History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v1.c18: Book II. Architecture in the Himalayas.

History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v1.c18

Language: English

v1.c18.s1 Temples. — 15 parts
v1.c18.s2 Mârtând. — 22 parts
v1.c18.s3 Avantipur. — 11 parts
v1.c18.s4 Bhaniyâr or Bûniâr. — 59 parts
v1.c18.s5 Stûpas or Chaityas. — 28 parts
v1.c18.s6 Wooden Temples. — 18 parts
v1.c18.s7 Tibet. — 31 parts
v1.c18.s8 Temples at Kângrâ. — 13 parts

Book II. Architecture in the Himalayas.

v1.c18.3

CONTENTS. Temples—Mârtând—Avantipur—Bûniâr—Pandrethan—Malot.

ALTHOUGH neither so beautiful in itself, nor so interesting either from an artistic or historical point of view as many others, the architecture of the valley of Kashmîr has attracted more attention in modern times than that of almost any other style in India, and a greater number of special treatises have been written regarding it than are devoted to all the other styles put together. This arises partly from the beauty of the valley in which the Kashmîri temples are situated. The beauty of its scenery has at all times attracted tourists to its verdant snow-encircled plains, and the perfection of its climate has induced them to linger there, and devote their leisure to the investigation of its treasures, natural and artistic. In this respect their fate is widely different from that of temples situated on the hot and dusty plains of India, where every official is too busy to devote himself to such a task, and travellers too hurried to linger for a leisurely and loving survey of their beauties.

v1.c18.5

Apart, however, from this adventitious advantage, the temples of Kashmîr do form a group well worthy of attention. When one or two spurious examples are got rid of, they form a complete and homogeneous group, extending through about five centuries (A.D. 600 to A.D. 1100), singularly uniform in their development and very local, being unlike any other style known in India. They have besides this a certain classical element, which can hardly be mistaken, and is sufficient in itself to attract the attention of Europeans who are interested in detecting their own familiar forms in this remote valley in the Himâlayas.

v1.c18.6

The earliest of the modern investigators of the subject were Messrs. Moorcroft and Trebeck, who visited the valley in 1819-1825.¹ They were both acute and intelligent observers, but having no special knowledge of the subject, their observations on the architecture of the valley do not add much to our knowledge of its history.

v1.c18.7

¹ ‘Travels in the Himalayan Provinces and in Ladakh and Kashmir,’ London, Murray, 1841.

v1.c18.8

They were followed by G. T. Vigne in 1833, who being an artist drew the buildings with wonderful correctness, so as to bring out the peculiarities of the style, and also to approximate their history with very tolerable exactness.² About the same time Baron Hügel gave his impressions on the subject to the public, but in a manner much less critical than his predecessors.³

v1.c18.9

² ‘Travels in Kashmir, Ladak, Iskardo, etc.,’ two vols. 8vo., London, Colburn, 1842; 2nd ed. 1844.

v1.c18.10

³ ‘Travels in Kashmir and the Punjab.’ Translated by Major Jervis, London, 1845.

v1.c18.11

In 1848, Captain (afterwards General Sir) A. Cunningham published in the ‘Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society,’ an essay on what he called the “Aryan Order of Architecture,” but which was wholly devoted to that of Kashmîr.⁴ It was illustrated by seventeen folding plates, containing map, plans, elevations, and views, and in fact all that was required for settling the history of the style, and, but for one or two unfortunate mistakes, would have left little to be done by his successors in this field of enquiry.

v1.c18.12

⁴ *Loc. cit.* vol. xvii. part ii. pp. 241-327.

v1.c18.13

In 1866, the Rev. W. C. Cowie published in the same journal an essay on the same subject, as a supplement to General Cunningham’s paper, describing several temples he had not visited, and adding considerably to our knowledge of those he had described. This paper was also extensively illustrated.⁵

v1.c18.14

⁵ ‘Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society,’ vol. xxxv. pp. 91-123.

v1.c18.15

In consequence of all this wealth of literature, very little remained to be done, when in 1868 Lieutenant Cole, R.E., obtained an appointment as superintendent in the Archæological Survey of India, and proceeded to Kashmîr with a staff quite sufficient to settle all the remaining outstanding questions.⁶ Unfortunately, however, Lieutenant Cole had no previous knowledge of Indian antiquities in general, and had not qualified himself by any special study for the investigation he was deputed to undertake. All, therefore, he could do was to adopt blindly General Cunningham’s dates, and in this there would have been no great harm, but, when he came across a temple which had escaped his predecessor’s attention, he arbitrarily interpolated it into the General’s series with a date of his own. As all these dates are given as if perfectly ascertained, without any of the reasoning on which they are based, they would, if accepted, lead to the most erroneous conclusions. Putting these, however, aside, Lieutenant Cole’s plans and architectural details were a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the subject, and with his photographs and those now available by others, enable those who have not had an opportunity of visiting the valley to form an opinion of their own, and with all these lights there seems little difficulty in ascertaining all the really important facts connected with this style.

v1.c18.16

⁶ ‘Illustrations of the Ancient Buildings in Kashmir, etc., prepared, under the authority of the Secretary of State for India in Council,’ by Lieut. H. H. Cole, R.E., quarto, London, 1869.

v1.c18.17

The first and most misleading mistake that has been made with reference to Kashmîri architecture, was the assumption by General Cunningham that the enclosure to Zainu-l-‘Abidîn’s tomb in Srînagar originally belonged to an ancient Kashmîri temple. Lieutenant Cole boldly printed on his plates “probable date A.D. 400 to 500,” a mistake as nearly as may be of 1000 years, as it is hardly doubtful that it was erected for or by the prince whose name it bears, and who in A.D. 1417 succeeded his brother—their father being Sikandar, who bore the ill-omened nickname of Bhûtshikan, the idol-breaker.¹ As will be seen from the woodcut (No. 139), it consists of a series of small pointed arches in rectangular frames, such as are very frequently found in Muhammadan art, and, though it occupies the site of an early temple, and parts may be much older, the peculiarities of the gateway and other parts are just such as are found in all contemporary Moslim art in India. All the mosques and tombs for instance at Ahmadâbâd, A.D. 1400-1572, are made up of details borrowed from the architecture of the Hindûs and Jains, and the bases of their minarets and their internal pillars can only be distinguished from those of the heathen by their position, and by the substitution of foliage for human figures in the niches or places where the Hindûs would have introduced images of their gods.

