[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Reference works](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference) › [An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989) › v2.c50.39 # An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v2.c50.39 An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v2.c50.39 - **Language:** English ### [v2.c50.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v2.c50.39) The excavator has divided the occupational deposits of the temple-site into six Pds, the earliest of them being the Megalithic. In all likelihood the structural activities here began with the Ikṣvāku supremacy during the first quarter of the 3rd century A.D. There is hardly any justification for ascribing the stepped bathing ghat \[14.10\] and the pillared hall near by to pre-Ikṣvāku times (Pd II of the excavator) specially because all the inscriptions on the ghat slab were in Telugu characters. Nor is there any ground for identifying the apsidal shrine and the base of a circular structure as part of a monastic establishment. There were a number of Brāhmaṇical temples built on apsidal plan as at NAGARJUNAKONDA, and further the river bank here was dotted with such temples because of the n. turn of the river, which was considered sacred. No Buddhist monastery came up on the river bank at NAGARJUNAKONDA. All these are true also for the Yelleswaram structural complex which sprang up as Brāhmaṇical establishment, a fact wholly supported by the later history of the site. - [Previous: v2.c50.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v2.c50.38) - [Next: v2.c50.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v2.c50.40) - [Up: v2.c50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v2.c50) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v2.c50.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v2.c50.39) · Pramāṇa