34 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XVII, 
abs eyAhto 
Kalpi, Akbar, 964-968 A.H. 
She 
as eyo 
Bylo 
Jaunpur, Humayun, 937-943 A.H. 
Agra, Babur or Humayun, 936-7 A.H. 
Bijapur, Aurangzeb, 1097 A.H. to 
arrukhsiyar. 
Zebabad (?), Shah ‘Alam IT, 1218 A.H. (Wh.)! 
Joatyte 
eutyls 
el Dhyls 
Muhammadabad Banaras, Shah ‘Alam IT.” 
Agra, Humayin, 943 A.H. 
Aes Aurangzeb, 1073 A.H. to Shah ‘Alam IT 
xcept Ahmad Shah. 
St sto 
Kabul, re che 1094 A.H. to Muhammad 
Shah, 1151 A.H. 
yen let ts 
Dehli, Humaytn, 940-2 A.H. 
Akbar, 977-979 A.H. 
(Fathpar) 2 Akbar, 979 A.H. 
Ajmer (2), Akbar, 979 A.H 
Jodhpur, Ahmad ‘Shah to Shah ‘Alam II. 
ey) to by Rodgers. I have not mentioned it as the reading is almost 
“area wrong and a erp pe of is SUE Wee is still to seek. 
1 In the First Suppleme Min “or Phd oscompen see 
attention to a Rupee iin the psieaeby it pee ee Sater i 45 R.—the 
on een ‘‘ tentatively read as Dar sei bad.”’ tw was 
ded that ‘‘ a duplicate already existing in the ig poe had bee 
labelled ‘ Sirdhéna’ by Prinsep. (Num. Sup. XXV, 236.) Mr. Whitehead 
is now of opinion that the correct reading is ‘ zebabad ; tae I ee inclined 
to ve the emendation. We know that Shah ‘Alam II bestowed upon 
title. Zebu-n-nisa re mark his sidestlation of the 
valuable service rendered by her in 1788. A.C. 
€ epithet on a fuliis of 981 A.H. has been deciphered by Mr. 
wea as nel })!6 and the coin has been ascribed by him to Tatta, 
(P.M.C., No. 880), but this is open to serious doubt, and I have thought it 
best to keep ais (115 out of these lists, 
