Elements of South-Indian Palæography, from the Fourth to the Seventeenth Century A.D. c6.s5.t1: A. The Eras

Elements of South-Indian Palæography, from the Fourth to the Seventeenth Century A.D. c6.s5.t1

Language: English

A. The Eras

c6.s5.t1.2

The usually received date of the Kaliyuga is the March equinox of 3102 B. C.

It was known in the fifth century A. D.¹, but has never become very general in inscriptions, and is now, in S. India, chiefly used in Malabar for the fanciful way of marking dates by a sentence. In most cases I have seen, the number of *days* and not of *years* is mentioned². I believe that the use of this date is unusual, except in comparatively modern times, and is a ground for doubting the authenticity of any but modern inscriptions. It is the base of the ‘ahargaṇa’ system of the Indian astrologers, and the use of it to indicate dates is, almost certainly, due to these men who would naturally be employed to calculate the dates of grants.

c6.s5.t1.4

¹ By Āryabhaṭa (*e. g.* iii., 10). Albīrūnī mentions it. Reinaud, “Fragments”, p. 136.

c6.s5.t1.5

² Warren’s “Kala Saṅkalita” (p. 18) states that in S. India it is usual to date documents in both the Kali and Çaka year. This is contrary to my experience, so far as documents before 1500 are concerned.

c6.s5.t1.6

b. The Çaka Era

c6.s5.t1.7

This era is now usually supposed to date from the birth³ of a mythical Hindu sovereign called Çālivāhana, who defeated the Çakas, and began Monday 14th March 78 A. D. (Julian style). The account of the origin of this era has apparently been repeatedly modified to suit current ideas. In the earlier inscriptions it is usually called ‘Çakavarsha’, ‘Çakasamvatsara’ or ‘Çakanṛipakāla’; about the tenth century it is termed the year of the ‘Çakarāja,’ ‘Çakādhipa’ or ‘Çakadeva,’ and still later it is termed ‘Çālivāhanaçaka’ or ‘Çālivāhanaçakābda’.

c6.s5.t1.8

³ Some say: from the consecration.

c6.s5.t1.9

Albīrūnī (A. D. 1031) speaks of this era as one in use by the astrologers⁴; and as they had a great deal to do with royal grants by determining the auspicious time for making them, it is easy to see how this became the most usual way of marking the dates of inscriptions. But it is certain that this era was quite unsettled and comparatively little used before the tenth century. The earliest authentic inscriptions in which it occurs belong to the end of the fifth century A. D., but it is first mentioned by Varāha Mihira, an astronomer who lived in the sixth century A. D.; and he makes the commencement of it coincide with Kali year 3179. The great popularity in all parts of India of this author's works is probably the reason why this is now the recognized computation, but it has been adopted since the tenth century. Up to that date and even later, there are inscriptions with dates by the Çaka as well as other methods, (*e. g.* the Bṛihaspati cycle) which show a variation of two or three years, more or less, from the usual computation. Albīrūnī (A. D. 1031) mentions that the Çaka year then commenced 135 years after Vikramāditya; this is the received opinion, and from that century Çaka dates may be computed with certainty in the ordinary way. Before that period they must be considered as more or less uncertain.

c6.s5.t1.10

⁴ “L’ère de Saca, nommée pas les Indiens Sacakâla, est postérieure à celle de Vikramaditya de 135 ans. Saca est le nom d’un prince qui a régné sur les contrées situées entre l’Indus et la mer. Sa résidence était placée au centre de l’empire, dans la contrée nommée Āryāvartta. Les Indiens le font naître dans une classe autre que celle des sakyas; quelques-uns prétendent qu’il était soudra et originaire de la ville de Mansoura. Il y en a même qui disent qu’il n’était pas de la race indienne, et qu’il tirait son origine de régions occidentales. Les peuples eurent beaucoup à souffrir de son despotisme, jusqu’à ce qu’il leur vînt du secours de l’Orient. Vikramāditya marcha contre lui, mit son armée en déroute et le tua sur le territoire de Korour, situé entre Moultan et le château de Louny. Cette époque devint célèbre à cause de la joie que les peuples ressentirent de la mort de Saca, et on la choisit pour ère, principalement chez les astronomes”. Tr. by Abbé Reinaud, “Mémoire”, pp. 79-80, and in “Fragments Arabes et Persans inédits relatifs à l’Inde”, pp. 140-141, 145.

