Vol. VII, No. 6.] The Evidence of the Faridpur Grants. 307 
[N.S.] 
or their descendants continued to enjoy a certain amount of 
territorial independence centuries after the dissolution of the 
ancient empire of the Gupta. The seals of these three copper- 
plates show that the officer in charge of the Varakamandala 
had carved out a small principality for himself and that his 
descendants continued to enjoy it for three or four centuries. 
hey do not seem to have laid claim to royalty as is usual in 
designation as their founder. This is a parallel case with that 
of the Native States of India which sprang up after the disso- 
lution of the Mu ghal empire and the rulers of which, though 
independent Princes in reality, continued under their old rank 
and titles in the majority of cases. It is possible to assert on 
this data and the evidence of the seal of the Tippera Grant 
alluded to by Dr. Bloch that after the dissolution of the an- 
cient Gupta empire officers in charge of the provinces gradually 
carved out small principalities for themselves and their descen- 
dants. We have clearer examples in the case of the Senapatis 
of Valabhi and the Parivrajaka Maharajas. In Bengal the 
Aphsad Inscription of Adityasena provides us with a long line 
of local rulers, who most probably were descendants from the 
ancient Gupta Emperors. Besides the Guptas of Magadha, the 
stray Kings like Narendragupta, we have no other data for the 
History vf Bengal after the fall of Harsavardhana 
The of the Faridpur copperplates senna that of the 
Tippera one show that the smaller principalities which came 
into existence after the dissolution of the ancient Gupta ware 
survived the downfall of the Kings of Sthvanisvara. Thus 
Bengal only we have two separate dynasties descended teom 
the officials of the ancient Gupta empire who continued to rule 
till the rise of the Palas. The case is very clear in the case of 
the Tippera Grant, but in the case of the Faridpur Grants it is 
different. In the Faridpur Grants we find that a genuine seal 
of an official of the ancient Gupta empire has been used to seal 
@ land-grant instead of that of the Prince during whose reign 
the grant was made, or that of the person who made the 
grant. At the same time, it is interesting to note that the 
seal belonged to the officer in charge of the district in which 
the land granted is situated. In that case it may be safely 
asserted that a descendant of the officer in charge of the 
Varakamandala of the ancient Gupta empire continued to hold 
sovereign rights over the whole or part of that district, other- 
wise the forger would not have sealed the grants with his seal. 
Most probably Dharmmaditya, Gopacandra and Samacaradeva 
were great oe according to the tradition then current in 
ngal, and the forger of these plates has referred to them by 
name only owing to the absence of other details concerning 
them. It is to be noted also that he has used regnal years 
instead of definite dates in these plates. It may be that the 
