1893.] A. F. R. Hoernle — Note on the preceding Paper. 265 
Zafarabad. Since I wrote my former remarks I have found a direct 
mention of the occasion when Bidar was re-named Zafarabad. It is also 
frequently called Muhammabad Bidar. The passage I refer to is in 
Khafi Khan, IT. p. 3. He tells ns that in 1066 II., the thirtieth year of 
Shalvjahan, Prince Aurangzib was appointed to make a campaign against 
Bijapur, just after he had “ by notable exertions, acquired the fort of 
“ Bidar and the Subah of Ahmadahad, and the fort of Kaliyani, and 
“ had re-named them the Subah of Zafarabad.” 
Note on the preceding Paper.— Bv Dr. A. F. Rudolf Hoernle. 
I fully agree with Mr. Irvine that Aurangzib’s reign should be 
dated from 1068-1 118 A. H. or 1658-1707 A.D. I had never made any 
special enquiries on the exact official date of his accession, and the 
initial date 1869, given in my coin-reports in the Proceedings was simply 
quoted as that usually assigned. That it is wrong,— if the reign is to 
be counted from the officially fixed date, and not from the date of the 
actual accession, — Mr. Irvine has amply established ; and I agree with 
him, that it is more reasonable to accept the official date as fixed by an 
emperor himself. 
I should, however, put “ the two all-important things for us ’ rather 
in this form : — 1. To know what date was officially fixed by an emperor ; 
2, to ascertain whether the date, officially fixed, was actually adhered 
to in dating coins and documents of his reign. 
How with regard to Aurangzib, nearly all his coins do adhere to 
the officially fixed date. There are, however, a few exceptions : 
1. Thei’e is the coin, No. 845 of the British Museum, dated in 1119 
Hijrah, and 51 regnal. It is the only one with this peculiar date that 
I remember to have come across. As Aurangzib died on the 2nd March 
1707, and the Hijrah year 1119 only commenced on the 3rd or 4tli April 
1707 (or the 1st Muharram 1119), it is clear that either the date 1 119 
is wrong, or that the coin is posthumous. That the lattei’ may be 
the true explanation, appears from the following facts : Aurangzib s 
successor was Bahadur Shah. He heard of his father s death only 
three weeks afterwards, on the 22nd March 1707, and his actual 
enthronement took place only on the 26tli April 1707, that is, on the 
24th Muharram 1119. It was 'ot till the 25tli December 1707, that 
the official date of his accession was fixed to be the 22nd Mai’ch 1/07. 
It is, therefore, quite possible that coins struck in the time intermediate 
between the 2nd March 1707, 'the date of Aurangzib’s death, and the 
26th April 1707, the date of Bahadur Shah’s actual accession, were 
still issued in Aurangzib’s name. It would thus occur that a coin, 
