________________
SEPTEMBER, 1915)
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PANDYA MONARCHY
201
13th year, as quoted, of the new king. But it would also fall in the 7th regnal year of Jatav: Sundara II.
(418 of 1909). I published this inscription in Epig: Ind: Vol. XI (p. 258 No. 109) stating that with one apparent defect it corresponded to 26th February A.D. 1289. This defect is precisely similar to that pointed out as existing in the inscription last noted. The quoted tithi and nakshatra really belonged by custom to Sunday 27th February, but the tithi was current for part of Saturday 26th and the moon was in the given nakshatra for part of that day. With this reservation I gave the corresponding day as the Saturday. I maintain this date as the correct one merely in order to point out to Mr. Swamikannu Pillai that it stands on precisely the same plane as No. 315 of 1909 which he insists on our accepting as settled. Why not, then, allow this one to be settled as I suggested ? It falls in the given 13th year of Jatav. Sundara II.
However, I admit that his date, corresponding to 6th March 1283, is perfect and regular one. The only question would be whether a mistake was made in the regnal year which is quoted as the "13th". The day (6 March, A. D. 1283) would fall in the 7th year of Jativ: Sundara II, or in the given 13 h year of Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's new king of the same name.
(No. 191 of 1901). This, I think, is a new date, never previously published. The details given are the 14th regnal year, solar munth Adi, Monday, Hasta. The tithi is not given. These details will not correspond regularly with any day in the 14th year of either of the known Ja av: Sundaras, nor indeed with any in the 14th year of Mr. Swamikannu Piliai's king. To make the date suit his purposes he alters the regual year from "14" to « 15", seeing that in the 15th year of his new king the details correspond to Monday 9th July, 1285. They do so. But with a defective date (w.nting the tithi) to begin with and an arbitrary change of regnal year to follow, this inscription cannot be accepted as historical proof. While I have said that the details do not regularly suit any day in the 14th year of either of the known Jalgv: Sun laras, the date might, on Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's principle, be held to correspond to 30th June 1264. On that day, which was 4 Âdi and a Monday and in the given 14th regnal year of Jatav: Sundara I, the moon entered Hasta about 19h. 36m, after mean sunrise. The inscription should be examined to ascertain if there is any further clue; e. g., many of the 1st Jaţavarman Sundara Pandya's records begin with the words “Samasta jagaci-adhara."
(308 of 1909). I published this inscription-date in Epig. Ind. XI, (p. 259, No. 108) and pronounced it regular, corresponding to 25 August A. D. 1292, which was in the quoted solar month Simha, in the quoted regnal year, 17th, of Jatav: Sundara II (accn. 1276) the tithi being the 11th sukla (the numeral is obliterated in the text, but the sukla fortnight was given), with the moon in the given nakshatra, Uttara Ashadhâ, by all systems. Its only imperfection is in the obliteration of the word or figures of the tithi. Mir, Swamikannu Pillai states that the last akshara of the number is to be read-mi, and if this is quite certain the number might be 5, 6, 8, 9, or 10, and not 11. For my figure 11, the last al-sha:a ought to be . Even if he is correct the akshara might have been engraved in error; and I see ne sufficient reason in this for declaring the date, otherwise perfect, to be incorrect.19 What about his fixture? He states it to be 6th September 1288. Now that day was not in the 17th year of his king, as given, but in the 18th. Secondly, the solar month was not Simha as given, but Kanya, (the author mentions it as in Sinha but this is not the case). Thirdly the nakshatra which would regularly have given its name to that day by the qual-space system was Purva Ashâdha,
19 If anyone should consider this as going too far let me call attention to No. 680 of 1909, above, in which case Mr. Swamikannu Pillai changes not one syllable only but a whole, clearly engraved, word Akadail into parichami to suit his theory.
