________________
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(No. 130 of 1908). This date has been published by Prof. Jacobi (Epig: Ind: XI. p. 135, No. 84), and as such I examined it and found his conclusion unimpeachable. It corresponds to 7 December 1239, and proves that the king's accession could not have occurred later than 7 December 1238. Mr. Swamikannu concurs in the fixture for the date.
192
[SKPTEMBER, 1915
(No. 169 of 1895). I find the author's conclusion for this inscription perfectly correct. The date corresponds to 6 January 1249, and the regnal year must be read "11" and not "10". The accession-date is not affected by it.
(No. 616 of 1902). On the civil day fixed by Mr. Swamikannu Pillai as corresponding to the given details, viz: 12 July A. D. 1255, the given tithi, week-day and solar month certainly came together. But the moon is stated in the text to have been in the nakshatra 15 Svâti, whereas it should have been given as 14 Chitrâ according to ordinary custom; for she was in Chitra till about 48m. before mean sunset, when sue entered Svâti; and as the given 7th sukla tithi of Ashadha ended about 2h. 32m. after mean sunset, that tithi was only connected with Svâti for 3h. 20m. during the middle of the 24-hour period concerned. I can see no reason why the usual custom should have been departed from in this instance. A 7th sukla tithi is specially auspicious for donatione only when it is connected with a Sunday, or a Tuesday with the moon in Rêvati (in the lunar months Pausha or Magha), or when the moon is in the first quarter of Hasta, or when it coincides with a samkrânti, or when it belongs to one of certain lunar months in which the given unar month Ashâ iha is not included. Neither of these conditions was present in this case. (See Mr. S. Pillai's "Ind: Chronology," p. 48 of text). It is of course, possible that "Svâti" was engraved for "Chitrâ" owing to a simple mistake having been made by the computer or copyist, and on that ground it may be argued that the date should be accepted.
If accepted we note that the regnal year is stated as the 17th, and this proves that the king could not have begun to reign earlier than 13th July 1238; for if he had acceded to the throne as early as 12th July in that year the day of the date 12th July 1255, would have been the first day of his 18th year. Hence, instead of the limits fixed by Kielhorn from the dates examined by him, viz: 15th June 1238 to 18th January 1239, we should now have for this king's aceзssion a day between 13th July and 7th December 1238, determined by the dates 616 of 1902 and 130 of 190s. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai gives us this period as 3rd July to 1st December 1238, but apparently this assertion is based on certain other inscriptions which he tells us that he has examined, but which have not yet been published. We must wait for these before we make any change. To publish, as he has done, accession-dates without having placed his proofs before the public is a course which cannot be permitted to pass without challenge.
Jata varman Sundara Pandya I.
(Accession, fixed by Kielhorn, 20 to 28 April A. D. 1251).
(No. 260 of 1906). The date fixed by Mr. Swamikannu Pillai as corresponding to the description is doubtful in two respects. He asserts that it corresponds to 6th November A. D. 1256 but admits one error in the description; namely that that day was not in the given seventh regnal year but in the sixth. The second defect in it is that on that day, though it was a Monday and the moon was at mean sunrise in Mrigasiras, as stated in the text, the quoted 3rd krishna tithi was kshaya, or was expunged from the daily reckoning. It began about 1h. 51m. after mean sunrise and ended about 43m. before the next sunrise. The Monday therefore would have been associated with the 2nd and the Tuesday with the
