Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Epigraphy c15.t7: 2 Śaka Era

Indian Epigraphy c15.t7

Language
English

2 Śaka Era

c15.t7.1

⁴ See Vikrama Volume, op. cit., pp. 572 ff.; The Age of Imperial Unity, p. 144, note 1; IHQ, Vol. XXVII, pp. 174 ff.; Vol. XXIX, pp. 294 ff.

c15.t7.2

The Identification of the Śaka and Kaniṣka eras primarily involves two questions, viz., the date of Kaniṣka and the attribution of the era to the Śakas and not to the Kuṣāṇas.

c15.t7.3

There is difference of opinion among scholars about the date of the Kuṣāṇa king Kaniṣka whose accession is assigned variously to the 1st century B.C., the 1st century A.D., the 2nd century A.D. and the 3rd century A.D. The first of these theories is however now generally believed to be erroneous. It appears that there were actually three Kaniṣkas, the first having begun to rule in the 1st century A.D., the second in the 2nd century A.D. and the third in the 3rd century A.D. and that, just as the activities of a number of kings styled Vikramāditya, especially those belonging to the Imperial Gupta dynasty, contributed to the dynamic growth of the Vikramāditya saga even though the original Vikramāditya was Candragupta II, the legends that cluster round the name of Kaniṣka similarly absorbed a good deal of the achievements of his different namesakes. It would therefore be unwise to attribute all the activities of the traditional Kaniṣka to a particular king of that name. There is no insurmountable obstacle in assigning Kaniṣka I, the founder of the era, to the 1st century A.D.¹

c15.t7.4

¹ See The Age of Imperial Unity, pp. 141 ff.

c15.t7.5

As has already been pointed out, an era, which was practically the continuation of a regnal reckoning, did not get a name immediately after its institution. But a specific name was attached to it when it became popular and had to be distinguished from other reckonings. Even then, however, the years of the era could often be referred to without specification simply as saṃvatsara (contracted to saṃ or saṃvat) or varṣa, i.e. ‘the year’. It is therefore not unnatural that a year of the Kaniṣka era was at first simply styled ‘the year’. The earliest epigraphic records that connect this era explicitly with the Śakas belong to the Cālukyas of Bādāmi. The Cālukya inscriptions of the 6th and 7th centuries A.D. use expressions like Śaka-varṣa and Śaka-nṛpa-rājya-abhiṣeka-saṃvatsara (cf. samāsu samatītāsu Śakānām=api bhūbhujām).² There can be no doubt that the Śaka kings referred to in these passages are those who held sway over Western India for about 3 centuries before their extirpation by Candragupta II about the end of the 4th century A.D. As a matter of fact, the Śaka Satraps of Western India are known to have used a continuous reckoning from the year 41 to the year 310,¹ and there is no doubt that this has to be identified with the so-called Śaka-kāla, Śaka-ābda or Śaka-saṁvat, i.e. the era of the Śaka rulers. These Śakas styled themselves Kṣatrapa (literally, ‘provincial governor’) and Mahākṣatrapa (literally, ‘great provincial governor’) which point to their original subordinate position, although the title continued in use even when they reigned practically as independent rulers. We know that Nahapāna was ruling in the year 41-46 of the era with the titles Rājan and Kṣatrapa or Mahākṣatrapa.² The facts that his overlord is not mentioned in the records of his time and that he had an extensive coinage appear to suggest that Nahapāna was enjoying a certain amount of autonomy. He was overthrown from the southern districts of his dominions by the Śātavāhana king Gautamīputra who was himself ousted from most of the areas by another Śaka house. By 130 A.D., the date of the Andhau inscriptions³ of the joint rule of Caṣṭana and Rudradāman of this new Śaka house, Kathiawar was reconquered by the new-comers. Reference in Ptolemy’s Geography (c. 140 A.D.)⁴ to Tiastenes (Caṣṭana) as the ruler of Ozéné (Ujjayinī) points to the recovery of Malwa, and the Junagadh inscription of Rudradāman dated year 72 (150 A.D.)⁵ proves the re-occupation of territories as far south as the Northern Konkan and the Narmadā valley. In the same record Rudradāman calls himself svayam-adhigata-

c15.t7.6

² Cf. Ep. Ind., Vol. VI, p. 7. The earliest Śaka date in the Cālukya

c15.t7.7

¹ Select Inscriptions, pp. 157, 182.

