1

The Epoch of the Œaka Era

(A critical study of the epigraphic and literary references)

Vedveer Arya

The inscriptions dated in the Œaka era apparently refer to two different epochs.
Evidently, ancient inscriptions refer to the epoch of the coronation of the Œaka king
whereas later inscriptions refer to the epoch of the end of the Œaka era. The commonly
accepted notion now is that both the epochs are identical and commenced in 78 CE. But a
critical analysis of the epigraphic & literary references of Œaka era and the verifiable
details of the inscriptions leave no doubt that the epoch of the coronation of the Œaka king
commenced in 583 BCE whereas the epoch of the death of the Œaka king commenced in
78 CE. The epoch of 583 BCE commenced from the coronation of the Œaka king (probably,
King ChaÈtana1) and the calendar was popularly used till the 7th century. During the 2nd
century, Indian astronomers introduced the epoch of 78 CE for accurate and all-round
astronomical calculations and referred to it as the end of Œaka era. Though the calendar
of 78 CE was introduced in the 4th century but it became popular only from the 8th century
onwards. The common people started generally referring to both the calendars as “Œaka”
around the 8th and 9th centuries which created confusion. To eliminate this confusion,
Indian astronomers renamed the epoch of 78 CE as “Œalivahana” at the end of 9th century.
Gradually, Indians forgot the epoch of 583 BCE and generally knew only one epoch of
Œaka era i.e. the death of Œaka king or the end of Saka era (78 CE) by the 10th century.

Keywords: Œaka-nÃpati-rÀjyÀbhiÈeka-saÚvatsara, Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁta-saÚvatsara

The Œaka era was popularly used for dating in the ancient and medieval period
inscriptions in India, Cambodia and Java (Indonesia). It is generally believed by the historians
that the Œaka era commenced in 78 CE. Prof. F. Kielhorn published an article “On the dates of
the Œaka Era in inscriptions” in 1894 and verified more than 370 references to the Œaka era
with the presumption of 78 CE as the epoch.2 He found that the calculation of about 140 dates
“satisfy the requirements” whereas that of 70 dates was “unsatisfactory”. He also claimed that
the details of more than 30 dates are doubtful and that around 100 dates contain no details for
verification. Based on this analysis, JF Fleet and Kielhorn declared some of the inscriptions
and texts as “spurious” because the details therein did not reconcile in the epoch of 78 CE.
Surprisingly, Fleet and Kielhorn even alleged that some of these inscriptions are forgeries
though at the same time accepting the information selectively from these sources.
Unfortunately, Indian epigraphists also accepted these inscriptions as ‘spurious’ or ‘forgeries’
without any further verification.

Let us make one more serious effort to read the so-called ‘spurious’ inscriptions of the
Œaka era to ascertain whether these are really spurious epigraphs or whether they run contrary
to certain theories. There are two theories related to the epoch of the Œaka era.
 2

1. The Œaka era and the ŒÀlivÀhana era are identical and both commenced in 78 CE.
2. The Œaka era and the ŒÀlivÀhana era are not identical and the Œaka era originated
much before 78 CE whereas the ŒÀlivÀhana era commenced in 78 CE.

While reading the inscriptions and texts of the Œaka era, we can easily distinguish two
different ways of referring to the reckoning of the Œaka era. Some epigraphs unambiguously
refer to the epoch of the Œaka era from the coronation of the Œaka king whereas some epigraphs
refer to the epoch of the Œaka era from the death of the Œaka king or the end of the Œaka era.
The epigraphic and literary references of Saka era can be categorised as shown below.

From the coronation of From the death of the Œaka King

the Œaka King or the end of the Œaka era
Œaka-nÃpati-rÀjyÀbhiÈeka-saÚvatsare Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁta-saÚvatsara-œateÈu
ŒakavarÈeÈu-atÁteÈu Œaka-varÈÀtÁta-saÚvatsare
Œaka-bhÂpa-kÀla, Œakendra-kÀla JÀte ŒakÀbde tataÍ, Œakendre atigate
Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀt or ŒakÀnÀm kÀlÀt YÀte kÀle ŒakÀnÀm,
Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀkrÀnta-saÚvatsara ŒakÀnte or ŒakÀntatah
Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁteÈu, Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁte Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁta-saÚvat
ŒakÀnÀmapi bhÂbhujÀm gateÈu abdeÈu Œri JayÀbhyudaya ŒÀlivÀhana Œake
Œaka-pÃthivÁpateÍ varÈÀõÀm ŒÀlivÀhana ŒakÀbdam..... neya
Œaka-nÃpa-samaye, Œaka-kœitÁœÀbda
Œaka-kÀlÀd-Àrabhya, ŒakÀbdÀnÀm pramÀõe
ŒakÀbde
ŒÀke or ŒÀkeÈu
Svasti Œri ŒÀke, Svasti Œri ŒakavarÈe

