1920.] Numismatic Supplement No. XXXIV. 197 
zeb to Shah ‘Alam II with only four not unaccountable — 
tions (Bahadur Shah Shah ‘Alam I, Jahandar and the tw 
fainéants Rafi‘u-d-Darajat and Rafi‘u-d-Daulah). 
An examination of the Mughal mint-list shows that gold 
was rarely or never struck for long in any town which did not 
possess considerable historical, political or commercial import- 
ance. Now we possess Islamabad coins of no less than six 
about 141 years; while the aggregate of the other four of which 
no gold pieces have been found is less than seven. Judging by 
this standard, Islamabad must have been a place of, at the 
least, second-rate Sik potatoe fact which may be predicated 
of Chittagong and Mathura but not of Chakna. 
Any claims which Chittagong might appear to possess are, 
however, negatived by the fact that it was renamed Islamabad 
only in 1076 A.H. The recently discovered coins are of 1074 
-H. and cannot, for that reason, belong to that place. Thus 
Chakna only is left in possession of the field. It was taken by 
Shayasta Khan on the 18th of Zil-hajja 1070 A.H., and named 
Islamabad by the Emperor's orders soon afterw ards. (‘Alam 
ans 
7 
pointed out, a place of any great pretensions, and it may also 
be remembered that the successors of Aurangzeb had scarcely 
any authority in the district in which Chakna is situat 
he result of this discussion is, that of the four claimants 
mentioned by Mr. itehead, Rairi has no case at a he 
Islamabad coins of 1074 A.H. are destructive ot the pr reten- 
sions of Mathura as well as Chittagong, though not of Chakna. 
place like Chakna, and in a part of the country which had long 
since ceased to belong to the Mughals. This does not of course 
preclude the possibility of attributing some of the earlier coins 
to Chaikna, and the later ones to Mathira or Chittagong. 
But the difficulty is that we do not know where to draw the 
line between Chakna and its rivals, and are at the same time 
not in possession of the evidence which would enable us to pro- 
nounce an opinion for or against either of the latter 
S. H. Hopivata. 
AMIRKOT. 
The mint-name on two dams in the Indian Museum dated 
979 and 989 A.H. (Nos. 371-2) has been deciphered as Amir- 
kot, and the place supposed to be ‘‘ Amarkot in Sind, Akbar’s 
birth place.””! (1.M.C. TII, Introd. xxx.) In the notes on 
1 Dr. Codrington’s suggestion was probably based on the forms 
Amereot, Amerkot and Amerkote which occur in Dow, History of 
