South Indian Inscriptions

KALACHURI CHEDI - ERA

It is noteworthy in this connection that the contemporary ruler of Tripurī is invariably referred to as Chēd-īśa, Chedi-narēndra or Chaidya (the lord of Chēdi) in the records from Chhattisgarh.¹ These names of the era do not, therefore, indicate that the era was started by the Kalachuris or that it originated in the Chēdi country.

The other name Traikūtaka, which is sometimes used to designate the era, is due to a wrong interpretation of an expression occurring in the Kanhēri plate, dated K. 245, as already pointed out by Dr. Fleet.²

Like several other eras, the era of 249-50 A. C. also had no special name in the beginning. Its years were introduced by the simple word sam or samvat.

(2) The earliest records dated in this era come from Central India, Gujarat, Konkan and Maharashtra including the districts of Nagpur, Nasik and Khandesh. No certain dates of this era come from North India until the middle of the ninth century A. C., i. e., until after its introduction in the Chēdi country by the Kalachuris. We have already seen that the theories that the records of Kanishka and his successors, the so-called Kushānaputras, the Maghas of Kauśāmbī and the Uchchakalpas of Central India are dated in the so-called Kalachuri-Chēdi era are untenable.³ The era must, therefore, have originated south of the Narmadā. .

These considerations point to Gujarat, Konkan and Maharashtra as the original home of the era. Let us next consider the political condition in circa 250 A. C. in this part of the country which led to its foundation.

The Purānas say that when the kingdom of the Andhras will come to an end, there will be kings belonging to the lineage of their servants.⁴ Among these latter are mentioned ten Ābhīra kings who are said to have ruled for 67 years. Scholars are not unanimous as to when the kingdom of the Andhras came to an end. The duration of the Andhra or Sātavāhana rule is variously given by the Purānas, Viz., as 460 years by the Matsya, 411 by the Vāyu and 456 by the Brahmānda, the Vishnu and the Bhāgavata.⁵ The date of the commencement of their rule is also uncertain. Inscriptions afford, however, some basis for calculation. It is well known that there was an interruption in the Sātavāhana rule over Gujarat and Maharashtra. The Śaka Satrap Bhūmaka established himself in Gujarat and Nahapāna in Maharashtra. The Sātavāhanas, who were ousted form this part of the country, seem to have retired to Vidarbha.⁶ They attempted to reconquer their lost territory during the reign of Gautamīputra Sātakarni. This Sātavāhana king is said to have exterminated the Kshaharāta family to which Nahapāna belonged.⁷ The decisive battle seems to have been fought in the eighteenth year of Gautamīputra’s reign; for, soon after
_____________

¹ See line 19 of No. 77, 1. 5 of No. 93 and 1.18 of No. 98. Cunningham’s view that Chhattisgarh was Eastern Chēdi is erroneous.
² J. R. A. S. for 1905, p. 567.
³ See above, pp. viii ff.; also Ep. Ind. XXIII, pp. 171 ff. As for the theory that the era was started by Vamataksha of the Kushānaputra dynasty (Ind. Cul., Vol. VIII, pp. 191 ff.), it is in the first place not clear that there was such a dynasty; for, the expression Kushānaputra occurs only in one record, viz., that of Vamataksha himself and may simply mean ‘a scion of the Kushāna family’.
⁴ Cf. Andhrānām samsthitē rājyē teshām bhrity-ānvayā nripāh | sapt =aiv=Āndhrā bhavishyanti daś = Ābhīrās=tathā nripāh || D. K. A., p. 45.
⁵ Ibid., p. 43 and n. 33.
⁶ Gautamīputra calls himself Bēnākataka-svami in his Nāsik cave inscription (Lüders’ List, No. 1125). That Bēnākata was a district of ancient Vidarbha is shown by the Tirōdi plates of the Vākātaka Pravarasēna II. Ep. Ind., Vol. XXII, pp. 167 ff. See also J.N.S.I., Vol. I1, pp. 93 ff.
⁷ See the expression Khakharāta-vasa-niravasesa-Karasa describing Gautamīputra in 1.6 of the Nāsik cave inscription. Lüders’ List, No. 1123; Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII, p. 60.