Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c10.s4: 5.5 Appendix: Eras Used in Indo-Aryan Inscriptions

Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c10.s4

Language
English

Contents

5.5 Appendix: Eras Used in Indo-Aryan Inscriptions

c10.s4.1

General references: A. Cunningham, *Book of Indian Eras*; IC II, 736–8; L. D. Swamikannu Pillai, *Indian Chronology*, 43–5; BPLM, 159–96; J. F. Fleet, “Hindu Chronology,” in *Encyclopaedia Britannica*, 11th ed. (1910–11), vol. 13, 491–501; R. Sewell and Ś. B. Dîkshit, *The Indian Calendar*, 39–47; SIE, 251–326; V. V. Mirashi, “Epigraphical Research” (see 8.2.1 n. 15 for ref.), 515–22.

5.5.1 Continuous (historical or pseudohistorical) eras

c10.s4.t1.1

5.5.1.1 Kaliyuga era of 3102 B.C.

c10.s4.t1.2

J. F. Fleet, “The Kaliyuga Era of B.C. 3102,” *JRAS* 1911, 479–96 and 675–98.

c10.s4.t1.3

The Kaliyuga era is a pseudohistorical era, supposed to originate from the beginning of the Kali aeon. Traditional associations with events of epic history (Fleet, 676–9) notwithstanding, in reality the Kaliyuga is an artificial creation of astronomers, fabricated at a much later date to provide a convenient chronological base for astronomical and calendrical calculations. The initial date corresponds to Friday, February 18, 3102 B.C. (Fleet, 479), at the time of an approximate mean conjunction of the sun, moon, and planets at the first point of the *nakṣatra* Meṣa (Fleet, 489–95). The first current Kaliyuga era year thus corresponds to 3202–3201 B.C., and the first expired year to 3101–3100 B.C. Since Kaliyuga years are normally counted as expired, they can be converted to A.D. years by subtracting 3101 or 3100 (depending on the month).

c10.s4.t1.4

In use as in origin, the Kaliyuga is primarily an astronomer’s era; it is used only occasionally for civil and epigraphic functions. The earliest epigraphic attestation is in the Aihoḷe inscription (SI II.443–50), dated in Kaliyuga 3735 and Śaka 556, corresponding to A.D. 634/35. Some later inscriptions are dated in the Kaliyuga era, especially those of the Kādambas of Goa.⁶³ Inscriptional dates in the Kaliyuga era are usually given together with years of other eras, either historical (most commonly Śaka; occasionally others such as Vikrama) or cyclical (usually years of Jupiter, as in the Kādamba inscriptions).

c10.s4.t1.5

⁶³ Fleet 689–94; Kielhorn’s *List of Inscriptions of Southern India*, EI 7, nos. 249, 254, 262, and 269.

c10.s4.t1.6

5.5.1.2 "Old Śaka" era (epoch uncertain)

c10.s4.t1.7

It is generally agreed that the dates in an unspecified era of several early Kharoṣṭhī (and perhaps a few Brāhmī) inscriptions of the Scythian period cannot, on geographical and historical grounds, be attributed to known historical reckonings such as the Vikrama and Śaka eras. Such inscriptions are ascribed to a hypothetical reckoning generally referred to as the "Old Śaka" era, to distinguish it from the Śaka era of A.D. 78 (5.5.1.4). Among the earlier inscriptions usually attributed to this Old Śaka era are the Taxila copper plate of the year 78 (CII 2.1, 23–9) and the Taxila silver vase of 191 (CII 2.1, 81–2). Several later Kharoṣṭhī inscriptions with dates in the three hundreds of an unspecified era, for example, Skārah Ḍherī (399; CII 2.1, 124–7) are also usually attributed to this era, as is a Brāhmī Jaina inscription from Mathurā dated 299 (IA 37, 33–4).⁶⁴ In several cases, scholars disagree as to which inscriptions are to be attributed to the Old Śaka era.

c10.s4.t1.8

⁶⁴ Some scholars also attribute the dates of Bactrian inscriptions from Surkh Kotal, Kara Tepe, and other central Asian sites to this era; see B. N. Mukherjee, *Central and South Asian Documents on the Old Saka Era*, 46–81.

c10.s4.t1.9

Even more controversial is the exact epoch and historical origin of this presumed era. Suggestions as to its epoch range from ca. 248–247 B.C. (H. Lüders' "Parthian era")⁶⁵ to 84–83 B.C. (S. Konow in CII 2.1, xci).⁶⁶ Some scholars have proposed even earlier epochs in connection with some of the inscriptions of this class, for instance, P. H. L. Eggermont's Sarvāstivādin era of 383 B.C.⁶⁷ and J. Ph. Vogel's Seleukid era of 312 B.C.⁶⁸ Many other epochs have been proposed between these extremes, including 170 B.C.,⁶⁹ 158 B.C. ("Menander era"),⁷⁰ 155 B.C.,⁷¹ 129 B.C.,⁷² and so on. Some scholars, such as Narain⁷³ and Konow,⁷⁴ posit *two* early eras, one in the third or second century B.C. and another "Pahlava" era beginning around 90 B.C.

c10.s4.t1.10

⁶⁵ "The Era of the Mahārāja and the Mahārāja Rājātirāja," in Bimala Churn Law, ed., *D. R. Bhandarkar Volume* (Calcutta: Indian Research Institute, 1940), 281–9 (esp. 288); supported by Konow, *Acta Orientalia* 20, 1948, 115, and Sircar, *SIE* 244.

c10.s4.t1.11

⁶⁶ This date was later retracted by Konow, who also proposed several others at various times; see the critique of his position by J. E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw in *The "Scythian" Period*, 6–20.

c10.s4.t1.12

⁶⁷ In A. L. Basham, ed., *Papers on the Date of Kaniṣka*, 91.

c10.s4.t1.13

⁶⁸ *ASIAR* 1903–4, 259.

c10.s4.t1.14

⁶⁹ B. N. Mukherjee, *Central and South Asian Documents on the Old Śaka Era*, passim; K. W. Dobbins, *Śaka-Pahlava Coinage*, 139 ("Era of Eukratides").

c10.s4.t1.15

⁷⁰ A. D. H. Bivar in Basham, *Papers on the Date of Kaniṣka*, 418.

c10.s4.t1.16

⁷¹ W. W. Tarn, *The Greeks in Bactria and India*, 500–1, and A. K. Narain in Basham, *Papers on the Date of Kaniṣka*, 237 ("Yavana era").

c10.s4.t1.17

⁷² Van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, *The "Scythian" Period*, 33.

c10.s4.t1.18

⁷³ Basham, *Papers on the Date of Kaniṣka*, 237.

c10.s4.t1.19

⁷⁴ *Acta Orientalia* 20, 115.

c10.s4.t1.20

Most, if not all, of these theories involve complicated manipulations of inadequate and uncertain data, and can be characterized as speculative at best. The epoch of the Old Śaka era remains very much an open question, which probably cannot be conclusively answered on the basis of the documents currently available.

c10.s4.t1.21

5.5.1.3 Vikrama era of 58 B.C.

c10.s4.t1.22

F. Kielhorn, “Examination of Questions Connected with the Vikrama Era,” IA 19, 1890, 20–40, 166–87, 354–74; 20, 1891, 124–42, 397–414 = KS I.513–612.

