Book of Indian Eras, with Tables for Calculating Indian Dates c13: VI.—Nirvâna of Buddha

Book of Indian Eras, with Tables for Calculating Indian Dates c13

Language: English

VI.—Nirvâna of Buddha

c13.1

The *Nirvâna*, or death of the last Buddha Sâkya Muni, has been in use from a very early date down to the present day. According to the Buddhist Chronicles of Ceylon and Burma, the Nirvâna took place in 544 B.C. But as the inauguration of Asoka is referred to the year 218 after the Nirvâna, it seems probable that there must be an error in the date of the Nirvâna itself to the extent of sixty-six years, as the chronology of the reign of Asoka is now pretty well ascertained. His father’s death took place in the year 214 of the Nirvâna, or B.C. 264, and his inauguration as king four years later, after he had prevailed over his brothers.

c13.2

Only two inscriptions have yet been found which are dated in this era. The first is contained in the rock edicts of Asoka at Rupnâth and Sahsarâm. The second occurs in an inscribed slab which I found in the Temple of Surya in the city of Gaya. The date of Asoka’s inscription is the year 256, or the 42nd year after the death of his father; his own reign being stated in the chronicles at 4 years + 37 years, or altogether 41 years complete, and 42 current. The second date is 1813 of the Bhagavat Parinirvritte Samvat, or Nirvâna, or Thursday the 1st of Kârtika-badi.

c13.3

In Northern India the true date of the Nirvâna was lost at a very early period. Thus, in the time of Hwen Thsang, A. D. 630—645, the Buddhist schools held widely different opinions, varying from 900 and 1000 years up to 1200, 1300 and even 1500 years prior to that date,* which would place the Nirvâna of Buddha either in 250, or 350, or 550 or 650 and 850 B.C. The same extravagant antiquity was also asserted in the time of FaHian, who places the Nirvâna during the reign of Ping-Wang, Emperor of China, in B.C. 770—719.† A similar antiquity was still claimed as late as the Twelfth Century A. D., during the reign of Asoka who compare them with the Hebrew and Roman months.* Clinton gives an extract from Cardinal Norisius, who quotes Hieronymus to show that in Antioch and other Syrian cities the year began with Hyperberetæus :— “In quarto mense qui apud nos vocatur Januarius, apud Orientales enim populos, October erat primus mensis, et Januarius quartus Est (Shebat) in acerrimo hyemis, qui ab Ægyptüs Mechir, à Macedonibus Περιτιος, à Romanis Februarius appellatur.” So also Corsini and Scaliger make Hyperberetæus the first month. The following are the names of the months with the corresponding months of the Jewish Calendar as found in Josephus and other authors—

c13.4

∗ Julien's Hwen Thsang, II, 335. † Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms, translated by Giles, C. vii.

c13.5

c13.6

Now the Macedonian Calendar, like that of the Athenians, was a luni-solar cycle of 19 solar years, or 235 lunar months; and as more than a century had elapsed from the time of Meton when Seleukus established his era, there can be no reasonable doubt that the Metonic cycle was adopted in Syria. This is proved by the following facts:†

c13.7

† These proofs are taken from Browne's Ordo Sæclorum, p. 461.

c13.8

1. “Whenever Macedonian months are compared with Attic or lunar months, it nowhere appears that they differ in their dimensions or contents.

c13.9

2. “Seleukus Nikator, the founder of the kingdom of the Seleukidæ, gave order to affix the Macedonian names to the Syrian months, which were unquestionably lunar.

c13.10

∗ Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, III, p. 353.

c13.11

3. "Ptolemy, in his Almagest, gives the dates of various eclipses and occultations observed at Babylon between the years B.C. 721 and 229. The last three dates, B.C. 245, 237, 229, bear the names of Macedonian months, and by calculation prove that the Babylonians under the Seleukidæ measured time by lunar months with Macedonian names.

c13.12

4. "The date on the Rosetta stone, IX Ptolemy Epiphanes, 18th Mechir = 4th of Macedonian Xanthikus, being reduced, proves the same thing."

c13.13

These facts show most decisively that the Syro-Macedonian calendar of the Seleukidæ was luni-solar, and not solar, as is frequently stated.* Thus James Prinsep, copying an article from the Companion to the Almanac for 1830, says :—"Their year was solar, and consisted of 365 days, with the addition of a day every fourth year." But the calendar of 365¼ days is the Julian calendar, which was not adopted in Syria until some time after the Christian era, when it had become a Roman province.

