr?. This may have been effected by the Turks; butit is more probable that tho Brahmans recaptured the city, as, on

attaining supremacy, and speedily becoming a powerful and conquering dynasty, and having also in view the prestige attaching to the

ancient metropolis, which has formed the subject of remark of theMohammedan authors now cited, their early endeavours wouldnaturally be directed to the re-acquisition of so desirable a possession.In examining the correspondence of the different epochs, it will beseen that the period which directly succeeds the date of Istakhri'sobservations, accords with sufficient exactitude with the conclusionsalready arrived at from indirect testimony as to the date of the subversion of the Turk, and tho rise of the Brahman dynasty1. It maybe objected that the wording of the sentence of the K?n?n abovereferred to, might be taken to mean that the Brahman occupation of theCastle of Kabul was direct, as was their supercession of the TurkKings; but this can scarcely be said to bo the sole and necessary senseof the terms employed.

Before concluding these preliminary observations, it may be requian numismatic


22/123

288 ON THE COINS OF THEall inferences on this head must ho drawn, though numerically ample,nre, as has hcen already remarked,

in agenerally imperfect

state ofpreservation, arising not so much from any direct injuries incident totheir age, as from a necessary detrition consequent upon a prolongedcirculation; heuce, any attempt at an adjudication of tho original

mint weights, must be founded less on any extended average, than on acomparatively limited number of selected specimens. It will tend todisembarrass tho inquiry of much of its apparent complexity, to rejectall advertence to provincial coins, and to confine the attention to theproduce of the mints more directly dependent on the seat of government, as these will manifestly offer a more accurate criterion of theImperial standard, than the palpably varying curreucics of the several

departmental governments.In the unsatisfactory state of the materials which arc to form themore immediate proofs in the present investigation, great aid may beanticipated from ?an approximate identification of the mouetary system upon which the Ghaznavi currency was founded. Two most

obvious sources present themselves for selection?the system of theS?m?n?s, from whose court the newly-made monarchs took their rise;or that of the Brahnians, to whose kingdom they succeeded'. Thoweights of tho Bokhara moneys have not been very accurately ascertained. Marsden, however, after deciding upon the standard of tho

coins of the Khalifs as averaging severally?gold, 65*6 grains; silver,45 grains,?goes on to observe, that the S?ini?n? dirhems appear to havebeen slightly heavier than the corresponding coins of tho Khalifs; andhis own published specimens of these pieces?thirteen in number?showan average weight of 45*30; the highest weight of any singlo coinbeing 49-5 grains. If these last figures are to be taken as tho accurate representatives of tho standard of the Bokhara silver coinage, itwould sccin to have been too light to have stood as an exemplar fortho money of Ghazni, as a cursory glance at the weights noted witheach coin now described will discover numerous silver pieces of 51,

many of 52, and some as high as 55 grains. The most ancient Indiancoins known, which consist of "small llattened bits of silver, atanipcd

1 As far as can be ascertained from the numismatic records they have leftbehind them, the currency of the Drahmans would seem to have formed a verylarge proportion of the circulating medium of the surrounding hills. It is to benoted also, en passant, that the precise Dynasty that ruled at Ghazni at the time ofits capture by Alptegin has not yet becu but from Istakhri's state


23/123

KINOS OF GHAZNI. 289at random with punches," the supposed "marks of successive dynastiesauthenticating the currency," average in weight 50 grains'; the oldVaraba, a frequent and widely-spread species of silver coin, alsoaverages 50 grains'; and, finally, the Rajput, or what are nowknown to be Kabul Brahnianical silver pieces, average over 50 grains1,and appear, from their direct connexion and close approximation inweight, to have served as the true models upon which the Ghaznavimoney was based4, and this inference receives additional confirmationfrom the fact of an apparent attempt at an assimilation, observable inthe outline, form, and shape of the moneys of the preceding and succeeding dynasties.

All reference to the gold coinage of tbo I lou.se of Ghazni lia?hitherto been avoided, as there Ls no known gold piece of the BraliuianKings of Kabul, whereon to found a comparison; indeed, it wouldseem as if the currency of this metal, if existing at all, in the form ofnational coins, in the Hill dominion of this race, must have been veryclosely limited5. Moreover, .singular to say, among the many gold

medals of Mahm?d and his immediate successors, struck in variousparts of the extensive empire which owned their sway, there is not asingle metropolitan gold coin in Mr. Masson's collection that datesprior to the reign of Mo'd?d. These and the succeeding extant medalsof this metal, like the provincial coins of N?sh?p?r6, &c., in their extraordinary variation in weight, offer serious obstacles to any satisfactory identification of the intentional standard. The Ghazni goldcoins, on a rough estimate, may be inferred to have had a proposedaverage weight of about 65 or Go*grains7, and to have been modelled,in point of form, upon Mahm?d's early N?sh?p?r Dinars, which hefirst issued while still only a Governor for the S?m?n?sB.

