Indian Epigraphy c15.t5: 5. Introduction of Reckoning in Eras

Indian Epigraphy c15.t5

Language: English

5. Introduction of Reckoning in Eras

c15.t5.1

⁸ See Vikrama Volume, op. cit., pp. 564 ff.; cf. JAS, Letters, Vol. XIX, pp. 1 ff.

According to some scholars, "it is an indisputable axiom that nobody but an anointed king can initiate a Saṃvat of his own."⁹ But the statement is rather misleading. An early era appears to have been nothing more than the regnal reckoning of an independent king (who was not bound to use the regnal date of his suzerain) continued by his successors.

c15.t5.3

⁹ Ind. Ant., Vol. XIII, p. 420.

c15.t5.4

When the successors of an early Gupta king counted the year of a record not from their own first regnal year but from that of a particular ancestor of theirs, the reckoning came automatically to be an era and the said ancestor of later Gupta kings became the founder of an era without proclaiming it himself. Years of the era are usually referred to just like regnal years and, for some time to come, without any specification at all.¹ Soon, however, the reckoning came to be distinguished as the era of the Guptas. Of course there is also evidence of the institution of an era by the beating of drums;² but, in the early cases, the above appears to have been the usual process. The causes leading to the continuation of the regnal reckoning of a king after his death may be different in diverse cases.³

c15.t5.5

¹ The Mathura inscription which makes a distinction between the Gupta era and the regnal reckoning of Candragupta II simply calls the former a *kāla*, 'era' (*Select Inscriptions*, p. 270).

c15.t5.6

² Cf. the case of the Cālukya-Vikrama era of 1076 A.D.

c15.t5.7

³ Cf. *Select Inscriptions*, p. 132, note.

c15.t5.8

The earliest historical era in the true sense of the term seems to be the Seleucid era of 312 B.C. prevalent in the Greek empire of Western Asia which lay just on the north-western borders of the Maurya empire of India. About the end of the 3rd century B.C., the Greek emperor had to acknowledge the practical independence of the province of Bactria (modern Balkh) and the subordinate territory of Parthia (modern Khorasan), both of which had revolted about the middle of the same century. The Parthians conquered many districts of the eastern part of the Greek empire and instituted an era that starts from 248 B.C.⁴ The Graeco-Bactrians poured into North-Western India and established their sovereignty in the Punjab and the adjoining regions. No official document of the Indo-Greek kings has so far been discovered. The older Shinkot inscription⁵ belonging to an Indian feudatory of Menander is dated, in the Indian fashion, in the 5th regnal year of the Indo-Greek king. A large number of coins belonging to the Indo-Greek rulers, about 40 in number, have been discovered; but they do not bear any date. A unique silver tetradrachm of Platon, copied from the tetradrachm of Eucratides, is said to bear the date 147 of the Seleucid era corresponding to 165 B.C. But the letters of the date are not altogether clear,¹ and doubts may reasonably be entertained as to the existence of any date on it, especially in view of the fact that the absence of date on other Indo-Greek coins then becomes inexplicable. It is not impossible that the Graeco-Bactrian kings neglected the Seleucid era owing to its association with the hostile imperial house. As a matter of fact, Diodotus of Bactria might have intiated an era as Arsaces did in Parthia; but this Bactrian era would have died out owing to the dynastic revolution brought in by Euthydemus.² The Indo-Greek power soon declined as a result of internal dissentions and the rise of the Scytho-Parthians.

c15.t5.9

⁴ The date of foundation of the Arsacidan house is generally referred to c. 250 B.C. (*Smith, Classical Dictionary*, s.v. *Arsaces*). According to some recent writers, the era started in 247 B.C. (*East and West*, Vol. 9, No. 3, September 1958, p. 155). See below, pp. 281-82.

c15.t5.10

⁵ *Select Inscriptions*, p. 102; *The Age of Imperial Unity*, p. 115, note 1.

c15.t5.11

¹ Cf. Camb. Hist. Ind., Vol. I, p. 456.

c15.t5.12

² Raychaudhuri, op. cit., p. 316.

c15.t5.13

We have seen that the Parthians had an era of their own. It is interesting to note that several epigraphic records discovered in the north-western part of India appear to have been actually dated according to the Parthian era of 248 B.C.³ The Scythians on the other hand lived for some time on their way to India in the eastern provinces of the old Greek empire where they must have been acquainted with both the Seleucid and Parthian eras. It is therefore not at all curious that documents of the time of the Scytho-Parthian rulers of North-Western Bhāratavarṣa are found to be dated in an era unlike the indigenous Indian records dated in regnal reckoning.⁴ There is no doubt that the epoch of the Scytho-Parthian era falls later than that of the Parthian era. It also appears that its use became popular in the age of the Scytho-Parthians who succeeded the Indo-Bactrians, i.e. probably after the second century B.C. A few dates may be quoted from the documents of the Scytho-Parthian rulers of India.

