The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s9: Appendix B. Note on the S'aka Dates and the Years of the Barhaspatya Cycle, Occurring in the Inscriptions

The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s9

Language: English

Appendix B. Note on the S'aka Dates and the Years of the Barhaspatya Cycle, Occurring in the Inscriptions

c8.s9.2

THERE are certain difficulties with reference to the S'aka dates and the cyclic years or *Samvatsaras* occurring in the inscriptions which require to be cleared up. The current S'aka year (A.D. 1883-84) in the Bombay Presidency is 1805, and the year of the sixty years' cycle, *Subhânu*. In the southern provinces and the Madras Presidency the current S'aka 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?"* We have also to consider whether the S'aka 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.

c8.s9.3

Mr. Robert Sewell of the Madras Civil Service gives in the first column of the Chronological Tables compiled by him the number of the S'aka years that have expired before the beginning of the cyclic year set against it in the same line in the third column. The current S'aka year corresponding to that cyclic year is the one given in the next line in the first column. Thus against S'aka 855, the date of the Sângalî grant of Govind IV. of the Râshtrakûta dynasty, we have in the third column the cyclic year *Vijaya* which shows that 855 years of the S'aka era had expired before the *Vijaya* year began, while the current S'aka 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 S'aka 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 S'aka 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 S'aka dates and cyclic years occurring in the inscriptions with those in the tables we shall be able to determine the points raised above.

c8.s9.4

In the analysis of Pâli, Sanskrit, and old Kânarese inscriptions published by Dr. Fleet and Dr. Burgess there are 97 cases in which the S'aka 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 S'aka date occurs in the same line with the cyclic year mentioned in the inscription. These are :—

c8.s9.5

∗ 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 Saka 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 S'aka 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 S'aka for the current year" (in 1883-84); so that there is no possibility whatever of anybody misunderstanding my meaning.

c8.s9.6

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.

c8.s9.7

Thus in inscription No. 20, the date given is 1200, and the cyclic year the *Bahudhânya*, both of which occur in the same line set against each other in the tables.

c8.s9.8

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 :—

c8.s9.9

Nos. 19, 22, 26, 33, 34, 47, 72, 89, 91, 95, 96 (first part), 96 (second part), 100, 110, 111, 112, 118 (first part), 118 (second part), 146, 151 194, 227, 230 (second part), 231, 234, 236, 237, 281.

c8.s9.10

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.

c8.s9.11

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* S'aka year, there is a large number in which the *current* year is given and not the *past*.

c8.s9.12

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

c8.s9.13

| | S'aka date. | Cyclic year. | What the S'aka date represents. |
| Kânarese grant of Govinda III. Râshṭrakûṭa ... ... | 726 | Subhânu ... | Current year. |
| Râdhânpur grant of do. ... | 730 | Sarvajit ... | Do. |
| Krishna II or Akâlavarsha, completion of the Jaina Purâṇa ... | 820 | Piṅgala ... | Do. |
| Do., in a Jaina temple by Chi-kârya ... ... ... | 824 | Dundubhi ... | Years elapsed. |
| Govinda IV., Sâṅgalî grant ... | 855 | Vijaya ... | Do. |
| Kakkala, Kardâ grant ... | 894 | Aṅgiras ... | Do. |
| Tailapa's accession ... | 895 | S'rîmukha ... | Do. |
| Satyâśraya, Khârepâṭaṇ plates of Raṭṭa ... ... ... | 930 | Kîlaka ... | Do. |
| Jayasimha Jagadekamalla, Miraj grant ... ... ... | 946 | Raktâkshi ... | Do. |
| Mârasimha Silâhâra of Kolhâpur, grant ... ... ... | 980 | Vilambin ... | Do. |

c8.s9.14

c8.s9.15

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.

c8.s9.16

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, S'aka 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 S'aka 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 S'aka 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 S'aka dates are in advance of the Samvatsara or cyclic year by one year. Thus in the Vani-Diṇḍori grant of Govinda III. the S'aka date is 730 and the Samvatsara Vyaya, and in the Kânheri inscription of Amoghavarsha we have S'aka 775 and the Prajâpati Samvatsara. Now the S'aka 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 Pâli, 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.

c8.s9.17

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 expired*.

Linked texts (1)

Kanheri Inscription (No. 15) — Sanskrit