________________
166
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[AUGUST, 1913
I venture to give utterance to this warning after having finished an examination into the calculations, assignments of dates and deductions as to the reigns of kinge put forward by Dewan Bahadur L. D. Swamikannu Pillai in his two papers on "Some new dates of Pandya kings in the 13th century A. D.", published in the Indian Antiquary for 1913, pp. 163 ff., and 291 ff.). And before proceeding I hope to be pardoned both by that author and my readers if I make a short personal appeal.
I wish it to be clearly understood that the following paper has been put together and is now laid before the public in no spirit of antagonism to the author. On the contrary I feel that Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's attempt to throw light on the intricate chronology of the Pandya kingdom is cleserving of warm welcome and support; and it is to be hoped that he will continue the good work. My sole reason for entering the lists with him is to be found in the fact that, believing that in some cases his enthusiasm has led him to be rather too positive in his assertions and too hasty in his deductions, I fear lest these should meet with such general acceptance as to render any future alteration or correction a matter of great difficulty. Wo meet on purely scientific ground; and, whether I am right or wrong in my criticism of his results, nothing but good can result so long as personal relations remain undisturbed and the conflict of opinion is kept free from acrimony. Indeed I hope that after perusing my remarks Mr. Swamikannu Pillai will come to agree with me in some of my conclusions: All that I ask is that he should give each case careful reconsideration, and that the responsible government Epigraphists and the public should for the present refrain from accepting all his results as historical facts.
I will begin by a fow remarks on matters regarding which I find myself entirely in accord with the author.
(1) On p. 165 Mr. Swamikannu Pillai requests the government Epigraphist, in his notes on inscriptions published in the "Annual Reports", to give us some more extended information. I have long ago found the want of this. We ought to have, and I hope that in future we shall have, for every inscription where such details are available, (a) full details of the date,--not only the Saka or cyclic or regnal year; (b) a statement by the Epigraphist, based on the characters of the record, giving his opinion as to the apparent limits of the period within which it must have been engraved, this statement to be such as the author has suggested, viz: "about 13th century," "end of 12th or beginning of 13th century","loter than 14th century ", it being manifest that without this information investigators who have no access to the originals or squeezes or tracings from them, are all at sea ; (c) the opening words of the official introduction contained given in the original and not translated, seeing that these words are often characteristic and are confined to particular sovereigns, e. 8., Samasta-jagad-adhara, which points to a record of the reign of the Pandya Jatavarman Sundara whose accession took place in A.D 1251, Irandakalam-edutla which shews that the inscription was one of Ja ilavarman Srivallabha whose accession was in A. D. 1534 ; (d) A translation of any notable historical allusion contained in the inscription, such as is sometimes to be found amongst the king's titles or birudas or his boasts of victories gained e. g., "who took Ilam, Kongu and Sólamandalam, and performed the anointment of heroes at Perumbautu-puliyúr," & phrase which would at once guide us to king Jatavarman Vira Pâpdya whose reign began in A, D 1253,-or such an allusion as is contained in the body of the record, e.g., a reference to the Muhammadan raid of the early 14th century, mention of the Singhalese invader Laikapura (12 cent.), and so on.
