This reckoning is not an historical era, actually running from 3102B.C.It was devised for astronomical purposes at some time aboutA.D.400, when the Hindu astronomers, having taken over the principles of the Greek astronomy, recognized that they required for purposes of computation a specific reckoning with a definite initial occasion. They found that occasion in a conjunction of the sun, the moon, and the five planets which were then known, at the first point of their sign Mēsha. There was not really such a conjunction; nor, apparently, is it even the case that the sun was actually at the first point of Mēsha at the moment arrived at. But there was an approach to such a conjunction, which was turned into an actual conjunction by taking the mean instead of the true positions of the sun, the moon, and the planets. And, partly from the reckoning which has come down to us, partly from the astronomical books, we know that the moment assigned to the assumed conjunction was according to one school the midnight between Thursday the 17th, and Friday the 18th, February, 3102B.C., and according to another school the sunrise on the Friday.The reckoning thus devised was subsequently identified with the Kaliyuga as the iron age, the last and shortest, with a duration of 432,000 years, of the four ages in each cycle of ages in the Hindu system of cosmical periods. Also, traditional history was fitted to it by one school, represented notably by the Purāṇas, which, referring the great war between the Pāṇḍavas and the Kurus, which is the topic of the Mahābhārata, to the close of the preceding age, the Dvāpara, placed on the last day of that age the culminating event which ushered in the Kali age; namely, the death of Kṛishṇa (the return to heaven of Vishṇu on the termination of his incarnation as Kṛishṇa), which was followed by the abdication of the Pāṇḍava king Yudhishṭhira, who, having installed his grand-nephew Parikshit as his successor, then set out on his own journey to heaven. Another school, however, placed the Pāṇḍavas and the Kurus 653 years later, in 2449B.C.A third school places in 3102B.C.the anointment of Yudhishṭhira to the sovereignty, and treats that event as inaugurating the Kali age; from this point of view, the first 3044 years of the Kaliyuga—the period from its commencement in 3102B.C.to the commencement of the first historical era, the so-called Vikrama era, in 58B.C.—are also known as “the era of Yudhishṭhira.”
This reckoning is not an historical era, actually running from 3102B.C.It was devised for astronomical purposes at some time aboutA.D.400, when the Hindu astronomers, having taken over the principles of the Greek astronomy, recognized that they required for purposes of computation a specific reckoning with a definite initial occasion. They found that occasion in a conjunction of the sun, the moon, and the five planets which were then known, at the first point of their sign Mēsha. There was not really such a conjunction; nor, apparently, is it even the case that the sun was actually at the first point of Mēsha at the moment arrived at. But there was an approach to such a conjunction, which was turned into an actual conjunction by taking the mean instead of the true positions of the sun, the moon, and the planets. And, partly from the reckoning which has come down to us, partly from the astronomical books, we know that the moment assigned to the assumed conjunction was according to one school the midnight between Thursday the 17th, and Friday the 18th, February, 3102B.C., and according to another school the sunrise on the Friday.
The reckoning thus devised was subsequently identified with the Kaliyuga as the iron age, the last and shortest, with a duration of 432,000 years, of the four ages in each cycle of ages in the Hindu system of cosmical periods. Also, traditional history was fitted to it by one school, represented notably by the Purāṇas, which, referring the great war between the Pāṇḍavas and the Kurus, which is the topic of the Mahābhārata, to the close of the preceding age, the Dvāpara, placed on the last day of that age the culminating event which ushered in the Kali age; namely, the death of Kṛishṇa (the return to heaven of Vishṇu on the termination of his incarnation as Kṛishṇa), which was followed by the abdication of the Pāṇḍava king Yudhishṭhira, who, having installed his grand-nephew Parikshit as his successor, then set out on his own journey to heaven. Another school, however, placed the Pāṇḍavas and the Kurus 653 years later, in 2449B.C.A third school places in 3102B.C.the anointment of Yudhishṭhira to the sovereignty, and treats that event as inaugurating the Kali age; from this point of view, the first 3044 years of the Kaliyuga—the period from its commencement in 3102B.C.to the commencement of the first historical era, the so-called Vikrama era, in 58B.C.—are also known as “the era of Yudhishṭhira.”
The Vikrama era, which is the earliest of all the Hindu eras in respect of order of foundation, is the dominant era and the great historical reckoning of Northern India—that is, of the territory on the north of the rivers NarbadāThe Vikrama Era of 58B.C.and Mahānadī—to which part of the country its use has always been practically confined. Like, indeed, the Kaliyuga and Śaka eras, it is freely cited in almanacs in any part of India; and it is sometimes used in the south by immigrants from the north: but it is, by nature, so essentially foreign to the south that the earliest known inscriptional instance of the use of it in Southern India only dates fromA.D.1218, and the very few later instances that have been obtained, prior to the 15th centuryA.D., come, along with the instance ofA.D.1218, from the close neighbourhood of the dividing-line between the north and the south. The Vikrama era has never been used for astronomical purposes. Its years are lunar, with lunar months, but seem liable to be sometimes regarded as solar, with solar months, when they are cited in almanacs of Southern India which present the solar calendar. Originally they were Kārtti-kādi, withpūrṇimāntamonths (ending with the full-moon). They now exist in the following three varieties: in Kāṭhiāwār and Gujarāt, they are chiefly Kārttikādi, withamāntamonths (ending with the new-moon); and they are shown in this form in almanacs for the other parts of the Bombay Presidency; but there is also found in Kāṭhiāwār and that neighbourhood an Āshāḍhādi variety, commencing with Āshāḍha śukla I, similarly withamāntamonths; in the rest of Northern India, they are Chaitrādi, withpūrṇimāntamonths. The era has its initial point in 58B.C., and its first civil day, Kārttika śukla I, is 19th September in that year if we determine it with reference to the Hindu Tulā-saṁkrānti, or 18th October if we determine it with reference to the tropical equinox. The years of the three varieties, Chaitrādi, Āshaḍhādi, and Kārttikādi, all commence in the same yearA.D.; and the year 1958 began inA.D.1900.
Hindu legend connects the foundation of this era with a king Vikrama or Vikramāditya of Ujjain in Mālwā, Central India: one version is that he began to reign in 58B.C.; another is that he died in that year, and that the reckoning commemorates his death. Modern research, however, based largely on the inscriptional records, has shown that there was no such king, and that the real facts are very different. The era owes its existence to the Kushan king Kaṇishka, a foreign invader, who established himself in Northern India and commenced to reign there inB.C.58.8He was the founder of it, in the sense that the opening years of it were the years of his reign. It was established and set going as an era by his successor, who continued the reckoning so started, instead of breaking it by introducing another according to his own regnal years. And it was perpetuated as an era, and transmitted as such to posterity by the Mālavas, the people from whom the modern territory Mālwā derived its name, who were an important section of the subjects of Kaṇishka and his successors. In consonance with that, records ranging in date fromA.D.473 to 879 style it “the reckoning of the Mālavas, the years of the Mālava lords, the Mālava time or era.” Prior to that, it had no specific name; the years of it were simply cited, in ordinary Hindu fashion, by the termsaṁvatsara, “the year (of such-and-such a number),” or by its abbreviationssaṁvatandsaṁ: and the same was frequently done in later times also, and is habitually done in the present day; and so, in modern times, this era has often been loosely styled “the Saṁvat era.” The idea of a king Vikrama in connexion with it appears to date from only the 9th or 10th centuryA.D.