Any scholar with a basic knowledge of Sanskrit can make the distinction in the meaning
of the references segregated above. It is evident that one set of references leads to the
coronation of the Œaka king whereas other set of references leads to the end of Œaka era or the
death of the Œaka king. How can the totally different references “Œaka-nÃpati-rÀjyÀbhiÈeka-
saÚvatsara” and “Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁta-saÚvatsara” lead to the same epoch? Prima facie, it
appears that the epigraphs that refer to “Œaka-nÃpa-kÀla” denote a different epoch from that in
the epigraphs that refer to “Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁta-saÚvatsara”. From the 8th or 9th centuries
onwards, the common people ignorant of these two different epochs, started using the
expressions interchangeably both for the epoch of the Œaka king or the epoch of the death of
the Œaka king. Wherever the phrase “Jayabhyudaya” or “Vijayabhyudaya” is used, we can easily
identify the epoch as the end of Œaka era because it was never used in the epoch of the
coronation of Œaka king. But the people started referring to the epoch of the death of Œaka
king also as “ŒÀke”, “ŒakÀbde” and “ŒakavarÈha” which created confusion. To eliminate this
confusion, the name of “ŒÀlivÀhana” was introduced to distinguish the epoch of the death of
the Œaka king from the epoch of the coronation of the Œaka king. The reference of “ŒÀlivÀhana”
 3

in epigraphs started around 897 CE.3 Bhaskaracharya, the author of SiddhÀnta Œiromaõi,
clearly mentions the existence of the Œaka era or ŒakÀbda prior to the death of the Œaka king.
YÀtÀÍ Èaõmanavo yugÀni bhamitÀnyanyadyugÀôghritrayam,
NandÀdrÁnduguõÀs(3179)tathÀ ŒakanÃpasyÀnte kalervatsarÀÍ ǀ
GodrÁndvadrikÃtÀôkadasranagagocandrÀÍ(1972947179) ŒakÀbdÀnvitÀÍ
Sarve saÚkalitÀÍ pitÀmahadine syurvartamÀne gatÀÍ ǁ 4

In this verse, BhÀskara states that 3179 years elapsed since the beginning of Kaliyuga till
the end or death of the Œaka king and 197, 29, 47, 179 years elapsed from the starting of Kalpa
till the death of the Œaka king including the years of ŒakÀbda or Œaka era. The word
“ŒakÀbdÀnvitÀÍ” explicitly indicates the existence of the ŒakÀbda or Œaka era prior to 78 CE.
LallÀchÀrya, the author of “ŒiÈyadhÁvÃddhidatantra”, also clearly tells us that the ŒakakœitÁœÀbda
i.e. Œaka era ended in 78 CE.
“NandÀdricandrÀnala (3179)-saÚyuto bhavet, ŒakakœitÁœÀbda-gaõo gataÍ kaleÍ ǀ
DivÀkaraghno gatamÀsa-saÚyutaÍ, KhavahninighnasthitibhiÍ samanvitaÍ ǁ 5