c10.s4.t1.23

The Vikrama era, or *Vikrama-saṃvat* as it is commonly called, is, along with the Śaka era (5.5.1.4), the most important epigraphic era, appearing (under various times (sixth century) onward. Śaka dates are also not uncommon in western India (Gujarat and Saurashtra), eastern India (Bengal, Assam, etc.), and in parts of central India adjoining the south; they also appear sporadically in inscriptions from various parts of northern India. The Śaka era is also the standard dating system in Sanskrit inscriptions in Southeast Asia (especially Cambodia and Java). Like the Vikrama era, it is still current in India today, mainly in the south and the west.

c10.s4.t1.24

Dates in the Śaka era are labeled by various expressions such as *śaka-(nṛpa-)kāle*, *śaka-varṣeṣv atīteṣu*, *śaka-varṣe*, *śālivāhana-śake*,⁷⁹ *śāke*, and so on.⁸⁰ Unlike the dates of some other eras such as Vikrama and Kalacuri-Cedi, Śaka era dates, except for those of the early centuries, are almost always explicitly labeled as such.⁸¹ The earliest authentic⁸² epigraphic reference to this era by the name “Śaka” is now the Vāḷa inscription of Suketuvarman, dated in Śaka 322 = A.D. 400 (EI 40, 54, ll. 8–9).⁸³ The dates of some still earlier inscriptions, notably those of the Western Kṣatrapa rulers of the line of Caṣṭana, are referable to the Śaka era, though they are not explicitly designated as such.⁸⁴

c10.s4.t1.25

⁷⁹ The name “Śālivāhana,” first occurring in the twelfth century, reflects an effort to establish an indigenous origin for the era by associating it with a legendary Hindu king (whose historical prototype is probably the Sātavāhana king Gautamīputra; SIE 262); cf. the case of the “Vikrama” era (see n. 76).

c10.s4.t1.26

⁸⁰ See Kielhorn, IA 26, 148–53, for details.

c10.s4.t1.27

⁸¹ Kielhorn, IA 26, 148–9.

c10.s4.t1.28

⁸² Several earlier Śaka dates are all in spurious inscriptions; Kielhorn, IA 24, 181–2; Fleet, JRAS 1910, 818.

c10.s4.t1.29

⁸³ The significance of this date in this context was not pointed out in the published edition of the Vāḷa inscription. In most recent publications, the Hisse-Borālā ins. of Śaka 380 (EI 37, 1–4) is cited as the earliest explicit Śaka era date. An inscription of the Ābhīra ruler Īśvaradeva (IAAR 1967–68, 52) is said to be dated in the year 254 (or 154; B. N. Mukherjee, JESI 7, 1980, 5 n. 12) of the Śaka era, referred to as such; but this record has apparently not been fully published, so this remains unconfirmed.

c10.s4.t1.30

⁸⁴ The dates of the inscriptions of the time of the early Western Kṣatrapa ruler Nahapāna, ranging from 41 to 45, are believed by many scholars to be Śaka years, but they are more likely to be regnal.

c10.s4.t1.31

The historical origin of the Śaka era is highly controversial. The reigns of various kings have been suggested as its starting point, but nowadays the majority (though by no means unanimous) point of view is that Kaniṣka I was the founder of the Śaka era, and that therefore the (unspecified) dates of the inscriptions of the “Great Kuṣāṇas” (i.e., Kaniṣka himself and his successors) are actually the earliest Śaka dates.⁸⁵ But the Kuṣāṇa chronology remains very problematic, and the Kaniṣka theory is by no means proven. While the early Western Kṣatrapa ruler Nahapāna can no longer be considered a possible founder of the Śaka era,⁸⁶ the discovery of an Andhau inscription dated in the year 11 of the reign of Caṣṭana (JAIH 2, 104–11) may be invoked in support of the theory that he and not Kaniṣka was the founder of the Śaka era.⁸⁷ In any case, the name of the era clearly points toward an origin with one of the nonindigenous dynasties of the first century A.D. The legend recorded by Brahmagupta, Al-Bīrūnī, and others that it was founded to mark the second expulsion of the Śakas by Vikramāditya, while an obvious fabrication, thus reflects a distorted memory of original historical fact.

c10.s4.t1.32

⁸⁵ For detailed discussions and various points of view on the Kaniṣka question, see Basham, ed., *Papers on the Date of Kaniṣka*.

c10.s4.t1.33

⁸⁶ As was argued by Fleet, JRAS 1910, 820.

c10.s4.t1.34

⁸⁷ See V. V. Mirashi, *The History and Inscriptions of the Sātavāhanas and the Western Kṣatrapas*, 110–2. If the founder of the Śaka era is, in fact, someone other than Kaniṣka, then the dates of the inscriptions of the time of Kaniṣka and his successors must be regarded as a separate era. The epoch of such an era, according to most scholars who do not accept Kaniṣka as founder of the Śaka era, would fall sometime in the first half of the second century A.D. (although some would argue for a later date, even as late as the third century). The inscriptional dates of the later Kuṣāṇas range only up to 99, but according to some authorities (notably van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, *The "Scythian" Period*, 235–6; also "The Second Century of the Kaniṣka Era," *South Asian Studies* 2, 1986, 1–9), several of these dates actually belong to the second century of the era, with the hundreds figure omitted. This theory has, however, been strongly criticized, e.g., by G. Fussman in "Numismatic and Epigraphic Evidence for the Chronology of Early Gandharan Art," in Marianne Yaldiz and Wibke Lobo, eds., *Investigating Indian Art: Proceedings of a Symposium on the Development of Early Buddhist and Hindu Iconography*, Veröffentlichung des Museums für Indische Kunst, vol. 8 (Berlin: Museum für Indische Kunst, 1987), 67–88 (esp. 72).

c10.s4.t1.35

Śaka dates in inscriptions are normally counted as expired, but current years are also found, especially in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Kielhorn, IA 25, 267). The years are *caitrādi* and the months *amānta* (but occasionally *pūrṇimānta* in the north).⁸⁸ Śaka era dates are sometimes combined with dates in other eras, such as Vikrama; and in southern Indian inscriptions of the medieval and later times the year of the sixty-year Jupiter cycle (5.5.2.3) is usually specified along with the Śaka year.

c10.s4.t1.36

⁸⁸ Kielhorn, IA 25, 271–2. Some Śaka era inscriptions are dated in solar rather than lunar months (ibid., 270–1).

c10.s4.t1.37

The Śaka era theoretically began on the first day of Caitra in A.D. 78. Expired Śaka years are converted to A.D. dates by adding 78 or (for the dark half of Pauṣa and for Māgha and Phālguṇa) 79. For current years, add 77 or 78.

c10.s4.t1.38

5.5.1.5 *Kalacuri-Cedi era of ca. A.D. 248

c10.s4.t1.39

V. V. Mirashi, *Inscriptions of the Kalachuri-Chedi Era* (CII 4), Int., i–xxx; Mirashi, "The Kalacuri-Cedi Era," *Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute* 27, 1946, 1–55.