1 Prinscp, Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, Vol. IV. p. 027 (50 grains, or the tank of3 mashas.)8 Idem, p. 07K * Idem, ?77.4 There are some unaccountable exceptions to any possible rule of even partially equivalent weights, as, for instance, No.

05. The silver coin,No. 37, which

weighs 7G grains, may possibly havo had an original mint value of 1J GhazniDirhems.5 "The Unit of the Hind? system [India] was of gold, and the old specimensfound arc of GO or 120 grains in weight." Prinscp's Useful Tables, p. 15.0 Tho N?sh?p?r gold coins of Mahm?d, Nos. 0, 9, 10, and 12, average flft'4grains. No. 9 differs in weight from No. ?0 as much as 20'1 grains. Masa?d'?Coin, No. 51), and three other similar N?slu?p?r pieces, the latter actually the produce of the same C4*il5 but vary in different specimens to the


24/123

290 ON THE COINS OF THEThe copper currency would appear, from its general characteristics,and the weights of the better specimens, to have been intended tocorrespond with the silver currency. It will be seen that brass was

occasionally made use of for coinage, though probably only in lieu ofthe accustomed copper; but the minuto silver coins of 5*25 and 5*50

grains (Nos. 74, 103) must have greatly superseded the necessity foran extensive copper currency. The mixed silver and copper, orbillon, coinage of the Punjab may bo assumed to havo boeu continued,in point of weight and value, on tho old Hindu standard.

A few words seem to be required to introduce to the notice of thereader an item of occasional consequence in numismatic investigations,the niouograms and mint marks. In the present iustanco, it may bosufficient to remark that the former present but few notable attributes, and that their range is limited to the following unimportantvarieties :?

1. Words expressive of some excellence, such as _Jj^ Justice(Just?)1; ^vxi Victory,


25/123

KINGS OF GHAZNI. 2912. Abbreviations of titles, as I^ ^^U &c.3. The names of the Arabic months, i_x^r * ps^o &c, refer

ring possibly to the month inwhich the piece was struck.4. The designation of various cities of the empire, such as

,_,Lt>Jl / . ,LJ &c. It does not appear quite clear what maybe theintent of these last superscriptions, as they are found on coins fabricated in cities other than the town whose name is expressed by the

monogram.

words: ?-?Ls? current, lawful; ?-?-aaIo good; ?\j full (weight). Occasionally tho Arabic words arc used in direct reference to, and correspondencewith, the customary Greek word KAAON, to be found on the opposite surface ofone and the same Coin, evidencing thereby their meaning?long unknown?aswell as their use and origin. (M. de Saulcy, Journal Asiatique, 1039; see alsoMarsdcn, PI. XVII., Nos. CCCIV., CCCIL, and Nos. CCXCVI., CCXCVIII.)

The primary examples of the inscription of _J*\c are noticed in Frtehn'scomprehensive Iteccnsio Numorum Muhamedanorum, aB discovered on certainBokhara copper Coins of the Khalifs?A.n. 105, 190, and 209?which maybesupposed, from tho tenor of tho legend, and the circumstances under which theywere struck, to have required some unusual authentication; thence the use of theword may be traced as of constant recurrence on the medals of the S?m?n?s,whence itmust have found its way to the anomalous position it is f-ecn to hold onthe Nagari Coins of the Hind? Kings of Kabul (Journ. Roy. As. Soc, No

XVII., p. 107).Whatever may have been the previously accepted signification of this mono

gram, its adoption in this case admits of but one explanation, namely, that it wasintended to attest the current value of the coinage thus marked. Had it been theobject of the Kabul Monarchs in any way to refer to their own justice, or toequity in the abstract, as a virtue to be inculcated in the every-day transactions ofthose who were to use this money, the monogrammatic word would have been putforward in a form and character intelligible to those who were expected to profiteither by one or the other?the subjects of the Sovereign with whose device itwas thus identified?and not, as is here seen, in the superscription of an isolatedword in a strange language, the very letters of which the native die-engravers werescarce 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 byundue depreciation in the marts and bazaars of the conterminal cities.