c15.t7.8

² Ibid., pp. 157-66.

c15.t7.9

³ Ibid., pp. 167 ff.

c15.t7.10

⁴ VII. I. 63.

c15.t7.11

⁵ Select Inscriptions, pp. 169 ff. Gautamīputra Śātakarṇi is represented in the Junagadh inscription as having been twice defeated by Rudradāman (ibid., p. 172).

c15.t7.12

records is 465 (543 A.D.) while the earliest association of the Śakas with the era is found in Siṁha-sūri’s Lokavibhāga composed in Śaka 380 (458 A.D.). See ibid., Vol. XXV, pp. 4 ff.; Mys. Arch. Rep., 1922-23, p. 23.

c15.t7.13

*Mahākṣatrapa-nāmā*, ‘one who has himself acquired the title of Mahākṣatrapa’, i.e. one who did not owe his position to any overlord. This Śaka ruler thus appears to have become practically independent, though he still did not assume imperial titles.

c15.t7.14

The era used by the Śakas of Western India could hardly be of their own institution. Firstly, they were originally feudatories, as their Satrapal title shows, and therefore were required to use the reckoning of their overlords. Secondly, no record of any date in the first forty years of the era can be traced in the records of the Śakas of Western India. It is therefore very probable that the early West Indian Śakas used the reckoning of their overlords and that their successors simply continued its use. From the facts already considered, it appears that the suzerains of the Śakas were the Kuṣāṇa kings of the Kaniṣka group. The suggestion is strongly supported by the fact that the rule of Vāsiṣka, the immediate successor of Kaniṣka I, over East Malwa is established by the Sanchi inscription.¹

c15.t7.15

¹ *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 144-145. Sanchi lies near ancient Vidiśā, the capital of the Ākara or Daśārṇa *janapada* in East Malwa.

c15.t7.16

Assuming the identity of the Kaniṣka and Śaka eras, we may, on the basis of the known dates of the Kuṣāṇa records, assign Kaniṣka I to 78-102 A.D., Vāsiṣka to 102-06 A.D., Huviṣka to 106-38 A.D., Kaniṣka II to 119 A.D., Vāsudeva to 152-76 A.D. and Kaniṣka III to the 3rd century A.D. On the other hand, the rule of Nahapāna has to be ascribed to 119-24 A.D., that of Caṣṭana to 130 A.D. and that of Rudradāman to 130-50 A.D. It appears that the Śaka Satraps of Western India were completely subordinate to the Kuṣāṇas during the vigorous rule of Kaniṣka I, but that they became semi-independent after his death owing possibly to the division of power between the successors of Kaniṣka. About the middle of the 2nd century A.D. when the central government of the Kuṣāṇas began to decline, Rudradāman became practically an independent sovereign without, however, completely throwing off the Kuṣāṇa yoke, and his successors continued the use of the era till the year 388, i.e. sometime after Siṃha-sūri’s *Lokavibhāga* had been composed in Śaka 380. The above facts would explain why the Kuṣāṇa reckoning of Kaniṣka came to be known as the era of the Śaka kings first in the south-western and southern parts of India. It should also be remembered in this connection that the family name Kuṣāṇa is unknown to Indian literary records, while the name Śaka is known to have been often applied to foreigners including the Muslims who were not Scythians. It is therefore not impossible that the Indians often confused the Kuṣāṇas with the Śakas, the Kuṣāṇa emperors being known to have ruled the provinces of their empire often through provincial governors of Śaka nationality.¹

c15.t7.17

¹ Cf. *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 132-33.

