________________
AUGUST, 1915]
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PANDYA MONARCHY
165
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PANDYA MONARCHY. (MR. SWAMIKANNU PILLAI'S THEORY.1)
BY ROBERT SEWELL.
Prefatory Remarks.
THE HE lost history of Southern India can only, at the present day, be reconstructed after careful and prolonged investigation of the inscriptions and literary remains that in large number await critical examination. A few of these have been fully published with translation and notes by Professor E. Hultzsch; and it is upon these; together with the information given in the Annual Reports on Epigraphy issued by the Government of Madras, that the European scholar has at first to depend when attempting to collect materials for a work on the subject. The labours of the late Professor Kielhorn of Göttingen were mostly confined to an examination of the dates of inscriptions, from which. by advancing slowly and with extreme caution, he was enabled to determine, within definite limits, consisting of a few months in some cases, a few days in others, the times of accession. to the throne of a certain number of sovereigns. All this work has been of immense value. With some as yet unbridged intervals, hereafter no doubt to be successfully filled in, we are now in possession of the general outlines, and in course of time the whole story will become plain. But it will never become plain if at the present very critical period workers are not particularly cautious in their methods. Deductions put forward or statements confidently made by an author who is recognized as an authority on the subject may, if these are perhaps based on insufficient evidence, have the unfortunate result of seriously clouding the issue and raising great difficulties for the student in after years. An assertion so made is apt to be accepted as an historic truth.
This cautious advance which I venture to advocate is peculiarly necessary in dealing with the history of the Padya kings of the extreme south of the peninsula for several reasons; not the least of which is that a large number of these Paya kings seem to have borne the same name, and these are liable to be confused one with another. Another reason is that when we examine the dates of the various reigns we find some overlappings, or what appears to be such; and this requires explanation. We should neither generalize too freely just at present, nor place before our readers conclusions derived from too scanty materials. We should by all means progress, but progress slowly and very carefully."
1 Ante. Vol. XLII. pp. 163 ff., 221 f.
2 1 append an illustration to shew how careful we ought to be in not propounding overhasty solutions to these problems of the dates of kings. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai has determined. and asks us to accept as the result of his calculations, the reign of a new and previously unheard of king called Maravarman Srivallabha Deva with accession hetween 4 and 10 September A. D. 1257, on the strength of three records, 110 of 1900, 539 of 1904, and an inscription at Pudukotâ. The first is, as I have admitted below (p. 196 of next issue of this journal), a regular date corresponding to 25 June 1278; he has to make two drastic alterations in the second date to make it support the former; and the last date agress with it only if we accept his ruling that we may consider a date regular whether or no the nakshatra ended on the day to which the tithi conforms or on the following day. In this last case he accepts the date in full and uses it to determine the latest possible day of the king's accession, though the nakshatra by ordinary custom belonged to the day following that predicated by the rest of the details given. In the end he has no hesitation in declaring this reign, beginning in A. D. 1257, quite certain, and as such he includes in his List. But these three dates may be so treated as to lead to a different result..
No. 110 of 1900 would be regular for Saturday 13 June 1271 A. D. on Mr, Swamikannu Pillai's ruling, the given nakshatra. Magha, ending next day.
No. 539 of 1904 would be regular for Wednesday, 22 August, A. D. 1285, on the same ruling (the given nakshatra ending next day), if we suppose that "sukla 5 is an error for krisha 5 in the original. A Sukla 5 in solar Simha in combination with Krittikâ is impossible.
The Pudukota date would be perfectly regular for Tuesday, 26 September, A. D 1284, all the details agreeing for that date. We might suppose "Monday" in the original to be a mistake.
These three dates taken together would prove Maravarman Sri Vallabha's accession to have taken place on a day between 23 August and 26 September, A. D. 1250, seven years earlier than Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's date.
Which result is to be accepted as historically certain? In the second date I have only made one serious change. He has made two. In the third date I make one change. That make us equal in the His dates are no better than matter of supposed original errors. For the rest I follow his own rule. mine, and there can therefore be no certainty about the date of accession.