For tho after adaptation of the import of JAc , itmay be sufficient to refergenerally to its frequent appearance on Coin9 authoritatively passed into circulation in a country for whose express use they were not in the first instance


26/123

292 ON THE COINS OP THEThe single letters, which are found occupying any convenient

comer of the area, arc usually held to be mere mint marks, and seemto import little or nothing calling for extended observation1.

t.contre-marque g*-?'/ current (Fradtn, pp. 463, 499) ; more rarely is to be seen

the punch-mark of .?la victory, which, though convertible as Sib 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 merecommemorative record of a recent conquest.

The_5iXc is also often conjoined in these second impressions with thename of the Monarch who wishes to stamp the authenticity of the medal.], (SecNumismatic Chronicle, Coin of Humayun, Article "Pat?n Kings of Delhi,"1847)

And, lastly, the term seems so to have passed into mint parlance, that it is tobe seen as A*J?Xc and ?J


27/123

KINGS OF GHAZNI. 29:3TABLE I.?The Ghmnam Dyna.sty, and, the cotcmporary Khalifs.

Khalifs of Unglitlud.Al Miiti'h llllnh .Abd., Zi'l Kndnh, 3


28/123

294 ON THE COINS OF THE KINGS OF GHAZNI.

It has been usual to consider as the Obverse of pure Mohammedan Coins that surface of the medal which bears tho formulas of?Ml SI aJI S &c. ; this rule will be seen to have been adhered to,where circumstances would permit, in the following description of theCoins of Ghazni; but it is necessary to notice that, although theEuropean custom of placing tho Obverso or its representative on tholeft hand has been complied with generally in tho cngraviugs, it has

been found necessary to reverse the usual practice in the printedtranscript of the legends of the medals, as the nature of tho languageemployed?being written from right to left?and tho parallel juxtaposition of the contents of the Obverse and Reverse?which in manyinstances are intended to be run one into the other?rendered this

arrangement almost imperative. It will be seen, however, that thishas not in all cases sufficed to accomplish tho end in view, as tho diocutters seem at times to havo disregarded all attempts at uniformity,and to have considered their task fulfilled in the mere insertion of agiven number of words, without much regard to tho order in whichthey were required to be placed.

The type lines, which are occasionally to bo found above thoArabic legends, are intended to mark that part of the word or sentence that is clearly legible, in contradistinction to what may be eitherdoubtful or, in some cases, actually illegible. They have been adoptedas less unsightly in their association with tho type, and more consonant with Oriental practice than the brackets in use among Westornnatious to iudicate restored passages.

It is to be observed that Roman numerals havo been attached tothose Coins of which engravings are to be found in tho plates.

Tablo I. has boon placod in its present position as boing proporlyintroductory in showing the order of succession of tho Kings of the

Dynasty and the several contemporary Khalifs. Tables II. and III.,giving the summary of the dates and mint cities, are inserted at thoconclusion of the description of the Coins which havo furnished tho


29/123

DETAIL OF THE COINS.

ALPTEGIN.No. l.

Silver. Ander?beb? 347 A.n. Frrehn, Nov. Symb., p. 15.

Rrv.A?

?Ml _J^|> iX^^s\^o

Obv.

e_r -?_?_A_11

Marg. A^y ?HA^Jy?r iS+^y^

\$&A L-V 4,1 (?+??3 ^f^W

Ll>3~/?U

Marg. ^Jjl 1uy? ?Ml^

TnE following coins are noticed in this place as probably derivingtheir origin from a mint under the control of Alptcgin; there aremany arguments in favour of this classification, though it is not definitively adopted, as tho pieces are wanting in tho distinctive name oftho chief in question, and tho assignment now proposed is perhaps atvariance with the requirements resulting from the acceptance of thereading of a medal, presenting many identical peculiarities given byProfessor Fraehn, whose description of the coin is reproduced below.

It will be seen that the St. Petersburg Professor discerns the nameof Bokhara, as the place of mintage of the coin referred to, whichidentification, if correct, is adverse to the attribution at present


30/123

296 ON THE COINS OF THEadopted by Professor Fnehn, the presumptions iu support of the proposition

above advanced may be brieflyenumerated.

