________________
298
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[OCTOBER, 1893.
a mistake for 53neya; the Plavarnga sarivatsara of Kall@svara at Naregal in the Rôn Täluka was Saka-Sarhvat 1050 current, -the second year Dharwar District, dated in the month Pausha of the reign of Sômêsvara III.
of the same samvatsara, coupled, not with the
fifty-fourth year of the Chalukya-Vikrama-kala, B. The dates of the second class shew an
but with Saka-Samvat 1051 (expired) (ibid. imaginary continuation of the reign itself
p. 630); and an inscription at the temple of Sanof Vikramaditya VI., as well as a continuation
karalinga at Kurtakoti in the Gadag Täluka, of the era.
Dharwar District, dated in the Paridhävin sanOf this there is an indisputable instance in the vatsara, coupled, not with the fifty-seventh year inscription on a stone lying on the road on of the Chalukya-Vikrama-kála, but with Sakathe north of Kyksandr in the Hangal Taluka, Samvat 1054 (expired) (ibid. p. 638). As regards Dharwar District (Elliot MS. Collection, Vol. I. these records, however, I have to remark (1) that p. 636; and ante, Vol. VIII. p. 193, No. 40). The I cannot make out such a date in the ink-imprespreamble contains the words Srimat-[Tribhu- sion, which I have seen, of the Kartakoti inscrip. vanamalladóvara vijaya-rdjyam=ultar-Ottar-dbhi- tion; and (2) that, whereas the Elliot MS. Colvridhdhi- read vriddhi)-pravarddhamdnam=d- lection, Vol. I. p. 626, represents an inscription chandr-drkka-túrar barai saluttam-ire, which at Lakshmêshwar as similarly referring itself to do expressly refer it to the reign of Vikramaditya the reign of Vikramaditya VI., and as being dated VI. But, as regards the date, the words Chalu- in the fifty-second year, the Plavarga samvatsara, kya-Vikrama-sakha (sic), which I gave when I | I find, from an ink-impression, that the original first noticed this date, are a pure invention of refers itself, as plainly as could possibly be, to Sir Walter Elliot's copyist. What the original the reign of Vira-Somèsvara IV., and that the really has is (from an ink-impression) simply Plavamga sanwatsara is mentioned as the second aivat-eteneya (read aivatt-êleneya) ParidhAvi-san year of his reign. vachcha(tsa)rada Chaitra-sudhda-{read buddha)panchami-Brehaspati( read Bțihaspati)vårad
It may be useful, to give here the latest date, andu. The sa invatsara was the fifty-seventh year
known to me, that is undoubtedly attributof the Chalukya-Vikrama-kåla, and the seventh
able to the actual reign of Vikramaditya VI.
There are several records dated in his fiftieth year of the reign of Sömêsvara III. And the
year, the Visv&vasu samvatsara, which was Saka. year is Saka-San vat 1055 current.
Samvat 1048 current. And the latest of them is And there is another equally clear instance in an inscription at the temple of Sarvesvara at an inscription near the large tank at Hunagund Naregal in the Hângal Täluka, Dharwar District in the Barkápur Taluka, Dharwar District. The (Elliot Ms. Collection, Vol. I. p. 613). The name preamble refers the record, in just the same way, of the reigning king, in the preamble, is illegible; to the reign of Vikramaditya VI. But the actual but there is no doubt that the biruda Tribhuvadate (from an ink-impresion) is - Srimach-Châlu. namalladôva stood there, in the usual manner. kya-Bhalokamalla-varshada 3neya Saumya- And the date (from an ink-impression) runs - samvatsa ............. .. spativara- grimach-Chalukya-Vikrama-varsha[da] 50neya mum-uttarayana-samkramana-vyatip&tam kadida VisvÂvagu-samvatsarada Magha-sudhdha ( read punya-tithiyo!. The year is Saka-Sarvat 1052 śuddha)-saptami-Sômavárad-amdu samastacurrent, - which was properly the fourth, not punya-tithi-galo ......... The date does the third, year of Sômêsvara IJI.
not work ont satisfactorily. Thus:- The year is If reliance may be placed on the transcripts,
Saka-Samvat 1048 current. And the given tithi the following records also, though dated in
ended at about 2 ghatis, 5 palas, =50 minutes, years which fall within the reign of Sõmêsvara
after mean sunrise, on Sunday, 3rd January, A.D. III., similarly refer themselves to the reign of
1126; and so it cannot be connected with the Vikramaditya VI.:-An inscription at the temple
Monday at all. This is the more remarkable, of Bhögôsvara at Gobbar in the Raichur Taluka,
because, though the aksharas are now illegible, Nizam's Dominions, dated in the fifty-second
the tithi was evidently described as an emphatiyear, the Plavamga samvatsara, in the month
cally auspicious one; in consequence of which, Jyêshtha falling in A.D. 1127 (Elliot MS. Collec
one would imagine, special care would be taken tion, VOL I. p. 623); an inscription at the temple
to compute all the details accurately. Still, there Hanumanta at Kanapur in the Kolhapur is nothing else in the record, to lead to its being territory, dated in the fifty-fourth year, the
looked upon as not genuine. Saumya samvatsara, in Vaisakha falling in A, D.
J. F. Fert. 1129 (ibid. p. 627); an inscription at the temple 28th Juno, 1893.