c10.s4.t1.40

The Kalacuri or Cedi era is used in more than 100 inscriptions from western and central India from the fifth to the thirteenth century. The records so dated can be divided into an earlier group (fifth through eighth centuries) from western India, consisting of inscriptions of the Traikūṭakas, early Kalacuris, Gurjara-Pratīhāras, Cālukyas of Gujarat and other minor dynasties, and a later group (ninth to early thirteenth centuries) in central India, mostly belonging to the later houses of the Kalacuri line. The earliest unquestionable Kalacuri-Cedi era date is 207 = A.D. 457 in a Traikūṭaka inscription (CII 4.1, 22–5); the latest is 969 = A.D. 1218 in an inscription of the Kalacuris of Ratanpur (CII 4.2, 549–54).

c10.s4.t1.41

The inscriptions of the early group are all dated with only the word *saṃvatsara* or an abbreviation thereof, without specification of the era. It is therefore not always certain whether or not a particular date is to be attributed to the Kalacuri or to another era. For instance, the inscriptions of the kings of Uccakalpa were formerly assigned to this era, but are now usually considered to be dated in Gupta years (SIE 283). In the later group, the era is sometimes specified as *kalacuri-saṃvat*, *cedi-* *saṃvat*, *cedi-diṣṭa-saṃvat*, or the like (CII 4.1, xxii–iii); these are the source of the modern scholarly term “Kalacuri-Cedi” for the era, which, however, does not occur as such in any inscription.

c10.s4.t1.42

The historical origin of the Kalac The months of Kalacuri-Cedi era dates, according to Mirashi, were originally *amānta* in western India but were adapted to the northern *pūrṇimānta* system in the central Indian inscriptions. Kalacuri dates are not usually combined with any other eras. A few examples do, however, give years of the twelve- or sixty-year cycles of Jupiter (CII 4.1, xxix).

c10.s4.t1.43

5.5.1.6 Gupta-Valabhī era of A.D. 319

c10.s4.t1.44

J. F. Fleet, CII 3, Introduction, 16–136; “The Gupta-Valabhi Era,” IA 20, 1891, 376–89.

c10.s4.t1.45

The Gupta era was current in northern, western, and parts of eastern India during the Gupta period (third to sixth centuries A.D.), and continued in use in the following centuries in western India under the name Valabhī by association with the Maitrakas of Valabhī, the erstwhile feudatories of the Guptas who continued to use the era after the demise of their imperial overlords. The latest (Gupta-)Valabhī date is in the Verāval inscription (SII II.402–8), Valabhī 945 = A.D. 1264. The era is mentioned under both names by Al-Bīrūnī (CII 3, 23–33).

c10.s4.t1.46

The earlier dates in this era are denoted by the neutral term *saṃvatsara* or its abbreviations. The earliest genuine Gupta date⁹⁶ is in the Mathurā pillar inscription (SI I.277–9) dated in the regnal year 5 of Candragupta [II] as well as in the “continuous year” (*kālAnuvarttamāna-saṃvatsare*), that is, Gupta era 61 (cf. 5.4.2.1.2). Many later inscriptions explicitly attribute the dates to the Guptas in such phrases as *gupta-prakāle gaṇanāṃ vidhāya*, “reckoning in the Gupta era” (Junāgaḍh inscription of Skandagupta, SI I.307–16, l. 15). The earliest occurrence of the name Valabhī is in the year 574 (EI 9, 1907–8, 4).

c10.s4.t1.47

⁹⁶ Excluding the probably spurious Nālandā and Gayā grants of Samudragupta (SI I.270–4), dated in the [Gupta] years 5 and 9.

c10.s4.t1.48

Due to the absence of authentic early dates, the precise historical origin of the Gupta era is uncertain.⁹⁷ Most historians are inclined to attribute it to the accession of Candragupta I, though it might also have been founded by one of his lesser-known predecessors Śrīgupta or Ghaṭotkaca, or by his son Samudragupta.⁹⁸

c10.s4.t1.49

⁹⁷ Fleet’s theory (CII 3, intro., 130–6) of a Nepali (Licchavi) origin for the era is no longer plausible; see D. R. Bhandarkar’s revised edition of CII 3, 180–1.

c10.s4.t1.50

⁹⁸ See section 5.3 (on the Nālandā and Gayā spurious copper plates), and SIE 285.

c10.s4.t1.51

The precise epoch of the Gupta era according to Fleet’s calculations⁹⁹ would be the first day of the bright fortnight of Caitra, A.D. 319. According to him, the early inscriptions of this era followed the northern *caitrādi* and *pūrṇimānta* calendar, and most of the years were recorded as current.¹⁰⁰ Current Gupta years are thus converted to A.D. years by adding 320 or 321; expired years, 319 or 320. The dates of the “Valabhī” years from western India follow the southern *kārttikādi*/*amānta* scheme, so that the dates are set back five months and the conversion figures for *A.D.* are 319/20 and 318/19 for current and expired years, respectively.

c10.s4.t1.52

⁹⁹ CII 3, intro., 79 and 127.

c10.s4.t1.53

¹⁰⁰ The question of whether Gupta years are to be interpreted as current or expired is, however, not entirely settled. R. G. Bhandarkar (“The Epoch of the Gupta Era,” JBBRAS 17.2, 1887–89, 80–98) argued that Gupta years are generally expired, and that the epoch year of the original (northern) Gupta era is thus A.D. 318/19 rather than 319/20 (91–92). See also K. B. Pathak, “New Light on Gupta Era and Mihirakula,” in *Commemorative Essays Presented to Sir Ramkrishna Gopal Bhandarkar* (see 2.2.5.5 n. 115 for full reference), 195–222.

c10.s4.t1.54

5.5.1.7 Gāṅga (Gāṅgeya) era of ca. A.D. 498 (?)

c10.s4.t1.55

Some two dozen inscriptions, mainly from the districts of Ganjam (Orissa) and Vizagapatnam (AP), of the early Eastern Gaṅga kings of Kaliṅga are dated in an era which is usually labeled by a neutral expression such as *pravarddhamāna-vijaya-rājya-saṃvatsaraḥ* in the earlier records but which later on is explicitly called *gāṅga-* or *gāṅgeya-*. The year was also employed by some of the feudatories of the Eastern Gaṅgas such as the Eastern Kadambas, in whose records it is referred to as the Gāṅga-Kadamba era. Dates in this era range from the year 39 (Jirjingi plates, SI I.485–8) to 526 (Chicacole plates, JBORS 18, 272–95).

c10.s4.t1.56

The epoch of the Gāṅga era has been a long-standing point of controversy, but it is now generally agreed that it must have begun at some time around the end of the fifth century. The principal evidence in favor of this date is the correlation¹⁰¹ of the dates of two copper plate inscriptions of the Kadamba feudatory Dharmakheḍi, namely, Gāṅga 520 (Sānta Bommāli, JAHRS 3, 171–80) and Śaka 917¹⁰² = *A.D.* 995 (Mandāsā; JBORS 17, 175–88). Since the Sānta Bommāli inscription is dated in the reign of the Gaṅga sovereign Devendravarman, who is the son of Anantavarman of the Mandāsā inscription, the date of the former, namely, Gāṅga 520, must be some years later than the latter; thus Gāṅga 520 must be slightly later than Śaka 917 = *A.D.* 995, and the epoch of the Gāṅga era must be some time not long after *A.D.* 475 (cf. SIE 290).

c10.s4.t1.57

¹⁰¹ First noted by R. Subba Rao in JAHRS 5, 1930–31, 261–76.