The first coin of the class now cited (letter A) has been assignedtoAbdal Malik, the sixth S?m?n?1; that itwas struck during his reign,and under his acknowledged auspices, there can be little doubt, but, as

will appear from other specimeus of analogous mintages, probablyeither iu honour, or under the immediate influence, of an exalted oflicerof the State, if not actually in one of the chief cities of a provincialgovernor.

It is to be premised in entering on this discussion, that the quotation of c_o 'i 5*03* ?All /. Y-? fxaj , which occupies the prominentportion of the area of one face of tho coin, and will be seen to form thodistinctive mark of the present series, is found on none of tho othercoins of any of tho three several Emperors, whose names are recordedon the opposite surface of the medals now described. This peculiaritywould in itself imply that the coins thus emblazoned, wore separatedfrom the other monies of these Princes, on account of some local orpolitical cause hitherto unexplained, and wero thero no other unusualfacts observable in regard to these pieces, this alone would induce aninquiry as to the possible design which originated this want of uniformity.

The first step in the present examination is, to fix with as muchxWith a view to avoid textual recapitulation, and future references to tho

original authorities, a detail list of the S?imtu? Monarchs is hero annexed :?Accession.A.n.

1. Nasr bin Ahmed - - - - 2812. Ismail bin Ahmed - 2793. Ahmed bin Ismail .... 295 Safar, Khal?sat al Akhb?r.4. Nasr bin Ahmed - - - - 301 Juntad al A'khir, idem.5. Null bin Nasr .... ;jai Rajah, idem.(i. Abdal Malik bin Null - - - 343 Hab? al A'khir, Ab?l Farajand Ab?l Fed?.7. Mans?r bin N?h I. 350 Shau?l.8. N?h bin Mans?r - 3(?6 Ab?l Faraj and Ab?l Fed?; 30*5

Rajab, Khal?sat al Akhb?r.il. Mans?r bin N?h II. - - - 387 Rajab, Ab?lFed?andKhal?satal Akhb?r.10. Abdal Malik bin N?h - - - 389 Safar, Khal?sat al Akhb?r.Eilck Khan enters Bokhara - - 389 10 ZV IKadah, N?sir?, ?lc.11. Ismail bin N?h (M?ntascr), killed in Rab? al Awal 395, Khal?sat ni Akhb?r.

The months given generally indicate the date of the death of the preceding


31/123

KINOS OF Q.UAZN1. 297prccisiou as the materials will admit of, the period of time embracedin the issue of the various extant medals bearing the motto abovereferred to. This will be seen to extend from the sixth year of thereign of Abdal Malik, through that of Mans?r bin Niih I., to theearly part at least of the domination of N?h bin Mans?r, or duringthe period included between the years 348 A.n., as proved by the St.Petersburg coin, and 366 A.n., the first year of the reign of the thirdof theso monarcliH.

The second condition in this investigation is to decide the localityin which the pieces in dispute received their stamp. The coin (A)has been asserted to have been struck at Bokhara; all the others,

which retain cither the entire record or partial trace of the name oftheir mint city, disclose the whole or portions of the word ForwuV.The last point to be determined is the identification of the individual

who, on any other species of medal, may be found to have used the

lMl*_5 Vide Istakhr? (Mocller,) pp. 109, 112 Text, and Mapi . \L*l,?>- Xr+'? ^?* XVIII, p. 111. See also Persian MS. Mcsalik wa

Mcm?lik, East India House Library, p. 91."The river of Penjhir runs through the town, (x>L> rUs*)> mid passes from

lariatteh till it comes to , # .L 3 Fcrouan, and so proceeds into Hindoostan.'Ouseley's Oriental Geography, p. 225." La ville de Carwaii #A j est peu consid?rable, mais jolie; ses environssont agr?ables, ses bazars fr?quent?s, Res habitants riches; les maison? y sontconstruites en argile et en briques. Situ?e sur les bords de la rivi?re qui vient deBendjehir K -?\j cette ville est run des principaux march?s de rinde." Geo\f"H *graphie d*Edrisi,p. 476. Paris Edit. 1836.