c6.s5.t1.11

The Çaka year seems to have been originally introduced by the Digambara Jains, but though the inscriptions prove that their computation of it was the same as the brahmanical, the account they give of it differs from the ordinary one. The Trilokasāra says: Paṇachassayavassaṁ paṇamāsajudaṁ gamiya Vīranibbuïdo | Sagarājo; to Kakki caduṇavatiyamahiyasagamāsaṁ || 848 || C. Çrī-Vīranāthanivṛitteḥ sakāçāt pañcottara-shaṭchatavarshāṇi pañcamāsayutāni gatvā paçcāt Vikramāṅkaçakarājo 'jāyata | tata upari caturṇavatyuttaratriçatavarshāṇi saptamāsādhikāni gatvā paçcāt Kalky ajāyata || Now the death of Vīranātha (or Mahāvīra) the last of the Tīrthaṅkaras is put at 388 B. C.[^1); then, according to the above, the Çaka era would begin in 239 A. D., but this is impossible, so the era of Mahāvīra must be put at 527 B. C., and this again differs from the era mentioned by Prinsep as current in the North of India—512 before Vikramāditya or 569 B. C.[^2) The Javanese Çaka era is 74 A. D., that of Bali 80 A. D. Friederich ("Over Inscriptiën van Java en Sumatra" p. 78) says that only the Çaka era has been found in use in the archipelago. From these details some notion may be formed of the excessive uncertainty of Indian chronological data before the early centuries A. D. The more exact they appear to be the more suspicious they are. It is not too much to say that a tolerably exact chronology is only possible after the tenth century, and then by the aid of inscriptions only[^3).

c6.s5.t1.12

It is necessary to remark that the Çaka year is reckoned by either including the current year (the most usual practice in India), or by excluding the current year and

c6.s5.t1.13

[^1): According to the Çatruñjaya-Māhātmya. Bühler ("Three New Edicts of Açoka", p. 21) rejects this work as a forgery, and accepts the date 526-7 B. C. [^2): "Useful Tables" p. 166 in Prinsep's "*Essays*" by Thomas, Vol. II. [^3): The rough equation for converting this era into the Christian date is: +78¼. The beginning of the year being at the March equinox; if the Çaka '*atīta*' year be mentioned, the equation is: +79¼. For more exact reckoning, a long calculation is necessary.

c6.s5.t1.14

giving only the number of complete years that have elapsed, in which case the word atīta is used; this last is not usual in Indian (except the W. Cālukya) inscriptions, but is nearly universal in those of Java.

c6.s5.t1.15

c. The Vikramāditya Era

c6.s5.t1.16

The passion for systematizing and thus falsifying even history in accordance with the popular astrological and religious notions of the day, has, it is evident from the above, led to repeated alterations in the dates assigned to real or fictitious events in Indian history. The era of Vikramāditya is apparently one result of this folly. It is all but unknown in S. India (except in the Deccan), though under the name of ‘*saṃvat*’ is the one most commonly used in the North. It is said to begin 57 years B. C.¹ It is used by the Çvetāmbara Jains (of the N. of India).

c6.s5.t1.17

¹ The equation is: +56¾. It is mentioned by Albirūnī (Reinaud, “Fragments”, p. 139).

c6.s5.t1.18

d. The Kollam, Koḷambam (or Quilon) Era

c6.s5.t1.19

This is usually called a cycle², but it is in reality an era; it began in September 824 A. D. It is supposed to commemorate the founding of Kollam (Quilon), and is only used in the S. Tamiḷ country and Travancore³.

c6.s5.t1.20

² “Cycle of Paraçurāma”—Prinsep.

c6.s5.t1.21

³ The equation is: +824¾.

c6.s5.t1.22

e. Cycle of Bṛihaspati

c6.s5.t1.23

⁴ The first account, by an European, of this Cycle, and a very good one too, is in the “Open-Deure” (1651) of Rogerius who lived from 1631 to 1641 at Pulicat as Dutch chaplain. (See pp. 58-9.) *As. Res.* iii. “On the Cycle of 60 years” by Davis. Sūryasiddhānta by Burgess, (New Haven, 1860) p. 35,—a list of names (fr. Davis) is given on p. 36. This list is not to be found in the Sanskrit treatises, but is supposed to be generally known; for this reason it is impossible to amend some of the names which are clearly corrupt.