v1.c18.18

¹ He boasted of having demolished all the temples in Kashmîr. The tomb of his queen is constructed on a base, and with materials of Hindû shrines.—‘Calcutta Review,’ vol. liv. (1872), p. 27.

v1.c18.19

[Figure: 139. Tomb of Zainu-l-‘Abidîn. Elevation of Arches. (From a Drawing by Lieut. Cole.)]

v1.c18.20

In this instance, however, there is no incongruity, no borrowed features; every stone was carved for the place where it is found. There are niches, it is true, on each side of the gateway, like those found at Mârtând and other pagan temples; but like those at Ahmadâbâd they are without images, and the arch in brick which surmounts this gateway is a radiating arch, which appears certainly to be integral, but, if so, could not possibly be erected by a Hindû.¹ With the knowledge we now possess, it is not likely that any one can mistake the fact, that this enclosure was erected in its present form, by the prince whose name it bears, to surround his tomb, in the Muhammadan cemetery of the city in which it is found.

v1.c18.21

¹ I cannot make out the span of this arch. According to the rods laid across the photograph (No. 4) it appears to be 15 ft.; according to the scale on the plan, only half that amount.

v1.c18.22

Assuming this for the present, it gives us a hint as to the age of the other anomalous building in Kashmîr—the temple that crowns the hill, called the Takht-i-Sulaimân, near the capital. Inside the octagonal enclosure that surrounds the platform on which the temple stands is a range of arches (Woodcut No. 140), similar to those of the tomb of Zainu-l-‘Abidîn (Woodcut No. 139), not so distinctly pointed, nor so Saracenic in detail, but still very nearly resembling them, only a little more debased in style. At the bottom of the steps is a round-headed doorway, not, it is true, surmounted by a true arch, but by a curved lintel of one stone, such as are universal in the Hindû imitations of Muhammadan architecture in the 17th and 18th centuries. The same is the case in the small temples alongside, which are evidently of the same age.² The temple too, itself, is far from having an ancient look. The one most like it, that I am acquainted with, is that erected by Chait Singh of Benares (1770-1781) at Râmnagar, at the end of the 18th century. I know of no straight-lined pyramid of a much older date than that, and no temple with a polygonal plan, combined with a circular cell, as is the case here, that is of ancient date.³ The cell itself with the Linga is undoubtedly quite modern; and the four pillars in the cell, with the Persian inscriptions upon them, are avowedly of the 17th century. It is suggested, moreover, that they belong to a repair; my conviction, however, is, from a review of the whole evidence, that the temple, as it now stands, was commenced by some nameless Hindûs, in honour of Siva, during the tolerant reign of Jahângîr, and that the building was stopped at the date engraved on the staircase, A.H. 1069 (A.D. 1659), the first year of the reign of the bigot Aurangzeb. It was then unfinished, and has consequently remained a ruin ever since, which may give it an ancient look, but not such as to justify any one putting it 1879 years before what seems to be its true date.

v1.c18.23

² Lieut. Cole’s plates, 1-4.

v1.c18.24

³ The polygonal basement, however, is constructed of remarkably massive blocks and without mortar, and must thus be relegated to an earlier period.—Stein’s ‘Râjataranginî,’ vol. ii. p. 290.

v1.c18.25

140. Takht-i-Sulaimân. Elevation of Arches. (From a Drawing by Lieut. Cole.)

v1.c18.26

If we may thus get rid of these two anomalous and exceptional examples, the history of all the remaining temples in the valley is more than usually homogeneous and easily intelligible. The date of the principal example—the temple at Mârtând—is hardly doubtful (A.D. 750); and of the others, some may be slightly older, but none can be carried further back than the reign of Ranâditya, in the 6th century, if the temple founded by him at Simharotsikâ still exist.¹ Nor can any one be brought down below, say 1000, which is the latest date we can possibly assign to that of Pâyer.² Between these dates, with a very little local knowledge, the whole might easily be arranged. Such a classification is, however, by no means necessary at present. The style during these six centuries is so uniform that it may be taken as one, for the purposes of a general history.

v1.c18.27

¹ Stein's ‘Râjataranginî,’ bk. iii. v. 462, and note; also note on vv. 453-454.

v1.c18.28

² Vigne regarded this temple as more modern than any of the others, whilst Cunningham ascribed it to the end of the 5th century. Vigne called the village Payech, which has been followed by subsequent writers; the real name is Pâyer—it is in the pargana of Sâvur.—*Loc. cit.* vol. ii. p. 473.

Temples.

v1.c18.s1.1

Before proceeding to speak of the temples themselves, it may add to the clearness of what follows if we first explain what the peculiarities of the style are. This we are able to do from a small model in stone of a Kashmîri temple (Woodcut No. 141), which was drawn by General Cunningham; such miniature temples being common throughout India, and copies of their larger prototypes.

v1.c18.s1.2

The temple in this instance is surmounted by four roofs (in the built examples, so far as they are known, there are only two or three), which are obviously copied from the usual wooden roofs common to most buildings in Kashmîr, where the upper pyramid covers the central part of the building, and the lower a verandah, separated from the centre either by walls or merely by a range of pillars.³ In the wooden examples the interval between the two roofs seems to have been left open for light and air; in the stone buildings it is closed with ornaments. Besides this, however, all these roofs are relieved by dormer windows, of a pattern very similar to those found in mediæval buildings in Europe; and the same steep, sloping lines are used also to cover doorways and porches, these being virtually a section of the main roof itself, and evidently a copy of the same wooden construction.

