|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA of the month of Mithuna, and on which the 5th tithi of the bright half (of the first Âshâḍha) ended 11 h. 37 m., and the nakshatra was Maghâ, by the Brahma-siddhânta for 11 h. 10 m., according to Garga for 13 h. 47 m., and by the equal space system from 1 h. 119 m., after mean sunrise. Theoretically both the equivalents found might be taken to satisfy the requirements of the case, but there can be no doubt that the second, Thursday, the 31st May A.D. 1123, would be preferable because the tithi of the date ended on that day. This date therefore also would tend to shew, though it would not actually prove, that the king’s reign commenced in A.D. 1118. 58.- In the Divyajñȃnêśvara temple at Kôvilaḍi.[1]
1 Svasti śrî [||*] I(ti)ribuva[na]śakkaravattigaḷ śrî-Vikkirama-Śôladêvark=iyâṇḍu 1 lâva[d]u Magara-nâyarru [o]û[rvva]- âIn the 11th year (of the reign) of the emperor of the three worlds, the glorious Vikrama-Chôḷadêva,[2]─ on the day of Punarvasu, which corresponded to a Saturday and to the thirteenth tithi of the first fortnight of the month of Makara.â
If the king’s reign commenced on the 18th July A.D. 1108, this date would correspond to Friday, the 27th December A.D. 1118, which was the 3rd day of the month of Makara, and on which the 13th tithi of the bright half (of the month Pausha) ended 16 h. 30 m. after mean sunrise, and the nakshatras were Mṛigaśîrsha and Ãrdrâ. On the other hand, if the king’s reign commenced between the 28th May and the 31st July A.D. 1118, the date will correspond to Saturday, the 5th January A.D. 1129, which was the 13th day of the month of Makara, and on which the 13th tithi of the bright half (of the month Pausha) ended 5 h. 49 m., after mean sunrise, and the nakshatra was Punarvasu, by the Brahma-siddhânta and according to Garga the whole day, and by the equal space system from 9 h. 12 m. after mean sunrise. As this date then would be entirely incorrect if the king’s reign had commenced in A.D. 1108, and is in every way correct on the assumption that the reign commenced in A.D. 1118, I take it to prove that the latter was really the case. And in my opinion the six dates Nos. 21, 22, 41, 42, 57 and 58, for which─ in entire agreement with the original data─ absolutely faultless equivalents have now been given, shew beyond a doubt that Bthe reign of. Vikrama-Chôla must have commenced between approximately the 1st June and the 31st July A.D. 1118. * * * * * With the result now obtained, the equivalent previously given for the date No. 10 cannot, of course, be the proper equivalent of that date. A comparison of the dates No. 10 and No. 57, which are both from the same inscription, at once suggests to us that No. 10 is only three days later than No. 57. Both dates are of the first fortnight of the month of Mithuna of the 5th year of the king’s reign ; the week-day of No. 57 is Thursday, and that of No. 10 Sunday ; and the nakshatra of No. 57 is Maghâ (10), while that of No. 10 is Hasta (13). If then the equivalent of No. 57 is Thursday, the 31st May A.D. 1123, the equivalent of No. 10 can only be Sunday, the 3rd June A.D. 1123. This day was the 9th day of the month of Mithuna, and on it the nakshatra was Hasta, by the Brahma-siddhânta for 22 h. 59 m., and by the equal space system and according to Garga from 1 h. 58 m., after mean sunrise ; but the tithi which ended on the same day, 10 h. 12 m., after mean sunrise, was the 8th, not the 7th tithi, of the bright half.
_______________________________________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