Hindu legend connects the foundation of this era with a king Vikrama or Vikramāditya of Ujjain in Mālwā, Central India: one version is that he began to reign in 58B.C.; another is that he died in that year, and that the reckoning commemorates his death. Modern research, however, based largely on the inscriptional records, has shown that there was no such king, and that the real facts are very different. The era owes its existence to the Kushan king Kaṇishka, a foreign invader, who established himself in Northern India and commenced to reign there inB.C.58.8He was the founder of it, in the sense that the opening years of it were the years of his reign. It was established and set going as an era by his successor, who continued the reckoning so started, instead of breaking it by introducing another according to his own regnal years. And it was perpetuated as an era, and transmitted as such to posterity by the Mālavas, the people from whom the modern territory Mālwā derived its name, who were an important section of the subjects of Kaṇishka and his successors. In consonance with that, records ranging in date fromA.D.473 to 879 style it “the reckoning of the Mālavas, the years of the Mālava lords, the Mālava time or era.” Prior to that, it had no specific name; the years of it were simply cited, in ordinary Hindu fashion, by the termsaṁvatsara, “the year (of such-and-such a number),” or by its abbreviationssaṁvatandsaṁ: and the same was frequently done in later times also, and is habitually done in the present day; and so, in modern times, this era has often been loosely styled “the Saṁvat era.” The idea of a king Vikrama in connexion with it appears to date from only the 9th or 10th centuryA.D.
The Śaka era, though it actually had its origin in the south-west corner of Northern India, is the dominant era and the great historical reckoning of Southern India; that is, of the territory below the rivers Narbadā andThe Śaka Era ofA.D.78.Mahānadī. It is also the subsidiary astronomical reckoning, largely used, from the 6th centuryA.D.onwards, in theKaraṇas, the works dealing with practical details of the calendar, for laying down epochs or points of time furnishing convenient bases for computation. As a result of that, it came to be used in past times for general purposes also, to a limited extent, in parts of Northern India where it was not indigenous. And it is now used more or less freely, and is cited in almanacs everywhere. Its years are usually lunar, Chaitrādi, and its months arepūrṇimānta(ending with the full-moon) in Northern India, andamānta(ending with the new-moon) in Southern India; but in times gone by it was sometimes treated for purposes of calculation as having astronomical solar years, and it is now treated as having Mēsh di civil solar years and solar months in those parts of India where that form of the solar calendar prevails. It has its initial point inA.D.78; and its first civil day, Chaitra śukla I, is 3rd Marchin that year, as determined with reference either to the Hindu M’na-saṁkrānti or to the entrance of the sun into the tropical Pisces. The year 1823 began inA.D.1900.
Regarding the origin of the Śaka era, there was current in the 10th and 11th centuriesA.D.a belief which, ignoring the difference of a hundred and thirty-five years between the two reckonings, connected the legendary king Vikrāmaditya of Ujjain, mentioned above under the Vikrama era, with the foundation of this era also. The story runs, from this point of view, that the Śakas were a barbarous people who established themselves in the western and north-western dominions of that king, but were met in battle and destroyed by him, and that the era was established in celebration of that event. The modern belief, however, ascribes the foundation of this era to a king Śālivāhana of Pratishṭhāna, which is the modern Paiṭhaṇ, on the Gōdāvarī, in the Nizam’s dominions. But in this case, again, research has shown that the facts are very different. Like the Vikrama era, the Śaka era owes its existence to foreign invaders. It was founded by the Chhaharāta or Kshaharāta king Nahapāna, who appears to have been a Pahlava or Palhava,i.e.of Parthian extraction, and who reigned fromA.D.78 to about 125.9He established himself first in Kāṭhiāwār, but subsequently brought under his sway northern Gujarāt (Bombay) and Ujjain, and, below the Narbadā, southern Gujarāt, Nāsik and probably Khāndēsh. His capital seems to have been Dōhad, in the Pańch Mahāls. And he had two viceroys: one, named Bhūmaka, of the same family with himself, in Kāṭhiāwār; and another, Chashṭana, son of Ghsamotika, at Ujjain. Soon afterA.D.125, Nahapāna was overthrown, and his family was wiped out, by the Sātavāhana-Sātakarṇi king Gautamīputra-Śrī-Sātakarṇi, who thereby recovered the territories on the south of the Narbadā, and perhaps secured for a time Kāṭhiāwār and some other parts on the north of that river. Very soon, however, Chashṭana, or else his son Jayadāman, established his sway over all the territory which had belonged to Nahapāna on the north of the Narbadā; founded a line of Hinduized foreign kings, who ruled there for more than three centuries; and, continuing Nahapāna’s regnal reckoning, established the era to which the name Śaka eventually became attached. Inscriptions and coins show that, up to at least the second decade of its fourth century, this reckoning had no specific appellation; its years were simply cited, in the usual fashion, asvarsha, “the year (of such-and-such a number).” The reckoning was then taken up by the astronomers. And we find it first called Śakakāla, “the time or era of the Śakas,” in an epochal date, the end of the year 427, falling inA.D.505, which was used by the astronomer Varāhamihira (d.A.D.587) in his Pańchasiddhāntikā. That this name came to be attached to it appears to be due to the points that, along with some of the Pahlavas or Palhavas and the Yavanas or descendants of the Asiatic Greeks, some of the Śakas, the Scythians, had made their way into Kāṭhiāwār and neighbouring parts by aboutA.D.100, and that the Śakas incidentally came to acquire prominence in the memory of the Hindus regarding these occurrences, in such a manner that their name was selected when the occasion arose to devise an appellation for an era the exact origin of which had been forgotten. The name of the imaginary king Sālivāhana first figures in connexion with the era in a record ofA.D.1272, and seems plainly to have been introduced in imitation of the coupling of the name Vikrama, Vikramāditya, with the era ofB.C.58.
That the Śaka era, though it had its origin in the south-west corner of Northern India, is essentially an era of Southern India, is proved by its inscriptional and numismatic history. During the period before the time when it was taken up by the astronomers, it is found only in the inscriptions of Nahapāna, and in the similar records and on the coins of the descendants of Chashṭana. After that same time, it figures first in a record of the Chalukya king Kīrtivarman I., at Bādāmi in the Bijāpūr district, Bombay, which is dated on the full-moon day of the month Kārttika, falling inA.D.578, “when there had elapsed five centuries of the years of the anointment of the Śaka king to the sovereignty.” And from this date onwards the records of a large part of Southern India are mostly dated in this era, by various expressions all of which include the term Śaka or Śāka. In Northern India the case is very different. We have a record dated in the month Kārttika, the Śaka year 631 (expired), falling inA.D.709: it comes from Multāī in the Bētūl district, Central Provinces, that is, from the south of the Narbadā; but it belongs to Gujarāt (Bombay), and perhaps to the north, though more probably to the south, of that province. But, setting that aside, the earliest inscriptional instance of the use of this era in Northern India, outside Kāṭhiāwār and Gujarāt, is found in a record ofA.D.862 at Dēōgaṛh near Lalitpūr, the headquarters town of the Lalitpūr district, United Provinces of Agra and Oude; here, however, the record is primarily dated, with the full details of the month, &c., in “Saṁvat 919,” that is, in the Vikrama year 919; it is only as a subsidiary detail that the Śaka year 784 is given in a separate passage at the end of the record, a sort of postscript. From this date onwards the era is found in other records of Northern India, but to any appreciable extent only fromA.D.1137, and to only a very small extent in comparison with the Vikrama and other northern eras; and the cases in which it was used exclusively there, without being coupled with one or other of the northern reckonings, are still more conspicuously few. In short, the general position is that the Śaka era has been essentially foreign to Northern India until recent times; it was used there quite exceptionally and sporadically, and in very few cases indeed at any appreciable distance from the dividing-line between the north and the south. That it found its way into Northern India, outside Kāṭhiāwār and northern Gujarāt at all, is unquestionably due to its use by the astronomers. It also travelled, across the sea, by the 7th centuryA.D.to Cambodia, and somewhat later to Java; to which parts it was doubtless taken in almanacs, or in invoices, statements of account, &c., by the persons engaged in the trade between Broach and the far east via Tagara (Tēr) and the east coast. It also found its way in subsequent times to Assam and Ceylon, and more recently still to Nēpāl.
