164 A, S. Beveridge — Suggestions for the second edition of [No 2, 
the Jinkjank of Nizam’s list (No. 99). All that is needed to make this 
clear in the text is to give the full name Mirak Khati Jinkjank (?) as 
found at the place from which the quotation (“ an old grandee, etc.,”) 
is taken. 
The next point to which attention is to be given is the identification 
of Jinkjank with Arahun. 
We know that the former died in 975 H., the year of Citor. We 
know that the latter was killed in 975 H., in an explosion before Citor 
(Mr. Blochmann’s Ain, 532, n. 2). This fact is recorded of No. 208 
both in the Tabaqat and by Abu-l-fazl. It would be a curious coinci¬ 
dence for two amirs named Mirak to die in the same year, but this might 
be so. It is, however, improbable that one of these, being, as Nizamu-d- 
din says, “ an old grandee ” should not be mentioned in the detailed 
stories of any of the contemporary writers, beyond the bare record of 
his death in the Tabaqat. This is the more improbable that he was a 
man of position sufficient to bring him into Nizam’s list. Of Mirak 
Arghun some facts as to service are set down in the biographical notice 
and he is named honourably amongst the grandees told off to Malwa in 
the sixth year. 1 
Now there is no mention of “ Jinkjank ” in the Ain list (531, No. 
99), and curiously enough, the Lakhnau Tabaqat does not give Mr. 
Blochmann’s No. 115, Mirak Khan Bahadur.” 2 * * S Perhaps some one 
having access to other editions of the Tabaqat would be so kind as to 
look up this point and thus add to, or detract from the probability of 
the identification which now seems reasonable, i.e., that of Jinkjank with 
Arahun. It would also be useful and perhaps decisive if some under¬ 
standing could be arrived at as to the word Jinkjank to which Mr. Bloch - 
mann appends a question mark and which the Lakhnau edition gives 
as Kinliak or KinjakJ 
Even with the knowledge available now, the identification appears 
reasonable. A double entry is not unknown elsewhere in Nizam’s 
list;—Mr. Blochmann points out that of Mu. Qasim Khan. 
Pending possible correction on the points, (1) the omission of 
1 The record of Arghun’s death has not yet found its legitimate place in his 
biography bnt awaits, in a note, the second edition. 
2 Similarly “ No. 116, Shah Mn. Qalati ” is not in the Lakhnau Tabaqat. The 
omission of a man so distinguished as Qalati, points to a printing error, especially 
as he is not to be found in duplicate in Nizam’s list. 
S Since writing these notes, I have learned from Mr. Beveridge that the 
British Museum MS., No. 29, 209, Yol. II, p. 52, fi. gives the word which in other 
MS. or published editions has been read as Jinkjank, Kinhak, or Kinjak quite 
^ 9 
clearly as Jujak (Mirak Khan Jujak). 
