The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c16.35

v1.c16.35

The chronology proposed above is open to the obvious criticism which I have already pointed out. But the fact that any considerable increase in the reign-periods would push Dharmapāla into the period 700-50 A.D., seems to indicate that the possible total excess of reign-periods cannot be large. A little elasticity in the chronological scheme may however be introduced if we place the date 1026 A.D. in the middle of Mahīpāla's reign. The arguments so far advanced to prove that Mahīpāla was dead before 1026 A.D. do not appear to me to be at all conclusive. Even assuming that Mahīpāla died before 1026 A.D., his reign can only be moved back from that date by a few years, for any big gap would place Dharmapāla in the period 750-60 A.D. The division of Gauḍa into five divisions in *c.* 762-63 at the time of Jayāpīḍa, is not consistent with what we know of Dharmapāla's reign. (But in view of the synchronism of Dharmapāla with Govinda III (*c.* 794-814 A.D.) and Nāgabhaṭa II (*c.* 815-33 A.D.) it would, I think, be safer if we push forward the period of Dharmapāla's reign by another 14 years and place the last date of Mahīpāla in *c.* 1040 A.D. This would give Dharmapāla a reign of 46 years (769-815 A.D.), which is not at all impossible in view of the fact that Tāranātha assigns him a period of 64 years. The reign-periods assigned by this historian sometimes, as in the case of Mahīpāla (I) and Rāmapāla, have been found to be approximately in agreement with the known dates of those princes. Thus unless there is some mistake in the ascription of the dates found on inscriptions or colophons of MSS. the above table *with this correction* should serve as the nearest approximations of the reign-periods of the first nine Pālas. As to the eight later Pālas who followed Mahīpāla I, we have to take into consideration the known reign-periods of these princes, which is 106 years. This however does not include the unknown reign-periods of three princes, and includes 4 years for Kumārapāla, which, as we shall see is an uncertain quantity. In this connection we must bear in mind the synchronisms between Nayapāla and Vigrahapāla (III) and the Tripurī Kalacuri Lakṣmī-Karṇadeva (*c.* 1041-70 A.D.) and that between Rāmapāla, and Nānyadeva (*c.* 1097-1150 A.D.). The argument that since in a MS. dated in 1120 A.D. the Nepal king Sadāśivadeva is styled *Rājādhirājā-Parameśvara*, the supremacy of Nānyadeva over the Bagmati valley must have been over by that date, cannot be accepted as conclusive, for we have already shown elsewhere that Nepal rulers appear to have continued to assume imperial titles in spite of their subservient position.¹ Thus the theory based on this supposition that Vijayasena must have conquered North-Bengal and Tirhut in about 1120 A.D. from Madanapāla and Nānyadeva loses its force. I have elsewhere shown reason to suppose that Nānya's reign may have continued even up to about the middle of the 12th century A.D.² Again, in view of the fact that the Pālas appear to have lingered on in Magadha till the middle of the 12th century there is nothing impossible in supposing that Madanapāla may have continued to rule for some time in Bihar even after he lost North-Bengal. Within the limitations which we have already pointed out, we can then propose the following table for the last eight Pāla kings :