________________
196
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
(VOL. XXXIV
(1077-78 A.D.) and Kalayukti (1078-79 A.D.) and points out that the numbers of records belonging to the first and fourth groups are by far smaller than those of the second and third groups. He seems to explain this anomaly by suggesting the gradual expansion of the power of Vikramaditya VI. Thus be says, "By Saka 997, Rakshasa (1075-76 A.D.), signs were conspicuous that Vikramaditya VI would be successful in his efforts and some of his intimate supporters seem to have already commenced heralding his reign. In the next year, Saka 998 Nala (1076-77 A.D.), he seems to have usurped most of the power and virtually inaugurated his reign. But as Sömēsvara II was still alive and his authority was recognised by & section, though small, of his subjects, this prince could not, legally and by right, get himself crowned as the formal ruler. Somēsvara II vanished from the political scene before the end of the year. Hence Vikramaditya VI's formal coronation must have taken place in the beginning of Saka 999, Pingala ............ In regard to the inscriptions suggesting Saks 1000 Kälayukti as his first regnal year, we can treat them as mentioning the expired years. This would eliminate the obvious difficulty." As regards these views, we agree that the confusion regarding the first year of the reign of Vikramaditya VI may be, to some extent, tied up with the expansion and stabilization of his power, although it certainly does not solve the problem quite satisfactorily. In any case, that the coronation of Vikramaditya VI took place before Phälguna sudi 5 of the year Nala (1076-77 A.D.) and the first year of the Chālukya Vikrama era started before Pushya-badi 3 of the same cyclic year is quite clear from the Wadagēri, Mattikote and Kuruva inscriptions and it is impossible to ignore these facts. As to Mr. Desai's explanation of the mention of Kālayukti as the first year of the Chalukya Vikrama era, it is wrong since the fact that a year is current or expired does not at all affect its name and position in Jupiter's cycle. This shows that the dates of some of the inscriptions referring the beginning of the Chalukya Vikrama era in the year Kalayukti were due to confusion in the minds of the people about the beginning of the Chālukya Vikrama era, since Vikramaditya was fully established on the throne considerably before 1078-79 A.D. It is not impossible that this confusion was the result of Sõmēsvara II leading a precarious existence till the year Kālayukti.
The largest number of inscriptions dated in the Chälukys Vikrama era refer to its beginning either to Nala or to Pingala. Since the coronation of Vikramaditya VI took place in the second half of the year Nala, the above confusion seems to be due to the fact that some people, counted the first year of the era as identical with Nala while others counted it from the date of the king's coronation in Nala to its anniversary in Pingala. This anomaly may have led to further confusion assigning the beginning of the era to Rākshasa or Kālayukti, which is noticed in a few inscriptions.
It will therefore be seen that the Chālukya Vikrama era started very probably from Chaitra-sudi 1 of the year Nala, Saka 998 expired (March 8, 1076 A.D.), as long ago suggested by Fleet and Kielhorn. Mr. A. Venkatasubbiah also came to the conclusion, after examining nearly all the records dated in the Chālukya Vikrama era, that the majority of the dates in that era favour the view that the era began in the year A. D. 1076'."
1 Op.cit., pp. 7-8. * Ibid., PP. 13-14. * See Ind. Ant., Vol. XLVII, 1918, p. 290.
