The Antiquities of Orissa v1.c8.73

v1.c8.73

**Wood :** In a country so infested by white-ants as Orissa, it is not surprising that wood has been so little used in the construction of the temples, though some of the finest woods of India, such as the teak and the *sāl*, are so abundant everywhere. The only purpose for which wood was employed was, for the making of doors, but, as most of the original doors have long since disappeared, and their places have been from time to time supplied by modern substitutes, it is impossible now to say how they were worked. The only ancient door now to be met with in Orissa occurs in the porch of the Great Tower of Bhuvaneśvara, and that is made of sandal wood, divided into square panels, and carved in a diaper pattern somewhat like the patterns on the celebrated gates of Somanātha, now deposited in the fort at Agra. Mr. William Simpson, in a letter to the Editor of the *Daily News*, London newspaper, dated the 23rd December, 1871, doubts the gates to be those that were removed from the temple of Somanātha by Mahmud Ghaznavi. He says, “I made a very careful sketch of them, including details of the ornament. As I sketched, it struck me as strange that the art contained nothing Hindu in its design. It was all purely Muhummadan. Out of the thirty two millions of Hindu gods, there was not one of them visible”. He adds, “It was only on my return to England, and in conversation with Mr. Fergusson that I got confirmation of what I suspected. He agreed with me that the ornament was sufficient evidence that they could not possibly be the gates of Somanātha; but he added that the gates in the Divān i khās at Agra had been inspected with a microscope, and they are of *deodār* pine, and not of sandal wood. This fact, in spite of the proclamation” (of Lord [37] Ellenborough) “would command a verdict against them from any jury". This, however, it is to be supposed, would be to a great extent dependent on the nature of the jury, for were experts to be included in the panel they would not be able to join in the verdict so confidently expected upon the evidence adduced. The wood of the gate now at Agra has the colour, density (apparent), and grain of sandal wood ; but admitting, for the sake of argument, that it is really not so, there is nothing to show that *deodār* pine, the wood especially sacred to the gods (from *deva*: god and *dāru*: wood), was inaccessible at Somanātha, and that the report regarding the original gates having been of sandal wood, founded on the evidence of Muhammadan writers, was not a mistaken one, resulting in the appearance of the wood. The character of the pattern (diaper) is simple enough, and the like of it may be seen in the Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, engraved on the hafts of war-hatchets brought from the South Sea islands. It occurs likewise, slightly modified, on the panels of the Bhuvaneśvara temples, and it would require no ordinary amount of recklessness to say that the builders of Orissa in the seventh century and the South Sea islanders got it from the Muhammadans. The prospect of finding some one or more of the thirty-three million gods of the Hindu pantheon carved on door-panels was so fanciful, that few natives of this country will feel at all surprised at its having so completely disappointed the writer. I must have visited at least five thousand temples in various parts of India, but I do not remember to have noticed many door-panels with figures of gods carved on them, certainly none in Orissa. It must be added, however, that there is nothing but its decayed ancient look to show that the Bhuvaneśvara doors are synchronous with the date of the Tower.