________________
156
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ AUGUST, 1922
interpretation better. Govindapâla had at least 4 years' reign and under the first interpretation he would be reigning still in 1165 A.D. We had shown before that it was probably Vallâlasena, who destroyed the last remnants of the Pala kingdom, and the work of destruction was completed presumably several years before Vallala sat down securely with the pandits "like & swan among lotus beds," (F errafas
e Introd. to the Danasågara, v. 54) to write several encyclopædic works. The Adbhutaságara was begun in 1168 A.D.; the Danaságara was completed in 1169 A.D., and before that he had written at least two other encyclopædias, Pratişthdsågara and Achârasdgara. So it is probable that Vallåla defeated Govinda påla earlier in his reign, before and not after 1165 A. D., i.e., 1161 A.D. marks the end and not the beginning of Govindapâla's reign.
Two minor objections must now be discussed. How can two eras connected with the same king Lakshmanasena run simultaneously? There is no evidence, however, that the atitardjya Samvat of Lakshmanasena did develop into a regular era as such, and if it did, it changed its name. Moreover, the co-existence of the two eras cannot be proved by a single entry in a Ms. colophon, which looks extremely doubtful. Then, what is the origin of the La-sam? Though there is nothing authentic or reliable to guide us in the matter we should, at the present state of our knowledge, prefer the traditional origin in the birth of Lakshmanasena28 to mere conjectures. What really happened with regard to the two eras is probably this: with the establishment of Muhammadan supremacy, when independent Hindu rulers ceaged to exist, people supplied their want of citing regnal years by creating a local era connected naturally with the name of the last independent Hindu monarch of the region. Some started it with the date of the loss of the kingdom, perhaps by analogy with the Govindapálíya Samvat, and others with the birth of the king. The former did not survive or changed its name before the popularity of the latter. The evidence from a Ms. colophon brought forth by Mr. Mazumdar to show that the La-sam was "started " by Lakshmanasena is a most amusing piece of research. According to the late Dr. Kielhorn, wbom Mr. Mazumdar quotes with the greatest deference, even the epithet atita-rajya “is apt to become meaningless phrase," but according to Mr. Mazumdar himself, phrases like "Lakshmanasena-bhd patimati," evidently used through exigencies of metre, are all the same pregnant with meaning and a very plausible meaning too : for mate means, according to him, “ approved, i.e., started" though approval and starting are two quite distinct ideas.
We admit that all literary and historical evidence may be smashed by a strong epi. graphic record, but we hope we have been able to show that Mr. Banerjea's theory is not the only possible one on the age and interpretation of the epigraphic records under discussion, which equally admit of another theory that is certainly strengthened by being in agreement with all other evidence.
The chronology of the Sena kings can now be determined in fuller detail. A passage in the Adbhutaságara (p. 203) runs as follows: "**aufa ara ATEITÀATIFUATI" This admits of two interpretations, viz.: (1) Vallála came to the throne exactly in the vear 1082 Saka (1160-61 A.D.), or (2) that year only fell "in the beginning ” (adau) of his reign. We should like to prefer the second interpretation, which will leave a margin of a year or two to the minimum length (11 years) of his reign, otherwise falling to his lot. The Naihâti plate of Vallâla, recording a land-grant on the occasion of a solar eclipse, is dated_Samvat 11 Vaisakha dine 16 29. Assuming that the date of the record coincides
16 JASB., 1896, Pt. I, p. 23.
29 Ep. Ind., Vol. XIV, p. 162.
