________________
No. 25.]
DATES OF PANDYA KINGS.
143
"In the [15]th year of the reign) of king Jaţāvarman alias the emperor of the three worlds, the glorious Sundara-Pāndyadēva,-on the day of Punarvasu which corresponded to a Monday and to the tenth tithi of the first fortnight of the month of Kumbha in the (cyclic) year Virodhin."
This date is regular, and belongs to the reign of Jaţăvarman Sundara-Pandya II., as there was no cyclic year called Virodhin in the reign of Jatávarman Saudara-Pāņdya I. The day in question was Monday, February 20th, A.D. 1200. On that day the tenth tithi of the first fortnight of the lani-solar month Phālguna ended 13 h. 45 m. after mean sunrise. During all that period the nakshatra was Punarvasu by both the unequal space systems. By the equal space system Punarvasu began 1 h. 23 m. after sunrise and lasted all day.
It appears that the regnal year in this inscription is illegible, and we cannot therefore argue from it.
76.- In the Saumyanathasvāmin temple at Nandalür.
9 Sri-Sandara-Pandyade vakku 2 yindul 17 å vndu Nanda(na)-Ssan vasarattu Mina-niya]r[ru] pūrvva3 pakshattu dasamiyum Budhan-kilamaiyum porra Pasattu ņa
"In the 17th year of the reign) of the glorious Sundara-Pāņdyadēva, on the day of Pushya, which corresponded to a Wednesday and to the tenth tithi of the first fortnight of the month of Mina in the (cyclic) year Nandana."
This date must either belong to the reign of Märavarman Sundara-Pâpdya I., in whose seventeenth year, 1232-33 A.D. there was a cyclic Nandana; or to that of Jaţăvarman SandaraPandya II., in whose seventeenth year, 1292-93 A.D. (if he reigned so long) there was another Nandana. It could not be the Nandana 1532-33 A.D., in the reign of Māsavarman SandaraPandya Konērmaiko dan, because that year was only the second of the reign; nor could it belong to the reign of any other known Sandara-Pandya, as in these there was no such cyclic year.
Examining the date for A.D. 1232-33 I find that it is unsatisfactory. The tenth tithi of the first fortnight of luni-solar Chaitra in that year corresponded to the twenty-eighth day of solar Mina, which was Tuesday, March 22, A.D. 1233. The tenth tithi ended at 21 h. 2 m. after mean sunrise on that day, or at about 3-2 A. l. on the (European) Wednesday, i.e. some hours before the beginning of the Hindu Wednesday. Pushya ended 39 m, after mean sonrise on the Tuesday by the equal space and Garga systems, wbile by the Bramha-siddhanta the naskhatra was Aslēsha throughout the tenth tithi.
The date is fairly regular for A.D. 1292-93. In that year the tenth tithi of the first fortnight of Chaitra began 6 h. 52 m. after mean suprise on Wednesday, March 18th, A.D. 1293, which was the twenty-fourth day of solar Mina. The nakshatra by Garga and the equal space system was Pushya till 18 h. 34 m. after mean sunrise, and by the Brahma-siddhänta till 16 h. 16 m. after mean sunrise, on that Wednesday. If this was in the seventeenth year of Jaţāvarman SundaraPandya II., it fixes his accession on or later than March 19th A.D. 1276. It will be seen that, if this is the right date, the 10th tithi was connected with the Wednesday though at sunrise on that day it was not current; and this is unusual. Considering that this inscription is only four days later than No. 77 next following, which is regular in all respects, and that it belongs to the same place and temple, it is safe to assume that the tenth tithi was wrongly quoted for the ninth.
No. 588 of the Madras Epigrapbioal collection for 1907. ? The beginning of the inscription is mutilated.
Read Jamoatrao
