[INDOLOGY] Eras and Dates
manufrancis at gmail.com
Mon May 23 20:14:52 UTC 2016
The second scheme refers to the regnal year of the king (whether he issued
the inscription or it was issued in his realm).
I was precisely looking at a 5th-century Pallava copper-plate inscription
when I read your email:
siṃhavarmma-māhārājasya [sic] vijayasaṃvatsare ekādaśe pauṣyamāse
kṛṣṇapakṣe daśamyām mayā dattā tāṃpra [sic] paṭṭikā.
With best wishes
Chargé de recherche CNRS, Centre d'étude de l'Inde et de l'Asie du Sud (UMR
8564, EHESS-CNRS, Paris)
Associate member, Centre for the Study of Manuscript Culture (SFB 950,
2016-05-23 22:00 GMT+02:00 Donald R Davis <drdj at austin.utexas.edu>:
> Dear Colleagues,
> In the Mitākṣarā commentary on Yājñavalkysmṛti 1.319, royal edicts should
include a date given in two ways:
> [lekhyam…] yuktaṃ kālena ca dvividhena śakanṛpātītarūpeṇa
saṃvatsararūpeṇa ca kālena
> The first scheme is clear era to me, namely the Śaka era (78 CE), but the
date "according to Saṃvatsara" is not. A little digging suggested that it
might refer to the Vikrama era or, more likely it seemed, to one of the
cyclical years of the 60-year Bārhaspatya saṃvatsara of Jupiter (per Sewell
and Dikshit’s Indian Calendar).
> I figured someone could quickly set me straight.
> Thanks in advance,
> Don Davis
> Dept of Asian Studies
> University of Texas at Austin
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the INDOLOGY