________________
NOVEMBER, 1915)
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PANDYA MONARCHY
2 47
Ganapati.22 These facts are conclusive that a Vikrama Pândya reigned about the period assigned, and it only remains to try and determine the date of his accession.
(No. 143 of 1902). I concur with the date determined for this, viz., 11 January 1286. “Sukla 4" is an error for sukla 14. The date is therefore not quite perfect, but it may be accepted. If so it fixes the earliest possible accession-day as 12 January 1283, the regnal year given being the 3rd.
(No. 120 of 1896). This, of the 5th regnal year, is a perfect and regular date and agrees, as fixed by the author, with 14 December 1287. According to it the earliest possible accession-day would be 15 December A.D. 1282.
(No. 410 of 1909). The corresponding date is 29 August 1288, but the date in the record is not quite satisfactory, since the moon passed into the given nakshatra more than 8 hours after mean sunrise. If accepted it determines the earliest possible day for the ling's accession as 30 August 1282, since the given regnal year is the 6th.
(No. 116 of 1900). A perfect and regular date corresponding to 14 December A.D. 1291. The 8th regnal year is stated, which would fix the earliest possible accession-date as 15 December A.D. 1283 ; but this contradicts the first three inscriptions noted above. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai has not noticed that if the date be accepted we shall have to correct the number of the regnal year, taking the “8th " year to have been quoted in error for the 9th. Then the date will agree with the others.
(No. 251 of 1901). This is an unsatisfactory date as the number of the regnal year is very doubtful and, even if we accept Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's suggestion, the quoted nakshatra is not the one which by custom would have been connected with the civil day. I prefer therefore to set this date on one side.
The first three of these dates fix the king's accession as on a day between 12 January and 29 August A.D. 1283, as determined by the author. But amongst the five inscriptions noticed only two datos are perfoot and regular, and if accepted without the alteration suggested in No. 116) one of these contradicts the other. Nevertheless I think that Mr. Swamikannu Pillai is justified in his conclusion.
Jatavarman Tribh: Vikrama Pandya. (No. 11 of 1894). I find no justification for the entry of this name in the list proposed for our acceptance. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai only offers us one inscription, no other corroborating it having as yet been found. And he gives us two dates, viz., 30 June A.D. 1278, and 1 July A.D. 1305, for either of which he says the details will suit. I take these in turn. The given details are the 9th śukla tithi in solar Mithuna; Thursday; the moon in Svati.
1) For Thursday, 30 June A.D. 1278. On this day at sunrise the moon was certainly in Svâti and the 9th śukla tithi was current; but the solar month was not, as given, Mithuna. The day in question was the 3rd day of Karka. For the 9th sukla tithi in Mithuna in that year the week-day was Wednesday, and the moon at sunrise was in Hasta. The day was 6 Mithuna and 1 June.
(*) For Thursday, 1 July A.D. 1305. On this day the 9th sukla tithi was current at sunrise and the moon was in Svâti as given; but, as before, I find that the current
If Vikrama Pandya's accession took place as late as A.D. 1283 it is not probable that the king whom he conquered was the Ganapati whose last known date was about 1250 A. D. It may have been a Vassal of the Kakatiya bearing the same name, or it may have been Queen Rudramma, the gonario name " Ganapati" being applied to her.