c6.s5.t1.24

Each year in this cycle has a name, and in the inscriptions this is coupled with the Çaka year or year of the king's reign. The earliest examples to be met with in S. India in which the cyclic years occur are of about the tenth century. The names are as follows:

c6.s5.t1.25

c6.s5.t1.26

c6.s5.t1.27

¹ According to Mr. C. P. Brown the order is sometimes: *Jaya*, *Vijaya*.

c6.s5.t1.28

² This list is compiled from Col. Warren's "Kala Saṅkalita", Mr. C. P. Brown's "Cyclic Tables", inscriptions, and the practice of the people of S. India. I am not aware that any old list exists.

c6.s5.t1.29

This cycle is originally founded on a practice of reckoning time by the revolutions of Jupiter (Bṛihaspati), but there is no record of its correct use; the present practice of erroneously reckoning sixty *solar* years as equal to five revolutions of the planet has always, it appears, prevailed as far back as reference to this method can be found. Though this cycle is in common use everywhere in the South, the names are often much varied, especially by the Jains³. It is not improbable that this system is an adaptation with Sanskrit names of an old way of reckoning time originally current in S. India; it is mentioned by Albīrūnī¹ in the eleventh century, but his reference to it is commonly understood to mean that it was of recent introduction in the North and West of India².

c6.s5.t1.30

³ The Tamiḻ names are merely corrupt forms of the Sanskrit. For them, see Beschi's Koḍun-Tamiḻ Grammar. To find the year A. D. corresponding to the first of the cycle it is not necessary, here, to do more than remark that the last must always end with 7, and that the 11th, 21st, 31st, 41st, 51st years of the cycle (as used in S. India) must also correspond with A. D. years ending with 7. Thus the first years of cycles would correspond with A. D. 67, 127, 187, 247, 307, 367, 427, 487, 547, 607, 667, 727, 787, 847, 907, 967 etc. The corresponding years Çaka and A. D. are given by Mr. Brown down to 1857.

c6.s5.t1.31

¹ Reinaud, "Fragments" p. 140 *n.*, states that Albīrūnī devotes an entire chapter to this cycle.

c6.s5.t1.32

² Do: *u. s.* An inference as to the recent date of the origin of this cycle (viz., 959 A. D.) is drawn by the Abbé Reinaud, but it is certainly wrong. The Bṛihaspati-cycle is referred to, *e. g.*, by Āryabhata (iii., 10) who lived at the end of the 5th century A. D. and the years of it occur commonly in inscriptions of that century. It does not appear in use in the Kawi inscriptions.

c6.s5.t1.33

This cycle, as used in North and South India, differs not in the names or order of the names but in the period at which the first year comes. In S. India the present year (1874) is Bhāva or the eighth of the cycle. This difference is owing to the practice which obtains in S. India and Tibet of considering the years of the cycle as identical in duration with the ordinary luni-solar year.

c6.s5.t1.34

f. Other Eras but Little Used

c6.s5.t1.35

Some of the Cālukyas attempted to set up local eras, but these dates occur in comparatively few and unimportant inscriptions, and are too uncertain to be worth mentioning here.

c6.s5.t1.36

The South-Indian Coḷa and Pāṇḍya kings appear to mention the year of their reign most generally, and the second also, but rarely, the Quilon era. The task of establishing the succession of these dynasties and the dates is thus likely to prove very formidable; there is, however, some foundation in Marco Polo's mention of Sundara Pāṇḍya as the king of the South in his time (13th century), and also in the synchronism between the Coḷa king Kulottuṅga and the Cālukya Āhavamalla as established by Sir W. Elliot³.

c6.s5.t1.37

³ *Madras Journal*, xiii., pt. 2, p. 40. See above p. 19 *n.* and p. 40 *n.*

c6.s5.t1.38

The explanation of the date in the grant to the Cochin Israelites is not as yet certain. The term is: "Yāṇḍu iraṇḍām āṇḍaikk 'ĕdir muppattāṟām āṇḍu"—*i. e.* (literally) "the year opposite the second year, the thirty-sixth year." Ellis explained it⁴ by the thirty-sixth year of the third (? second) cycle, but it is impossible to reconcile it with the Quilon era, and it appears to me here to mean the thirty-sixth year (of the king's life) opposite to (or corresponding with) the second year (of his reign or of the cycle). Similar dates occur in the Tamiḷ inscriptions, and the meaning of mēl viz., 'equivalent to', is beyond doubt. Thus in an inscription of A. D. 1532 (Piḷḷaiyār temple at Tanjore)

