________________
AUGUST, 1915)
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PANDYA MONARCHY
173
century, was ro-calling to the minds of the priesthood the glories of ancient days he told them of how King Vattâgâmini had routed "the five fierce Tamil tyrants in open battle."9 This might be thought to refer to a combination of five joint Pàņdyas, but it does not. These tive tyrants were five successive usurping rulers of Ceylon in the first century B. C., or thereabouts 10 If it be argued that the use of the word "Pandyas" in the plural, sometimes found in inscriptions of neighbouring states, implies a joint-rule by several kings at the same time, I can only point out that these records also speak of “Chôlas" “Rashtrakûțas" and other royal families in the plural; just as in Europe we read in histories of " Bourbons" or "Hohenzollerns."
The Pandya country was under an independent sovereignty till the end of the tenth century, and up to that date we only hear of one king ruling at a time. After this it was subject to the Chôļas till the beginning of the thirteenth century though the dignity of the local royal family wag maintained. Does any conclusive evidence exist to prove that the Pandya rulers after this date ever really established the extraordinary custom of a Government by five brothers or five joint kings? Mr. Swamikannu Pillai rests his argument on the overlapping of some reigns in the thirteenth century, and would of course quote the testimony of the Muhammadan historians and Marco Polo in support of it; to these due weight must be given.
First as to overlapping. Some of the reigns do overlap, but they also overlap in the Chôla kingdom and no one has ever suggested that the Chôla country was ruled by a sort of royal committee. I think that this overlapping can be reasonably explained by the analogy of Singhalese practice. We learn from the Mahavarnia that each king of Ceylon appointed a Sub-King, who succeeded him at his (the King's) death, and then provided for the succession by again appointing a Sub-King.
If this were the practice in the Pâydya realm it would be natural for each king's regnal year to be counted from the date of his appointment as Sub-king, not from that of his later anointment as Sovereign. Moreover it must not be forgotten that Hindu kings wore enjoined by their religious authorities to retire from active work even while still in possession of all their faculties, and devote themselves to asceticism and preparation for the next life. Some of them may have done so. We require to know a good deal more before we can dogmatize on this subject; and the following Table is merely put forward as a suggestion, and because it would serve to account for the overlapping of reigns at least as well as, if not better than, Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's Tentative Table of joint Five-Pandya rule in the 13th century. I am aware that there are difficulties and I do not insist on the correctness of the Table.
KING.
Date of accession.
Last known
date.
Date of possible appointment of
Sub-king.
· Jatav: Kulasekhara ...
1190 1217
1216 Marav: Sundara
1216
1237 (1) Jatav : Kulasekhara
1237-8 (?) 1238 Marav: Sundara
1238
(?) 1255 (?) 1251 Jatây : Sundara ,
1251 1264
1253 (Probably a very short reign of a" Mayav.": king.) . Mahdenisa LXXXII, v. 23.
10 Mardansa, XXXIII.