Abulfed?, quoting Ibn Haukal and Abiil Majd Ismail al-M?sal?, also mentions. yA 3 (Fer?wan) as a considerable town in the province of Dami?n; vide

p. 404 and 467, G?ographie d'Aboulf?da, Texte Arabe. Taris, 1840.4?Barwan," Ibn Batuta (Dr. Lee*? Translation, pp. 97 aod 08)." Another route [from Balkh to Kabul J is that of Peru an. Between Perw?nand the high mountain, thero arc seven minor passes, which they call tbe II eft -becheh (the seven younglings). As you come from the Aitdcrah side, two roadsunite below the main pass, and lead down on FcrwAn by way of the ?SevenYounglings. This is a very difficult road." Erskine's Daher, p. I3?." On the skirts of the hills [of Gh?rbend] there are some districts; in thetipper part are Mitch, Kaeheb, and PcrwAn." Idem, p. 14??." A city of magnitude must have existed at Perw?n, about eight miles, bearing*


32/123

298 ON THE COINS OF THEmotto of * ^ ij V ^?i* aMI . y*o .AaJ The only other reference tothe numismatic employment of this quotation in Professor Froohn's ownvoluminous works, points to the coin of Alptegin, No. 1 of this series.These data having been disposed of, it becomes necessary to consider how far the direct historical, as well as the numismaticallyinferential testimony accords with the conclusion, which the last coin

cidence renders obvious, that the medals under review are in someway connected with Alptegin himself.The undisputed coin of this Chief, No. 1, received its stamp in347 a.h. The earliest coin of the present doubtful class was struckin the year following; the later pieces, (B) and (C), in 365; and thelatest, (D), may, for the present, be inferred to have been coined in366, or the first year of the rule of the Sovereign whoso name it bears.Tho period, therefore, embraced in the issue of the various coinsunder notice, corresponds almost exactly with the time interveningbetween the prominent portion of the rise and the decease of Alptegin,which last event is variously placed in 365 and 366 A.u1.

Regarding the geographical question involved in this inquiry, allwritten testimony unites in affirming, that the hill country encompassing Alptcgin's new capital of Ghazni defied the attempts of the S?m?n?s towards its resubjection* and that Alptegin continued in effectabsolute master of all the high ground south of the provinco of Balkh3,from the time when his position at the Court of Bokhara first became

equivocal, on the accession of Mansiir bin Nuh in 350 A.n., up to the

i The Guz?dah does not notice the exact epoch of Alptegiu's decease, though,in affirming that he held domini?n in Ghazni for sixteen years, it in effect acceptsthe year 366. The Chronicle of Ibn Haidar (quoted by Wilken, " Mirchond Hist.Gaz.'*) also adopts sixteen years as the duration of this Chieftain's independentsway. The Rauzat al Saf? docs not give the date of the death of Alptegin with anyprccisiou, merely reporting that event as taking place shortly after tho accession ofN?h bin Mans?r, in Raj ab 365 a.h. It will be seen, however, that there is reasonto question this last date, as Ab?l Faraj and Ab?l Fed? assign the decease of Mans?rbin N?h I. to the year 366, instead of to 305, though Mirkhond's statement asregards the survival of Alptegin, and his consequent contemporaneous existencowith N?h bin Mans?r, which is at present the real point at issue, tallies well withthe other evidence. Jen?b? most erroneously places eveu the first assumption ofindependent power by Alptegin so late as 306 (Dorn, Hist. Afghans, Notes, p. ?0).And Ferishtah, though he boldly affirms that this Chieftain died in 305, yet, in thevery context of his narrative (351 Revolt -f- 15 years* reign = 366, and not 305;

Briggs, vol. I. p. 13,) he conveys a palpable doubt as to the accuracy of his ownden ni te assertion.


33/123

KINGS OF GHAZNI. 2.99date of his own death. Accepting the above statements as to tho territorial possessions of Alptegin, they necessitate

a conclusion, that in theyear 365 A.n., when coins (B) and (C) were fabricated, Ferwan was inthe hands of that chief. Such being the case, and adverting both tothe mint customs in like cases, and tho avowed attitude of defensivehostility assumed by Alptegin towards his quondam masters, it wouldbe highly improbable, that the produce of the Ferwan Mint should beput forth unmarked by some record of tho successful general, whothen swayed the destinies of the rising empire of Ghazni.

In this point of view therefore, the appearance of the superscription of ?l8 denoting a reference to

Alptegin, merely tallies with what is demanded by the probabilitiesof tho case1.

