________________
198
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(SEPTEMBER, 1915
(150° +12°) 162' and the greatest possible must be (180° +24) 204. By the Brahma Siddhanta the moon enters Anuradhâ at 210° 49' 20," while by the equal-space system and that of Garga she enters it at 213° 20. It appears to me therefore that the combination is impossible. However that may be this date is imperfect. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai corrects "Kanya" to "Tula," and thus finds the corresponding day to be 19 October A. D. 1278. With this change his calculation is quite correct.
(No. 126 of 1910). I published this date in Vol. XI of the Epig: Ind: (p. 263, No. 112). We both agree in the day, and find the date perfect and regular. It corresponds to 21 September 1281.
(No. 123 of 1910). An irregular date which must be set aside.
(No. 124 of 1910). I published this date in Vol. XI of the Epig: Ind: (p. 263.No.118). Mr. Swamikannu Pillai arrives at the same conclusion as myself. We fix the day as 27 November 1295. The date is a perfect one.
(No. 734 of 1909). This date is admittedly irregular. Even if we allow Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's sweeping change of the 6th solar month Kanyâ into the 9th Dhanus we should still have to account for the day being wrongly coupled with the 10th instead of with, as it should be, the 9th krishna tithi. The lunar month was Margabirsha and I can find no ceremonial reason for a departure from the ordinary custom. The date should not be quoted as definitely established
(No. 506 of 1904). My calculation agrees with the author's. The date is 10 May, 1299.
(No. 46 of 1906). Do d o. do.' do. The date is 10 September 1301.
(No. 288 of 1903). I am unable to accept the author's conclusions with regard to this date. It is a troublesome one because the regnal year is exceedingly doubtful. The Epigraphist pronounces the first figure "4" to be questionable, lubas subsequently stated that the second figure, which he read as "9," may b
I have tried, unsuccessfully, all the years possible with these uncertain figures. I found the nearest approach to the details stated in the text to be in the 21st regral year, when the solar month, tithi, and nakshatra agree together, but the week-day is different, viz., Sunday, and not, as gi'ren, Wednesday. If this change be allowed the date correspond to 27 March, 1289; and perhaps this is the correct solution, Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's date, 27 March, 1308 is inacceptable for two reasons. First, he makes this day fall in the 41st year which is incorrect. This king's 41st year began in June 1308. Consequently 27 March of that year fell in the 40th regnal year, and the last figure of the given regnal year cannot, it appears, be read "0". Secondly, at sunrise on 27 March 1308 the moon had already passed out of the quoted Rohini and was in Mrigasiras. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai thinks that calculation for true sunrise and local time may have proved the moon to have been in Rohini. I differ from him here. Taking into account the latitude and longitude of the place (Madras), and converting mean to true time I calculate that the moon passed out of Rohiņf and into Mrigasiras 15m. 182. before true sunrise in Madras local time, on the Wednesday in question,
Jatavarman Sundara Pandra. (This is a new king proposed by Mr. Swamikannu Pillai, with accession in A. D. 1270. Are his existence and date conclusively proved by the inscription-dates on which the author relies ? I take sach in turn as before).
