________________
422
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[DECEMBER, 1884.
existence is the sole remaining vestige of the former conquest. Thus the fact that in later times Vaisa Rajputs were found on the Nava kot hill, in all probability indicates that Nepál once was in the power of a Vaisa king, who can have been nobody else but Sriharsha. If thus the subjection of Nepal to this prince may be considered certain, the use of his era by Améu varman and his successors, is almost a matter of course.
Strong as these arguments in favour of the Sriharsha era are, there is yet a point in Hiuen Thsang's account of Nepal which requires to be cleared up, before the above conclusion can be accepted without reserve. Hiuen Thsang tells us, as stated above, that the reign- ing king of Nepal belongs to the Lichchhavi race, and that in these latter times there was a king called Amsuvarman,' &c. This can only mean that in Hiuen Thsang's times Amuvarman was dead. As Hiuen Thsang's visit to North-Eastern India fell about the year 637 A.D., or Sriharshasamvat 30-31, his assertion clashes with the date of our inscriptions which; if referred to the Sriharsha era, show that Amsu varman was certainly alive after Sriharsha-Samvat 40, or 646-7 A.D." This disagreement would be very serious, if Hiuen Theang really did visit Nepala, as M. Stanislas Julien's translation represents him to have done. The latter point is, however, doubtful, because the Chinese expressions, referring to the march, may be understood either as describing Hiuen Thsang's route or the way in general, and because the life of Hiuen Thsang says nothing about his having visited Vsiji (Fo-li-shi) and Nepal." Hence M. Vivien de Saint-Martin, Mémoires, tome II, p. 365, thinks it plus que probable' that the pilgrim passed at once from Sveta- pura in Vaišáli across the Ganges into Magadha. Mr. Beal in his new translation so far agrees with this view that he declares Hiuen Thsang's visit to Nepal to be incredible. He says in the note cited, 'But the pilgrim does not appear to have gone into Nepal. He went to the capital of the Vțijis and
there speaks from report. If this supposition, 88 seems most probable, is correct, the contradiction between Hiuen Thsang's words and the dates of the inscriptions admits of an explanation. It becomes probable that either account, rendered to him, of the peculiar political condition of Nepal, was inaccurate, or that he himself misunderstood it. During the times of Amu varman and of his successor Jis hņugupta (it may be even somewhat later) a double government existed in the valley, Lichchhavi kings reigned side by side with Ansu varman himself and his successors. Such a complex government might well puzzle & stranger, and he might easily fall into the error of supposing that one of the kings named to him ruled before the other. This may be safely accepted as the true solution of the difficulty raised by the wording of Hiuen Thsang's note regarding Amś uvarman, and it may be considered certain that our inscriptions Nos. 6-15 range between 640-1 and 759-60 A.D.
Before we proceed to utilise further the result of the preceding discussion, it will be advisable to subject the parts which reveal the existence of a double government during a part of the seventh century to a little closer examination. In our inscription No. 5 the Lichchha viking Sivad ê va says of his great feudal baron' Améu varman that he has destroyed the power of all (his master's) enemies by the majesty of his valour' and that his brilliant fame, gained by the trouble of properly protecting the people, pervades the universe.' These hyperbolical expressions indicate not only that ATMsuvarman held a high position as commander-in-chief and prime minister, but that his power and influence at last nearly equalled that of his master. In Samvat 34 (No. 6) Ansu varman's title remains the same. But he dates from a residence of his own, Kailâ sa k û ta" and couches his edict in a language which is usually employed by kings only. In fact, except by his title, he gives no sign that he lives under a lord paramount. The same state of things is indicated by
" Beal, Bud. Rec., vol. I, p. 81, note 103. I owe the oommunication of the page before the issue of the work to the kindness of Mr. Beal.-G. B.
* A reminiscence of the fact that Amán varman built for himself a residence of his own, is contained in the remark of the Vamjával, which ageerts that he transfer. red the seat of government to Madhyalakhu.
As the second figure of the date of No. 8 is uncertain, it will be advisable to take the certain sign 40 alone into consideration. If the date of No. 8 is really Samvat 45, A.D. 187-2 A.D. Arguvarman must have died between that year and the first date of Jichnugupta, Samvat 48, or 654-5 A.D.
* See Vie de Hiouen Theang, p. 136.
