p. 1
The chronology of the Paala kings has, for a
long time, formed a subject of keen discussion. It
will serve no useful purpose to recount the earlier
views on the subject, as they were necessarily based
upon insufficient materials and erroneous data. The
first systematic attempt to reconstruct the main
outline of the Paala chronology on a reliable basis
was made by tbe late Dr. V. A. Smith in 1909.(1)* In
the following year M.M. Haraprasaad 'Saastrii made a
useful contribution about the initial date of
Dharmapaala in his Introduction to Raamacarita.(2)
The subject was next seriously taken up by Mr.
Ramaprasad Chanda and Mr. R. D Banerji. Mr. Chanda's
Bengali work "Gauda-raaja-maalaa " appeared in
1912-3, although the views expressed therein about
the Paala Chronology were somewhat modified four
years later.(3) Mr. Banerji's "Paalas of Bengal "(4)
was published in 1915, but his views were re-stated,
with substantial modifications, in his Bengali work
"Baanglaar Itihaasa" published in the Bengali year
132 1 (1914-15 A.D.). The only contribution that has
since been made to our knowledge of the Paala
chronology is a paper by Mr. Banerji(5) in which,
among other things, a short account is given of an
inscription of the 24th year of Raajyapaala.
In discussing the views of Dr. Smith it must be remem
------------------
1.Ind. Ant., 1909, p. 233
2.Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol.
III. 3.Maanasii( a Bengali Monthly ), Vol. VII, part
I,
pp. 577 ff., 657 ff.
4.Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. V.
5.Ind. Ant., 1918, P. 109.
p. 2
g
g
g
bered that some of the most important inscriptions
were unknown to him. Thus the Udda.n.dapura
inscription of Naaraaya.napaala(1) shows that the
king ruled for at least 54 years, and this alone is
liable to upset the chronological scheme put forward
by him. But, even apart form this,his views are
liable to serious objections. According to his scheme
the first three kings ruled from 735 to 892 A.D.,
i.e. for a period of more than 150 years and this can
hardly be accepted, even as a working hypothesi s
very strong evidence is forthcoming in support of it.
Dr. V. A. Smith rejected the Puranic statement that
two generations of Nanda kings ruled for 100 years
and assigned fifty years as a more reasonable period.
His views about the duration of the reigns of the
first three kings of the Paala dynasty are not,
therefore, consistent with his own principle. In the
circumstances it is difficult to accept the
contention of Dr. Smith, made as late as 1914, that
the main outline of the Paala chronology has rmly
laid by him.
Mr. Chanda's views about the dates of the first
eight kings are no longer tenable. According to him,
Vigrahapaala I ascended the throne in 900 A.D. and
Vigrahapaala II, a few years before 965 A.D. But this
is quite incompatible with the known reign-periods of
the intervening kings, i.e. 54 years of
Naaraaya.napaala, 24 years of Raajyapaala and a
longer( 2) period of Gopaala II. This shows that his
proposed dates for Dharmapaala and Devapaala require
to be considerably pushed back.
As regards Mr. Banerji's theory, it is impossible
to reconcile its different parts with one another.
Thus he holds that the Paala king defeated by
Raa.s.trakuu.ta K.ri.s.na II was Raajyapaala, and as
he has himself assumed in his Baanglaar Itihaasa (pp.
189, 199, 203) that Vigraphapaala I ascended the
throne in 865 A.D. and that his son Naaraaya.napaala
ruled for about 55 years, Raajyapaala could not
possibly have ascended the throne before 920 A.D. But
not only the reign of K.ri.s.na II bu f his two
successors was over by that date, as Govinda IV, the
great-grandson of K.ri.s.na II, and the fourth in
succession from him, was ruling in 918 A.D. Again,
Mr. Banerji looks upon Gopaala II, son of
Raajyapaala, as a contemporary of Indra III. the
grandson of K.ri.s.na 11 (ibid., p. 204), and this
is, of course, for reasons just stated, equally
impossible. Further, according to Mr. Banerji,
Madanapaala, the seventeenth king, was a contemporary
of the Gaaharwal king Candradeva (ibid., p. 284)
therefore have ascended the throne before 1097 A.D.,
the year in which the latter died. Now this is
hopelessly irreconcilable with his view that the
eleventh king Vigrahapaala III, who ruled for at
least 13
-----------------------
a
1.Ibid.
a
2.Evidence in support of this assumption is cited later,
p.4.
a
p. 3
a
a
years, ascended the throne in 1045 A.D. and that the
fourteenth king Raamapaala ruled for 45 years; for
even if we ignore the reign-periods of the 12th,
13th, 15th and 16th kings, the accession of
Madanapaala cannot be placed earlier than 1103 A.D.
Again, according to Mr. Banerji, Vijayasena conquered
Varendra after the 8th regnal year of MadanapaaIa
(ibid., p. 284). As Mr. Banerji places the death of
Ballaalasena, who ruled for at least 11 years, at
1118 or 1119 A.D., Vijayasena must have ceased to
efore 1108 A.D. The date of Madanapaala's accession
would thus fall some years before 1100 A.D., but, as
we have just seen, this is irreconcilable with his
other statements. Lastly, the dates proposed by Mr.
