The Journal of the Siam Society Vol. LXIV, Part 1-2, 1976 - Khamkoo

HEVJE\V ,\ H'I'ICLE 351
calculation, say B.C. 482, would give A.D. 78 for the new era. This
would then be the true saka era and we would have a relic of a time
before the present Southeast Asian Buddhist era was in use and B.E.
calculations were made with a figure closer to that accepted by
indologists. The relic is still preserved in Bandbanati of TS, who is
associated with eras called "mahasakaraj" even though they are clearly
something else.
As for Manit's arrangement, we can only say that it is an extremely
arbitrary construction made to fit a preconceived picture of northern
history.
Before moving from the subject of chronology there is one series of
dates into which, all consideration of historical truth aside, scribal errors
have slipped, the rectification of which is important to the investigation
of the original structure of the story. I apologize to the reader in advance
for leading him into and, hopefully, through the following maze, but the
chronological structure is important to the analysis of such texts and
examination of its detail cannot be avoided.
The dates in question begin on p. 89 with saka 349 given together
with B.E. 968, which is incorrect since 349+621/2=970/1. Then, in a
passage which is apparently contemporary, we find date 456, but on p.
91 the date is back to 366, equivalent, in Notton and PP'61, to B.E. 1000,
an error of one 12-year cycle ( 1000-622=378).63 After this, p. 94, the
saka dates jump again to 469 followed by 467, and on p. 98 are back to
376, 378, etc. Total confusion reigns.
In looking for the source of these errors and in trying to restore the
dates to their original pattern we must first of all take note that errors
and impc£sible arithmetic abound in the text. For example, on p. 72 a
certain king is said to have taken the throne in 259, reigned 17 years
and died in 259, and his successor who also succeeded to the throne in
259, is said to have been ruling for 2 years in 279, close to, but not
exactly what correct addition from 259 would have given. Again, on p.
77, a prince was born in 283, but 13 years later the date was 213.
However, approximately 3 years later the date, on p. 83, is 299, which
63) Notton I, p. 196; PP 61, p. 93; Manit p. 91, does not accept the interpretation
"1000", emending viu to v:'u.