Indian Antiquary Vol 48

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 176

172
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(SEPT., 1919
that the years 51 and 74 which they contain, should be referred to the era of Lakshmanasena or Lakshmana-samvat, in which are dated numbers of MSS. discovered in this country, and which according to the calculation of that learned savant, was started from October 7, A.D. 1119. His inference, it is necessary to point out, was drawn from the astronomical calculations based upon the data supplied by the colophons of MSS. dated in the aforesaid era. Kielhorn clearly pointed out that if the dates of the MSS. be referred to an era the initial point of which lay before A.D. 1119, all the dates, including even that of inscription II, referred to above, could not be properly worked out; but, if they be referred to the era of A.D. 1119, they all would work out most satisfactorily. This itself should have been considered sufficient for the identification of the era Associated with the name of Lakshmanasena in these inscriptions (two of which have long since been known to us), with the era known as the Lakshmana-samvat, or in an abbreviated form, as La-sain. But some scholars, the most prominent among whom are Messrs. Ramaprasad Chanda and Nagendra Nath Vagu, have rejected Kielhorn's theory and maintained that not one but two eras were associated with the name of this Sena king. It has, therefore, become necessary to reopen the question here, and offer my own views on the subject for what they are worth.
The views of Messrs. Chanda and Vasu, which are almost identical, are embodied in their works, the Gauda-rájamálá' (Rajshahi, 1319 B.S.), pp. 64-5,- and Banger Jaliya Itihasa (Calcutta, 1321 B.S.), pp. 347–52. According to both of them, the years specified in epigraphs I and II, though associated with an era bearing the name of Lakshmarasena, should not be referred to the Lakshmana-samvat of A.D. 1119; in other words, they contend that we should suppose the existence of two different eras started at two different periods and bearing the name of Lakshmaṇasena. By the clause Lakshmaṇasenasy-aita-rajye Sain is meant the year of an era started from the termination of the reign of the king, and according to them this is to be put down about A.D. 1200. Thus the year 74 of inscription II, for instance, would correspond to A.D. 1274 and not A.D. 1193 as Kielhorn calculated. From inscription I. Mr. R. D. Banerji concluded with Kielhorn that the reign of Lakshmanasena came to an end before A.D. 1170.5 apparently because the inscription refers to the rájya as atita or passed away. He accepted the identity of the era of this and the cognate inscription (No.II), where also the word atita occurs, with the era of A.D. 1119. But, according to Messrs. Chanda and Vasu, Lakshmanasena lived up to the time of the Muhammadan invasion (circa A.D. 1200) when he lost his kingdom. From A.D. 1200 was counted the atíta-rajya era of Lakshmanasena. According to Mr. Chanda the other era, viz. the La-sam of A.D. 1119 though counted from that year (by a process of backward calculation ?), was a much later invention. In other words, according to that scholar, it was not originated as a matter of fact in the year 1119. When did it then actually come into vogue -and the same scholar replies, this was so when the atita-rajya era started from A.D. 1200 fell into disuse, and there was necessity for a fresh era to fill up its place. The main evidence 6 that has led him to postulate this theory is the so-called palæographic consideration according to which he finds it difficult, nay even impossible, to refer inscriptions I and II to the twelfth or the first part of the thirteenth century A.D. The same palæographic consideration also compels him to assume that the Gayů stone inscription of 1232 v... - A.D. 1175, which was
• Ante, Vol. XIX, p. 2; Ep. Ind., Vol. I, p. 308, n. 3; and List of North Ind. Insors., No. 577. • Regarding the era Mr. Chanda briefly expressed his views aleo in this Journal, 1913, pp. 286-7. 5 JASB. (N. S.), 1913, p. 277.
6 The other evidences on which this theory is based have been already examined by Meere. Banerji and Kumar ASB (N. S.), 1913, p. 274ff; anto, 1913, p. 1867 and 1916, p. 215ff.