Banerji for Dharmapaala and Devapaala are no longer
tenable; for he has assigned 55 years to
Naaraaya.napaala and at least 3, 15, and 26 years
respectively to Vigrahapaala I, Gopaala II and
Vigrahapaala II. If we add to it the 24 years of
Raajyapaala the sum total would be 123 years, which
is considerably more than the interval between the
dates proposed by him respective]y for the death of
Devapaala and the accession of Mahiipaala I, i.e..
865 A.D. and 973 A.D.
lt is thus quite clear that none of the existing
theories ahout the Paala chronology is in accordance
with all the known facts, and this necessitates a fresh
study of the subject with a view to frame a more
satisfactory hypothesis in regard to Paala chronology.
The Saarnaath inscription of Mahiipaala I, dated in
the year 1026 A.D.,(1) supplies us with a fixed point
in the Paala chronology. A consideration of the known
reign-periods of the successors of Mahiipaala I; as
given in the following list, seems to show that the
king did not live long after that date, and that for
all practical purposes that date may be looked upon
as his last.
Nayapaala.............................15 years
Vigrahapaala III.....................13 years
Mahiipaala II.........................a (unknown)
Suurapaala II.........................b "
Raamapaala............................42 years
Kumaarapaala..........................4 " (2)
Gopaala III...........................c (unknown)
Madanapaala......................... .19 years
--------------------
1.Ind. Ant., Vol XIV, p. 140; J.A.S.B., 1906, p. 445.
2.It is quite clear from the wordings of the Kamauli
grant of Vaidyadeva that Kumaarapaala was the
reigning king when that document was drawn up. The
year 4, the date of the document, might therefore
refer to the reign of Kumaarapaala or that of
Vaidyadeva in Kaamaruupa. In the first case
Kumaarapaala must have reigned for at least 4
years, in the second case, more than four; for
Vaidyadeva was appointed ruler of Kaamaruupa by
Kumaarapaala sometime after the latter had ascended
the throne.
p. 4
Now, as Madanapaala's inscriptions are found in
Varendra, and Vijayasena is said to have conquered
the province, Madanapaala must have preceded the
latter. The date of Vijayasena can be ascertained,
within narrow limits, by that of Naanyadeva whom he
is said to have defeated. As Sylvain Levi has shown,
Naanyadeva became king in 1097 A.D., and the fact
that Sadaa'siva Deva of Nepal is styled
Raajaadhiraaja Parame'svara in a Sanskrit manuscript
dated in 1120 A.D. proves that this supremacy was
over bv te. It is thus almost certain that Vijayasena
must have defeated him in the first quarter of the
12th century A.D. and Madanapaala too must have been
defeated not long afterwards.
Now, the sum total of the known reign-periods of
the successors of Mahiipaala I is 93 years. To this
must be added the unknown factors a,b,c, and d
representing respectively the reign-periods of
Mahiipaalal II, 'Suurapaala II, and Gopaala III, and
the excess of the actual reign-periods of the rest
over those known at present. The end of Madanapaala's
reign will thus fall about 1119(1)+(a+b+c+d) A.D., if
we count from the known date 1026 A.D., assuming it
to be the last date of Mahiipaala I. A akes us to the
second quarter of the twelfth century A.D., it may be
held that Mahiipaala I, died about 1026 A.D. and the
same conclusion must be upheld even if it is proved
than Madanapaala continued to rule for some time
after the conquest of Varendra by Vijaysena. for, as
it is, the unknown factors a.b,c,d, become almost
impossibly short.
Now, the known reign-periods of the Paala kings
up to Mahipaala I are shoun in the following table:--
s
I.Gopaala.......................
II.Dharmapaala...................32 years
III.Devapaala................... 33 "
IV.Vigrahapaala................ 3 "
V.Naaraayanapaala...............54 "
VI.Raajyapaala................. 24 "
VII.Gopaala II....................
VIII.Vigrahapaala II...............
IX. Mahiipaala ................. 48 "
s
The sum total of the reign-periods given above
is 194 years. Again, Gopaala II must be credited with
a long reign, for he is said, in the Baanga.rh grant
of Mahiipaala, to have ruled Cirataraam, which must
in any case denote a period longer than that of his
predecessor. As the latter, Raajyapaala, is known to
have reigned for at least 24 years, we must assign a
period of at least 30
---------------------
s
1.This should be increased by at least 13 years, for
as the footnote 2, p. 5 shows, Vigrahapaala III
whose reign-period has been assumed to be 13 years,
probably ruled for at least 26 years.