c10.s4.t1.58

¹⁰² According to Mirashi's interpretation of the date (EI 26, 334–5), which, however, is not certain; see the next paragraph.

c10.s4.t1.59

Several specific dates in or around the last decade of the fifth century have accordingly been proposed on the basis of astronomical and historical data, the most convincing arguments being those of Mirashi¹⁰³ for an epoch in *A.D.* 498/99. But others have proposed slightly different dates, for example, 495/96 (Jogendra Chandra Ghosh)¹⁰⁴ or 497/98 (B. V. Krishna Rao),¹⁰⁵ and even the fifth-century epoch has not gone unchallenged. Most notably, R. C. Majumdar has argued strenuously for an epoch around the middle of the sixth century on the basis of his reading of the date of the Mandāsā plates as Śaka 967 or 976 rather than 917.¹⁰⁶ The historical questions are complicated by the ambiguous and repetitive nomenclature of the Gaṅga rulers involved and the consequent uncertainties about their identities.¹⁰⁷ All in all, the epoch in the late fifth century can be considered the most likely, but the question is not yet entirely closed.

c10.s4.t1.60

¹⁰³ "Epoch of the Ganga Era," EI 26, 1941–42, 326–36; "A Further Note on the Epoch of the Ganga Era," EI 27, 1947–48, 192; "A Note on the Ponnuturu Plates of Ganga Samantavarman," EI 28, 1949–50, 171–4.

c10.s4.t1.61

¹⁰⁴ "The Initial Date of the Gāṅgeya Era," IA 61, 1932, 237–8.

c10.s4.t1.62

¹⁰⁵ "The Commencement of the Victorious Ganga Era," JAHRS 11, 1937, 19–32.

c10.s4.t1.63

¹⁰⁶ "The Epoch of the Gāṅga Era," *Indian Culture* 4, 1937–38, 171–9.

c10.s4.t1.64

¹⁰⁷ For further details see Majumdar's edition of the Madaagrāma grant (EI 31, 45–52), which he reads as confirming a later epoch, and the criticisms in Sircar's note on the same record (ibid., 53–6), supporting the earlier epoch.

c10.s4.t1.65

Whatever may have been its precise epoch, the era can be presumed to have originated, according to the usual pattern, from the extension of the regnal years of an early ruler. This was presumably Indravarman, the issuer of the Jirjingi plates of the year 39, or perhaps his immediate predecessor (SIE 290).

c10.s4.t1.66

The years of the Gāṅga era could evidently be counted either as current or expired,¹⁰⁸ and were probably *caitrādi*.¹⁰⁹ The months were *pūrṇimānta* in earlier records but later on *amānta*.¹¹⁰

c10.s4.t1.67

¹⁰⁸ Mirashi, EI 26, 333; 27, 192.

c10.s4.t1.68

¹⁰⁹ EI 26, 330.

c10.s4.t1.69

¹¹⁰ EI 28, 171–4.

c10.s4.t1.70

5.5.1.8 Harṣa era of A.D. 606

c10.s4.t1.71

It is generally, though not quite unanimously, agreed that a few dozen inscriptions of the early medieval period which are dated in years of an unspecified era should be attributed to an era derived from a continuation of the regnal years of the great Emperor Harṣa of Kanauj. Harṣa's accession is generally believed to have taken place in A.D. 606, which is thus taken as the epoch of this “Harṣa” era. Epigraphic dates which have been attributed to the era in question range from 22 and 25, which are regnal years of Harṣa's own inscriptions (Bānskheṛā, SI II.221–3, and Madhuban, EI 1, 67–75), to 563 (Pañjaur, IA 26, 31–2). But, except for the latter date, all other recorded Harṣa dates are under 300, the latest being 298 in the Āhār inscription (EI 19, 52–62).¹¹¹

c10.s4.t1.72

¹¹¹ The last date (l. 22) in the Kāman inscription, which is a composite record containing seven dates probably of the Harṣa era, was read by Mirashi (EI 24, 329–36) as 299, but Sircar (EI 36, 52–3) corrects the reading to 279.

c10.s4.t1.73

Because the dates in question are usually given only with neutral terms such as *saṃvat*, the attribution of particular dates to the Harṣa era is often uncertain and controversial. Thus of forty inscriptions attributed in Bhandarkar’s *List of the Inscriptions of Northern India* (nos. 1385–421, 2042–4) to the Harṣa era, fully half are listed as questionable.¹¹² The inscriptions whose dates are attributed with relative certainty to this era are generally from northern and central India, including the Punjab and Bihar. Several inscriptions from outlying regions such as Rajasthan, Orissa, and Nepal have also been ascribed by some authorities to the Harṣa era, but at least some of these attributions are doubtful.¹¹³

c10.s4.t1.74

¹¹² For a supplementary list of inscriptions dated in the Harṣa era, see SIE 296.

c10.s4.t1.75

¹¹³ See the discussions under the Bhāṭika, Bhauma-Kara, and Nepali eras (5.5.1.9, 5.5.1.11, and 5.5.1.12).

c10.s4.t1.76

Indeed, the very existence of the Harṣa era has not gone unchallenged, mainly because none of the inscriptions explicitly refer the era to him. The principal evidence for the existence of such an era is the Al-Bīrūnī’s reference to it among the five historical Indian eras (Śrī-Harṣa, Vikramāditya, Śaka, Valabha, and Gupta) which he cites.¹¹⁴ But because of Al-Bīrūnī's evident uncertainty about the era,¹¹⁵ the ambiguity of the epigraphic evidence, and the chronological uncertainties about Harṣa's dates as attested in Chinese sources, some scholars, 973,¹²⁵ and the system has continued in use up to modern times. The epoch of the era is fixed at A.D. 824 by a Tamil inscription from Trivandrum¹²⁶ dated in Kollam 776 and the current Kali year 4702 = A.D. 1601. Dates in this era are thus converted to A.D. by the addition of 824/25. The Kollam era follows a solar calendar, the year beginning with the solar month Siṃha (= Bhādrapada) or Kanyā (= Āśvina) (Kielhorn, 53). The years are usually cited as current.

c10.s4.t1.77

¹¹⁴ E. Sachau, *Alberuni’s India*, II.5.

c10.s4.t1.78

¹¹⁵ He apparently refers to two eras of Harṣa, one (perhaps fictitious) dating four hundred years earlier than the Vikramāditya (Vikrama) era, the other 664 years after Vikramāditya, i.e., beginning in A.D. 606.

c10.s4.t1.79

¹²⁵ EI 9, 1907–8, 234–9.

c10.s4.t1.80

¹²⁶ *Travancore Archaeological Survey* 2, 1910–13, 28.

c10.s4.t1.81

The Kollam era is traditionally associated with the foundation of the city of Kollam (Quilon), and the dates are often given as years “after Kollam appeared” (*kollandōṉṟi*).¹²⁷ But since Kollam is known to have existed well before the epoch of this era,¹²⁸ this tradition does not appear to be historically accurate. It is interesting to note that the years within each century of the Kollam era correspond to those of the semicyclical Saptaṛṣi era (5.5.2.1); that is to say, for example, the Kollam year 428 would correspond to the Saptaṛṣi year [43]28 (Kielhorn, 54 n. 4). This parallel led P. Sundaram Pillai¹²⁹ to suggest (118) that the Kollam era is actually an adaptation of the Saptaṛṣi era, and this hypothesis is supported by the fact that the earliest epigraphic occurrence of the latter, A.D. 804 (the Baijnāth *praśasti*; see 5.5.2.1), comes before the commencement of the Kollam era. But there is a serious problem in that the Saptaṛṣi era was prevalent in the far north of India, while the Kollam belongs to its southernmost regions. Because of this geographical discrepancy, Pillai’s hypothesis can be accepted only provisionally; but no better explanation has been offered.

