1918.) © Numismatic Supplement No. XX XJ. 371 
that the fortress of Parendi which had formerly belonged to 
Nizam-ul-mulk, but which had been surrendered to ‘Adil 1 
for a bribe,” should be allowed to remain in the possession of 
the latter. (E.D. VIE, 57; Grant Duff, 50,52). At last, it came 
into the hands of the Mughals in the third year of Aurangzeb 
(1071 a.#.), when the Amiru-l-Umara, Shayasta Khin, “ report- 
ed that the fort of Parenda had been won without fighting.” 
(Maasir-i-‘Alamgiri, text p.33; E.D. VII, 263). It remained 
in the hands of the Mughals during the rest of Aurangzeb’s 
reign, and Khafi Khan informs us that Kam Bakhsh was “ en- 
camped at ‘ Parenda forty or fifty kos distant’ from Ahmad- 
nagar,’’ when he heard of the death of his father (Bibl. Ind. 
Text, II, 5:9; E.D. VII, 389). 
A.C.), ordered to take up his position with the Haidarabad sub- 
sidiary force and 15,000 of the Nizim’s own troops at Purinda, 
on account of its vicinity to the “‘ Peshwa’s eastern frontier.” 
ger 568 : see also Mill and Wilson, History of India, Eid. 1858, 
, 292). 
The name of Parend’ or Purendi is not now so familiar as 
that of Porbandar, and the former is at present only a town In 
ruin, to which not more than a dozen lines are devoted in the 
mperial Gazetteer. Parenda has fallen while Porbandar has 
circumstances, I crave permission to put in a caveat agvinst 
Porbandar, and submit that the claims of Parenda are at least 
equally worthy of consideration. I do not therefore think it 
too much to ask that judgment should be reserved until the 
iscovery of less ambiguous specimens. : 
The College, Junigath, S. H. Hopivata. 
15th February, 1917. 