Elaborating the above verse, MallikÀrjuna SÂri, a commentator on

“ŒiÈyadhÁvÃddhidatantra”, states: “ŒakanÃpÀbdagaõah sahasratrayeõaikonÀœÁtyadhika-œatena (3179)
sahitaÍ KaligatÀbda-gaõo bhavati”. It is evident that Lalla and MallikÀrjuna SÂri explicitly state
here that “3179 Kali years are elapsed including the years of Œaka era”.
Indian astronomers like Bhaskara and Lalla clearly mention the existence of a Œaka era
prior to 78 CE. They refer to the epoch of 78 CE as the end of the Œaka era. The use of the words
“atita” or “gata” twice in the Surat plates of Rashtrakuta Karkaraja6 and the Kauthem plates
of Western Chalukya king Vikramaditya7 (Œaka-nripa-kÀlÀtita-samvatsara-œateÈu.... atiteÈu),
"YaÈastilaka Champu" of Somadeva Suri (Œaka-nripa-kÀlÀtita-samvatsara-œateÈu.... gateÈu) and
"Lakhanavati" of Udayana (AtiteÈu ŒakÀntatah varÈeÈu) unambiguously refers to the epoch of
78 CE as the era commenced from the end of the era of Saka king. The RÀjapura plates of
MadhurÀntakadeva8 clearly refer to the epoch as “Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁta-SaÚvat 987.....”. Al-Beruni
also refers to the epoch of Œaka era as the killing of the Œaka king.9 Thus, the epoch of the
coronation of the Œaka king and the epoch of the end or the death of the Œaka king are not the
same but two different epochs.
It is well known that the epoch of the end or the death of Œaka king commenced in 78 CE.
Now the question is what is the epoch of the Œaka era that commenced on the coronation of
the Œaka King? To answer this question, we have to study the verifiable details of inscriptions
of the Œaka era carefully. I have based my verification of the date and time of eclipses on the
comprehensive data on eclipses from the website of NASA.10 The inscriptions of Early Chalukyas
of Badami explicitly refer to the epoch of the coronation of the Œaka king. The Kurtakoti copper
plates of Early Chalukyas provide unambiguous leads to the epoch of the coronation of Œaka
king that commenced in 583 BCE.
The selected text from the Kurtakoti copper plates:11 “Viditamastu sosmÀbhiÍ ba[va]
triÚœottara-paðca-œateÈu ŒakavarÈeÈu atÁteÈu, vijayarÀjya-saÚvatsare ÈoçaœavarÈe
pravartamÀne, Kiœuvojala-mahÀnagara-vikhyÀta- sthitasya VaiœÀkha-JyeÈÇha-mÀsa-
 4

madhyamÀmÀvÀsyÀyÀm bhÀskaradine Rohiõyarkœe madhyÀhnakÀle VikaramÀdityasya............

mahÀdevatayorubhayoÍ VÃÈabharÀœau tasmin VÃÈabharÀœau SÂryagrahaõa sarvamÀsÁ
(SarvagrÀsÁ) bhÂte............ “
The Kurtakoti plates are dated in the year 530 elapsed from the epoch of the coronation
of the Œaka king. It refers to the total solar eclipse that occurred on the new moon day of the
VaiœÀkha month in Northern Karnataka which ended around noon. The following ten total
solar eclipses occurred in Northern Karnataka (considering the latitude 15:55 N and longitude
75:40 E of Badami) during the period 1500 BCE to 1500 CE.

1. 13th Aug 1416 BCE 6. 25th Jun 754 CE

2. 27th Jul 1257 BCE 7. 20th Aug 993 CE
3. 4th Mar 180 BCE 8. 23rd Jul 1134 CE
4. 9th May 53 BCE 9. 6th Nov 1268 CE
5. 27th Jan 111 CE 10. 9th Dec 1322 CE

The data shows that there was only one total solar eclipse that occurred in Northern
Karnataka on the new moon day of VaiœÀkha month i.e. 9th May 53 BCE that started at 09:04
hrs and ended at 11:45 hrs. The day was the new moon day of VaiœÀkha month (between
VaiœÀkha and JyeÈÇha months) and the moon was in RohiõÁ nakœatra. The Sun and Moon were
also in VÃÈabha rÀœi i.e. Taurus sign. The day was “BhÀskara dina” meaning Sunday but it
cannot be verified with reference to the modern Indian calendar. It depends on the SiddhÀnta
of Ahargaõa (for calculating the number of days for a specified date with reference to an
original epochal date) considered in the calendar used during those days.
An inscription found in Shimoga district of Karnataka refers to an annular solar eclipse
(Valaya grahaõa) that occurred on Chaitra pratipadÀ i.e. the 1st tithi of the bright fortnight of
Chaitra month in the year 861 of the Œaka era.12 Considering the epoch of the coronation of the
Œaka king in 583 BCE, 277-278 CE was the 861st year of the Œaka era and the annular solar
eclipse occurred on 20th Feb 277 CE that ended at 11:39 AM. Interestingly, Phalguna Amavasya
ended at 11:00 AM and Chaitra Pratipada started at the same time.

