Banerjee's view
was not, however, shared by others. The epigraphy was not a part of the temple and need
not have been its contemporary. Mr. N. G. Mazumdar* studied the paleographical
peculiarities of the inscription and referred the year 30 to the Gupta era 318-19 A. D.,
and held the date of the inscription to be 348-49 A.D. Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar, in the
list of North Indian Inscriptions, No. 1257, p. 170 and fu. 4, indicated that he was not
much in favor of assigning it to theSeventh Century A.D. and his remarks rather indicate
that he considered the inscription to be much earlier than the Fourth Century A.D.Dr. K.
C. Panigrahi appears to have correctly related the three names in the inscriptions,
namely, Narayana, Vinitesvara and Mandalesvara. He takes them to be the names of three
separate deities and finds in the inscription indications of three periods in the
religious history of the shrine.
According to him, originally it was a Vaishnava shrine with Narayana as the presiding
deity, succeeded near about Seventh Century A.D. by Shaivism and Vinitesvara, originally a
subsidiary deity that became the pre-ready siding deity of the Place. In course of time,
Mundesvari or a Mahisamardini image was installed when Shaktism had supplanted Shaivism.
Mandalesvara clearly means the Lord or the presiding deity of the mandala (district or
territory) and the ending isvara cannot have the same significance as it has in the names
of Siva. Narayana mentioned in the inscription cannot be one and the same deity as
Mandalesvara. |