c13.14

As the Syro-Macedonian months were lunar, there must have been seven intercalary months inserted at certain periods in each cycle of 19 years. According to the Greek cycle of Meton, these insertions took place in the 3rd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 13th, 16th, 19th years of the cycle. "The name of the old Macedonian intercalary month is inferred from 2 Maccabees, XI, 21, where the date of a manifesto issued by Lysias, General of Antiochus Eupator, is given as 24th Διοσκορινθιου, but in the Vulgate 24 Dioscori; and from the Etymolᵐ Magᵐ we learn, that Διόσκορος was the name of a month. A missive of Antiochus, evidently written not much later, is dated 15th Xanthikos. Hence it is inferred that the place of this intercalary month Διόσκορος was the same as that of the Jewish month, i.e., before Nisan."†

c13.15

The introduction of the Julian reckoning must have been confined to Syria and the western provinces of the Seleukidan empire, which had been annexed to Rome. But in the Eastern provinces, which then formed the Parthian empire, the luni-solar reckoning still maintained its place. This is proved most conclusively by the following facts. It was the custom of the later Parthian kings to date all their large silver coins with the month and year of their issue. The names of all the twelve Macedonian months have thus been found on the coins of the Parthian kings. There are a few slight differences, such as Xandikus for Xanthikus, and Soloîus for Loüs. But on one coin of Vologeses III, I find the name of EMBOAI, which can only be that of the intercalary or embolismic month.* This is accompanied with the date OY or 490, or A.D. 178-9, in which year there was an intercalary month according to my table. It is clear, therefore, that, up to this late period, the people of the Parthian empire still continued to use the luni-solar reckoning of the Macedonian Calendar.

c13.16

∗ Cowasjee Patell, p. 26, of course copies Prinsep. † Ordo Sæclorum, p. 461.

c13.17

I have been thus particular in describing the Syro-Macedonian Calendar of the Seleukidæ, as we know that it was in use in the north-west of India, during the period of Indo-Scythian rule, from which we may infer, with some certainty, that it must have been the common reckoning of their predecessors, the Bactrian Greeks. Mr. Thomas has already shown that this is highly probable; but nothing has yet been found to determine it absolutely.

c13.18

In the Indo-Scythian inscriptions, the names of four different Macedonian months have been found,—namely, Panemos, Daisios, Apellaios, and Artemisios. The occurrence of these names shows incontestably that the Macedonian Calendar must have been introduced into Kabul and North-Western India by the Bactrian Greeks, and as the province to the west of the Indus had belonged to Seleukus, I conclude that the era of the Seleukidæ must have been adopted there also. Unfortunately, the year dates hitherto discovered are all small numbers, which might refer to some recently established era of the Indo-Scythians, or, as suggested by Mr. Thomas, they may possibly refer to the Seleukidan era by leaving out the hundreds, which was the common Indian mode of reckoning the year of the Saptârshi-kâl. With the Indo-Scythian inscriptions, for instance, the dates of 9, 11, 18, and 28 of Kanishka, and of 33, 39, 47, and 51 of Huvishka, might either be referred to a new era, such as the Saka-kâl of 78 A.D., or to the years 9, 11, 18, &c., of the fifth Seleukidan century, by leaving out 400. In the former case, the year 9 of Kanishka would be 78 + 9 = 87 A.D., while in the latter case it would be referred to the year 409 of the Seleukidan era, equal to A.D. 97-98.

c13.19

It is doubtful, except in a few instances, whether any coins of the Greek kings are dated. The three letters PMI on the exergue of the coin of Platon can only be explained as a date, although the usual order of IMP is reversed. As a date they represent 147, which can only be referred to the Seleukidan era, and would, therefore, be equivalent to B.C. 165-164. The letters ΟΓ, or 73, are found on a coin of Eukratides, and the letters ΠΓ, or 83, on several coins of Heliokles. That these are most probably dates has been proved by Mr. Thomas, by a reference to a coin of Heliokles in the British Museum, bearing the full date ΠΙΓ, or 183.* I have since acquired a tetradrachm of Eukratides with the detached letters NA, which may also be read as a date, or 51 = 151 of the Seleukidan era. According to these dates we have—

c13.20

∗ This coin is engraved in Longperier's unpublished book on the Parthian coinage, Plate XIV, Fig. 9.

c13.21

| | An. Sel. | B. C. |
| Platon in | 147 | = 165-164. |
| Eukratides in | 51 or 151 | = 161-160. |
| Ditto | 73 or 173 | = 139-138. |
| Heliokles | 183 | = 129-128. |

c13.22

After this the dates on the Greek coins would seem to be, as Mr. Thomas suggests, only regnal years of the different kings.