v1.c18.s1.3

³ See drawing of mosque by Vigne, vol. i. p. 269; and also ‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vol. xvii. (1848) pt. ii. p. 253, containing General Cunningham’s paper on the subject, from which this woodcut is taken. These miniature models of temples occur here and there throughout Kashmîr: on the Pîr-Panjâl road between Supiyan and Râmuh, is one; another is at Kohil near Pâyer; a third is built into the embankment of the Nali Mar canal; two in the Srînagar lake that are often submerged; and one photographed by Major Cole (‘Illustrations of Ancient Buildings,’ No. 44), near the Jâmi Masjid. In these there is an interior cell scarcely a foot square; but near the village of Pattan are two such models which are not hollowed out, the place of the doorway being represented by a small carved panel.—‘Calcutta Review,’ vol. liv. p. 26.

v1.c18.s1.4

1. Model of Temple in Kashmîr.

v1.c18.s1.5

The pillars which support the porticoes, and the one on which the model stands, are by far the most striking peculiarity of this style, their shafts being so distinctly like those of the Grecian Doric, and unlike anything of the class found in other parts of India. Generally they are from three to four diameters in height, diminishing slightly towards the capital, and adorned with sixteen flutes, rather shallower than those of the Grecian order. Both the bases and capitals are, it is true, far more complicated than would have been tolerated in Greece, but at Pæstum and in Rome we find, with the Doric order, a complexity of mouldings by no means unlike that found here. These peculiarities are still more evident in the annexed representations of two pillars, one found in Srînagar (Woodcut No. 142), which is a far more highly ornamented example than the last, but equally classical in its details, and, if anything, more unlike any known examples of true Hindû architecture. The other (Woodcut No. 143) is from Shâdipur, and is perhaps more modern; the diameter of the pillar is 13¼ in., and the upper fillet of the abacus is 20¼ in. square. Nowhere in Kashmîr do we find any trace of the bracket capital of the Hindûs, nor of the changes from square to octagon, or to the polygon of sixteen sides, and so on. Now that we are familiar with the extent of classical influence that prevailed in Gandhâra (*ante*, p. 217) down to about the 5th century, we have no difficulty in understanding whence these quasi-Grecian forms were derived, nor why they should be found so prevalent in this valley. It adds, however, very considerably to our interest in the subject to find that the civilisation of the West left so strong an impress on the arts of this part of India that its influence can be detected in all the Kashmîri buildings down to the time when the local style perished under Muhammadan influence in the 14th century. Although, therefore, there can be no mistake about the forms of the columns in the architecture of Kashmîr being derived from the classical styles of the West, and as little doubt as to the countries through which it was introduced into the valley, it must not be overlooked that the classical influence is fainter and more remote from its source in Kashmîr than in Gandhâra. Nothing resembling the Corinthian capitals of the Jamâlgarhî monastery are found in the valley. The classical features in Kashmîr are in degree more like those of the Mânikyâla tope and the very latest examples in the Peshâwar valley. The one style, in fact, seems to commence where the other ends, and to carry on the tradition for centuries after it had been lost in the country from which it was introduced.

v1.c18.s1.6

142. Pillar at Srînagar. (From a Drawing by W. Carpenter, Esq.)

v1.c18.s1.7

143. Capital from Shâdipur. (From a Drawing by F. H. Andrews, Esq.)

v1.c18.s1.8

The fact, however, of a quasi-Doric order being currently used in the valley from the 8th to the 12th century, renders it probable that if remains of greater antiquity had been preserved, we should have found that it was introduced at a much earlier period, or about coeval with the appearance of the Corinthian order of the Gandhâra monasteries. As both were evidently derived from the same source, it seems most unlikely that there should be any break in the continuity of the tradition.

v1.c18.s1.9

No example of the Doric order has yet been found in Gandhâra, but, as both Ionic and Corinthian capitals have been found there, it seems more than probable that the Doric existed there also; but as our knowledge is still somewhat limited, we ought not to be surprised at any deficiencies in our series that may from time to time become apparent.

v1.c18.s1.10

There is still one other peculiarity of this style to account for. This is the trefoiled arch, which is everywhere prevalent, but which is not to be accounted for by any constructive requirement. Now at Takht-î-Bahai and at 'Alî Masjid we meet with trefoiled arches, over niches for sculptures,¹ and in

v1.c18.s1.11

¹ Foucher, ‘L’Art Gréco-Bouddhique du Gandhâra,’ tome i. p. 199, fig. 80, and pp. 19, 201, figs. 2 and 81.

v1.c18.s1.12

144. Restoration of Vihâra Cells on the west side of the Court of Takht-î-Bahai Stûpa.[^2] Scale about 12 ft. to 1 in.

v1.c18.s1.13

the gablets from Gandhâra stûpas, such as that represented in Woodcut No. 123 (p. 216), the frames are of this form. And round the stûpa court at Takht-î-Bahai most of the small shrines or cells were roofed by a sort of double dome—a smaller one set upon a larger and flatter one (Woodcut No. 144); and if we conceive a vertical section made of one of these cells, it will be perceived that the outline would be just that of Woodcut No. 123, or such a trefoil as is everywhere prevalent in Kashmîr. Or, if we refer to Woodcut No. 60 or to 72,¹ the section of the cave at Ajantâ, which it represents, affords a similar outline; and, as in Kashmîr and everywhere else in India, architectural decoration is made up of small models of large buildings applied as decorative features wherever required, it is by no means improbable that the trefoiled façade may have been adopted in Kashmîr as currently as the simple horse-shoe form was throughout the Buddhist buildings of India Proper. All these features, however, mark a local style differing from anything else in India.

v1.c18.s1.14

² From Foucher, *ut sup.*, p. 126; modified from Cunningham, ‘Archæological Reports,’ vol. v. plate 9.—Conf. ‘Ancient Monuments of India,’ part i. plate 69.

v1.c18.s1.15

¹ See also Woodcut No. 80. On the Toran attached to the rail at Bharaut are elevations of chaitya halls, shown in section, which represent this trefoil form with great exactness.—Cunningham, ‘Stûpa of Bharhut,’ plates 6 and 9.