c15.t7.18

In medieval times, people tried to forget the foreign association of the Śaka era and the word *śaka* began to be used in the sense of ‘an era.’ The same tendency is apparently noticed from the 13th century when the era was often associated, especially in the southern and western regions of India, with Śālivāhana, famous in Indian tradition and folklore as a great popular hero. The earliest association of the era with Śālivāhana is found in the Kannada work *Udbhaṭakāvya* by Somarāja composed in Śaka 1144 expired (1222 A.D.) and the Tasgaon plates (Śaka 1172=1251 A.D.) of the Yādava king Kṛṣṇa.²

c15.t7.19

² See *Journ. Or. Res.*, Vol. XVII, pp. 92-93; Vol. XVIII, p. 190. It is reported that a Marāṭhī inscription of Śaka 1110 (1188 A.D.) found in the Vithoba temple at Pandharpur associates the era with Śālāhaṇa (Śālivāhana). See *Journal of the Oriental Institute*, Vol. VI, pp. 132, 134. Sometimes Śālivāhana was regarded as belonging to the Śaka race (Bhandarkar’s List, No. 1028).

c15.t7.20

This popular fiction seems to have rested on the memory of the great Sātavāhana (Śālivāhana) king Gautamīputra Śātakarṇi who claims to have been the destroyer of the Śakas and other barbarians.³ The association of the Scytho-Parthian era with the name of another popular hero of Indian tradition and folklore, viz. Vikramāditya, should not therefore be looked upon as a unique case in the history of India. The Śālivāhana tradition appears to have been developed in the Kannaḍa-speaking areas of the Deccan, which apparently also contributed to the Śakāri Vikramāditya saga.

c15.t7.21

³ Cf. *Select Inscriptions*, p. 197.

c15.t7.22

We have to note that the date of the completion of the Siṃha-sūri's *Lokavibhāga* is given in the book as the 22nd regnal year of king Siṃhavarman, lord of Kāñcī, and as the 380th year of the Śaka era.¹ Thus the above Jain work, completed in the Śaka year 380 at Kāñcī, gives us the earliest instance of the use of the Śaka era in South India and the earliest reference to the Śaka association of the reckoning. The spread of the Śaka era in the south seems to be essentially associated with that of the Jains from their stronghold in the Gujarat-Kathiawad region forming a part of the dominions of the Śakas of Western India, who used the era in question till the close of the fourth century A.D. Many of the Jain scholars were apparently employed as astronomers and administrators at the courts of the various South Indian royal families. As already indicated above, the Jains have largely contributed to the development of the legends about Śaka-Śālivāhana and Vikramāditya who are traditionally associated with the Śaka-kāla (later Śālivāhana-śaka or °śaka, the word śaka or śāka here meaning 'an era') and the Vikrama-saṃvat. The Jain preference of the Śaka era is explained by the fact that, in their tradition recorded in works like the *Kālakācāryakathā*, the Śakas are represented as the defenders of the Jain faith.²

c15.t7.23

¹ A. R. Arch Surv. Mys., 1909, p. 31; 1910, pp. 45-47. The verse in question runs : *saṃvatsare tu dvāviṃśe Kāñcīśa-Siṃhavarmaṇaḥ* 1 *aśīty-agre Śak-āhvānāṃ siddham=etac=chata-traye* ||

c15.t7.24

² *JRAS*, 1913, p. 993.

