ing me to examine them. 
368 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XIV, 
the strength of this historical consensus, that the full name of this 
mint, which has hitherto defied all onr efforts at decipherment, 
was Muhiabad—Piuna. In other words, we should be on abso- 
lutely safe ground in bringing the historical evidence to supply 
the defect in the Numismatic testimony and relying on the for- 
mer alone even if the latter did not exist. But I am happy to 
say that there is at least one coin of the second type on which 
the name ski lyse can be clearly read. It is one of several 
others which are not so good, in the cabinet of Mr. Framji d. 
Thanawalla to whom my acknowledgments are due for allow- 
The College, Junagadh, S. H. Hoprvata. 
15th March, 1917. 
(x) PoRBANDAR OR PARENDA ? 
There are probably few earnest students of Mughal numiss 
matics to whom the conjectural and hazardous character 
some of our decipherments must not, at times, have ae 
brought home, and I have sometimes ventured to think that 
the reading ‘ Porbandar’ of a mint-name which occurs on several 
issues during the reigns of Aurangzeb, Bahadur Shah Shah ‘Alam 
I and Farrukhsiyar is not free from serious doubt and difficulty. 
Indeed, one of the coins attributed by Mr. Whitehead to Por : 
bandar is a muhr of Farrukhsiyar’s in the British Museum 
which was assigned by Mr. Lane Poole to Bareli (B.M.C. No. 
893, P.M.C. Introd., p. Ixiii). A copper coin of the same Em 
peror on which something like a4 only is, at best, but darkly 
visible, and of which the nuqtahs are almost as gloriously un 
certain as the law itself, has been also given to the same BY 
with a confidence which is scarcely warranted by the indifferent 
state of preservation in which the coin itself would appear (0 
be (P.M.C. No. 2271a and Num. Sup. XXV, 234). This samt 
tantalising absence of the dots is conspicuous on two other 
rupee 
vinces, and another of Bahadur Shah Shah ‘Alam I (H. N. 
Wright, I.M.C. Nos. 1503 and 1697). xperts 
After having thus aslisnect the verdicts of such exP® 
as Mr. Nelson Wright and Mr. Whitehead, it is incumbent upon 
me to state the reasons for placing Porbandar in the ca 
not of the known or ‘ reasonably certain’ mint-towns vg 
Mughals, but of the conjectural and altogether uncertaim ones. 
In the first place, then, the dots of the third letter are not so nh 
ambiguously marked on any known specimen as to make 1 
possible to read the name e other way. 
incertitude is further predicable of the final or Six 