Mârtând.

v1.c18.s2.1

[Figure: 145. Temple of Mârtând. (From a Drawing by Gen. A. Cunningham.) Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.]

v1.c18.s2.2

By far the finest and most typical example of the Kashmîri style is the temple of Mârtând, situated about 5 miles east of Islâmâbâd, the old capital of the valley. It is the architectural lion of Kashmîr, and all tourists think it necessary to go into raptures about its beauty and magnificence, comparing it to Palmyra or Thebes, or other wonderful groups of ruins of the old world. Great part, however, of the admiration it excites is due to its situation. It stands well on an elevated plateau, from which a most extensive view is obtained, over a great part of the valley. No tree or house interferes with its solitary grandeur, and its ruins—shaken down apparently by an earthquake—lie scattered as they fell, and, unobscured by vegetation, they are the most impressive remains of early Kashmîr architecture; nor are they vulgarised by any modern accretions. Add to this the mystery that hangs over their origin, and a Western impress on its details—unusual in the East—but which calls back the memory of familiar forms and suggests memories that throw a veil of poetry over its history more than sufficient to excite admiration in the most prosaic spectators. When, however, we come to reduce its dimensions to scale (Woodcut No. 145), and to examine its pretensions to rank among the great examples of architectural art, the rhapsodies of which it has been the theme seem a little out of place.

v1.c18.s2.3

The temple itself (Woodcut No. 146) is a very small build-

v1.c18.s2.4

146. View of Temple at Mârtând, from the East. (From a Photograph.)

v1.c18.s2.5

ing, being only 60 ft. in length by 36 ft. in width. The width of the west façade, however, is eked out by two wings or adjuncts, which make it about 60 ft., thus making its length and breadth about equal. General Cunningham also estimated its height, when complete, at 60 ft.—making the three extreme dimensions equal; but this is only conjectural.

v1.c18.s2.6

The roof of the temple has so entirely disappeared that Baron Hügel doubted if it ever possessed one. General Cunningham, on the other hand, had no doubts on the subject,¹ and restored it in stone on his plate No. 14. The absence, however, of any fragments on the floor of the temple that could have belonged to the roof, militates seriously against this view; and, looking at the tenuity of the walls and the large voids they include, I doubt extremely if they ever could have supported a stone roof of the usual design. When, too, the plan is carefully examined, it will be seen that none of

v1.c18.s2.7

¹ 'Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,' vol. xvii., Sept. 1848, p. 267.

v1.c18.s2.8

[Figure: 147. Central Cell of Court at Mârtând. (From a Drawing by Gen. A. Cunningham.) Scale, 10 ft. to 1 in.]

v1.c18.s2.9

the masses are square; and it is very difficult to see how the roof of the porch could, if in stone, be fitted to that over the cella. Taking all these things into consideration, my impression is, that its roof—it certainly had one—was in wood; and knowing how extensively the Buddhists used wooden roofs for their chaitya halls, I see no improbability of this being the case here at the time this temple was erected.

v1.c18.s2.10

The courtyard that surrounds and encloses this temple is, in its state of ruin, a more remarkable object than the temple itself. Its internal dimensions are 220 ft. by 142 ft.,¹ which are respectable, though not excessive; they are not much more than those of the temple of Neminâth at Girnâr (Woodcut No. 280), which are 165 ft. and 105 ft., though that is by no means a large Jaina temple. On each face is a central cell, larger and higher than the colonnade in which it is placed (Woodcut No. 147), but even then only 30 ft. in height to the summit of the roof, supposing it to be completed, and the pillars on each side of it are only 15 ft. high, which are not dimensions to go wild about, though their strongly-impressed Grecian aspect is certainly curious and interesting.

v1.c18.s2.11

¹ Cunningham in the 'Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,' vol. xvii. (1848), pt. ii. p. 269.

v1.c18.s2.12

General Cunningham broached “a suspicion that the whole of the interior of the quadrangle was originally filled with water to a level within one foot of the bases of the columns, and that access to the temple was gained by a raised pathway of slabs, supported on solid blocks at short intervals, which connected the gateway flight of steps with that leading to the temple. The same kind of pathway must have stretched right across the quadrangle from one side doorway to the other. Similar pathways still exist in the Shâlimâr gardens, as passages across the different reservoirs and canals. On the outside of the quadrangle, and close by the northern side of the gateway, there is a drain by which the surplus water found its exit, thus keeping the surface always at the same level. The temples at Pândrethan Ledarî, and in the Bârâmûla Pass, are still standing in the midst of water. A constant supply of fresh water was kept up by a canal or watercourse from the River Lambadari, which was conducted alongside of the mountain for the service of the neighbouring village of Simharotsikâ,” etc. “The only object,” the General goes on to remark, “of erecting temples in the midst of water must have been to place them more immediately under the protection of the Nâgas, or human-bodied and snake-tailed gods, who were zealously worshipped for ages throughout Kashmîr.”¹ But for this hypothesis there is no sufficient basis, for there are no springs on the arid plateau where the temple stands, and the old irrigation canal from the Lidar could not have served the purpose. Moreover, the temple was undoubtedly dedicated to Sûrya-Nârâyan or Vishnu-Sûrya; and the polycephalous snake-hoods over some of the abraded figures on the walls are only indicative of Sûrya or Vishnu.²

v1.c18.s2.13

¹ *Loc. cit.* p. 273. Temples were very frequently placed beside springs (Nâgas), which were enclosed in separate walled basins. — Stein, in ‘Vienna Oriental Journal,’ vol. v. p. 347. The Pândrethan and Bârâmûla temples have been flooded by the rise of their surroundings.

v1.c18.s2.14

² As an example we may refer to the figure of Vishnu in Cave III. at Bâdâmi.— ‘Archæological Survey of Western India,’ vol. i. plates 25 and 30; or Le Bon, ‘Les Monuments de l’Inde,’ p. 149.

v1.c18.s2.15

The ‘Râjataranginî’ distinctly states that the “wonderful temple of Mârtânda with its massive walls of stone within a lofty enclosure" was built by King Lalitâditya-Muktâpîda,¹ who ruled about A.D. 725 to 760.² Jonarâja, a Kashmîr chronicler of the first half of the 15th century, tells us that Sikandar Shâh Bhûtshikan (1393 - 1416) destroyed the image, and probably he wrecked the temple itself. The court, however, had been used as a fortification in Jayasimha's reign, A.D. 1128 to 1149.