That the Śaka era, though it had its origin in the south-west corner of Northern India, is essentially an era of Southern India, is proved by its inscriptional and numismatic history. During the period before the time when it was taken up by the astronomers, it is found only in the inscriptions of Nahapāna, and in the similar records and on the coins of the descendants of Chashṭana. After that same time, it figures first in a record of the Chalukya king Kīrtivarman I., at Bādāmi in the Bijāpūr district, Bombay, which is dated on the full-moon day of the month Kārttika, falling inA.D.578, “when there had elapsed five centuries of the years of the anointment of the Śaka king to the sovereignty.” And from this date onwards the records of a large part of Southern India are mostly dated in this era, by various expressions all of which include the term Śaka or Śāka. In Northern India the case is very different. We have a record dated in the month Kārttika, the Śaka year 631 (expired), falling inA.D.709: it comes from Multāī in the Bētūl district, Central Provinces, that is, from the south of the Narbadā; but it belongs to Gujarāt (Bombay), and perhaps to the north, though more probably to the south, of that province. But, setting that aside, the earliest inscriptional instance of the use of this era in Northern India, outside Kāṭhiāwār and Gujarāt, is found in a record ofA.D.862 at Dēōgaṛh near Lalitpūr, the headquarters town of the Lalitpūr district, United Provinces of Agra and Oude; here, however, the record is primarily dated, with the full details of the month, &c., in “Saṁvat 919,” that is, in the Vikrama year 919; it is only as a subsidiary detail that the Śaka year 784 is given in a separate passage at the end of the record, a sort of postscript. From this date onwards the era is found in other records of Northern India, but to any appreciable extent only fromA.D.1137, and to only a very small extent in comparison with the Vikrama and other northern eras; and the cases in which it was used exclusively there, without being coupled with one or other of the northern reckonings, are still more conspicuously few. In short, the general position is that the Śaka era has been essentially foreign to Northern India until recent times; it was used there quite exceptionally and sporadically, and in very few cases indeed at any appreciable distance from the dividing-line between the north and the south. That it found its way into Northern India, outside Kāṭhiāwār and northern Gujarāt at all, is unquestionably due to its use by the astronomers. It also travelled, across the sea, by the 7th centuryA.D.to Cambodia, and somewhat later to Java; to which parts it was doubtless taken in almanacs, or in invoices, statements of account, &c., by the persons engaged in the trade between Broach and the far east via Tagara (Tēr) and the east coast. It also found its way in subsequent times to Assam and Ceylon, and more recently still to Nēpāl.
III. Other Reckonings
We come now to certain reckonings consisting of cycles, and will take first the cycles of Guru or Bṛihaspati, Jupiter. This planet, a very conspicuous object in eastern skies, requires a period of 4332.6 days, = 50.4 daysThe Cycles of Jupiter.less than twelve Julian years, to make a circuit of the heavens, and has provided the Hindus with two reckonings, each in more than one variety; a cycle of twelve years, and a cycle of sixty years. The years of Jupiter, in all their varieties, are usually styledsaṁvatsara; and it is convenient to use this term here, in order to preserve clearly the distinction between them and the solar and lunar years. Thesaṁvatsarashave no divisions of their own; the months, days, &c., cited with them are those of the ordinary solar or lunar calendar, as the case may be.
The older reckoning of Jupiter appears to be that of the 12-years cycle, which is found in two varieties; in both of them thesaṁvatsarasbear, according to certain rules which need not be explained here, the same names with theThe 12-years Cycle.lunar months, Chaitra, Vaiśākha, &c. In one variety, eachsaṁvatsararuns from one of the planet’s heliacal risings—that is, from the day on which it becomes visible as a morning star on the eastern horizon—to the next such rising; and the length of such asaṁvatsara, according to the Hindu data, is from 392 to 405 days, with an average of 399 days. Inscriptional instances of the use of this cycle are found in six of the Gupta records of Northern India, ranging fromA.D.475 to 528.
In the other variety of the 12-years cycle, which is mentioned in astronomical works from the time of Āryabhaṭa onwards (b.A.D.476), thesaṁvatsarasare regulated by Jupiter’s course with reference to his mean motion and mean longitude: asaṁvatsaraof this variety commences when Jupiter thus enters a sign of the zodiac, and lasts for the time occupied by him in traversing that sign from the same point of view; and the period taken by him to do that—that is, the duration of such asaṁvatsara—is slightly in excess, according to the Hindu data, of 361.02 days, which amount is very close to the actual fact, 361.05 days. Inscriptional instances of the use of this cycle are perhaps found in two records of Southern India of the Kadamba series, belonging to aboutA.D.575.
The 12-years mean-sign cycle seems to be still used in some parts. And the heliacal risings of Jupiter, as also, indeed, those of the other planets, are shown in almanacs for astrological purposes. In either variety, however, the 12-years cycle is now chiefly of antiquarian interest.
The cycle of Jupiter now in general use is a cycle of sixty years, thesaṁvatsarasof which bear certain special names, Prabhava, Vibhava, Śukla, Pramōda, &c., againThe 60-years cycle.in accordance with certain rules which we need not explain here. This cycle exists in three varieties.
According to the original constitution of this cycle, thesaṁvatsarasare determined as in the second or mean-sign variety of the 12-years cycle: eachsaṁvatsaracommences when Jupiter enters a sign of the zodiac with reference to his mean motion and longitude; and it lasts for slightly more than 361.02 days. This variety is traced back in inscriptional records toA.D.602, and is still used in Northern India.
Now, thesaṁvatsarasare calculated by means of the astronomical solar year commencing with the Mēsha-saṁkrānti, the entrance of the sun into the sign Mēsha (Aries). The process gives the number of thesaṁvatsaralast expired before any particular Mēsha-saṁkrānti, with a remainder denoting the portion of the currentsaṁvatsaraelapsed up to the same time; and the remainder, reduced to months, &c., gives the moment of the commencement of the currentsaṁvatsara, by reckoning back from the Mēsha-saṁkrānti. As the result, apparently, of unwillingness to take the trouble to work out the full details, at some time aboutA.D.800 a practice arose, in some quarters, according to which thatsaṁvatsaraof the 60-years cycle which was current at any particular Mēsha-saṁkrānti was taken as coinciding with the astronomical solar year beginning at thatsaṁkrānti, and with the Chaitrādi lunar year belonging to that same solar year. And this practice set up a lunisolar variety of the cycle, in connexion with which we have to notice the following point. While the duration of a mean-signsaṁvatsarais closely about 361.02 days, the length of the Hindu astronomical solar year is closely about 365.258 days. It consequently happens, after every 85 or 86 years, that a mean-signsaṁvatsarabegins and ends between two successive Mēsha-saṁkrāntis. In the mean-sign cycle, such asaṁvatsararetains its existence unaffected; and the names Prabhava, Vibhava, &c., run on without any interruption. According to the lunisolar system, however, the position is different; thesaṁvatsarabeginning and ending between the two Mēsha-saṁkrāntis is expunged or suppressed, in the sense that its name is omitted and is replaced by the next name on the list. The second variety of the 60-years cycle, thus started, ran on alongside of the mean-sign variety, and, being eventually transferred, with that variety, to Northern India, is now known as the northern lunisolar variety. It preserves a connexion between thesaṁvatsarasand the movements of Jupiter: but the connexion is an imperfect one; and both in this variety, and still more markedly in the remaining one still to be described, thesaṁvatsaraspractically became mere appellations for the solar and lunar years.
