________________
i
No. 8.]
A NOTE ON THE DATE OF CHOLA GANDARADITYA.
88
evidently relate to one and the same king of that title, an attempt is made herein to fix the initial date of Rājakēsarin Gandarāditya. The records under reference are : Place. Details of date.
Remarks. 1. Allari . . 5th year, Kanni, lunar eclipse . Mentions the son of Virabola-Irukkuvél. 2. Pālor .
Ditto . . Mentions Mahimālaya-Irukkuvēl alias Parintakap
Viradőlan. 3. Do. . .
Ditto . .
Ditto.
From the surnames Parāntaka and Virachola of the Irukkuvēl chief named Mahimalaya figuring in the two Pālūr inscriptions (Nos. 2 and 3), it can be inferred that this chief had been a contemporary of Parāntaka alias Vira-Chola, and that the Rājakësarivarman, in whose records also he figures, was evidently one who came after this Chola king.
The occurrence of a lunar eclipse in the Kanyā month cited in the records is, however, an important astronomical detail, which is helpful in fixing the date. In the period of fifty years from A.D. 940 to 990, there were only three years in which such an eclipse occurred, viz.':
1. A.D. 954, September 15, Friday ; bu.15 0.35); Uttiraţtādi (Uttara-Bhādrapadā) (.15); 2. A.D. 955, September 4, Tuesday; bu.15 (92); Pūrattādi (Pūrya-Bhādrapada) (.50)
and Uttiraţtādi (f. d. n. .49); and 3. A.D. 973, September 15, Monday ; bu.15 (.25); Uttiraţtādi (.03). Of these, the last date may be left out of account as it would definitely fall in the 4th year of the reign of Parakēsarivarman Uttama Chõļa. The remaining two dates which are fortunately contiguous to each other and are removed by & period of one year only, would yield either A.D. 949-50 or A.D. 950-51 as the initial date of this Rājakësarivarman.
However, a record from Nirppalanio in the Pudukkottai State said to be dated in the 10th year of a Rājakēsarivarman states that Mahimālaya-Irukkuvēl alias Parāntakan-Virabolan, who is identical with the chief figuring in the Pālār inscriptions noted above, made a gift to the temple at Nirppalani, while he visited the temple at Tiruppălatturai during & lunar eclipse, which occurred in the Uttiraţtādi-nakshatra in the month of Kanya. As the other details are identical, the regnal year read as 10 appears to be a mistake for 5; and Uttiraţtādi-nakshatra must have also been the star quoted in the portion lost in the Allur inscription. It is quite possible also that the king had bestowed gifts to the four temples at Allūr, Pālūr, Nirppalani and Tiruppalatturai, all situated near to each other, on the same religious occasion of a lunar eclipse, while staying at the last-mentioned temple. A.D. 954 September 15, Friday, with Uttiraţtädi. nakshatra may therefore be selected as the date of these three records, in preference to the other date in A.D. 955. As this day fell in the 5th year of this king Rājakēsarivarman, the date of his accession would lie between A.D. 949, September 16 and A.D. 950, September 15.
1 No. 366 of the same collection for 1903. * No. 346 of the same collection for 1918. • No. 348 of the same collection for 1918.
In this record the portion containing the name of the nakshatra during which the eelipse occurred is built in, and the expression parrina is alone visible. The missing words were probably Uttiraffadi-nakshatrattu parrina as in the Nirppalani inscription.
According to Swamikannu Pillai's Indian Ephemeris, some other years in which snoh an folipa oooarred were A.D. 871, 889, 890, in the reign of Aditya I, a Rajakesarin ; but the records cannot palmographinally be attributed to that king.
• Inscriptions in the Pudukkolfas State, No. 30.
