Indian Epigraphy c15.t11: 6. Lakṣmaṇasena Era and Allied Reckonings
Indian Epigraphy c15.t11
- Language
- English
6. Lakṣmaṇasena Era and Allied Reckonings
c15.t11.1
⁵ Cf. IIHQ, Vol. XXXIV, pp. 21 ff.; Ojha, op cit., pp. 184-86.
c15.t11.2
The era is associated with the name of a king called Lakṣmaṇasena, sometimes described as an emperor and also as the lord of Gauḍa.⁶ This ruler is no doubt identical with king Lakṣmaṇasena (c. 1179-1206)⁷ of the Sena dynasty of Bengal. The era (called La-sam, Lakṣmaṇa-saṃvat or Lakṣmaṇa-sena-saṃvat) is still popular in North Bihar (Mithilā) where it is known to have also been current during the late medieval period. The year is now regarded as starting from Māgha-badi 1, and the months are *Amānta*.¹ The earliest records dated in this reckoning are, however, found in the Gaya region of South Bihar where it appears to have originated. The years of the era are generally associated with the *atīta-rājya* of Lakṣmaṇasena. The real meaning of *atīta-rājya* (i.e. the past sovereignty) can be determined from the records of another king named Govindapāla.
c15.t11.3
⁶ Cf. Ep. Ind., Vol. XXX, p. 80, note 3; JASB, N.S., Vol. XX, pp. 372-73.
c15.t11.4
⁷ History of Bengal, Dacca University, Vol. I, p. 231.
c15.t11.5
¹ Modern Maithil almanacs are stated to give the equivalent of La-sam 1 variously as Śaka 1026-27, 1027-28, 1029-30 and 1030-31, i.e. between 1104 and 1109 A. D.
c15.t11.6
The date of the Gaya inscription² of Govindapāla is quoted as Vikrama 1232, Vikārin, Āśvina-sudi 5 falling in the 14th year of the *gata-rājya* of king Govindapāla. The date corresponds to the 22nd September, 1175 A.D. The colophons of several Buddhist manuscripts copied in the Patna-Gaya region of Bihar refer to the reign of Govindapāla; but, while only one of them mentions the 4th year of his *vijaya-rājya* and two others refer respectively to his 18th *atīta* year and the 38th year of his *vinaṣṭa-rājya* (i.e. lost sovereignty), three of the colophons speak of the years 24, 37 and 39 as belonging to that monarch but do not mention his *rājya* either as *pravardhamāna-vijaya* or as *gata*, *atīta* or *vinaṣṭa*.³ Since the date of the Gaya inscription corresponds to the 2nd September 1175 A. D. and falls in the 14th year of Govindapāla’s sovereignty which was then *gata*, i.e. a thing of the past, the 22nd of September in the year 1162 A.D. falls in the first year of this reckoning. Govindapāla is generally believed to have belonged to the Pāla dynasty of Bengal and Bihar and to have been the successor of the Pāla king Madanapāla whose inscriptions have been found in the Patna-Gaya region, the latest of them being dated the 11th of Jyaiṣṭha in his 18th regnal year and in Śaka 1083.⁴ The date of the inscription corresponds to the 4th May 1161 A.D. The above facts show that Govindapāla succeeded Madanapāla in 1161 or 1162 A.D., that he ruled at least upto his 4th regnal year and that his sovereignty became *gata*, *atīta* or *vinaṣṭa* sometime before the 22nd September 1175 A. D.¹ His *gata*°, *atīta*° or *vinaṣṭa-rājya* reckoning was thus not counted from the end of his reign or *vijaya-rājya* (as is often wrongly believed) but was undoubtedly counted in continuation of his ordinary regnal or *vijaya-rājya* reckoning.
c15.t11.7
² Bhandarkar’s List, No. 370.
c15.t11.8
³ See *JAS*, Letters, Vol. XVII, p. 28; *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXXV, pp. 233 ff.
c15.t11.9
⁴ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 141 ff.
c15.t11.10
¹ Ibid., Vol. XX, pp. 43 ff.
c15.t11.11
The similar case of Govindapāla would suggest that the Lakṣmaṇasena-saṃvat was originally counted from the accession of king Lakṣmaṇasena about 1179 A.D. and not from any other date such as that of the end of his reign about 1206 A.D. or of his defeat at the hands of the Muhammadans a few years earlier. The initiation and prevalence of the era in Bihar again suggest the expansion of the suzerainty of the Senas of Bengal over that region.
