A Note on the ‘Saeculum’ and the Kushan Era

8/10/2019 A Note on the Saeculum and the Kushan Era

1/10

Bracey: A Note on the Saeculum and the Kushan Era

1

A note on the Saeculum and the Kushan Era

Robert Bracey

Harry Falk (2001) has recently published a new interpretation of the formula of

Sphujiddhvaja for calculating the date of a previously unknown Kushan era from the Saka

era. A well-known theory, proposed by Lohuizen (1949), that the Kanishka era had

continued in a second century, with the hundreds omitted, gave the opportunity to link this

new Kushan era with the problem of the date of Kanishka. If Sphujiddhuaja was referring to

the start of the second century of Kanishkas era then this would fix the date of Kanishka to

127 AD.

Though the theory won general support strong objections were raised in

correspondence at the timei, and in more detail once the article was published (Bracey,

2004). The objections to the dating of 127 AD for the Kanishka era were two-fold. Firstly,

that the new evidence failed to invalidate the very extensive previous evidence deployed fora variety of other dates, principally 115 AD and 144 AD (Cribb, 1999; Puri, 1994). This

evidence is quite extensive and had not been considered, prior to 2001, to favour a date of

127 AD. It therefore remains necessary to explain the discrepancy between the new theory

and the old evidence. The second objection stems from the new source itself.

That the Kushan inscriptions represented two sequences of dates is widely accepted,

one from the years 2 to 98 of the Kings Kanishka, Huvishka, and Vasudeva; and a second

sequence known to include inscriptions dated from the years 20 to 41 and to incorporate the

reigns of Kanishka II, Vasishka, and Kanishka III ii. It is not clear how these two sequences

related to each other. Lohuizen (1949 & 1983) argued that the second sequence was asecond century of the era of Kanishka, with the character for 100 omitted. This was

plausible, as abbreviation is a common feature of Kushan period inscriptions. But, an

alternative opinion (Rosenfield, 1968; Cribb, 1994) was that the second sequence might be

a new era. This made sense as the second sequence appeared to commence with the

ascension of Kanishka II, and while the foundation of eras was common in the period the

abbreviation of dates was unattested.

The calculation employed by Sphujiddvaja (Kushan = Saka + 149), means that his

Kushan era starts counting in AD 227. This is hard to equate with the abbreviation of the

dropped hundreds, which is commonly compared to the modern practice of writing 05 or

98. A modern writer never becomes confused over whether 05 means 2005 or 1905,

but this is exactly what seems to have happened to Sphujiddvaja. If the inscriptions had

been abbreviated then a contemporary author would have understood that the era began in

AD 127 and would havewritten the formula accordingly. It would not have been appropriate

to be a hundred years out as it would produce nonsense applied to an event in the reign of

Vasudeva, or the later Kushan king Shaka. So far from being a neat fit with Lohuizens

dropped hundreds theory Sphujiddvaja actually implied that she was wrong and that a new

era had commenced with the second sequence of inscriptions in 227 AD. A valuable

contribution but not a successful solution to the date of Kanishka.

In response Falk (2004) has revised his theory with arguments, and new evidence,intended to counter these criticisms. Firstly, he has abandoned the idea of an abbreviation


2/10


2

and replaced it with a cyclical era, as well as supporting evidence that cyclical eras existed

in contemporary India. Secondly, he has supplied evidence of the continuation of the era,

with the hundreds missing, at a still later date. Several aspects of his paper require

comment.

1. The Saeculum

Falk has made explicit the position that has been implicit in his recent

argumentation. He argues that far from being an abbreviation (the dropped hundreds) the

era was cyclical by its very nature. This is necessary to explain the discrepancy between

Sphujiddvaja and Falks theoryiii, but also to explain why amongst hundreds of private

donations we do not find a single example of an unabbreviated dateiv. If the idea of a

cyclical era was firmly embedded with the people of Northwest India, then this would

explain why not one of the hundreds of private donors ever had a date inscribed with an

unabbreviated date.The central case (Falk, 2004: 168-9) is that the concept of a saeculum existed in

contemporary ancient India. Falk believes, for reasons that are not clear, that the term would

appear as in Sanskrit, and is able to find three examples of equivalent Prakrit

seems most probable (169), and in fact that is exactly the conclusion drawn by Mi rashi

(1967) who believed that the special meaning in addition to the pure registration of the

date (Falk, 2004: 169) was a benediction that the kings life (or rule) should endure for one

hundred years. However, Falk is not making this argument, he equates the term with

saeculum and so implies that it represents a cyclical era of 100 years. It is therefore implicit

the Kushans this strengthens the case for a Kushan saeculum.

