________________
THE PALAS OF BENGAL.
JUNE, 1885.]
gives 120 years to five generations, which is certainly not too much. But there is a curious piece of evidence, which tends to confirm the date thus assigned to Devapâla, viz. A.D. 956-91. In the 'huge' Gwalior inscription noticed by Mr. Fitz-Edward Hall," a king Devapâla is mentioned, with the date Samvat 1025, corresponding to A.D. 968. This exactly agrees with the date assigned to the Bengal Devapâla; and as he is recorded to have made wide conquests towards the west, his mention in the Gwalior inscription would be accounted for. His warlike expeditions towards the west would bring him into contact with the Haihaya rulers of Chedi, and thus explain the statement in the Bhagalpur grant of the alliance of his son, Vigrahapâla, with a Haihaya princess. Moreover, they would also explain the fact of the coins of Vigraha imitating the Sassanian type. As to Mahipâla, he is reported in Târânâth's History to have reigned 52 years a statement which is borne out by two inscriptions found by Mr. J. E. Lincke at Imadpur (in the Muzaffarpur district) and dated in the 48th year of his reign." Accordingly Mahipâla's reign may be put down as having extended from A.D. 1006 to 1058.1
The history of the Pâla empire about the turning of the 10th and 11th centuries, I imagine to have been thus:-The empire included Bengal, Bihar and Audh (Gaur, Patna, and Benares), and the Pâla rulers were Baddhists. Towards the end of the 10th century a great disruption took place :-Bengal under Narayanapâla became Brahmanic; while Bihar
1 Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. XXXI. p. 6ff.
15 Mr. Hall gives also the date 1005; but it must be a misprint, for his equivaluations A.D. 968 or A.D. 1103 (on p. 8) only agree with the other date 1025, given in the bottom line of p. 7.
16 See his coins in Archeol. Surv. Ind. Vol. XI. p. 176f. 17 See Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Proceedings for 1881, p. 98. The inscriptions, which are identical, are engraved below two groups of bronze figures, and the date runs as follows-Sriman-Mahipaladevarajasa samatt 48 jeshta dina sukala-paksha 2.
18 This is also Gen. Cunningham's conclusion in Archaol. Surv. Ind. Vol. XV. p. 153 (A.D. 1008-1060). In the Bengal Asiatic Society's Proceedings for 1876, p. 107, Dr. Burnell communicated an inscription of the Chola king Kulottunga, which gives Mahipala's date as A.D. 1093. As the date refers to the conquest of Bengal and Mahipala, perhaps it may be taken as the date of Mahipala's death in battle. It is difficult, however, to make this date harmonise with the Sarnath date of A.D. 1026. The difference is 77 years, a period much too long to have been the reign of one person, even if we assume the traditional allowance of 52 years to fall short of the truth. It is clear that there is something wrong about one or the other of the two dates. But in any case, it is only a question of about 30 years, within
165
19
and Audh under Mahipala remained Buddhistic. In the beginning of the 11th century another disruption took place:-Bihar under Mahipala's successors remained Buddhistic; while Audh under Chandra Deva, a son of Mahipala, who made Kanauj his capital, became Brahmanic. Bihâr remained Buddhistic till the Muhammadan conquest destroyed the remnant of the ancient Pâla kingdom. Nârâyana was probably assisted, in the separation which he effected, by the Bengal governors sprung from the Sena family, who were in charge of the province of Paundra Vardhana. The Sena family was intensely Brahmanic, and two of the earliest members of it, Sâmanta and Hemanta, synchronise with Nârâyana's date (A.D. 1006-1026). It was probably the successor of the latter, who was supplanted in the Bengal kingdom by Vijaya Sena (or Sukha Sena), the first Bengal king (though the fourth in descent) of the Sena family, whose date is about A.D. 1030. In the Baqirganj grant he is stated, in so many words, to have "rooted out those of the race of Bhûpâla." Bhûpâla is a well-known synonym of Gopala, the founder of the Påla dynasty. This is confirmed by the Bhagalpur inscription," which says that Vijaya Sena overthrew the king of Gauda. It may be added that the tradition of Âdisûra, who appears to be the same as Vijaya Sena, the first of the Bengal kings," having imported Kanauj Brahmans, about the turning of the 10th and 11th centuries, coincides with the first disruption of the Pâla kingdom and may be intimately connected with it."
which the above calculated dates of the Påla reigns may require adjustment.
As Mahipala's reign was much longer than Nârâyana's, he may have temporarily regained possession of the whole of the ancestral empire after Narayana's death.
0 Verse 6; see Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. VII. p. 43ff. Prinsep's Pandit translated "rooting out the families of the inimical royal lines." But vairi-Bhupala-vansyân means simply the inimical descendants of Bhupala." Bhopala is here a proper name, not an appellative. If Mahipala, as suggested in the preceding footnote, regained possession of Bengal after Narayana's death, he may be referred to in that notice. Bhupala and Mahipála are synonyms.
21 Jour. Beng. Ae. Soc. Vol. XXXIV. p. 144.
22 id. Vol. XXXIV. p. 189f., and Vol. XLIV. p. 4. 33 The identification of Adisûra with Vijaya Sena is supported by the genealogical tables, for the rate of "three generations a century" is too much. At the rate of four generations Adisúra's date would be A.D. 1165, which is too low, as it would tend to identify him with Ballala, Sena. A medium rate will suit best; it will make Adisura identical with Vijaya Sena. As to the names, Sara and Vijaya Sena are nearly synonymous; adi indicates Vijaya Sena as the first king of the family. However, even if he be the same as Vira Sena, it does not materially affect the argument in the text.
