Indian Antiquary Vol 46

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 284

270
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[NOVEMBER, 1917
The origin of this era is shrouded in mystery. The earliest instance where its use can be definitely established is afforded by an inscription of the Traikutaka king Dahrasena dated in the year 207. From this time onwards the era was mostly prevalent in the Gurjara country and Konkan without any definite name, being simply referred to as 'Samvatsara' In one instance it is referred to as "Tr-ai)ketakâna(.) prawanddhamana-rajya-sa() vvatsara-sata-dvaye pañcha-chatvári(ni)sad-uttare," which seems to show that it was mostly in use in the Traikûtaka kingdom. It is not until the year 893 of the era that a definite name, viz., Kalachuri Samvatsara, was given to it. In all these there is nothing inconsistent with the assumption that the era was founded by Kanishka and made current in Gurjara and Konkan by dynasties of feudatory kings. An analogous instance is afforded by the Gupta era, which was prevalent in western parts of India long after it had ceased to be current in its home provinces, and even came to be known as the Valabhi Samvat.
A close study of the coins of the Western Satraps seems to show that the influence of the Kushan Emperors had made itself felt in this quarter. The following remarks of Rapson, who has made a special study of the subject, show the gradual process of decline in the power of the Western Satraps.
"Already in this reign (of Vijayasena) appear the first symptoms of a decline about the year 167 or 168 (A. D. 245-246); and from this time onwards until the end of the dynasty it is possible to observe in the coinage a process of continuous degradation, varied occasionally by short-lived attempts to restore a higher standard.” (Rapson's Andhra Coins, p. 137).
"In any case there must have been a long interval in which there was no Mahaksatrapa The first part of this interval is taken up with the reigns of two Kshatrapas, Rudrasimha II, 227-23 (5-9) [A. D. 305-31 (3-7)] and Yasedaman II, 239-254 [A.D. 317-332 1: during the latter part, 254-270 (A.D. 332-348) the coins of this dynasty cease altogether."
"All the evidence afforded by coins or the absence of coins during this period, the failure of the direct line and the substitution of another family, the cessation first of the Maheksatrapas and afterwards of both Mahakşatrapas and Kşatrapas seems to indicate troublous times. The probability is that the dominions of the Western Ksatrapas were subject to some foreign invasion ; but the nature of this disturbing cause is at present altogether doubtful.” (Ibid, p. 142.)
It will be observed that my theory about the Kushan chronology fully explains the process of continuous degradation noticed by Rapson. The first symptoms of decline appear shortly after the Kuslans had established their supremacy in India. The dynasty is shorn of power during Huvishka's time, altogether ceases to exist as a ruling power during the rule of Vasudeva, and revives some of its power and influence only after the death of this prince and the consequent downfall of the Kushan power. It is quite permissible to hold, therefore, that a rival dynasty was established in Gujarat to hold in check the power of the Western Kshatrapas, and this ultimately became instrumental in preserving the era of the Kushans long after it had become extinct in the province of its origin.
Another circumstance corroborrates the theory that Kanishka flourished about A.D. 249. We have a Mathura Inscription dated in the year 299 whose letters resemble those of the Sarnath Inscription of Kanishka, and which must therefore be placed, on palæographic grounds, close to the period of Kanishka. It is admitted by all that this date cannot be referred to the era used by Kanishka or the Northern Satraps. Those who place Kanishka in A.D. 78 are thus compelled to refer it to a second unknown era (the first unknown era being that to which they refer the dates of Sodasa and Gondophares).