History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v2.c25.s8: Brahmanical Rock-Cut Temples.
History of Indian and Eastern Architecture v2.c25.s8
- Language
- English
Brahmanical Rock-Cut Temples.
v2.c25.s8.1
Although the structural temples of the Bâdâmi group² in Dhârwâr are of such extreme interest, as has been pointed out above, they are surpassed in importance, for our present purposes at least, by the rock-cut examples.
v2.c25.s8.2
² For architectural purposes the three places may be considered as one. Aihole is about 7 miles north-east of Pattadakal, and Pattadakal 8 miles east-north-east from Bâdâmi. Fifteen miles covers the whole, which must have been in the 6th or 7th century a place of great importance, Vâtâpipura or Bâdâmi being then the capital of the Chalukyas—‘Journal Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. p. 9; ‘Indian Antiquary,’ vol. viii. p. 243.
v2.c25.s8.3
At Bâdâmi there are three caves, not of any great dimensions, but of singular interest from their architectural details and sculptures, and more so from the fact that one of them, No. 3, contains an inscription with an undoubted date upon it. There are, as pointed out above, innumerable Buddhist inscriptions on the western caves, but none with dates from any well-ascertained era, and none, unfortunately, of the Brahmanical caves at Elûrâ or elsewhere have inscriptions that can be fully deciphered, and not one with a date on it. The consequence is, that the only mode by which their ages could be approximated was by arranging them in sequences, according to our empirical or real knowledge of the history of the period during which they were supposed to have been excavated. At Elûrâ, for instance, it was assumed that the Buddhist preceded the Brahmanical excavations, and that these were succeeded by the Jaina; and various local and architectural peculiarities rendered this hypothesis extremely probable. Arguing on this basis, it was found that the one chaitya cave there, the Viswakarma, was nearly identical in style with the last of the four chaityas at Ajantâ (No. 26), and that cave, for reasons given above, was placed at the end of the 6th century, say A.D. 600. The caves next it were assumed to occupy the 7th century, thus leading on to the Râmeswara group, about A.D. 700, and the Jaina group would then have occupied the 9th century. The age of the Kailâs or Dravidian group, being exceptional, could only be determined by extraneous evidence, and, as already pointed out, from its extreme similarity with the great temple at Pattadakal, belongs almost certainly to the 8th century ; and from a similar chain of reasoning the Jaina group is brought back to a slightly subsequent age.
v2.c25.s8.4
The inscription of the No. 3 cave at Bâdâmi is dated in the twelfth year of the reign of a well-known king, Kîrtivarman I., in 'the 500th year after the inauguration of the Saka king' ; the date therefore is A.D. 578. Admitting, which I think its architecture renders nearly certain, that it is the earliest of the three, still they are so like one another, that the latest may be assumed to have been excavated within the limits of the next century, say A.D. 575-680. Comparing the architecture of this group with that known as the central or Râmeswara group at Elûrâ, it is so nearly identical, that though it may be slightly more modern, it can hardly now be doubted they too, including perhaps the cave known as the Râvana-ka-khai, must have been excavated in the 7th century. Instead, therefore, of the sequence formerly adopted, we are forced to fall back on that marvellous picture of religious toleration described by the Chinese Pilgrim as exhibited at Allahâbâd in the year A.D. 643. On that occasion the King Harsha Silâditya distributed alms or gifts to 10,000 priests (*religieux*), the first day in honour of Buddha, the second of Âditya the Sun, and the third in honour of Îswara or Siva ;¹ and the eighteen kings who assisted at this splendid quinquennial festival seem promiscuously to have honoured equally these three divinities. With this toleration at headquarters, we ought not to be surprised if we find the temples of different religions overlapping one another to some extent.
v2.c25.s8.5
¹ 'Histoire de Hiouen Thsang,' p. 255 ; 'Vie et Voyages,' tome i. p. 280 ; or Beal's 'Buddhist Records,' vol. i. p. 233 ; and 'Life,' pp. 185f.
v2.c25.s8.6
As a reminiscence of the eclecticism of the time, it requires some experience in the antiquary to ascertain to what divinity a temple or cave, before the 8th century, was dedicated. In the Dâs Avatâra and Râvan-ka-khai caves at Elûrâ, for instance, we find the sculptures about equally divided between
v2.c25.s8.7
324 The Dâs Avatâra Cave-temple at Elûrâ. (From a Photograph.)
v2.c25.s8.8
Saiva and Vaishnava subjects, whilst the shrines contain lingams of Siva; and in two of the three Bâdâmi caves, whilst the larger figures are mostly Vaishnava, the others are largely Saiva, and the *vedis* or altars in the middle of both shrines may properly be supposed to have supported the emblem of Siva.