c10.s4.t1.82

¹²⁷ E.g., EI 9, 236, l. 1.

c10.s4.t1.83

¹²⁸ BPLM 179 n. 3.

c10.s4.t1.84

¹²⁹ “Miscellaneous Travancore Inscriptions,” IA 26, 1897, 113–8.

c10.s4.t1.85

5.5.1.11 Bhauma-Kara era of A.D. 831 (?)

c10.s4.t1.86

D. C. Sircar, “The Era of the Bhauma-Karas of Orissa,” IHQ 29, 1953, 148–55; SIE 297–302.

c10.s4.t1.87

The inscriptions of the Bhauma-Kara kings of Orissa and some of their feudatories are dated in years of an unspecified era, denoted *saṃvat*, ranging from 20¹³⁰ to 198 (Daspalla plates, EI 29, 189–94).¹³¹ While these dates were formerly attributed by some scholars¹³² to the Harṣa era (5.5.1.8), it is now generally agreed that they belong to a separate era of the Bhauma-Karas, presumably originating from a continuation of the regnal dates of an early ruler, probably Kṣemaṅkaradeva.

c10.s4.t1.88

¹³⁰ See R. C. Majumdar, *The Age of Imperial Kanauj*, 80 n. 30.

c10.s4.t1.89

¹³¹ In several of the later dates of this era the first digit has been read as 200, but as shown by Sircar (IHQ 29, 150) it is actually 100.

c10.s4.t1.90

¹³² E.g., Binayak Mishra, *Orissa Under the Bhauma-Karas* (Calcutta: Vishwamitra Press, 1934), 77–9.

c10.s4.t1.91

Sircar was able to establish on the basis of historical synchronizations with known dates of the Bhañja and Somavaṃśī kings that the Bhauma-Kara era must have begun around the middle of the first half of the ninth century, and astronomical data in the aforementioned Daspalla inscription enabled him to specify its probable epoch as A.D. 831.¹³³ Though not absolutely conclusive, this is certainly the most precise and convincing suggestion to date.

c10.s4.t1.92

¹³³ “The Era of the Bhauma-Karas,” 155; EI 29, 1951–52, 191; SIE 302.

c10.s4.t1.93

5.5.1.12 Nepali or Newari era of A.D. 879, and other eras of Nepal

c10.s4.t1.94

F. Kielhorn, “The Epoch of the Newar Era,” IA 17, 1883, 246–53.

c10.s4.t1.95

The later inscriptions of Nepal in Sanskrit and/or local languages (see 4.3.7.2) are dated in an era labeled *nepāla-varṣa-*, *nepālābda-*, and so on, which has continued in use into modern times. The era was determined by Kielhorn to begin on October 20, A.D. 879, so that its expired years are converted to A.D. by the addition of 879/80. The years are *kārttikādi*, and usually cited as expired; the months are *amānta*. According to the Nepali *vaṃśāvalīs*, the era was founded by King Jayadevamalla,¹³⁴ but R. C. Majumdar suspects that it was “really the Śaka era with eight hundreds omitted.”¹³⁵

c10.s4.t1.96

¹³⁴ Bhagavanlal Indraji, IA 13, 1884, 414.

c10.s4.t1.97

¹³⁵ “The Eras in Nepal,” JAS, ser. 4, vol. 1, 1959, 48.

c10.s4.t1.98

This last point is connected with the question of the two earlier eras used in the inscriptions of Nepal. The earliest group of Nepal inscriptions includes dates from 386 to 535 of an unspecified era (*saṃvat*). Though in the past these dates were thought to belong to the Vikrama, Gupta, or a separate “Licchavi era,”¹³⁶ they are nowadays generally attributed to the Śaka era. The second group of inscriptions, which begins during the reign of King Aṃśuvarman, comprises dates ranging from 30 to 194 in another unspecified era. These were formerly attributed by several scholars to the Harṣa era, but Luciano Petech¹³⁷ has established from Tibetan evidence that the era dates from A.D. 576 and probably represents a continuation of the regnal years of Aṃśuvarman. R. C. Majumdar, however,¹³⁸ notes again a coincidence with the Śaka era and suggests that the second Nepali era was also based on the Śaka, restarted after its five hundredth year in or about A.D. 578.

c10.s4.t1.99

¹³⁶ Beginning in A.D. 110 according to Lévi (*Le Népal*, III.9).

c10.s4.t1.100

¹³⁷ “The Chronology of the Early Inscriptions of Nepal,” *East and West*, n.s. 12, 1961, 227–32.

c10.s4.t1.101

¹³⁸ Op. cit. (n. 135), and “The Chronology of the Early Kings of Nepal,” in D. R. Bhandarkar et al., eds., *B. C. Law Volume* (Calcutta: Indian Research Institute, 1945), I.626–41; supported by Sircar, SIE 271 n. 2 and 297.

c10.s4.t1.102

5.5.1.13 *Cālukya-Vikrama era of A.D. 1076

c10.s4.t1.103

The Cālukya-Vikrama era was founded by the Kalyāṇi Cālukya King Vikramāditya VI (Tribhuvanamalla) upon his accession to the throne in A.D. 1076. The era is found in several dozen inscriptions from Karnataka and adjoining regions,¹³⁹ mostly in Kannada or Kannada and Sanskrit, of the reign of Vikramāditya VI and his immediate successors, under such terms as *śrīmac-cāḷukya-vikrama-kāla-* (or *-varṣa-*), *śrī-vikrama-kāla-*, *vīra-vikrama-kāla-*, and so on.¹⁴⁰ A few of the inscriptions explicitly refer to Vikramāditya's act of superseding the current eras (i.e., Vikrama and Śaka) and instituting his own,¹⁴¹ which is the first clear attestation we have of the foundation of an era as an intentional act (though this may well have been the case with some earlier eras).

c10.s4.t1.104

¹³⁹ For examples of Cālukya-Vikrama dates, see Kielhorn’s *List of Inscriptions of Southern India* (EI 7), nos. 185–90, 193–219, 247. Numerous further examples are in SII XI.2 (*Bombay-Karnatak Inscriptions*, ed. N. Lakshminarayan Rao, 1952).

c10.s4.t1.105

¹⁴⁰ BPLM 181; Fleet, "The Chālukya Vikrama-varsha, or Era of the Western Chālukya King Vikramāditya VI," IA 11, 1879, 187–93.

c10.s4.t1.106

¹⁴¹ Fleet, op. cit., 187–8; "The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency," *Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency* I.2, 447.

c10.s4.t1.107

Dates in Cālukya-Vikrama years range from 1 to at least 94 (Kielhorn's *List*, no. 247), and perhaps as high as 137.¹⁴² There are several inscriptions of the first year of the era, and these, plus the fact that the Cālukya years are regularly mentioned along with the years of the sixty-year cycle of Jupiter (5.5.2.3), have made it possible to fix the epoch of the era with reasonable certainty at A.D. 1076, and specifically on Caitra *sudi* 1, Śaka 998 = March 8, A.D. 1076.¹⁴³

c10.s4.t1.108

¹⁴² See Venkatasubbiah, *Some Śaka Dates in Inscriptions*, 54.