c15.t11.12
As indicated above, the beginning of the Lakṣmaṇasena era is supposed to fall in 1104-19 A.D. according to the records of Mithila, although it is generally believed to be 1108 A.D. But Kielhorn pointed out that, according to some dates quoted in certain medieval works, its first year was equivalent to 1119-20 A.D. Actually, however, calculation based on the years of this era in the late medieval records quoted with the corresponding Śaka years has shown its beginning to have fallen variously in 1108, 1109, 1110, 1113, 1115 or 1119 A.D.² King Lakṣmaṇasena of Bengal, however, flourished much later than this period.
c15.t11.13
² *Hist. Beng.*, op. cit., pp. 233, 238. See also S. Jha’s introduction to his *Songs of Vidyāpati*. For other cases of the kind, see S. Mukhopādhyāy, *Prācīn Bāmlā Sāhitye Kāl-kram*, pp. 21 ff. Mukhopādhyāy has tried to show that the initial year of the La-saṃ varies between 1080 and 1129 A.D.
c15.t11.14
About the beginning of an excellent survey of the problem of the Lakṣmaṇasena era, R.C. Majumdar observes, ‘The first point to remember is that no Sena king, not even the two sons of Lakṣmaṇasena, ever used the era, and that there is no evidence that it was ever known, far less used, in Bengal during the Sena period......... This raises grave doubts about the foundation of the era by Lakṣmaṇasena or any other Sena ruler of Bengal.”¹ On the same grounds, H. C. Raychaudhuri² proposed to identify the founder of the era with some other ruler bearing that name and conjectured the existence of a Lakṣmaṇasena among the ruling chiefs of the Sena dynasty of Piṭhī.³ But the tradition referring to the founder of the era as an imperial ruler of Gauḍa undoubtedly points to his indentification with the only known Lakṣmaṇasena of East Indian history, viz. the Sena king of that name.
c15.t11.15
¹ Loc. cit.
c15.t11.16
² *JASB*, N. S., Vol. XXII, pp. 385 ff.
c15.t11.17
³ The expression probably indicated the Buddhist religious establishment at Bodhgaya together with its landed properties. These rulers enjoyed the title *Ācārya* and appear to have been the precursors of the later Mohant Mahārājas of Bodhgaya.
c15.t11.18
It is admitted that the *atīta-rājya* reckoning started as a result of the reluctance of the partisans or co-religionists of king Govindapāla of the Gaya region to change the mode of dating their records even after his overthrow. If the dominions of Lakṣmaṇasena of Bengal included the same area of Bihar, the overthrow of his rule from there could have likewise induced his partisans to follow a similar method of dating. It has to be noticed that the people of the Gaya region of Bihar had a liking for this kind of dating in the *atīta-rājya* reckoning of particular rulers as it was they who started the *atīta-rājya* reckonings of both Govindapāla and Lakṣmaṇasena.⁴ But there is as yet no evidence of Lakṣmaṇasena’s rule over the Gayā area of Bihar, though there are traditions regarding Sena rule in Mithilā or North Bihar and we have now an inscription⁵ pointing to the inclusion of the Bhagalpur region of South Bihar within the dominions of Ballālasena (c. 1158-79 A.D.), father of Lakṣmaṇasena, in the 9th year of his reign, i.e. about 1166 A.D. The discovery of this record shows that Lakṣmaṇasena’s rule over parts of South Bihar including the Gaya region at least for a short time can no longer be regarded as altogether impossible. His claim of victory over the Gāhaḍavālas becomes intelligible in that case.
c15.t11.19
⁴ The occasional reference to the Vikrama-saṃvat in Bihar as the *atīta-rājya* reckoning of Vikramāditya (cf. *JAS*, Letters, Vol. XX, p. 44) may be due to the influence of the popular Lakṣmaṇasena-saṃvat.
c15.t11.20
⁵ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXX, pp. 78 ff.
