^{page 33 note 1} MER., 1908, p. 87.

^{page 33 note 2} SII., iii, p. 249.

^{page 33 note 3} Ayyar, Radhakrishna, General History of the Pudukkottai State, Appendix, p. ivGoogle Scholar.

^{page 33 note 4} Inscriptions (Texts) of the Pudukkottai State, p. 9, No. 14.

^{page 33 note 5} Chronological List of Inscriptions of the Pudukkottai State, p. 2, No. 14.

^{page 33 note 6} JOR., vii, pp. 1–10.

^{page 34 note 1} Radhakrishna Ayyar, op. cit., Appendix, p. iv.

^{page 34 note 2} JOR., vii, p. 4.

^{page 34 note 3} Ibid., p. 6.

^{page 34 note 4} SII., iii, p. 249.

^{page 35 note 1} JOR., vii, p. 7.

^{page 35 note 2} SII., i, p. 152; ii, p. IA.;08; IA., viii, p. 277.

^{page 36 note 1} BBRAS., xvi, p. 226.

^{page 36 note 2} Mahāvaṁśa, pt. ii, p. 35.

^{page 36 note 3} Heras, , Studies in Pallava History, p. 36Google Scholar.

^{page 36 note 4} Mahāvaṁśa, pt. ii, p. 34.

^{page 37 note 1} EI, x, p. 105.

^{page 37 note 2} SII., i, p. 152.

^{page 37 note 3} Smith, , EEI, p. 495Google Scholar; Fleet, , Kcmarese Dynasties, p. 358Google Scholar.

^{page 37 note 4} SII, i, p. 152.

^{page 37 note 5} I A., viii, p. 277.

^{page 38 note 6} Ibid., p. 28.

^{page 38 note 2} El, ix, p. 205. Cf. Heras, , Studies in Pallava History, pp. 48–50Google Scholar.

^{page 38 note 3} The only serious objection against our views as regards this Koḍumbājūr chronology is archæological. The temples of Koḍumbā'ūr built by Bhūtī Vikramakēsarī seem to belong to a much later period. The general style of the temples, the technique of the sculpture, the system of construction, appear Chōja rather than Pallava, and look more of the tenth century than of the seventh. Yet between this objection and the objection of the capture of Bādāmi and the slaying of the Chalukya king in the ninth or tenth centuries, the former seems to be more easily solved. As a matter of fact, the Kodumbalur temples may be classified as an “archæological puzzle” or as “an architectural phenomenon”. If those temples are finally placed in the tenth or even in the eleventh century, you will still have the square cupola-like umbrella of the top of the vimāna and specially the construction itself of the vimāna—without precedent and without consequent, totally unique in South Indian architecture—without a satisfactory explanation. Bhūti Vikramakēsarī or his architect, or perhaps both, were geniuses much beyond their age. Had the style of Koḍumbālūr found followers, a new style of architecture would have existed in South India. But now the temples are like an isolated instance of the work of a genius that found no followers.

^{page 40 note 1} Mahēndravarman II, the immediate successor of Narasiṁhavarman T. seems to have had a very short reign. He died childless, and was succeeded by his brother, Paramēśvaravarman I. The inscriptions do not say anything definite about him. As a matter of fact the Chalukya Emperor, who wanted to take revenge of the defeat inflicted upon his father by Narasimhavarman I, had not even time to attack his first son and successor.

^{page 40 note 2} Heras, op. cit., p. 53.

^{page 42 note 1} Cf. Heras, op. cit., pp. 19–21.

^{page 42 note 2} JOR., vii, p. 10.

^{page 43 note 1} Periya Tirumoli, iv, 6, stanzas 5, 6, 8, and 9.

^{page 43 note 2} Chronological List of the Inscriptions of the Ptiduklottai State, p. 2, Nos. 15 and 16.

^{page 43 note 3} Ibid., Nos. 17 and 18.

^{page 43 note 4} Ibid., No. 19.

^{page 44 note 1} Cf. Gopalan, , History of the Pallavas of Kanchi, p. 124Google Scholar.

^{page 44 note 2} “Udayendiram plates of Nandivarman II Pallavamalla”: SII., ii, p. 372.