c13.23

Having accepted these dates—and I do not see how they can be disputed—I feel that the dates found in the Indo-Scythian inscriptions along with the names of the Macedonian months must also be referred to the Seleukidan era. I am quite prepared, therefore, to accept all the dates of the Indo-Scythian inscriptions from Kabul and Taxila and Mathura as belonging to the Seleukidan era, with the hundreds omitted after the Indian custom. This also would appear to be Mr. Thomas's conclusion, when he says: "The question thus arises whether this latter practice (of using the Macedonian names of the months) does not imply a continued use of the Seleukidan era, in association with which the names must first have reached India."

c13.24

Under this view, the following will be the dates of the Indo-Scythian Princes Kanishka, Huvishka, and Vâsu Deva:

c13.25

A.D. 80 Kanishka, S. 9 = 409 - 312 = 97 A.D. S. 28 = 428 - 312 = 116 - A.D. 120 Huvishka, S. 33 = 433 - 312 = 121 A.D. S. 51 = 451 - 312 = 139 - A.D. 150 Vâsu Deva, S. 87 = 487 - 312 = 175 A.D. S. 98 = 498 - 312 = 186 A.D. A.D. 190, close of Indo-Scythian rule in Northern India.

c13.26

The accuracy of these dates is confirmed by the discovery of gold coins of Wema Kadphises, Kanishka and Huvishka in the Ahin-posh Stûpa, along with some Roman gold coins of Domitian, Trajan, and Sabina, the wife of Hadrian. Sabina died in A.D. 137, and as there was only one coin of Huvishka amongst twenty-one specimens, the Stûpa was probably built not later than 130 A.D.

c13.27

∗ Bactrian Coins and Indian Dates, in Royal Asiatic Society's Journal, New Series, Vol. IX, p. 3.

c13.28

Under these circumstances it appears to me that some account of the era of the Seleukidæ is absolutely necessary for any work treating of early Indian dates. I have therefore drawn up the accompanying tables of the initial days of all the years of the era from its commencement down to the close of the Parthian empire in the early part of the Third Century A.D. I have studied the accounts given by Clinton in his Fasti Hellenici, and by Browne in his Ordo Sæclorum, and I have examined most of their authorities in the original. I have also computed many of the test calculations for myself, some of which will be noticed presently.

c13.29

The old Greek year consisted originally of 360 days, divided into 12 months of 30 days each. But as many of the Greek festivals depended on the moon, it was soon discovered that the true length of a mean lunation was about 29½ days, and that of a solar year about 365 days. Various methods were adopted from time to time for accommodating the computation by lunar months to the solar year. In the time of Perikles the enneateris, or cycle of 8 solar years, was in use. This consisted of 8 lunar years of 354 days each, with the addition of 3 intercalary months, in the 3rd, 5th, and 8th years, making a total of 99 lunations or lunar months. But as 8 solar years of 365¼ days contain 2922 days, while 99 lunations of 29½ days amount to only 2920½ days, there was a deficiency of one day-and-a-half in every cycle of 8 years.

c13.30

To remedy this defect Meton proposed in B.C. 432 his famous cycle of 19 solar years of 365¼ days each, which differs by only a small fraction from 235 lunations. Meton's value of the 19 solar years as 6940 days was a little in excess of the truth, as a year of 365¼ days gives only 6939·75 days in 19 years. As this excess of ¼ day amounted to a whole day in 76 years, Kallippus, in B.C. 330, introduced the cycle of 76 years, or four Metonic periods, from which he retrenched the extra day. But beyond this, according to Clinton, "he appears to have made no change in the ἐννεα-και-δεκαετηρις of Meton." It is supposed, from the account of Timocharis of the 36th and 47th years being anni communes, that he closed the 6th Metonic cycle at its 8th year, or B.C. 330, which, accordingly, became an annus communis as the 1st of the Kallippic cycle of 76 years, which could not have happened if the original Metonic cycle had not been interrupted. But Clinton quotes a marble which renders this arrangement doubtful. It is quite certain that it could not have been adopted in Syria, as we know that the year 148 of the Seleukidan era, or B.C. 165-64, was intercalary,* which is true of the Metonic cycle, but disagrees with that of Kallippus. As the Parthian coin of Vologases III shows the same accordance with the Metonic reckoning, there can be no doubt that the Kallippic correction had not been introduced into either Syria or Parthia. Clinton also deduces from "the three years described by Ptolemy as 67, 75, and 82 of the Chaldæans, commencing respectively October 15, October 16, and October 1, that the Macedonians must have received the cycle in the 9th year of a Metonic ἐννεα-και-δεκαετηρὶς, which would be the second of a Kallippic. For this reason I have adopted the Metonic cycle in the accompanying tables, which show the initial day of every year down to the close of the Parthian empire. I have numbered the Metonic cycles I, II, III, IV, &c., and should it be required to convert any date into the Kallippic reckoning, it is only necessary to throw back every date in each period of 76 years by one day; or, as the Kallippic correction was established in B.C. 330, to antedate by one day every initial day in the Metonic Cycles IV, V, VI VII; by two days those of Cycles VIII, IX, X, XI; by three days those of Cycles XII, XIII, XIV, XV; and so on, deducting one more day for every four Metonic cycles.