Meanwhile, just afterA.D.900, another development occurred, and there was started a third variety, which is now known as the southern lunisolar variety. The precise year in which this happened depends on the particular authority that we follow. If we take the elements adopted in the Sūrya-Siddhānta as the proper data for that time and for the locality—Western India below the Narbadā—to which the early history of the cycle belongs, the position was as follows. At the Mēsha-saṁkrānti inA.D.908 there was current, by the mean-sign system, thesaṁvatsaraNo. 2, Vibhava: but No. 4, Pramōda, was current by the same system at the Mēsha-saṁkrānti inA.D.909; and No. 3, Śukla, began and ended between the two Mēsha-saṁkrāntis. Accordingly, No. 2, Vibhava, was the lunisolarsaṁvatsarafor the Mēshādi solar year and the Chaitrādi lunar year commencing inA.D.908; and by the strict lunisolar system, which was adhered to by some people and is now known as the northern lunisolar system, it was followed inA.D.909 by No. 4, Pramōda, the name of the intermediatesaṁvatsara, No. 3, Śukla, being passed over. On the other hand, whether through oversight, or whatever the reason may have been, by other people the name of No. 3, Śukla, was not passed over, but thatsaṁvatsarawas taken as the lunisolarsaṁvatsarafor the Mēshādi solar year and the Chaitrādi lunar year beginning inA.D.909, and No. 4, Pramōda, followed it inA.D.910. On subsequent similar occasions, also, there was, in the same quarters, no passing over of the name of anysaṁvatsara. And this practice established itself in Southern India, to the exclusion there of the mean-sign and the northern lunisolar varieties; the discrepancy between the last-mentioned variety and the variety thus set up continuing, of course, to increase by onesaṁvatsaraafter every 85 or 86 years. In this variety, the southern lunisolar variety, all connexion between thesaṁvatsarasand the movements of Jupiter has now been lost.
The present position of the 60-years cycle in its three varieties may be illustrated thus. In Northern India, by the mean-sign system thesaṁvatsaraNo. 46, Paridhāvin, began, according to different authorities, in August, September or October,A.D.1899. Consequently, by the northern or expunging lunisolar system, that samesaṁvatsara, No. 46, Paridhāvin, coincided with the Mēshādi civil solar year beginning with or just after 12th April, and with the Chaitrādi lunar year beginning with 31st March,A.D.1900. But by the southern or non-expunging lunisolar system those same solar and lunar years were No. 34, Śarvarin.The treatment of the cycles of Jupiter in the Sanskrit books shows that it was primarily from the astrological point of view that they appealed to the Hindus; it was only as a secondary consideration that they acquired anything of a chronological nature. For the practical application of any of them to historical purposes, it is, of course, necessary that, along with the mention of asaṁvatsara, there should always be given the year of some known era, or some other specific guide to the exact period to which thatsaṁvatsarais to be referred. But it is fortunately the case that thesaṁvatsarashave been but rarely cited in the inscriptional records without such a guide, of some kind or another.
The present position of the 60-years cycle in its three varieties may be illustrated thus. In Northern India, by the mean-sign system thesaṁvatsaraNo. 46, Paridhāvin, began, according to different authorities, in August, September or October,A.D.1899. Consequently, by the northern or expunging lunisolar system, that samesaṁvatsara, No. 46, Paridhāvin, coincided with the Mēshādi civil solar year beginning with or just after 12th April, and with the Chaitrādi lunar year beginning with 31st March,A.D.1900. But by the southern or non-expunging lunisolar system those same solar and lunar years were No. 34, Śarvarin.
The treatment of the cycles of Jupiter in the Sanskrit books shows that it was primarily from the astrological point of view that they appealed to the Hindus; it was only as a secondary consideration that they acquired anything of a chronological nature. For the practical application of any of them to historical purposes, it is, of course, necessary that, along with the mention of asaṁvatsara, there should always be given the year of some known era, or some other specific guide to the exact period to which thatsaṁvatsarais to be referred. But it is fortunately the case that thesaṁvatsarashave been but rarely cited in the inscriptional records without such a guide, of some kind or another.
The Saptarshi reckoning is used in Kashmīr, and in the Kāṇgra district and some of the Hill states on the south-east of Kashmir; some nine centuries ago it was also in use in the Punjab, and apparently in Sind. In addition to being cited byThe Saptarshi reckoning.such expressions as Saptarshi-saṁvat, “the year (so-and-so) of the Saptarshis,” and Śāstra-saṁvatsara, “the year (so-and-so) of the scriptures,” it is found mentioned as Lōkakāla, “the time or era of the people,” and by other terms which mark it as a vulgar reckoning. And it appears that modern popular names for it are Pahāṛī-saṁvat and Kachchā-saṁvat, which we may render by “the Hill era” and “the crude era.” The years of this reckoning are lunar, Chaitrādi; and the months arepūrṇimānta(ending with the full-moon). As matters stand now, the reckoning has a theoretical initial point in 3077B.C.; and the year 4976, more usually called simply 76, began inA.D.1900; but there are some indications that the initial point was originally placed one year earlier.
The idea at the bottom of this reckoning is a belief that the Saptarshis, “the Seven Rishis or Saints,” Marīchi and others, were translated to heaven, and became the stars of the constellation Ursa Major, in 3076B.C.(or 3077); and that these stars possess an independent movement of their own, which, referred to the ecliptic, carries them round at the rate of 100 years for eachnakshatraor twenty-seventh division of the circle. Theoretically, therefore, the Saptarshi reckoning consists of cycles of 2700 years; and the numbering of the years should run from 1 to 2700, and then commence afresh. In practice, however, it has been treated quite differently. According to the general custom, which has distinctly prevailed in Kashmīr from the earliest use of the reckoning for chronological purposes, and is illustrated by Kalhaṇa in his history of Kashmīr, theRājataraṁgiṇī, written inA.D.1148-1150, the numeration of the years has been centennial; whenever a century has been completed, the numbering has not run on 101, 102, 103, &c., but has begun again with 1, 2, 3, &c. Almanacs, indeed, show both the figures of the century and the full figures of the entire reckoning, which is treated as running from 3076 B. C., not from 376B.C.as the commencement of a new cycle, the second; thus, an almanac for the year beginning inA.D.1793 describes that year as “the year 4869 according to the course of the Seven Ṛishis, and similarly the year 69.” And elsewhere sometimes the full. figures are found, sometimes the abbreviated ones; thus, while a manuscript written inA.D.1648 is dated in “the year 24” (for 4724), another, written inA.D.1224 is dated in “the year 4300.” But, as in theRājataraṁgiṇī, so also in inscriptions, which range fromA.D.1204 onwards, only the abbreviated figures have hitherto been found. Essentially, therefore, the Saptarshi reckoning is a centennial reckoning, by suppressed or omitted hundreds, with its earlier centuries commencing in 3076, 2976B.C., and so on, and its later centuries commencing inA.D.25, 125, 225, &c.; on precisely the same lines with those according to which we may use,e.g.98 to meanA.D.1798, and 57 to meanA.D.1857, and 9 to meanA.D.1909. And the practical difficulties attending the use of such a system for chronological purposes are obvious; isolated dates recorded in such a fashion cannot be allocated without some explicit clue tothe centuries to which they belong. Fortunately, however, as regards Kashmīr, we have the necessary guide in the facts that Kalhaṇa recorded his own date in the Śaka era as well as in this reckoning, and gave full historical details which enable us to determine unmistakably the equivalent of the first date in this reckoning cited by him, and to arrange with certainty the chronology presented by him from that time.The belief underlying this reckoning according to the course of the Seven Ṛishis is traced back in India, as an astrological detail, to at least the 6th centuryA.D.But the reckoning was first adopted for chronological purposes in Kashmīr and at some time aboutA.D.800; the first recorded date in it is one of “the year 89,” meaning 3889, =A.D.813-814, given by Kalhaṇa. It was introduced into India betweenA.D.925 and 1025.