Kurtakoti Plates (Total Solar Eclipse) Inscription of Shimoga (Annular Solar Eclipse)
 5

Solar eclipses mentioned in the inscriptions dated in Œaka era (583 BCE):

1. The Hyderabad Plates of Pulakesin II:13 Œaka 534 elapsed (49-48 BCE), the new moon day
of Bhadrapada month and solar eclipse. The date corresponds to 21st Aug 49 BCE.
2. The Talamanchi Plates of Vikramaditya:14 6th regnal year i.e. Œaka 582 elapsed (1-0 BCE),
the new moon day of Sravana month and solar eclipse. The date corresponds to 31st July 1
BCE.
3. The Barsi Plates of Rashtrakuta Krishnaraja I:15 Œaka 687 current (103-104 CE), the new
moon day of Jyeshtha month and solar eclipse. The date corresponds to 22nd June 103 CE.
4. The Talegaon plates of Rashtrakuta Krishnaraja I:16 Œaka 690 current (106-107 CE), the
new moon day of Vaishakha month and solar eclipse. The date corresponds to 21st Apr 106
CE and a solar eclipse was visible between 16:56 hrs to 18:28 hrs.
5. The Perjjarangi grant of Ganga Rajamalla I:17 Œaka 741 elapsed (158-159 CE), Solar
eclipse. A solar eclipse was visible on 13th July 158 CE between 14.03 hrs to 15.19 hrs.
6. The Nimbal inscription of Bhillama’s Feudatory:18 3rd Regnal year of Billama i.e. Œaka
1110 (526-527 CE), the new moon day of Bhadrapada, Solar eclipse and Samkramana (Tula
Samkranti). The date corresponds to 22nd Sep 526 CE.
7. The Devur inscription of Jaitugi’s feudatory:19 Œaka 1118 (534-535 CE), solar eclipse
during Uttarayana. The date corresponds to 29th Apr 534 CE.
8. The Devangav inscription of Jaitugi’s feudatory:20 Œaka 1121 (537-538 CE), Solar eclipse
on the new moon day of Magha month. The date corresponds to 15th Feb 538 CE.
9. The Khedrapur inscription of Singhana:21 Œaka 1136 (554-555 CE), Solar eclipse on the
new moon day of Chaitra month. The date corresponds to 19th Mar 554 CE.
10. The Jettigi inscription of Krishna:22 Œaka 1178 (594-595 CE), Solar eclipse on the new
moon day of Pausha month. The date corresponds to 16th Jan 595 CE.
11. The Hulgur inscription of Mahadeva:23 Œaka 1189 (606-607 CE), Solar eclipse on the new
moon day of Jyeshtha month. The date corresponds to 11th June 606 CE.

Lunar eclipses mentioned in the inscriptions dated in Œaka era (583 BCE):

1. The Altem Plates of Pulakesin I:24 Œaka 411 elapsed (172-171 BCE), the full moon day of
Vaishakha month, Vishakha nakshatra and lunar eclipse. The date corresponds to 19th Apr
172 BCE.
2. The Kendur plates of KÁrtivarman II:25 Œaka 672 current (88-89 BCE), the full moon day
of Vaishakha month and lunar eclipse. The date corresponds to 24th Apr 88 CE.
3. The Manne plates of Govinda III:26 Œaka 724 (140-141 CE), lunar eclipse and PuÈya
nakœatra. A lunar eclipse was visible on 11th Dec 140 CE from 19:57 hrs to 1:22 hrs.
4. The Manne plates of Govinda III:27 Œaka 732 elapsed (149-150 CE), the full moon day of
PauÈa month, PuÈya nakœatra and lunar eclipse. A lunar eclipse was visible on 2nd Dec 149
CE in North KarõÀÇaka around 20:45 hrs to 22:11 hrs.
5. The Bedirur grant of BhÂvikrama:28 Œaka 556 (28-27 BCE), 25th regnal year, Chaitra œukla
daœamÁ, MaghÀ nakœatra. The date corresponds to 13th March 28 BCE.
 6

