Indian Epigraphy c15.t18.8

c15.t18.8

According to Al-Bīrūnī,¹ ‘an era of Harṣa is used in Mathurā and the country of Kanoj. Between Śrī-Harṣa (i.e. the Harṣa era) and Vikramāditya (i.e. the Vikrama era) there is an interval of 400 years as I have been told by some of the inhabitants of that region. However, in the Kashmirian calendar, I have read that Śrī-Harṣa (i.e. the Harṣa era) was 664 years later than Vikramāditya (i.e. the Vikrama era). In face of this discrepancy, I am in perfect uncertainty which to the present moment has not yet been cleared up by any trustworthy information.” The passage clearly says that Al-Bīrūnī heard of one Harṣa era with its epoch 400 years before the start of the Vikrama era (i.e. in 457 B.C.) and of another Harṣa era having its epoch 664 years after the commencement of the Vikrama-saṃvat (i.e. in 606 A. D.). He refers to the two conflicting traditions regarding the epoch of the Harṣa era as well as to his doubts about them and apparently rejects, at least tentatively, the 606 A.D. epoch in favour of the 457 B.C. tradition, even though he had found corresponding years of both the Vikrama era of 58 B.C. and the Harṣa era of 606 A.D. in the Kashmiri an almanac. The passage unquestionably shows that Al-Bīrūnī knew of a Harṣa era starting from 606 A.D., no doubt the year of accession of an Indian monarch named Harṣa. Now the combined strength of the statements of Hiuen-tsang and Al-Bīrūnī discussed above supports the conclusion that king Harṣa, a contemporary of Cālukya Pulakeśin II (610-42 A. D.) and the Chinese pilgrim Hiuen-tsang who travelled in India in 629-45 A. D., ascended the throne in 606 A.D. and that an era, later called the Harṣa era, was counted from that date.