[2790] Habību’s-siyar lith. ed. iii, 219; Ferté trs. p. 28. For the information about Ḥusain’s coins given in this appendix I am indebted to Dr. Codrington and Mr. M. Longworth Dames.
[2791] Elphinstone MS. f. 150b; Ḥaidarābād MS. f. 190b; Ilminsky, imprint p. 241.
[2792] Muḥ. Ma‘ṣūm Bhakkarí’s Tārīkh-i-sind 1600, Malet’s Trs. 1855, p. 89; Mohan Lall’s Journal 1834, p. 279 and Travels 1846, p. 311; Bellew’s Political Mission to Afghānistān 1857, p. 232; Journal Asiatique 1890, Darmesteter’s La grande inscription de Qandahār; JRAS. 1898, Beames’ Geography of the Qandahār inscription. Murray’s Hand-book of the Panjab etc. 1883 has an account which as to the Inscriptions shares in the inaccuracies of its sources (Bellew & Lumsden).
[2793] The plan of Qandahār given in the official account of the Second Afghān War, makes Chihil-zīna appear on the wrong side of the ridge, n.w. instead of n.e.
[2794] destroyed in 1714 AD. It lay 3 m. west of the present Qandahār (not its immediate successor). It must be observed that Darmesteter’s insufficient help in plans and maps led him to identify Chihil-zīna with Chihil-dukhtarān (Forty-daughters).
[2795] Tārīkh-i-rashīdī trs. p. 387; Akbar-nāma trs. i, 290.
[2796] Ḥai. Codex, Index sn.n.
[2797] It is needless to say that a good deal in this story may be merely fear and supposition accepted as occurrence.
[2798] Always left beyond the carpet on which a reception is held.
[2799] This is not in agreement with Bābur’s movements.