History of Orissa from the Earliest Times to the British Period v2.c46.11

v2.c46.11

The temple of Paraśurāmeśvara shows a completely evolved type; the *Vimāna* is regularly cruciform or *Ratha* according to local technology as preserved by the late Mr. Ganguly, a rectangular *Jagamohana*, with arrangements for lighting its interior. The *Prāsāda Lakṣaṇam* of the *Bṛhat-saṃhitā* of Varāha Mihira lays down that "The height of a temple should be three times the perpendicular height of the rectangular portion" and the late Mr. Ganguly has proved that in three temples at Bhuvaneśvara this rule had not been transgressed; Mukteśvara, Siddheśvara and Liṅgarāja.¹ Therefore in the case of the Paraśurāmeśvara this rule of Varāha Mihira had been transgressed. Unfortunately the late Mr. Mano Mohan Ganguly had very little experience of South-Western and Southern temples when he wrote his work on Orissa and its remains in 1912 and therefore he makes a number of mistakes which are pardonable in the amateur. He argues from the type of the *Śikharas* of the Durga temple and Huchchimalligudi at Aihole that "Orissan art of temple building was transplanted in the Deccan as early as the fifth century A. D. at the latest."² It did not occur to him that while almost all of the Aihole and Badami temples can be precisely dated not a single building in Orissa, with the exception of the Jagannātha temple at Puri and the Sun temple at Konarak, can be dated within one generation. Moreover, it can not be understood for what reason the Orissan art of temple building should be transplanted to the Deccan. Temple building was not unknown in the Deccan and that country can boast of much older temples than any other part of India. The late Mr. Ganguly noticed Gupta influence in Orissan sculpture and states that Orissa was conquered by Samudragupta! There is no evidence to prove that what Mr. Ganguly knew as Orissa was ever conquered by Samudragupta. Further on the late lamented scholar introduces the pet theory of Mr. Havell and his school in the following words :—It is reasonable to suppose that a considerable length of time must have elapsed since the art began to be first practised in Orissa, for I have already drawn the reader's attention to definite and stereotyped system of technique followed in Orissan architecture and sculpture. I may accordingly safely conclude that the Orissan style of temple building was much developed in the beginning of the Christian era and even before that.”¹ Though a practical engineer the late Mr. Ganguly believed like most of Mr. Havell's disciples that temples with Śikharas could be as old as the beginning of the Christian era. Later on he states : “I have proved above that the temple of Paraśurāmeśvara is probably dated in the 5th or 6th century A. D. at the latest.”² Unfortunately for Mr. Ganguly there is a class of evidence which no amount of artistic argument can shake. The Navagraha slab over the antarāla in the Paraśurāmeśvara temple is inscribed with the names of the planets and in these inscriptions a class of palatal Śa has been used which has not been found anywhere in Northern or Southern India before the 8th century A. D. This form of palatal Śa is used for the first time in Pāla inscriptions the 9th century A. D. In this form, the hook or arc, which forms the proper left limb of the letter, is not joined to the proper right limb, which is a straight line. It is, therefore, impossible to assign the building of the Paraśurāmeśvara to any date before the 8th century and that in the later decades of that century.