74.N. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XIX, 
this simple solution removes all difficulties. There is nothing 
irregular or incorrect in this interposition of js between oy 
and the mintname; c/. the Anhirwala Pattan rupee of 984 
A.H., Num. Supp. XXVI, 493. Briefly, the admittedly ques- 
tionable reading —)> is the inevitable result or corollary of a 
fundamentally crroneous postulate. The corollary is, on the 
face of it, startling and incompatible with facts. If we deny 
the postulate, it falls of itself and our minds are disabused of a 
double error. 
am aware that there is still one difficulty and as I have 
no desire to ignore or even slur over it, I will set it out as 
clearly as I can. The total number of the coins of this mint 
registered in the catalogues of the British, Indian, Panja 
and Lucknow Museums is 14. They are all of one and the 
same type and of the 48th or 49th Regnal year (Plate III, 
3, 5). They all show the same month—Mihr. Mr. Tara pore- 
wala possesses four more of two other types. On two of them 
the month and year are identical (Mihr—49) (Plate III, 6) but 
the flans are smaller and the ornamentation less elaborate. 
Besides these, there are two specimens of a distinctly different 
or I.M.C 250, but there are three additional letters. One of 
them is of Mihr 48R. (Plate III, 4) and apparently a dupli- 
cate of the coin in the White King Cabinet (Catalogue, Pt. I11, 
No. 3527). The other is a sub-variety of this type. The mys- 
terious or mystifying additional letters can be clearly read, but 
the date is 47 Mihr (Plate Tit, 2). 
It is in regard to the last coin that the difficulty arises. 
On it, the third or last tooth of the Sin is given a turn or twist 
80 as to form the head of what looks like a Mim, and make the 
letters read Samar or Simar. The tens figure also is written 
Somewhat peculiarly and is so like the usual symbol for 5, 
that had it not been for the other issues, the date might have 
been read as 57. (But this is a minor matter.) 
It cannot be denied that this coin lends no support to my 
suggestion and even runs counter to it, but then it rans 
counter to all the other proposed de ‘ipherments also, and the 
difficulty is far from being so formidable as it appears. - 
The matter stands thus: We have altogether nineteen 
rupees of this class. On all of them, except this one, the hea 
i the Mim is conspicuously absent. On everyone of the 
eighteen others, the name, whatever it may be, is written In 
one and the same way, and in such a manner as to render the 
reading Samir or Simur absolutelv unthinkable—althongh 
these 18 coins belong to three different types. In the circum- 
stances, we are driven to one of only two conclusions. Either 
this particular coin is of a totally different mint and has really 
nothing to do with the 18 others, although it apparently 