c15.t11.21
Majumdar says, “It is probable that when the Pāla kingdom in Gaya was finally destroyed, the people, especially the Buddhists, continued for sometime to count their dates with reference to the last Buddhist Pāla king Govindapāla. Again when the Muslim invaders destroyed the Hindu kingdoms in Bihar and Bengal, the people unwilling to refer to the *pravardhamāna-vijaya-rājya* of the foreign conquerors, counted the dates with reference to the destruction of the last Hindu kingdom.”¹ But this is possible only if Lakṣmaṇasena ruled over Bihar. Govindapāla appears to have been ousted from the Gaya region by the Gāhaḍavālas² who were probably themselves ousted from that area by the Senas. This possibility explains the introduction of the two *atīta-rājya* reckonings of Govindapāla and Lakṣmaṇasena in the said region and the latter’s introduction thence to North Bihar by the people of that part, who fled to the north after the Muslim occupation of South Bihar. Lakṣmaṇasena’s *atīta-rājya* reckoning thus seems to have come into existence on the extirpation of Sena rule from Bihar although the calculation must have been the same as the regnal reckoning of that monarch.³
c15.t11.22
¹ Op. cit., p. 235.
c15.t11.23
² Cf. *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXX, p. 82.
c15.t11.24
³ In such a possibility, the 35 years’ rule of Palapāla in parts of South Bihar in the second half of the 12th century has probably to be explained by supposing that he was a subordinate of the Senas. Cf. *JBRS*, Vol. XL, Part 2, pp. 43-53; *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXX, pp. 81-82.
c15.t11.25
We do not know whether Lakṣmaṇasena was ousted from the Gaya area by the Gāhaḍavālas or the Muslims. The silence of the Muslim historians on this point may of course suggest that it was probably the Gāhaḍavālas who re-occupied the area from the Senas no doubt for a short time to be themselves overthrown by the Muhammadans. The Sena inscriptions actually speak of Lakṣmaṇasena’s struggle with the Gāhaḍavālas.⁴
c15.t11.26
⁴ Lakṣmaṇasena’s *Madhainagar* (N. G. Majumdar, *Ins. Beng.*, Vol. III, p. 111) and Bhowal (*Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXVI, p. 6) plates, both issued in the later part of his reign, speak of his victory over the king of Kāśī, i.e. a Gāhaḍavāla monarch. He or his son Viśvarūpasena is also stated in the Sena records to have planted pillars of victory at Viśveśvara-kṣetra (Kāśī) and Triveni (Prayāga or Allahabad), both in the dominions of the
c15.t11.27
As to the confusion regarding the starting point of the Lakṣmaṇasena-saṃvat in Mithilā between 1108 and 1119 A.D., Majumdar says, “......instead of counting from the end of the reign [of Lakṣmaṇasena about 1200 A.D.] people of the later age counted from his birth [about 1120 A.D.].........The artificial character of the era, set up at a later time with reference to a past event perhaps explains the great discrepancy in the initial years of that era as calculated from the different instances of its use.”¹ But the era was not ‘an artificial reckoning associated with an event of remote past’ as Majumdar puts it,² since, as a matter of fact, it was essentially the continuation of Lakṣmaṇasena’s regnal reckoning just as the Śaka era seems to have been the continuation of the regnal reckoning of Kaniṣka I. Since moreover the earliest known date in the era is found to be the year 51,³ its origin could not have been of a remote past at least to its early users.
c15.t11.28
¹ Op. cit., p. 236.
c15.t11.29
² Ibid., p. 328.
c15.t11.30
³ Bhandarkar’s List, No. 1467.
c15.t11.31
The earliest use of the Lakṣmaṇasena era is found in three inscriptions⁴ dated respectively in (1) year 51, Bhādra 29, (2) year 74, Vaiśākha-badi 12, Thursday, and (3) year 83, Kārttika-sudi 15. Of the three dates, only the second one is verifiable since the week-day has been mentioned. If the reckoning started with the accession of king Lakṣmaṇasena about 1179 A.D., the years 51, 74 and 83 would fall respectively about 1230, 1253 and 1262 A.D. The second date is therefore Thursday corresponding to Vaiśākha-badi 12 in 1253 A.D. In the said year, the 12th tithi of the dark half of Pūrṇimānta Vaiśākha began on Thursday the 27th March at 10 of the day.