Having thus far brought under one view the earlier and the latercoins bearing the motto of


34/123

300 ON THE COINS OF THEthe later examples of this money, Alptegin was in the anomalous con

dition of a revolted Governor, who had actually conquered a newkingdom for himself, simultaneously retaining part of the territoriesof his late masters; and while he showed himself able and prepared todefend his appropriations, still rendered a nominal homage to the raceof his ancient benefactors. Whether the altered record on tho reversemargin of coins (B), (C), and (D), about to be noticed, is any indication of such a stato of things, is perhaps not altogether beyond adoubt; but there appears on these later coins, a curiously dubiousmarginal legend', which might well be expected to emanate from ascnii-recusant governor, who, although he acknowledges, in a way,the feudal supremacy of the successors of Abdal Malik, cither cannotclaim the permission of his legal Suzerain to coin, or will not compromise the dignity of his partially-perfected independence, by admittingthat, the money bearing his own mark, and struck iu one of his capitalcities, was fabricated by order of the reigning Emperor; but who revertsto Nasr bin Ahmed for his authority to issue money; alluding probablyto the first of the name, the prominent founder of the family to whichhis own allegiance was due, or, possibly referring to the fourth of theline of the same designation, the Nasr bin Ahmed under whose earlypatronage he himself must have been advanced the first step on thoroad to power*.If the proposed explanation of the meaning of the Toghrd} whichforms the central ornament in the reverse area of these curious coins,is correct, the namo of -A Null, may also bo understood as expressive of a design to refer to another member of the Sam?n? family, theN?h bin Nasr, from whom Alptegin received the distinguished honour

of the nomination to the command of the army.1 It is right to notice, though it is difficult to explain, the iippcaruiico of a

seemingly similar incomplete marginal legend on a coin of Mans?r bin N?h,struck at Bokhara 35H A.n. The inscription reads?/ .?AJLajJll j*^fi\ t?y* ?X^.1 try-i * * * /k*^ ?u^l \.c

Fnehn, Die M?nzen, &c, p. 51, pi. xiv., fig. 22.* The notices of Alptegin's early history are naturally somewhat scanty; itseems to be admitted, however, that in his youth he was the slave of Ahmed binIsmail, the third S?m?n? monarch. It is stated in the T?r?kh Guz?dah that, duringthe reign of N?h bin Nasr, he was promoted to the command of the Imperial Army :

(v-HoL ?zl d^Ut ?V 3? ?)U/ f? ej.^50


35/123

KINGS OF GHAZNI. 301ADD-UL-MELIK I. FILIUS NU'H I.

[A.] No. *2C?). N. ccr. rariss. et notabilissim. cus. ibidem [Bocharte] annoeodem [348] XjI&XSj (?j?*->^3 ^_ _

In supr. A. I. ?t infra autem .ju?=iU3A. II'r- inscriptioartificiosiusdisposita. In medio denuo occurrit . .i.g,n

cinctum a A (ecu *j fort. ?A) quater repctito, extra quod

t^A?/5 tf** ^ er4 j**'JAuxilium a Deo (venit) et victoria instant, in orbem disposita sunkMarg. r^\ ?M &c

[B.] Copper. Weight, gr. Ferw?n. 3fl? a.h.

The name of N?h -. A four timesrepeated, radiating from the centre ofthe area, and forming a circle by acurious distribution of the final ?together with the mottoT-V ?> 3} ?Ml ijj^

disposed in the shape of a square in thofour compartments.

Marg. *aj -A^yi ???o? U"


36/123

302 ON THE COINS OF THE[C.l Copper. Weight, 46*7 gr. Ferw?n. 306 a.h. British Museum.

Area as above [B.]

Marg. >?? r**M *?r*' ^C-ft? ' 1^3-^? *?? ' Qj

(Jj-ft ^11

Area as above [B.]But without the word

Marg. \&J> V* ?111?**iti?V* u^*"

3 ??y*k~3The name of the mint city is nearly obliterated.

?D.) Copper. Weight, 36 gr. Unique.

Area.As above [B.]

Marg. 1?J* /** 4*> 91 J?Jv^l

Area.

||M ?V-V ||A*:sv? ||-

Marg. Illegible.


37/123

KINGS OF GHAZNL 303

SABAKTAGIN*.No. II.

Silver. Weight, 60 gr. Ferw?n. 380 a.m. C.Rbv.

. All_) !>"/

Z3-> m

/>

/ /

Obv.

yi *_Il VK?X -^ *M1

il_U. Ji

Marg. l?x?> J/" d? (lty*? rfy4^

* The subjoined account of the succession to Alptegin's Chieftainship is givenentire from the Tabak?t N?siri, as offering a version of the question to which itrefers, widely differing from that to he found in the writings of the more generallyknown Authors; and although there are many objections to the unqualified admission of its verity, yet the N?sirfs undoubted antiquity and UBual accuracy entitlethe statement to full consideration.

