Dear Donald,

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.

Emmanuel Francis
Chargé de recherche CNRS, Centre d'étude de l'Inde et de l'Asie du Sud (UMR 8564, EHESS-CNRS, Paris)
http://ceias.ehess.fr/
http://ceias.ehess.fr/index.php?1725
http://rcsi.hypotheses.org/
Associate member, Centre for the Study of Manuscript Culture (SFB 950, Universität Hamburg)
http://www.manuscript-cultures.uni-hamburg.de/index_e.html
https://cnrs.academia.edu/emmanuelfrancis

2016-05-23 22:00 GMT+02:00 Donald R Davis <drdj@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@list.indology.info
> indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)