________________
OCTOBER, 1920)
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PÅLA.DYNASTY OF BENGAL
189
A CHRONOLOGY OF THE PÂLA DYNASTY OF BENGAL.
BY DINESH CHANDRA BHATTACHARYYA, M. A. The history of the great PAla dynasty of Bengal has during the last ten years cleared up remarkably, and we have now a fairly accurate chronology for it established by the working of a number of happy synchronisms. Scholars however disagree in some of the minor details. In the present article an attempt has been made to show that we can arrive at a definitely certain chronology for a major part of the dynasty from the available materials. The publication of Mr. R. D. Banerji's elaborate monograph on the Palas of Bengal 1 which mostly embodies the recent researches on the subject, saves the present article from being burdened with full references.
We start from the reign of Mahipals I, for whom we have a certain date in the Sarnath inscription of A.D. 1026. Hitherto the inscription was referred by all scholars to the actual reign of Mahipala, but Mr. R. D. Banerji contends that it might have been incised soon after his death. In support of his contention he seems to put forth two facts, viz. (1) a MS. from Nepal was written in 1076 Samvat when a " TTTT
tours qa " was reigning in Tirhut. According to Bendall, this is Gangeyadeva Chedi. The date of the MS., A.D. 1019 (referring it to the Vikrama era) fell, therefore, before the brass plates of Mahipala from Imadpur in Tirhut, dated in his 48th year; and as the longest period assigned to Mahtpala is 52 years (Taranath), he must have been dead in A.D. 1026. (2) Besides, the absence of any elocutionary epithets before the name of Mahipala in the above inscription and the use of the past tense in akdrayat may point to its being a posthumous record. It should however be noted that Mahipala was still living in A.D. 1023 when Rajendrachola invaded Bengal, and even assuming that he died soon after, his 48th year hardly falls before A.D. 1019. Besides, there is no clear reference in the Kalachuri inscriptions of this not very insigrificant conquest of Tirhut (and Gauda) by Gaugeyadeva.
We are thus inolined, with Mons. Levi, to reject Bendall's interpretation and to acoept Mr. Chanda's suggestion that the colophon refers to a local Samanta.
The Sarnath inscription, again, is in veree, and as such, the single epithet afaris sufficiently expressive of the king's life and honour. Moreover, the use of the proximate past tense, , very fairly refers the inscription to the actual reign of Mahipala I, who may therefore be taken to have been still reigning in December, A.D. 1026.
The date of Mahipala's accession to the throne can now be definitely settled, for fortunately we have a verifiable datum referring to his reign. A MS. of Ashtasdhasrika was copied in the sixth year of his reign
af artat T. “Kartika vadi 13" fell on a T'wesday on the following possible dates :Pwrpimdula.
(1) October 21, A.D. 979.
(2) September 27, A.D. 992. Nom. ASB., Vol. v. Nad.
p. 76.
ASR., 1911-12, p. 173. fatto in the Gohar plate of Karpadeva (BI., XI, p. 148) takon to refer to an invador of Angs, should perhaps moro corrootly be constructed with the previous word, ango manning rather the wovon functionaries of a kingdom (of Ktra)
uudandyaman, p. 43. It is Indood possible, referring tho year to the sake ora A.D. 1164, that the prince is no other than Gargoyadeva, the son and Door of the famous Nanyadors of Mopal and Tirhutan identification which will also oxplain the otherwise inexplicable connection with Geuda convoyed by the epithet gaudodhuaja though it should be noted the same time that Inter Nopalooo king rofor the dynasty of solar longo.
