________________
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[SEPTEMBER, 1890.
order of time, gives an interesting instance of the change, in Kanarese, from to r. The grant was made by Somośvara I. himself, at the request of Kêtalalêvî, at the town of ManiyûraAppayanavidu on the bank of the river Bhimanadi. This must be the modern Munnoor' of the map, undoubtedly Mannûr or Manar in correct spelling, in the Nizam's Dominions, on the north bank of the Bhima, about seventeen miles east by south from Taddevaḍi. There is also a Manûr or Mannûr just opposite, on the south bank, in the Indi Taluka of the Bijapur District; but it is a smaller place, and is probably a later offshoot from the other town. And lines 44 and 45 mention a place named Kannadige, in the Kalambaḍi Three-hundred (?), which was a division of the Karahada Four-thousand. Karahaḍa, which is mentioned in Nagavarman's Karnatakabhúshábhushana, Sûtra 175 (Rice's edition, p. 62), must be a corruption of Karahata, which was the ancient name of Karad in the Sâtârâ District. Kalambaḍi, I feel no doubt, is the modern Kanamadi in the Athni Taluka of the Belgaum District, about six miles north of Honwad. Kanamaḍi is the recognised official form of the name (see Bombay Places, p. 53); and to arrive at it, there must have been two changes; first, from to n, which is, I think, not infrequent in Old-Kanarese; and then from n to n, of which we have an analogous instance in Managolli, from Maningavalli, in the Bâgewadi Taluka, Bijapur District. But the entry of Kunburree in the Indian Atlas, Sheet No. 40, shews that it is also known as Kanabadi or Kanabadi. And in English petitions I have found the name written Kalabadi;' but, whether this stands for Kalabadi, which would come quite naturally from Kalambaḍi, or for Kalabadi, which entails a third change, viz. of the n of Kanamaḍi into 7, I have not been able to determine. And Kannadige must be either the former nanre of the modern Babanagar or Bawanagar in the Bijapur Taluka, six miles north-east of Honwâḍ, or else the name of some other village in that neighbourhood which does not now exist. At Bâbânagar, on a stone-tablet in a ruined Jain temple now known as the temple of Îsvara, there are the remains of a long Jain inscription of the time of the Kalachuri king Bijjaladeva, dated in the Vikrama samvatsara which was the 'Saka year 1083 (current). It mentions Kannadige four times (lines 28, 40, 42, 63); and the name is in each instance distinctly written with the lingual d. In line 28, the context is not clear. Line 40 refers to a Kulkarni of Kannadige (Kannadigera pittina kulakarana....). Line 63 mentions "the basadi of Kannadige." While line 42 f., among the specification of the boundaries of some land that was granted, contains the words "to the west of the manya-(land) of the god Râjósvaradêva of Kannadige;" which distinctly imply that Kannadige was at, or in the immediate vicinity of, Bâbânagar.
270
As regards the date, the inscription records that the grant was made on the occasion of the solar eclipse of Monday, the new-moon tithi of Vaisakha of the Jaya samvatsara, which was the 'Saka year 976. By the southern luni-solar system, which is the one that applies in this case, the Jaya samvatsara coincided with Saka-Samvat 977 current; i. e. with tho given year as an expired year. In this year the given tithi, Vaisakha krishna 15, ended on Tuesday, 10th May, A. D. 1054, at about 14 ghatis, 50 palas, after mean sunrise (for Bombay). And on this day there was a total eclipse of the sun, visible in India. This is undoubtedly the eclipse that is intended. But, why the parvakála of it should be coupled with the Monday, -though of course the now-moon tithi may, as a running tithi, be coupled with that day, as well as with the Tuesday, is not apparent; unless the explanation is, that it was taken some three or four hours before the actual moment of the eclipse, and just before the sunrise at the end of the Monday.
In mentioning Kêtaladevi as a wife of Sômêsvara I., this inscription adds a fourth to his three wives already known (see Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts, p. 45), who were
s Line 36 f.; the other details of this date are hopelessly illegible; as is nearly the whole of this record. Láne $1, where there begins a second part of the inscription, contains another date; but here all that is legible, is [sas patsarada Pushya bahuja 12(P18) Adivarad-amdu.
