Goetz' interpretation was widely accepted and cited by the subsequent scholars. However, Tansen Sen (2004) rejects Goetz' assessment of Lalitaditya's exploits as exaggerated, based on his study of the contemporary Chinese and Tibetan records, as well as numismatic evidence. Sen also analyzed the writings of the Korean monk Hyecho (who visited Kashmir in 725 CE, at the beginning of Lalitaditya's reign) and the Chinese monk Wukon (who stayed in Kashmir for four years during c. 753-763 CE, after Lalitaditya's death). None of these sources support Goetz' assertion that Lalitaditya managed establish a vast Kashmiri empire in the Hindukush-Pamir region, or that he marched across the Taklamakan desert. Historical evidence indicates that the Tang dynasty retained control of the oasis states in the desert region until the early 780s CE, when the Tibetans established their dominance. There is no evidence of Lalitaditya's march to Pamir region either: the "Old Tibetan Annals" establish that a number of northern Pamir rulers sent envoys to pay homage to the Tibetan court in 756-757 CE. This suggests that this area was under control of the Tibetans, whose records do not mention any conflict with Kashmir.