South Indian Inscriptions

INCRIPTIONS OF THE KALACHURIS OF TRIPURI

The numerals of the year, which must be referred to the Kalachuri era, are quite unreliable; because Yaśahkarna for whom we have the date 823¹ (or rather 827 as shown before), could not have flourished in the year 529 of the same era. But the specification of the sankrānti, month, fortnight and week-day may be correct. Taking it to be so, Dr. Kielhorn found by calculation that during the sixty years preceding 1151 A.C.,² the only year in which the Makara-sankrānti fell on Monday, the 10th of the dark fortnight of Māgha was 1122 A.C. For, in that year, the 10th of the dark half of Māgha fell by the pūrnimānta scheme on Monday, the 25th December, when the 10th tithi of the dark half of Māgha ended 8 h. 39 m. after mean sunrise; and in the same year, the Makara-sankrānti took place 15 m. before mean sunrise of, or for religious purposes on, the same Monday.³ Dr. Kielhorn, therefore, took Monday, the 25th December 1122 A.C., corresponding, with his epoch of the Kalachuri era, to Māgha va.di. 10 of the Kalachuri year 874 as the true date of the grant.

In his article on the Khairhā plates, R. B. Hiralal objected to the aforementioned date on the ground that it gives an unusually long reign to Yaśahkarna ; for, the Khairhā plates show that ‘Yaśahkarna had defeated the king of Andhra, and crushed the power of several of his enemies before it was written. It is, therefore, likely that he had been in occupation of the throne for at least 4 or 5 years prior to this, and if we suppose that he lived for about the same period after he made the Jabalpur grant his reign would extend to about 60 years and his age to about 80 years, supposing his installation to have taken place at the age of 20.’⁴ Rai Bahadur Hiralal, therefore, relied on the numerical date of the Nagpur Museum transcript which he read as 829 and remarked that the details worked out for Monday, the 31st December 1078 A.C., for the expired Kalachuri year 829. The Makara-sankrānti had, however, taken place a week earlier. R.B. Hiralal seems to have supposed that as in the case of the Khairhā grant, the sankrānti, on which the grant was made, is wrongly coupled with the day on which the record was actually handed over to the donee.

My personal examination of the Nagpur Museum transcript of the lost plate shows that the numerals of the year as written there are 529 and not 829 as stated by R.B. Hiralal. Even if we suppose that 529 is a mistake for 829, the expired year would be expected to correspond, according to the epoch of 247-48 A.C., to 1077-78 A.C. and not 1078-1079 A.C. Now, in 1077-78 A.C., Magha va. di. 10 fell on Thursday (the 10th January 1078 A.C.) and not on Monday as required. The Makara-sankrānti had taken place 17 days earlier. So the date would not be regular even if we read the numerals as 829. As for R.B. Hiralal’s argument that if Dr. Kielhorn’s date is accepted, it would give an unusually long reign to Yaśahkarna, it may be noted, as has already been pointed out by Mr. R.D. Banerji5, that Yaśahkarna must have reigned for a long time ; because, even if we accept the date of the Nagpur Museum transcript of the Jabalpur plates of this prince as read by R.B. Hiralal as correct, there is a gap of 73 years between this date 829 and the only known date of his son and successor Gayākarna, K. 902. It comes to 75 years if we calculate from the date of the Khairhā plates (viz., 827 as determined before). As conjectured by R.B. Hiralal, Yaśahkarna may have come to the throne about 5 years earlier, i.e., about 822,
______________________

¹Above, No. 56, 1.27.
² This is the date of the Tewar inscription of Yaśahkarna’s son and successor Gayākarnadēva (No. 58, below) which, as Dr. Kielhorn has remarked, must have been put up towards the end of his reign.
³ Ep. Ind., Vol. II. P. 2.
⁴ Ibid., Vol. XII, p. 207.
⁵ H. T. M., p. 25.