Table 1 gives an outline of dates available for various Kings from the Eastern Indian site of

Nagarjunikonda. This includes two of the inscriptions mentioned by Falk as being dated in a

saeculum. Even the most cursory glance at the table shows that these are regnal years and

not some sort of cyclical era. If the dates which carry the term vasasatya were as Falk

xtend over a period of

several centuries, and individual reigns would have had to endure for more than fifty years.

Any workable chronology of these rulers (who are directly related to each other) would

become quite impossible.

The same problems apply to the Stvahana mention of vasasatya. So whatever

this word means in the three inscriptions Falk has highlighted it obviously does not mean

saeculum. It seems more likely, that it is a general epithet, as Mirashi assumed, which has

no special relevance to the reckoning.


3/10


3

Ruler Year Inscription No. Notes

Chantamulasa

Virupurisadatta 6 911, 912, 914-919

15 891 Vogels M3 and containing the

phrase vasasatya

15 892 Exactly the same context as 891

but no mention of vasasatya

18 920

Ehuvala Chantamulasa 2 886 and 887

8 681 and 682

11 923

13 683

16 706

20 679 Containing the phrase vasasatya

and first believed by Sircar to be

date in the 60 year Jupiter cycle.

24 684

Others

Ehavalsri 11 724 Reign of Ehuvala Chantamulasa?

Mathariputra 14 921 Successor to Ehuvala

Chantamulasa?

Vasusena, the Abhira 2 or 30 708

2. The saeculum elsewhere in contemporary documents

There is, however, an example of a saeculum type dating in a well-known Indian

source. The various puranas which provide lists of the dynasties of the Kali age also provide

a brief account of astronomical calculations (Partiger, 1913: 75). This is translated by

Partiger as follows:

In the circle of the lunar constellations, wherein the Great Bear revolves, and whichcontains 27 constellations in its circumference, the Great Bear remains 100 years in (i.e.

conjoined with) each in turn.

Often known as the era of the Seven Sages, the term they employ is not

, but (and also ).Though the term is not that which

Falk expects the reckoning described is exactly the sort of dating system that is needed, as it

clearly involves a cyclic period of one hundred years.

Dating the puranic texts is immensely difficult because they are heavily stratified.

Not only were sections written at different times but they have been subject to subsequentediting. The text undoubtedly contains layers which are drawn from the Kushan/Gupta


4/10


4

period. In particular the Puranic texts dealing with the Kali age dynasties provide detailed

lists of Kings up to the early Guptas, though they relegate the Greeks, Indo-Parthians,

Kushans, and others in the north-west to simple notes on the length of their dynasties. If the

astronomical information belonged to the same layer as the historical data it would seem to

have been current in the fourth or fifth century and in eastern and central India.

So, in conclusion, it can be said that while Falks argument for being

an Indian equivalent of the Roman saeculum is clearly flawed, there may exist a

contemporary Indian equivalent.

3. The Dual-Dated Gupta Records

In the second part of his argument, demonstrating the continuation of the era, Falk

(2004) draws attention to three inscriptions which are all dated in two different reckonings.

In two of the cases both the dates survive, and in one there is a lacunae in which he

presumes a date occurs. Falk argues that two epithets, vijayarjyaand klnuvarttamna,identify two distinct reckoningsv. If this is the case then a higher date (insc. 515) proceeds a

lower date (insc. 933 & 634), a sure sign of a cyclical era.

