1879.] F, S. Growse— Bulandshahr Antiquities. 273 
Hindus, however, the tradition is somewhat different. They ascribe it to 
the Dor Raji Mangal Sen, who gave his daughter Padmavati in marriage 
to the heir of R4jé 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 Hta district, there is a tradition of a Raja Bhim, who 
may possibly have been the person abovenamed; and at Noh-jhil in 
_ Mathurd are the remains of a temple, converted into a darjéh, 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 
Sih, who built the Fort at Jalesar) the son of Nahar Sifh (the founder 
of the Sambhal Fort) the son of Gobind Sifih, 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, Raj& 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 Lal Ali, 
who is still reverenced as a martyr under the popular appellation of Lal 
Barani. The site of his tomb is shown across the Kalindi, some 900 vards 
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 isa 
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 Visudevdya, and 
in the first line may also be read the words Kavalo nidrayé militékshah 
sendyah......prabala-kala-kara. 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 
if 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- 