v1.c18.s2.16

¹ Gen. Cunningham, *loc. cit.* p. 263, misinterpreting this passage ('Râjataranginî,' bk. iv. v. 192, and iii. v. 462), ascribed the temple to Ranâditya, and the enclosure only to Lalitâditya. Simharotsikâ, where Ranâditya built a temple to Mârtânda in the 6th century, cannot now be identified.

v1.c18.s2.17

² Stein, 'Râjataranginî,' vol. i. introd., p. 88, and bk. iv. ver. 192. Lalitâditya was a great patron of Vaishnavism, but he also countenanced Buddhism, which flourished in Kashmîr in the 8th century, and built a vihâra at Parihâsapur with a colossal image of Buddha, and another vihâra and a stûpa at Hushkapur, bk. iv. verses 188, 200, 203.

v1.c18.s2.18

148. Niche with Figure at Mârtând. (From a Photograph.)

v1.c18.s2.19

Unfortunately, the stone of which the temple is built is of so friable a nature that the sculptures are now barely recognisable, but, so far as can be made out from such photographs as exist, the principal figures in the niches have snake-hoods, which are recognised adjuncts of certain forms of Vishnu (Woodcut No. 148). Any one on the spot, with a competent know- of Hindû mythology, could determine the character of these sculptures; but no one has yet visited it with the preparation necessary to settle this and other uncertain points regarding the architecture and mythology of the place. A monograph, however, of this temple would be a work well worthy of any pains that might be bestowed upon it by any Indian archæologist; for, besides its historical and mythological importance, many of its details are of great beauty, and they have never been drawn with the care they so well merit (Woodcut No. 149). As the typical example of a quasi-classical style, a perfect knowledge of its peculiarities would be a landmark in the history of the style both before and after its known date.

v1.c18.s2.20

[Figure: 149. Soffit of Arch at Mârtând. (From a Sketch by the late Mr. Wilson, B.C.S.)]

v1.c18.s2.21

The site of the ancient city of Parihâsapura, where Lalitâditya erected four Vaishnava temples and a Buddhist vihâra, was discovered by Dr. Stein, in 1892, near the village of Divar, with the ruins of half-a-dozen temples, said to have been destroyed by Sikandar Shâh—the remains of the spacious courts that had surrounded them being still traceable. In 1896, many of the stones, till then *in situ*, had been removed and broken up by contractors for road-metal.¹

v1.c18.s2.22

¹ Stein's 'Râjataranginî,' vol. ii. pp. 300-303.

Avantipur.

v1.c18.s3.1

Next in importance to Mârtând, among Kashmîri temples, are those of Avantipur, now Vântipor, on the right bank of the Jehlam, halfway between Srînagar and Islâmâbâd, all erected certainly within the limits of the reign of Avantivarman, the first king of the Utpala dynasty, and who reigned from A.D. 855 to A.D. 883. The stone with which they are erected is so friable, and the temples themselves are so ruined, that there might be a difficulty in ascertaining to what religion they were dedicated if the 'Râjataranginî' were not so distinct in describing this monarch as conducting himself as a follower of *Siva*, whilst he had been brought up as a worshipper of Vishnu,² and naming these temples as dedicated, one—built before his accession—to the latter, and after that event, the temple of Avantîswara to *Siva*.

v1.c18.s3.2

² Ibid., bk. v. verses 43-45.

v1.c18.s3.3

The two principal ruins stand in courtyards of nearly the same size, about 200 ft. by 160 ft. or 170 ft. internally. One has pillars all round, like Mârtând, and almost identical in design and dimensions. The other is astylar, but the temple itself was much more important than in the first example.³

v1.c18.s3.4

³ Plans of these temples with details are given by Cunningham, plates 17 and 18, and by Lieut. Cole with photographs, plates 20 to 27, and 2 to 5 for details. Mr. Cowie also adds considerably to our information on the subject. The dimensions quoted in the text are from Lieut. Cole, and are in excess of those given by General Cunningham. The latter gives the dimensions inside the court of the one as 191 ft. by 171; and of the other as 172 ft. by 146½. The second is in the village, and he proposed to identify it with the Avantiswâmin temple and the first, about half a mile to the north-west, as the Avantisvara or Saiva temple.

v1.c18.s3.5

The central shrines of both have been reduced to heaps of stones, and it is now impossible to determine which was the Vaishnava and which the Saiva shrine. Of the smaller temple, owing to part of the court having been long since silted up, there are more remains than of the other, from which every pillar has been removed, possibly by Shâh Jahân and other Mughal emperors, for their summer palaces and Shâlimâr gardens near Srînagar. Portions of the gateways of both still remain.¹

v1.c18.s3.6

¹ Cunningham, *loc cit.* pp. 276 *et seqq.*, and plate 17; Bernier's 'Travels A.D. 1656-1668' (ed. 1891), p. 400.

v1.c18.s3.7

150. Pillar at Avantipur. (From a Drawing by Mr Wilson, B.C.S.)

v1.c18.s3.8

The characteristic that seems most clearly to distinguish the style of the temples at Mârtând from that of those at Avantipur is the greater richness of detail which the latter exhibit; just such a tendency, in fact, towards the more elaborate carvings of the Hindû style as one might expect from their difference in date. Several of these have been given by the three authors to whose works I have so often had occasion to allude, and to which the reader is referred; but the annexed fragment (Woodcut No. 150) of one of its columns is as elegant in itself, and almost as interesting historically, as the Doric of the examples quoted above, inasmuch as if it is compared with the pillars of the tomb of Mycenæ² it seems difficult to escape the conviction that the two forms were derived from some common source. At all events, there is nothing between the Peloponnesos and Kashmîr, so far as we now know, that so nearly resembles it.

v1.c18.s3.9

² 'History of Ancient and Mediæval Architecture,' vol. i. Woodcut 125, p. 244.

v1.c18.s3.10

At Sankarapurâ, now Patân, between Srînagar and Bârâmûla, Sankaravarman (A.D. 883-902) the son and successor of Avantivarman, with his Queen Sugandhâ, erected two Saiva temples which still exist, though the corridors that doubtless once enclosed their courts have disappeared. Like most other Kashmîri temples they consisted only of a shrine or vimâna, without mandapa, but had recessed porches forming small chapels on three sides. Sankaravarman is said to have brought the materials for his buildings here from Parihâsapura, about 7 miles off.³

v1.c18.s3.11

³ Gen. Cunningham has given descriptions and outline plans of these temples.—*Loc. cit.* pp. 282, 283, and plate 20; Cole, ‘Illustrations of Ancient Buildings,’ plates 28-35; conf. ‘Râjataranginî,’ bk. v. verses 156-158, and 161. and plates 37 and 38. Another ruined temple, but far more decayed, is on the road between Bûniâr and Ûrî.—Stein, ‘Râjataranginî,’ vol. ii. p. 404.

