Epigraphia Indica Vol 28

Author(s): Hirananda Shastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 34

No. jj
NAGARDHAN PLATES OF SVAMIRAJA
occurred on the 21st March A.C. 638, but then too the cyclic year was Märgasirsha, not Ashadha. Again, there is no evidence that the Gupta era was ever current in Vidarbha or, for the matter of that, anywhere else in Maharashtra. For all these reasons the date 322 of the present grant cannot be referred to the Gupta era.
The only other era to which this date can be referred is the Kalachuri era which, as I have shown elsewhere, was current in the neighbouring districts of Khandesh and Nasik. Let us see if the details work out satisfactorily for this era.
The epoch which suits early dates of the Kalachuri era is A.D. 248-49. If the year 322 is referred to this era, it should be equivalent to A.C. 570-71 or 571-72 according as it was current or expired. But in neither of these years was there a solar eclipse in the amānta or purnimānta Chaitra. There was, however, one in the immediately following year A.D. 573, on the 19th March, which was the amāvāsyā of the amānta Chaitra. The year of the twelve-year cycle was also Ashādha according to the mean-sign system. The agreement of these three details, viz., the solar eclipse, the lunar month and the cyclic year shows that the 19th March A.D. 573 is undoubtedly the correct date of the grant. The palaeography of the grant also supports this date, for, as stated before, the characters of the grant closely resemble those of the early Gānga grants and must therefore be referred to the sixth century A.C. Besides, the wording of the formal portion of the present grant shows that it must be classed with such early grants as those of the Mahārājas of Khandesh, Subandhu of Māhishmati and the Traikūtakas of Western Mahārāshtra.
As stated above, the epoch of A.C. 248-49 does not hold good in the present case. Supposing the year of the present grant to be Kārttikādi and expired as in most other early dates, the epoch of the era applicable in the present case should be A.D. 250-51. The solar eclipse in Chaitra when the grant was made must have occurred in the Kārttikädi Kalachuri year 321. The amāvāsvā of the amānta Chaitra in the expired year 321 fell, according to this proposed epoch of A.D. 250-51, on the 19th March A.D.573. On this day there was a solar eclipse visible in India and the Barhaspatya samvatsara was Āshādha as stated in the grant.
But, it may be asked, have we any other date of the Kalachuri era to which this new epoch of A.D. 250-51 is applicable? In reply to such a question, I would refer to the date of the Ellora grant of Dantidurga. This date has been read as Monday, the thirteenth tithi of the bright half of Asvina in the year 663 of an unpecified era. This year has been referred to the Saka era. The details of the date do not, however, work out satisfactorily either for Saka 663 current or for Saka 663 expired. The date is thus irregular. It is, therefore, doubtful if it really refers to the Saks era at all. A close examination of the wording of the date strengthens the suspicion. The date is given as follows-Saṁ 600 60 3 A svayuja suddha trayðdaśyām Sõmavārē. This is, however, not the usual mode of citing dates of the Saka era. In all early Saka dates whether occurring in the records of the Early Chālukyas or the Rashtrakūtas, there is a clear reference to the Sakas or to the Sako kings. See, for instance, the wording of the following Saka dates from Maharashtra preceding and following the date Saka 663 in question
(i) Saka 609—Jējuri Plates of Vinayaditya (above, Vol. XIX, p. 64)-Nav-oltara
shat-satëshu-Saka-varshëshv-atitëshu. (ii) Saka 680Poona Plates of Kpishộarāja I (B. I. S. M.Q., Vol. VIII, pp. 165 f.) Saka
nri pati samvatsara-sata-shake a fity-uttarë Hemalamba-samvatsare Advayuj-āmāvāsyāyān Sürya-grahanë.
See my article 'An ancient dynasty of Khandesh'in A. B.O.R.I., Vol. XXV, pp. 160 f. See the Añjanëri plates of Bhögasakti, dated K. 461, above, Vol. XXV. pp. 220 f.
See my article. The Epoch of the Kalachuri-Chēdi Era ' in 4. B.O.R. T., Vol. XXVII, pp. 18 f. • Above, Vol. XXV, p. 31.