6 
H. Beveridge —The Era of Lachhman Sen. 
[No. 1, 
date of the accession of the last Hindu king of Bengal. I trust, there¬ 
fore, that some one will take up the inquiry, and, if possible, reconcile 
Abu-1-Fazl with the almanac makers of Tirhut. 
Colebrooke’s date of 1104 A. D., i. e., 1796—692, does not agree with 
the almanacs, and it would appear that Halayudha was the spiritual 
adviser of Lachhman, the son of Balal. In that case it seems almost 
certain that the date 1104 is wrong. The only thing apparently that 
stands in the way of the acceptance of Abu-l-Fazl’s date is the Tirhut 
almanacs. But it seems that they do not agree with one another, and 
also that the compilers of them are ignorant of the origin of the era. 
It strikes me as strange that the era should be permanent in Tirhut 
and not in other districts. Lakhmania reigned at Nadiya, latterly at all 
events, and I beg to suggest that inquiry should be made among the pandits 
and almanac-makers of Nadiya as to w'hether they know of and make use 
of the era.* 
I have consulted Tieffenthaler, but I do not find that he throws any 
light on the matter. In one place he gives the months as well as the 
years of the Sen Raja’s reigns, and speaks of Kesava Sen as being the 
son of Balal Sen and the father of Madhava. This is against the notion 
that Lakhmania was the grandson of Lachhman. In another place, 
p. 473 of the account of Bengal, Tieffenthaler gives the same list as Abu-1- 
Fazl, but adds that after Raja Nodja there reigned seven Hindu princes 
whose names are not known, and who ruled for 106 years. But it seems 
that this is merely a corrupt version of Abu-l-Fazl’s statement. The 
seven princes of Tieffenthaler are really not the unknown descendants of 
Raja Nojah, but are the seven Sen kings ending with Nojah. Abu-1- 
Fazl’s list of them shows that they reigned 106 years. 
Tieffenthaler apparently did not get his information direct from 
Abu-l-Fazl’s book, but from some later compilation. 
One important point remains to be noticed. 
At p. 397 of Dr. Mitra’s second article on the Sena Rajas, he gives a 
Sanscrit inscription from Buddha Gaya, and translates it as follows : 
“ On Thursday the 12th of the wane, in the month of Vaisakha Sam- 
vat or year 74 after the expiration of the reign of the auspicious Laksh- 
mana Sena Deva.” 
But is it not possible that the Sanscrit words mean the 74th year 
of the reign of Lachhman Sena ? In other words that the date is a 
Julus or regnal era. 
If so, all our difficulties seem to be at an end, for no king is recorded 
to have reigned eighty years except the last Sena king, i. e., Lachhman. 
* [The suggested enquiry is being made, and its result will subsequently be 
communicated. Ed.] 
