|
INCRIPTIONS OF THE KALACHURIS OF TRIPURI
The inscription is dated, both in words and numerical symbols, on Friday, the
first tithi of the bright fortnight of Bhādrapada in the Sāhasamallāṅka year 944 Though the era is not specified, the date must plainly be referred to the Kalachuri reckoning. It regularly corresponds, for the expired Kalachuri year 944, to Friday, the 30th July
1193 A.C. On That day the tithi ended 22 h.20 m. after mean sunrise. The importance
of the date lies in the data it furnishes for determining the commencement of the
Kalachuri year. If the Kalachuri era begin in 248-49 A.C. as was finally concluded by
Dr. Kielhorn, the present dates shows that the years of the era could not have commenced
with the bright fortnight of Bhādrapada as was once supposed by him.
The significance of Sāhasamallāṅka is not clear. Mr. Banerji1 took it to mean ‘the
aṅka named Sāhasamalla’ and Dr.Hirananda Sastri2 suggested that abda or year;
but neither of them has explained how the year was called Sāhasamalla. The cyclic year
corresponding to the above date was Piṅgala according to the northern system and pramādin according to the southern system. Neither of these names can be said to be a
synonym of Sāhasamalla. According to D.R. Bhandarkar3 aṅka means ākhya. He has
suggested that the Kalachuri era was called Sāhasamallābda and called attention to two
other dates4 which are called Sāhasa and which, though referred to the Vikrama era, work
out all right for the Kalachuri era also. But Sāhasamalla does not mean the same as Sāhasāṅ
ka. The latter, which is a synonym of Vikramāṅka, occurs in many places5 as the name of
Vikramāditya, the well known patron of Kālidāsa and the reputed founder of the
Vikrama Saṁvat. As Kielhorn has shows, both the dates qualified by Sāhasāṅka, which
Prof. Bhandarkar proposes to refer to the Kalachuri era, appear quite regular as dates of the
Vikrama era also. There is, therefore, no necessity to take them as dates of the Kalachuri
era. Besides, if they are referred to that era, the first would fall towards the close of the
fifteenth and the second in the first half of the sixteenth century A.C.6 The palæography
of the inscription is certainly against ascribing such late dates to them. Besides, there is
no evidence that the Kalachuri era was current in North India down to the sixteenth
century A.C. Even in Madhya Pradesh where petty Haihaya princes continued to
rule until their principalities were annexed by the Marathas, the latest date of the Chēdi
era known from inscriptions is 9697 Thereafter the Haihaya princes used the Vikrama
and Śaka eras in dating their records8 There is thus not the least evidence in favour of
Dr. Bhandarkar’s view that Sāhasamalla was a name of the Kalachuri or Chēdi era.
A king named Sāhasamalla is indeed known from several coins with the legend,
______________________________
1Ep. Ind., Vol. XIX, p. 295.
2Loc. cit. n.4.
3See .I.N.I, p.282, n. 2.
4These dates are (1) V. 1240----Mahōbā (Hamirpur District, U,P.) fortwell fragmentary inscription
noticed by Cunningham, A.S.I.R., Vol. XXI. p. 72 and Pl. XXII. L. 13 Vyōm-ārņņav-ārkka-sam
khhyātē Sāhasāmkasya vastsarē, 1.17 saṁvat 1240, Āshāḍha va di 9 Sōmē (Monday, the 4th June, 1184 A.C.)
and (2) V.1279---Rōntāsgaḍh ( Shahabad District, Bihar) rock inscription of the time of king pratāpa,
ed. by Kielhorn, Ep. Ind ., Vol. IV, p. 311 f. L.I, Navabbir=atba mum-indrair=vāsasarāṇām=adbiśaip
parikalayati saṁkhyāṁ vatesarē Sāhasāmkē ׀ madana-vijaya-yātra-mamgalē māsi cbaitrē praptipadi ūta-kinatn
vāsarē Bhāskarasya (Sunday, the 2th March 1223 A.C.) .
5Ind. His Quart., Vol.X,pp. 48 ff. cf. Vikramādityah Sābāsānkah Śāk-āntakab in an old verse
cited in Kshῑrasvāmin’s commentary on Amarakōśa, II, 8,2.
6The first date would correspond to Monday, the 22nd 1489 A.C, and the second to Sunday,
the 3rd March 1527 A.C.
7No 102, below.
8See Mos.103---- 108, below.
Home
Page |