6. The Kottimba grant of MÀrasiÚha:29 Œaka 721 (139-140 CE), ŒrÀvaõa, œuddha pÂrõimÀ,
DaniÈÇhÀ nakœatra, lunar eclipse. The date corresponds to 29th July 139 CE, ŒrÀvaõa
PÂrõimÀ and the nakœatra was DhaniÈÇhÀ. A lunar eclipse was visible between 4:18 hrs
to 5:51 hrs.
7. The Gattavadipura grant of RÀjamalla III:30 Œaka 826 elapsed (243-244 CE), MÀrgaœÁrÈa
month, the full moon day, MÃgaœirÀ nakœatra, lunar eclipse. A penumbral lunar eclipse was
visible on 14th Dec 243 CE.
8. The Patna inscription of Soideva:31 Œaka 1128 elapsed (545-546 CE), the full moon day of
ŒrÀvaõa month and lunar eclipse. The date corresponds to 6th September 545 CE.
9. The Kolhapur Stone Inscription:32 Œaka 1065 elapsed (482-483 CE), the full moon day of
MÀgha month and lunar eclipse. The date corresponds to 10th January 483 CE. A
penumbral lunar eclipse was visible at KolhÀpur from 4:34 hrs to 5:54 hrs.
10. The Bamani Stone Inscription:33 Œaka 1073 elapsed (490-491 CE), the full moon day in
BhÀdrapada nakœatra or BhÀdrapada month and a lunar eclipse. The date corresponds to 14th
September 490 CE. A penumbral lunar eclipse was visible from 22:50 hrs to 00:52 hrs.

Other evidences of the epoch of the Œaka era (583 BCE):

1. The Hisse Borala inscription of Vakataka Devasena34 mentions that Saptarshis were in
Uttara Phalguni nakshatra in Œaka 380 (204-203 BCE). Vriddha Garga and
Varahamihira mentioned that Saptarshis were in Magha 2526 years before the epoch
of Œaka era.35 Considering the epoch of Œaka era in 583 BCE, Saptarshis were in Magha
around 3109 BCE (3176-3076 BCE). According to Indian tradition, Saptarshis stay 100
years in each of 27 nakshatras indicating the cycle of 2700 years. Considering the
forward motion, Saptarshis were again in Magha around 476-376 BCE, in Purva
Phalguni around 376-276 BCE and in Uttara Phalguni around 276-176 BCE. Exactly,
this inscription states that Saptasrshis were in Uttara Phalguni in 204-203 BCE.
2. It appears that the calendar of the Œaka era (583 BCE) existed till the 15th century CE.
An inscription36 at the village of Bittaravalli, Belur taluka, KarõÀtaka is dated 2027
(1444 CE) [ŒakavarÈÀda 2027 neya °nanda SaÚvatsara BhÀdrapada œuddha padiva
œukravÀradandu]. Interestingly, the year 2027 in the ŒÀlivÀhana era will be 2105 CE.
3. The earliest reference to the Œaka era is found in the last chapter of YavanajÀtaka.
Gate Èaçagre’rdhaœate samÀnÀm, KÀlakriyÀntattvamidam ŒakÀnÀm ǀ
Raviryuge SÂryadine prapede, kramÀt tadabdÀdi yugÀdi bhÀnoÍ ǁ 37
One of the main features of YavanajÀtaka is the use of a solar Yuga or an astronomical
cycle of 165 years. Indicating the date of the epoch of a solar Yuga of 165 years with
reference to Œaka era, it is stated that when the 56th year of the Œakas is current (can
also be interpreted as elapsed), on a Sunday, the beginning of that year is the beginning
of the yuga of the sun. Considering the epoch of Œaka era in 583 BCE, the 56th year was
528-527 BCE. The date was probably 12th March 528 BCE when the conjunction of the
Sun and Moon occurred at Meœa (Aries) 0o. Interestingly, David Pingree distorted the
 7