v2.c25.s8.9
The Dâs Avatâra (No. 15) at Elûrâ, is a two-storeyed cave, very similar in its architectural details to the Buddhist Dôn Thal and Tîn Thal, but the sculptures are all Brahmanical. At first sight it seems as if the excavation had been made by the Buddhists, and appropriated and finished by their successors. But on examination it appears that we owe it entirely to the
v2.c25.s8.10
325. Plan of the Upper Floor of the Dâs Avatâra Cave at Elûrâ. Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.[^1]
v2.c25.s8.11
Brâhmans. It is, perhaps, the earliest Brahmanical temple here; and it is natural to suppose that when the Saivas attempted to rival their antagonists in cave-temples they should follow the models that already existed, merely appropriating them to their own worship. The circumstance, however, that makes this most probable is the existence of a pseudo-structural mandapa, or shrine of the Nandi, in the courtyard (Woodcut No. 324); this evidently must have been a part of the original design, or the rock would not have been left here for it, and it is a model of the usual structural building found in Saiva temples in different parts of India.¹ This is a piece of bad grammar the Buddhists never were guilty of; their excavations always are caves, whilst the great characteristic of Brahmanical excavations, as distinguished from that of their predecessors, is that they generally copied structural buildings, a system that rose to its greatest height in the Kailâs, already described (vol. i., page 344). The Buddhist excavations, on the contrary, were always caves and nothing else. The ground floor is little more than a corridor, 95 ft. in length, and about 30 ft. deep, with cells. The upper storey hall, of which Woodcut No. 325 is the plan, is nearly square—95 ft. wide by 97 ft. deep—the roof supported by forty-four square pillars, of which those in front are richly carved. The recesses between the pilasters in the side walls are filled with large sculptures in alto-rilievo—those on the north side being Saiva, and on the other mostly Vaishnava.
v2.c25.s8.12
¹ Reduced from ‘Cave Temples of India,’ plate 74.
v2.c25.s8.13
¹ The Râshtrakûta inscription on this mandapa is only very partially legible, and is probably of later date than the work. — ‘Archæological Survey of Western India,’ vol. v. p. 87.
v2.c25.s8.14
Unfortunately there are no Buddhist buildings or caves so far south as Bâdâmi, and we are consequently deprived of that means for comparison: such as are south of Kârlê, at Karhâd, etc., are of little or no account architecturally. The result, however, of the translations of inscriptions collected during the last thirty-five years, and of the surveys made, leads us to compress our history of the western caves within narrower limits than at one time seemed necessary. The caves in the south of Bijâpûr district seem all to be comprised between the years 500 and 750 A.D., and those at Elûrâ, being synchronous, must also, with the exception of the Jaina caves, be limited to the same period of time, with probably a slight extension either way.
v2.c25.s8.15
The following may now be offered as an approximate chronology of the far-famed series of caves at Elûrâ:
v2.c25.s8.16
| Buddhist:—Visvakarma to Tîn Thâl . . . | 500-650 |
| Hindû:—Dâs Avatâra, Râvan-ka-Khai, and Râmesvara | 650-750 |
| Dhumar Lenâ and others . . . | 750-850 |
| Dravidian:—Kailâs . . . . . | 750-800 |
| Jaina:—Indra and Jagannâth Sabhâs, etc. . . | 800-1100 |
v2.c25.s8.17
The cave at Elephanta follows of course the date here given for the Dhumâr Lena, and must thus date after the middle of the 8th century.²
v2.c25.s8.18
² This is the date given in the description in ‘The Caves of Elephanta,’ Bombay, 1871, p. 5.
