|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
KALACHURI CHEDI - ERA founder of the Ābhīra dynasty. Perhaps, he was previously a military officer of the Sātavāhanas. From the Gunda inscription2 we know of another Ābhīra Sēnāpati named Rudrabhūti, the son of the commander Bāhaka, who was in the service of the Western Kshatrapa Rudrasimha I in181 A.C. Iśvarasena may have held a similar office under The last Stāvāhana king Puļumāvi Iv. In that case his military power and the influence he command may have helped him in usurping the throne after Pulumāvi. IV. Several scholars identify this. Iśvarasena with. Iśvaradatta whose silver coins dated in the first and second regnal years have been discovered at several places in Saurashtra and Southern Rajputana. About the exact period in which he flourished, there has, however, been a great divergence of opinion.3 Pandit Bhagvanlal placed him in the gap of the years 171-176, for which no coins of the Western Kshatrapas were available in his time. Later on, Prof. Rapson showed that the gap did not exist, as he discovered coins of the dates from 171 to 176. Rapson himself assigned him to the gap between the years 158 and 161, but Dr.D.R.Bhandarkar pointed out that that gap too was virtually non-existent, as he found a coin dated 160 in the Sarvāniā hoard. Iśvaradatta may, of course, have been an Ābhira, though his coins do not say so explicitly; for, the Nasik inscription shows that the Ābhiras bore names ending in datta as well as in séna. But it is doubtful if he was identical with Iśvarasēna, the founder of the Ābhīra dynasty; for, his coins are dated only in the first and second years of his reign4 and are found only in Saurashtra and Southern Rajputana.5 This plainly indicates that he had a meteoric rise in that part of the country, but was promptly subdued by the Western Kshatrapas. If he later on retired to Maharashtra and established himself there, his coins dated in subsequent years should have been found there; for, the Nāsik inscription shows that Īśvarasēna continued to hold Maharashtra at least till the ninth regnal year.
Prof. Rapson, who placed Īśvaradatta in the gap of Śaka 159-160, suggested that the era of 249-50 A. C. might have marked the consolidation of the Ābhīra kingdom during one of the successors of Īśvardatta rather than its first beginnings.6 But the history of other Indian eras shows that they generally originated in an extension of regnal dates. The Kushāna era, for instance, owed its use to the continuation of Kanishkaâs regnal dates by his successors Vāsishka, Huvishka, Kanishka II and Vāsudēva. The same may have happened in the case of the era of 249-50 A.C. it seems to have commenced with the reign of Ābhīra Īśvarasēna, and was apparently continued by his successors, of whom as many as nine reigned according to the Purānas. The Purānas unfortunately do not name these Ābhīra kings, but they state that their rule lasted for 67 years. Judging by the extent of the use of their era, their kingdom seems to have comprised parts of Central India as well as Gujarat, Konkan and Maharashtra including the districts of Nasik and Khandesh.
It has been suggested that the Ābhīras and the Traikūtakas were identical, Ābhīra
being a racial name, and Traikūtaka, a regional one. The names of the princes belonging to
these two dynasties end in either datta or sēna, which lends colour to his identification.
1 It may be noted that the Purānas call the Ābhīras Andhrabhrityas or servants of the Andhras (i.e.,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
