________________
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.
