212 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XVI, 
the rupees of Elichpir and Birar might be also just mentioned 
with the reservation that the reading ‘ Birar’ has not been 
satisfactorily established. 
Junagadh, 15th January, 1918. 8S. H. HopivAtLa. 
TATTA OR PATNA ? * 
The mint-name on the unique Shahrukhi of Babur in the 
White King cabinet was read as ‘ Tatta’ by that exceedingly 
lucky and industrious collector, and the decipherment has met 
with acceptance from Mr. Whitehead and others. It is now 
nearly fifty years since Blochmann first called attention to the 
fact that Tatta and Patna were very liable to confusion in 
Persian ig et (Ain, Tr. I, 378, note.) About twenty years 
later, Mr. Poole expressly warned numismatists against 
the chtal in “the Introduction to the British Museum Cata- 
logue. ‘‘ The mint Tattah has frequently been confused with 
Patnah. The distinction is explained in a footnote to p. 37” 
(p. liv). In the footnote we are informed that “this mint 
closely resembles Patnah, but has an upright stroke less ; 
Tattah is @& and Patna &w.”’ More recently, Mr. Beveridge has 
detected at least four instances of the error in Sayyad Ahmad 
Khan’s edition of the Tézuk-i-Jahangiri, and directed his 
readers’ attention to them. (Rogers and Beveridge, Trs TI, 229 
(450), 242, 267 and II, 81.). Lastly, there is the authority of 
Mr. Nelson Wright for saying that even the extraordinary 
knowledge and Seer of Rodgers could not save him from 
being deceived by the resemblance. Old I.M.C., No. 7464, 
(new I.M.C., 1070), he tells us, is really of Tatta, but ‘‘ the 
mint has been mistaken for-Patna ” (I M.C., III, 124, note).! 
nt circumstances, I crave permission to suggest that 
the tee Barrio ot the Shahrukhi to a mint of which there is 
not another issue for more than sixty _years stands in need of 
isa ass ig he writes, ‘‘ that this mint Eatin may be Patna 
e are, h er, So rough that they do notin any way mble some 
remar fine coins I have struck undoubted! Patna.” Rupees 
f the Months of the [lahi Years of Akbar, J.A.S.B., 1883, p. 104 
7) 
& 
5° 
= 
—_ 
a 
ot 
Trcee was surrendered by Mirza Jani Beg 
: arkhan, the last independent ruler of the province, only in the 37th year, 
oth these decipherments would seem to stand in need of revision. 
