Early History of the Dekkan down to the Mahomedan Conquest c24: Appendix B

Early History of the Dekkan down to the Mahomedan Conquest c24

Language: English

Appendix B

c24.1

*Note on the Śaka dates and the years of the Bārhaspatya cycle occurring in the Inscriptions*

There are certain difficulties with reference to the Śaka dates and the cyclic years or Saṁvatsaras occurring in the inscriptions which require to be cleared up. The current Śaka year (A. D. 1883-84) in the Bombay Presidency is 1805, and the year of the sixty years' cycle, Subhānu. In the southern provinces and the Madras Presidency the current Śaka year is 1806, the cyclic year being the same. The first question, then, is, "Do the dates in the inscriptions conform to the Bombay reckoning or the Madras reckoning?" and the next, "What is the cause of this difference of a year?"¹ We have also to consider whether the Śaka dates in the inscriptions represent the number of years *that have expired* before the event recorded in them or the *current* year in which the event took place.

c24.3

¹ * It will be obvious to any careful reader that the manner in which the question here proposed for solution is stated, is based upon the ordinary view that Śaka 1805 was the current year in 1883-84. I have no right to assume in the beginning of my inquiry that the ordinary view is mistaken, and it would be unscientific to do so. But having stated the question in that manner, I come at the end of my inquiry to the conclusion that the ordinary view is incorrect, and that 1805 Śaka was *not current* in 1883-84 A. D. but *past*, and that the Madras way of understanding the matter alone is correct. In the previous note also I have stated that "we now mistake the year 1805 Śaka for the *current* year" (in 1883-84). So that there is no possibility whatever of any body misunderstanding my meaning.

c24.4

Mr Robert Sewell of the Madras Civil Service gives in the first column of the Chronological Tables compiled by him the number of the Śaka years that have expired before the beginning of the cyclic year set against it in the same line in the third column The current Śaka year corresponding to that cyclic year is the one given in the next line in the first column Thus against Śaka 855, the date of the Sângalî grant of Govind IV of the Râshṭrakûṭa dynasty, we have in the third column the cyclic year *Vijaya* which shows that 855 years of the Śaka era *had expired* before the *Vijaya* year began, while the current Śaka year corresponding to *Vijaya* was that given in the next line, *viz* 856 Mr Sewell follows the Madras reckoning If we interpret the tables according to the Bombay mode, the Śaka year appearing in the first column will be the current year corresponding to the cyclic year in the same line in the third column, while the number in the line immediately above will represent the years that have expired before the beginning of that cyclic year Thus against 1805, the current Śaka year on this side of the country, we have in the third column the current cyclic year *Subhânu*, while 1804 in the line above shows the number of years that have expired By comparing the Śaka dates and cyclic years occurring in the inscriptions with those in the tables we shall be able to determine the points raised above

c24.5

In the analysis of Pâli, Sanskrit, and old Kânarese inscriptions published by Dr Fleet and Dr Burgess there are 97 cases in which the Śaka date as well as the cyclic year are distinctly given On comparing these with the tables I observe that in 58 out of these the given Śaka date occurs in the same line with the cyclic year mentioned in the inscription These are —

c24.6

[133] Nos 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 38, 52, 70, 87, 88, 90, 92, 98, 99, 101, 102, 109, 114, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 134, 136, 141, 148, 149, 150, 154 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 183, 189, 201, 214, 215, 219, 229, 230 (first part), 240, 241 243, 283, 286

c24.7

Thus in inscription No 20, the date given is 1209, and the cyclic year the Bahudhânya, both of which occur in the same line set against each other in the tables

c24.8

In 28 cases the S'aka date given in the inscription occurs in the tables in the line below that in which the given cyclic year occurs These are —

c24.9

Nos 19, 22, 26, 33, 34, 47, 72, 89, 91, 95, 96 (first part), 96 (second part), 109, 110, 111, 112, 118 (first part), 118 (second part), 146, 151, 194, 227, 230 (second part), 231, 234, 236, 237, 281