phrase “Èaçagre’rdhaœate” (56th year) as “Èaç eke’rdhaœate” (66th year) deliberately to match
the astronomical facts described in the verse in the epoch of 78 CE.
4. The Pimpari plates of Rashtrakuta king Dhruvaraja38 are dated in Salivahana 697 (775
CE). Historians identified this Dhruvaraja to be Dhruva I. Dhruvaraja of this grant
explicitly mentions about his ancestor Rashtrakuta king Dhruvaraja who was the
younger brother of Govindaraja [tasyÀnujah Sri-DhruvarÀjanÀmÀ MahÀnubhÀvo
vihitapratÀpah prasÀdhitÀsesha-narendrachakrah kramena bÀlÀrka-vapur babhÂva]. If the
Dhruvaraja of Pimpari plates were the Dhruva I, how can he say “babhÂva” for himself?
The word “babhÂva” means existed or flourished once upon a time. At least, “babhÂva”
cannot be used for the reigning king. Thus, the Dhruvaraja of Pimpari plates cannot
be Dhruva I.
5. Interestingly, the Pimpalner grant39 dated in ŒÀlivÀhana 310 (388 CE) is the earliest
grant that refer to the Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁta era or ŒÀlivÀhana era indicating the beginning
of the use of the ŒÀlivÀhana era in the 4th century CE. The Itagi,40 Pali,41 Dharwar42 and
Boargaon43 plates of VinayÀditya II dated from ŒÀlivÀhana 516 (594 CE) to 520 (598 CE)
also refer to the Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁta era. The Pimpalner grant and the grants of
VinayÀditya II are the strongest evidence to establish that the Œaka era existed prior to
78 CE but historians rejected them as forgeries because these inscriptions are written
in Nagari script whereas the inscriptions of early Chalukyas are written in Southern
script. In fact, the inscriptions of early Chalukyas refer to the epoch of Œaka era (583
BCE) and the Pimpalner grant & the grants of Vinayadtya II refer to the epoch of
ŒÀlivÀhana era (78 CE).

Based on the critical study of the epigraphic and literary references of the Œaka era and
the verifiable details of the inscriptions of the Œaka era as attempted above, it can be
unhesitatingly concluded that the Œaka era has two epochs. One era commenced from the
coronation of the Œaka king in 583 BCE while the other commenced from the death of the Œaka
king in 78 CE. The era that commenced from the coronation of the Œaka king was referred to
as “Œaka-nÃpa-kÀla”, “Œaka-varÈa” etc. and the era that commenced from the death of the Œaka
king was referred to as “ŒakÀnta”, “Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁta” etc. The compound word “Œaka-nÃpa-
kÀlÀtÁta-saÚvatsara....” has been misinterpreted as “the years elapsed from the era of the Œaka
king” considering it Paðcami or Saptami tatpuruÈa compound as “Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀt or Œaka-nÃpa-
kÀle atÁtÀÍ saÚvatsarÀÍ, teÈu”. In fact, it is DvitÁyÀ tatpuruÈa compound as “Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlaÚ atÁtaÍ
= Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁtah, tasmÀt saÚvatsarÀÍ, teÈu” which means “the years from the end of the era
of the Œaka king. In very few instances like the Behatti grant of Kalachuri Singhana44 and
Puruœottampuri grant of the YÀdava king RÀmachandra,45 the compound “Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁta”
was used as Paðcami or Saptami tatpuruÈa. The Surat plates of RÀÈÇrakÂÇa karkarÀja and the
Kauthem plates of VikramÀditya expressed the date as “Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁta-saÚvatsara-œateÈu.....
atÁteÈu” which is irrefutable evidence that “Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁta” is the compound word of DvitÁyÀ
tatpuruÈa and not Paðcami or Saptami tatpuruÈa. The poet Somadeva SÂri also refers to the date
of his work “YaœastilakachaÚp” as “Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁta-saÚvatsara-œateÈvaÈÇasvekÀœÁtyadhikeÈu
 8

