Manasara Series (I. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture; II. Indian Architecture according to Manasara-Shilpashastra; III. Manasara on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text; IV. Architecture of Manasara: Translation; V. Architecture of Manasara: Illustrations; VI. Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad; VII. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture) v7.c47.3176

v7.c47.3176

The unwarranted assumption of Messrs. F. H. Gravely and T. N. Ramachandran, in the Bulletin of the Madras Government Museum (New Series—General Section, Vol. III, Part 1, 1934), that all *Śilpa-śāstras* including the *Mānasāra* originated and restricted their jurisdiction in the South, is responsible for a series of further assumptions raised like a house of cards. Under the plea of 'Three Main Styles of temple Architecture' the authors of this article of 26 pages deliberately ignored both the references to other objects of these styles as also the examination of North Indian buildings of Nāgara style except a passing mention of a single structure at Bareilly District and excluded the places north of the Vindhya range which are known by the name of Nāgara. The alternative designations of Vesara style by Andhra and Kāliṅga have equally been ignored. Thus the learned authors had to delimit the Indian Continent by the Vindhya range of limited eastern boundary as the northern limit, and of this truncated India, Drāviḍa being the south and Nāgara and Vesara the two northern flanks. There was no necessity for any discussion to explain the mixture of Pallava and Chalukyan types. The migration of styles also is very common and natural in architecture.