1896.] N.N. Vasu—Chronology of the Séna Kings of Bengal. 20 
was a bralbmana by caste and conversant with all the Castras and the 
religious rites for Brahmanas, to answer the questions of the king. 
From the authorities quoted above we cull the fellowing :— 
1. That Vijaya-séna, the son of Hémauta-séna, dwelt, after his 
father, in Varéndra-bhami as its king. 
2-3. That Adi-cira brought from Koliiica five Biundiase that 
he lived long before Maharaja Ballala-séna, the son of Vijaya, flourished; 
that after the reign of the Dynasty of Adi-cira, Déva-pala of the Pala 
Dynasty reigned in Gauda; the Séna kings flourished long after him ; 
that Ballala-séna made several copper-plate grants; that Laksmana-séna 
fell into disrepute owing to the time of his birth having been in- 
auspicious ; that Kégava-séna was the son of Laksmana-séna and that the 
fear of the Yavanas compelled him to run away, relinquishing his father’s 
kingdom. 
4, That Ballala-séna lived in Caka 109], z.¢., A. D. 1169. 
5. That a powerful king, named Vicva-ripa-séna, was the son of 
Laksmana-séna, the son of Ballala-séna and that the copper-plate grant 
was made in the 14th year of his reign. 
6. That Kécava-séna (after the capture of Gauda) lived under the 
protection of a king. 
Taking into consideration the facts now brought to light, Ido not 
see how we cau accept the statement made by Sir Alexander Cunning- 
ham, as to the Séna kings of Bengal having descended’from Aditya-séna 
of the Gupta Dynasty of the Magadha kings; or that made by Dr. 
Rajéndralala Mitra and others as to Vira-séna or Vijaya-séna being 
identical with Adi-cira. 
The date of Ballala’s coronation 1066 A. D., as given by Prinsep and 
Dr. Mitra is not borne out by the Ain-i-Akbari, which they quote as their 
authority, while the Akbar-nama, as first pointed out by Mr. Beveridge, 
gives the initial date of the Laksmana era as 1119. Dr. Kielhorn 
has supported this statement. But they believe that the Laksmana era 
commenced from the year of his coronation. The statement is not borne 
out by the facts now brought to light. Although the Laksmana era com- 
menced from the year 1119 A. D., it was not the year in which he was 
installed. I have already shown that in (aka 1091, z7.e. 1169 A. D. 
Maharaja Ballala-séna-déva composed his work Dana-sagara, and even 
in that year he gave himself out as king of Ganda. Ballala, having been 
on the throne at that time, it follows that Laksmana could not have beer 
the ruler of Gauda at the same time. Between the years 1119 and 1169 
there elapsed a period of 50 years, and it is mentioned in the Ain-i-Akbari 
that Ballala-séna ruled Bengal for that period. If any reliance cau be 
‘placed on this statement it must be admitted that 1119 A.D. was the 
Joi 4 