c13.31

In the old cycle of 8 years the lunar months consisted nominally of 30 days each, one day being "omitted between the 20th and 30th of every alternate month. But in those months from which a day was deducted, the last day was still called τριακὰς, and the day omitted was perhaps the 29th, or any other day but the 30th."† Meton also retained the nominal value of the month at 30 days, but he proposed a new scheme for the days to be omitted. As 235 lunations at 30 days each amounted to 7050 days, or 110 days in excess of the 6940 days assigned to 19 solar years, he devised the cumbrous and inconvenient plan of omitting every 63rd day throughout the cycle; but it is not known whether he included or excluded the seven intercalary months. These omitted days, or ἡμέραι, ἐξαιρέσιμοι, are shown in the table, which is altered from Clinton's Attic tables to suit the Macedonian Calendar.

c13.32

† Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, I, p. 336.

c13.33

The seven intercalary months of the Metonic cycle were added at the end of the 3rd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 13th, 16th, and 19th years. But in the Macedonian Calendar the embolismic month was placed in the middle of the year immediately preceding Xanthikos.‡ Clinton supposes that the embolismic months were also subject to the retrenchment of the 63rd day, should it happen to fall upon them. But this cannot have been the case, otherwise the number of omitted days would have amounted to 111·9, or nearly 2 in excess of the required number of 110. Meton’s scheme consisted of a cycle of 19 years, each of 12 months of 30 days, with seven intercalary months also of 30 days, making altogether 7050 days, from which 110 days were to be deducted to obtain the required number of 6940 days, by omitting every 63rd day. Now if the embolismic months had been subject to curtailment, the number of omitted days would have been 112. But if they were not subject to these omissions, the required number of 6940 days would have been obtained by passing them over, and striking out the day from the following month. This arrangement is shown in Table VII, where the embolismic month of 30 days is placed in the middle of the year between Dustros and Xanthikus.

c13.34

∗ See 2 Maccabees, XI, p. 21.

c13.35

‡ Clinton, III, 353, quoting Macrobius, who states that the intercalations were placed at the end of February of Greeks as well as Romans.

c13.36

But there is another grave objection to Clinton’s scheme, namely, that it would make all the last four months of the cycle full months of 30 days, and as the first two months of each cycle were necessarily full months, there would have been no less than six consecutive full months all lumped together. I look upon this result as quite fatal to his scheme.

c13.37

Now, the arrangement which I propose, as shown in Table VII, is quite free from this defect, as it has not even a single instance of three full months coming together, and only one of three hollow or short months,—namely, in the last year of one cycle and first two years of the succeeding one. According to Clinton’s scheme, if a new moon had fallen in the first day of the first of the six consecutive full months, a new moon would have occurred three whole days before the beginning of the seventh month. By my arrangement, the new moon would only differ one day and-a-half from the νουμηνια.

c13.38

To test the tables, I will take the date of the battle of Arbela, which took place on the twelfth day after an eclipse of the moon, the two armies having been drawn up facing each other on the eleventh night after the eclipse. Now the day of battle has been fixed to the 2nd of October B.C. 331 by the mention of this eclipse. The eclipse took place on the night of 20th of September at full moon, and the new moon, which opened the next Macedonian year, must, therefore, have fallen on the 5th of October. According to my table, the new year’s day fell on the 4th October. We know that the battle took place very near the end of the Macedonian month, as Aristander had foretold that “a battle would be fought in that very month.”* The 2nd of October was the 29th of Gorpiæus, or the last day but one of the month.

c13.39

∗ Arrian, Hist., Allexandri, III, 7.

Linked texts (2)

Ἀλεξάνδρου ἀνάβασις — Λούκιος Φλάουιος Ἀρριανός, Ancient Greek
Surya temple (ancient temple, baradari)