256 
W. Irvine — Reigns of the later Moghul Emperors. 
[No. 4, 
Note on the Official Reckoning of the reigns of the later Moghul 
Emperors and on some of their Mint Towns. 
By W. Irvine, Esq., I.C.S. (retired.) 
In tlie Philological Secretary’s Report on a recent find of coins 
(Proceedings for June 1893, p. 116), I see that he adopts 1069 II. 
(Sept. 1658— Sept. 1659), as the year from which Aurangzib ’Alamgir’s 
reign is reckoned. On grounds which I think are overwhelmingly 
strong, I propose to substitute 1068 H. (Sept. 1657— Sept. 1658.) 
Among European writers we find considerable difference of opinion 
as to the year in which ’Alamgir began his reign. To mention the 
latest writer first, Mr. S Lane Poole, in his “ The Moghul Emperors 
of Hindustan ” (1892), p. xxvi, says “ in May 1659 (1069) he,” i.e., 
’Alamgir, “ was proclaimed Emperor.” I see, however, that in his later 
work “Aurangzib” (1893) in the series “Rulers of India,” Mr. Lane 
Poole dates the reign from July 1658 (see the Table on p. 21 of that 
work). Again, in the “Oriental Biographical Dictionary” of T. W. 
Beale, p. 33, we read “but (’Alamgir) was not crowned till the first 
“ anniversary of his accession, a circumstance which has introduced 
“ so me confusion into the chronology of his reign.” This statement, 
in identical words, is found in Elphinstone’s “History of India” (4th 
ed. p. 525), and he relies on Khafi Khan. Grant Duff (“History of 
the Malirattas,” Bombay reprint, note on p. 72), although ho prefers 
1658 (i.e., 1068 H.) to 1659 as the correct year, seems to have suggested 
Elphinstone’s remark. Grant Duff writes “Aurungzebe appears to 
“ h ave begun by reckoning his reign from the date of his victory over 
“Dara, to have subsequently ascended the throne in the following year, 
“and then changed the date, which he again altered by reverting to 
“ the former date (i.e., 3068 H.) at some later and unknown period.” 
Grant Duff, like Elphinstone, relies upon Khafi Khan. Now, Khafi 
Khan (in the printed text, at any rate) is not to be altogether trusted 
in the matter of chronology; but I think that in this instance Grant 
Duff s note misrepresents the facts, even as recorded by Khafi Khan. 
Khafi Khan founded his statements, as is tolerably obvious, on the 
TArikh-i- dahsala h or ’Alamgi'r-namah of Muhammad Kazim, and on the 
Ma,a sir-i-’Alamgiri of Muhammad Said Musta’id Khan. The latter 
for the first ten years of the reign, is itself an abstract of Muhammad 
Kazim’s work (see p. 65 of the printed text of the Ma,asir). The facts, 
then as related in the "Alamgir -namah, the source from which all others 
are drawn, are as follows : — • 
