________________
110
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. XIX.
belt of granite running round the temple as in the case of the Kailāsanātha inscription of Rājasimha at Kāñchipuram. It is a prasasti of king Rājasimha II and, like the one in the Shore Temple at Mahābalipuram, has no reference to his building of the shrine. The close resemblance, however, which the Panamalai temple bears to the Kailāsanātha temple in its style shows that the builder of the one must also have been the builder of the other. The similarity of the contents of the two inscriptions, moreover, proves the identity of their subjects of praise. The Panamalai inscription consists of six verses in the Sragdharā and Vasantatilakā metres. It begins with the names of Asvatthāman (Drauni) and his eponymous son Pallava, the founder of the dynasty (verses 1 and 2). It then gives a eulogy of the Pallavas and mentions the birth of Rājasimha to king Ekamalla Paramāśvara, which it compares with the birth of Guha (Subrahmanya) to Paramēsvara (Siva). The next two verses describe the virtues of Rājasimha, his valour and his devotion to Siva. The last verse is in the form of an assertion and mentions the revival, in his régime, of the tree of dharma, in spite of the cruel and scorching sun of the Kali age. The Conjeeveram epigraph gives the same details, often the same expressions. In its description of Rājasimha, for example, the latter uses the phrases गुपदव परमादीश्वरादात्तजन्मा (verse 5) and उत्तमबुपकुलरराजसिंह (verse 11), which are practically the same as those occurring in the present inscription in verses 3 and 4. The Kailäsanātha record, however, is more elaborate and adds the titles of Atyantakāma, Srībhara and Ranajaya to Rājasimha. It may be noted here that two other inscriptions in the same temple. which give more than 200 titles to Rājasimha must be attributed to the same king.
This identification of the builders of the Kailāsanātha and Panamalai temples may be objected to on the ground of palæography, for a comparison of the Panamalai script with that of the Kāñchipuram temple shows that the former is much simpler and therefore later in date.. In fact it bears a very close resemblance to the Atirauachanda group of Mahābalipuram and the Sāļuvankuppam epigraphs, and not the Atyantakāma group (which is similar to the Kailāganātha epigraph). Compare the letters, for example, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7 and the signs for the secondary vowels -1, , and at and the correctness of the contention will be immediately obvious. It can be incidentally inferred from this that the Mahābalipuram Shore Temple inscription of Rājasimha which I have proved to be later than the Atyantakāma and Kailāsanātha group, and earlier than the Atiranachanda group, was slightly earlier than the present inscription. Dr. Hultzsch, who believed that palæography alone could give a clue to the identity of the kings, was of opinion that the carlier Kailāsanātha script belonged to the age of Rājasimha or Narasimhavarman II and the Atiranachanda group to the time of Nandivarman Pallavamalla of the Kāśākudi plates. Regarding the last, he has said : "It resembles, though it is not identical with, the alphabet of the Kabākudi plates of Nandivarman. The name or surname Atiranachanda is unknown from other sources. As the alphabet of stone inscriptions sometimes differs slightly from that of the contemporaneous records on copper, there would be no objection to assigning these records to the time of Nandivarman, the contemporary of the Western Chāļukya king Vikramaditya II."
In his Pallava Antiquities (Vol. I, pp. 19-20) Prof. Dubreuil with characteristic insight, enumerates the various points of agreement, e.g., the possession of collateral niches always opening towards the east or west, the dedication to tho prismatic (eight or sixteon faced and not the cylindrical) type of the linga, the adornment of the sanctuary wall with the images of Somiekanda, Brahma and Vishnu, the rearing lion type of pillar-supports and the single-arched tirurāchis.'
1 Tho Vēlārpālaiyam plates (Madras Ep. Rep., 1911, p. 61) say that Narasimhavarman was the son's son (9 ) of Parameávara : but it is alone in this version and is not 60 authoritative as the contemporary Teord: at Kanchipuram, Mahabalipuram and Panamalai.
* 8.1. 1., Vol. I, No. 25 and 28. • See Ep. Ind., Vol. X, p. 3.
