Indian Epigraphy c15.t18.3.1

c15.t18.3.1

The statement of the *Life* that Harṣa Śīlāditya died in 655 A.D. and another Chinese statement that the king’s reign followed some date in 618-27 A.D. have rightly been rejected, though Watters’ supposition that Hiuen-tsang knew the date of Harṣa’s death before submitting his *Records* to the Chinese emperor in 648 A.D. seems to be entirely unwarranted.² There is no reason to think that anybody in China knew the date of Harṣa’s death before the return of Wang Hiuen-tse’s mission considerably after that event. It seems therefore that the thirty-six years given by Hiuen-tsang as the duration of Harṣa’s reign covers actually the period from his accession to 642 A.D. when the Chinese pilgrim was staying with him and not the period from his accession to this death. It thus appears that, according to Hiuen-tsang’s statement in question, Harṣa ascended the throne thirty-six years before 642 A.D., i.e. in 606 A.D. According to the *Life*,³ Harṣa told Hiuen-tsang on the eve of the religious assembly at Prayāga (Allahabad) about the beginning of 643 A.D. that he had ‘been lord of India for thirty years and more' and further that he had 'completed five of these assemblies' and was 'about to celebrate the sixth'. As the assembly was celebrated every five years, it has to be seen whether these statements agree in placing Harṣa's accession thirty years before 643, i.e. about 612 or 613 A.D. At his accession, neither was Harṣa a 'lord of India' (i.e.