South Indian Inscriptions

KALACHURI CHEDI - ERA

It was, therefore, believed that these records of the Magha kings found at Giñjā, Kōsam and Bāndhōgargh supplied the erly dates of the Chēdi era which had been missing till then.

This view was criticised by the present writer in an article entitled ‘Dates of some Early Kings of Kauśāmbi' which, though written as early as 1941, was, on account of the Second Great War and other reasons, not published till 1952.¹ In this article it was pointed out that if the dates of the Magha records are referred to the Chēdi era, Bhadramagha, Vaiśravana and Bhīmavarman become contemporaries of the Gupta Emperors Chandragupta I, Samudragupta and Chandragupta II. If these rulers were ruling at Kauśāmbī, they must have acknowledged the suzerainty of the Guptas. But, strange as it may seem, none of them mentions any Gupta overlord. Besides, they issued coins in their own names, indicating their independence.² They must, therefore, have flourished before the rise of the Guptas. The dates of thier records have consequently to be referred to the era of Kanishaka. As for the palæographic peculiarities noticed in these records, it was pointed out that all of them can be traced in several records of the Kushāna age.

Till 1937, Dr. Kielhorn’s view that the Chēdi year commenced on Āśvina śu. di. I was generally accepted. In an article entitled ‘The Epoch of the Kalachuri-Chēdi Era’, which the present writer read at the ninth session of the All-India Oriental Conference held at Trivandrum in 1937, he examined thirteen later dates of the era discovered since Kielhorn’s time and showed that, though they verified the epoch of 247-48 A. C. fixed by Kielhorn, they clearly showed that the Chēdi year could not have commenced in Āśvina. It must have begun on some day between Āśvina śu. di. 15 and Phālguna va. di. 7. And since we do not know of any Hindu year beginning in any of the months from Mārgaśīrsha to Phālguna, it appeared probable that, like the Southern Vikrama Year, the Chēdi year also commenced on Kārttika śu. di. I. As regards Colebrooke’s statement on which Kielhorn relied for his view that the Chēdi year commenced on Āśvina śu. di. I, it was pointed out that the statement in question referred to the festival of Durgā which is, to this day, celebrated with great èclat not only in Madhya Pradesh but in other parts of India also. Colebrooke was clearly mistaken when he thought that the festival marked the beginning of the new year. Besides, the Chēdi year could not have been current in Nagpur as that part of the country was, except in very early times, not included in the kingdom of the Kalachuris.³

In 1944, the present writer showed from an examination of the so-called Indore plates of the Mahārājas Svāmidāsa and Bhulunda that they originally belonged to Khandesh and that their dates and also the date 117 of the Sirpur plate of Mahārāja Rudradāsa should be referred to the era founded by the Ābhīra king Īśvarasēna. These princes of Khandesh explicity mention their own feudatory status in their grants. They must, therefore, have owned the suzerainty of the contemporary Ābhīra kings ruling over Northern Maharashtra.⁴

In 1945, the present writer further showed that the date 167 of the Barwāni plate of Mahārāja Subandhu also must be referred to the same reckoning.⁵

In 1946, the present writer, again, showed that the date of the Kānākherā stone inscription of the Śaka Śrīdharavarman, which he read as 102, also refers to the so-called Kalachuri-Chēdi era.⁶
_______________________

¹ Ep. Ind., Vol. XXVI, pp. 297 f.
² J. N. S. I., Vol. II, pp.95 ff.
³ For a full discussion of this matter, see Ep. Ind., Vol. XXIV, pp. 116 ff.
⁴ A. B. O. R. I., Vol. XXV, pp. 159 ff.
⁵ Ind. Hist. Quart., Vol. XXI, pp. 79 ff.
⁶ Ibid., Vol. XXII, pp. 34 ff.