Vol. IX, No. 7.] Laksmanasena. 277 
[NV.S.] 
earlier in date. These two works, Danasagara and Adbhutasa- 
carelessness and igre of the scribes are well known. Dr. 
B r says, ‘‘ Some of them — are unintelligible 
ae to the ein hs of the text.’ 
er factor that contributes to unreliability of modern 
cords. Their paleography proves beyond doubt whether they 
are forgeries or not. vidence based on such records cannot 
be set aside in favour of ere culled from modern copies 
of mss. said to be ancient. I cannot understand what led Dr. 
Kielhorn to abandon his fone views when he had such sure 
ground to stand upon. 
The extracts quoted above from Dr. Kielhorn’s article on 
the Laksmanasena era clearly indicate that the author was o 
on that Laksmanasena had ceased to reign in La-sam 51, 
theory ‘put forward by Babu Nagendra Nath Vasu is 
directly opposed to the epigraphic evidence. Laksmanasena- 
deva who ceased to reign before 1170-71 a.D. could not have 
come to the throne after 1168-69 a.p. as two at least of his 
copper-plate grants were issued in his third year. The initial 
discussion recently. He ante that the era was 
Sémantasena and on the accession of Laksmanasena it ‘‘ was 
has cited several dated inscriptions in Sup pORt of his theory. 
But he has not considered two very serious objections. 
(1) None of the inscriptions quoted by him contain the 
word atita or any of its equivalents. 
(2) None of the Indian eras, now known, seem to have 
hee started by one king and adopte ted and fai by any 
ne of his successors. At least there is no direct evidence in 
Riort of such a view. 
The other theory put forward by Babu Nagendra Nath 
Vasu is based on a rumour (prava ada). Moveover, the establish- 
en of an era by a father in the name of his newly- born son 
unheard of, and the evidence produced in its support is not 
me all trustworthy. 
Before we proceed to examine the statements of the 
' Report on the Search of Sanskrit MSS. in the houbey Presidency, 
~palaiae p. lxxxii. 
2 Proc. and J.A.S.B., Vol. I, p. 45. 