Bhaniyâr or Bûniâr.

v1.c18.s4.1

At a place near the remote village of Bûniâr or Bhaniyâr, on the road between Ûrî and Naoshahra, there stands one of the best-preserved temples in the valley. During long ages of neglect, silt and mud had so accumulated as to half bury the place. It was, however, excavated a good many years ago by orders of the Mahârâja, and hence its nearly perfect

v1.c18.s4.2

151. View of Court of Temple at Bûniâr. (From a Photograph.)

v1.c18.s4.3

state.¹ Its dimensions are less than those of the temples last described, the court being only 145 ft. by 120 ft., but, except from natural decay of the stone, it is nearly perfect, and gives a very fair idea of the style of these buildings. The trefoiled arch, with its tall pediment, the detached column and its architrave, are as distinctly shown here as in any other existing example of a Kashmîri colonnade, and present all those quasi-classical features which we know were inherited from the neighbouring province of Gandhâra. The central temple is small, only 26 ft. square over all; the cell is 13½ ft. square inside with walls over 6 ft. thick, supported on a basement 4 ft. high, and its roof is now covered with wooden shingles; but whether that was the original covering is not certain. Looking, however, at the central side-cell of the colonnade (Woodcut No. 151), it seems doubtful whether General Cunningham was justified in restoring the roof of the temple, or of the central cell at Mârtând in stone. My impression rather is, as hinted above, that the temple-roof was in wood ; that of the side-cell in stone, but flat.

v1.c18.s4.4

¹ Cole, ‘Ancient Buildings,’ p. 23,

v1.c18.s4.5

At a place called Wâniyat or Vângath—32 miles from Srînagar, near the sacred Haramukh peaks—are two groups of temples, together about seventeen in all, which were carefully examined and described by the Rev. Mr. Cowie,¹ and plans and photographs are found in Lieutenant Cole's book.² They differ somewhat from those we have been describing, inasmuch as they do not seem to have been enclosed in colonnaded courts, and each group consists of one large and several smaller temples, unsymmetrically arranged. The larger ones are 30 ft. and 32 ft. square in plan over all ; the smaller 10 ft. or 12 ft. They are of various ages, and the two principal temples are most probably those of Bhûtesa in the east group, and Jyeshtha in the other.³

v1.c18.s4.6

¹ 'Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,' vol. xxxv. (1866), pp. 101 *et seqq.*

v1.c18.s4.7

² 'Illustrations of Ancient Buildings in Kashmîr,' pp. 11ff., plates 6 to 11.

v1.c18.s4.8

³ Stein's 'Râjataranginî,' bk. v. vv. 55-59 and note, and bk. i. v. 107, note.

v1.c18.s4.9

There are no inscriptions, nor any historical indications that would enable us to fix the date of the Wâniyat temples with certainty, and the stone has decayed to such an extent that the details cannot be defined with the precision necessary for comparison with other examples ; but whether this decay arises from time or from the nature of the stone there are no means of knowing.⁴ This Tîrtha at Haramukh was famous from very early times, and we learn that Lalitâditya-Muktâpîda built here a stone temple to Jyeshtha in the 8th century, and made gifts to the Bhutesa temples. The Jyeshtha shrine is thus probably among the earliest. Early in the 11th century the temples were plundered, after which they were probably restored and modernised by Uchahala (a.d. 1101-1111), and again plundered by hillmen before 1150. They would almost certainly suffer also at the hands of Sikandar Shâh at the end of the 14th century.

v1.c18.s4.10

⁴ Lieut. Cole, basing his inferences on certain similarities he detected between them and the temple on the Takht-i-Sulaimân, which he believed was erected b.c. 220, ascribed their erection to the first century after Christ.

v1.c18.s4.11

Among the remaining examples, perhaps the one that most clearly exhibits the characteristics of the style is that at Pândrethan, about 3 miles from Srînagar (Woodcut No. 152). It still is a well-preserved little temple, standing in the middle of the village, and is in all probability the 'Vaishnava' temple built during the reign of King Pârthva (a.d. 906-921) by his minister, and named Meruvardhana-swâmin.¹ It now stands in the water of a shallow pool that occupies the former courtyard. Originally, it seems to have had a third storey or division to its roof, but that has fallen; the lower part of the building, however, exhibits all the characteristic features of the style in as much perfection as almost any other known example. It consists of a shrine only, 11 ft. 7 in. square inside, with doors on all four sides, and the inside roof covered with sculpture.

v1.c18.s4.12

¹ 'Râjataranginî,' bk. v., v. 267; Moorcroft, 'Travels,' vol. ii. p. 240; Hügel, 'Kaschmir,' Bd. i., S. 260; Vigne, 'Travels,' vol. ii. p. 38; Cunningham, 'Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,' vol. xvii., pt. ii. pp. 283 *et seqq.*, and plate 21; Foucher, 'L'Art Gréco-Bouddhique,' pp. 143-146.

v1.c18.s4.13

152. Temple at Pândrethan. (From a Drawing by Gen. Cunningham.)

v1.c18.s4.14

One last example must conclude our illustrations of Kashmîri architecture. The temple at Pâyer, though one of the smallest, is among the most elegant, and also one of the most entire examples of the style (Woodcut No. 153). Its dimensions are only 8 ft. square for the superstructure, with a door on each side, and 21 ft. high, including the basement; but with even these dimensions it acquires a certain dignity from being erected with only six stones — four for the walls and two for the roof.² It stands by itself on a knoll, without any court, or any of the surroundings of the older temples, and is dedicated to Siva. It would be interesting if its date could be ascertained, as it carries with it that of the cave of Bhaumajo or Bumazu, and of several other temples.³ Vigne, from its perfect preservation regarded it as the most modern of the series, and Cunningham, founding on a mistake,¹ argued for its being a temple erected by Narendrâditya, before the end of the 5th century. It is

v1.c18.s4.15

² Cunningham, *loc. cit.* p. 256; Growse says 'ten stones,' adding four for the tympana over the doors.

