Mahavira Jain Vidyalay Suvarna Mahotsav Granth Part 1

Author(s): Mahavir Jain Vidyalaya Mumbai
Publisher: Mahavir Jain Vidyalay

Page 612

JAINA SCULPTURES OF THE GUPTA AGE : 147
“If referred to the Mauryan era, the year 299 is equivalent to 321-299 = 22 B.C. and if referred to Seleukidan era it becomes equal to 312 = 13 B.C. This detailed examination proves that the date in this inscription can not be referred to the era used in the Kuşāņa inscriptions and it may be said with certainty that any conclusions as to the chronology of the Kuşāņa period based on this inscription cannot be regarded as valid.” (p. 41).
Sten Konow while contributing a paper for the K. B. Pathak commemoration volume, Poona 1934, pp. 262-268 discussed this inscripion. Again commenting on an inscription of the year 303 of an unknown era, discovered by N. G. Majumdar at Charsadda and also published by him in the Epigraphia Indica Vol. 24, 1937, pp. 8–10, Konow opines that the inscriptions using high numbers in dates belong to one era. These inscriptions are from Lorian Tangai (of the year 318), Jamalgarhi (359), Hashtnagar (384), Skarah Dheri (399) and Mathura (299). (S. Konow, Charsadda Kharoshthi Inscription of the year 303, Acta Or., Vol. XX, 1948, pp. 107–119). But he has not been able to provide any decisive clue to this problem and has been shifting from one view to another in discussing the date of Kaniska in several papers. He has accepted the use of seven eras in the period from 1st century B.C. to 1st century A.D. These seven eras are, the old and the new Parthian eras, the Vikrama era, the Azes era, an era beginning about 50 A.D., the Saka era and the Kaniska era.
The views of Professor Konow have been severely criticised by J. E. Van Lohuizen-De Leeuw in the chapter on “The Eras" of her book The Scythian Period. Commenting on Konow's views she remarks, “The way in which Konow was continually forced to alter his opinion, as every now and then points arose which did not square with his ideals,.." (Ibid., p. 16). On his theory of seven eras she says, “It is clear to everyone how matters become exceptionally complicated by those seven eras...." (pp. 16-17).
Disagreeing with the views of Konow, she opines that the inscriptions bearing high numbers in date (of the Years 318, 359, 384, 399 and possibly even that of 303) were inscribed during the reign of Kaniska and his immediate successors but the inscription under discussion (of the Year 299) on the palaeographical and other indicacations should be assigned to the period "just before Kanişka's accession to the throne" (p. 57).
After quoting various authorities and discussing the problem Lohuizen gives the solution of this knotty problem as follows: