1 
1904.] 
Numismatic Supplement. 
111 
'Regnal year. 
A.H. 
^ Number of 
coins. 
2 
1175 
= 1761-62 
... 1 
3 
(1175-6) 
1176 
= 1762-63 
... 2 
5 
(1177-8) 
1178 
= 1764-65 
... 2 
7 
(1179-80) 
1180 
- 1766-67 
... 4 
8 
(1180-81) 
1181 
= 1767-68 
... 1 
9 ] 
9 : 
| (11S1-82) 
1181 
1182 
= 1767-68 
= 1768-69 
... 1 
... 7 
10 
(1182-83) 
1183 
= 1769-70 
... 9 
12] 
• (1184-85) 
1185 
= 1771-72 
... 2 
12 J 
1186 
= 1772-73 
... 1 
15] 
• (1187-88) 
1189 
= 1775-76 
... 2 
15 j 
1190 
= 1776-77 
... 3 
19^1 
1191 
= 1777-78 
... 1 
19 1 
i 
! 
1192 
= 1778-79 
... 4 
19 | 
1194 
= 1780 
... 1 
19 1 
1197 
= 1782-83 
... 2 
19 
K1191-92) 
1 
1 
1199 
= 1784-85 
... 1 
19 
1201 
= 1787-88 
... 2 
19 | 
1202 
= 1788-89 
... 2 
19J 
1205 
= 1791-92 
... 2 
It will be observed from the above list that, taking the first 
regnal 
year of 
Shah ’Alam as 
counting from 
4th Jumada I, 1173 (the 
day of 
his accession) to 3rd Jumada I, 1174 and so on, the Hijra dates are cor¬ 
rectly given on the coins up to the 10th year. The British Museum 
possesses a rupee in native style of the 11th year, also with a correct 
Hijra date 1184. From the 12th year, however, the Hijra dates on the 
obverse no longer correspond in all cases with the regnal years given on 
the reverse. For instance, the date 1186 is found on a rupee of the 12th 
year which closed on 3rd Jumada I, 1185; and, similarly, 1189 and 1190 
appear on coins of the 15th regnal year which closed in 1188. The 
presumption is that no native style rupees were struck in the 13th, 14th, 1 
16th, 17th and 18th regnal years bearing the correct regnal years. 
This is strengthened by a sentence in the regulation of 1793 in which 
it is stated that, while the 19 san rupee is the established coin of the 
country, “ the rupees of the eleventh, twelfth, and fifteenth san were 
directed to be considered current equally with the 19th san sicca 
rupee.” 
1 I find on p. 107 of the Catalogue of the Indian Museum, Calcutta a coin 
which is assigned to the year 14 ; but it seems doubtful from the legend given whether 
14 is not a misprint for 10, 
