History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c11.145

c11.145

Apparently, there is some force in these arguments, but they are open to serious objections. First, if the dates of the inscriptions of Amśuvarman be accepted as referring to the Harṣa era, the last known date for him according to inscription No. 8 would be A. D. 606 + 45 = 651 A. D. The *Records* on the other hand imply by the word "recent" that Amśuvarman's reign had terminated shortly before the pilgrim's visit in about 637 A. D. And we have, therefore, a discrepancy of about 14 years between the two testimonies. Scholars try to overcome this difficulty by suggesting that the pilgrim did not himself go to Nepal, and his evidence was "mere hearsay liable to be coloured and distorted by misunderstanding or misrepresentation." The assumption, however, is quite gratuitous, for Yuan Chwang was a careful and trustworthy writer, who invariably tried to ascertain facts and note them down correctly. He moved in the highest circles, among powerful potentates and celebrated monks, who could certainly be relied upon to supply correct information.¹ Besides, Yuan Chwang mentions the countries that he did not visit, and as an instance we may cite the case of the six countries beyond Samataṭa, regarding which he speaks only on information gained here and there.² Thus there can be no doubt about the pilgrim's testimony, and so to reconcile the conflicting evidence we must refer the dates in the inscriptions to some other era instead of that of Harṣa. Yuan Chwang's visit to those parts has been fixed at about 637 A. D. We also know from inscriptions Nos. 8 and 9 that Amśuvarman died, and his successor was on the throne between Saṃvat 45 and 48. Hence, assuming that Amśuvarman was dead a couple of years before the pilgrim's visit, and that the date 45 denotes the last year of his reign, we come to the conclusion that the reckoning in the inscriptions began in the year 590 A. D. approximately. The fact that Amśuvarman was a mere Sāmanta or Mahāsāmanta need not present any obstacle in adopting this view. Probably he did not start any era formally soon after his accession, but at first dated the inscriptions in the years of his reign. Later on, when he assumed the supreme power in the land, he converted it into an era dating back to the beginning of his rule, and the same reckoning was continued by his successors. Amśuvarman's earliest inscription is dated *Saṃvat* 34, and *Saṃvat* undoubtedly indicates an era.