v1.c18.s4.16

³ 'Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,' vol. xxxv. pp. 100 *et seqq.*; and Stein's 'Râjataranginî,' bk. vi., vv. 177, 178, note. It is probably the same as the temple of Bhîmakesava built (950-958 A.D.) by Bhîma Sâhi, King of Kâbul or Udabhânda.

v1.c18.s4.17

¹ 'Râjataranginî,' bk. iii. ver. 383; the temple of Narendraswâmin referred to was undoubtedly Vaishnava, and this upsets his argument, for the Pâyer temple is Saiva; *svâmin* is the invariable termination of the names of Vaishnava shrines in Kashmîr.

v1.c18.s4.18

153. Temple at Pâyer. (From a Photograph.)

v1.c18.s4.19

evidently much later than Mârtând, and may be ascribed, architecturally, with some confidence to the 10th century.

v1.c18.s4.20

In order to write a complete monography of the Kashmîri style, we ought to be able to trace it to a much earlier period. We know that it was influenced by that of Gandhâra, from which it was not distant, and from which it was subject to invasion.

v1.c18.s4.21

There were among the Gandhâra vihâras as we now know, buildings with sloping stone roofs, and that all along the Himâlayas, these double and triple roofs, sloping to four sides—

v1.c18.s4.22

known as "for four waters"—have always been in common use.¹

v1.c18.s4.23

¹ Foucher, 'L'Art Gréco-Bouddhique du Gandhâra,' pp. 116, 131-136.

v1.c18.s4.24

We learn from tradition that in the time of Asoka, B.C. 250, missionaries were sent to convert the inhabitants of the valley to the Buddhist faith, and that, at a later date, the Turushka king Kanishka ruled over Kashmîr, and was a patron of the Buddhist religion; and we know that in the 7th century Hiuen Tsiang found Buddhism, if not the only religion, at least one of the dominant cults of the people. The details he mentions, and the fact of his lingering here for two whole years (A.D. 633 and A.D. 634) to study its forms and scriptures, proves how important this religion then was.² More than a century later (A.D. 759), U-k'ong, another Chinese Buddhist, reached Kashmîr, and spent fully four years in literary study, and visiting the sacred sites and monasteries, stating that he found more than three hundred convents, and many stûpas.³ But scarcely a vestige of a chaitya or of a vihâra has yet come to light; and though there are mounds which may contain stûpas, it is most improbable that they will contain any architectural forms that may be of use for our purposes.⁴ All the ancient monasteries seem to have been destroyed on the decline of the religion.

v1.c18.s4.25

² Beal, 'Life of Hiuen Tsiang,' pp. 68-72; Julien, 'Vie de Hiouen Thsang,' pp. 91-96.

v1.c18.s4.26

³ Dr. Stein has succeeded in identifying the localities referred to by U-k'ong in his 'Notes on Ou-k'ong's Account, of Kaçmîr' (Wien, 1896). See also 'L'Itinéraire d'Ou-k'ong (751-790) traduit et annoté par MM. Sylvain Lévi et Ed. Chavannes' in 'Journal Asiatique,' ix. sér. tome vi. (1895), pp. 341-384.

v1.c18.s4.27

⁴ Near Ushkür the ancient Hushkapura, on the Jehlam, opposite to Bârâmûla was a Buddhist stûpa—still intact till 1882—when, under Gen. Cunningham's instructions, one of his assistants dug into it and razed it to the ground. It had been constructed along with a vihâra, by Lalitâditya early in the 8th century.—Lawrence's 'Valley of Kashmir,' p. 163; Stein's 'Râjataranginî,' bk. iv., note on v. 188.

v1.c18.s4.28

We now know sufficiently the forms and age of the Gandhâra monasteries (*ante*, pp. 211 *et seqq.*) to supply most of the missing links connecting the Kashmîri style with that of the outer world; but till the temples in the Salt Range, and other little-frequented parts of the Panjâb are examined, we shall not know all that we desire. Meanwhile the annexed woodcut (No. 154), representing a temple at Malot, in the Jehlam district, shows how nearly the Panjâbi style resembled that of Kashmîr.⁵ There are the same trefoil-headed openings; the fluted pillars, with quasi-classical bases and capitals; and a general similarity of style not to be mistaken. There is another temple very similar, but smaller, at Katâs, 12 miles north-west from Malot;

v1.c18.s4.29

⁵ It appears from Hiuen Tsiang, that in the 7th century the northern Panjâb was subject to Kashmîr.—Beal, 'Buddhist Records,' vol. i. pp. 136, 143, 147, and 163; 'Life of Hiuen Tsiang,' p. 192.

v1.c18.s4.30

both are near Pind Dâdan Khân, and there are others in the neighbourhood, which may form a connecting link between the Kashmîri temples and other varieties of style in the Himâlaya region.

v1.c18.s4.31

So many and so various are the points of interest connected with the style of the ancient buildings in Kashmîr, that they deserve much fuller illustration than is compatible with the

v1.c18.s4.32

154. Temple at Malot, in the Salt Range. (From a Photograph.)

v1.c18.s4.33

scope of the present work. Though not magnificent, they are very pleasing and appropriate examples of art, and they have this advantage over most of the Indian styles, that Kashmîr possesses, in the ‘Râjataranginî,’ what may be said to be the only Indian history in existence,¹ and Dr. A. M. Stein’s admirable edition and translation of that work has done much to fix the dates of many of the buildings, and to supply a basis for a scientific and historic treatment of the whole.

v1.c18.s4.34

¹ See *ante*, p. 8.