c15.t5.14

³ According to Lüders (D. R. Bhandarkar Volume, pp. 281, 286), the Mathura inscription of the year 292 and the Girdharpur record of the year 270 are dated in the Parthian era. Sten Konow believes (ibid., p. 306) that the Charsadda, Loriyan Tongai, Hashtnagar and Skarah Dheri inscriptions with dates ranging between the year 303 and the year 399 have also to be referred to the same era.

c15.t5.15

⁴ Coins of the early Scytho-Parthian rulers do not bear any date.

c15.t5.16

(1) Mathura inscription¹ of the time of Śoḍāsa—Mahākṣatrapasa Śoḍāsasa saṃvatsare 72 hemanta-māse 2 divase 9, ‘on the 9th day of the 2nd month of winter of the year 72 [during the rule] of the Great Satrap Śoḍāsa.’

c15.t5.17

¹ Select Inscriptions, p. 118.

c15.t5.18

(2) Taxila inscription² of the time of Moga (Maues)—saṃvatsaraye aṭhasatatimae 78 maharayasa mahamtasa Mogasa Panemasa masasa divase paṃcame 5, ‘on the 5th day of the [ Graeco-Parthian ] month of Panemus (corresponding to Āṣāḍha-Śrāvaṇa) of the 78th year [during the reign] of the Great King Moga the Great.’

c15.t5.19

² Ibid., p. 120. Some scholars believe that Patika (son of Kṣatrapa Liaka Kusuluka) of this record is identical with Kusulaa Padika mentioned at a later date as a Mahākṣatrapa in the Mathura Lion Capital inscription which is slightly earlier than Śoḍāsa’s Mathura inscription of the year 72, referred to above. If such was the case, we have to assume the foundation of two different eras within a very short period of time. This does not very much appeal to us, and we think it more probable that Patika of the Taxila plate was the grandson of Mahākṣatrapa Padika of the Mathura inscription. The grandfather and the grandson having the same name is not an unusual feature in India even among the Śakas (cf. the case of Azes I and II).

c15.t5.20

(3) Takht-i-Bahi inscription³ of the time of Gondophernes—maharayasa Guduhvarasa vaṣa 26 saṃvatsarae ti-śatimae 103 Veśakhasa masasa divase praṭhame, ‘on the 1st day of the month of Vaiśākha in the year 103 and in the 26th [regnal] year of the Great King Guduhvara (Gondophernes).’

c15.t5.21

³ Ibid., p. 122.

c15.t5.22

(4) Panjtar inscription⁴ of the time of the Kuṣāṇa—saṃ 122 Śravaṇasa masasa divase praṭhame 1 maharaya - Guṣaṇa-rajami, ‘on the 1st day of the month of Śrāvaṇa of the year 122 during the reign of the Great King, the Kuṣāṇa.’

c15.t5.23

⁴ Ibid., p. 126.

c15.t5.24

(5) Kalawan inscription⁵ referring to the reign of Azes II—savatsaraye 134 Ajasa Śravaṇasa masasa divase treviśe 23, ‘on the 23rd day of the month of Śrāvaṇa of the year 134 [during the rule] of Aja (Azes II).

c15.t5.25

⁵ Ibid., p. 127 and note 2. See also The Age of Imperial Unity, p. 131.

c15.t5.26

(6) Taxila inscription¹ referring to the time of Azes II—sa 136 Ayasa Aṣaḍasa masasa divase 15, ‘on the 15th day of the month of Āṣāḍha in the year 136 [during the rule] of Aya (Azes II).’

c15.t5.27

¹ Ibid., p. 129.

c15.t5.28

Besides the use of an era, i.e. a continuous reckoning, there are some other interesting features in the dating of these records. We notice the month (māsa), but not yet the tithi, introduced into the date. It is sometimes seen in connection with the season exactly as the pakṣa or fortnight in some indigenous records. This no doubt proves the influence of the Indian system of dividing the year into seasons. It is not known if the introduction of the māsa in the date or at least its popularity was due to the foreigners; but the occasional use of the names of months of the Macedonian calendar possibly points to that direction. Many inscriptions of the early centuries of the Christian era, e.g., the Taxila inscription of the year 78, have a passage like etasyāṁ pūrvāyāṁ, i.e. ‘in the said pūrvā’, immediately after the quotation of the date, and we have already seen that the word pūrvā (literally ‘the above’) in the feminine gender refers to the tithi pertaining to the day mentioned in the date.²

c15.t5.29

² Cf. asyāṁ saṁvatsara-māsa-pakṣa-divasa-pūrvāyāṁ tithau in later records (Bhandarkar’s List, Nos. 241, 438, 451, 455, 478, 486, 490, 534, 1393).

