Indian Epigraphy c15.t4: 4. Regnal Reckoning and Connected Problems

Indian Epigraphy c15.t4

Language: English

4. Regnal Reckoning and Connected Problems

c15.t4.1

¹ See *Vikrama Volume*, ed. R. K. Mookerji, pp. 557 ff.; *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXX, pp. 5-6; above, p. 219.

The earliest documents of the indigenous kings of India bear no trace of the use of any era. Many of them contain no date at all. But some of the official records of the independent rulers as well as those belonging to their officials and subordinates and persons residing in their dominions are dated. The date is, however, always expressed in the king’s regnal years. A few of the numerous instances may be cited.

c15.t4.3

(1) Rock Edict III of Aśoka (c. 272-32 B.C.) —dbādasa-vās-ābhisitena mayā idaṃ āñapitaṃ (Girnar text),² “I have ordered this when 12 years [have passed after] my installation [on the throne].”

c15.t4.4

² *Select Inscriptions*, p. 19. Cf. the same date in Rock Edict IV (ibid., p. 22) and other dates similarly expressed in Rock Edict V (ibid., p. 23: Mansehra—treḍaśa-vaṣ-abhisitena maya dhrama-mahamatra kaṭa); Rock Edict VIII (ibid., p. 28 : Girnar—Devānampriyo Piyadasi rājā dasa-vas-ābhisito saṃto ayāya Saṃbodhiṃ); Rock Edict XIII (ibid., pp. 35-36: Shahbazgarhi—aṭha-vaṣa-abhisitasa Devanapriasa Priadrasisa Kaliga vijita); etc.

c15.t4.5

(2) Besnagar inscription of the time of Bhāgabhadra (c. close of the 2nd century B.C.)—raṇo Kāsīputrasa Bhāgabhadrasa trātārasa vasena catudasena rājena vadhamānasa,³ ‘when king Kāsīputra Bhāgabhadra, the saviour, was prospering with his sovereignty (or, realm) for 14 years (i.e., when 14 years of his reign had passed).’

c15.t4.6

³ Ibid., p. 91.

c15.t4.7

(3) Pabhosa inscription of the time of Udāka (c. close of the 1st century B.C.)—Ūdākasa dasama-savacchare,¹ ‘in the tenth [regnal] year of Ūdākā.’

c15.t4.8

¹ Ibid., p. 98.

c15.t4.9

(4) Hāthigumphā inscription of Khāravela (c. close of the 1st century B.C.)—abhisitamato ca padhame vase,² ‘during the first regnal year of the installed [monarch].’

c15.t4.10

² Ibid., p. 207.

c15.t4.11

(5) Nasik inscription of Gautamīputra Śātakarṇi (c. 106-30 A.D.)—savachare 18 vāsa-pakhe 2 divase 1,³ ‘on the 1st day of the 2nd fortnight of the rainy season in the 18th [regnal] year.’

c15.t4.12

³ Ibid., p.

c15.t4.13

(6) Nagarjunikonda inscription of Ehuvula Śāntamūla (c. 280-335 A.D.)—Ehuvula-Caṃtamūlasa saṃvacharaṃ bitiyaṃ gimha-pakkhaṃ chaṭhaṃ 6 divasoṃ dasamaṃ 10,⁴ ‘10th day of the 6th fortnight of summer in the second regnal year of Ehuvula Śāntamūla.’

c15.t4.14

⁴ Ibid., p.

c15.t4.15

A study of the above and numerous other instances of the kind would suggest that originally the Indian custom was to refer to the past or current regnal year of the king without specification of the day. A little later, the day is found mentioned in some parts of India with reference to the specific fortnight of a season. The year seems to have been divided into 3 seasons, viz., summer (grīṣma), the rains (varṣā) and winter (hemanta) each consisting of 8 fortnights.⁵ The seasons ended with the Cāturmāsī which was usually identified with the full-moon tithi of the months of Āṣāḍha, Kārttika and Phālguna. According to pupular tradition, summer consisted of the pūrṇimānta months of Caitra, Vaiśākha, Jyaiṣṭha and Āṣāḍha; the rains of Śrāvaṇa, Bhādra, Āśvina and Kārttika; and winter of Mārgaśīrṣa, Pauṣa, Māgha and Phālguna.⁶ A South Indian epigraph of c. 300 A.D.¹ suggests the later inclusion of *śarad*, autumn, in the list of seasons in some parts of the country.

