The Antiquities of Orissa v2.c16.s2.119.3

v2.c16.s2.119.3

The sculptural test, as I have shown in the text, is entirely fanciful, and therefore, it may be dismissed as unworthy of consideration. The author himself is not much disposed te rely on it, for he admits that “sculpture in itself, is much more uncertain in its progress than architecture, and depends so much on local and individual and personal circumstances for its development that it would be almost impossible to decide this question if it stood alone” (p 269). He argues, however, that “it seems hardly doubtful that the architecture of the Gaṇeśa is earlier than that of the Rāj Rānī (? Queen's Palace) cave; while the simplicity of its one-celled plan as compared with the many-celled two-storeyed magnificence of the other is so marked, that it is impossible to mistake the progress between the two” (p. 296). The ground, however, is not firmer here than before. It is not a fact that the Gaṇeśa is a “one-called” cave. On referring to plate XXVII, the reader will perceive that it has two cells and a verandah. The Rānī Gumphā again is not really two-storeyed, but one-storeyed, the so called upper storey resting on solid rock beyond the roof of the lower storey as at Svargapuri. As to the magnificence of the one and the simplicity of the other, doubtless there is considerable difference in the number of chambers and verandahs in the two sets of caves, but architecturally they are of no importance.