s
s
P. 5
s
s
s
years to Gopaala II. Subtracting 194+30 from 1026,
which we have shown to have been practically the last
date of Mahiipaala I, we are in a position to affirm
that Dharmapaala must have ascended the throne x
years before 802 A.D., x denoting the reign-periord
of No. VIII, together with the number of years that
the remaining kings must have ruled after their last
known dates. This unknown factor can hardly be taken
as less than a period of 20 years; indeed it would
have to be considerably increased b he fact that
there are reasons to believe that Dharmapaala met
Govinda III in about 808 A.D.(1)
This early date of Dharmapaala is corroborated
by a verse in the Sa~njana copper-plate of
Amaghavar`sa(2) which informs us that the
Raa.s.trakuu.ta king Dhruva defeated a king of Gau.da
between the Ganges and the Jamuna. This Gau.da king
can hardly be any other than Dharmapaala, for his
predecessor Gopaala does not seem to have extended
his conquests so far, and the political condition of
the Gau.da kingdom, just before the Paala period, is
hardly compatible with the view that any of its kings
tend his sphere of influence as far as Allahabad in
the west. The argument that such an early date of
Dharmapaala ill suits the supposition that he married
the daughter of Paravala, who is known to have ruled
in 761 A.D., is of no great weight, for the identity
of this Paravala with the father-in-law of
Dharmapaala must depend upon the date of the latter,
and, besides, the published facsimile raises great
doubts about the correctness of the reading of the
date in the Pathaarii Pillar inscription. As a result
of the foregoing discussion the
following chronological table of the Paala kings may
be offered with some degree of certainty.
c
Name of kings. Known reign-period. Approximate
year of accession.
I. Gopaala ...... 770 A.D.
II. Dharmapaala 32 years 780 "
III. Devapaala 33 " 815 "
-------------------------------------
c
1.An unpublished copper-plate in the possession of
Prof. D. R. Bhandarkar, who was kind enough to
allow me to make use of it, refers to the fact that
while Govinda III proceeded towards the Himaalayas
in course of his conquest, Dharmapaala waited upon
him. The same inscription also tells us that
Govinda III defeated the Gurjara-Pratihaara king
Naagabha.ta. It is reasonable to hold that both
these events took place in one and the same
expedition against the north. A comparison of the
Wa.nii and Raadh ants of Govinda III shows that the
expedition against the Gurjaras probably took place
in the interval between the two, for the later
grant is practically a repetition of the earlier
one with the one important addition, viz. the
reference to the Gurjara expedition. As both the
grants are dated in the 'Saka year 730, the date of
the northern expedition of Govinda III may be
placed at about 808 A.D..
2.This is the unpublished copper-plate referred to in
the last note.
a
a
P. 6
a
Name of kings. Known reign period Approximate year of accession.
a
a
IV. Vigrahapaala 1 or
'Suurapaala I 3 years 850 A.D.
V. Naaraaya.napaala 54 " 860 "
VI. Raajyapaala 24 " 915 "
VII.Gopaala II (longer than 24 years) 940 "
VIII. Vigrahapaala II ........ 970 "
IX. Mahiipaala I 48 years 978 "
X. Nayapaala 15 " 1026 "
XI. Vigrahapaala 13(or 26 ?)(1) 1042 "
Xll. Mahiipaala II ........ 1070 "
XIII. Suurapaala II ......... 1075 "
XIV. Raamapaala 42 years 1077 "
XV. Kumaarapaala .......... 1120 "
XVI. Gopaala III 1125 "
XVII. Madanapaala 19 years 1130 "
XVIII. ? Govindapaala(2) .......... 1150 "
--------------------------
(1) A manuscript of the Pa~ncaraksaa was copied in the
twenty sixth year of Vigrahapaala. It is thus quite
clear that one of the three kings bearing that name
must have ruled for at least 26 years. I have
assigned this period to Vigrahapaala III, for,
otherwise the accession of Dharmapaala will have to
be pushed still further back, a hypothesis which is
by no means favoured by the fact, noted above, that
he probably met Govinda III in 808 A.D.
(2) Nothing is definitely known about the successors of
Madanapaala .A stone inscription found at Gayaa and
the colophons of several manuscripts refer to a king
Govindapaala. The inscription is dated in the Vikrama
Samvat 1232 and " S'rii Govinda-paala-deva-gata-raajye
caturdda'sasamvatsare." Two of the colophons are
dated " S'riimad-Govindapaaladevasya atiita-samvatsa
18 " and " S'riimad-Govindapaala-devaanaa^m
vina.s.taraajye a.sta-tri.m'sat-samvatsare. " I have
attempted to prove in the ying paper on the Sena
chronology that such expressions really mean that the
years were counted from the cessation of the reign.
If we accept this view we must hold, on the authority
of the inscription of Govindapaaladeva, that his
reign was over 14 years before 1232 Vikrama Samvat.
In other words, the king ceased to reign in 1162 or
1163 A.D.. As I have placed the accession of
Madanapaala in the year 1130 A.D., and the king is
known to have reigned at least for 19 years, the end
of his reign is bro te close to the accession of
Govindapaala; for it seems quite likely that
Govindapaala succeeded Madanapaala not long after
1150 A.D., but was defeated, and his kingdom
destroyed, by the Sena kings in 1162-3 A.D.