1879.] F. S. Growse — Bulcmdshahr Antiquities. 273 



Hindus, however, the tradition is somewhat different. They ascribe it to 

 the Dor Raja. Mangal Sen, who gave his daughter Padmavati in marriage 

 to the heir of Eaja Bhim of Mahrara and Etawa, who soon after his 

 accession was murdered by his younger brothers. The widow then retired 

 to Kol, where her father built the tower for her : and possibly the Mu- 

 hammadans may only have altered and added to it, to make it suit their 

 own requirements. At Noh-khera in the Jalesar Pargana, which is now 

 included in the Eta district, there is a tradition of a Raja Bhim, who 

 may possibly have been the person abovenamed ; and at Noh-jhil in 

 Mathura are the remains of a temple, converted into a darjali, which is 

 said to have been originally built by one of the Dor Rajas of Kol. The 

 capital had been transferred there, from Jalali, by Mangal Sen's father, 

 Buddh Sen. This latter was the son of Bijay Ram (brother of Dasarath 

 Sinh, who built the Fort at Jalesar) the son of Nahar Sinh (the founder 

 of the Sambhal Fort) the son of Gobind Sinh, who was the son of Mukund 

 Sen, the son of Raja Vikram Sen of Baran, 



In 1194, the last of the Dor rulers of Baran, Raja Chandra Sen, 

 was killed while defending the fort against the army of Shahab-uddin 

 Muhammad Ghori. Before he fell, an arrow from his bow had slain 

 one of the leaders of the Muhammadan forces, called Khwaja Lai Ali, 

 who is still reverenced as a martyr under the popular appellation of Lai 

 Barani. The site of his tomb is shown across the Kalincli, some 900 yards 

 from the town, and it is from there that I brought the stone bearing the two 

 inscriptions shown in the accompanying Plates VIII and IX. It is a 

 singularly shaped block, being 2 ft. 5 in. long, 10 in. broad and 10 in. thick. 

 The inscriptions are opposite one another, on the two long sides. It could 

 not have been intended to set up the stone anywhere as it is, for it is 

 difficult to imagine a position in which the two sides could be conveniently 

 read, and it is also evident that preparations had been made for splitting 

 the stone at half its thickness into two slabs. As the letters are of 

 different sizes, it could not have been meant to join the two pieces together, 

 and it is possible that they may have no connection with one another. 

 The one begins with the invocation, Om. Name Bhagavate Vdsudevaya, and 

 in the first line may also be read the words Kavalo nidrayd militalcshaJi 

 sendyali prabala-Tcala-Jcara. In the first line on the reverse is appa- 

 rently given the date, 1133. I fear that the obliteration is too extensive 

 to allow of much information being elicited from what remains, even if 

 it can be read. But I send it for publication in the Journal, where anti- 

 quaries may have an opportunity of seeing it ; and, as it may throw some 

 light upon its subject, I have put together the above brief sketch of the 

 history of the locality where the stone was found. 



As might have been expected from its nearness to Delhi, the Muham- 