The idea at the bottom of this reckoning is a belief that the Saptarshis, “the Seven Rishis or Saints,” Marīchi and others, were translated to heaven, and became the stars of the constellation Ursa Major, in 3076B.C.(or 3077); and that these stars possess an independent movement of their own, which, referred to the ecliptic, carries them round at the rate of 100 years for eachnakshatraor twenty-seventh division of the circle. Theoretically, therefore, the Saptarshi reckoning consists of cycles of 2700 years; and the numbering of the years should run from 1 to 2700, and then commence afresh. In practice, however, it has been treated quite differently. According to the general custom, which has distinctly prevailed in Kashmīr from the earliest use of the reckoning for chronological purposes, and is illustrated by Kalhaṇa in his history of Kashmīr, theRājataraṁgiṇī, written inA.D.1148-1150, the numeration of the years has been centennial; whenever a century has been completed, the numbering has not run on 101, 102, 103, &c., but has begun again with 1, 2, 3, &c. Almanacs, indeed, show both the figures of the century and the full figures of the entire reckoning, which is treated as running from 3076 B. C., not from 376B.C.as the commencement of a new cycle, the second; thus, an almanac for the year beginning inA.D.1793 describes that year as “the year 4869 according to the course of the Seven Ṛishis, and similarly the year 69.” And elsewhere sometimes the full. figures are found, sometimes the abbreviated ones; thus, while a manuscript written inA.D.1648 is dated in “the year 24” (for 4724), another, written inA.D.1224 is dated in “the year 4300.” But, as in theRājataraṁgiṇī, so also in inscriptions, which range fromA.D.1204 onwards, only the abbreviated figures have hitherto been found. Essentially, therefore, the Saptarshi reckoning is a centennial reckoning, by suppressed or omitted hundreds, with its earlier centuries commencing in 3076, 2976B.C., and so on, and its later centuries commencing inA.D.25, 125, 225, &c.; on precisely the same lines with those according to which we may use,e.g.98 to meanA.D.1798, and 57 to meanA.D.1857, and 9 to meanA.D.1909. And the practical difficulties attending the use of such a system for chronological purposes are obvious; isolated dates recorded in such a fashion cannot be allocated without some explicit clue tothe centuries to which they belong. Fortunately, however, as regards Kashmīr, we have the necessary guide in the facts that Kalhaṇa recorded his own date in the Śaka era as well as in this reckoning, and gave full historical details which enable us to determine unmistakably the equivalent of the first date in this reckoning cited by him, and to arrange with certainty the chronology presented by him from that time.
The belief underlying this reckoning according to the course of the Seven Ṛishis is traced back in India, as an astrological detail, to at least the 6th centuryA.D.But the reckoning was first adopted for chronological purposes in Kashmīr and at some time aboutA.D.800; the first recorded date in it is one of “the year 89,” meaning 3889, =A.D.813-814, given by Kalhaṇa. It was introduced into India betweenA.D.925 and 1025.
The Grahaparivṛitti is a reckoning which is used in the southernmost parts of Madras, particularly in the Madura district. It consists of cycles of 90 Mēshādi solar years, and is said, in conformity with its name, whichThe Grahaparivṛitti cycle.means “the revolution of planets,” to be made up by the sum of the days in 1 revolution of the sun, 22 of Mercury, 5 of Venus, 15 of Mars, 11 of Jupiter, and 29 of Saturn. The first cycle is held to have commenced in 24B.C., the second inA.D.67, and so on; and, in accordance with that view, the year 34, which began inA.D.1900, was the 34th year of the 22nd cycle.
No inscriptional use of this cycle has come to notice. There seems no substantial reason for believing that the reckoning was really started in 24B.C.The alleged constitution of the cycle, which appears to be correct within about twelve days, and might possibly be made apparently exact, suggests an astrological origin. And, if a guess may be hazarded, we would conjecture that the reckoning is an offshoot of the southern lunisolar variety of the 60-years cycle of Jupiter, and had its real origin in some year in which a Prabhavasamvatsaraof that variety commenced, and to which the first year of a Grahaparivṛitti cycle can be referred: that was the case inA.D.967 and at each subsequent 180th year.
No inscriptional use of this cycle has come to notice. There seems no substantial reason for believing that the reckoning was really started in 24B.C.The alleged constitution of the cycle, which appears to be correct within about twelve days, and might possibly be made apparently exact, suggests an astrological origin. And, if a guess may be hazarded, we would conjecture that the reckoning is an offshoot of the southern lunisolar variety of the 60-years cycle of Jupiter, and had its real origin in some year in which a Prabhavasamvatsaraof that variety commenced, and to which the first year of a Grahaparivṛitti cycle can be referred: that was the case inA.D.967 and at each subsequent 180th year.
In part of the Gañjām district, Madras, there is a reckoning, known as the Oṅko or Aṅka,i.e.literally “the number or numbers,” consisting of lunar years, each commencing with Bhādrapada śukla 12, which run theoreticallyThe Oṅko cycle.in cycles of 59 years. But the reckoning has the peculiarity that, whether the explanation is to be found in a superstition about certain numbers or in some other reason, the year 6, and any year the number of which ends with 6 or 0 (except the year 10), is omitted from the numbering; so that, for instance, the year 7 follows next after the year 5. The origin of the reckoning is not known. But the use of it seems to be traceable in records of the Gaṅga kings who reigned in that part of the country and in Orissa in the 12th and following centuries. And the initial day, Bhādrapada śukla 12, which figures again in the Vilayāti and Amli reckoning of Orissa (see farther on), is perhaps to be accounted for on the view that this day was the day of the anointment, in the 7th century, of the first Gāṅga king, Rājasiṁha-Indravarman I.
In the Chittagong district, Bengal, there is a solar reckoning, known by the name Maghī, of which the year 1262 either began or ended inA.D.1900; so that it has an initial point inA.D.639 or 638. It appears that Chittagong wasThe Maghī reckoning.conquered by the king of Arakan in the 9th century, and remained usually in the possession of the Maghs—the Arakanese or a class of them—tillA.D.1666, when it was finally annexed to the Mogul empire. In these circumstances it is plain that the Magh reckoning took its name from the Maghs; its year, which is Mēshādi, from Bengal; and its numbering from the Sakkarāj, the ordinary era of Arakan and Burma, which has its initial point inA.D.638.
The Hijra (Hegira) era, the reckoning from the flight of Mahomet, which dates from the 16th of July,A.D.662, is, of course, used by the Mahommedans in India, and is customarily shown, with the details of its calendar,Hinduized offshoots of the Hijra era.in the Hindu almanacs. An account of it does not fall within the scope of this article. But we have to mention it because we come now to certain Hinduized reckonings which are hybrid offshoots of it. We need only say, however, in explanation of some of the following figures, that the years of the Hijra era are purely lunar, consisting of twelve lunar months and no more; with the result that the initial day of the year is always travelling backwards through the Julian year, and makes a complete circuit in thirty-four years. The reckonings derived from it, which we have to describe, have apparent initial points inA.D.591, 593, 594, and 600. They had their real origin, however, in the 14th, 16th, and 17th centuries.
