[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Archaeology, epigraphy and coins](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy) › [Book of Indian Eras, with Tables for Calculating Indian Dates](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883) › c2.36 # Book of Indian Eras, with Tables for Calculating Indian Dates c2.36 Book of Indian Eras, with Tables for Calculating Indian Dates c2.36 - **Language:** English ### [c2.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c2.36) Here then I thought that I had found a clear proof that the Chedi or Kalachuri era had continued in use down to A.D. 1694. But when I proceeded to calculate the week day of B, I found that it did not agree with A.D. 1694. It then struck me that the Samvat might be that of Vikramâditya, according to which the date of A would be 1430 - 57 = 1373 A.D., which to my surprise proved to be also the year Sidhârthi of the Northern reckoning of the 60-year cycle. Similarly the date of B would be 1445 - 57 = 1388 A.D., which was also the year Bhâva of the Northern reckoning. On calculating the week day of B, I found that it agreed exactly with the Vikramâditya Samvat, as the 13th of Aswina-badi in Vik. Sam. 1445 was actually a Monday. Without this mention of the week day, the true equivalent of these two dates would, therefore, have been doubtful, and I should certainly have been inclined to refer them to the Chedi era. - [Previous: c2.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c2.35) - [Next: c2.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c2.37) - [Up: c2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c2) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c2.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c2.36) · Pramāṇa