c15.t4.16

¹⁹² Cf. similar other dates in the other records of the time of the Śātavāhanas (ibid., p. 195 : Puḷumāvisa savachare satame 7 gimha-pakhe pacame 5 divase pathame 1; etc.).

c15.t4.17

²²⁹ For other dates, cf. Ep. Ind., Vol. XX, pp. 1 ff.; Vol. XXXV, pp. 1 ff.

c15.t4.18

⁵ Cf., e.g., Lüder’s List, No. 1186: hemantāna pakho 7 divasa 1.

c15.t4.19

⁶ Select Inscriptions, p. 63, p. 119 note, p. 134 note. The seasons are often counted as six as follows (cf. Amarakosa, Kālavarga, v. 21): (1) Vasanta or Madhu=Caitra-Vaiśākha; (2) Grīṣma or Śuci=Jyaiṣṭha-Āṣāḍha; (3) Varṣā or Nabhas=Śrāvaṇa-Bhādrapada; (4) Śarad=Āśvina-Kārttika; (5) Hemanta or Sahas=Mārgaśīrṣa-Pauṣa; (6) Śita, Śiśira or Tapas=Māgha-Phālguna. But sometimes Vasanta is regarded as consisting of Phālguna and Caitra instead of Caitra and Vaiśākha, and the other seasons are counted accordingly.

c15.t4.20

¹ Lüder's List, No. 1196. Cf. *sarada-pakkham bitiyam divasam paḍamam*; cf. also *Successors of the Sātavāhanas*, p. 223.

c15.t4.21

The dates found in the earliest records of the indigenous kings of India thus point to the absence of the custom of dating royal documents in the years of an era and also to the non-existence of any popular era in ancient India. There are, however, some Indian eras which have their epochs falling before the 4th century B.C. These are the Kali-yuga era of 3102 B.C., the Śrī-Harṣa era of 457 B.C. referred to by Al-Bīrūnī and the Parinirvāṇa eras of the Buddhists and the Jains. Purāṇic passages like the one giving the intervening period between the birth of Parikṣit and the accession of Mahāpadma Nanda as 1015 or 1050 or 1500² years no doubt suggest that the chroniclers of ancient Indian historical traditions attempted to base their chronological scheme on such important events as the birth of Parikṣit (placed by some authorities immediately after the battle of Kurukṣetra and at the beginning of the Kali-yuga) and the accession of the great empire-builder Mahāpadma Nanda. But the facts that the chroniclers do not always begin their computation from a point near about the supposed beginning of the Kali-yuga and that there is no uniformity among the traditions go to show that the reckoning from the starting of the Kali age (which itself belongs to the domain of mythology, the *yuga* division being unknown to very early works) was not a regular, far less a popular, era. The contemporaneity of the last Nanda king with Alexander (336-23 B.C.) and the Puranic traditions regarding the predecessors of the Mauryas suggest that Mahāpadma Nanda is not to be assigned to a period much earlier than 400 B.C. Different versions of the Puranic tradition quoted above thus place the birth of Parikṣit (and therefore the beginning of the Kali age) 1015 or 1050 or 1500 years before that date, i.e., about 1415 B.C. or 1450 B.C. or 1900 B.C. According to the evidence of the Aihole inscription¹ (634 A.D.) and certain other sources, however, the first year of the Kali-yuga corresponds to 3102-01 B.C. Another tradition, supported by authorities including Varāhamihira² and Kalhaṇa,³ says that the battle of Kurukṣetra (and therefore the birth of Parikṣit) occurred 653 years later than the beginning of the Kali age, i.e. about 2449 B.C. Thus, whatever may have been the value attached by Purāṇic chroniclers to the event of Parikṣit’s birth, there was apparently no regular and uniform reckoning from that chronological point. As to the Kali-yuga era of 3102 B.C., scholars have satisfactorily demonstrated that it is not a real historical era, but was invented by Indian astronomers for the purposes of their calculations some 35 centuries after that date.⁴ The use of Al-Bīrūnī’s Śrī-Harṣa era of 457 B.C.⁵ is unknown to Indian epigraphic and literary records; but the fact that its epoch is just 400 years earlier than that of the Vikrama-saṃvat may suggest that this reckoning also was probably invented by astronomers for the purposes of calculations, although Al-Bīrūnī’s statement really appears to be based on a wrong information. The existence of a Maurya era starting from the fourth century B.C. was suggested by some scholars on the basis of a wrong reading and interpretation of a passage in the Hāthigumphā inscription⁶ of Khāravela.