The emperor Akbar succeeded to the throne in February,A.D.1556, in the Hijra year 963, which ran from 16th November 1555 to 3rd November 1556. Amongst the reforms aimed at by him and his officials, one was to abolish, or at least minimize, by introducing uniformity of numbering, the confusion due to the existence of various reckonings, both Mahommedan and Hindu. And one step taken in that direction was to assign to the Hindu year the same number with the Hijra year. It is believed that this was first done by the Persian clerks of the revenue and financial offices at an early time in Akbar’s reign, and that it received authoritative sanction in the Hijra year 971 (21st August 1563 to 8th August 1564). At any rate, the innovation was certainly first made in Upper India; and the numbering started there was introduced into Bengal and those parts as Akbar extended his dominions, but without interfering with local customs as to the commencement of the Hindu year. The result is that we now have the following reckonings, the years of which are used as revenue years:—
In the United Provinces and the Punjab, there is an Āśvinādi lunar reckoning, known as the Fasli, according to which the year 1308 began inA.D.1900; so that the reckoning has an apparent initial point inA.D.593. The name of thisThe Fasli reckoning of Upper India.reckoning is derived fromfaṣl, “a harvest,” of which there are two; thefaṣl-i-rabīor “spring harvest,” commencing in February, and thefaṣl-i-kharīf, or “autumn harvest” commencing in October. The years of this reckoning begin with thepūrṇimāntaĀśvina krishna 1, which now falls in September. A peculiar feature of it is that, though the months are lunar, they are not divided into fortnights, and the numbering of the days runs on, as in the Mahommedan month, from the first to the end of the month without being affected by any expunction and repetition oftithis; and, for this and other reasons, it seems that in this case a new form of Hindu year was devised, of such a kind as to enable the agriculturists to realize their produce and pay their assessments comfortably within the year. The Hijra era has, of course, now drawn somewhat widely away from this and the other reckonings derived from it; the Hijra year commencing inA.D.1900 was 1318, ten years in advance of the Fasli year.In Orissa and some other parts of Bengal, there is a reckoning, or two almost identical reckonings, the facts of which are not quite clear. According to one account, the term Amli-san, “the official year,” is only another name of the Vilāyati-san,The Vilāyati-san and Amli-san of Orissa.“the year received from thevilāyator province of Hindustān.” But we are also told that the Vilāyati-san is a Kanyādi solar year, whereas the Amli-san, though it too has solar months, changes its number on the lunar day Bhādrapada śukla 12 (mentioned above in connexion with the Oṅko cycle of Orissa), which comes sometimes in Kanyā, but sometimes in the preceding month, Siṁha. Elsewhere, again, it is the Vilāyati-san which is shown as changing its number on Bhādrapada śukla 12. In either case, the year 1308 of this reckoning, also, began inA.D.1900; and so, like the Fasli of Upper India, this reckoning, too, has an apparent initial point inA.D.593. The day Bhādrapada śukla 12 now usually falls in September, but may come during the last three days of August. The first day of the solar month Kanyā now falls on 15th or 16th September.In Bengal there is in more general use a Mēshādi solar reckoning, known as the Bengāli-san or “Bengal year,” accordingThe Bengāli-san.to which the year 1307 began inA.D.1900; so that this reckoning has an apparent initial point inA.D.594. The initial day of the year is the first day of the solar month Mēsha, now falling on 12th or 13th April.The system of Fasli reckonings was introduced into Southern India under the emperor Shāh Jahān, at some time in the Hijra year 1046, which ran from 26th May,A.D.1636, to 15th May,A.D.1637. But the numbering which was currentThe Fasli of Bombay and Madras.in Northern India was not taken over. A new start was made; and, as the year of the Hijra had gone back, during the intervening seventy-three Julian years, by two years and a quarter (less by only five days) from the date of its commencement in the year 971, the Fasli reckoning of Southern India began with a nominal year 1046 (instead of 971 + 73 = 1044), commencing inA.D.1636. The Fasli reckoning of Southern India exists in two varieties. The years of the Bombay Fasli are popularly known as Mrigasāl years, because they commence when the sun enters thenakshatraMṛigaśiras, which occurs now on 6th or 7th June:the reckoning seems to have taken over this initial day from the Marāṭhā Sūr-san (see below). The Fasli years of Madras originally began at the Karka-saṁkrānti, the nominal summer solstice: under the British government, the commencement of them was first fixed to 12th July, on which day thesaṁkrāntiwas then usually occurring; but it was afterwards changed to 1st July as a more convenient date. The years of the Bombay and Madras Fasli have no division of their own into months, fortnights, &c.; the year is always used along with one or other of the real Hindu reckonings, and the details are cited according to that reckoning.Another offshoot of the Hijra era, but one of earlier date and not belonging to the class of Fasli reckonings, is found, in the Marāṭhā country, in the Sūr-san or Shahūr-san, “the year of months,” also known as Arabī-san, “the Arab year.”The Marāṭhā Sūr-san or Aṙabī-san.This reckoning, which is met with chiefly in oldsanadsor charters, appears to have branched off in or closely about the Hijra year 745, which ran from 15th May,A.D.1344, to 3rd May,A.D.1345; but the exact circumstance in which it originated is not known. The years of this reckoning begin, like those of the Bombay Fasli, with the entrance of the sun into thenakshatraMṛigaśiras, which now occurs on 6th or 7th June; but the months and days are those of the Hijra year. The Sūr-san year 1301 began inA.D.1900; and so the reckoning has an apparent initial point inA.D.600. A peculiarity attending this reckoning is that, whatever may be the vernacular of a clerk, he uses the Arabic numeral words in reading out the year; and the same words are given alongside of the figures in the Hindu almanacs.Authorities.—The Hindu astronomy had already begun to attract attention before the close of the 18th century. The investigation, however, of the calendar and the eras, along with the verification of dates, was started by Warren, whoseKala Sankalitawas published in 1825. The inquiry was carried on by Prinsep in hisUseful Tables(1834-1836), by Cowasjee Patell in hisChronology(1866), and by Cunningham in hisBook of Indian Eras(1883). But Warren’s processes, though mostly giving accurate results, were lengthy and troublesome; and calculations made on the lines laid down by his successors gave results which might or might not be correct, and could only be cited as approximate results. The exact calculation of Hindu dates by easy processes was started by Shankar Balkrishna Dikshit, in an article published in theIndian Antiquary, vol. 16 (1887). This was succeeded by methods and tables devised by Jacobi, which were published in the next volume of the same journal. There then followed several contributions in the same line by other scholars, some for exact, others for closely approximate, results, and some valuable articles by Kielhorn on some of the principal Hindu eras and other reckonings, which were published in the same journal, vols. 17 (1888) to 26 (1897). And the treatment of the matter culminated for the time being in the publication, in 1896, of Sewell and Dikshit’sIndian Calendar, which contains an appendix by Schram on eclipses of the sun in India, and was supplemented in 1898 by Sewell’sEclipses of the Moon in India. The present article is based on the above-mentioned and various detached writings, supplemented by original research. For the exact calculation of Hindu dates and the determination of the European equivalents of them, use may be made either of Sewell and Dikshit’s works mentioned above, or of the improved tables by Jacobi which were published in theEpigraphia Indica, vols. 1 and 2 (1892-1894).
