[11] Fleet’s Kánarese Dynasties, 27. [↑]
[12] Fleet’s Kánarese Dynasties, 27. [↑]
[13] Ind. Ant. XIV. 75 and Jour. B. B. R. A. S. XVI. 1ff. [↑]
[14] Mr. Fleet (Corp. Ins. Ind. III. 9) and Sir A. Cunningham (Arch. Sur. IX. 77) agree in fixing a.d. 250 as the initial date of the Chedi era. Prof. Kielhorn has worked out the available dates and finds that the first year of the era corresponds to a.d. 249–50. Ind. Ant. XVII. 215. [↑]
[15] Válmíki’s Rámáyaṇa, Ganpat Krishnaji’s Edition: Raghuvaṃśa, IV. 59. [↑]
[16] For details see above page [48]. [↑]
[17] Tripura four miles west of Jabalpur; Kálanjara 140 miles north of Jabalpur. [↑]
[18] That the era used by the Gurjjaras and Chalukyas of Gujarát was the Chedi era may be regarded as certain since the discovery of the Saṅkheḍá grant of Nirihullaka (Ep. Ind. II. 21), who speaks of a certain Śaṅkaraṇa as his overlord. Palæographically this grant belongs to the sixth century, and Dr. Bühler has suggested that Śaṅkaraṇa is the Chedi Śaṅkaragaṇa whose son Buddharája was defeated by Mangalíśa some time before a.d. 602 (Ind. Ant. XIX. 16). If this is accepted, the grant shows that the Chedis or Kalachuris were in power in the Narbadá valley during the sixth century, which explains the prevalence of their era in South Gujarát. Chedi rule in the Narbadá valley must have come to an end about a.d. 580 when Dadda I. established himself at Broach. It being established that the Kalachuris once ruled in South Gujarát, there is no great difficulty in the way of identifying the Traikúṭakas with them. The two known Traikúṭaka grants are dated in the third century of their era, and belong palæographically to the fifth century a.d. Their era, therefore, like that of the Kalachuris, begins in the third century a.d.: and it is simpler to suppose that the two eras were the same than
Chapter VI.
The Traikúṭakas, a.d. 250–450. that two different eras, whose initial points were only a few years apart, were in use in the same district. Now that the Śaka and the Vikrama eras are known to have had different names at different times, the change in the name of the era offers no special difficulty. This identification would carry back Kalachuri rule in South Gujarát to at least a.d. 456–6, the date of the Párdi grant: and it is worth noting that Varáhamihira (Bṛ. Saṃh. XIV. 20) places the Haihayas or Kalachuris in the west along with the Aparántakas or Konkanis.
Though the name Traikúṭaka means of Trikúṭa, the authorities quoted by Dr. Bhagvánlál do not establish the existence of a city called Trikúṭa. They only vouch for a mountain of that name somewhere in the Western Gháts, and there is no evidence of any special connection with Junnar. Further, the word Trikúṭakam seems to mean rock-salt, not sea-salt, so that there is here no special connection with the Western coast. Wherever Trikúṭa may have been, there seems no need to reject the tradition that connects the rise of the Kalachuris with their capture of Kálanjara (Cunningham’s Arch. Surv. IX. 77ff), as it is more likely that they advanced from the East down the Narbadá than that their original seats were on the West Coast, as the Western Indian inscriptions of the third and fourth centuries contain no reference either to Traikúṭakas or to Junnar or other western city as Trikúṭa.
With reference to the third suggestion that the Traikúṭakas twice overthrew the Kshatrapas, under Íśvaradatta in a.d. 248 and under Rudragaṇa in a.d. 310–320, it is to be noted that there is no evidence to show that Íśvaradatta was either an Ábhíra or a Traikúṭaka and that the identification of his date with a.d. 248–250 seems less probable than with either a.d. 244 or a.d. 236. (Compare above Footnote page 53). Even if Íśvaradatta’s supremacy coincided with a.d. 250 the initial date of the Traikúṭaka era, it seems improbable that a king who reigned only two years and left no successor should have had any connection with the establishment of an era which is not found in use till two centuries later. As regards Rudragaṇa it may be admitted that he belonged to the race or family who weakened Kshatrapa power early in the fourth century a.d. At the same time there seems no reason to suppose that Rudragaṇa was a Traikúṭaka or a Kalachuri except the fact that his name, like that of Śaṅkaragaṇa, is a compound of the word gaṇa and a name of Śiva; while the irregular posthumous use of the title Mahákshatrapa among the latest (23rd to 26th) Kshatrapas favours the view that they remained independent till their overthrow by the Guptas about a.d. 410. The conclusion seems to be that the Traikúṭaka and the Kalachuri eras are the same namely a.d. 248–9: that this era was introduced into Gujarát by the Traikúṭakas who were connected with the Haihayas; and that the introduction of the era into Gujarát did not take place before the middle of the fifth century a.d.—(A. M. T. J.) [↑]