Epigraphia Indica Vol 07

Author(s): E Hultzsch
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 14

No. 1.]
DATES OF CHOLA KINGS.
Considering the complete Agreement of the six dates previously treated of, I have no doubt whatever that Sunday, the 3rd June A.D. 1123, is really the day intended by the date No. 10, and that the writer of this date, in recording the tithi, has erroneously written saptamiyum, instead of ashfamiyum.
Since the date No. 10 is stated to have been the 340th day of the 5th year of the kiug's reign, the first day of that year would now have been the 29th Jane A.D. 1122, and the soopssion of Vikrama-Chôļa must have taken place on (approximately) the 29th June A.D. 1118.1
The result now arrived at receives an unexpected confirmation from a reconsideration of the date No. 43 (above, Vol. VI. p. 281). This date is of the seventeenth year (given in words) of the king's reign, and of the Saka year 1054 (given in figares only), and gives us for calculation Thursday, the third tithi of the bright half of Vaisakha. When previously examining it, I found that for Saka-Samvat 1054 current it would correspond to Thursday, the 2nd April A.D. 1131 ; and as I found it to be incorrect for what I then had to consider the 17th year of the king's reign, I felt no hesitation in accepting Thursday, the 2nd April A.D. 1131, as the true equivalent of the date, and in assuming that the regnal yoar had been quoted erroneously.
But now, with the 29th June A.D. 1118 as the date of the king's accession, a date in the month Vaisakha of his seventeenth year will be expected to fall in A.D. 1135, and for this year the date regularly corresponds to Thursday, the 18th April A.D. 1135, when the third tithi of the bright half of Vaisakha ended 9 h. 30 m. after mean sunrise. I now therefore assume that the date is really of the 17th year of Vikrama-Chola's reign, and that the Saka year 1054 has been erroneously quoted instead of 1057 (expired).
59.-In the Vaidyanatha temple at Tirumalavadi. This inscription is dated in the 15th year of the reign of "king Parakesarivarman alias the emperor of the three worlds, the glorious Vikrama-Chôļadēva." In the introduction it is stated that he made gifts to the temple at Chidambaram on the following date ::
24 . . . . . Eppattâm=&ndil [$]i[t]tirai-ttinga[] Atta25 m perra Adittu vârattu=[t]tiru-valar-madiyin trayodasi-ppakkat[tu].
"In the tenth year, (in) the month of Sittirai, on a Sunday which corresponded to (the day of) Hasta, (on the thirteenth tithi of the fortnight of the auspicious waxing moon."
This date, of the month of Sittirai (or Mêsha) of the 10th year of the king's reign, would be expected to fall in A.D. 1128, and for that year it would actually correspond to Sunday, the 15th April A.D. 1128, which was the 23rd day of the month of Sittirai, and on which the 13th tithi of the bright half of the month Vaisakha) ended 1 h. 25 m. after mean sunrise. But the nakshatra on this day was Chitra, by the equal space system and according to Garga for 17 h. 44 m., and by the Brahma-siddhanta for 14 h. 27 m., after mean sunrise. - If the week-day of the
The following statement will show at a glance what mistakes the seven dates Nos. 10, 21, 22, 41, 42, 57 and 58 would necessarily contain, if the accession had taken place on either the 18th July 1108 or the 29th June A.D. 1118 If it had take place on the 18th July A.D. 1108,
in No. 22, Ardnd would have been wrongly quoted for Pumarta u in No. 42, the 9th year would have been wrongly quoted instead of the 19th ;
No. 58 would be entirely incorrect. On the other hand, assuming it to have taken place on the 29th June A.D. 1118,
in No. 10, saptamiyum is wrong for ashtaniyun. * No. 82 of the Government Epigraphist's collection for 1895 ; South-Ind. Insor. Vol. III No. 79.
• The same date is quoted in the introduction of an inscription of the 11th year at Ålangudi (No. 165 of 1834 1. ,).