Vol. I, No. 3.) Puvana-ditam or Wind-Messenger. Az 
LN. 8.] 
according to some modern calculations it began in A.D. 1106. But 
calculating from six of the earliest dates (five in MSS. and one in 
inscription), Prof. Kielhorn arrived at the conclusion that the 
era really began in A.D. 1119-20. According to him the La? Sa° 
was an ordinary southern (K@rttikad’) year with the amanta 
scheme of lunar fortnight; and the first day of the era was 
Kavrttika sudi one of the expired caka year 1041=7th October. 
A.D. 1119.1 I think this is a right conclusion, particularly as 
it is supported by a statement in the Akbarnama? and other 
evidences. 
The era is generally taken to begin from the first year of 
The era takento lLaksmanasena’s reign which, according to 
begin from his first an anecdote in the Tabakat-i 1- Naga, 3 bee an 
year. with his birth. But this view is open to 
Objections. serious objections. Firstly, it involves the 
assumption of a rule of more than eighty years—a fact unprecedented 
in Indian history and I suppose in the recorded history of the world 
too, even if the rule began from his birth. Moreover, in the Adbhuta- 
sagara Ballalasena is described to have raised his son to the throne 
before his own death.* If so, Laksmanasena must have been of 
‘same age at the time of accession; and his reign for more than 
eighty years becomes still less credible. Secondly, in the MSS., 
the Dana-sagara is said to have been composed by Vallalasena in 
Caka year Cuag¢?-nava-daga (1091); while the Adhbuta-sagara is 
said to have been begun by Ballalasena in the Caka year Kha- 
nava-kh-end-vabde (1090). These show that Ballalasena was 
reigning in Gaka 1090 and 1091 (A.D. 1168-69 and 1169-70), 
which is incompatible with the assumption of Laksmanasena’s 
rule beginning in A.D. 1119-20. The MS. of Adbhuta-sagara dis- 
tinctly says that though begun by Ballalasena, it was completed 
by his son Laksmanasena, whom he (Ballala) raised to the throne 
before hisdeath. If this be true, Laksmanasena could not, possibly, 
have been king before A.D. 1168-69. Thirdly, it is curious to 
find that not a single date in the Laksmanasena era has yet been 
found earlier than 51, zZ.e., earlier than A.D, 1170-1.° 
The wording of ‘The two known inscriptions of this era 
the two inscri : 
tions in this era. P- are peculiarly worded, and run as follows :— 
(1) Crimal-Laksmansenasy-dtita-rajye sam 51 Bhadra-dine 29.1 
| Ind. Ant., XIX (1890), p. 6.; Ep. Ind. I, p. 306, note 6. 
2 © Hor example, in Bengal, the era dates from the beginning of the rule 
of Lachman Sen, from which date till now 465 years have elapsed ;” Akbar- 
nama, Beveridge’s transl, vol. Il, pp. 21-2. 465 La, Sa.=1506 Caka=1641 V. 
Sarnvat. 
. 3 Major Raverty’s Translation, p. 555. 
4 Notices of Bombay MSS., 1897, pp. LXXXV- VI. 
5 Catalogue of India Office MSS., p. 545; and Bom, MSS.,‘ 1897, 
p. LXXXVI. 
6 Jour. Bom, Br. R.A.S., XVI, p. 358. 
1 Jour. Bom. Br. R.AS., XVI, p. 358. 