v2.c25.s8.19
These dated caves and buildings have also rendered another service to the science of archæology, inasmuch as they enabled us to state with confidence, even before the inscriptions were properly translated, that the principal caves at Mâmallapuram must be circumscribed within the same limits. The architecture there being so lean and poor, is most misleading, but, as hinted above, I believe it arose from the fact that it was Dravidian, and copied literally from structural buildings, by people who had not the long experience of the Buddhists in cave architecture to guide them. But be that as it may, a comparison of the Hindû sculptures at Bâdâmi with those of Elûrâ on the one hand, and Mâmallapuram on the other, renders it certain that they were practically contemporary. The famous bas-relief of Durgâ, on her lion, slaying Mahishâsura, the Minotaur,¹ is earlier than one very similar to it at Elûrâ; and one, the Virâtarûpa or Vâmana, is later by probably a century than the sculpture of the same subject in cave 3 at Bâdâmi.² Some of the other bas-reliefs are later, some earlier, than those representing similar subjects in the three series, but it seems now impossible to get over the fact that they are practically synchronous. Even the great bas-relief, which I was inclined to assign to a more modern period, probably belongs to the 7th or 8th century. The great Nâga king, whom all the world are there worshipping, is represented as a man whose head is shaded by a seven-headed serpent-hood, but also with a serpent-body from the waist downwards. That form was not known in the older Buddhist sculptures, but has now been found on all the Orissan temples (for instance Woodcut No. 318), and frequently at Bâdâmi.³ This difficulty being removed, there seems no reason why this gigantic sculpture should not take the place, which its state of execution would otherwise assign to it—say A.D. 700—as a mean date, subject to a subsequent adjustment.⁴
v2.c25.s8.20
¹ ‘Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. ii. plate 4.
v2.c25.s8.21
² *Loc. cit.* plate 6; and Burgess, ‘Report on Belgâm,’ etc., plate 31.
v2.c25.s8.22
³ *Loc. cit.* plates 20, 23, 40.
v2.c25.s8.23
⁴ There is a second bas-relief, almost similar but in worse preservation, about 30 yards south from this.
v2.c25.s8.24
In a general work like the present it is of course impossible to illustrate so extensive a group as that of the Brahmanical caves to such an extent as to render their history or affinities intelligible to those who have not by any other means become familiar with the subject. Fortunately, however, in this instance, sufficient literature on the subject is available by which any one may readily attain the desired information.⁵
v2.c25.s8.25
⁵ Apart from the older works, reference may be made to ‘The Cave Temples of India’ (1880), pp. 165 *et seqq.*; the ‘Reports of the Archæological Survey of Western India,’ vols. i. iii. v. and vi.; and ‘The Rock Temples of Elephanta’ (Bombay, 1871).
v2.c25.s8.26
After all, however, the subject is one more suited to the purposes of the mythologist and the sculptor than to the architect. Like all rock-cut examples, except the Dravidian, the caves have the intolerable defect of having no exteriors, and consequently no external architectural form. The only parts of them which strictly belong to architectural art are their pillars, and though a series of them would be interesting, they vary so much, from the nature of the material in which they are carved, and from local circumstances, that they do not possess the same historical significance that external forms would afford. Such a pillar, for instance, as this one from the cave called Lankesvara on the side of the pit in which the Kailâs stands (Woodcut No. 326), though in exquisite taste as a rock-cut example, where the utmost strength is apparently required to support the mass of rock above, does not afford any points of comparison with structural examples of the same age. In a building it would be cumbersome and absurd; under a mass of rock it is elegant and appropriate. The pillars in the caves at Mâmallapuram fail from the opposite fault: they retain their structural form, though used in the rock, and look frail and weak in consequence; but while this diversity in practice prevailed, it prevents their use as a chronometric scale being appreciated, as it would be if the practice had been uniform. As, however, No. 3 at Bâdâmi is a cave with a positive date, A.D. 578, it may be well to give a plan and section (Woodcuts Nos. 327 and 328) to illustrate its peculiarities, so as to enable a comparison to be made between it and other examples. Its details will be found fully illustrated in the first volume of the Survey of Western India.
v2.c25.s8.27
326. Pillar in Kailâs, Elûrâ. (From a Drawing by the Author.)
v2.c25.s8.28
Though not one of the largest, it is still a fine cave, its verandah measuring 70 ft., with a depth of 50 ft., beyond which is a simple plain cell, containing the altar for the image. At one end of the verandah is the Narasinha Avatâra; at the other end Vishnu seated on the five-headed serpent Ananta. The front pillars have three brackets each, of very wooden design, all of which are ornamented by two or three figures, generally a male and female, with a child or dwarf—all of considerable beauty and delicacy of execution. The inner pillars are varied, and more architectural in their forms, but in the best style of Hindû art.¹
v2.c25.s8.29
¹ Burgess, 'Report on Belgam and Kaladgi,' plates 24-35.