gateÈu....”i.e. ŒÀlivÀhana 881 (959 CE). It is totally absurd to use “atÁteÈu” or “gateÈu” again in
case “Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁta” is Paðcami or Saptami tatpuruÈa compound.
It appears that the Œakas conquered North-Western India in 6th century BCE and annexed
the city of Ujjain. The first Œaka ruler of India enforced the use of the epoch from the date of
his coronation i.e. 583 BCE. Gradually, this Œaka era became popular in North-Western India
and also in South India. The rule of the Œakas was in decline from the 3rd century BCE onwards.
Though the rule of Œakas ended, the use of the epoch of Œaka era (583 BCE) continued. Around
the 1st and 2nd centuries, Indian astronomers were in search of a perfect new epoch replacing
the epoch of the Œaka era (583 BCE) because they might have found that the epoch of 583 BCE
is not suitable for accurate and all-round astronomical calculations. Probably, they also
wanted to replace the epoch of the Œaka king to get rid of the legacy of a tyrant MleccÍa king.
Therefore, Indian astronomers introduced the epoch of 78 CE and named it as “Œaka-nÃpa-
kÀlÀtÁta-samvatsara” to indicate the end of the Œaka era. Though the epoch of 78 CE was
introduced at the end of 1st century or in the beginning of 2nd century but it came into use only
in 4th century. The Pimpalner grant of Western Chalukyas was the earliest inscription that
dated in Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁta era 310 (388 CE). The epoch of Œaka-nÃpa-kÀlÀtÁta era (78 CE) became
popular in South India only from the 8th century onwards.
Gradually, Indians forgot the epoch of the Œaka era (583 BCE) in due course of time and
the use of the similar expressions like “Œaka-varshada”, “Œakabde”, “Œaka” etc., for the Œaka era
and the Œaka-nripa-kÀlÀtÁta era in the inscriptions also complicated the problem of
distinguishing between these two eras. In the 9th century, astronomers introduced a prefix
“ŒÀlivÀhana” in order to distinguish clearly the epoch of Œaka-kÀlÀtÁta era (78 CE) from the
epoch of Œaka era (583 BCE) but the prefix “ŒÀlivÀhana” became popular only after the 11th
century. When Alberuni visited India in 11th century, Indians generally knew only one epoch
of Œaka era i.e. the death of Œaka king that commenced in 78 CE.
The above critical and comprehensive analysis apparently leads us to the conclusion that
the Œaka era and the ŒÀlivÀhana era are not identical. The epoch of the Œaka era commenced
in 583 BCE whereas the epoch of the ŒÀlivÀhana era commenced in 78 CE. The inscriptions
dated in the Œaka era must be segregated into these two epochs for reconstructing the
chronology of ancient India. The epoch of 583 BCE clearly indicates that the epoch of KÀrttikÀdi
Vikrama era commenced in 135 years and five months ago i.e. 719-718 BCE as recorded in Jain
sources. In 2nd century, Indian astronomers also introduced the ChaitrÀdi calendar in Vikrama era
and reset the epoch in 57 BCE considering 135 years gap to the epoch of 78 CE. Thus, the Vikrama
era also have two epochs. The epoch of the KÀrttikÀdi commenced in 719-718 BCE whereas the
epoch of ChaitrÀdi commenced in 57 BCE. Similarly, the epoch of 583 BCE also indicates that the
Gupta era and the Valabhi era are not identical. Alberuni mentions that the Valabhi era
commenced when Guptas ceased to exist. Therefore, we can fix the epoch of the Gupta era in 335
BCE based on the verifiable details of inscriptions. The epoch of Valabhi era commenced after 241
years from the epoch of the Salivahana era i.e. in 319 CE. Based on the epoch of 583 BCE and the
verifiable details of inscriptions, we can also fix the epoch of Kalachuri-Chedi era in 403-402 BCE.
This approach also validates the traditional epoch of Sri Harsha era i.e. 457-456 BCE. It also
indicates that the ancient inscriptions of Nepal were dated in an ancient era of Lichchavi dynasty
that followed KÀrttikÀdi calendar with ancient system of Pausha-AshÀdha intercalation.
 9

Historians mistakenly considered the epoch of SÀlivÀhana era for dating of the inscriptions of
ancient Nepal. If we consider the epoch of Œaka era in 583 BCE based on the verifiable details of
inscriptions and the revised epochs of various other Indian eras as the sheet anchor for
reconstructing the chronology of ancient India, it not only reconciles with the chronology given in
Puranas, Buddhist and Jain sources but also ensures that there is not a single inscription which can
be rejected as “spurious” or “forgery”.

