10 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N S., XVII, 
Gupta or Kushan era, we should expect the name of the 
reigning king with the year of the era. We find for example 
‘Sri- a 
of the reigning king is mentioned along with the years of the 
era founded by his predecessor, and this seems to have been 
the standard practice in ancient India 
of 
however, positive evidences which seem to demonstrate the 
impossibility of this view. 
€ Deopara inscription of Vijayasena ® proves that he 
“was master of Varendra. Now the Manhali grant of Madana- 
pala* shows that he occupied Varendra till at least the eighth 
year of his reign, for he made some land-grants in the Pundra- 
Madanapala, a conclusion which has been accepted by Mr. 
Banerji in his latest writing on the subject.6 We can atrive at 
reign-periods cf his predecessors as far ag Mahipala I, one of 
whose known dates is 1026 A.D. This will be quite intelligible 
from the following table :— 
Mahipala I < -- 1026 A.D. 
‘Nayapala si .. 15 years 
Vigrahapala III... a + ee 
Mahipala IT a See aa 
Strapala 1] ; Se 2 = 
Ramapala ie -. 42 years 
Kumarapala me eRe i 
Gopala IIT . ve % 
Madanapala é 
pala IT, Sarapala If, and Gopala III, and the excess of the 
actual reign-periods of the rest over those known at present. 
The initial date of Madanapala’s reign must therefore fall some 
years, probably a good many years, after 1100 A.D. 
S we have seen above, Vijayasena must have ceased to 
reign after the eighth year of Madanapala. His successor 
! Liider’s List, No. 41. 2? Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions, No. 10. 
3 Ep. Ind. Vol. I, p- 305. + J.A.S.B, 1900, p. 66, 
5 Banglar Itihasa, p. 284. 
