________________
282
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. III.
C. AND D.-INSCRIPTIONS OF KANNARADEVA. These two inscriptions are written in bold archaic characters which resemble very closely those of another inscription of Kangaradêvs near Velůr (Vellore), but are more rounded than those of other ancient Tamil inscriptions. Both inscriptions are dated during the reign of Kapparadêve, the first in the 17th and the second in the 19th year. To the name of the king is prefixed in both of them the epithet Kachchiyun-Tafijaiyun-konds, who took Kachchi and Tañjai.' Kachchi is the ancient Tamil name of Kanchipura (Conjeeveram), the capital of the Pallavas, and Tatjai is & shorter form of Tañjâvûr (Tanjore), the Chola capital, The actual meaning of the attribute appears to be that the king conquered the Pallava and the Chôļa countries.
The inscription near Velar is dated during the 26th year, but here there is no reference to the conquest of Kachchi and Tagjai. The Arunachalêsvara temple at Tiruvannamalai in the South Arcot district contains two fragmentary inscriptions of Kangaradêvan. As the dis. tinguishing epithet is missing, it is not absolutely certain if the Velar and Tiruvannamalai records belong to the same reign as the two Tirukkalukkuram ones. Even if this should not be the case, the fact that the two subjoined inscriptions are found at Tirukkalukkunram, which is within the Pallava dominions, testifies to the correctness of the statement that the king conquered tho Pallava country. The name Kannara, which is a vulgar form of the Sanskrit Krishna, does not occur among the members of any of the dynasties of the South. Nor is it found among those northern dynasties which are known to have invaded the South, except among the Rashtrakûțas. That this dynasty exercised a considerable influence over the history of Southern India, is established by the following facts.
1. In an inscription of Govinda III., this Rashtrakūta king claims to have conquered, and levied tribute from, Dantiga, the Pallava ruler of Kanchi.
2. The Udayêndiram plates of the Gangs king Prithivipati II., who was a tributary of the Chola king Parántaka I., appear to refer to an invasion of Amôghavarsha (1.) and its repulsion by the Ganga king's grandfather, Prithivipati I..
3. The Atskúr inscription of Saka-Sazivat 872 reports that Batuge, a Ganga fendatory of the Rashtrakūta king Kfishna (III.) alias Kennaradeva, treacherously killed the Chola king RAJAditya in a battle at Takkôla. The Dêdlî plates of Kțishna III., dated Saka-Samvat 862, report that the king killed Dantiga and Bappula, and that he transferred the Ganga territory from Rachhymalla- the Râchamalla of the Atakûr inscription-to Bhútárya. This is evidently the Bûtage of the Atakûr inscription. In his remarks on the Deali plates, Dr. Bhandarkar suggests that Bappuka might be identical with the Chola king RAjAditya, who is mentioned in the Atakûr inscription. But no connection can be established between the two names Bappuka and Rájaditya, and the war with the latter need not yet have taken place in the Saka year 862, the date of the Doli plates.
4. The statement of the Atakar inscription that Krishna III. fought against Rajaditya, is confirmed by the large Leyden grant, which reports that the Chôļa king Raj&ditys, the son of Parântska I., died in battle with Krishpazája.
The characters in which the two subjoined inscriptions are engraved, look more ancient than those employed in the inscriptions of the Chola king B4jandjadáva, and loss apchair than those
· South Indian Inscriptions, Vol. I. p. 76.
Madras Christian College Magasine, Vot. IX. p. 666. Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 187.
Salem Manual, Vol. II. p. 378, farve 16. Ep. Ind. Vol. II. p. 168. • Jours. Do. As. Soa: VoL XVIIL 13 of the keppiat.
dich. p. 4. . Archeological Survey of Southern India, Vol. IV. p. 206 f., 11. 42 to 45.