c15.t5.30

In this connection we have to take notice of another reckoning instituted by a foreign dynasty. It is the era of Kaniṣka I, i.e. the regnal reckoning of a Kuṣāṇa king of that name continued by his successors. The evidence of palaeography and the known facts of early Indian history suggest that the epoch of the Kaniṣka era, i.e. the first regnal year of Kaniṣka, has to be assigned to a date considerably later than the epoch of the Scytho-Parthian reckoning. Kaniṣka’s era seems to have been founded in order to replace the older Scytho-Parthian era used by the Scytho-Parthians and the early Kuṣāṇas. A few dates from the records of the Kaniṣka group of Kuṣāṇa kings may be cited.

c15.t5.31

(1) Sarnath inscription¹ of the time of Kaniṣka—*mahārājasya Kaniṣkasya sam 3 he 3 di 22*, ‘on the 22nd day of the 3rd [month] of winter in the 3rd [regnal] year of the Great King Kaniṣka.’

c15.t5.32

¹ Ibid., p. 132.

c15.t5.33

(2) Sui Vihār inscription² of the time of Kaniṣka—*Kaniṣkasya saṃvatsare ekadaśe sam 11 Daisimkasya masasya divase aṭhavise di 28*, ‘on the 28th day of the [Greek] month Daesius (=June=Jyaiṣṭha-Āṣāḍha) in the 11th [regnal] year of Kaniṣka.’

c15.t5.34

² Ibid., p. 135.

c15.t5.35

(3) Zeda inscription³ of the time of Kaniṣka—*sam 11 Aṣaḍasa masasa di 20 Utaraphaguṇe*, ‘in the nakṣatra Uttara-phalgunī, on the 20th day of the month of Āṣāḍha in the [regnal] year 11.’

c15.t5.36

³ Ibid., p 136.

c15.t5.37

(4) Sanchi inscription⁴ of the time of Vāsiṣka—*Sāhi-Vāsiṣkasya sam 28 he 1 di 5*, ‘on the 5th day of the 1st [month] of winter in the year 28 [during the reign] of Ṣāhi Vāsiṣka.’

c15.t5.38

⁴ Ibid., pp 144-45.

c15.t5.39

(5) Mathura inscription⁵ of the time of Huviṣka—*maharajasya Huvakṣasya savasare 44 gṛsya-masa 3 divisa 2*, ‘on the 2nd day of the 3rd month of summer in the year 44 [during the reign] of Huviṣka.’

c15.t5.40

⁵ Ibid., p. 150.

c15.t5.41

(6) Mathura inscription⁶ of the time of Vāsudeva—*maharajasya Vāsudevasya sam 80 hamata 1 di 12*, ‘on the 12th day of the 1st [month] of winter of the year 80 [during the reign] of the Great King Vāsudeva.’

c15.t5.42

⁶ Ibid., p. 156.

c15.t5.43

Of the Scytho-Parthian and Kaniṣka eras, the founder of the latter is the earliest of the several Kuṣāṇa kings named Kaniṣka. The initiator of the earlier reckoning is not apparent from the Scytho-Parthian records themselves. We have not been able as yet to trace dates in the first half of the 1st century of the Scytho-Parthian era. It is interesting to note that the earliest extant historical reckonings of India, viz. the Vikrama and Śaka eras of 58 B.C. and 78 A.D. respectively, have epochs falling exactly in the Scytho-Parthian and Kuṣāṇa periods of Indian history. There is no doubt that these foreign dynasties established themselves in India considerably after the early Indo-Greek kings Demetrius and Eucratides who belonged to the first half of the 2nd century B.C. On the other hand, the rule of the later Kuṣāṇa kings who held Mathura has to be placed considerably earlier than 380 A.D., the date of the Mathura inscription¹ of Candragupta II, as the Purāṇic traditions assign seven generations of Nāga rulers to Mathura immediately before the Guptas.² The suggestion is not only supported by Kuṣāṇa and Gupta palaeography, but also by the fact that the Sanchi inscription of Vāsiṣka is palaeographically earlier than the Sanchi (Kanakhera) record³ of the Śaka Śrīdharavarman probably dated 279 A.D.

c15.t5.44

¹ Ibid., p. 269 ff.