c15.t11.32
⁴ Ibid., Nos. 1467-69. They were all found in the Gaya region, two from Bodhgaya and the third from Janibigha near Bodhgaya.
c15.t11.33
The inscriptions of the years 51 (1230 A.D.) and 74 (1253
c15.t11.34
Gāhaḍavālas. See N. G. Majumdar, op. cit., pp. 122-23, etc.; Ep. Ind., Vol. XXXIII, pp. 315 ff. If both the atīta-rājya reckonings of Govindapāla and Lakṣmaṇasena started as a result of the people’s reluctance to refer to Gāhaḍavāla rule, they may have had bitter feelings against the Gāhaḍavālas and were partial to the Pālas and Senas of Bengal.
c15.t11.35
A.D.) mention *Mahārāja* Aśokacalla of the Khasa country in the Sapādalakṣa hills, while the record of the year 83 speaks of *Ācārya* Jayasena, the lord of Pīṭhī and the son of Buddhasena. Another inscription¹ from Gaya, dated in the year 1813 of the Buddha’s Parinirvāṇa era, Kārttika-badi 1, Wednesday, mentions the said Aśokacalla, king of the Sapādalakṣa hills. According to the Ceylonese Buddha Parinirvāṇa era prevalent also in Burma and Siam and believed to have started from 544 B.C.,² the year 1813 would correspond to 1269-70 A.D. In 1270 A.D. the first *tithi* of the dark half of *Pūrṇimānta* Kārttika fell on Wednesday the 1st of October.³
c15.t11.36
¹ Ibid., No. 1459.
c15.t11.37
² Ojha, *op. cit.* p. 194.
c15.t11.38
³ The mention of Aśokacalla in 1230, 1253 and 1270 A.D. would suggest that he ruled for over 40 years from about 1230 A.D. to about 1270 A.D. This reign period does not appear to be exceptionally long.
c15.t11.39
According to the biography⁴ of the Tibetan pilgrim Chos-rje-dpal or Dharmasvāmin who was born in 1197 A.D. and died in 1264 A.D., the pilgrim visited Bodhgaya where he met its ruler Buddhasena in 1235 A. D. We have seen that Buddhasena’s son Jayasena was ruling in the year 83 of the Lakṣmaṇasena era corresponding, in our opinion, to 1262, A.D. The rule of the father 27 years before a date in the son’s reign does not appear to be exceptional.
c15.t11.40
⁴ *JBRS*, Vol. XLII, Part 1, pp. 76 ff. In 1234 A.D., he met king Rāmasimha of Simraongadh, who ascended the throne in 1227 A.D., and in 1241 and 1256 A.D., he was invited to the court of Kublai Khān.
c15.t11.41
We may conclude therefore that the Lakṣmaṇa-saṃvat was originally counted from the date of the accession of king Lakṣmaṇasena of Bengal [and Bihar] about 1179 A.D., although its starting point was later suposed to be some date between 1108 and 1119 A.D. in North Bihar through confusion. This confusion appears to be associated with the fact that the era was initiated by the people of the Gaya region, but that it migrated, even in its infancy, to North Bihar with the migration of many people of South Bihar to the north as a result of the Muslim conquest of the former region at the close of the twelfth century. We know that in the late medieval period the people of North Bihar assigned the commencement of the era to different dates ranging between 1108 and 1119 A.D., although ultimately 1108 A.D. came to be generally regarded as the starting point. But the real circumstances leading to this confusion is difficult to determine. The commencement of the era, synchronizing with Lakṣmaṇasena’s accession in 1179 A.D., seems to have been later confused with the date of the said king’s birth, about which the people’s ideas were probably characterised by confusion owing to the absence of a unanimous tradition.
c15.t11.42
In this connection reference may be made to two eras prevalent in some parts of Bengal during the late medieval period. These are the Balālī San of 1199 A.D. and the Parganātī San of 1202-03 A.D. (or 1201-02 A.D.). They appear to be modifications of the same era, sometimes called by local names such as ‘the San of Parganā Bhuluā.’¹ Probably these eras were counted from the time when the Senas lost wide areas of their dominions in West Bengal and the adjoining region just as the La-sam was counted from the time when they had lost their possessions in South Bihar.
c15.t11.43
¹ See *History of Bengal*, Vol. I, pp. 235-36; *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. LII, pp. 314 ff.