c10.s4.t1.109

¹⁴³ Fleet, "The Dynasties," 446–7; Sircar, "Note on Wadageri Inscription of Chalukya V.S. 1," EI 34, 1960–61, 193–6.

c10.s4.t1.110

However, there are several complications in connection with the epoch of the Cālukya-Vikrama era, especially in that the Jupiter years cited in various inscriptions do not agree with the epoch of Śaka 998,¹⁴⁴ and Kielhorn¹⁴⁵ notes that a remarkably large proportion of dates of the Cālukya-Vikrama era appear to be irregular in terms of weekdays and other data. The apparent dislocations in the Cālukya-Vikrama dates may be attributable to a combination of unsettled political conditions¹⁴⁶ and calendrical problems such as confusion between current and expired years. But despite these complications the epoch of A.D. 1076, as originally proposed by Fleet¹⁴⁷ and endorsed by Sircar, appears to be correct.¹⁴⁸

c10.s4.t1.111

¹⁴⁴ See P. B. Desai, "The Chālukya Vikrama Era," *Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society* 48 (Karnataka Number), 1957–58, 6–15, and Venkatasubbiah, op. cit., 91. See also the new data and comments provided by C. T. M. Kotraiah in JESI 10, 1983, 64, which, however, seem to gloss over the complexity of the problem.

c10.s4.t1.112

¹⁴⁵ IA 22, 1893, 111 = KS II.638.

c10.s4.t1.113

¹⁴⁶ Sircar, EI 34, 196.

c10.s4.t1.114

¹⁴⁷ "The Dynasties," I. 2, 447.

c10.s4.t1.115

¹⁴⁸ Some of Vikramāditya's Cālukya successors, as well as several kings of succeeding dynasties such as the Kaḷacuryas, Hoysaḷas, and Kadambas, imitated Vikramāditya's practice by dating their records in regnal years phrased in such a way as to suggest pretensions to founding a continuous era; for example, *śrīmac-cāḷukya-vikrama-nūrmmaḍi-Tailapadeva-varṣada* 4 *neya* (Venkatasubbiah, op. cit., 57). On such pseudoeras, see Venkatasubbiah, 2; Fleet, IA 11, 192; and "The Dynasties," I.2, 503.

c10.s4.t1.116

5.5.1.14 Siṃha era of A.D. 1113

c10.s4.t1.117

A few medieval Sanskrit inscriptions (see Bhandarkar's *List of the Inscriptions of Northern India*, nos. 1460–6) from the Kathiawar region have dates in or attributable to the Siṃha era (*śrī-siṃha-saṃvat*), whose epoch year corresponds to A.D. 1113/14. This figure is deduced from records with multiple dates in the Siṃha and other eras, usually Vikrama, such as the Bombay Royal Asiatic Society plates (IA 18, 108–16) of Siṃha 96 and Vikrama 1266 [expired] = A.D. 1209. Some of the inscriptions concerned are dated only with the word *saṃvat* (e.g., Bhandarkar's nos. 1460, 1462, 1464), so that their attribution to the era in question is not certain.¹⁴⁹ The latest date in the Siṃha era is 151 of the Verāval ous explanations have been proposed, for example, that the latter era was reformulated at some later date from the birth instead of the accession of Lakṣmaṇasena,¹⁵⁷ or that the two systems derive from the reigns of two different kings of the same name. This much-discussed problem still awaits full clarification (cf. SIE 277–8).

c10.s4.t1.118

¹⁵⁷ See, e.g., Pramode Lal Paul, "The Origin of the Lakṣmaṇasena Era," *Indian Culture* 2, 1936, 579–84; A. S. Altekar, "New Light on the History of Bihar and the Origin of Lakshmana Samvat," *J. N. Banerjea Volume* (Calcutta: Department of Ancient Indian History and Culture, University of Calcutta, 1960), 110–5.

c10.s4.t1.119

5.5.1.16 Other historical and pseudohistorical eras

c10.s4.t1.120

*Various other eras are occasionally used in Indic inscriptions.*¹⁵⁸ An inscription from Gayā (IA 10, 341–7) is dated in the year 1813 of the era of the Buddha's Nirvāṇa (*bhagavati parinirvṛte saṃvat 1813*). According to Indraji, this reflects an era commencing in 638 B.C., but Sircar (SIE 277) puts its epoch at 544 B.C.¹⁵⁹

c10.s4.t1.121

¹⁵⁸ Certain minor local eras which are not generally used for inscriptions in Indo-Aryan languages are not treated here. Information on these and other nonepigraphic eras such as the Cochbihar, Faslī, and Magī eras is provided in SIE (305–17) and BPLM (186–95).

c10.s4.t1.122

¹⁵⁹ The discrepancy results from differing interpretations of the value of the dates of the Lakṣmaṇasena era (5.5.1.15) in other inscriptions of the King Aśokacalla mentioned in the Gayā inscription. In any case, this isolated late instance obviously does not indicate a genuine continued tradition of dating according to years of the Buddha in India. See also Cornelia Mallebrein, "Inschriftliche Quellen zur Datierung des historischen Buddha in Indien. Die Inschrift aus Bodh-Gaya, datiert in das Jahr 1813 n.N.," in Heinz Bechert, ed., *The Dating of the Historical Buddha/Die Datierung des historischen Buddha*, Symposien zur Buddhismusforschung, IV, 1/Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, Dritte Folge, no. 189 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 344–57. It was formerly thought that the numeral 256 at the end of some versions of Aśoka's minor rock edict I marked a year of an era dating from the Buddha's nirvāṇa. But it is now generally believed that the numeral 256 refers to a number of nights rather than years, either the nights spent by Aśoka on pilgrimage tour (see Jarl Charpentier, IA 43, 1914, 132; Sircar, *Aśokan Studies*, 78–9) or, according to a recent reinterpretation (Harry Falk, ZDMG 140, 1990, 96–122), the total number of fast days he passed in Buddhist monastic establishments.

c10.s4.t1.123

The Jaina or Vīra-nirvāṇa era, known from Jaina texts, is occasionally also found in inscriptions (BPLM 163). The era dates from 527 B.C. according to Śvetāmbara tradition, or 662 B.C. according to the Digambaras (BPLM 163; SIE 321). A late epigraphic example of the Jaina era from Śravaṇa-Beḷgoḷa, dated Jaina era 2493 / Vikrama 1888 / Śaka 1752 = A.D. 1830 (IA 25, 346, no. 6), follows the Digambara system.

c10.s4.t1.124

The Gokāk inscription (EI 21, 289–92) is dated in the 845th year of the otherwise unknown "Āguptāyika kings" (*āguptāyikānāṃ rājñām . . . varṣa-*). Paleographically the inscription seems to belong to the sixth or seventh century A.D., which would put the putative origin of the era around the third or second century B.C., but it is impossible to say anything about its origin (though the editor of the inscription very tentatively suggests a possible connection with Candragupta Maurya). Sircar (SIE 326) suspects that it may be a fabricated system.

