________________
168
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(AUGUST, 1913
“ Prool" of a king's existence. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai is, if I may be pardoned for saying so, rather too dogmatic in his assertions in many places. Writing purely as a chronologist he congratulates himself (p. 164) or the accuracy of the results presented to epigraphists" in his article, and the
positive resalts" at which he has arrived; he states that he has proved " some points and is able to show" others; and by adding a dozen new names" is able to remove the "obscurity" hitherto existing in which Pandya history has been involved. If readers are able to wado through the paper which I have drawn up they will, I think, conclude that some at least of the results alluded to are, viewed as verifications of dates, unfounded ; that in some cases proof is altogether wanting ; that of the dozen new names we can only feel fairly sure of three or four (though we must recognize as regards these the service he has done); and that so far from removing obscurity his article, by suggesting possible reigns on somewhat questionable evidence, rather increases it.
Setting aside the case of an inscription which contains such historical statements or allusions as themselves oonstitute proof, and considering solely the dates of records devoid of such contents, we should, I think, do well to follow in the footsteps of the late Prof. Kielhorn who with laudable caution declined to proclaim decisively the existence and reign of a king until he had before him at least two perfect and regular dates taken from evidently contemporary documents and agreeing with one another. As for instance in the case of Jatavarman Vira Pandya (accession A. D. 1253). Prof. Kielhorn had before him his date No. 31 (Epig: Ind :, VII, pp. 10, 11), which was in itself perfect and regular, and which, if he had considered that one such date was sufficient to establish conclusively the reign of a king of whose existence nothing as yet was known, he would have at once published. But he was not so rash. He waited, and after sone time was rewarded by the discovery of a dato (No. 32) in another inscription, equally perfect and regular and confirmatory of the first. Then he was satisfied, and be published the two together. Had his life been spared he would have been gratified by the discovery of a third, similar, viz: my No. 69 (op. cit : X p. 139).
In my humble opinion this caution was exemplary and should be imitated by all eagaza 1 in chronological work (of which alone I speak). It will be seen hereafter that Mr. Swamikannu Pillai does not entertain this view of the matter. He has in one case considered a reign as conclusively proved when the only evidence adduced by him consists of two dates, each in itself defective and one stating á regnal year which contradicts the other. This is his Jatavarman Vira Pândya (acon. 1189-90), the first of his list on p. 165. In another case he has included in his list of proved reigns (p. 166) the name of a king contained in a solitary inscription, as to whose date he himself is so doubtful that he has given two possible renderings of it separated by an interval of 27 years, and for either of which renderings the quoted solar month is inapplicable. This is his Jatavarman
41 call an inscription "perfect when it contains the regnal year, the solar month, the number and fortnight of the tithi, the day of the week and the nakshatra. If in addition to these details it also states the number of the day of the solar month it is "exceptionally perfect." When one or more of the first mentioned five details are wanting it is claseed as imperfect". When all the details are found on examination to correctly correspond to the astronomical requirements of the civil day the dato is classed a "regular". If it is fonnd on examination that some slight mistake has been made by the original computer or by the engraver which does not entirely vitiate the sournoy of the whole. and which may be corrected without danger, the date is set down as "not quite regular". If the details are found not to correspond the date is said to be “irregular."
