Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c15.s2.t3: Approximate date

History of Kanauj to the Moslem Conquest c15.s2.t3

Language
English

Approximate date

c15.s2.t3.1

Chronology being the weakest spot in Hindu history, it is obviously difficult to fix the limits of Yaśovarman’s reign with any amount of accuracy. Smith was of opinion that he ruled from *circa* 728 to 745 A. D.,⁴ and Sankara Pāṇḍuranga Pandit in his learned introduction of the *Gauḍavaho* comes to the conclusion that “Yaśovarman must have reigned in the latter part of the seventh and the first part of the eighth century A. D.”¹ We may, however, first determine the period of Yaśovarman with reference to the chronological setting of his contemporary and rival, Lalitāditya of Kashmir, and then try to arrive at a closer approximation. The date of Lalitāditya can be worked out either by counting the years of all successive kings of the valley till he came to the throne, or by calculating back from the completion of Kalhaṇa’s *Rājatarangiṇī* to his accession. But as the dates and reigns of kings back from Jayasiṃha, the contemporary of Kalhaṇa, rest on a far more sure basis than those of the distant predecessors of Lalitāditya, we shall follow the latter method here.

c15.s2.t3.2

⁴ *J. R. A. S.*, 1908, p. 784.

c15.s2.t3.3

¹ *Gauḍavaho*, Introduction, pp. xcv-vi.

c15.s2.t3.4

Kalhaṇa mentions the year 25 of the Laukika or Saptarṣi era as the time of the finishing of his great work, which he began in 24 Laukika era corresponding to 1070 Saka according to the method of turning a Laukika into a Saka year given in Sir R. G. Bhandarkar’s *Report on Manuscripts* (1883-84, p. 84). The sum of the duration of reigns from Jayasiṃha, who had at this date ruled for twenty-two years, to Lalitāditya has been given by Sankara P. Pandit on the basis of his computation as 455 years, 7 months and 11 days.² If we, therefore, subtract these years from 1071 Saka i.e., the year 25 of the Laukika era, we get *circa* Saka 615 or 693 A. D., as the date of Lalitāditya’s accession to the throne. He is recorded to have reigned for 36 years, 7 months and 11 days, and thus, according to Kalhaṇa, Lalitāditya’s reign may be fixed between 693 and 730 A. D. A comparison with Chinese chronology, however, throws doubt on the correctness of these dates. The Chinese Annals of the Tang dynasty represent Tchen-t’o-lo-pi-li or Candrāpīḍa, the second predecessor of Muktāpīḍa, as having sent an embassy to the Chinese court in the year 713 A. D. to seek its aid against the Arabs, and as receiving investiture as king from the Emperor of China in 720 A. D., whereas according to Kalhaṇa’s chronology Candrāpīḍa was already dead in 689 A. D. As the Chinese have been more precise in their system of chronology, evidently there must be a mistake of at least 31 years in Kalhaṇa’s calculation, supposing Candrāpīḍa to have died the very year he received the title from China. Hence if we apply the correction of 31 years, Lalitāditya’s date will fall between 724 and 760 A. D., and being his contemporary Yaśovarman must also be assigned to the same period.

c15.s2.t3.5

² *Gauḍavaho*, Introduction, pp. lxxxvi-xcii. The total of the durations includes the reign-period of Saṃgrāmāpīḍa, which is 7 years. Some Mss. read “vāsārān” (days) for “vatsarān,” which, however, is incorrect (See *Ibid.*, p. lxxxvi note).

c15.s2.t3.6

Having arrived at this rough indication, we may now try to ascertain more definite limits of his reign. The Chinese authorities mention that a “king of Central India,” of the name of I-cha-fon-mo, sent his minister Seng-po-ta to China in 731 A. D., and the former has, I suppose, been correctly identified with Yaśovarman of Kanauj.¹ Probably he despatched this embassy in order to enlist the support of the Emperor of China, who was by far the most powerful Asiatic potentate of those times, soon after his accession, which we may, therefore, approximately date in the year 725 A. D. With regard to the last limit of his reign, the Jain writers seem to give us a fairly correct clue. Most of them state that he was ruling in V. E. 800 or 743 A. D., and Rājaśekhara, the author of the Prabandhakoṣa, leads us a step further. He informs us that a Jain saint named Bappabhaṭṭi, who was initiated as a monk in V. E. 807, converted to Jainism Amarāja, the son and successor of Yaśovarman. Bappabhaṭṭi was next raised to the dignity of Sūri in V. E. 811 after his royal disciple had ascended the throne. It is thus evident that Yaśovarman must have died sometime between the years 807 V. E. and 811 V. E., corresponding to 750 and 754 A. D., i.e., about the year 752 A. D. These dates (725-752 A. D.) fit in very well with the dates of Lalitāditya, and we may be sure that they leave little margin for error.¹

c15.s2.t3.7

¹ Stein, Rājat., Introd. p. 89; Bk. IV, verse 134, note.

c15.s2.t3.8

¹ See also the “Collected works of Sir R. G. Bhandarkar, Vol. II, pp. 429-33.

Linked texts (3)