c10.s4.t1.125

The Devnīmorī stone casket inscription (SI I.519) presents a similar enigma with its date in the 127th year of the "Kathika kings" (*kathikanṛpāṇāṃ*). Most scholars are inclined to understand this as an alternate term for a known era (presumably either Śaka or Kalacuri-Cedi), but the significance of the term remains obscure.¹⁶⁰

c10.s4.t1.126

¹⁶⁰ See also section 3.3.3, n. 50.

c10.s4.t1.127

The Hijrī (Muslim) era of A.D. 622 is occasionally used in late inscriptions in Sanskrit and other Indic languages, usually in combination with dates in an indigenous Indian era such as Vikrama; for instance, the Verāval inscription (SI II.402–8) is dated in the "year 662 of the Prophet Muhammad" (*bodhaka-rasūla-mahaṃmada-saṃvat* 662) as well as in the Siṃha, Valabhī, and Vikrama eras (cf. 5.4.2.1.2). Some of the several Indian variations and adaptations of the Hijrī era are also occasionally found in Indic inscriptions; for instance, some late inscriptions of Bengal¹⁶¹ are dated in the Malla era of A.D. 694/95 or in the Bengali era (*sāna* or *sāla*) of A.D. 593/94,¹⁶² both of which are ultimately derived from the Hijrī (SIE 312–4). In some Orissan inscriptions the term *sana* refers to the Amlī era, another local derivative of Hijrī (e.g., Baripāṛā Museum inscription, OHRJ 2, 94–8).¹⁶³

c10.s4.t1.128

¹⁶¹ See A. K. Bhattacharyya, *A Corpus of Dedicatory Inscriptions from Temples of West Bengal*, 16ff.

c10.s4.t1.129

¹⁶² See also Amitabha Bhattacharyya, "The Bengali Era in the Inscriptions of Late Mediaeval Bengal," *Indian Museum Bulletin* 21, 1986, 38–43.

c10.s4.t1.130

¹⁶³ Note that Sircar (SIE 314–5) thinks that the Bhāṭika era is also an adaptation of Hijrī; see section 5.5.1.9.

c10.s4.t1.131

A single inscription on a Jaina bronze image from Satruñjaya is dated in the year 4 of a Siddha-hema-kumāra era, apparently a short-lived system initiated, according to Umakant P. Shah,¹⁶⁴ between A.D. 1142/43 and 1150/51. Shah speculates that the era was named after the Gujarat Cālukya kings Siddhharāja Jayasiṃha and Kumārapāla and the Jaina scholar Hemacandra.

c10.s4.t1.132

¹⁶⁴ "A Jaina Bronze Dated in Siddha-Hema-Kumara Samvat from Satrunjaya (Saurashtra)," in M. S. Nagaraja Rao, ed., *Madhu: Recent Researches in Indian Archaeology and Art History. Shri M. N. Deshpande Festschrift* (Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan, 1981), 237–8.

c10.s4.t1.133

The Ilāhī era (Tārīkh-i Ilāhī) instituted by the Mughal emperor Akbar in A.D. 1556 is recorded in a Jaina inscription from Pattan (EI I, 319–24) of the *allāī* year 41 and [Vikrama] 1652 = A.D. 1596.

c10.s4.t1.134

Some late inscriptions are dated in *Iṃgrejī san* or *Isvī* years, that is, the Christian era, for example, the Tañjāvur Bṛhadīśvara Temple inscription (V. Srinivasachari and S. Gopalan, *Bhoṃsle Vaṃśa Charitra*, 101), dated *iṃgrejī san 1803 isvī ḍisambar 13* (December 13, 1803).

c10.s4.t1.135

5.5.1.17 Phantom eras

c10.s4.t1.136

Among the eras previously postulated on epigraphic grounds but subsequently discredited is the Mauryan era (e.g., BPLM 164–5), formerly thought to occur in the Hāthīgumphā inscription (l. 16), on the basis of the wrong reading *rāja-muriya-kāle*.¹⁶⁵ The existence of a Nanda era proposed by R. C. Majumdar¹⁶⁶ on the basis of literary and epigraphic evidence is also highly dubious (SIE 324–5).

c10.s4.t1.137

¹⁶⁵ Sircar, SI I.218, reads . . . *mu[khi]ya-kala* . . . ; see SIE 324, and section 5.2.

c10.s4.t1.138

¹⁶⁶ "A Passage in Alberuni's India—A Nanda Era?" JBORS 9, 1923, 417–8.

5.5.2 Cyclical (astronomical) eras

c10.s4.t2.1

5.5.2.1 Saptarṣi era

c10.s4.t2.2

F. Kielhorn, “A Note on the Saptarshi Era,” IA 20, 1891, 149–54 = KS II.617–22.

c10.s4.t2.3

The *saptarṣi-saṃvat* (or, as it is more commonly called in inscriptions, *śāstra-saṃvatsara* or *laukika-saṃvatsara*, etc.) is a cycle of twenty-seven hundred years based on a fancied movement of the constellation of the Seven Sages (*saptarṣi*, Ursa Major) through the twenty-seven *nakṣatras*, spending one hundred years in each. A cycle of this era is said to have begun twenty-six years after the beginning of the Kali era (3102 B.C.), that is, in 3076 B.C. Another cycle should then have begun in 376 B.C., but in practice complete dates in the era are given continuously from 3076 B.C. (e.g., Saptarṣi 4951 = A.D. 1875; Kielhorn 151, no. 2) when used for literary purposes such as the dating of manuscripts. But in inscriptions, the dates of this era are given with omitted hundreds; that is to say, only the year of the current hundred-year phase is noted.¹⁶⁷ For example, in the Baijnāth *praśasti* (EI 1, 107, l. 32), which is the earliest clear¹⁶⁸ epigraphic instance of this era, the date is given simply as “the eightieth year” (*saṃvatsare* [’*’]śītitame), probably = A.D. 804. The corresponding year of an A.D. century can be derived by adding 24 or 25 to the Saptarṣi year.

c10.s4.t2.4

¹⁶⁷ The Saptarṣi era is thus strictly speaking neither a continuous nor cyclical reckoning but a combination of, or rather compromise between, the two types; see the comments of J. Mitchiner in *JAIH* 10, 1976–77, 55–6 and 92.

c10.s4.t2.5

¹⁶⁸ In the Hisse-Borālā inscription the Śaka date 380 is accompanied by what seems to be a year (the reading of which is uncertain) in a system evidently related to the Saptarṣi era, as it is accompanied by a phrase which has been read (EI 37, 6) as *saptaṛṣaya uttarāsu phā*[lgunī*]ṣu*, “[while] the Seven Sages were in Uttara-Phālguṇa.” However, the exact significance of this date is uncertain; see the references given in the Index of Inscriptions.

c10.s4.t2.6

Despite this incomplete notation, it is possible in many though not all cases to determine precise A.D. equivalents for dates in this era, either because the Saptarṣi date is given together with years of standard eras such as Śaka and/or Vikrama,¹⁶⁹ or by deduction from historical names or events mentioned in the inscription. This latter method is particularly productive because most of the inscriptions dated in the Saptarṣi era come from Kashmir and adjoining regions for which we have relatively abundant historical information from literature. For instance, the Ārigom stone inscription (EI 9, 300–2) is dated only in the Laukika (i.e., Saptarṣi) year 73, but it mentions an earlier King Siṃha who can be identified with Jayasiṃha, a king of Kashmir in the twelfth century known from Kalhaṇa’s *Rājataraṅgiṇī*, so that the inscription can be dated to A.D. 1197. Even when there is no accompanying historical or chronological information, the correct century of an inscription dated in the Saptarṣi era can usually be estimated paleographically with some confidence (see 5.4.1).