c15.t7.25

Another interesting fact is that the *Pañcasiddhāntikā* of the celebrated Maga-Brāhmaṇa astronomer, Varāhamihira of Ujjayinī, makes use of the Śaka era,³ and this points to the contribution of astronomers to the popularity of the reckoning. That, of all the historical and popular eras of ancient India, only the Vikrama-saṃvat (the Scytho-Parthian era originated in Drangiana) and the Śaka-kāla (the Kaniṣka era) are still in use is probably due, to a considerable extent, to the fact that both of them came to be used in the region about West Malwa where the city of Ujjayinī became one of the strongest centres of astronomical studies in India, presumably under the patronage of Śaka and Gupta rulers. The Guptas used their own era on their coins meant for circulation in Western India, but did not compel their feudatories in Malwa, viz. the Aulikaras of Daśapura, to discontinue the use of the Vikrama-saṃvat and adopt the Gupta era. The Persian priests (Magi), who migrated to India and were known as the Maga-Brāhmaṇas of Śaka-dvīpa (Seistan),¹ preferred the Śaka era and contributed to the growth of the Ujjayinī school of astronomy.

c15.t7.26

³ Cf. *Pañcasiddhāntikā*, I, 8: *sapt-āśvi-veda-saṃkhyaṃ Śaka-kālam* (i.e. Śaka 427). See also references to *Śakendra-kāla* and *Śaka-bhūpa-kāla* in the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā*, VIII, 20-21.

c15.t7.27

¹ Cf. Bhandarkar's List, No. 1105; also No. 30.

c15.t7.28

The Śaka era was used by the successive ruling families of the Kannaḍa-speaking area of the South-Western Deccan, which flourished after the Cālukyas of Bādāmi. During the age of the Cālukyas, the use of the era spread, apparently from the said region, to the lands beyond the Bay of Bengal, the earliest inscriptions of Indo-China and Indonesia dated in this era belonging respectively to the 7th and 8th centuries A.D. In the 10th century A.D., the use of the Śaka era was adopted by the Eastern Cālukyas of Veṅgī in the Telugu-speaking territory from their western neighbours, viz. the Rāṣṭrakūṭa successors of the Cālukyas of Bādāmi. About the same time, it was also adopted by the Eastern Gaṅgas of Kaliṅganagara (modern Mukhalingam near Srikakulam), who originally used the Gaṅga era, from their western neighbours, the Eastern Cālukyas of Veṅgī. These Eastern Gaṅgas later extended their power over the whole of Coastal Orissa and the south-western part of Bengal. But the popularity of the Śaka era in Bengal was mainly due to the growth of Sena power in the twelfth century, the Senas having hailed from the Kannada-speaking area. Similarly, the spread of the use of the Śaka era in North Bihar was primarily due to the establishment of the Karṇāṭa house of Nānyadeva in Mithilā about the end of the 11th century. From Bengal and North Bihar, the use of the era spread to Assam. There are a few instances of the use of the said era by the Bengalis and Biharis before the advent respectively of the Senas and the Karṇāṭas of Mithilā. Thus Śrīdhara, an inhabitant of Dakṣiṇa-Rāḍha in South-West Bengal, wrote his *Nyāyakandalī* in Śaka 913 (991 A.D.). But there is no proof that the work was written in Bengal and not in an area where the use of the Śaka era had already become popular.¹ The Valgudar (Monghyr District, Bihar) inscription is dated in Śaka 1083 (1161 A.D.). But it is a private record and the persons responsible for it may have settled in the locality from an area where the era was in popular use.² The same may be the case with the Govindapur (Gaya District) inscription³ of Śaka 1059 (1137 A.D.), though the date of this record as well as that of the Valgudar inscription is later than the introduction of the Śaka era in Bengal and North Bihar.

c15.t7.29

¹ See *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXIX, p. 53 and note.

c15.t7.30

² See ibid., Vol. XXVIII, pp. 143-44.

c15.t7.31

³ Bhandarkar’s List, No. 1105.

c15.t7.32

In Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the use of the Kaniṣka era (later known as the Śaka era) was continued for sometime by the Maghas of Kauśāmbī⁴ and kings like Ārya-Viśākhamitra of the Kailvan inscription.⁵ From the Bihar-U.P. area, the use of the Śaka era seems to have spread to Nepal where the dates of the Licchavi inscriptions should probably be referred to this era.⁶ But the popularity of the Gupta era of 319 A.D., introduced by the Imperial Guptas of Magadha, soon led to its disappearance in the central and eastern areas of Northern India.

