1920. ] Numismatic Supplement No. XXXIV. 195 
The statement made by Mr. Whitehead (P.M.C. Introd., p. xl) 
on the authority of Mr. Sarkar’s ‘ India of Aurangzeb’ is based 
on the admittedly corrupt single transcript of the Chihar Gul- 
shan on which the translator had, for want of a duplicate, to 
rely. It is clear from a much better authority, the Madagir-i 
‘ Alamgirt that the true reading is ‘Islamgadh’. The author of 
that excellent contemporary chronicle informs us that in the 
4lst vear of the reign of Aurangzeb (1108-9 A.H.) “ Ism‘ail 
Khan Mukha was appointed Faujdar of Islamgadh urf-1-Rahirv”’ 
(Bibl. Ind. text, 387, 1. 13).'. There is a very similar state- 
ment in the article on Raigarh (i.e. Rahiri, vide Grant Duff, 
Bombay Reprint, p. 85) in the Imperial Gazetteer. The writer 
ai final 
Janjira “under the name of IJslamgarh” (XXI, 47). This 
should put Rairi or Rahiri definitely out of court. * 
Let us now consider the claims of Mathura. Mr. White- 
head says (P.M.C., p. xl) that there is an Islamabad coin of 
1079 A.H. in the British Museum. He now (February 1919) 
informs me that he ‘“ knows of coins in both gold and silver of 
the year 1074 A.H.” My point is that the existence of Islam- 
abad issues of 1074 and 1079 A.H. is a most significant fact. 
According to the historians, Mathura was not called Islamabad 
before Ramazan 1080 A.H. There seems to be in the Maasiri- 
‘Alamgiri an explicit statement to that effect. 
csilOtys Lilwdel y oa Glait las it ye Sal Fy w+ 9 
¥yho kaSty mSis 2 &hs5 Las ey « « #* 8T Ga aldol, 
as jhe WF plans Estos sine ef p23 o% ysle ost) ous Eyp22 y seh 
1 In the corresponding passage in the Maasiru-l-Umara also, the 
name iggiven as cyl) Gr? 895 eI Bibl. Ind. text, I, 202, 1.7. Tie- 
ffenthaler has ‘‘ Eslamghar communément Rapari’’ (Description de 
P Inde, Ed., Bernoulli, 1786, Tom. I, p. 459). Rapari ( gyz !) ) is evident- 
1 i i 
y a misreading of csyt*). : : 
Journal, Royal Asiatic Society, 1914) 
car Lengo) a ae ‘ a od ‘nates as his authority 
The state- 
gq 
the Chihar Gulshan (Sarkar, ie — and 1 
ment is absolutely unsupported, and may 4 na 
one of the many toss we defective text, a careless or ignorant scribe’s 
misreading of aiSle | Tieffenthaler has ‘ Eslamabad Tschakla ; ad 
aiSle 2]. (Description del Inde, I, 479). This supposition is render- 
ed practically certain by the fact that the author of th paged Seat 
elsewhere speaks of Jalna and Islimabéd as quite distinct. vs a ° 
the eleven Sarkars of Saba Aurangabad was ‘ Jalna, the fourth ‘ Islam- 
abad Konkan’ [ i.e. Chakna]. Sarkar, op. cet. 151. 
La) 