It is impossible to decide if klnuvarttamnarepresents a specific era, as it occurs

only in these inscriptions, so there is no basis for comparison. Instead the assertion that

vijayarjyameans the Gupta era can be checked. If the term is specific to the Gupta era then

the argument holds, but if the epithet can be used with any era then the three inscriptions

can be reconstructed without a higher date proceeding a lower (which was in fact how they

were interpreted before the present claims).

The term is also employed in the inscriptions of Kumaragupta (insc. 525 & 530) andSkandagupta (insc. 538)vi. These are clearly in the Gupta era. A plate of Indravarman dated

in the year 87 of the Ganga era (insc. 845) also uses the term. This makes it clear that the

epithet does not refer specifically to the Gupta era. And the Omgodu Grant of Sihavarman II

in the year 4 (insc. 939) and a grant of Kumara Vishnu dated in the year 13 (insc. 584) use

the term as well. Both are clearly in the reign of kings, and this demonstrates clearly that

vijayarjyahas no special meaning and could be applied as an epithet to any reckoning. It

could therefore be applied to either of the reckonings in the dual-dated records.

The claim that two terms (vijayarjyaand vasasatya) have special meanings for the

reckoning they accompany has now been demonstrated to be without foundation. It would

therefore be unreasonable to claim that klnuvarttamnamust refer to a specific era, which

means that the low dates found in the dual-dated inscriptions could refer to a reign and the

high dated inscriptions to the Gupta era; the reversal of epithets, which is the centre of the

argument for these being a cyclical era, being irrelevantvii.

Falks argumentation is unsound, but it also ignores a much more compelling line of

reasoning first identified by Iyer (1973:21). The low numbered reckoning begins in 426

AD, or 107 of the Gupta era What reckoning could begin in this year? The last inscription

of Chandragupta is year 93 (insc. 518) and the first of Kumaragupta is year 98 (insc. 525) so

107 cannot be the start of the reign of Kumaragupta. Iyer recognised this and proposed that

the reckoning was the reign of a local king Nripamitra (insc. 704). While Nripamitra is a


5/10


5

local potentate and his reign begins close to this date it is a somewhat awkward solution as

neither of the dual dated inscriptions mentions Nripamitraviii.

So while Falks argument for a cyclical era being proven directly from the dual

dated inscriptions must be rejected (as vijayarjyadoes not as he claims refer to the Gupta

era), these inscriptions do clearly provide evidence of a reckoning that begins in 426 AD.

Before considering what era could be reckoned from that point it is necessary to re-examine

something which has received only slight attention from Kushan scholars.

4. The Laukika Era

The one example of a cyclical era in Indian history is the medieval Laukika

(Salamon, 1998: 196). By way of introduction it is worth quoting what the Arab author Al

Biruni says about this era:

Common people in India date by the years of a centennium, which they call samvatsara. Ifa centennium is finished, they drop it, and simply begin to date by a new one. This era is

called lokakla, i.e. the era of the nation at large. But of this era people give such totally

different accounts that I have no means of making out the truth. In a similar manner they

also differ among themselves regarding the beginning of the year (OBrien, 1997: 20)

No serious link between Al-Birunis Laukika eraand the reckoning of Kanishka has

previously been drawn, other than as an example to show the plausibility of a dropped

hundreds. The reasons are obvious. The eras are separated by nearly a millennia; the

cyclical Laukika era, in which year 1 coincides with 24 or 25 of our own centuries (X24/5)was not close to any of the proposed dates for Kanishka (78, 115, 128, 144 AD); and the

dropped hundreds was used only to explain a short continuation into a second century, not

a lengthy continuation over a long period. However, opinions on both the Laukika and

Kanishka eras have changed.

The first change, is that Harry Falks new argumentation is now considering a

cyclical era as a serious proposition for the Kushan era. The Puranic evidence mentioned

above as providing a contemporary example of a cyclical era is connected in later tradition

to the Laukika era (OBrien, 60-3), though it is clear (because the astronomy involved is

nonsense) that the Puranas are providing a post-hoc explanation of an already existing era

(Sastri & Sarma, 1959). And the date Falk has proposed, 127 AD, is close to X24/5ix.

