16 Journal of the Asiatic Soc. of Bengal. {N.S., XVII, 1921.] 
with the true La Sam and both came to be indifferently called 
by this name till the earlier one was altogether superseded 
by the later. 
For the present, however, all this is mere conjecture, and 
it is to be distinctly understood that the main proposition 
advanced in this paper about the date of Laksmanasena, rests 
absolutely independent of this or any other simila hypothesis 
to explain the origin of the era of 1118-9 A.D., or its 
association with the name of Laksmanasena. For the matter 
of that, other explanations are equally likely, and may be 
urged with equal cogency. One might, for example, hold that 
the era commemorates the conquest of Mithila by Vijayasena 
and was at first current in that locality, till it was confounded 
with the other current in Gaya and its neighbourhood and 
came to be associated with the name of Laksmanasena. It is 
useless to speculate on these hypothetieal explanations, but 
they show the possibility of the association of the name of 
aksmanasena with an era which had at first nothing to do 
with bim or his reign. 
n the basis of the foregoing considerations the chronology 
of the Sena kings may be laid down as follows :-— 
Name of the King Name of the Queen “4PPrOximate year of 
accession. 
Samantasena 
Hemantasena odev 06 
Vijayasena Vilasadevi 1118-9 A.D.! 
Ballalasena Ramadevi 1159 A 
Laksmanasena Tadadevi 1175 A.D 
Viévariipasena ee 12 ae 
eSavasena . o 1225 A.D. 
! My friend Mr. N. K, Bhattasali Suggests that the date of the newly 
discovered inscription of Vijaysena referred to on p- 9 above is not 32, 
as read by Mr. Banerji but 61. In that case the accession of Vijaysena 
has to be placed before 1118-19 A.D. and the theory that the era of 
less to point out that Mr. Banerji’s theory that Laksmanasena 
ascended the throne in 1118-19 A.D. is quite incompatible with this new 
reading of the date. : 
pw pt ees 
