1920.] Numismatic Supplement No. XXXIV. 219 
of Shah Husain ! and that no historian of the Mughal dynasty 
asserts that his authority or sovereignty had been formally 
acknowledged by the independent rulers of the province. It 
is true that in a Provincial History called the Tartkh-i-M‘asuma 
there is a statement to the effect that Shah Husain Arghiin had 
the Khutba read in Babur’s name but this assertion is so far 
unsupported. It is, moreover, in conflict w ith the pcre iat 
of Jauhar and Firishta, and scarcely consistent with t 
subsequent behaviour of Shah Husain towards Homayis.* 
On the other hand, it may be urged in favour of the ee 
tion to Patna, that Babur expressly ; inebadis Bihar among 
the provinces overrun by his armies soon after the battle 
Bihar itself in the ‘ Memoirs,’ and that his visit to the shrine <a 
clude the possibility of this unique coin having been struck at 
either of the two places in dispute. We may accept Firishta’s 
oo that Shah Beg Arghiin had the Khutba read and 
oins struck in his own name, a he does not categorically 
taab ke that Shah Hasan did s We may admit that Sultan 
Mahmid of Bhakkar and Mires ‘Isa Tarkhan of Tatta issued 
ae | sommaeey of the Life of Meerza Shah Hoosain,’ M‘asiim 
ee! eng ‘* Inhis youth he'went from Kandahar to Babur Badshah at 
Translation, 128-9. There is a similar statem ent i e Tarkhan 
‘In this same year, Shah Hasan Mirza having saeesiea be his father, 
left him and went to the court of the Emperor Babur..... mperor 
observed that his visit was not from any affection F tertainnd towards 
himself by Shah Hasan, but in order that he might learn the a 
governing rightly, 5 at the same time — himself in the ceremonies 
of the Conrt.”’ Ellio and Dowson, I, 3' 
Shah usain’s Fac Shah Beg, appea ars to have openly defie d 
Babur and repudiated his claim to the su perior of the Arghins. 
Indeed, Babur complains that Shah iis had, in writing to him, been so 
rude’as to ‘‘ impress the seal on the back of the letter, in the place in 
which one Amir writes to counters st where an Amir of some rank sets 
his seal in ee to an inferior Amir.” Leyden and Erskine, Memoirs 
of Baber, 5-226. 
2 Mrs. “Ee eridge has pointed out t that M‘asiim’s chronology is often 
rifantfeatiy erroneous (Memoirs of Babur, 360), and that his account 
of the siege of Qandahar is contradicted by th eae eae ae narrative 
of Khwandmir in the important matters of ase and mode of surrender. 
period and with the course of events; severa al o girs m’s on the con 
trary, are seriatim five (lunar) years earlier.” Ibid., 