v2.c25.s8.30
327. Plan of Cave No. 3, Bâdâmi. (From a Plan by J. Burgess.) Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.
v2.c25.s8.31
Compared with the style of art found at Amarâvatî, on the opposite coast, it is curious to observe how nearly Buddha, seated on the many-headed Nâga,² resembles Vishnu on Ananta in the next woodcut, and though the religion is changed, the art has hardly altered to such an extent as might be expected, considering that three
v2.c25.s8.32
² 'Tree and Serpent Worship,' plate 76; and 'Cave Temples of India,' plate 39.
v2.c25.s8.33
328. Section of Cave No. 3, Bâdâmi. (From a Drawing by J. Burgess.) Scale 25 ft. to 1 in.
v2.c25.s8.34
centuries at least had probably elapsed between the execution of these two bas-reliefs. The change of religion, however, is complete.
v2.c25.s8.35
Sometimes the Hindûs successfully conquered one of the main difficulties of cave architecture by excavating them on the spur of a hill, as in the Dhumar Lenâ at Elûrâ, and by surrounding them by courts, as there and at Elephanta and at Jogeswar; so that light was introduced on three sides instead of only one, as was too often the case both with Buddhist and Hindû excavations. These, though probably among the last, are certainly the finest Hindû excavations existing, if looked at from an architectural point of view. The Elûrâ example is the larger and finer, measuring 149 ft. by 148 (Woodcut No. 329). That at Elephanta, though extremely similar in general arrangement (No. 330), is less regular in plan, and also somewhat smaller, measuring only 130 ft. by 129 ft. It is easy to see that if these temples stood in the open they would only be porches, like that at Belûr (Woodcut No. 257), and numberless other examples, which are found everywhere; but the necessities of rock-cut architecture required generally that the cella should be placed inside the mandapa, or porch, instead of externally to it, as was always the case in structural examples. This, perhaps, was hardly to be regretted; but it shows how little the practice of cutting temples in the rock was suited to the templeforms of the Hindûs, and we need not, therefore, feel surprised how readily they abandoned it when any idea of rivalling the Buddhists had ceased to prompt their efforts in this direction.
v2.c25.s8.36
329. Dhumar Lenâ Cave at Elûrâ. (From Daniell's 'Views in Hindostan.') [^1] Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.
v2.c25.s8.37
330. Elephanta Cave. (From a Plan by J. Burgess.) Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.
v2.c25.s8.38
In the capitals of the pillars in these caves, as represented in the accompanying woodcut (No. 331) from the Elephanta cave, we find the perfected form of those ribbed cushion-capitals that are found at Bâdâmi and in so many other caves, dating from at least as early as the 6th century; but in these excavations it seems to have reached its fullest development and beauty of form. From its frequent recurrence of earlier and later date it has come to be considered the typical capital of early Indian architecture. It may be compared to the Doric order of classical art as, in the same way, the vase with foliage falling over it, as exemplified in the Râmeswara cave and elsewhere, may be regarded as an Oriental type of the Ionic order. This ribbed cushion form of capital also reminds us of the amalâsilâ crown to Hindû sikharas¹ though we may be unable to say from what it has been derived, we can hardly escape the conviction that in their origin they are akin.
v2.c25.s8.39
¹ Daniell's plan is not quite accurate, but sufficiently so for our purpose. See 'Cave Temples of India,' plate 79, and 'Archæological Survey of Western India,' vol. v. plate 37.
v2.c25.s8.40
¹ *Ante*, vol. i. p. 323.
v2.c25.s8.41
331. Pillars and corner of the Shrine at Elephanta. (From a Photograph.)
v2.c25.s8.42
So far as I know, there is only one example where the Indo-Aryan architects attempted to rival the Dravidian in producing a monolithic exterior. It is at a place called Dhamnâr, in Rajputana, where, as already mentioned (*ante*, vol. i., pp. 165 and 200), there is an extensive series of Buddhist excavations. In order to mark their triumph over that fallen faith, the Hindûs, apparently late in the 8th century, drove an open cutting into the side of the hill, till they came to a part high enough for their purpose. Here they enlarged this cutting into a pit 97½ ft. by 67 ft., leaving a Vaishnava temple of elegant architecture standing in the centre, with seven small cells surrounding it, precisely as was done in the case of the Kailâs at Elûrâ. The effect, however, can hardly be said to be pleasing (Woodcut No. 332). A temple standing in a pit is always an anomaly, but in this instance it is valuable as an unaltered example of the style, and as showing how the small shrines of Sivâlayas²—which have too often disappeared—were originally grouped round the greater Saiva shrines. The value of this characteristic we shall be better able to appreciate when we come to describe the temples at Prambanan and other places in Java. The Buddhists had their cells for priests and ascetics; the Jains filled their residential cells with images
v2.c25.s8.43
² *Ante*, vol. i. p. 336.
