South Indian Inscriptions

THE KALACHURI -CHEDI ERA

A.C. the era began to lose ground in this part of the country also. The later records of the Kalachuris themselves came to be dated in the Vikrama samvat. The earliest of such dates is V. 1458 (1402 A. C.) of No. 107, which belongs to the reign of the later Kalachuri king Brahmadēva, who ruled at Raipur and Khalvātikā (modern Khalāri) in the Raipur District. As the memory of the Kalachuri era soon faded from the public mind, it was found necessary to change the Kalachuri date 900 of No. 93 to 1207 of the Vikrama samvat.

SOME DETAILS ABOUT THE CALCULATED DATES
Jovian years-Only three Kalachuri dates, viz., K. 322 of No. 120, K. 800 of No. 51, and K. 966 of No. 117 cite Jupiter’s years. The first of these is of the twelve-year cycle, and the other two, of the sixty-year cycle. The first date is regular. but suggests a new epoch of the era, viz., 250-51 A. C. The second date works out regularly according to the northern luni-solar system; for, the cyclic year Khara was current during the Kalachuri year 800. The third date has quoted the cyclic year Iśvara incorrectly; for, according to the northern mean-sign system, the Jovian year had ended more than a year before the commencement of the cited Kalachuri year.¹

Intercalary months-Only one date, K. 958 of No. 71 cites an intercalary month, viz., Āshādha which is specified as prathama Āshādha. It works out quite regularly. In two other cases also, viz., K. 909 of No. 61 and K. 928 of No. 66, the month Śrāvana was intercalary, though it is not so specified. Prof. Kielhorn has noticed several similar cases of the Vikrama and Śaka dates in which the months were intercalary, though they were not so indicated by the wording of the dates.²

Irregular tithis—The only cases of irregular tithis noticed among the dates of the Kalachuri era which contain the necessary details for verification are five, viz., K. 772 of No. 47, K. 823 of No. 56, K. 885 of No 122, K. 963 of No. 72 and K. 965 of No. 101. The first of these shows deviation of only one day in the specification of the week-day, which is not rare in inscriptional dates. In the second case the numerals of the date have been wrongly written as appears plain from other evidence. The irregularities in the remaining three cases can be clearly attributed to the carelessness of the scribes. Besides these, there is one more date, viz., K. 1000 of No. 92, in which the mistake is of the copyist who transcribed the record on the present plates from others which had probably suffered damage by corrosion.

Current tithis—In ten dates (viz., K. 460 of No. 22, K. 436 of No, 28, K. 486 of No. 23, K. 885 of No 122, K. 890 of No. 86, K. 897 of No. 123, K. 905 of No. 94, K. 907 of No. 60, K. 926 of No. 65 and K. 965 of No. 116) the tithi is joined with the weekday on which it commenced, and not, as is usual, with the week day on which it ended. In the first and third of these cases the reason is obvious; for, they are cases of sankrāntis which occurred during the particular tithis, though the latter were not current at sunrise. The second case is similar to that of Śaka 996 (in the Bijāpur stone inscription of the Western
_________________

(Continued from the last page.)
XXIII, pp. 197 ff., and Vol. IX, pp. 287 ff). They refer themselves to the reign of Mahārāja Śambhuyaśas, the ruler of Tōsalī. These dates have been referred to the Kalachuri era on the evidence of palæography. Apart from these doubtful cases, no records of this era have been found in Orissa. On the other hand, the Ārang plates of Bhīmasēna, dated in the year 182, and the Ganjām plates of Śaśānka, dated in the year 300, expressly refer themselves to the Gupta era, which clearly shows that the Gupta era was current in Chhattisgarh and Ganjām in the sixth and seventh centuries A. C. As for the early forms of the test letters noticed in the aforementioned records, they can be satisfactorily accounted for, as these records fall in the period 580-603 A.C. if their dates are referred to the Gupta era.

¹ In two other records edited here (viz., Nos. 107 and 108) the cyclic years are correctly cited according to the northern luni-solar system, but these records are dated not in the Kalachuri, but in the Vikrama and Śaka eras.
² Ind. Ant., Vol. XX, p. 411; Vol. XXV, p. 271.