Book Title: Indian Antiquary Vol 44
Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Previous | Next

Page 226
________________ 200 THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY [SEPTEMBER, 1915 fixture his date has a defect; for the moon was not at sunrise on that day in the quoted nakshatra Rohivi, but was in Ksittik. She passed into Rohiyi only about 7 hours after sunriso, and I know no reason for any departure from the usual custom in this case. (See my note in the Introduction--"The nakshatra of the day.) (No. 319 of 1909). I published this inscription in Epig: Ind: XI, p. 255 (No. 100), and found it irregular for the given 8th regnal year of either of the known Jayavarman Sundaras. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai decides that the day was 26 May 1278. It is true that the given waek-day, tithi and solar month coincide with that day; but at mean sunrise the moon was in the 7th nakshatra Punarvasu and not in the 8th Pushya as given. She passed into Pashya about 4 hours after mean sunrise. According to the author this does not matter, and if he is correct his conclusions cannot be gainsaid. (See remarks under the last inscription.) Granting the date perfect it only remains to be quite certain that the regnal year has been rightly read, since the date would fall in the 2nd year of the known Jayavarman Sundara whose accession was (probably) in August 1276. The date if ascepted for the new king does not affect the period of accession already found. (No. 805 of 1909). I published this inscription in Epig. Ind. XI, p. 256, (No. 103). The given details are the 8th regnal year, 16 Monday, on a day not stated of the dark fortnight in the solar month Mithuna, the moon being in Uttara Bhadrapada. All these are correst for the 8th year of Ja âv. Sundara I, coinciding with 27 May 1258, but by the equa!-3p23e system of nakshatrss, which I think was then in use, the moon entered the given nakshatra about an hour after mean sunrise. By the system of Garga and the Brahmi Siddhånta the details given are correct in all respects for that day. If, as laid down by Mr. Swamikannu, it does not invalidate a date that the given nakshatra should be one into which the moon had entered not at sunrise but at some later moment, I fail to see why he should have set aside this date and conclusively declared it to correspond to a different one, viz., 13th June 1278. He gives no reason. I have nothing to say against his date, which is certainly perfect and following his own reasoning, regular. My only point is that it may belong, equally well, to the reign of Jațâr : Sundara I, and therefore it should not be used as proof of the existence of a new king. If, however, it be accepted for this new king his accession date remains as already found (584 of 1902). The given details are the 10th regnal year, the solar month Dhanus, suk: 2, Sunday, and the moon in Pushya. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai is correct in saying that this date cannot belong to the reign of either of the other known Sundaras ; and it has to be altered completely out of shape to make it suit the reign of his new king. By changing “Dhanus" to " Makara ", "sukla 2" to " Pahula 2" and the 11th "regnal year to the 10th " regnal year, he makes the details all correct for 29th December 1281. But these alterations are too sweeping. The date as given is thoroughly irregular and should be set aside. Instead of which the author makes it of such historical importance that he relies upon it as establishing the earliest possible date of the reign of his new king, viz: 29th December 1270. I cannot allow this to pass unchallenged. (315 of 1909). I published this date in Epig: Ind: Vol. XI, (p. 256, No. 102) declaring it irregular for the reign of either of then known kings. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai finds it correct for 3rd February A. D. 1283. I agree with his calculations, but it is not a perfect date. Certainly the quoted tithi was current for nearly 19 hours on the quoted Wednesday, and the moon was in the quoted nakshatra for nearly 15 hours of that day. Nevertheless it was the Thursday not the Wednesday that was called after that nakshatra and was connected with that tithi. And no ceremonial reason is apparent for such a change of nomenclature. If accepted, as seems reasonable, the date would be in the 16 I am assured that the figure "8" is quite clear in the wiginal.

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424