________________
106
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XIX.
śēkhara-sikhāmaṇi and Chandasani. The third verse is identical with the last verse of the inscription round the outside of the Rajasimhosvara shrine in the Kailasanatha temple at Käichipuram. Vorsos 4 and 5 give, among others, the birudas Sri-karmuka, Kalakala, Abhirama, Raṇabhima, Guṇalaya, Sri-Vallabha, Atimana, Urjjita, Unnataraga and Yuddharjuna. The last verse, which is damaged in the beginning and which cannot be satisfactorily read, makes, however, clear mention of the expression Narendrasimha in its latter part.
The identification of the king who bore the above titles is, as Mr. Krishna Sastri has pointed out, easy enough. First, it is obvious that he was the same as the builder of the Kailasanatha temple at Kanchi. Secondly, the identity of verse 3 in the present epigraph with the last verse of the Rajasimhosvara epigraph at Kanchi gives a clue to the eulogy of the same sovereign. The Kanchipuram epigraph tells us that Rajasimha was the son of Ugradanda or Paramēsvara, who was the destroyer of the city of Ranarasika. Dr. Fleet has pointed out that Raparasika is an epithet of the Western Chalukya king Vikramaditya I (A.D. 655-680), that Ugradanda is identical with the Pallava king Paramosvara varman I who, the Karam Plates tell us, crossed arms with Vikramaditya, and that Rajasimha (alias Narasimhavishnu) must be identified with Narasimhavarman II. Now, an inscription of Rajasimha Narasimhavarman II discovered at Vayalür in 1908 says that be had also the title of Kshattrasimha (Kshatriyasimha of other inscriptions). To quote the passage itself:
श्रीपज्ञवान्वयकुलाचलराजसिंहो
यः चत्रसिंह इति विश्रुतपुण्यकीर्त्तिः ।
a:
It is thus clear that the two Siva shrines of the Shore Temple, Rajasimha-Pallavesvara and Kshatriyasimha-Pallavesvara, were named after Narasimhavarman II and are, therefore, his works.
In his analysis of the scripts of the Mahabalipuram and Sāļuvankuppam inscriptions Dr. Hultzsch distinguishes four styles. Of these one is entirely northern and may be ignored for the present discussion. The remaining three, he attributes respectively to the epochs of Narasimhavarman I, Atyantakama (whom he identifies with Paramesvaravarman I) and Atiranachanda (whom he assigns to the age of Nandivarman Pallavamalla). The paleography of our inscription closely resembles that of the Atyantakāma group. As will be seen from my note 12 at page 108 below, I believe that the attribution of the second set of inscriptions to Paraméévaravarman I by Dr. Hultzsch is without sufficient basis and that it can be equally legitimately ascribed to his son Narasimhavarman II. I am also disposed to believe that Atiranachauḍa is Narasimhavarman II himself (see below, page 109, note 3). But this difference of opinion regarding the identity of the kings need not cause a doubt in regard to the relative times of the three sets of scripts, though even from this standpoint there can be no agreement in regard to the exact chronological gaps dividing them. A comparison of their scripts from the fine facsimile plates given above (see Vol. X, plates Nos. 1 to 6) shows clearly that the first of these is archaically simple, the second very florid and ornamented with elaborate flourishes, and the third much simpler though not so simple in formation as the first set.
8. I. I., Vol. 1, p. 13, v. 12.
Thid., verse 5. रणरसिक पुरोम्मईना दुय दण्डात्सुब्रह्मभ्यः कुमारी गुरु व परमादीश्वरादात्तजन्मा.
Dyn. Kan. Distr., p. 329 f. In his S. I. I., Vol. I, p. 11, Hultzsch identified Rajasimha with Narasimha. varman I, but in Ep. Ind., Vol. X, he accepts the conclusion of Dr. Fleet.
See lines 40-41: fafe azafarfaqenfuag ga[arq*]. S. I. I., Vol. I, p. 149, Text 1.49 f. Cg. 1235 in my Topo. List. I am thankful to the Government Epigraphist for permission to consult and uote from the office copy of this inscription.
