________________
OCTOBER, 1893.)
MISCELLANEA.
297
This record, at the temple of Ramêsvara at and the third year of the reign of BholôkamalisHiri-Muddanur in the Nizâm's Dominions Sômêsvara III. The year is Šaka-Samvat 1051 (Eliot MS. Collection, Vol. I. p. 700), really does current. refer itself to the reign of Bhaloka-Sômêsvara
An inscription, which does not refer itself to III., and belongs to his fourth year; but it is,
any particular reign or reigns, on a beam in the nevertheless, dated (from an ink-impression) śrimach-Chalukya-Vikrama-varshada 54neya
madhyaranga of the temple of Sarvesvara at
Narêgal in the HÂngal Taluka, DhArwar District, Saumya-samvatsarada Pushya-su(su)-12-Soma
contains two dates. The first is in the month Vårad-ardin-uttarayana-sankranti-parbba(rvva)
Pausha of the Visvävasu santatsara, which was, nimittadim. The year is Šaka-Samvat 1052
and is quoted as, the fiftieth year of the Chalukya. current.
Vikrama-varsha. The second from an inkAnd I can add the following five instances : impression) runs - 55neya Sadbarana-samvatIn an inscription on a pillar at the temple of
sarada friheyo!; the words Chaľukya-Vikrama. Virupaksha at Kurtakoti in the Gadag Taluka,
varshada are intended to be supplied from the Dharwar District, which does not refer itself to
first date. The year is Saka-Samvat 1053 curany particular reign, the date (from an ink.
rent, -the fifth year of the reign of Sômêsvara
III. impression) runs - srimach-Châļukya-Vikrama. kalada Sa śnka-varsha 1048neya Parabhava- And a third inscription at Arajeshwar, on a sam vatsarada Syoshthad-amavasye Sómavara pillar in front of the gateway of the temple of stryya-grahaņada tat-kalikadol. The year is Saka.
Kadambởivara (Elliot Ms. Collection, Vol. II. Samvat 1048 expired,- the first year of the reign p. 601 where, however, the year and sanwatsara of Sômêsvara III. It is also the fifty-first year
are not given, and Pushya is given instead of of the Chalukya-Vikrama-kala; but the writer Joshta), contains two dates, of which the first of the record, though apparently intending to (from an ink-impression) runs - 60neya RAKquote this fifty-first year, omitted after all to
shasa-samvatsarada shasa-sar
Joshta- read Jyoshtha)do so.
sudhdha(read suddha)-punyami-Sómavárad-ardu. Another inscription at Araleshwar, on the The record does not refer itself to any particular makara-torana of the temple of Kadambêsvara, reign. And the words Chalukya. Vikrama-kalada which does not refer itself to any particular reign or 'varshada were omitted by the writer. But (Elliot MS. Collection, Vol. II. p. 594), contains
there can be no doubt that the year is the sixtieth two dates. The first of them is in the Vibhava year of the Chålukya-Vikrama-kala, which was the samvatsara, the thirteenth year of the Chalukya. Rákshasa sanatsara, Saka-Sarhvat 1058 current. Vikrama-kala. The second, not fully transcribed and the tenth year of the reign of Sômêsvara by Sir Walter Elliot's copyist, runs (from an ink. impression) -- [śrima]ch-Châļukya-Vikrama
With these records we may also class an kalada 52neya Plavamga-samvatsarada Vaisakha
inscription on a stone built into a mandapa at suda. read buddha)-10-Bri(bsi)havárad-amdu.
the Molasthânêśvara temple at Nådendla in the The year is Saka-Samvat 1050 current, - the
Narasarkvupêța Taluks of the Kistna District, second year of the reign of Sömêsvara III.
Madras Presidency. It does not refer itself to In an inscription which is now stored in the any particular reign. But the date (from an inkKachêri at Lakshmeshwar, within the limits of impression, which reached me from Dr. Hultzsch the Dharwar District, the date of a supplementary after the rest of this note was written) runs - record, which does not formally refer itself srimach-Châļukya-Vikrama-varsha 2neya Pla. to any particular reign, runs (from an ink- vaga-Bath vatsara Bhadrapada su(su) 1 Brisbți). impression) – grimach-Chaļukya-Bholókamalla havára. Here, - unless Vikramao is a mistake varshada 53neya Kilaka-samvatsarada Sravana- for Bhatókamalla", which seems, on the whole, su(bu)ddha-panchami-Adivaram soma-grabañad. I not so probable as the other alternative, though amdu. Here two things are mixed up, the the writer very possibly had also the second year fifty-third year of the Chalukya-Vikrama-kala, of Bhalôkamalla running in his mind, -eneya is
III."
** The eclipse, of course, did not occur on the specified tithi.
* The second date in this record is -15neya Kbarasamvatsarada ] Chaitra-su(eu)-5-Sómavárad-amdu. Here, there is no reference to any particular reiga; but the Khara tarhalaara must be Baks-Sauvat 1094 current,
which was the fifteenth year, or properly the sixteenth, in the reckoning of the Kalachurya king Bijjala. And it is possible that the whole record was put on the stone at that time. In this second data, Sir Walter Elliot's copyist has given 16neya, instead of the 15neya which the original has.
