The Indian Analyst

South Indian Inscriptions







List of Plates


Additions And Corrections



Inscriptions And Translations

Kalachuri Chedi Era



Early Kalachuris of Mahishmati

Early Gurjaras

Kalachuri of Tripuri

Kalachuri of Sarayupara

Kalachuri of South Kosala

Sendrakas of Gujarat

Early Chalukyas of Gujarat

Dynasty of Harischandra




Economic Condition



Genealogical Tables

Texts And Translations

Incriptions of The Abhiras

Inscriptions of The Maharajas of Valkha

Incriptions of The Mahishmati

Inscriptions of The Traikutakas

Incriptions of The Sangamasimha

Incriptions of The Early Kalcahuris

Incriptions of The Early Gurjaras

Incriptions of The Sendrakas

Incriptions of The Early Chalukyas of Gujarat

Incriptions of The Dynasty of The Harischandra

Incriptions of The Kalachuris of Tripuri

Other South-Indian Inscriptions 

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Vol. 4 - 8

Volume 9

Volume 10

Volume 11

Volume 12

Volume 13

Volume 14

Volume 15

Volume 16

Volume 17

Volume 18

Volume 19

Volume 20

Volume 22
Part 1

Volume 22
Part 2

Volume 23

Volume 24

Volume 26

Volume 27





Annual Reports 1935-1944

Annual Reports 1945- 1947

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 2, Part 2

Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Volume 7, Part 3

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 1

Kalachuri-Chedi Era Part 2

Epigraphica Indica

Epigraphia Indica Volume 3

Indica Volume 4

Epigraphia Indica Volume 6

Epigraphia Indica Volume 7

Epigraphia Indica Volume 8

Epigraphia Indica Volume 27

Epigraphia Indica Volume 29

Epigraphia Indica Volume 30

Epigraphia Indica Volume 31

Epigraphia Indica Volume 32

Paramaras Volume 7, Part 2

Śilāhāras Volume 6, Part 2

Vākāṭakas Volume 5

Early Gupta Inscriptions

Archaeological Links

Archaeological-Survey of India



ALTHOUGH some of the inscriptions dated in the Kalachuri-Chēdi era were discovered in the early decades of the nineteenth century, it was not suspected till about half a century later that their dates must be referred to an era different from the Vikrama and Śaka eras which were then current in different parts of India, or from the Gupta era which had become known from inscriptions. For instance, the date of the Banaras plates of Karna discovered in 1801, which was evidently misread by Captain Wilford, was taken by him to correspond to 192 A. C.1 The date Samvat 932 of the Kumbhī plates published in 18392 was referred by the editors of the grant to the Vikrama Samvat and taken to be equivalent to 876 A. C.3 The Kanhēri plate was discovered by Dr. Bird in 1839, but the earliest attempt to date it approximately was that of Pandit Bhagvanlal Indraji, who, on considerations of palæography, referred the inscription to about the sixth century A. C.4 But he then made no conjecture about the era to which its date 245 should be referred, beyond stating that it could not be the same as that employed by the Kshatrapas, as the characters on their coins are of a much earlier type, and that it could not be the Gupta era in the absence of such expressions as Gupta-kāla, Guptasya kāla, Gupta-nripa-rājya-bbukti or Sam. Dr. Burgess, however, in a note on Bhagvanlal’s article observed as follows: “From the form of the characters, I incline to think that this inscription may be dated in the Gupta era; the Trikūtakas, like the Valabhī Sēnāpatis, may have continued to use the Gupta era on assuming independence; or it may have been adopted from Gujarat.”5 The first and approximately correct conjecture about the epoch of the era was made in 1859 by Prof. Fitz-Edward Hall in his article on the Bhērā-Ghāt inscription of Alhanadēvī, dated Samvat 907, and the Tewar inscription of Jayasimhadēva, dated Samvat 928.6 Finding that Alhanadēvi was mentioned in the former inscription as the grand-daughter of Udayāditya, Dr. Hall conjectured that she might have been born about 1100 A. C., as her grandfather Udayāditya, who reigned between Bhōja (circa 1050 A. C.) and Naravarman (1104 A. C.), might have flourished about 1075 A. C. Now, Alhanadēvī’s sons, Narasimha and Jayasimha, were reigning in the years 907 and 928 respectively, and her great-grandson wad a minor7 in the year 932 of an unspecified era. Dr. Hall, therefore, thought that her birth might have taken place about the year 850 of the era to which the aforementioned dates

1 A. R., Vol. IX, p. 108. On this General Cunningham remarked, “I suspect that the date was read by Wilford as 193; and that he afterwards forgot that he had obtained it from the plate, as he states, ‘the grant is dated in the second year of his new era, and also of his reign, answering to the Christian year 192’.” C. A. S. I. R. Vol. IX, p. 82.
2 J. A. S. B., Vol. VIII, pp. 481 ff.
3 Ibid., p. 482.
4 I. C. T. W. I. ( A. S. W. I., No. 10), p. 59.
5 Ibid., p. 59, n. 2.
6 J. A. O. S., Vol. VI (1860), p. 501. The article was presented to the Society on October 26, 1859.
7 The Kumbhī plates, dated K. 932 (Appendix, No. 4), record a grant made by Gōsaladēvī, mother of Vijayasimha, not his wife as Hall wrongly stated. Again, the grant was made by Gōsaladēvī during the reign of her son Vijayasimha and with his consent as explicitly stated therein. It was not made by her for her minor son Ajayasimha as Hall thought. Among the persons to whom the royal order is addressed is mentioned Mahākumāra Ajayasimha. He had not ascended the throne then, but there is nothing to show that he was a minor at the time.


  Home Page