The Harsa Era
Summary
In this rejoinder to D.C. Sircar, historian R.C. Majumdar reassesses the chronology of King Harsa’s reign and the so‑called Harsa Era. Sircar had argued for an era beginning in 606 A.D., partly based on Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang’s statement that Harsa ruled for thirty‑six years. Majumdar contends that this period should be counted up to Harsa’s death in 648 A.D., placing his accession around 612 A.D. rather than 606 A.D. He criticises Sircar for misinterpreting the Life of Hiuen Tsang and for relying on weak evidence for the existence of an official Harsa era. Majumdar points out that none of the inscriptions explicitly reference such an era and that the chronological statements in literary sources have been misunderstood. He concludes that the idea of a Harsa era is speculative and that more reliable epigraphic evidence is needed before adopting it. The article thus clarifies the historical debate and underscores the need for critical scrutiny of sources when reconstructing early medieval Indian chronology.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
Majumdar’s analysis leads him to reject the notion of a Harsa era commencing in 606 A.D. He argues that Harsa likely ascended the throne around 612 A.D. and that available evidence does not support the existence of an era named after him. The article highlights the importance of cautious source criticism in historical chronology.