________________
128
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL X.
It is inaccurate for that regnal year of any other king bearing that name and at present known to us. I am, therefore, satisfed that the Saka year was erroneously given as 1102 instead of
1112.
In the twelfth year of the reign of Kulottanga-Chola III. the Uttarayana-samkrānti of Saka 1112 occurred on Monday, December 25th, A.D. 1189, at 5 h. 55 m. after mean sunrise. The nakshatra at sunrise was Pusbya by all systems. By the equal space system and that of Garga it expired 23 h. 44 m., and by the Brahma-siddhanta 21 h. 26 m. after mean suurise on that day.
170. In the Sivayōganathasvamin temple at Tiruviśalür.!
1 Svast[i śri]: T[i]ribava[na]chchakkara [va]tt[i] Madurai Jum [P][y] mudi-tta laiyu]n-gondarulina śr[i]-Kulottunga-Sola]dēvarkku yandu pa[d]inlavada Kumbha-naya[t]ra afpara-pa]kshatta pradamaiyam [api]
2 kkilamai [p]erra Ani [lat]tu [n]al.
"In the seventeenth year (of the reign) of the emperor of the three worlds, the glorious Kulottunga-Chōladeva, who was pleased to take Madurai and the crowned head of the Pandya, on the day of Anuradha, which corresponded to a [Saturday] and to the first tithi of the second fortnight of the month of Kumbha."
The regnal year of Kulottunga-Chola III. is now clearly established by the labours of Professor Kielhorn, and we know that the 17th year of that king began between the 6th and 8th July, A.D. 1194. On the fifth day of Kumbha in the seventeenth regnal year, which corresponds to Saturday, January 28th 1195, the first tiihi of the second fortnight was current at mean sunrise and it expired 14 h. 10 m. later. So far the date given is regular. But the nakshatras during that day were Magha and Purra-Phalguni. On Saturday, a week later, viz. February 4th, the nakshatra was Anuradha, and if for 'first' tithi we could read 'eighth,' the date would be perfectly regular. But this would not be permissible considering that the word 'first' is clearly expressed in letters and not in figures. It is possible that the date is genuine and incorrect only in giving the wrong nakshatra.3
It would be irregular for the seventeenth regnal year of Kulottunga I. As for Kalottunga II. we do not as yet know his initial date, and the attempts I have made to guess at it from this inscription have proved fruitless; no year that I have attempted as his possible 17th giving me elements exactly meeting those of the inscription.
The date is therefore unsatisfactory, but this is unimportant as others of the same regnal year have been found correct (above, Vol. VII. p. 172). In the thirty-seven dates of inscriptions in this reign examined by Kielhorn, there are no less than eleven instances of wrong quotation in the originals (above, Vol. IX. pp. 220-21).
No. 353 of the Madras Epigraphical collection for 1907.
2 The date should be compared with Kielhorn's No. 69 (above, Vol. VII. p. 172). The solar month in each case is Kumbha in the king's 17th year. At mean sunrise on the first civil day of that month, which corresponded to January 24th, A.D. 1195, the eleventh day of the bright fortnight of Magha had only 9 minutes to run. Four days later was the date given in the text. Sixteen days after this, viz. on the 21st Kumbha or the 18th February, was Kielhorn's date No. 69, where the nakshatra was Uttara-Bhadrapada. A date 16 days earlier than that could not have had Anuradha for its nakshatra; so it is clear that the record is intrinsically wrong.
[The reading is pradamai, first,' beyond all doubt.-Ed.]
