________________
NOVEMBER, 1915] THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PANDYA MONARCHY
249
I think the existence of this king, whose accession must be placed on a day between 20 April A. D. 1291 and 3 April 1292, quite possible; and as No. 642 of 1902 mentions his 25th year he lived, if he lived at all, till A.D. 1316. But we require a little better ovidenoo before we oan be quite sure. It should never be forgotten that all the details of & perfoot date (though not of an extraordinarily perfect one, i. e., when the number of the day of the solar month is stated in addition to the rest) will be found suitable to about three days in every century. Thus on his p. 227 the author gives us two alternative European dates for one perfect and regular Pâniya date, one in A. D. 1266 and one in 1310. Henoe two of these dates, 499 of 1909 and 642 of 1902, may be found perfectly to correspond with a year some 30 or 35 years before or after the dates claimed for them by the author, and still fulfil all the requirements of the Epigraphist.
Maravarman Tribh : Sundara Pandya. (A king named Sundara Pandya is known to have lived about the end of the 13th
and beginning of the 14th century]4. D. The author proposes for his
accession a day between 19 February and 6 March A. D. 1294.) (No. 342 of 1911). The given details of the date correspond in part to the day fixed by Mr. Swamikannu Pillai, viz., Sunday, 16 April A.D. 1307; but by the usual practice that day would have been called the day of "Hasta," out of which nakshatri the moon passed during the day. The quoted " Chitra" would have been connected with the next day, Monday. The date is not quit, regular. It would probably be found porfect for a year about (roughly) 35 years earlier or later.
(No. 343 of 1911). The same remarks apply to this date, mutatis mutandie. It is not quite regular. An error of I was made in the number of the tithi. The author's oalculation agrees with mine.
(No. 344 of 1911). In this day the number of the tithi is illegible, and to regalarize the date the author changes the quoted fortnight to make it suit the year he has found for the accession of this king. But this is in my opinion, going too far. In every year the moon was in the quoted nakshatrı on some day in the quoted solar month Kumbha. These two details therefore afford no guide whatever. The only guides to the date are the week-day, Monday (this conjunction would occur once in every six years or SO) and the lunar fortnight. The author changes the fortnight. This date is therefore quite useless as proof. And yet I find that Mr. Swamikannu Pillai uses it to fix the earliest possible day of the king's accession, & conolusion I must hold to be inadmissible.
It is possible for these three dates to be found regular for quite other years. They are none of them conclusive as they stand. I must hold tho a coassion-date proposed for this king to be at present not proved,
Jatavarman Vira Pandya. (A king named Vira Pånd ya is known to have lived early in the 14th century. The author proposes for his accession a day between 23 June and 24 July A. D. 1296).
I have not been able to ascertain on what foundation Mr. Swamikannu Pillai bases thess possible accession days. Professor Jacobi published five inscription dates of a king (or kings) baaring the same nam; (Ep. Int. XI, 137-39), and Mr. Swamikannu Pillai has given us three more; but in none of them is a day mentioned which would give us the accession limits stated by the latter. He is evidently convinced of their correctness (see the note to p. 226), and it must be assumed that he had some reason, possibly founded