c15.t7.33

⁴ Cf. *Select Inscriptions*, p. 365, note.

c15.t7.34

⁵ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXXI, pp. 229 ff.

c15.t7.35

⁶ See *Select Inscriptions*, p. 366, note 1; below, pp. 271, 279.

c15.t7.36

The use of the Śaka era in some inscriptions of Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat¹ is explained by the fact that the areas came under the influence of the imperial dynasties of the Karṇāṭa-speaking region while most of the rulers using it in Gujarat were of Karṇāṭa origin. But there are some cases of the use of the Śaka era in areas outside its usual sphere, e.g. in the Deogarh (Jhansi District, U.P.) inscription² of Śaka 784 (862 A.D.) and the Baijnath (Kangra District, Punjab) inscription³ of Śaka 1126. These appear to be due to the influence of outsiders.

c15.t7.37

¹ Cf. Bhandarkar’s List, Nos. 1082-83, 1086, 1088, 1089, etc.

c15.t7.38

² Ibid., No. 1085.

c15.t7.39

³ Ibid., No. 1084. The date was wrongly read as 726.

c15.t7.40

There are conflicting traditions about the origin of the Śaka era. Works like the *Muhūrtamārtaṇḍa* suggest that it started from the birth of Śālivāhana⁴ while Jinaprabha-sūri’s *Kalpa-pradīpa* (c. 1300 A.D.) states that Śātavāhana (Śālivāhana) started it after having defeated king Vikramāditya of Ujjayinī and having established himself as the king of Pratiṣṭhāna.⁵ According to another tradition recorded by Al-Bīrūnī, Vikramāditya started the era after having defeated the Śaka king.⁶ Such traditions have of course no historical basis at all. The association of king Vikramāditya, originally of North Indian tradition, with the Vikrama-saṃvat led the people of the South to fabricate the relation of Śātavāhana or Śālivāhana, a similar hero of South Indian tradition and folklore, with the other early era popular in the South.

c15.t7.41

⁴ Alaṅkāra, verse 3.

c15.t7.42

⁵ *JBBRAS*, Vol. X, pp. 132-33.

c15.t7.43

⁶ Sachau, *Alberuni’s India*, Part II, p. 6.

c15.t7.44

To get the equivalent in the Christian era, one has to add 78-79 to the years of the Śaka era. The era is popular in the land to the south of the Narmadā, where the year begins on Caitra-sudi 1 and the months are Amānta. But, in the areas of the South where solar months are in use, the year begins from the Meṣa-saṅkrānti. The years of the Śaka era are generally counted as expired. The reckoning is commonly mentioned also in the North Indian almanacs, though there the months are regarded as Pūrṇimānta.

c15.t7.45

The Christian era alone continued to be the official reckoning of the Government of India for about a decade after the achievement of independence in 1947. In November 1952, a committee was appointed to examine the different calendars in use in different parts of India and to submit proposals for an accurate and uniform calendar for the whole country. As a result of the committee’s report submitted in 1955, the Government adopted the Śaka era in addition to the Christian era and introduced a reformed calendar from March 22, 1957. According to this calendar, the year begins on Caitra 1, and the 12 months have fixed numbers of days as in the Christian calendar. Thus the months of Caitra, Vaiśākha, Jyaiṣṭha, Āṣāḍha, Śrāvaṇa and Bhādra have each 31 days while Āśvina, Kārttika, Agrahāyana, Pauṣa, Māgha and Phālguna have each 30 days. Phālguna has 31 days in a leap year. According to this reformed calendar of the Government of India, the Śaka year 1881 began on Caitra 1 corresponding to March 22 (Sunday), 1959 A.D.

Linked texts (7)