________________
APPENDIX B.
A NOTE ON THE CHRONOLOGICAL RELATION OF KANISHKA
AND RUDRADĀMAN I.
In recent years' Mr. Haricharan Ghosh and Professor Jayachandra Vidyalankar contributed two very interesting notes on the date of Kanishka. The latter upholds the theory of Dr. Sten Konow, fortified by the calculations of Dr. Van Wijk, that the great Kushän Emperor began his rule in A.D. 128-29, and criticises the view put forward in this work that Kanishka I's rule in the "Lower Indus Valley" (this and not "Sind," is the expression actually used) could not have synchronised with that of Rudradāman I, who, "did not owe his position as Mahākshatrapa to anybody else.” The conclusions of Professor Konow and Dr. Van Wijk are admittedly hypothetical, and little more need be said about them after the illuminating observations of Professor Rapson in JRAS, 1930, January, pp. 186-202. In the present note we shall confine ourselves to an examination of the criticism of Professor Jayachandra Vidyalankar and Mr. Haricharan Ghosh of the views expressed in the preceding pages.
The Professor has not a word to say about the contention that Kanishka's dates 1-23, Vāsishka's dates 24-28, Huvishka's dates 318-60, and Vāsudeva's dates 67-98 suggest a continuous reckoning. In other words, Kanishka was the originator of an era. But we know of no era current in North-West India which commenced in the second century A. D. He only takes considerable pain to prove that Rudradāman's sway over Sindhu-Sauvīra (which he identifies with modern Sind) between 130 and 150 A.D. does not imply control over Sui Vihār and Multān, and consequently Kanishka's sovereignty over Sui Vihār in the year 11 of an era starting from 128-29 A.D., i. e., in or about 140 A.D., is not irreconcilable
1 IHQ, March, 1930, pp. 149 ff.
2 IHQ, V, No. 1, March, 1929, pp. 49-80, and J BORS, XV, parts I & 11, March-June, 1929, pp. 47-63.
3 The earliest recorded date of Huvishka is now known to be the year 28.
