________________
NOVEMBER, 1916) THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE PANDYA MONARCHY
255
present instance this is not the case, and there appears no reason for any departure from the usual custom
Neither of these three dates give us the day 15 April, and I do not understani' why Mr. Swamikannu Pillei gives us, as the accession-period of this king, a day bet, "15 April and 10 August 1316," as he has done in the heading. It seems to me that if the two dates on which I rely are accepted the accession period must be 24 March to 10 August A. D. 1815. His first (doubtful) date, 10th February, 1325, would not alter this fixture. It would be well to search for some confirmation of this reign, as we have actually only one quite perfect and regular date to go on; while as I have previously urged, the same combination of week-day, tithi, nakshatra and solar month may be looked for at intervals of about 30 or 35 years.
Tribh, Kulabekhara. (Reign began (1) 24 July 1161 to 23 July 1162 A. D. As the author states, the details of the date regularly correspond to Saturday 23rd July A. D. 1166; and as this date is confirmed by the characters of the record the inscription may be assumed to belong to the Kulašêkhara who was possibly) the son of Maravarmani Srivallabha who came to the throne in A, D. 1160-61. Kulasekhara after murdering the reigning Pâqdya Paråkrama and all his family at Madura, fought a desperate and losing fight with the Singhalese invader Lankapura, which is fully described in the Mahavaméa. The war is now usually called "The war of Pandya succession."
This date, if accepted (it is not confirmed as yet by any other) Axes Kulasekhara's accession as on a day between 24 July 1161 and 28 July 1162.
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
The author's Eight "Chila Dates." I am indebted to Mr. Swamikannu Pillai for his remarks in his paper on 'Eight Chola Dates" (Epig. Ind. XI, pp. 287 ff.) regarding the celebration of the Sivaratri festival. I have examined the dates he has published and agree with his results in all cases. They certainly belong to the reign of Kulottuiga Chola II, whose accession may now be determined to have taken place on a day between 10th May (not 9th) and 14th July A. D. 1133.
Both in No. 244 and 248 a "ninth " tịthi has been wrongly quoted for an eighth.
Under No. 249 Mr. Swamikannu Pillai writes that "a 6th tithi oan conour with the nakshatra Bharaṇi only in the dark fortnight of lunar Sráva a or of lunar Bhadrapada." I think he will find on examination that it can conour also with that nakshatra in the light, or first, fortnight of lunar Phálguna.
"Hints to workers in South Indian Chronology." In this lecture Mr. Swamikannu Pillai has given excellent advice to residents in Southern India. I only hope that before any of their working deductions are accepted they may be very carefully tested, since it is exceedingly easy to go wrong in these matters.
The author must allow me a few remarks on his proposed corrections of certain conclusions to which I arrived in my examination of dates published in the Epig. Ind. Vols. X and XI.
(1). Chola date No. 162 (No. 491 of 1907); Epig. Ind. X, p. 122, “Hints ..." p. 18).
The nakshatra was quoted to me by the Epigraphist as Hasta. The original (damaged) was quoted in English characters as "[A]tta [t]tu." Mr. Swamikannu Pillai gives it in Tamil characters as-LL , English-ddattu. He proposes to read this as meaning Anudattu and states that this stands for Anuradha. But it does not do so. It might
