History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v1.c18.s2: Mârtând.
History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v1.c18.s2
- Language
- English
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.
Cites (3)
- Rājataraṅgiṇī — Kalhaṇa, Sanskrit
- Martand
- Parihāsapura