A catalogue category

Kirpal Singh’s catalogue provides a warning about searching by language labels. Its preface identifies S.H.R. 2118 as Punjabi but places it among Urdu manuscripts because it is written in Persian script. That is the catalogue’s filing decision, not proof that the work’s language is Urdu. In Shahmukhi research, inspect the description as well as the category. Keep the manuscript number with the language statement so another reader can check the same example.[1]

A date and an uncertain place

Purnima Dhavan’s study of Shah Murad Khanpuri describes the local circulation of his disciples’ notebooks in Arabic script. For one poem surviving in a British Library manuscript, she records copying in 1854–55 by Ubaiduddin, caretaker of the Dargah Muhammadi. The colophon does not establish which shrine of that name was meant. Dhavan leaves the identification unresolved rather than choosing between a site near Khanpur and better-known possibilities in Sindh. This example separates the poet from a later copyist and an attested title from an uncertain location. The copying date does not make the surviving witness contemporary with the poet’s lifetime.[2]

Copying and checking

An Arabic-script comparison shows a further distinction. British Library curator Jenny Norton-Wright examines Or.2361, an Arabic and Persian musical miscellany with detailed scribal notes. The study identifies Muhammad Amin and Samani as the two scribes. Its al-Farabi colophon records copying at Delhi in December 1662 and checking by Diyanat Khan at Lahore in March 1663. These are separate activities, places and dates. The manuscript’s connection to Punjab does not make its language Punjabi. When reading a Shahmukhi record, ask the same precise questions: does a date refer to composition, transcription, checking or a later note? Preserve the named role instead of turning every person in a colophon into the author.[3]

Sources & notes

Source records include access dates and, where known, limits on what was examined. Checks used AI assistance; independent human or specialist review has not been completed.

  1. Kirpal Singh. A Catalogue of Punjabi and Urdu Manuscripts: classification preface ↗institutional manuscript catalogue · Source date: 1963 · Locator: Actual catalogue preface, PDF page9: S.H.R.2118, Punjabi in Persian script classified with Urdu manuscripts; author/title and classification explanation. Accessed 2026-11-02.Actual downloaded scan and complete relevant English preface paragraph read. The classification scheme is attributed to this 1963 catalogue, not adopted as a rule equating script with language. No original S.H.R.2118 manuscript was examined. Shared with the COL69 whole catalogue allocation.Return to A catalogue category, paragraph 1 ↑
  2. Purnima Dhavan. Resisting Religious Labels in Early Modern Punjab: Why Place Still Matters ↗scholarly manuscript and transmission study · Source date: 2025-10-29 · Locator: Actual relevant full-text paragraphs supplied by the search reader, textual-transmission discussion and notes 38–43: Shah Murad notebooks, 1854–55 copy, named scribe and uncertain Dargah Muhammadi identification. Accessed 2026-11-02.Actual relevant complete author-text paragraphs read via the search reader. Direct publisher opening returned 403 and supplied no further body. Official publisher metadata identifies South Asian Studies 41(2), 267–281, online 29 October 2025. Manuscripts, verses and performances were not independently examined.Return to A date and an uncertain place, paragraph 1 ↑
  3. Jenny Norton-Wright, British Library. A Mughal Musical Miscellany: the creation of Or.2361 ↗institutional manuscript interpretation · Source date: 2022-01-21 · Locator: Actual full article, 21 January 2022: mobile-manuscript section and f.240r caption distinguishing copying in Delhi 14 December 1662 from checking in Lahore 2 March 1663. Accessed 2026-11-02.Actual full relevant curator article read. Its Arabic/Persian miscellany is used explicitly as a comparison, not labelled Punjabi or Shahmukhi. No original colophon, image or whole manuscript was independently examined. Earlier chronicles in the bibliography were not claimed read. Article and record representations share one conservative family.Return to Copying and checking, paragraph 1 ↑
Help improve this entry. Suggest a correction with a source.
Record PH-COL-0070 · English edition · human review not performed