________________
247
No. 23.]
DATES OF CHOLA KINGS.
system of Garga or that of the Brahma-siddhanta; but at present I think that the weight of evidence shows that the equal-space system was then in use. Though the week-day is correct therefore the nakshatra is not so. And for that reason. I hesitate to accept the date.
For the reign of Kulottunga-Chola III the 3rd Sukla tithi of Jyeshtha corresponded to Monday, May 18th, A.D. 1181, which was the 25th solar day of Vrishabha; on which day at mean sunrise the moon was in Punarvasu by all systems. This therefore would coincide with the given date if we presumed that the week-day had been wrongly stated as Monday instead of Wednesday. The 3rd sukla tithi in question ended at 1h. 41m. after mean sunrise on the Monday, so that it could not be connected with the Tuesday, still less with Wednesday. I am therefore, as before, unable to accept that date as correct.
From the above transliteration it appears that the number of the regnal year "3" is somewhat doubtful. If the number is capable of being certainly ascertained, no doubt the date could be conclusively verified.1
RAJADHIRAJA II (?).
235. In the Kailasanatha temple at Alambakkam.
1 Svasti śri [*] Tiribuvanachchakkara [va]ttiga [! śr]i-Rājādh [ir]ājadē varkku yānḍu papniranda[va]du [8]maha-nayagru apara-pakshattu dala[milyum Tingn[-]ilamaiyum perra Mulattu nāl.
"In the twelfth year (of the reign) of the emperor of the three worlds, the glorious Rajadhirajadēva,-on the day of Mula which corresponded to a Monday and to the tenth tithi of the second fortnight of the month of [Si]mha."
This date is intrinsically wrong. During the month of Simha a tenth tithi of the second fortnight can never be connected with the nakshatra Mala; but a tenth tithi of the first fortnight can be so, and I have therefore tested the date for both these days in the reigns of Rajadhiraja I and II respectively.
Taking the latter first, the date must, for his 12th year, fall in A.D. 1174. In that year, in the month of Simha, the 10th krishna tithi fell on a Friday, and the 10th sakla tithi also on a Friday; the nakshatra in the second case being Mila by all systems. As the week-day is thus altogether wrong I reject this date, although in the second case the nakshatra stood as stated.
For the reign of Rajadhiraja I we have it, as established by Kielhorn, that his twelfth year began between March 15th and December 3rd, A.D. 1029. Hence the month of Simha in that regnal year may have been either in A.D. 1029 or 1030. In the first of these two cases the 10th krishna tithi of Simha fell on a Thursday, the nakshatra being Mrigasiras. This is plainly wrong. The 10th sukla tithi of Simha in A.D. 1029 was current at sunrise on a Thursday, the nakshatra Müla having expired 3h. 36m. before that sunrise. This also does not fit the description.
Now for the second case, viz., the Simha of the year A.D. 1030 (Saka 952). The 10th krishna tithi was current at sunrise of Monday, July 27tb, A.D. 1030, which was the 1st day of Simha; but the nakshatra then current was Rohini. This is altogether wrong. In the same year, A.D. 1030, the 10th śukla tithi was current at sunrise of Tuesday, August 11th, which
1 After examination of the original Mr. Krishna Sastri informs me that it is possible, though not probable, that the regnal year was "2," and not "3." I have consequently calculated the date for the 2nd year of each of these kings, finding it irregular in each case, both week-day and nakshatra being different to the given ones.
No. 728 of the Madras Epigraphical collection for 1909. 3 9 The letter Si appears to be a correction; read Simha..
