Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c24.5

c24.5

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 31³-60, 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 pains 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 with the rule of the Great Satrap in Sindhu-Sauvīra at about the same time. He is not oblivious of the difficulty of harmonising this limitation of Rudradāman's power with the known fact of the Great Satrap's campaign against the Yaudheyas in the course of which he claims to have uprooted that powerful tribe "in their country proper which was to the north of Suē Vihār" and, according to the theory advocated by the Professor, "formed part of Kanishka's dominions" at that time. He meets the difficulty by saying that "the pressure of the Kusāna armies from the north had driven the Yaudheyas to the desert of Marwar". Such surmises to explain away inconvenient details, are, to say the least, not convincing, especially in view of the fact that Maru finds separate mention in the inscription of Rudradāman as a territory under the rule of the mighty Satrap.