________________
NOVEMBER, 1918) THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PANDYA MONARCHY
245
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PANDYA MONARCHY. (MR. SWAMIKANNU PILLAI'S THEORY.)
BY ROBERT SEWELL. (Contirised from p. 202.) Jatavarman Sundara Pandya.
(Accession August 1276.) T have paid very great attention to the question of the date of accession of this king and in Epig. Ind. XI (pp. 259-61) have given full reasons for supposing that it was on a day between 6 and 25 August 1276.21 We have many records of this reign.
(414 of 1908). Professor Jacobi published this date in Epig. Ind. XI (p. 135, No. 85) and decided that, for the year 1285, the given week-day, Sunday, did not work out correctly; and his calculation is correct. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai, however, wishes us to accept the date as Sunday 21st October A. D. in that year. The stated regnal year is the 9th. According to all former information October 1283 would be in the 10th, (or even perhaps in the 11th) regnal year of this king. I believe it to have been in his 10th year; so that, taking his date, we must consider "9" as a mistake for "10". Then, though the day was one in the given solar month Tula, the given 7th krishna tithi was properly connected with the following day, Monday, not Sunday; and the nakshatra named was also appropriate to the Monday. The tithi belonged to the lunar month 'Karttika, and it was current on the forenoon of that day; it was therefore the occasion of a Kalpadi ceremony. I hold then that the date may be Monday 22 October 1285, "Sunday" being an error. This really strengthens the author's case because it predicates only two instead of three errors in the original. The date is not to be classed as regular, because the wrong regnal year and the wrong week-day are given.
(581 A of 1902). I concur with the author as to this date. It confirms the opinion I expressed as to the date of accession, and it is in itself a perfect and regular.
(575 of 1902). Prof. Kielhorn published this date in Epig. Ind. VIII (p. 279, No. 54), stating that the corresponding day was "apparently" 27 August A.D. 1287. The present author names the same day. There is another inscription in the same temple (No. 580 of 1902) which looks as if it were intended to be of the same date, and Mr Swamikannu Pillai has noticed this second date on his p. 228, utilizing it as establishing the reign of a different king altogether and declaring it to correspond to 28 August A.D. 1314 (below p. 252). For prezent purposes I place the details of the two together. It will be seen that the second is mutilated. The first seems to be good condition with the exception of the first figure of the day of the solar month, the second, “1” being legible. The details of No. 575 are copied from the publication of Prof. Kielhori, and as supplied by the Epigraphist.
(No. 575). 12th regnal year; Rêvatî; Wednesday ; 3 ks : ; [3]1 Simha. (No. 580). 1[?] regnal year; -vati ; Wed. ... ; 3 kr:; 31 Simha.
Mr. Swamikannu Pillai does not explain why, when the responsible Epigraphist read the solar month day in the first case as “ [3]1 ", (there being no doubt as to the "1") he decli.res it to be " 29". (As a matter of fact the date, if allotted to A.D. 1287, corresponds to 30 Simha,"31" being taken as an error in the original). Nor does he
21 Prof. Jacobi's No. 88. (Epig. Ind. XI, p. 136), reduces the period to 10-26 August 1276.
