South Indian Inscriptions

KALACHURI CHEDI - ERA

Prof. Rapson’s view that Īśvaradatta flourished in the gap between the years 158 and 161. He pointed out that the Sarvāniā hoard contained a coin of Yaśōdāman dated in the year 160. This date lessens the gap between Yaśōdāman and his predecessor by one year. “It is still not impossible”, wrote Dr. Bhandarkar, “to adjust the two years of Īśvaradatta’s reign even in this lessened gap, viz., between 158 and 160, but just as the gap between 171 and 176, which was imagined by Bhagvanlal, no longer exists, a day will, no doubt, come when with the further find of coins the gap between 158 and 160, now existing, will also be completely filled.”¹ Dr. Bhandarkar placed the rise of Īśvaradatta in the period 110-112 (188-190 A. C.) when the Mahākshatrapa Rudrasimha suffered a diminution of power and was reduced to the rank of Kshatrapa. He pointed out that the Ābhīras had acquired great predominance about this time; for, the Nāsik inscription of the Ābhīra Īśvarasēna can, on the evidence of palæography, be referred to about the year 100 and the Gunda inscription² shows that in the year 103 and during the regime as Kshatrapa of Rudrasimha himself the post of Sēnāpati or Commander-in-Chief was held by an Ābhīra called Rudrabhūti.

In 1920, in an article entitled ‘the Kushāna Chronology’ published in the Journal of the Department of letters (Calcutta University), Vol. I, pp. 65 ff., Dr. R. C. Majumdar, after detailed examination of the evidence afforded by the Chinese works Heou Han Chou of fan-Ye and Wei-lio of Yu Houan, came to the conclusion that the dates ranging from 72 to 136, found in the inscriptions of the Northern Satraps, Gondophares, Kujula Kadphises and Wema Kadphises, must be referred to the Śaka era beginning in 78 A. C. Kanishka who flourished after Wema Kadphises must, therefore, be placed after 214 A. C. Following the principle that ‘we should, whenever practicable, avoid the assumption of a brand-new era for the existence of which there is no evidence at all’, Dr. Majumdar put forward the view that Kanishka founded the so-called Kalachuri era of 248-49 A. C. He referred to Prof. Rapson’s conclusion based on a critical examination of Kshatrapa coinage that from the year 167 or 168 (246-46 A. C.) the Western Kshatrapas had to face troublous times and that their dominions were probably subject to some foreign invasion. Dr. Majumdar attributed this to the establishment, by the Kushāna Emperor, of a rival dynasty in the south to hold in check the power of the Western Kshatrapas, and suggested that this ultimately became instrumental in preserving the era of the Kushānas long after it had become extinct in the province of its origin.

The main objection to Dr. Majumdar’s theory is that there is no evidence of the establishment, by the Kushānas, of such a rival dynasty in the south, which curtailed the power of the Western Kshatrapas. Again, Prof. Jouveau-Dubreuil has pointed out that the regin of Vāsudēva, the last of the Kushānas, came to an end 100 years after the beginning of the regin of Kanishka. Numerous inscriptions prove that the Vāsudēva reigned at Mathurā. It is certain that this country, over which extended the empire of Vāsudēva, was occupied about 350 A. C. by the Yaudhēyas and the Nāgas, and it is probable that they reigned in this place nearly one century before they were subjugated by Samudragupta. The capitalk of the Nāgas were Mathurā, Kāntipura and Padmāvatī (or Pawāyā, at the confluence of the Sindhu and the Pārā).³ The finds of Nāga coins as well as scattered references in Sanskrit literature indicate that the Nāgas, not the Kushānas, were powerful in Central India before the rise of the Guptas.4

In 1928, in his article entitled 'The Kalachuris of Tripurī', published in the Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. IX, pp. 281 ff., Rai Bahadur Dr. Hiralal
_______________________

¹ A. R. A. S. I. for 1913-14, p. 229.
² Ind. Ant., Vol. X, p. 157. See also J. R. A. S., 1840, p. 650.
³ A. H. D., p. 31.
⁴ For other objections, see P. H. A. I., pp. 468-69.