________________
256
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(NOVEMBER, 1915
stand for Dhanishtha. The Tamil for an Anuradha-day is Anilattu-na!, as he himself points out lower down on the same page. The author proposes to verify this date (which I had given up as irregular) by also changing the name (given in legible letters) of the solar month “Makara" into Kumbha. He coajectures that the reading should be " Monday; the 7th krishna tithi; in solar Kumbha; nakshatra Anuradha." But on calculation I find that the day in solar Kumbha on which he relies because it coincided with Anuradha and the 7th kțishņa tithi, viz., 11th February A.D. 1121, was not a Monday at all but was a Friday. It is impossible to accept this amendation. His date would have details totally different from the original.
(2) Choja date 165. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai's date corresponding to the given description is 11 July A. D. 1125. This he states was in solar Kanyâ, but it was not. It was in Karla. However, that his date may be the one intended I do not dispute. The point must remain doubtfu) as the solar month seems to be wrong in the original; and I must uphold my decision that the date cannot be depended upon. I fail to understand the author's statement that "A krishna navami tithi on Anuradha day in Makara is a chronological impossibility." On the contrary it is perfectly possible, and in that very solar year, viz., on 19th January A. D. 1126, which was 26 Makara, the day was the day of Anuradha and at sunrise the tithi was the krishna navami. The reason I could not accept that day as the day intended was because it was a Tuesday, whereas the record cites a Saturday; and because the lunar fortnight was a different one from that stated in the original. We must not recklessly alter the text and then declare that a certain civil day was meant. My course is safer-namely when a date is irregular to say that it is irregular.
(8) Choļa date 170. I have given full reasons for my declaration that this date is irregular. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai proposes to regularize the date by altering the name of the nakshatra, and supposing a very unusual combination of tithi and nakshatra. But it seems that the name of the nakshatra in the original clearly begins with the characters An- and cannot be read Ayi-as he wishes. It is of course possible that the engraver made a mistake, but that would not account for the irregularity of the rest of the date; and therefore I cannot admit that this proposed date is necessarily any better than the one (the day following) which I suggested but gave reasons for abandoning.
Chola date 190. The original clearly mentions" Ashadha” as the lunar month current, there being no difficulty in reading the characters. Mr. Swamikannu Pillai proposes to alter this to "Sravama," and to consider that a mistake was made. From that point of view his rendering would be correct; but the date is unimportant, and he admits that my decision that it was "unsatisfactory " is equally correct.
(5) Pandya date 71. I think that the author's solution here is admissable. He proposes to change the douliful[pañja] m Liyum]" of the original into "dvádaliyum," and thereby make the details of the date correspond to Wednesday 3 November A. D. 1283. Without such a change the date was, as I stated, irregular. As there is only one drastic change, which consists in supposing one letter, m, which forms no part of the word dvadasi, to have been ongraved in error, the remainder of the reading pañjami being a mistake of the Epigraphist, I think we may accept the author's suggestion. His calculation is quite oorrect
