1920.] Numismatic Supplement No. XXXIV. 221 
not belong to the Mughals at all in 967 A.H. 
n his chronicle of the sixth year of the reign (24 
u of t 
fortress, came into the possession of the imperial servants. . 
The brief account of this event is that when ‘Adili’s son 
became a vagrant in the wilderness of ruin, the fort of Chunar 
hajja, 968, 29th August, 1561, see p. 230], Khwaja ‘Abdul 
Majid Asaf Khau was appointed to take the fort. As Fattu 
had some proper feelings and some good sense. he perceived 
that the day of the Afghans’ defeat had arrived, and so sent a 
number of people to express his submission.” (Beveridge, 
1 
231. 
Nizamuddin Ahmad’s account is very similar, except that 
he puts the event. into the ninth year (971-972 A.H.). 
“The fort of Chunar,” he declares, “ was held by a slave of 
- 
Asaf Khan to receive the surrender of the fort.” (T'abagat-i- 
Akbari in Elliot and Dowson, V, 287-8.) Badaoni describes the 
circumstances almost in the same words, with this difference, 
that he reckons it among the events of 970 A.H. (Ramazan). 
(Lowe, II, 62.) 
Now putting the matter on the lowest ground, and sup- 
Mughal mint at Chunar in 967 A.H. The argument from type 
is not without interest, and has its uses on occasions, put it is 
apt to lead to very uncertain results. We really know very 
argument can scarcely bear down the explicit statements of the 
contemporary historians. I submit, therefore, 
the evidence, so far as it goes, is against Chunar instead of 
being in its favour. 
