266 
A. F. R. Hoernle — Note on the preceding Paper. [No. 4, 
struck between the 1st and 24th Muharram of 1119 Hijrah, would be 
issued as one of Aurangzib’s, dated iu his 51st year and in 1119 Hijrah. 
This practice would cease as soon as the actual enthronement had taken 
place, and notice of the fact had been proclaimed in all mint-towns. 
It would be interesting to know what the actual practice was' with 
regard to coining during a period of temporary vacancy, whether 
actual or official, of the throne. When an emperor died, did the coining 
in his name cease in a mint-town, as soon as the news of his death 
reached that town ; or was coining in his name continued, till news 
arrived of the actual accession of his successor; or was it continued 
till information was received of the officially fixed date of accession ? 
Thus to take Aurangzib’s case as an example, did coining in his name 
cease from the 2nd March 1707 (the date of his death) in Ahmadnagar 
(the place of his death), and similarly in other mint-towns as soon as 
the news of his death was received P Or did it cease from the 26tli 
April 1707, the date of Bahadur Shah’s actual enthronement, in Labor 
and m other places as soon as information of the enthronement was 
received P 
2 \ There is no real difficulty in the case of coins like the preceding. 
It is different with such coins of Aurangzib as are dated in his first 
regnal year, and in 1070 Hijrah. No. 728 in the British Museum is 
such a coin of the Patna mint. It is figured on Plate XIX of the B. M. 
Catalogue. The regnal year is expressed verbally ahad. In my own 
collection, I have two such coins, of the mints Multan and Zafarabad 
respectively. The latter is from a treasure trove found in Champaran 
m 1892. r 
Low, reckoning by the official date, Aurangzib’s first year runs 
from the 1st Ramazan 1068 to the last Sha’ban 1069, and the second 
year, from the 1st Ramazan 1069 to the last Sha’ban 1070. Accordingly 
the coins of his first year might be dated in 1068 or 1069, those of liis 
second year, in 1069 or 1070. But no coin could be dated both in his 
rst year and in 1070. That dating is only admissible, if the accession 
ot Aurangzib is placed at some point of time in 1069. 
These coins require some explanation. They certainly do not 
agree with the official reckoning. They are undoubtedly exceptional 
specimens, but they are not exceptionally rare, nor are they a va-mry of 
some obscure or outlying mint-town. They were issued from places so 
well-known and so far apart, as Patna and Multan. It does seem 
that m the case of these coins, at least, the accession of Aurangzib was 
dated from the 24th Ramazan 1069 (15th June 1659), the day on which 
the second enthronement took place with full ceremonials. But if so 
how is the non-observance of the officially fixed date to be explained P 