In the United Provinces and the Punjab, there is an Āśvinādi lunar reckoning, known as the Fasli, according to which the year 1308 began inA.D.1900; so that the reckoning has an apparent initial point inA.D.593. The name of thisThe Fasli reckoning of Upper India.reckoning is derived fromfaṣl, “a harvest,” of which there are two; thefaṣl-i-rabīor “spring harvest,” commencing in February, and thefaṣl-i-kharīf, or “autumn harvest” commencing in October. The years of this reckoning begin with thepūrṇimāntaĀśvina krishna 1, which now falls in September. A peculiar feature of it is that, though the months are lunar, they are not divided into fortnights, and the numbering of the days runs on, as in the Mahommedan month, from the first to the end of the month without being affected by any expunction and repetition oftithis; and, for this and other reasons, it seems that in this case a new form of Hindu year was devised, of such a kind as to enable the agriculturists to realize their produce and pay their assessments comfortably within the year. The Hijra era has, of course, now drawn somewhat widely away from this and the other reckonings derived from it; the Hijra year commencing inA.D.1900 was 1318, ten years in advance of the Fasli year.
In Orissa and some other parts of Bengal, there is a reckoning, or two almost identical reckonings, the facts of which are not quite clear. According to one account, the term Amli-san, “the official year,” is only another name of the Vilāyati-san,The Vilāyati-san and Amli-san of Orissa.“the year received from thevilāyator province of Hindustān.” But we are also told that the Vilāyati-san is a Kanyādi solar year, whereas the Amli-san, though it too has solar months, changes its number on the lunar day Bhādrapada śukla 12 (mentioned above in connexion with the Oṅko cycle of Orissa), which comes sometimes in Kanyā, but sometimes in the preceding month, Siṁha. Elsewhere, again, it is the Vilāyati-san which is shown as changing its number on Bhādrapada śukla 12. In either case, the year 1308 of this reckoning, also, began inA.D.1900; and so, like the Fasli of Upper India, this reckoning, too, has an apparent initial point inA.D.593. The day Bhādrapada śukla 12 now usually falls in September, but may come during the last three days of August. The first day of the solar month Kanyā now falls on 15th or 16th September.
In Bengal there is in more general use a Mēshādi solar reckoning, known as the Bengāli-san or “Bengal year,” accordingThe Bengāli-san.to which the year 1307 began inA.D.1900; so that this reckoning has an apparent initial point inA.D.594. The initial day of the year is the first day of the solar month Mēsha, now falling on 12th or 13th April.
The system of Fasli reckonings was introduced into Southern India under the emperor Shāh Jahān, at some time in the Hijra year 1046, which ran from 26th May,A.D.1636, to 15th May,A.D.1637. But the numbering which was currentThe Fasli of Bombay and Madras.in Northern India was not taken over. A new start was made; and, as the year of the Hijra had gone back, during the intervening seventy-three Julian years, by two years and a quarter (less by only five days) from the date of its commencement in the year 971, the Fasli reckoning of Southern India began with a nominal year 1046 (instead of 971 + 73 = 1044), commencing inA.D.1636. The Fasli reckoning of Southern India exists in two varieties. The years of the Bombay Fasli are popularly known as Mrigasāl years, because they commence when the sun enters thenakshatraMṛigaśiras, which occurs now on 6th or 7th June:the reckoning seems to have taken over this initial day from the Marāṭhā Sūr-san (see below). The Fasli years of Madras originally began at the Karka-saṁkrānti, the nominal summer solstice: under the British government, the commencement of them was first fixed to 12th July, on which day thesaṁkrāntiwas then usually occurring; but it was afterwards changed to 1st July as a more convenient date. The years of the Bombay and Madras Fasli have no division of their own into months, fortnights, &c.; the year is always used along with one or other of the real Hindu reckonings, and the details are cited according to that reckoning.
Another offshoot of the Hijra era, but one of earlier date and not belonging to the class of Fasli reckonings, is found, in the Marāṭhā country, in the Sūr-san or Shahūr-san, “the year of months,” also known as Arabī-san, “the Arab year.”The Marāṭhā Sūr-san or Aṙabī-san.This reckoning, which is met with chiefly in oldsanadsor charters, appears to have branched off in or closely about the Hijra year 745, which ran from 15th May,A.D.1344, to 3rd May,A.D.1345; but the exact circumstance in which it originated is not known. The years of this reckoning begin, like those of the Bombay Fasli, with the entrance of the sun into thenakshatraMṛigaśiras, which now occurs on 6th or 7th June; but the months and days are those of the Hijra year. The Sūr-san year 1301 began inA.D.1900; and so the reckoning has an apparent initial point inA.D.600. A peculiarity attending this reckoning is that, whatever may be the vernacular of a clerk, he uses the Arabic numeral words in reading out the year; and the same words are given alongside of the figures in the Hindu almanacs.
Authorities.—The Hindu astronomy had already begun to attract attention before the close of the 18th century. The investigation, however, of the calendar and the eras, along with the verification of dates, was started by Warren, whoseKala Sankalitawas published in 1825. The inquiry was carried on by Prinsep in hisUseful Tables(1834-1836), by Cowasjee Patell in hisChronology(1866), and by Cunningham in hisBook of Indian Eras(1883). But Warren’s processes, though mostly giving accurate results, were lengthy and troublesome; and calculations made on the lines laid down by his successors gave results which might or might not be correct, and could only be cited as approximate results. The exact calculation of Hindu dates by easy processes was started by Shankar Balkrishna Dikshit, in an article published in theIndian Antiquary, vol. 16 (1887). This was succeeded by methods and tables devised by Jacobi, which were published in the next volume of the same journal. There then followed several contributions in the same line by other scholars, some for exact, others for closely approximate, results, and some valuable articles by Kielhorn on some of the principal Hindu eras and other reckonings, which were published in the same journal, vols. 17 (1888) to 26 (1897). And the treatment of the matter culminated for the time being in the publication, in 1896, of Sewell and Dikshit’sIndian Calendar, which contains an appendix by Schram on eclipses of the sun in India, and was supplemented in 1898 by Sewell’sEclipses of the Moon in India. The present article is based on the above-mentioned and various detached writings, supplemented by original research. For the exact calculation of Hindu dates and the determination of the European equivalents of them, use may be made either of Sewell and Dikshit’s works mentioned above, or of the improved tables by Jacobi which were published in theEpigraphia Indica, vols. 1 and 2 (1892-1894).
(J. F. F.)