v2.c25.s8.44
332. Rock-cut Temple at Dhamnâr. (From a Plan by Gen. Cunningham.) Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.
v2.c25.s8.45
and made them little temples; and the Hindûs in their shrines made smaller cellæ for the attendants or family of the god.
v2.c25.s8.46
333. Saiva Temple near Poona. (From a Sketch by Daniell.)
v2.c25.s8.47
One more illustration must conclude what we have at present to say of Hindû rock-cut temples. It is the temple of Panchâlesvara at Bhâmburdê near Poona, and is but little known, though much more appropriate to cave architecture than most examples of its class. The temple itself is a simple pillared hall, with eight pillars in front, and possibly had originally a structural sikhara built on the upper plateau to mark the position of the sanctuary (Woodcut No. 334). The most original part of it, however, is the Nandi pavilion, which stands in the courtyard in front of the temple (Woodcut No. 333).¹ It is circular in plan, and its roof—which is a great slab of rock—was supported by sixteen square pillars of very simple form—four within and twelve in the circumference,—of which four have now crumbled and fallen. Altogether it is as appropriate a bit of design as is to be found in Hindû cave architecture. It has, however, the defect—only too common in those Hindû excavations—that, being in a pit, it can be looked down upon; which is a test very few buildings can stand, and to which none ought to be exposed.²
v2.c25.s8.48
¹ There is a similar temple at Âmbâ near Mominâbâd, in the Haidarâbâd State.—‘Archæological Survey of Western India,’ vol. iii. p. 50, and plates 33, 34.
v2.c25.s8.49
² ‘Cave Temples of India,’ p. 426 and plate 69.
v2.c25.s8.50
334. Temple of Panchâlesvara near Poona. Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.
v2.c25.s8.51
CENTRAL AND NORTHERN INDIA.
v2.c25.s8.52
CONTENTS. Chandrâvatî and Baroli—Kîrtti-stambhas—Temples at Gwâliar, Khajurâho, Sinnar, Udayapur, Benares, Bindrâban, Kântanagar, Amritsar.
v2.c25.s8.53
THERE are certainly more than one hundred temples in Central and Northern India which are well worthy of being described in detail, and, if described and illustrated, would convey a wonderful impression of the fertility in invention of the Hindû mind and of the elegance with which it was capable of expressing itself. None of these temples can make the smallest pretension to rival the great southern examples in scale; they are all, indeed, smaller even than the greater of Orissan examples; and while some of them surpass the Orissan temples in elegance of form, many rival them in the profuse elaboration of minute ornamental details.
v2.c25.s8.54
None of these temples — none, at least, that are now complete — seem to be of any great antiquity. At Eran, in the Sâgar district, are some fragments of columns, and several sculptures that seem to belong to the flourishing age of the Guptas, say about A.D. 450; and in the Mukandwârâ Pass in Kotâ, there are the remains of a chaultri that may be as old, but it is a mere fragment,¹ and has no inscription upon it.
v2.c25.s8.55
¹ A view of this was published in my ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Indian Architecture,’ plate 5.
v2.c25.s8.56
Among the more complete examples, the oldest I know of, and consequently the most beautiful, is the porch or temple of Sîtalesvara at Chandrâvatî, near Jhâlrâpathan, in Rajputana.² Assuming that it belongs to the early years of the 9th century, with the châwadî in the Mukandwârâ Pass, and the pillars at Eran, this Chandrâvatî fragment completes the list of what we at present can feel sure of having been erected before the middle of the 9th century. There are doubtless others, such as the temples at Pathâri and Tigowâ, that may be of even an earlier age, and it would be well they were examined, for this is one of the most elegant specimens of architecture of its period (Woodcut No. 335). It has not the poetry of arrangement of the Jaina octagonal domes, but it approaches very nearly to them by the large square space in the centre, which was covered by one of the most elegantly designed and most exquisitely carved roofs known to exist anywhere. Its arrangement is evidently borrowed from that of Buddhist vihâras, and it differs from them in style because their interiors were plastered and painted; here, on the contrary, everything is carved in stone.¹ It is a Saiva shrine.