c15.t5.45

² Raychaudhuri, op. cit., p. 402; cf. Vāyu Purāṇa, 99. 382.

c15.t5.46

³ Select Inscriptions, pp. 180-81; Ep. Ind., Vol. XVI, p. 232.

c15.t5.47

Considering the facts that the early indigenous kings of India used no era, that the foreign kings who ruled in India between the 2nd century B.C. and the 3rd century A.D. are known to have used two different eras separated from each other by a considerable period of time and that the epochs of the earliest extant historical eras of India, viz. the Vikrama and the Śaka, separated from each other by 135 years, fall in the 1st century B.C. and the 1st century A.D., it is only natural to think that the Vikrama and Śaka reckonings may after all be identical respectively with the two foreign eras known from epigraphs. Of course it is easy to argue that the Scytho-Parthian and Kaniṣka eras have died out and that the Vikrama and Śaka eras are different from them. But the identification of the two with the two is certainly more logical, if the attested facts of Indian history can be reconciled with it.¹ As regards the Śaka era, moreover, the very name points to its foreign origin. The identification of the Scytho-Parthian era with the Vikrama-saṃvat is again supported at least by one evidence. The Takht-i-Bahi inscription, as we have seen above, is dated in the year 103 of this era and in the 26th regnal year of Gondophernes. It is interesting to note that a Parthian king named Gondophernes, called the king of India in some versions, is represented in an old Christian tradition as a contemporary of Saint Thomas, the apostle (one of the 12 disciples of Jesus Christ, 4 B. C.—29 or 33 A. D.) who flourished in the 1st century A.D.² It will be seen that, if year 103 of the Tekht-i-Bahi inscription be referred to the Vikrama-saṃvat, the reign of Gondophernes falls exactly in the said period, i.e. in the period 21-46 A.D. It should be pointed out that no difficulty that may be supposed to stand in the way of the identification of the Scytho-Parthian reckoning with the Vikrama-saṃvat and the Kaniṣka era with the Śak-ābda is insurmountable.³

c15.t5.48

¹ Those who regard the Scytho-Parthian and Kaniṣka eras as different respectively from the Vikrama and Śaka eras do not take into account the obvious foreign origin of both the latter reckonings. They have also no satisfactory explanation of the origin of three out of the four eras, viz. Scytho-Parthian, Vikrama and Śaka, and of the circumstances leading to the disappearance of two of them, viz. Scytho-Parthian and Kaniṣka, and the continuation of the use of two, viz. Vikrama and Śaka. The conclusion that as many as four eras were founded in the age of the Scytho-Parthians and Kuṣāṇas appears to be unrealistic.

c15.t5.49

² Smith, E. Hist. Ind., 4th ed., pp. 245-50, 260-62.

c15.t5.50

³ See The Age of Imperial Unity, pp. 123 ff., 141 ff.

c15.t5.51

Some scholars point to the absence of inscriptions dated in the third century of the Scytho-Parthian era and suggest that the same era was used by the Kaniṣka group of the Kuṣāṇa kings with the omission of the symbol for 200.⁴ The absence of inscriptions dated in the third century of the older era is unimportant as we have a few records dated in the fourth century of the same era,⁵ and these point to the continued use of the era since it is difficult to believe that people reverted to the old practice of mentioning the hundred after the lapse of a century. We do not believe in theories based on the omission of hundreds because the whole range of Indian epigraphy offers only a few instances of omitted hundreds excepting of course the popularity of such omission in the calculation of the years of the Laukika era in the Kashmir region since the early medieval period. Records dated in regnal reckoning such as the Abottabad inscription¹ of Kadambeśvaradāsa (c. 3rd century A.D.) and the Kabul inscription of Ṣāhi Khiṅgāla (c. 6th century A.D.)² suggest that the use of both the Scytho-Perthian and Kaniṣka eras was no longer very popular in North-Western Bhāratavarṣa. This fact may be compared with the total disappearance of the Gupta era from Bihar and U.P. with the fall of the Guptas. While in Bengal it was not used after the middle of the 6th century A.D. and in Orissa after the beginning of the 7th, we have a solitary instance of its use in a record of 829 A.D. from Assam³ (which probably did never from an integral part of the Gupta empire) and, in Kathiawar, it was in popular use for several countries after the fall of the Guptas. This was because their erstwhile feudatories, the Maitrakas, continued its use. The continued use of the Gupta era by the Maitrakas seems to be specially comparable with that of the Kaniṣka era by the Śakas of Western India.

Indian Epigraphy c15.t5: 5. Introduction of Reckoning in Eras

5. Introduction of Reckoning in Eras

Linked texts (4)