14 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XVII, 
The possibility of such a reckoning is indisputably proved 
y the inscriptions of Govindapaladeva, notably the two 
following instances :— 
(i) Govindapala-devanam vinasta-rajye Asta-trimésat-sain- 
vatsare. 
(ii) Govindapala-devinam sam 39. 
Even according to the interpretation of Mr. Banerji, the 
kingdom of Govindapala was destroyed in the 38th year. 
The second instance therefore shows that reckoning was still 
vijaya-rajya of the Moslem conquerors, counted the dates with 
reference to the destruction of the last independent native 
kingdom. 
eference may be made in this connection to the fact that 
even less than two hundred years ago, there were current in 
engal, eras, known as Balali San or Parganati San.? The 
colophon of a manuscript gives the date as 1176 Bangla San, 
570 Balali San and 1692 Saka. The epoch of this era would 
thus fallin 1199 A.D. All the documents, which are dated in 
the Parganati San along with a known era, show that its initial 
year corresponds to 1202-3 A.D.. there being only one exception 
according to which the initia] year would correspond to 
1203-4 A.D. 
I do not, of course, go so far as to assert positively that 
Stearn on ee ee 
1 Op. cit., p. 280. 
? For a detailed account of this era cf. Mr. J. Roy’s ‘ Dhakar 
Itihasa ’ Vol, IT, p. 393 ff. and Mr. Bhattagali’s Paper in Ind.Ant. 1912, 
p. 169ff. Mr Bhattaéali seems to have been wrong in reading the name 
of the era as « parganatit’ rather than < parganati. 