References:

1. Shastri, Ajay Mitra, “Saka era”, Indian Journal of History of Science, 31(1), 1996, pp. 67-88.
2. Indian Antiquary, Volume XXIII, 1894, pp. 113-134; Ibid, Volume XXIV, 1895, pp. 1-17 & 181-
211; Ibid, Volume XXV, pp. 266-272 & 289-294, Ibid,Volume XXVI, pp. 146-153.
3. Epigraphia Carnatica, Volume III, Tirumakundlu-Narasipur Taluq, 47, pp. 150.
4. Bhaskaracharya, “Siddhanta Siromani”, Ganitadhyaya, Madhyamadhikara,
Kalamanadhyaya, Verse 28.
5. Chatterjee, Bina, “Sisyadhivriddhidatantra of Lalla” with the commentary of Mallikarjuna
Suri, Part I, Indian National Science Academy, 1981, pp. 6.
6. Epigraphia Indica, Volume XXI, pp. 133-147.
7. Indian Antiquary, Volume XVI, pp. 15-24.
8. Epigraphia Indica, Volume IX, pp. 174-181.
9. Sachau, Dr Edward C., “Alberuni’s India”, Rupa Publications India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, 2002,
pp. 409-410.
10. http://eclipse.gsfc.Nasa.gov
11. Indian Antiquary, Volume VII, pp. 217-220.
12. Epigraphia Carnatica, Volume VIII, Sorab Taluq, 71, pp. 22.
13. Indian Antiquary, Volume VI, pp. 72-75.
14. Epigraphia Indica, Volume IX, pp. 98-102.
15. Journal of Epigraphical Society of India, Volume 11, 1984, pp. 106-113.
16. Epigraphia Indica, Volume XIII, pp. 275-282.
17. Annual Report of the Mysore Archaeological Department, 1942, pp. 208-231.
18. Epigraphia Indica, Volume XXVIII, pp. 94-98.
19. South Indian Inscriptions, Volume XX, No. 182, pp. 231.
20. South Indian Inscriptions, Volume XX, No. 184, pp. 232-233.
21. Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Volume XII, Issue no. 33, pp.1-10.
22. South Indian Inscriptions, Volume XV, No. 191, pp. 235.
23. Indian Antiquary, Volume XVIII, pp. 128.
24. Indian Antiquary, Volume VII, pp. 209-217.
25. Epigraphia Indica, Volume IX, pp. 200-206.
26. Epigraphia Carnatica, Volume IX, Nelamangala Taluq, 61, pp. 51-53.
27. The Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society, Volume 14, 1923-24, pp. 82-88.
28. Ramesh, KV, “Inscriptions of the Western Gangas”, Agam Prakashan, New Delhi, 1984, pp.
111-118.
29. Ibid, pp. 206-216.
30. Ibid, pp. 358-368.
31. Epigraphia Indica, Volume I, pp. 338-346.
 10

32. Mirashi, VV, “Inscriptions of the Silaharas”, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Volume VI,
1977, No. 53, pp. 246-249.
33. Ibid, No. 54, pp. 250-253.
34. Epigraphia Indica, Volume XXXVII, pp. 1-8.
35. Varahamihira, “Brihat Samhita”, Chapter 13, Verse 3.
36. Annual Report of the Mysore Archaeological Department, 1941, pp. 147-148.
37. Yavanajataka of Sphujidhvaja, Chapter 79, Verse 14.
38. Epigraphia Indica, Volume X, pp. 81-89.
39. Indian Antiquary, Volume IX, pp. 293-296.
40. Annual Report on South Indian Epigraphy, 1939-40 to 1940-42, pp. 20.
41. Journal of Bharat Itihas Samshodhan Mandal, Volume III, Part I, pp. 6-16.
42. Annual Report on South Indian Epigraphy, 1933-34, pp. 4, No. A2.
43. Sources of Medieval History of Deccan (Marathi), Volume II, pp. 23-31.
44. Indian Antiquary, Volume IV, pp. 274-278.
45. Epigraphia Indica, Volume XXV, pp. 199-225.

(The author is a civil servant and an officer of the 1997 batch of Indian Defence accounts Service (IDAS).
Presently, he is working as Integrated Financial Advisor to Southern Naval Command, Kochi. He did his Master’s
degree in Sanskrit from the University of Delhi. He recently published his research work “The Chronology of
Ancient India : Victim of Concoctions and Distortions” based on his in-depth inscriptional studies.)