c24.10

In No 19, for instance, the S'aka date is 1184 and the cyclic year Durmati In the tables, Durmati occurs in the upper line set against 1183, and 1184 is in the line below, and Dundubhi is the year marked against it

c24.11

Now on the supposition that the inscriptions conform to the Madras reckoning, in the first 58 cases the S'aka date represents the number of S'aka years that had expired before the current cyclic year of the inscription and in 28 it shows the current year of that era If we suppose the Bombay reckoning to have been in use, the dates in the first 58 cases will represent the current year and those in the next 28, the *future* year and not the *past* But since it is almost absurd to suppose that the immediately next year should be stated in the inscriptions, it follows that the Madras mode of reckoning was the one in use The objection, however, may be obviated by supposing that these 28 cases conform to the Madras reckoning and give the current year, while the first 58 follow the Bombay mode. But this supposition is not reasonable or probable, since these groups are not confined to particular provinces, and often one of the former exists in the same district or even place with one of the latter. We thus see that though in the majority of cases the inscriptions give the past Saka year, there is a large number in which the current year is given and not the past.

c24.12

I have also compared other dates with the tables, and the result I give below:—

c24.13

c24.14

c24.15

Out of these 24 dates, eight give the current year and the rest the years that had expired, the proportion being the same as in the other case, *viz* 1 to 2 In all cases in which the cyclic year is given it is possible to determine whether the date represents the current or past year, but not in others The inscriptions of the early Châlukyas do not give it, and hence the exact date remains doubtful

c24.16

Now the Bombay mode of reckoning, which is one year behind that prevalent in Madras, is, I believe, due to a mistake We have seen it was more usual in recording a date to mark the years that had expired than the current year A word expressive of that sense such as *gateshu*, "having elapsed," was used after the number, and another such as *pravartamâne*, "being current," was used in connection with the name of the cyclic year These words were, for brevity's sake, afterwards dropped, and in the course of time the sense, to express which they were used, was also forgotten, and the number came to be regarded as denoting the current year. So that what we do on this side of the country is that we use the *past* or *expired* year without knowing that it is the *past* year. And there are in the inscriptions instances of mistakes due to the circumstance that the real *past* year came to be regarded as the current year. Thus in No. 86 of the Pâli, Sanskrit, and old Kânarese inscriptions, Śaka 911 is given along with the cyclic year *Vikṛiti*. Now, according to the tables, the number of years that had expired before *Vikṛiti* was 912 and the current year was 913. This discrepancy is to be explained by the supposition that Śaka 912 which represented the years that had expired came to be thought of as the current year, just as we, on this side of the country, consider 1805 as the current year now, though it indicates the past year, and the writer of the inscription wishing to give the years that had expired before his current year, put them as 911. The same is the case with Nos. 27, 67, 115, 130, 224, and 284, the Śaka dates in which are 1444, 1084, 1430, 1453, 1114, and 1128, respectively, and are two years behind the current year as determined by the cyclic years given along with them. In some cases the Śaka dates are in advance of the *Saṁvatsara* or cyclic year by one year. Thus in the Vaṇi-Ḍiṇḍorî grant of Govinda III. the Śaka date is 730 and the Saṁvatsara *Vyaya*, and in the Kânheri inscription of Amoghavarsha we have Śaka 775 and the *Prajâpati* Saṁvatsara. [135] Now the Śaka years immediately preceding Vyaya and Prajâpati were 728 and 773, while the current years were 729 and 774 respectively. This difference might be accounted for on the supposition that the *current* years 729 and 774 were from the usual custom understood to be past years and the writers of the documents desirous of giving the current years added 1 and put them down as 730 and 775 The date in No 79 of Pâlî, Sanskrit, and old Kânarese inscriptions is three years behind the current Samvatsara, and that in No 228, four years, No 221 has 1113 for 1121, and No 246, 1492 for 1485 These must be considered to be mistakes

c24.17

The S'aka dates given in the preceding pages represent in most cases the years that had expired before the particular occurrences mentioned Thus "in 855" means after 855 years of the S'aka era had

Linked texts (1)

Kanheri Inscription (No. 15) — Sanskrit