attribution of the ADP .Tiikaa

> In any case, "Catura'ngabala" is not mentioned in the commentary itself as
> far as I am aware, and the attribution can be dated to no earlier than the
> late 17th century

A rather non-sequitor conclusion, given that every other published
source (in reviewing the same evidence) arrives at a date circa 1351,
viz., for the same reasons you state here:

> If we read the gandhava.msa alongside Burmese saasanava.msa accounts,
> eg the vernacular Saasanaala'nkaara caa tam'3, which mentions the .tiikaa as
> evidence for the title, we're probably dealing here with Siihasuura II, r.
> 1344-50 (though keep in mind these va.msas are also late).

Apparently your reason for rejecting the (generally held) "va.msa"
date, is that:

> Interestingly the .tiikaa is also
> absent from the detailed 15th century book list epigraph edited by Pe Maung
> Tin and Luce, although there we find an "abhidhan nissaya".

Well, that would be an _argumentum ex silentio_ wouldn't it?

E.M.