________________
No. 14.)
THE EPOCH OF THE KALACHURI-CHEDI ERA.
121
(4) Among the nine dates there are only two (viz. the dates 8 and 9) which fall in the dark fortnight. They corroborate Kielhorn's conclusion that the arrangement of fortnights in the Chēdi era was the pūrnimānta one.
(5) The proportion of expired years to current ones is 8: 1, which is in accordance with that observed in the case of the dates of other eras.
A Kärttikadi year will also suit almost all the dates known to Kielhorn. The only dates that require to be specially considered here are those falling in Asvina. Only two such dates were known to Kielhorn, viz., (1) the date of the Sārnāth fragmentary stone inscription of the time of Karnadēva-Samvatsare 810 Atvina-sudi 15 Ravau, the corresponding Christian date being Sunday the 4th October A. D. 1058; and (2) the date of the Sheorinārāyaṇ image inscription-- Kalachuri Samvatsarë | 898 Asvina-sudi 7 Soma-dinė, the corresponding Christian date being Monday the 24th September A. D. 1145. Of these the former presents no difficulty. Only, it will now have to be considered as citing a current year and not an expired one as was supposed by Kielhorn. In regard to the latter it may be noted that its reading has been a matter of controversy for a very long time. Sir R. Jenkins first published it in the Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV. p. 505 as Samvat 898 Ashwin shudh saptami. Cunningham in his 4. S. R., Vol. IX, gave it as in the Kulachuri Samoat in the year 898, Aswin sudi Some on p. 86 and as 898 Asioina sudi 7. Monday on p. 111. Subsequently in his A. S. R., Vol. XVII, plate XX, he published a photozincograph of only part of it which reads Kalachurih samvatsare 898. He again referred to it in his Indian Eras, p. 6 where he remarked A fresh examination has shown the date to be .Aswin su. di. 2 (and not Aswin su. di. 7)'. Kielhorn at first accepted this last statement of Cunningham and on calculation found that the date corresponded to Monday, the 9th September A. D. 1146, on which day the second tithi of the bright fortnight of Āgvina ended 21 h. 54 m. after mean sunrise. As he was then of opinion that the Chēdi year was Bhadrapadādi and the era commenced in A. D. 249, he concluded that the year 898 of this date was a current year. Subsequently in his article on the era in the Festyruss an Roth he confirmed the aforementioned reading from a facsimile and gave the same corresponding date as before, but as he had then come to the conclusion that the Chēdi era commenced on Afvina bu. di. 1 in A. D. 248, he took the year of the date as expired. Dr. (then Mr.) D. R. Bhandarkar next stated in his notice of the inscription in P. R. A. S., W. C. (p. 53) for 1903-4 that the inscription was dated 898 Kalachuri era, Monday, the 7th of the bright half of Akvina. From a photograph of the inscription supplied by him, Kielhorn also finally read the inscription as Kalachuri-samvatsare | 8981 svina-sudi 7 Soma-dine and stated that it regularly corresponded, for the current Kalachuri year 898, to Monday the 24th September A. D. 1145, when the seventh tithi of the bright half of Asvina ended 20 h. 57 m. after mean sunrise. This date seemed to confirm Kielhorn's opinion that the Chēdi year began in Ābvina, for it showed that the month of Ābvina fell, in any case, in the beginning of that year. But the recent discovery of the dates 5 and 6 noticed above, which show that the Chēdi year began in some month later than Ābvina, bas rendered the accuracy of the date of the Sheorinārāyan inscription open to question. There is of course no doubt about the reading of the date. I have satisfied myself that the reading finally adopted by Kielhorn is correct; but with that reading the date appears to be irregular; for, with the Chēdi year commencing in some month later than Ābvina, the seventh tithi of the bright half of Āøvina would, in the current year 898, fall on Saturday (the 14th September 1146) and in the expired Chēdi year 898, on Friday (the 3rd October A. D. 1147). In neither case was the tithi connected with Monday. The question, therefore, arises whether we should take the Chēdi era to be Ābvinādi on the authority of this date and treat the dates 5 and
[The actual reading in No. 8 is sudi.- d.]