v1.c18.s4.35

The earliest references to the religious beliefs of Kashmîr connect them with the worship of Nâgas or serpent deities, supposed to preside over springs, lakes, and rivers; hence they correspond closely with the classical Naiads or Potameids. Numerous temples were erected to them at all the more famous springs, and to these the earliest and more popular pilgrimages were made, and continue to be even till the present time. Even the Muhammadan Kashmirians pay superstitious and hardly obscure reverence to them; the “ziârats” or shrines of their Pîrs or saints are largely fixed at the old sacred spots, and sometimes they seem to have been the native shrines appropriated by the ruling caste.¹ The Nâga divinities were accepted by the Buddhists and worked into the mythology of the Mahâyâna school. Until the 6th century Buddhism was probably the predominant religion of the country. Mihirakula, a White Hûn—whose coins indicate that he was a Saiva—acquired the sovereignty about a.d. 530, and was a bitter persecutor of the Buddhists, at the same time fostering the Brahmanical cult. When Hiuen Tsiang visited the country in the 7th century, Buddhism seems to have considerably revived. The kings of the Kârkota and Utpala dynasties were tolerant, and, as we learn, built Buddhist vihâras as well as Hindû temples, and U-k’ong, who reached Kashmîr in a.d. 759—probably in the reign of Lalitâditya-Muktâpîda—speaks of the Buddhist establishments as being numerous and very flourishing.² By the 14th century, however, the Hindû rulers had become weak and effete, and a military adventurer from the south murdered Kotâ Rânî, the widow of the last sovereign, a.d. 1339, and usurped the legal power as Shâh Mîr. The immigration of foreigners that followed rapidly led the way, under the new Moslim dynasty, to the general conversion of the people to the Musalmân religion, and by the end of the century this had become an accomplished fact.

v1.c18.s4.36

¹ It seems not improbable that the Ziârat of Pîr Hâjî Muhammad Sâhib at Srînagar, may represent the Ranaswâmin temple of Ranâditya, erected in the 6th century; the Bumazu temple also is now regarded as the Ziârat of Bâba Bâmadîn Sâhib.—‘Râjataranginî,’ bk. iii., vv. 453-454, note, and bk. vi., vv. 177, 178, note.

v1.c18.s4.37

² We read of the iconoclast Harsha (1089-1101) sparing two colossal images of Buddha: one in Srînagar, and the other at Parihâsapur—probably that established by Lalitâditya in the 8th century.—‘Râjataranginî,’ bk. vii., vv. 1097, *sq.*, and bk. iv., vv. 200.

v1.c18.s4.38

As Muhammadanism rose in power the old temples were either destroyed, as under the iconoclastic zeal of Sikandar Shâh, 1393 to 1416, or they were neglected and fell to ruin; after that we have only the tomb of Zainu-l-‘Abidîn and the temple on the Takht-i-Sulaimân that can be classed as examples of the style, though the latter can hardly even claim a title to that affiliation.

v1.c18.s4.39

NEPÂL AND TIBET.

v1.c18.s4.40

Stûpas or Chaityas—Wooden Temples—Tibet—Temples in Kângrâ.

v1.c18.s4.41

ANY one looking at the map, and the map only, would probably be inclined to fancy that, from their similarity of situation and surroundings, the arts and archæology of Nepâl must resemble those of Kashmîr. It would not, however, be easy to make a greater mistake, for there are no two provinces of India which are more diametrically opposed to one another in these respects than these two Himâlayan states. Partly this is due to local peculiarities. The valley of Nepâl proper—in which the three old capitals, Patân, Bhâtgâon, and Kâthmându, are situated—is only about 15 miles north and south, by 20 east and west. It is true, the bulk of the population of the Gurkha state live in the valleys that surround this central point; but they are sparse and isolated communities, having very little communication with each other. . Kashmîr, on the other hand, is one of the most beautiful and fertile valleys in the world, measuring more than 100 miles in one direction and more than 70 in another, without any ridges or interruptions of importance, and capable of maintaining a large population on one vast, unbroken fertile plain.

v1.c18.s4.42

Another point of difference is, that Kashmîr never was a thoroughfare. The population who now possess it entered it from the south, and have retained possession of it—in all historical times, at least—in sufficient numbers to keep back any immigration from the north. In Nepâl, on the contrary, the bulk of the population are of Tibetan, or Mongol origin from the north, left there apparently in their passage southward; and, so far as we can gather from such histories as exist, the southern races who are found there entered the valley in the beginning of the 14th century, and never in such numbers as materially to modify the essentially Turanian character of the people.

v1.c18.s4.43

Nepâl also differs from Kashmîr from the fact that the Muhammadans never had possession of their valley, and never, consequently, influenced their arts or their religions. The architectural history of the two valleys differs, consequently, in the following particulars:—In Kashmîr we have a Buddhist period, developing by the 8th century into an original quasi-classical style, that lasted till it, in its turn, was supplanted by that of the Moslim in the 15th century. In Nepâl we have no succession of styles—no history in fact—for we hardly know when any of the three religions was introduced; but what we find is the Vaishnava, Saiva, and Buddhist religions existing side by side at the present day, and flourishing with a rank luxuriance unknown on the plains of Bengal, where probably their exuberance was checked by the example of the Moslims, who, as just remarked, had no influence in the valley.

v1.c18.s4.44

Owing to the principal monuments in Nepâl—except the older chaityas—being modern, and to the people being too poor to indulge in such magnificence as is found on the plains, the buildings of Nepâl cannot compare, as architectural objects, with those found in other parts of India. But, on the other hand, the very fact of their being comparatively modern gives them an interest of their own, and though it is an exaggeration, it is a characteristic one, when it is said that in Nepâl there are more temples than houses, and more idols than men;¹ it is true to such an extent that there is an unlimited field for enquiry, and even if not splendid, the buildings are marvellously picturesque. Judging from photographs and such materials as are available, I have no hesitation in asserting that there are some streets and palaces in Kâthmândû and Bhâtgâon which are more picturesque, and more striking as architectural compositions, than are to be found in any other cities in India.² The style may be called barbarous, and the buildings have the defect of being principally in wood; but their height, their variety of outline, their wealth of carving and richness of colour, are such as are not to be found in Benares or any other city of the plains.

First 119 of 233 passages. Read on