________________
SEPTEMBER, 1916)
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PANDYA MONARCHY
195
though he agrees with me as to the date of the inscripsions. Three of his eight inscriptions (Nos, 435 of 1906, 402 of 1907, and 128 of 1908) support my view, while the o her five, four of which all come from the same temple, also do so if it is allowed that a mistakeof one regaal year was accidentally made-in each. The mistake in the group of four may be explained by the engravers of the last three following an initial error in the first so that I may claim actually to make only two corrections in the regnal years of all these eight inscriptions in order, by so doing, to make the whole of them confirmatory of the accuracy of my view of the case. I shall now briefly review these eight new inscriptiondates upon which Mr. Swamikannu Pillai relies. His calculations are correct as to the civil days.
(No. 142 of 1894). " 4th "regnal year of Jatavarman Vira, 14th May 1258. I hold that " 4th" regnal year is an error for "5th," and that the king in question is Kielhorn's "E" (accession in A. D. 1253).
(No. 129 of 1894.) From the same temple, "4th " rognal year, for "5th "; 5th August A. D. 1257. But here, as in former instances noted above, a kshaya, or expunged, tithi is quoted, the reason for which does not appear. As regards the number of the regnal year I assume that it is correctly read as " 4th" though I observe that the Epigraphist has classed the figure as doubtful. Should it be really *5th " the inscription, if acceptable, directly supports my contention,
(No. 136 of 1894). From the same temple. “6th” regnal year, for “ 7th "; 11th July A. D. 1259. The solar month incorrectly stated as "Kanyå "instead of "Karka." Hence the date is not a perfect one.
(No. 151 of 1894). From the same temple. "7th " regnal year, for "8th ", 12th November A.D. 1260. The tithi and week-day are not mentioned.
(No. 134 of 1908). From another place." 10th " regnal year for "11th." 1 June A. D. 1264.Again no mention of tithi and week-day. If I am correct in my revision of the regnal year this date proves that this king oould not have begun to reign earlier than 2 June 1253. Using it for his own purposes Mr. Swamikannu Pillai should have observed that the earliest possible accession-day of his new king would be 2 June 1254, whereas he has stated that earliest day as 15 May of that year. . (No. 435 of 1906). 14th regnal year. 4 July A. D. 1266. This date directly supports my case, giving the latest possible day for accession of the king as 4 July 1253. Accession on 5 July of that year would cause 4 July 1266 to be in the 13th year. To make it suit his case Mr. Swamikannu Pillai would have to alter the number of the regnal year.
(No. 402 of 1907). 14th regnal year. 19 June A, D. 1267. The day corresponded with the 11th ksiahua tithi of Nija Jyêsh:ha, which was the day called "Yogini ekadast" and a festival day. But the moon only entered the given nakshatra after about 6 hours had elapsed from mean sunrise ; so that by common custom the day would have been connected with the nakshatra next earlier. If this correction be allowed this date must be taken as supporting my case, and as shewing that the king could not have begun to reign earlier than 20th June 1253. Such a correction is in accordance with Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's own processes.
(No. 128 of 1908). 22nd regnal year. 29th April, A. D. 1275. This date is perfect and regular and directly supports my case, the given day failing in the 22nd year of the Vira Pa dya who came to the throne in A. D. 1253.11 He is styled "Jatavarman." In order
T The "E" of Prof. Kiellorn's List (Fpig. Ind. IX. p. 287.)