?Iaj^^j.} i_*S?> ?2k^*.jJ jIa* ?2kj?& \\ *SXj . -aX?A) y??** $ J?JjJC1k+j\& 0\>AO** ?Aa*??Aj itXi ol^l vAM^


38/123

304 ON THE COINS OF THE

j?oL?^l ?UXi y\


39/123

KINGS OF GHAZNI. 305No. 3.

Silver. Weight, 51 gr. 3?2 A.n.Legends in Areas similar toNo. II. Mint marks, Obv. _ and Rev,Obv. Marg.

A nearly analogous Coin has on the Obv. Marg._ jUSl or yj?l XJU (?JjjX* OJI I?JS

No. 4.Silver. Weight, 43*5 gr. Forw?n. 303 a.h. British Museum.

Areas similar to No. II. Mint marks -


40/123


Marg. Illegible.

ISMAIL.No. VII.

Obv.

jd- ?L

_ll V?, ?Ml

?M ?.?I_L?_Il

Marg. Worn, illegible.

On the Rev. Marg. of one of Ismail's Coins is to be seen tho commencement ofthe usual symbol ?JH _Jj*y *X*=sA^ &c.


41/123

KINOS OF GHAZNI. 307

MAHMUD.No. VIII.

Gold. Weight, 7?? gr. N?sh?pur. 385 a.h. British Museum.

Rev.

il_k_II 1

Mnrg. ?Ml _J^_?.y. .X_*_=sS~


42/123


No. IX.

Gold. Weight, 57'3 gr. N?sh?p?r. 390 a.h. British Museum.

Obv.

?Ml SI *_11 y

?Ul_j j?l??_51

Marg. Surah ix. 33, aud lxi. 0. Marg. int. |Sjb ?Mli^M

Marg. ext Surah xxx. 4, 6.

No. 10.There is a second Gold Coin in the British Museum, in weight 77*4 grains,

similar in every respect to the above, with the exception of tho c on the Obverse,which is placed on tho right of tho field, instead of being at tho foot of tho legend,as in tho specimen just described.


43/123

KINGS OF GHAZNI.No. 11.

Gold. N?sh?p?r. 400 a.ii. Fr hn's Rcccnsio, p. 142.Rbv.

aU?X zsv *

309

M _3,X_1?>\_JI ,.

Marg. Surali ix. 33, and lxi. 9.

Obv.

SI A. Jl Vm

?ML., /il_?_11Marg. int. As No. IX., with

XjL? ?Jr\Marg. ext. Surah xxx. 4, 5.

No. XII.

Onv.Gold. Weight, 623 gr. N?sh?p?r. 401 a.h. British Museum.

Rev.aU

*Ml f?wo

/>-* r

*^/^


44/123

310 ON THE COINS OF THENo. 13.

A second Gold Coin, of the like dato and place of mintage, varies in the disposition of the inscription : the usual short symbol occupying the whole of theObverse area, the Reverse area containing the acknowledgment of the mission ofMohammed, the designation of the Khalif and his successor elect (excluding thewords B^X/ix J*)> as well as the three titles of Mahm?d himself, the ( # ?gXLtXlt a"** too &11I f . t+*\ being placed one on each side of the rest of thelegend. The word ?uLo a wanting in the record of the date.

No. 14.Gold. Weight, GO gr. Herat. 396 a.h

Rev." All '*

?Ml ?Jvwy iX^JSX^o

Marg. Surah ix. 33, and lxi. 9.

Onv.

Ml *_il ysJ^. ?Ml

Marg. int. Ijsjfc ^S? m P*iIjM??. X?I??x* x\,?g?i rUjtXll

i .*.\ * ?joUvaj 3 ^ . y****** 3

Marg. ext. Surah xxx. 4, 6.

No. ir>.Gold. Weight, b*5 gr. Herat. 401 a.h. Masson.Gold. Weight, 50 gr. Herat 401 a.h. llritish Museum.

Similar to Coin No. 14, but imperfect in the exterior Margin of Obverse,


45/123

KINGS OP GHAZNI. 311No. 16.