1The disregard of precession, and the consequent travelling forward of the year through the natural seasons, is, of course, a serious defect in the Hindu calendar, the principles of which are otherwise good. Accordingly, an attempt was made by a small band of reformers to rectify this state of things by introducing a precessional calendar, taking as the first lunar month the synodic lunation in which the sun enters the tropical Aries, instead of the sidereal Mēsha; and the publication was started, in or about 1886, of the Sāyana-Pañchāng or “Precessional Almanac.”Further, the Hindu sidereal solar year is in excess of the true mean sidereal year by (if we use Āryabhaṭa’s value) 3 min. 20.4 sec. If we take this, for convenience, at 3 min. 20 sec., the excess amounts to exactly one day in 432 years. And so even the sidereal Mēsha-saṁkrānti is now found to occur three or four days later than the day on which it should occur. Accordingly, another reformer had begun, in or about 1865, to publish the Navīn athavā Paṭwardhanī Pañchāng, the “New or Paṭwardhanī Almanac,” in which he determined the details of the year according to the proper Mēsha-saṁkrānti.2It might also be called Pausha, because the sun enters Makara in the course of it; and it may be observed that, in accordance with a second rule which formerly existed, it would have been named Pausha because it ends while the sun is in Makara, and the omitted name would have been Mārgaśira. But the more important condition of the present rule, that Pausha begins while the sun is in Dhanus, is not satisfied.3The well-known Metonic cycle, whence we have by rearrangement our system of Golden Numbers, naturally suggests itself; and we have been told sometimes that that cycle was adopted by the Hindus, and elsewhere that the intercalation of a month by them generally takes place in the years 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, and 19 of each cycle, differing only in respect of the 14th year, instead of the 13th, from the arrangement which is said to have been fixed by Meton. As regards the first point, however, there is no evidence that a special period of 19 years was ever actually used by the Hindus during the period with which we are dealing, beyond the extent to which it figures as a component of the number of years, 19 × 150 = 2850, forming the lunisolar cycle of an early work entitledRōmaka-Siddhānta; and, as was recognized by Kalippos not long after the time of Meton himself, the Metonic cycle has not, for any length of time, the closeness of results which has been sometimes supposed to attach to it; it requires to be readjusted periodically. As regards the second point, the precise years of the intercalated months depend upon, and vary with, the year that we may select as the apparent first year of a set of 19 years, and it is not easy to arrange the Hindu years in sets answering to a direct continuation of the Metonic cycle.4It is customary to render the termtithiby “lunar day:” it is, in fact, explained as such in Sanskṛit works; and, as thetithisdo mark the age of the moon by periods approximating to 24 hours, they are, in a sense, lunar days. But thetithimust not be confused with the lunar day of western astronomy, which is the interval, with a mean duration of about 24 hrs. 54 min., between two successive meridian passages of the moon.5We illustrate the ordinary occurrences. But there are others. Thus, a repeatedtithimay occasionally be followed by a suppressed one: in this case the numbering of the civil days would be 6, 7, 7, 9, &c., instead of 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, &c. Or it may occasionally be preceded by a suppressed one: in this case the numbering would be 5, 7, 7, 8, &c., instead of 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, &c.6It is always to be borne in mind that, as already explained, while the Hindu Mēsha answers to our Aries, it does not coincide with either the sign or the constellation Aries.7We selectA.D.1900 as a gauge-year, in preference to the year in which we are writing, because its figures are more convenient for comparative purposes. In accordance with the general tendency of the Hindus to cite expired years, the almanacs would mostly show 5001 (instead of 5002) as the number for the Kaliyuga year answering toA.D.1900-1901. And, for the same reason, this reckoning has often been called the Kaliyuga era of 3101B.C.There is, perhaps, no particular objection to that, provided that we then deal with the Vikrama and Śaka eras on the same lines, and bear in mind that in each case the initial point of the reckoning really lies in the preceding year. But we prefer to treat these reckonings with exact correctness.8It may be remarked that there are about twelve different views regarding the date of Kaṇishka and the origin of the Vikrama era. Some writers hold that Kaṇishka began to reign inA.D.78, and founded the so-called Śaka era beginning in that year; one writer would place his initial date aboutA.D.123, others would place it inA.D.278. The view maintained by the present writer was held at one time by Sir A. Cunningham: and, as some others have already begun to recognize, evidence is now steadily accumulating in support of the correctness of it.9See the preceding note.
1The disregard of precession, and the consequent travelling forward of the year through the natural seasons, is, of course, a serious defect in the Hindu calendar, the principles of which are otherwise good. Accordingly, an attempt was made by a small band of reformers to rectify this state of things by introducing a precessional calendar, taking as the first lunar month the synodic lunation in which the sun enters the tropical Aries, instead of the sidereal Mēsha; and the publication was started, in or about 1886, of the Sāyana-Pañchāng or “Precessional Almanac.”
Further, the Hindu sidereal solar year is in excess of the true mean sidereal year by (if we use Āryabhaṭa’s value) 3 min. 20.4 sec. If we take this, for convenience, at 3 min. 20 sec., the excess amounts to exactly one day in 432 years. And so even the sidereal Mēsha-saṁkrānti is now found to occur three or four days later than the day on which it should occur. Accordingly, another reformer had begun, in or about 1865, to publish the Navīn athavā Paṭwardhanī Pañchāng, the “New or Paṭwardhanī Almanac,” in which he determined the details of the year according to the proper Mēsha-saṁkrānti.
2It might also be called Pausha, because the sun enters Makara in the course of it; and it may be observed that, in accordance with a second rule which formerly existed, it would have been named Pausha because it ends while the sun is in Makara, and the omitted name would have been Mārgaśira. But the more important condition of the present rule, that Pausha begins while the sun is in Dhanus, is not satisfied.
3The well-known Metonic cycle, whence we have by rearrangement our system of Golden Numbers, naturally suggests itself; and we have been told sometimes that that cycle was adopted by the Hindus, and elsewhere that the intercalation of a month by them generally takes place in the years 3, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16, and 19 of each cycle, differing only in respect of the 14th year, instead of the 13th, from the arrangement which is said to have been fixed by Meton. As regards the first point, however, there is no evidence that a special period of 19 years was ever actually used by the Hindus during the period with which we are dealing, beyond the extent to which it figures as a component of the number of years, 19 × 150 = 2850, forming the lunisolar cycle of an early work entitledRōmaka-Siddhānta; and, as was recognized by Kalippos not long after the time of Meton himself, the Metonic cycle has not, for any length of time, the closeness of results which has been sometimes supposed to attach to it; it requires to be readjusted periodically. As regards the second point, the precise years of the intercalated months depend upon, and vary with, the year that we may select as the apparent first year of a set of 19 years, and it is not easy to arrange the Hindu years in sets answering to a direct continuation of the Metonic cycle.
4It is customary to render the termtithiby “lunar day:” it is, in fact, explained as such in Sanskṛit works; and, as thetithisdo mark the age of the moon by periods approximating to 24 hours, they are, in a sense, lunar days. But thetithimust not be confused with the lunar day of western astronomy, which is the interval, with a mean duration of about 24 hrs. 54 min., between two successive meridian passages of the moon.
5We illustrate the ordinary occurrences. But there are others. Thus, a repeatedtithimay occasionally be followed by a suppressed one: in this case the numbering of the civil days would be 6, 7, 7, 9, &c., instead of 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, &c. Or it may occasionally be preceded by a suppressed one: in this case the numbering would be 5, 7, 7, 8, &c., instead of 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, &c.
6It is always to be borne in mind that, as already explained, while the Hindu Mēsha answers to our Aries, it does not coincide with either the sign or the constellation Aries.
7We selectA.D.1900 as a gauge-year, in preference to the year in which we are writing, because its figures are more convenient for comparative purposes. In accordance with the general tendency of the Hindus to cite expired years, the almanacs would mostly show 5001 (instead of 5002) as the number for the Kaliyuga year answering toA.D.1900-1901. And, for the same reason, this reckoning has often been called the Kaliyuga era of 3101B.C.There is, perhaps, no particular objection to that, provided that we then deal with the Vikrama and Śaka eras on the same lines, and bear in mind that in each case the initial point of the reckoning really lies in the preceding year. But we prefer to treat these reckonings with exact correctness.
8It may be remarked that there are about twelve different views regarding the date of Kaṇishka and the origin of the Vikrama era. Some writers hold that Kaṇishka began to reign inA.D.78, and founded the so-called Śaka era beginning in that year; one writer would place his initial date aboutA.D.123, others would place it inA.D.278. The view maintained by the present writer was held at one time by Sir A. Cunningham: and, as some others have already begun to recognize, evidence is now steadily accumulating in support of the correctness of it.
9See the preceding note.