The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s15.138

c8.s15.138

¹ The succession is said to have been immediate, without any interval (tat-saman-antaradoṭ; Ind. Ant. Vol. V. p. 46, text line 13). And some of the records tend to make his reckoning overlap with that of Sôvidêva. Thus, an inscription on a pillar near a well at Yêûr in the Nizâm's Dominions (Carn.-Dêsa Inscrs. Vol. II. p. 216; verified from an ink-impression) is dated in Âśvina of the Vikârin saṁvatsara (Śaka-Saṁvat 1102 current), and cites the saṁvatsara as his fourth year. In agreement with this, an inscription on the premises of the Pâjâri Mahâdêvappa of the temple of Trikûṭêśvara at Gadag in the Dhârwâr District (ibid. p. 237; verified from an ink-impression), dated in Mârgaśirsha of the Śarvarin saṁvatsara (Ś.-S. 1103 current), cites this saṁvatsara as his fifth year. And these two records point to the Durmukha saṁvatsara, Ś.-S. 1099 current, = A.D. 1176-77, (or, at least, to the remnant of it, in A.D. 1177, after the latest date that is on record for Sôvidêva), being reckoned as his first year. On the other hand, an inscription at Baḷagâmve (P. S. and O.-C. Inscriptions, No. 183, the second part; Mysore Inscriptions, p. 152), dated in Chaitra of the Vikârin saṁvatsara, cites Vikârin as his third year; which would make the Hêmalambin saṁvatsara, Ś. S. 1100 current, = A.D. 1177-78, the first year of his reckoning. But another Baḷagâmve inscription (P. S. and O.-C. Inscriptions No. 189, the first part; Mysore Inscriptions, p. 75; Ind. Ant. Vol. V. p. 45), dated in Vaiśâkha of the same saṁvatsara Vikârin, cites it as his fifth year; and this indicates, for his first year, the Manmatha saṁvatsara Ś.-S. 1093 current, = A.D. 1175-76, which was the ninth year, and not even the last year, of Sôvidêva. These are the only instances for which I can vouch. And the entries in the Carn.-Dêsa Inscrs. some of which are in agreement with the reckoning of the Durmukha saṁvatsara as the first year, while others differ far more than even the two dates quoted just above, cannot be relied on either way: for, e.g., in the case of the Baḷagâmve inscription which really cites Vikârin as the fifth year, the transcript (op. cit. Vol. II. p. 217) represents it as citing that saṁvatsara as the fourth year; an inscription at the temple of Basavaṇṇa at Hagaritigi in the Nizâm's Dominions (ibid. p. 57) is represented as citing the Vikritin saṁvatsara (Ś.-S. 1093 current) as the third year of Saṅkama, though, in reality, it did not fall within his time at all; and another inscription at Hagaritigi, on the premises of Pawâḍeppa (ibid. p. 58), is represented as citing the Vikârin saṁvatsara as his twelfth year.