________________
208
intended as current. And, in the same way, the Tamil Siriya-Panchangam, for the following year, published at Madras, gives the solar period from the 12th April, A.D. 1887, to the 11th April, A.D. 1888, as being the Sarvajit samvatsara, and as corresponding to Seka-Samvat 1810, Kaliyuga-Samvat 4989, and Vikrama-Samvat" 1935, which, similarly, are not specified as either current or expired, but can only be intended as current. And, from other indications, there seems to be no doubt that, of these two practices of Southern India, thus illustrated, the popular and generally current one is the latter one, by which the period A.D. 1886-87, is quoted as SakaSamvat 1809; the reckoning, in this and the other eras, being thus, at first sight, one year in advance of the customary reckoning of Northern and Western India.
The difference, however, is only an apparent one; and is due to the evident fact that the Madras reckoning has preserved the system of current years, while the other is regulated by expired years. But it is almost always the reckoning of Northern and Western India that is now quoted. And the years of it, though really expired years, are not distinctly and habitually quoted as such. And hence there is a general understanding that, as between the Saka and the Christian eras, the additive quantity, to be applied to the former, is 78-79;19 and that the epoch or year 0 of the Saka era, is the period from the 3rd March, A.D. 78, to the 20th February, 11 Here the 3 in the tens place must be a mistake for 4.
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
1 It would appear that the Tamil Vakya-Panchangam, published at Madras, gives the solar period from the 12th April, A.D. 1887, to the 10th April A.D. 1888, as being the Sarvajit sanivaten ra, and as corresponding to Saka-Samvat 1809, Kaliyuga-Samvat 4988, aud VikramaSamvat 1945; all of which are distinctly specified as current. But this cannot possibly be correct, in respect of the Saka and Kaliyuga years.
13 Thus, even Dr. K. G. Bhandarkar,-through whose "Note on the Saka Dates and the Years of the Barhaspatya Cycle, occurring in the Inscriptions" (Early History of the Dekkan, p. 105ff.) my attention was first drawn to the desirability of examining the details of the almanacs, has written (id. p. 99; the italics are his) 191 Gupta past + 242-433 Saka current + 78511 A.D. current 209 Gupta past + 242451 Saka current + 78529 A.D. current." I myself had the same view, till not very long ago. Other writers could easily be shewn to have lain under the same misconception. And Dr. Burnell even went so far as to say (South-Indian Paleography, p. 72, note) "the rough equation for converting this era into the Christian date, is+781. The beginning of the year being at the March equinox; if the Saka atita" (i.e. expired) "year be mentioned, the equation is + 794."
1 I owe these four dates to Mr. Sh. B. Dikshit. Gen. Cunningham (Indian Eras, p. 139) gives from the 14th March, A.D. 78, to the 17th February, A.D. 79 and from the 19th February, A.D. 79, to the 8th March, A.D. 80. But a comparison of his initial days for the epoch and the first year, shews at once that there is some mistake. The 18th February is twenty-four days
[JULY, 1888.
A.D. 79, both included; and its commencement, or first current year, the period from the 21st February, A.D. 79, to the 10th March, A.D. 80, both included. This, however, really gives current Christian years, equivalent to expired Saka years. It is evident from the details given above regarding Saka-Samvat 1808 and 1809, that, according to the reckoning of the era as fixed by the early astronomers, and as preserved to the present day, the true epoch is A.D. 77-78, and the period from the 3rd March, A.D. 78, to the 20th February, A.D. 79, is in reality the commencement, or first current year; and that, to obtain current Christian years, equivalent to current Baka years, the true additive quantity is 77-78. But, of course, there is always the possibility that, if ever we obtain a date, with full details for calculation, in a very early Saka year, or in one of the very earliest of the regnal or dynastic years which afterwards developed into the Saka era, this exact equation may not hold good; in consequence of the date belonging to a period anterior to the adoption of the era by the astro
nomers.
The Baka era is emphatically one of the eras that originated in an extension of regnal or dynastic years. The chief Hinda tradition about it, is, that it was founded in celebration of a defeat of the Saka king by the king Vikrama or Vikramaditya who is also the supposed founder of the Vikrama era, commencing a hundred and thirty-five years earlier. 15 This tradition is earlier than the 14th March; whereas the difference should be only eleven days. Mr. C. Patell (Chronology, p. 96) does not give the initial day of the epoch; but gives, in the same way, the period from the 18th February, A.D. 79, to the 8th March, A.D. 80, for the first
year.
15 Another tradition (e.g. Prinsep's Essays, Vol. II. Useful Tables, p. 154) is that the era dates from the birth of Salivahana, king of Pratishthana, who opposed Vikramaditya, king of Ujjayint. But the introduction of the name of Salivahana in connection with the era, is of comparatively modern date, the earliest instance that I have succeeded in obtaining, being one of the thirteenth century A.D.; and the epigraphical instances speak of the year as having been established, settled, or decided' (nirnita) by Salivahana, but not as running from his birth (see ante, Vol. XII. p. 214f.).-A passage to the latter effect has been quoted by Prof. Max Müller (India; What can it teach us? p. 300 f.). from the Muhartabhuvanonmartanda of Narayana, which means "in the year measured by three, the (nine) numerals, and the (fourteen) Indras, from the birth of Salivahana (i.e. in Saka-Samvat 1493), in (the month) Tapas (Magha), this Martanda was composed."-As Prof. Max Müller has pointed out, in his comments on this passage, it is not exactly wrong to speak of the era as the Salivahana-Saka or Salivahana era; for there are ample instances in which the Hindus give it that name, in epigraphical records of authority and of some antiquity. At the same time, those instances shew that it was only in comparatively modern times that the name of Salivahana came to be connected with the era. And in all discussions respecting early dates, it is an anachronism, and a mistake, to call the era by his name.