v2.c25.s8.57
² In its neighbourhood Colonel Tod found an inscription, dated 746 of an era, not named, which at one time I thought might have been taken from this temple, and consequently might give its date about A.D. 689, which would fairly agree with the style, judged from that of some of the caves at Elûrâ, which it very much resembles. ‘Picturesque Illustrations of Ancient Architecture in Hindostan,’ plate 6, with description. Tod’s ‘Annals of Rajasthan,’ vol. ii. p. 734. His translation, however, was worthless; the date is more probably of A.D. 824.—‘Indian Antiquary,’ vol. v. pp. 180f.
v2.c25.s8.58
¹ Tod (vol. ii. pp. 733ff.), gives several plates of the details of the porch by a native artist—fairly well drawn—but wanting shadow to render them intelligible. Unfortunately we now learn that this monument had been repaired two or three years ago, with ugly masonry, plaster and whitewash. Such is what has to be expected wherever an ancient monument is repaired by Hindûs or entrusted to the ordinary engineer to clean.
v2.c25.s8.59
335. Temple at Chandrâvati. Scale 25 ft. to 1 in.
v2.c25.s8.60
Leaving these fragments, one of the oldest, and certainly one of the most perfect, in Central India is the desecrated temple at Baroli, situated in a wild and romantic spot not far from the falls of the Chambal, whose distant roar in the still night is the only sound that breaks the silence of the solitude around them The principal temple, represented in the Woodcut No. 336, may probably, pending a more precise determination, be ascribed to the 9th or 10th century, and is one of the few of that age now known; it was originally dedicated to Siva. Its general outline is identical with that of the contemporary Orissan temples. But instead of the astylar enclosed porch, or mandapa, it has a pillared portico of great elegance, whose roof reaches half-way up the temple, and is sculptured with a richness and complexity of design almost unrivalled, even in those days of patient prodigality of labour. It will be observed in the plan (Woodcut No. 337) that the dimensions are remarkably small, and the temple is only 58 ft. high, so that its merit consists entirely in its shape and proportions, and in the elegance and profusion of the ornament that covers it.
v2.c25.s8.61
In front of the temple is a detached porch, called a Châwadî or nuptial hall, similar to that in front of the temple at Mudherâ
v2.c25.s8.62
336. Temple at Baroli. (From a Drawing by the Author.)
v2.c25.s8.63
337. Plan of Temple at Baroli. (From Drawings by the Author.)
v2.c25.s8.64
in Gujarât; in this tradition records the marriage of a Hûna (Hun) prince to a Râjputnî bride, for which purpose it is fabled to have been erected;¹ but whether this is so or not, it is one of the finest examples of such detached halls known in the north. We miss here the octagonal dome of the Jains, which would have given elegance and relief to its ceiling, though the variety in the spacing of the columns has been attained by a different process. When the dome was first employed in Hindû architecture, they seem to have attempted to gain sufficient relief to their otherwise monotonous arrangement of columns by breaking up the external outline of the plan of the mandapa, and by ranging the aisles, as it were, diagonally across the building, instead of placing them parallel to the sides.
v2.c25.s8.65
¹ Tod's 'Annals of Rajasthan,' vol. ii. p. 712. For the legend of Râja Hûna and Pingalâ Rânî, see 'Indian Antiquary,' vol. ii. p. 215.
v2.c25.s8.66
Other two temples here, to the south of the preceding, are smaller but essentially of the same style, though more pointed in their form, and are consequently either more modern in date, or if of the same age—which may doubtless be the case—would bring the date of the whole group down to the 10th century, which, after all, may be their true date.
v2.c25.s8.67
338. Pillar at Baroli. (From a Plate in Tod's 'Annals of Rajasthan.')
v2.c25.s8.68
The larger of the two is known as the temple of Pârvatî, and in front of it, a little way from the great temple, were two pillars, one of which (still standing in 1873) is here represented² (Woodcut No. 338). They evidently supported one of those torans, or archways, which succeeded the gateways of the Buddhist topes, and form frequently a very pleasing adjunct to Hindû temples. From the architraves of certain of these, the god was swung at certain festivals. They are, however, frail edifices at best, and easily overthrown, wherever the bigotry of the Moslims came into play.
v2.c25.s8.69
² For a photograph of this and of the two neighbouring temples, see 'Architecture and Scenery in Gujarat and Rajputana,' plate 22.