South Indian Inscriptions

KALACHURI CHEDI - ERA

33. Kōni stone inscription of Prithvideva II (No. 90, P. 463)—Line 25—Rāhu-mukha-sthē bhānau, ‘When the sun was in the mouth of Rāhu’; 1.28—Sam(ṁ)vat 900, ‘In the year 900.’ In the current year 900, there was a solar eclipse in the pūrnimānta Vaiśākha (on the 20th April 1148 A. C.), but none at all in the expired year.

34. Tahankāpār plate of of Pamparāja (No. 116, P. 596)—Line 9—Saṁvata(t) 965 Bhādrapadē va di 10, Mriga-ri(ri)kshē Sōdma(ma)-dinē, ‘In the year 965, on Monday, the 10th tithi of the dark fortnight of Bhādrapada, the nakshatra being Mriga.’ This date corresponds, for the current year 965 (or the expired Śaka year 965+170=1135), to Monday, the 12 th August 1213 A. C. On that day, the 10th tithi of the dark fortnight of the the pūrnimānta Bhādrapada commenced 6 h. 45 m. after mean sunrise and the nakshatra Mriga ended 14 h. 30 m. after mean sunrise. Though the tithi was not current at sunrise on Monday, it is coupled with that week-day probably because it was current at the time when the transaction recorded in the plate was made.

If the year is applied as expired, the tithi would fall on Saturday (the 2nd August 1214 A. C.)

A careful examination of these 34 later dates¹ of the Kalachuri era will show that—

(1) All of them can be shown to be regular only according to the epoch of 247-48 A. C.; for, though the first twenty-seven dates can also be explained as dates in current years with the epoch of 248-49 A. C., that epoch will not at all do for the remaining seven dates 28-34.

(2) The dates 6, 19 and 22 clearly show that, with the epoch of 247-48 A. C., the Kalachuri year must have begun in some month later than Bhādrapada. Kielhorn’s earlier view that the Kalachuri year was Bhādrapadādi is, therefore, wholly untenable.

(3) The dates 8, 15 and 18 indicate that the month Āśvina stood at the close, and not in the beginning, of the Kalachuri year, Kielhorn’s final view that the Kalachuri year was Āśvinādi is clearly disproved by these three dates.

(4) From the date 18 it appears that the Kalachuri year commenced some time after Āśvina śu. di. 15, while the dates 2 and 7 plainly indicate that the year began before Kārttika śu. di. 15. Between these two limits the only tithi which suggests itself for the commencement of the Kalachuri year is Kārttika śu. di. 1. This conjecture may be said to be corroborated by the date 28, though its testimony is somewhat weakened by a slight error in the specification of the week-day.

(5) Among the later dates examined above, there are only seven, viz., 1, 9, 25, 26, 30, 31 and 34, which fell in the dark fortnight. Six of these, viz., 1, 9, 25, 26, 31 and 34 work out satisfactorily only with the pūrnimānta scheme of lunar months and only one, viz. 30, with the amānta scheme. We may, therefore, conclude that the months of the Kalachuri year generally ended on the full-moon day.
______________

¹ Among these 34 dates there are only three, viz., Nos. 24, 25 and 28 which are slightly irregular. The others work out quite satisfactorily with the epoch of 247-48 A. C. The following dates have been omitted1 for the reason stated in each case:--(1) The Khairhā plates of Yaśahkarna (No. 56), because the year of the date is manifestly wrong. See below, pp. 301-02. (2) The Ghotiā plates of Prithvīdēva 11 (No. 92), because the numerals of the date are evidently incorrect. See Below, p.479. (3) The Amōdā plates of Jājalladēva II (No. 99), because the last figure of the date is uncertain. See below, p. 529. (4) The Jabalpur stone inscription of Jayasiṁha (No. 64), because its evidence is not conclusive; the date can be taken as recorded either in a current or in an expired year. See below, p. 332, n. 2. All these dates have, however, been fully discussed in the introductory articles of these inscriptions. I have omitted one more date viz., K. 928, Māgha-vadi 10, though it regularly corresponds, for the expired year 928, to Monday, the 27th December 1176 A.C.; for, it is known only from a statement o Cunningham. See his A.S.I.R., Vol. IX, p. I I I and Indian Eras.p.61.