Indian Epigraphy c15.t14: 2. Kalacuri or Cedi Era
Indian Epigraphy c15.t14
- Language
- English
2. Kalacuri or Cedi Era
c15.t14.1
² *CII*, Vol. IV, pp. i ff.; Ojha, *Bhāratīya Prācīn Lipimālā*, pp. 173-74.
c15.t14.2
The era was used by the Kalacuris, who ruled over the ancient Cedi country with their capital at Tripurī near Jabalpur, and was called the Kalacuri- or Cedi-saṃvat.³ These Kalacuris carried the use of the era to the Jabalpur region from their original home in the lower valley of the Narmadā. About the said region, the era was first used by the Traikūṭakas of the Northern Konkan area in the 5th century A.D., then by the early Kalacuris ruling over the Northern part of the Marāṭhī-speaking tract and Malwa in the 6th and 7th centuries A.D. as well as by the rulers of the Gurjara and some other dynasties ruling about the Gujarātī-speaking area from the 6th century onwards.⁴ There is no doubt that the era originated in the region around the Northern Konkan. It is impossible to believe that its use spread far away from the said area before the rise of the Later Kalacuris of the Jabalpur region. The attempt to trace the use of this era in early records such as the U.P. epigraphs like those of the Maghas¹ of Kausāmbi, M.P. inscriptions like those of the Mahārājas of Uccakalpa,² and Orissan records like the Patiakela and Soro plates³ of Śambhuyaśas is no doubt absolutely untenable. Its identification with the Kaniṣka era is no better than fantastic.⁴
c15.t14.3
³ See, e.g., *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. XX, p. 84; Vol. XXII, p. 82.
c15.t14.4
⁴ See Bhan larkar's List, Nos. 1199 ff.
c15.t14.5
¹ Cf. *Select Inscriptions*, p. 365, note 1.
c15.t14.6
² Cf. Bhandarkar's List, Nos. 1194-98 and notes.
c15.t14.7
³ See ibid., No. 1203; *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XIV, p. 199.
c15.t14.8
⁴ See *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. XLVI, pp. 69-70.
c15.t14.9
The use of the expression *pravardhamāna-rājya-saṃvatsara*, with reference to the era by the Traikūṭakas⁵ who used it earlier than the other dynasties of West India,⁶ may suggest that it was started by them. But the earliest date of the era in the Traikūṭaka inscriptions is year 207 (455 A.D.), and very little of the earlier history of the family is known. It has been suggested that the Traikūṭakas were originally feudatories of the Ābhīras who probably became independent of the Śakas in the North Marāṭhā country about the middle of the 3rd century A.D., that the era started from the first regnal year of Ābhīra Īśvarasena mentioned in a Nasik inscription⁷ and that it was continued by the erstwhile subordinate families like the Traikūṭakas and early Kalacuris. The suggestion may not be impossible and, although there is really little proof in support of the conjecture, it seems that the era was started from the foundation of an independent kingdom carved out of the dominions of the Śakas in order to oust the use of the Śaka era from the said area.
c15.t14.10
⁵ See Bhandarkar's List, No. 1202.
c15.t14.11
⁶ The suggestion that records like the charters of Svāmidāsa, Bhuluṇḍa and Rudradāsa (cf. Bhandarkar's List, Nos. 1259, 1266, 1861) are dated in this era is untenable. These epigraphs are no doubt dated in the Gupta era. See *IHQ*, Vol. XXII, pp. 51-52; Vol. XXIV, pp. 75 ff.
c15.t14.12
⁷ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. VIII, p. 88.
c15.t14.13
Kielhorn suggested, on the basis of a number of dates, that the expired year 1 of the era started on the 26th August 249 A.D.
c15.t14.14
=Vikrama 306, Āśvina-sudi 1.¹ By adding 248-49 to its expired years, we get those of the Christian reckoning, although it has to be admitted that this epoch does not suit all the dates in this era found in inscriptions.² The use of the era disappeared sometime after the fall of the Kalacuris of the Chhattisgarh region in the early part of the 13th century A.D.³
c15.t14.15
¹ *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. XVII, p. 215; *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. II, p. 299; *Festgruss an Roth*, pp. 53 ff. Kielhorn suggests that the months were *Pūrṇimānta*. Cf. *IHQ*, Vol. XXV, p. 81.
c15.t14.16
² Mirashi points out that the earlier dates coming from Gujarat and Maharashtra show the epoch of the era to be 248-49 A.D. while the later dates coming from Chhattisgarh and elsewhere in North India suggest the epoch 247-48 A.D. (*ABORI*, Vol. XXVII, pp. 1 ff.). He also suggests that the year began on Kārttika-sudi 1 and that the months were generally *Amānta* in Gujarat and Maharashtra and *Pūrṇimānta* elsewhere. In *IHQ* Vol. XXV, pp. 81 ff., he sugg sts that the epoch of the era in some parts of Vidarbha was 250-51 A.D. Much of this confusion about the epoch of the era, however, appears to be due to errors in the enumeration of the dates.
c15.t14.17
³ See Bhandarkar's List, Nos. 1251 ff.