________________
DECEMBER, 1928)
CHRONOLOGY OF THE LATER PRATIHARAS
231
of a king of a dynasty other than his own;' (2) that Hayapati was never the recognised appellation of any of the Pratibara kings; and (3) that the dates of Mahipala and Vinayakapala did not overlap. According to his view the genealogy stands like this.'
Mahendrapala
Bhoja (II)
Mahipala alias Ksitipala
Vinayakapala
Mahendrapala (II). Devapala.
Vijayapala. Dr. R. C. Majumdar, who last contributed on the subject, strengthened the arguments of Pandit Ojba by adducing further reasons in his favour.10 But even admitting the force of Pandit Ojha's arguments, Dr. Majumdar could not accept the chronological arrangement proposed by the Pandit, but reverted back to the arrangement of Prof. Kielhorn. He based his conclusion on the fact that there was no reference to Mahipala in the Bengal Asiatic Society's grant of Vinayakapâla, whereas one brother Bhoja (II) as well as his two predeCrssons with their titles were mentioned. According to him, it was 'difficult to explain the omission of Mahipala's name if he had really been a separate king.'
There were thus two distinct arrangements as regards the chronology of the later Pratihåras, and the writer of this note thinks that there is still the possibility of a third one.
First, as to Kielhorn's identification of Hayapati Devapala with Devapala, son of Kşitipala, Pandit Ojha and Dr. Majumdar's objections certainly carry weight and they are suffi cient to set the identifications aside.
Secondly, the identifications of Herambapala and Vinayakapála cannot also be accepted for the only reason that Heramba is synonymous with Vinayaka. Whether the Khajuraho inscription was put up after the death of Yaśovarman or during his lifetime, it is certain that not only Yasovarman but also his son Dhangadeva continued to acknowledge the paramount supremacy of Vinayakapala ; for in the end of the inscription 'Vinayakapåladeve pâlayati Vasudhâm' is expressly mentioned. Agreeing that it was put up by Dhanga after the death of his father, we should accept that Dhanga did not royent the supremacy of Vina yakapåladeva. But if we accept this, it is difficult to reconcile why, in the same inscription, Yašovarman or Dhanga should in one place (verse 43) refer to their paramount lord as Hicrambapala and in another concluding verse) as Vinayakapaladeva. If Herambapâla and Vinayakapala had been the same person such a different naming would have been simply unnecessary; in fact, the writer as well as the master of the inscription did really mean two individual persons in the two names. This, I think, should raise serious objection to the identification of Vinayakapala with Herambapâla, apart from the arguments already put forward by Pandit Ojha.
The identification of Ksitipala with Mahipala has been universally accepted and unless positive proof to annul the identification be forthcoming we have no reasons to reject it.
The identification of Mahipala with Vinayakapåla stands on the validity of the identi. fication of Mahîpala=KsitipAla with Herambapala. But Pandit Ojha has shown that Ksiti. påla and therefore Mahipala cannot be identical with Herambapala. So the identification of Mahipala and Vinayaka pala must naturally fall to the ground. But Dr. Majumdar stands for accepting the identification in view of the reason already cited. But he himself admits that there are many records in which no mention is made of the royal brothers intervening between the reigning king and his father. Apart from this and apart also from the possibility of internal dissension between Mahipala and Vinayakapala, Dr. Majumdar's
• Op. cit. Pratabgarh Inscription, Ep. Ind., vol. XIV, pp. 176 fl. Ojha. 10 J. of the Dept. of Letters, Cal. University, vol. X, pp. 60-62. Majumdar.