c15.t4.22

² Pargiter, *Puranik Texts of the Dynasties of the Kali Age*, p. 58; Raychaudhuri, *Pol. Hist. Anc. Ind.*, 4th ed., pp. 25-26.

c15.t4.23

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. VI, p. 7.

c15.t4.24

² *Bṛhatsaṃhitā*, XIII. 3.

c15.t4.25

³ *Rājatarangiṇī*, I. 51-56.

c15.t4.26

⁴ Cf. Fleet in *JRAS*, 1911, p. 479.

c15.t4.27

⁵ Sachau, *Alberuni’s India*, II, p. 7.

c15.t4.28

⁶ *Select Inscriptions*, p. 210 and note 15.

c15.t4.29

Al-Bīrūnī does not mention the Buddhist and Jain Parinirvāṇa reckonings apparently because he never heard of them. But there is evidence to show that the Buddhists had a sort of rough reckoning calculated from the Buddha’s death. It is however to be remembered that, in ancient India, the dates of this reckoning were usually referred to not by individual years, but by centuries. A few instances may be noticed.

c15.t4.30

(1) The *Milindapañha*¹ on the date of Milinda usually identified with the Indo-Greek king Menander—*parinibbāṇato paṃca-vassa-sate atikkamte*, ‘at a time when 500 years elapsed from the death of the Buddha,’ i.e. in the sixth century (between 501 and 600 years) after the Buddha’s Parinirvāṇa.

c15.t4.31

¹ Trenckner, *Milindapañho*, p. 3.

c15.t4.32

(2) The *Laṅkāvatārasūtra*² on the date of Vyāsa, the Bhāratas (viz. the Kauravas and Pāṇḍavas), and the Nandas—*mayi nirvr̥te varṣa-śate*, ‘100 years [after] my (the Buddha’s) death,’ i.e. between 101 and 200 years after the Parinirvāṇa.

c15.t4.33

² *JRAS*, 1905, p. 835.

c15.t4.34

(3) Paramārtha’s *Life of Vasubandhu* (6th century A.D.)³ on the date of the Sāṅkhya philosophers Vṛṣagaṇa (or Vārṣagaṇya) and Vindhyavāsa, a rival of Vasubandhu’s teacher Buddhamitra and a contemporary of king Vikramāditya of Ayodhyā—‘in the 900 years’ (i.e. between the years 901 and 1000) after the Buddha’s Parinirvāṇa.

c15.t4.35

³ Ibid., p. 51 and note.

c15.t4.36

(4) The same work⁴ on the date of Aśvaghoṣa—‘in the 500 years’ (i.e. between the years 501 and 600) after the Parinirvāṇa.

c15.t4.37

⁴ Ibid., p. 52.

c15.t4.38

(5) Tradition recorded by Hiuen-tsang⁵ about the date of Kaniṣka—‘400 years (i.e. in the 5th century between the years 401 and 500) after my (the Buddha’s) decease.’

