Epigraphia Indica Vol 28

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

Page 35

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
[VOL. XXVIII
(ii) Saka 690-Talegaon Plates of Kộishņa I (above, Vol. XIII, p. 279)-Saka-npipati
samvatsara-sata-sha/ke navaty-uta(tta)rē Plavaṁya-varshē Vaišākh-āmāvāsyām
Aditya-grahē. Several dates of a similar type can be cited. In his examination of the dates of the Saka era Kielhorn also noticed this peculiarity.! Says he, What strikes one at once in looking over the dates of the lists, and what distinguishes these dates in a remarkable manner from those of the other principal eras, is this that, with insignificant exceptions, all are explicitly referred to the era to which they belong. Of the 400 dates of my chronological list only five do not contain the word Saka or its derivative Saka.' And even in regard to the five dates Kielhorn showed that the absence of the word Saka was due to the exigencies of the metre, spuriousness of the record or doubtful reading. This explicit reference to the Sakas or Saka kings in the dates was quite necessary; for there were then two eras current in Mahārashtra, viz., the Kalachuri era and the Saka era. The latter had therefore to be clearly specified to prevent confusion.
Since the date of the Ellōrā plate contains no reference to the Sakas or saka kings, it is plainly not in the Saka era. A close examination of the numerical symbols reveals that the reading of the year is incorrect. The first symbol,which consists of a sign for 100 followed by another denoting 4, evidently stands for 400, not for 600. The date is thus 463 which must be referred to the Kalachuri era. The usual epoch of A.D. 248-49 which is seen to hold good in the case of other early Kalachuri dates does not suit this date; for, according to it, the thirteenth tithi of the bright fortnight of Ābvina in the current year K. 463 fell on a Saturday (the 17th September, A.C. 712) and in the expired year K. 463 on a Friday (the 6th September, A.C. 713). In either case it will have to be regarded as irregular, as it did not fall on a Monday. But if we apply the epoch of A.C. 250-51 suggested by the grant under consideration, the date becomes regular ; for according to that epoch, the thirteenth tithi of the bright fortnight of Aøving in the expired Kalachuri year 463 ended at 1 h. 45 m. on the 16th September, A.D. 715 which was a Monday as required. These two grants thus show that the epoch of the Kalachuri-Chēdi era at least in some parts of Mahārāshtra was A.C. 250-51.3
The grant under discussion is unique in another respect. It is the only grant dated in the Kalachuri era which has been found in Vidarbha. The earlier grants of the Vākātakas found in Vidarbha were dated in regnal years while the later ones of the Răshtrakūtas are recorded in the Saka era. The present grant which belongs to the intervening period is dated in the Kalachuri era evidently because that era had spread to Vidarbha with the extension of Kalachuri power. The unnamed suzerain of Svāmirāja was probably the Kalachuri Krishnarāja (circa A. C. 550-575). It is noteworthy that the silver coins of this Kalachuri Emperor have been discovered at several places in Vidarbha, viz., at Dhāmori in the Amraoti District and Pattan in the Betul District.
1 Ind. Ant., Vol. XXVI, p. 148.
* This sign is a curious combination of the symbols for 4 and 8. Its upper portion which contains a loop resembles the symbol for 6, while the lower portion which has the shape of ka clearly shows that it was intended to signify. 4. Except for the loop in the upper portion, the symbol closely resembles that for 4 used in the Kasāre plates of Allasakti.
From a large number of later Kalachuri dates Kielhord showed that the epoch of the Kalachuri era was A. C. 247-48, but two early dates presented difficulties which he acknowledged in a foot-note to his List of Northern Inscriptions, Ep. Ind. Vol. V, Appendix. From several other dates discovered since then, I have shown that the epoch wbich suits early dates is A.C. 248-49 and I have reconciled the two epochs on the hypothesis that the current years of the era were wrongly supposed to be expired when the era was introduced by the Kalachuris in North India. The commencement of the era thus came to be antedated by one year. See A. B.O.R.I., Vol. XXVII,
Pp. 34 L.