c6.s5.t1.39

⁴ Do. pp. 3 and 10. Dr. Gundert (do. pt. i., p. 137) doubts the meaning of ĕdir, and the usual translation is rather of 'mēl' than of 'ĕdir', for it is by no means certain that the two have the same meaning. Dr. Caldwell (*Comp. Grammar*, p. 60 *n.*) takes it to mean the year of the cycle of sixty to which the year of the king's reign answers.

c6.s5.t1.40

we find: "Çakābdam 1454 iðin mēl nandanasamvatsaram", and in fact, ç. 1454 corresponds with the cycle year Nandana.

c6.s5.t1.41

It was a practice in the Tamil inscriptions to note the day of the year by a number, *e.g.* "the 26th year, 310th day" (Tanjore inscription, iv.), or even to count the days of a king's reign¹. In this, as in so many other details, the Tamil inscriptions are unlike those of the North, and form, unfortunately for the chance of obtaining exact dates, a class by themselves.

c6.s5.t1.42

¹ *Cfr. Indian Antiquary*, vi., p. 142.

c6.s5.t1.43

The above information is sufficient to decide *approximately* the dates of most S. Indian inscriptions; to do more it is necessary to know the complicated details of the luni-solar year as used in S. India, but this would need a large volume alone². Eventually, no doubt, it will be necessary to take these details into account, as well as the references to eclipses which are so frequent in Indian grants, and by which it must often³ be possible to calculate the date with the utmost exactness; at present it is rather to be desired that existing inscriptions should be preserved, than that much time should be spent on any single one.

c6.s5.t1.44

² Warren's "*Kala Saṅkalita*" (4°, Madras, 1825) is still the only work on this subject. The information in Prinsep's "Useful Tables" is mostly from it. It has often been asserted and denied that traces are to be found of a primitive (Dravidian) S. Indian calendar anterior to the present one which is entirely of Sanskrit origin, but nothing has as yet been adduced to prove the position. I find, however, that there is a Tuḷu calendar which has names for the months different from the Sanskrit, and which are most derived from the Tuḷu names of crops reaped at those seasons. These months now agree practically with the luni-solar months, and the names are: Paggu; Beçā; Kārtelu; Āṭi; Sōṇa; Nirnāla; Bontelu; Jārde; Perārde; Pūntelu; Māyi; Suggi. Of these the second, fourth, and perhaps the ninth are of Sanskrit origin; the rest are pure Tuḷu and have no connection with the Sanskrit names for divisions of time.

c6.s5.t1.45

³ Not *always*, for the cyclic periods of eclipses are too short to help in many cases where there is little beyond a mere mention of an eclipse.

c6.s5.t1.46

The expunged and intercalated months and days are a chief feature in the luni-solar calendar, and now-a-days great attention is paid to them in consequence of disputes on ceremonial matters; I have not seen these intercalated days or months marked in any old inscription, probably because grants should not be made at such times⁴; but in modern documents this is always done, and the absence of nija or adhika in such a case would discredit any modern deed. Now-a-days, deeds are executed on such dates just as on others⁵.

c6.s5.t1.47

⁴ See Hemādri's ‘Dānakhaṇḍa’ ch. iii. (pp. 78-80 of the B. I. edition). The whole of the chapter is of great interest to students of Indian inscriptions.

c6.s5.t1.48

⁵ The expunged and intercalated months and days were in common use in the 11th century. Albīrūnī (ç. 1030) mentions the first by the usual name ‘malamāsa’ which the Abbé Reinaud (“Mémoire”, p. 352) has strangely read ‘mūlamāsa’, though Albīrūnī correctly explains ‘mala’ which here means (as he says) the dirt that accumulates between the nails and the skin, and hence by a truly Indian metaphor we get ‘malamāsa’. Such a metaphor, surely, could not by any possibility occur in any other language.

Cites (3)

Sūryasiddhānta — Maya, Sanskrit
Tanjore — inscription (SII 4.1289) — Tamil
Tiloyasāra — Nemicandra Siddhāntacakravartin, Śaurasenī Prakrit