Gold. Weight, 56 gr. Herat. 411 A.n. Lady Macnaghien.Differs slightly from No. 14, in the absence of _jj?^ in the Obverse,

and in tho initial ?X^^s^ in the Reverse standing in a line by itself ;the concluding ^vaJ?I ?j\ being reduced in size to meet the thusincreased demand for space.

No. 17.Gold. Weight, 65 gr. Herat. 413 a.h.

As No. 14; but the exterior Margin of the Obverse is perfect.

No. I?.Gold. Weight, 63 gr. Herat. 414 a.m.

Ornamental Kufic; otherwise similar to No. 14.

No. 19.Gold. Weight, 77 gr. N?sh?p?r. 407 a.m.

Rev.a)J

?MlJfc*K/. 1X4JSX?

xk?ML r*\ V W?KiX -4 ^3 I?ML-, c?JLJLJI

XlyxJIMarg. Surah ix. 33, and Ixi. 9.

Obv.

m Jl M4 *>

=^ ?Ml o

*?1 ?L_^_a y

Marg. int. \??> v_>,? ?MlX,_k ?m ??am r*.)Lg*A.?J rl?-JtXJI

xAjiJr\)


46/123


Gold. Weight, 67 gr. N?sh?p?r. 409 a.h. Dr. Swiney.Similar to No. 19, except that in the Obverse rw*H *jI a,,d ?*?*

are wanting.

No. XXI.

Gold. Weight, 59 gr. 4*- A.n. British Museum.

Rkv.All

-JS\

M _3.aML-? jJL-JL?II

IMarg. Surah ix. 33, nnd Ixi. U.

Odv.

XJJLl /^?-?l 3 21?1I_?_11 ^lr^

Jki^U

Marg. int. l?ub -^/? m ,?*xJAju*

Marg. ext. Surah xxx. 4, 5.

A Coin apparently struck by Masn?d, while acting as a local Sovereign, during tliolifetime of his Father, Mahmiid.

a.h. 407. "Returning to ?ulkh, Mahmood gave the government of Hirat tohis son, the Prince Ameer Musaood."a.h. 4If). " He conferred the Government of ilye and Isfahan on his son, thePrince Musaood.**

Briggs's Ferishtah, Vol. I.


47/123

KINGS OF GHAZNI. 313No. XXII.

Silver. Weight, 40 gr.Rev.

aU .

XJjtK?I(3^fSX?

Onv.o ? o

3H ?_Il MK*X ?Ml

?M ?_J_b_Il

Margins. Worn, illegible.

On one specimen is seen ?$\ ^JLaw*. cX^^rU)

This Coin must be inferred to have been struck in or after the year 307 A.n.,or the year in which Munsur bin Null II. ascended the throne of Bokhara.

Silver. Weight, 47 gr.Rev.

All*X-#-=?

?Ml _V

No. 23.

Odv.

yi ? Ji y?Ml

xJ A.?ML-j j?\-??11


48/123


Silver. Weight, 36 gr.Rbv.

?Ul J*.-w? iXi^^vo

\3 SLJ^iXJl^

,^-iV^LIT*Marg. Surah xxx. 4, 5.

e^

9> JL? *>/yo*.J a 4>JU

Obv.

?HI s>i ?_11 ?X-J ?J^? y Ki\?*3

Marg. Imperfect.

f$/4Xll\?& jyb ?Ml w

No. 26.Silver. Weight, 42 gr. (3)95 a.u. C.

Ret.* AU *

* *NlXUIC_J-V*' 3I . S_J

Marg. Illegible.

Obv.

?IA_Il yKiX.

A-J ?L^ ?All

?? y??L-? /t3l_?i_11

Marg. ir*_$. x.*(jj**~-^

The Obverse Margins of two similar Coins exhibit the words ?"JU* ?.J ;xj $r?^llDifferent specimens have respectively the letters c ?1 m? below tho Lvc

on


49/123

KINGS OF GHAZNI. 315No. XXVI.

Silver. Weight, 70 gr. N?sh?p?r? 3?)0 a.h. Large Coin.Rev. Obv.e#

?Ml ?JyMr ?XfrJSX*

X-J^iXXJU.I?L_J^t\_J\ / . jK.

*\

Marg. Surah xxx. 4, 5. Legible.

?Ml fJ&?J (ji33*0*3^*

?Ml yi ?_Il y

^ ?ml. /jiai

Marg. |?_A 7"^ ?111,


50/12

Documents

On the coins of the kings of Ghazní / by Edward Thomas