The second change is that the Kushan era has moved closer to the Laukika, as there

clearly is an era beginning in 227 AD, and if the dual-dated Gupta inscriptions are to be

linked with the Kanishka era (which is obviously open to considerable doubt) they provide

evidence for the continuation of the reckoning up to 426 AD. On this presumption then the

Kanishka era comes two hundred years closer to the Laukika.

The third change is that the Laukika era has moved closer to the Kushan era. The

Bactrian documents of central Asia (Simms-Williams, 1997) provide dates in the Laukika

era from the eighth century, and inscriptions from Kashmir and Sind also provide examples

of the era considerable predating the chroniclers Al-Biruni and Kalhana. A coin minted inthe seventh century (year 88 = 712 AD) may even provide the earliest example (OBrien,


6/10


7/10


8/10


8

he has recently brought forward cannot be considered compelling. Though it has also been

shown that there are alternative lines of evidence both for a cyclical era and which can be

used to extend the evidence for a cyclical era, and the problem of how to determine its

initial year has been considered. However, a cyclical era still rests on linking a series of

different reckoning (Kanishkas reckoning beginning 110-130 AD, Sphujiddvajas Kushan

era, the reckoning of 426 AD, and the X25/6 Laukika era). Compelling as they appear these

links remain unproven, and this is the central point of disagreement with Falk. Falk has

provided some challenging new evidence, but it is not a solution to the problem. At the

moment it is only a programme for research.

Inscriptions

All inscriptions are referred to by an index number. References can be found by consulting

the list of Kushan related inscriptions athttp://www.kushan.org/inscriptions/index.htm.

References

Bhandarkar, D R

1981Inscriptions of the Early Gupta Kings, CII Vol.3, ASI

Bivar, A D H

1979 The Azes Era and the Indravarman Casket South Asian Archaeology1979: 369-376

Bracey, R

1994 The Date of KanishkaA Rough Guide to Kushan History,http://www.kushan.org/essays/chronology/falk.htm

1995 Review: Kusana Coins and HistoryA Rough Guide to Kushan History,

http://www.kushan.org/reviews/kch.htm

Cribb, J

1997 Numismatic Perspectives on Chronology in the Crossroads of Asia Gandharan Art in

Context(ed. Allchin R. et.al.), Ancient India & Iran Trust: 215-30

1999 The early Kushan kings: new evidence for Chronology. Evidence from the Rabatak

Inscription of Kanishka I Coins Art and Chronology(ed. Alram M & Klimburg-Salter D E): 177-

206

Falk, H

2001 The Yuga of Sphujiddhuaja and the era of the Kusanas Silk Road Art and Archaeology 7:

121136

2004 The Kanishka Era in Gupta Records Silk Road Art and Archaeology10: 167-176

Gupta, P L & Kulashreshtha, S

1994 , D K Printworld, Delhi

Harmatta, J.

2001 Religions in the Kushan Empire inHistory of Civilizations of Central Asia(ed. Harmatta

J.), Vol. II, UNESCO

Iyer, S S

1973 Two Brahmi Inscriptions from MathuraEpigraphia Indica40 (1973-74): 19-22
http://www.kushan.org/inscriptions/index.htmhttp://www.kushan.org/inscriptions/index.htm


9/10


9

Lohuizen-de-Leeuw, J E van

1949 The Scythian Period: An Approach to the History, Art, Epigraphy and Palaeography of

North India from the 1st

Century BC to the 3rd

Century AD

1986 The Second Century of the Kanishka Era South Asian Studies 2: 1-9

Mirashi, V V

1967 Epigraphical NoteEpigraphia Indica37 (1967-8): 70-3

OBrien, A G

1996 Oxford

University Press, Delhi

Puri, B N

1994 The KushansHistory of Civilizations of Central Asia(ed. Harmatta J.), Vol. II, UNESCO:

247-264

Rosenfield, J M

1967 Dynastic Art of the Kushans, University of California Press

1968 The Mathura School of Sculpture, two contributions to the study of Kushan chronologyPapers on the Date of Kanishka(ed. Basham A L): 247-258

Salamon, R

1998 Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and other Indo-

Aryan Languages, Oxford University Press

Sastri, T S K & Sarma K V

1959 The Untenability of the Postulated Saka of 550 BCJournal of Indian History39.2: 201-

224

Shrava, S.