c15.t4.39

⁵ Watters, *On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India*, Vol. I, p. 203.

c15.t4.40

(6) Tradition recorded by the same authority⁶ about the date of Vasubandhu’s teacher Manoratha and king Vikramāditya of Śrāvastī—‘within the 1000 years (i.e. in the 11th century between the years 1001 and 1100) after the Buddha’s decease.’

c15.t4.41

⁶ Ibid., p. 211.

c15.t4.42

The indication of the dates of the Buddhist reckoning in ancient India only by centuries has to be coupled with the fact that a large number of different epochs of the Parinirvāṇa is recognised in different parts of the world⁷ and with the absurd chronological position created by such traditons as those assigning Kaniṣka to the 5th and Menander to the 6th century after the Buddha’s death. These facts show that the use of the Parinirvāṇa reckoning was limited within the Buddhist church and that it was never used as a popular era in ancient India. The absence of any use of the reckoning in the records of the early Indian Buddhists also points to the same direction.¹ Some scholars, however, believe that the Minor Rock Edict I of Aśoka refers to year 256 of the Buddhist Parinirvāṇa era,² although they are unable to explain why Aśoka used the era only in one of his many records which are usually dated according to his regnal reckoning. The theory is based entirely on misunderstanding. There can hardly be any doubt about the interpretation of the passage in question, if only the different versions of the record are read together. The explanation of the number 256 is clearly given in the Sahasram version where we have duve-sapaṁnā-lāti-satā vivuthā ti 256³ (=dvi-ṣatpañcāśad-rātri-śate vyuṣitaḥ [aham] = iti—256). It will be seen that 256 was the number of nights which, as the word vivāsa of the Rupnath version⁴ proves beyond doubt, Aśoka passed away from the capital apparently in connection with a dharma-yātrā (pilgrimage). Thus the Buddha-Parinirvāṇa era is entirely unknown to the early period of Indian epigraphy. The Jain ecclesiastical reckoning has even less claim than the Buddhist one to be taken as anything like a regular era in the early history of India.⁵

c15.t4.43

⁷ S. C. Vidyabhushan (*Buddhadeva*, p. xi) notices the Ceylonese tradition of 543 B.C. (or 544 B.C.), a Japanese tradition of 947 B.C., a Tibetan tradition of 433 B.C. and a Chinese tradition of 770 B.C. The Cantonese dotted record suggesting 486 B.C. is now usually relied on by scholars.

c15.t4.44

¹ The Chronicles of Ceylon use the reckoning as an era. In India, however, the Nirvāṇa reckoning is used as an era only in the medieval period; cf. the Gayā inscription of Aśokacalla (Bhandarkar’s List, No. 1459).

c15.t4.45

² Cf. Bhandarkar, Aśoka, 2nd ed., p. 372.

c15.t4.46

³ Select Inscriptions, p. 51 note; p. 52 note; Maski Inscription of Aśoka, pp. 29-30.

c15.t4.47

⁴ Select Inscriptions, p. 51.

c15.t4.48

⁵ There is really no mention of this era in the early Brāhmī inscription from Barli. Cf. Ojha, Bhāratīya Prācīn Lipimālā, p. 2; JBRS, Vol. XXXVII, Parts 1-2, pp. 34-38; Vol. XL, Part 1, pp. 8 ff.

c15.t4.49

The absence of any trace of the use of an era in the dated records of the early indigenous kings of India has to be considered along with the fact that the earliest use of the regular era in India is noticed in the epigraphic and numismatic records of foreigners. The two facts together would doubtless point to the extraneous origin of the custom of dating records according to the years of an era. It seems very probable that the use of the era in royal as well as private records was introduced and popularised in India by kings belonging to non-Indian extraction such as the Scytho-Parthians and the Kuṣāṇas.