c10.s4.t2.7

¹⁶⁹ E.g., Kielhorn 152, no. 6; B. Ch. Chhabra, *Antiquities of Chamba State* II.161 and 163.

c10.s4.t2.8

Inscriptions dated in the Saptarṣi era are found with some frequency, but only in the mountain regions of northern India, mainly in Kashmir, Kangra, and Chamba.¹⁷⁰ Most examples date from the medieval or later periods.

c10.s4.t2.9

¹⁷⁰ Many examples in J. Ph. Vogel and B. Ch. Chhabra, *Antiquities of Chamba State*, parts I and II. See also Bhandarkar’s *List of the Inscriptions of Northern India*, nos. 1438–45, 1447–58.

c10.s4.t2.10

Years of the Saptarṣi cycle are usually denoted as current and *caitrādi*; the months are *pūrṇimānta* (Kielhorn 153–4).

c10.s4.t2.11

5.5.2.2 Twelve-year cycle of Bṛhaspati (Jupiter)

c10.s4.t2.12

S. B. Dikshit, “The Twelve-Year Cycle of Jupiter,” Appendix III to introduction to CII 3, 161–76; see also ibid., 101–24.

c10.s4.t2.13

The twelve-year cycle of Bṛhaspati is based on the period of the sidereal revolution of Jupiter in approximately twelve solar years. The twelve years of the cycle are given names corresponding to those of the ordinary lunar months, assigned according to the longitude of Jupiter’s heliacal rising; for example, if Jupiter rises in Kṛttikā or Rohiṇī, its year is named Kārttika (see Dikshit, 163, table VIII, for a complete list). The years of the twelve-year Jupiter cycle are sometimes denoted by the simple names (e.g., *vaiśākhe saṃvatsare*) and sometimes (mostly in the inscriptions of the Parivrājakas) with the prefix *mahā-* (e.g., *mahā-viśākhe saṃvatsare*).

c10.s4.t2.14

The twelve-year cycle of Jupiter is found occasionally in Sanskrit inscriptions from various regions, including northern, southern, and eastern India,¹⁷¹ beginning in the late fifth century. Only about a dozen such dates are known in all, of which six belong to the Parivrājaka feudatories of the Guptas.¹⁷² A few others occur in the inscriptions of the early Rāṣṭrakūṭas,¹⁷³ the Kadamba king Mṛgeśavarman,¹⁷⁴ and Anantavarman of Kaliṅga.¹⁷⁵ The Dhulev plate of Mahārāja Bhetti (EI 30, 1–7) dated in the *aśvayuja-saṃvatsara* of Bṛhaspati, is probably the latest occurrence (late seventh century?; cf. 5.5.1.9) of the twelve-year cycle of Jupiter in Sanskrit inscriptions.

c10.s4.t2.15

¹⁷¹ There is also one doubtful instance from Nepal; see D. R. Regmi, *Inscriptions of Ancient Nepal* III.31–2 (Chabihil inscription).

c10.s4.t2.16

¹⁷² CII 3, nos. 21–5, plus the Betul plates (EI 8, 284–90).

c10.s4.t2.17

¹⁷³ Pāṇḍaraṅgapallī plates, *Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute* 25, 40–2, and Nagardhan plates, CII 4.2, 611–7.

c10.s4.t2.18

¹⁷⁴ See J. F. Fleet, “Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions,” IA 6, 1877, 24–5; 7, 1878, 35–7.

c10.s4.t2.19

¹⁷⁵ Siripuram plates, EI 24, 47–52.

c10.s4.t2.20

Dates in the twelve-year cycle are usually given in combination with other eras such as Gupta years in the case of the Parivrājaka inscriptions or regnal years in the inscriptions of Mṛgeśavarman. Only the Siripuram plates are dated in Jupiter years alone.

c10.s4.t2.21

5.5.2.3 Sixty-year Cycle of Bṛhaspati (Jupiter)

c10.s4.t2.22

The sixty-year cycle of Bṛhaspati was originally calculated on the basis of Jupiter’s passage from one *rāśi* (zodiacal sign) to the next in a period approximating a solar year (actually 361+ days). Due to the discrepancy of about four days, when strictly reckoned the cycle requires the suppression of one Jupiter year every eighty-five solar years. The sixty years are noted by name (Prabhava, Vibhava, Śukla, etc., in the southern system)¹⁷⁶ rather than number. There are slightly variant systems in northern and southern India,¹⁷⁷ the latter being the principal one in epigraphic usage. In earlier inscriptional examples the Jupiter year was calculated by the actual position of the planet,¹⁷⁸ but from about the ninth century on this system was discarded and the Jupiter years came to be, in effect, merely a set of names applied to the normal solar or lunisolar years in a cycle of sixty years;¹⁷⁹ this latter system is the one which is followed in the vast majority of epigraphic dates.

c10.s4.t2.23

¹⁷⁶ For a full list of the names, see SIE 267–8.

c10.s4.t2.24

¹⁷⁷ E.g., the northern cycle begins with Vijaya, which is the twenty-seventh year of the southern cycle.

c10.s4.t2.25

¹⁷⁸ Kielhorn, IA 25, 1896, 269 = KS II.730.

c10.s4.t2.26

¹⁷⁹ Kielhorn, IA 25, 268 = KS II.729.

c10.s4.t2.27

The sixty-year cycle of Jupiter is very widely used in inscriptions, especially in medieval and later inscriptions from the south. The earliest definite¹⁸⁰ inscriptional attestation is in the Mahākūṭa inscription (IA 19, 7–20), dated in the Siddhārtha year (no. 53 of the cycle), probably = A.D. 602. In this and in some later inscriptions the Jupiter year is given by itself or with a regnal year, but much more commonly the Jupiter year is accompanied by a date in an era, usually Śaka, rarely Vikrama. In general, the sixty-year cycle is far more common in southern Indian inscriptions, in both Sanskrit and Dravidian languages; from about the ninth century on, nominal Jupiter years (see the preceding paragraph) are regularly noted there, usually together with the Śaka year.

c10.s4.t2.28

¹⁸⁰ Sircar thought that the word *vijaya* in the dates of two Ikṣvāku inscriptions from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa (EI 35, 1–7) referred to the initial year of the northern (see n. 177) sixty-year Jupiter cycle, equivalent to A.D. 273 and 333, but this interpretation is doubtful. have remained comprehensible for some centuries after they were written, but there is little clear evidence as to how long. The reference in l. 8 of Rudradāman’s Junāgaḍh rock inscription (SI I.175–80) of about A.D. 150 to Candragupta Maurya and Aśoka Maurya might imply that the Aśokan edicts carved on the same rock were still legible in the second century A.D. But the later inscription does not specifically refer to the Aśokan edicts, and provides the names of local administrators of the region in Mauryan times who are not mentioned in the older inscriptions, indicating that the historical information was derived from some other source. It thus remains doubtful whether the Aśokan inscriptions were still comprehensible some four hundred years after they were inscribed (see also Falk, SAI, 328).

Linked texts (21)