4 
H. Beveridge— The Era of Lachhman Sen. 
[No. 1, 
it may be almost equally correct, so far as the initial year is concerned, 
to say that the era began with the death of Lachhman Sen, as that it 
began with the birth of his son Lakhmania. I prefer, however, Abu-1- 
Fazl’s statement that it began with the commencement of the reign of 
Lachhman Sen. Even if we take this Lachhman Sen to be the father of 
Lakhmania, and not Lakhmania himself, still Abu-1-Fazi’s date may be 
coi-rect. We do not know how long the father reigned and if, as Lassen 
conjectures, he was an usurper, his duration of power is likely to have been 
short. Abu-l-Fazl’s omission to say that he ever reigned at least 
implies that he did not rule long. There would therefore be no diffi¬ 
culty in supposing that his reign began about 1119 A. D. Perhaps an 
argument in favour of the view, that the last king- of Bengal or his 
father gave his name to the era, may be derived from the fact that one 
of them founded a new dynasty and a new capital. This was a circum¬ 
stance likely to be marked by the introduction of a new era. Stewart 
in his History of Bengal, p. 42, describes Lachhman, the last king of 
Bengal, as succeeding his father Lachhman, but the authority whom he 
seems to have followed, viz., the author of the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, does not 
mention the father’s name. The Persian original will be found, quoted 
at p. 135 of our Journal, Part I for 1865, in Dr. Mitra’s paper on the 
Sena Rajas. 
Abu-1-Fazl in his Ain, p. 414, mentions Lakhman (qu. Lachhman P) 
as the father of Lakhmania, but he does not describe him as having ever 
reigned. In his list at p. 413, Raja Nojah is the last king of Bengal. 
He is the last of the sixty-one kings who, according to him, ruled Bengal 
for 4544 years. Nojah reigned three years, and then, says Abu-1-Fazl, 
the country came under the dominion of Dehli. 
It is curious that he should say nothing here of Lakhmania, and 
that in the very next page he should tell us that he succeeded Raja 
Nojah. Three suggestions may be made to reconcile the discrepancy, 
though none of them is quite satisfactory. 
1st. The list, at p. 413, may be that of a particular family and so 
not include Lakhmania, who at all events was not a direct descendant 
of Nojah. Possibly he was not even a Kayasth. 
2nd. The list may be that of the kings of Gaur or Lakhnauti and 
so not include Lakhmania who had his capital at Nadiya. 
3rd. Lakhmania may not be included, because his reign did not 
come to a natural end, but was violently interrupted by Bakhtiyar Khilji. 
Though the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri does not mention the father’s name, 
it represents the father as having reigned, and possibly Stewart combined 
the statements of Abu-1-Fazl and the Tabaqat. 
The Tabaqat is the better authority of the two probably, and so 