c15.t4.50

In connection with the question of regnal reckoning, it has to be pointed out that some royal families (e.g. the Coḷas and Pāṇḍyas of South India, the Pālas and Candras of Bengal, the Brahmapāla kings of Assam and many others) dated their records in regnal years even when the use of an era was quite popular in the neighbouring territories. The influence of local conservatism explains the fact that, in spite of the introduction of the Gupta era in Bengal and Assam, later ruling families of those areas resumed the practice of dating charters in the regnal reckoning.¹

c15.t4.51

¹ A few records of the Pāṇḍyas are dated in the Kali-yuga or Śaka eras. See, e.g., *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. VII, pp. 11-12 ff.; Vol. XXXII, p. 335; Vol. VIII, p. 320; *A.R.Ep.*, 1952-53, No. B 143. The Kandiyur inscription of Kodavarman gives the date as the 1,511, 564th day from the beginning of the Kali-yuga (*Trav. Arch. Ser.*, Vol. I, p. 294). Similarly a few private records of the Pāla age are dated in the Vikrama or Śaka era. See Bhandarkar's List, Nos. 114, 370; *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXVIII, p. 145; Vol XXXVI, p. 42.

c15.t4.52

There is a peculiarity of the regnal years quoted in early Pāṇḍya inscriptions as they generally mention two numbers to indicate a particular year, e.g., 4+9, 6+4, etc.² At first sight, this system appears to be explained by the fact that the predecessor and his successor on the Pāṇḍya throne often ruled conjointly for some time and therefore the 13th regnal year indicated by 4+9 may show that the king in question was ruling conjointly with his predecessor till his 4th regnal year and the date in question actually belongs to the 9th year of his rule as the successor of his predecessor. But there are difficulties in accepting such a suggestion. Sometimes the same rulers' records appear to contain regnal dates not only in single numbers but also in different groups of double numbers. We may refer to the inscriptions¹ of Soḷantalai-koṇḍaṇ Vīra-pāṇḍya (whose first regnal year seems to be 946-47 A.D.),² some of which referring to the construction of a temple for the god Śrīkaṇṭheśvara by Kaṇḍaṇ Śāttaṇ alias Teṇṇavaṇ Tamiḷaveḷ, are dated differently as in the year 4+5 and 5+5.³ It is not possible to solve the mystery of such dates without further light being thrown on the subject by future discoveries. In certain double-year dates of the above type, the second number is given not in years but in days, e.g., year 4+day 4635.⁴

c15.t4.53

² See, e.g., *SII*, Vol. XIV, Nos. 12, 12B; *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXI, p. 106; Vol. XXVIII, p. 38, note 3. In the language of the Tamil records, the date +9 is expressed as 'the year 9 opposite (*edir āṇḍu*) the year 4'.

c15.t4.54

¹ A.R.Ep., 1914, Nos. 420-21, 423-24, 426, 429; 1907, No. 87; 1908, Nos.102 ff.; 1909, No. 474; 1926, Nos. 624-27, 548; 1927, Nos.12-13; 1932-33, Nos. 79 ff.

c15.t4.55

² See Ep. Ind., Vol. XXV, pp. 35 ff.

c15.t4.56

³ A.R.Ep., 1926, Nos. 624, 625 and 627.

c15.t4.57

⁴ SII, XIV, No. 15; Ep. Ind., Vol. XXII, p. 11.

c15.t4.58

The records of the Coḷas are occasionally dated in both the Śaka era and the regnal reckoning.⁵ Most of the Coḷa records are however dated in the regnal reckoning together with the names of the solar month, the fortnight, the tithi, the week-day and the nakṣatra.⁶ In some cases, the number of the day in a particular year of the reign is specified in the dates.⁷

Linked texts (6)

Bṛhatsaṃhitā — Varāhamihira, Sanskrit
Rājataraṅgiṇī — Kalhaṇa, Sanskrit
Milindapañha — Pāli
Laṅkāvatārasūtra — Sanskrit
Tibetan translation ('Chi med mdzod) — Classical Tibetan
Minor Rock Edict I — Prakrit