________________
194
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
to change the 14th (quoted) into the (correct) 13th year of the king; but the astronomical details given suit this date exactly. As the details given are meagre the date cannot be relied on.
[SEPTEMBER, 1915
I find myself in agreement with the author in three out of his six dates. The accession period remains unchanged, and as determined by Prof. Kielhorn.
Vira Pandya (Kielhorn's "E").
(Accession 11th Nov. 1252-13th July 1253 A.D.).
(Ja avarman Vira Pandya.)
(Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's new king, with accession 15th May-19th June A. D 1254.)
I take these inscriptions of Vira Paudya together, as it will be seen in the end that I cannot find any good reason for accepting Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's assertion that they prove the existence of two distinct sovereigns, one, acceding to the throne in A. D. 1253, called by the title "Maravarman" and one, acceding in A. D. 1254, called by the title "Jatavarman." It appears to me quite possible that all the inscriptions belong to one king whose title was "Jatavarman", and that the engraver of the record No. 395 of 1900 carved the title Miravarman" in error. Such a mistake is by no means unusual. Prof. Hultzsch has shewn (S. I. I. III, 204 ff.) that whereas the official title of the Chôla king Rajadhi âja II was "Rajakêsari" he is in four inscriptions called "Parakêsari"; and the Côja king Râjarâja II, whose official title was "Parakêsari" is in one inscription called "Râjakêsari."
(No. 395 of 1999). Prof. Kielhorn's two dates Nos. 31, 32, (Epig. Ind. VII, pp. 10, 11.) are each perfect and regular; and they prove the existence of a king named Vira Payya, whose acession took place on a day between 11th November 1252 and 13th July 1253 A. D. The inscriptions give no dynastic title. I also subsequently published (op. cit. X, p. 139, No. 69) a perfect and regular date of the 17th year of a Vira Pandya with the dynastic title of "Ja âvarman" which corresponded to 8th August 1269 and in my opinion belonged to the reign of Kielhorn's Vira Pâudya, the regnal year being correct. I considered this sufficient proof that the dynastic title of this king was "Jațâvarman. 1 also published (op. cit. XI, p. 266, No. 117) the date which is now republished by Mr. Swamikannu Pillai (No. 395 cf 1909). It is perfect and regular and it confirms the former ones in all respects as regards the king's accession, but it gives him the dynastic title "Maravarman. This seemed to me to be a mistake for "Jațâvarman," at any rate the evidence was evenly balanced up to that point. Subsequent study of Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's inscriptions confirms me in my opinion that the king's title was "Ja âva min and that the Miravarman" of No. 395 of 1909 was an error of the engraver.10 Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's belief, however, is different, as I have shewn above,
8.
16 Here in England, I have no means of knowing what is the descriptive formula applied to the king in this inscription. I hope that the Madras Epigraphist will enlighten us on this point: for if it should be found that the short account of the king's exploits often given in these records is given hero, and is similar to that stated in some of Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's inscriptions (e. g., Nos. 134 of 1908, 435 of 1906. 402 of 1907) that fact would go strongly to prove that the Vira Pandya of No. 395 of 1909 ("Maravarman") and he of the other inscriptions ( Ja avarman") were one and the same person, the title in No. 395 having been engraved in error. These exploits are as follows" He took flam, Kongu, and, Si amanda ara". e, Ceylon. Ch ra and Chola), "performed the anointment of heroes at Perum Arrapuliyûr" and apparently introduced into his army "Kannadiyan horsemen", i e., a regiment of cavalry from the Kanarese country. The inscription mentioned in the text, which I call "my No. 69 states that the king conquered "Ko ganam," took the river Kâvêrf (i. e., defeated the Cholas) and performed the anointment of heroes at Puliyur; and this statement proves him to be the same king as the Vira Pandya of the three records noted above.
