________________
248
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[NOVEMBER, 1915
solar month was Karka and not Mithuna. The day corresponded to 4th Karka. The 9th sukla tithi in Mithuna was connected with Wednesday 2 June A.D. 1305, which corresponded to 7th Mithuna with the moon in Hasta at sunrise.
Thus I find Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's calculation in each case erroneous. It is no part of my present purpose to search for an appropriate date. That can be done at leisure. The combination of a 9th sukla tithi with the moon in Svati in the month of Mithuna requires that the civil day should be one towards the end of that olar month. The 9th sukla tithi in each of the years suggested by Mr. Swamikannu Pillai fell early in Mithuna when the combination was impossible.
Jatavarman Brivallabhadeva. This is another new king whose reign is considered by Mr. Swamikannu Pillai to be satisfactorily established by the evidence of the four inscriptions of which he quotes the dates. He fixes this king's accession as between 5th April and 12th November A.D. 1291, but the first of his dates proves that the accession conld not have been on a day earlier than 20 April A.D. 1291.
(No. 508 of 1909). Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's date is quite correct and the details of it are regular. It corresponds to Friday 19 April A.D. 1297.
(No. 499 of 1909). Examining this date, of which the details are Mêsha 11. Paurņami, Tuesday, I find that in A.D. 1300, in the solar month Mêsha, the 15th sukla, or paurņami, tithi was probably repeated and was connected both with 11 Mêsha, which was Monday, and 12 Mesha, Tuesday. The paurnami tithi began about 56m. before mean sunrise on that Monday (4 April A.D. 1300) and ended about 26m. after mean sunrise on the Tuesday (5 April). Properly speaking, therefore, the real paurnami tithi was connected with Tuesday 5 April, but that day was the 12th and not the 11th Mesha.
The date, therefore, is not quite regular, also it is imperfect.
(No. 642 of 1902). I find the author's date quite suitable for the details given. The 11th sukla tithi is quoted though it only began on the Saturday in question, 3rd April A. D. 1316, about 4 hours after sunrise, and this is not the general rule. But the difference may be accounted for by the tithi in question being the occasion of the Kamadà êkada celebration.
(No. 689 of 1902). Here there are two daies mentioned in the record. The first is a date in the 21st year of the well-known king Maravarman Kulasekhara (acc. 1314) the beginning of whose reign has been fixed for us by Professor Kielhorn. l'he given date corresponds to Monday 13th June A.D. 1334, the 12th sukla tithi being wrongly quoted for the correct) 11th. The second date Mr. Swamikannu Pillai identifies, though a little doubtfully, with Wednesday, 12th November A. D. 1315, I have examinod this carefully. and conour with the author's view; the details given are peculiar and contain an expression which he characterizes, rightly, as "extraordinary." The date is distinctly unsatisfactory.
To sum up this evidence. There is only one perfect date offered to us, which, so far as it goes, shews that it may belong to a king whose reign began inside the year from 20th April 1291 to 19th April 1292 A. D. This is the first date mentioned. The second is imperfect and not quite regular. The third may be held to be perfect and regular ; ite date would go to shew that the king's accession could not have taken place later than 3rd April A. D. 1292. The fourth is hardly to be accepted.
