History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v2.c25.s2.5

v2.c25.s2.5

¹ This and the dimensions in plan generally are taken from a table in Bâbu Râjendralâl's ‘Antiquities of Orissa,’ vol. i. p. 41. I am afraid they are only round numbers, but they suffice for comparison. They are certainly incorrect. In the table the tower is described as 66 ft. by 60, while all the photographs prove that it is undoubtedly square. In the plan (vol. ii. pl. 48) the sides are represented as 66 by 54 ft. from angle to angle, and the internal dimensions are given in the table as 42 square. In the plan they are 44 by 46, and approach so nearly to the exterior, that if the tower had been built, as represented in his plan, it would not have stood for an hour. In figure 314 the internal dimension is reduced to 40 ft. with the larger external one of 65 ft. The Bhoga-mandapa is said in the text (p. 72) to be 56 ft. square; by scale it is 63 by 70. The Nâta-mandir is said to be 52 ft. square, and scales 58 by 61. The Jagamohan in the text is said to measure 65 ft. by 45; on the plan it measures 70 by 50. Making these and other adjustments from the plan, it reduces the total length to about 210 ft., instead of the 290 of the plan. This is confirmed by Mr Atkinson’s plan (pl. xxviii.). In like manner the temple of Bhagavatî (pl. xlviii.) is represented as 160 ft. in length, while Mr. Atkinson makes it only 110.—‘Archæology in India,’ pp. 49, 50.