[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) › c22.11 # Book of Indian Eras, with Tables for Calculating Indian Dates c22.11 Book of Indian Eras, with Tables for Calculating Indian Dates c22.11 - **Language:** English ### [c22.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c22.11) Occasionally, however, the week days of both inscriptions and books will be found to differ \*one day\* from the week days of the tables. If this should be the case in several instances of the same writer, the discrepancy must be due to his having used a slightly different order of the intercalary years. The numbers of the intercalary years which I have used in the accompanying Tables are those of Ulugh Beg, which are the most generally accepted,—namely—2—5—7—10—13—16—18—21—24—26—29. But according to Jervis the Indian Almanacs give three of the numbers differently, or one in each decade of each cycle. These different numbers are 8, 19 and 27, instead of 7, 18 and 26. The result is, that where the years 8, 19 and 27 are made intercalary, those years will begin one day \*earlier\* than in the Tables, and every day throughout each of those years will also be one day earlier. In the accompanying Tables I have placed Roman numerals against the intercalary years of the accepted reckoning, and stars against the three years which differ. - [Previous: c22.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c22.10) - [Next: c22.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c22.12) - [Up: c22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c22) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c22.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.cunningham-1883.c22.11) · Pramāṇa