260 W. Irvine— Reigns of the later Moghul Emperors. [No. 4, 
strictly accurate, preclude any reckoning from 1069 II., but carry the 
first day into 1068 II. 
Again, I find in a somewhat later writer, Kliushal Cliand, author of 
the Nawadir-uz-Zamam, the following statement. He wrote in the 
reign of Muhammad Shah (1131-1161 II.) and was old enough to re- 
collect the excitement caused in Dihli by the news of ’Alamgir’s death. 
He himself, like his father before him, was a clerk in the Ceutral Revenue 
Office, and a man likely to have, if any one had, exact knowledge on the 
point under discussion. His words are : “ Although the first auspicious 
“ enthronement took place on the 1st of the month Zii,l-ka‘dh, 1068 II. 
“(30th July 1658), yet as the blessed rays of the brilliant light of 
“ victory and success were displayed to the world in the month of Ram- 
“ zan, the first day of that blessed month was assumed as the commence- 
“ ment of these years full of miracles, aud the exalted order issued that 
“ in all offices, and calendars, aud patents of appointment, and royal 
“ rescripts, this rule should be adopted, in opposition to that of previous 
“sovereigns, rulers in Islam who, following the practice of Jamshid, 
“ Kakhir (Kasru?) and others, held Farwardin to be the most excellent 
“ month, and appointed it for the commencement of their reigns. This 
“rule was now abrogated, and the years of the fortunate reign were ap- 
“ pointed to be reckoned by lunar months from the month of Ramzan ” 
[B.M. Addl. MSS. No. 24027, fol. 490b.] For this work and its author, 
see Elliot, VIII. 70, 71. Here he is evidently writing with Muhammad 
Kazim’s or Muhammad Said’s work before him. The 1st Ramzan, 1068 
II. , is equivalent to the 2nd June 1658. 
We can now account for Muhammad Said's statement ( Ma,dsir-i - 
’Alamgiri, 523), that ’Alamgir reigned 50 years, 2 mouths, 27 days. 
I think that these authorities prove, without any room for doubt, 
that ’Alamgir counted his reign from the 1st Ramzan, 1068 H , and after 
that date had been once fixed upon, no alteration was ever made. 
This is the result arrived at by considering the historical evidence alone. 
Do the extant coins of the reign conflict in any way with its historians ? 
Now, there may be some reason for thinking that occasionally some 
numismatists (in this branch of their subject, at any rate), concentrate 
their attention too much on the coins themselves, to the neglect of con- 
temporary historians from whom they might derive much assistance. 
For we are dealing here with a modern period, on the history of which 
there is an abundance of material available. Be that as it may, let us, 
too, confine our attention for the moment to the coins themselves. The 
coins of ’Alamgir, which are already to be found in the British Museum 
collection, constrain us, unless some of those coins are a posthumous issue, 
to throw back the initial year of the reign from 1069 II. to 1068 II. 
