1904.] 
Numismatic Supplement. 
377 
registered. Thus the two Lists, Dr. Codrington’s and Mr. Burn’s, 
will be found to supply material mutually complementary. Their 
almost simultaneous publication has placed coin-collectors, and especi¬ 
ally those in this country, under a debt of more than ordinany obli¬ 
gation ; and the two Lists together constitute quite the most valuable 
contribution of recent years to the study of (modern) Indian Nu¬ 
mismatics. 
The following notes on these two Lists may perhaps be of use for 
reference. 
A. Re Codrington’s Lists. 
Mints of “ Dehli Emperors Total 189. 
But Atak and Atak Banaras are merely variant names of one mint. 
Similarly Ahmadnagar Farrukhabad and Farrukhabad ; 
Akhtarnagar Awadh and Awadh ; 
Urdu, Urdu dar rah-i-Dakhin. and Urdu Zafar Qarin ; 
Indrapur, Braj Indrapur, Maharandurpur, and Mahapur ; 
Aujan and Ujain; 
Banaras and Muhammadabad Banaras ; 
Daral tasawwur and Jodhpur ; 
Zinat al Bilad and Al^madabad ; 
Sawa’i Jaipur and Jaipur ; 
Sitapur and Sitpur; 
Shahabad Qanauj and Shergarh Qanauj ; 
Mustaqirral Mulk and Akbarabad ; 
Muminabad and Bihdraban; 
Nagpur and Nagor. 
*Thus the total number of mint falls by 18, that is to say from 189 
to 171. 
Further, the following mint-names are too doubtful to be accepted 
for inclusion:— 
Ajayur, Jalunabad, Kanan, Kandi, Kalkata, and Nagar. 
Hence the total 171 falls now to 165. 
However, in Codrington’s List (but not in Burn’s) “ Hasanabad 
or Husainabad ” is counted as only one mint. It seems safer to regard 
them as two, Hasnabad and Husainabad: in which case the total rises 
* In conformity with the prevailing practice both variants have been retained 
in the case of the following well-known doublets :—Agra and Akbarabad, Dehli and 
Shahjahanabad, Aurangabad and Khujista Bunyad, Patna and ‘Azimabad, Makhsusa* 
bad and Murshidabad. 