1993 Dated Kushana Inscriptions, Pranava Prakashan.Simms-Williams, N

1997 New Light on Ancient Afghanistan: The Decipherment of Bactrian, SOAS

Zeymal, E V

1997 'Coins from the excavations of Takhti-i-Sangin' Studies in Silk Road Coins and Culture:

Special Issue of Silk Road Art and Archaeology

Endnotes

ihttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/southasia-coins/ Message 1550, 13 April 2001iiDissenting opinions include those of Shrava (1993) and Harmatta (1996). These opinions depend

upon theories of dual kingship and are unable to explain in an adequate manner the later coinage ofthe Kushan empire.iiiOf course if it were accepted that the two sequences of Kushan inscriptions were separate eras the

problems disappear. Though this is not by any means a complete solution.iv The one example, an inscription of year 170 in the reign of Vasudeva (insc. 326) has been

misread.vMany epithets in dating formulas are not specific and could be applied to any era. However there

are several examples of epithets which are era specific. Several Kharoshti inscriptions use the nameof the Indo-Parthian Azes to identify an era commence in the mid first century BC (Bivar, 1979),and the Vikrama era inscriptions from Central India are identified first by the term krita and later

by the term malwa (Bhandarkar, 1981: 187-201). A recently discovered inscription (insc. 23) with
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southasia-coins/http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southasia-coins/


10/10


10

dates in three reckonings also uses not only the name of Azes, but also the term yona to denote theGreek era (insc. 23).viThese are not from the Mathura area, being respectively from Bilsad, Karamdamda, and Indor, and

do not include a second date in a different reckoning.vii It is unfortunate that no example has been found with two high dates. Though it would be

dangerous to draw any conclusions from this, as reconstructions of Kushan chronology inevitablyinvolve curious coincidences.viii

Inscription 936 may be relevant. This belongs to roughly the same period and has a date in theyear 13. Likewise inscription 598 which may read could be relevant to the problem athand.ixAnd it is closer still to the Laukika era of X26. In the Bactrian documents alongside the Kushano-

Sasanian and Arab reckonings there is an example of the Laukika era in which year 32 = 857 AD,which means that year 1 = X26 (Simms-Williams, 1997: 9)x One of the similarities between the Laukika and Kanishkas reckoning is their popular nature.

Though inscriptions are often referred to as Kushan only 10% can be categorised as royal orofficial. The vast majority of donors that use the era are private individuals who have no connectionwith the Kushan rulers. This is very similar to the Laukika era which Al-Biruni describes as the

popular era of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir and Sind (almost exactly the extent of the Kushanempire). By contrast other eras are far more commonly associated with royal/official inscriptions;22% of Azes & Greek era inscriptions, 72% of Gupta era inscriptions, and 87% of inscriptions datedin the reign of a king (based on a sample of 927 inscriptions, May 2005).xiAttempts to separate the inscriptions of Kanishka I and Kanishka II between the years 2 and 19

have been an almost unmitigated disaster. Lohuizen (1949) and Rosenfield (1967 & 1968) have

attempted to do so on stylistic grounds, but both failed to correctly place the inscriptions of Vasishkaand Kanishka III, there methods indicating they belonged to the first sequence. While attempts touse titles (Gupta & Kulashreshta, 1994) can be shown to be badly flawed and involve considerablespecial pleading (Bracey, 2005). There are in fact only a handful of inscriptions which can be placedin the second sequence with any confidence (insc. 210, 469, 227, 226, 231, 232, 456) and these

provide little evidence on the reign of Kanishka II other than it ending in year 19.xii Joe Cribb has recently presented a series of die studies, which have a direct bearing on this,though the details are as yet unpublished. Seehttp://www.kushan.org/news/news3.htm.
http://www.kushan.org/news/news3.htmhttp://www.kushan.org/news/news3.htm

Documents

A Note on the ‘Saeculum’ and the Kushan Era