DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.27192#0080
52
JAINA ARCHITECTURE.
Book V.
congeners.1 Both of these are circular enclosures with the
shrines ranged round the inside of the walls. The temple itself
it is true has gone—if any central structure ever existed—but
what we see is probably as old as the 9th century, if not older.2
The other exceptional building is one of totally different
character, and is as remarkable for its extreme elegance, even
at Khajuraho, as the other is for its rudeness. It is called
Ghantai, either from the bells sculptured on its pillars, or for
some other cause unknown. Unfortunately, it is only a frag-
ment — a skeleton without flesh — a few pillars of a double
portico now standing alone without the walls that may once
have enclosed them (Woodcut No. 292).
From the form of several letters in an inscription, found
near these ruins, General Cunningham was inclined to believe
that this temple may belong to the 6th or 7th century of our
era ; and from finding a Buddhist statue and a short Buddhist
inscription near them, he was at first inclined to assign them
to that religion. Later he made excavations on the site and
found some eleven figures apparently Digambara Jaina, and
two distinctively Vaishnava. Hence he concluded that it must
have been a Jaina temple.3 The plan, too, of the building, so far
as it can be made out, is unlike anything we know that is
Buddhist, but very similar to many that certainly are Jaina.4
Be this as it may, these pillars are singularly graceful in
their form, and elegant in their details, but they do not belong
to the early style to which they were at first ascribed. There
are eight of these sandstone shafts, each 14 ft. 6 in. in height.
These are arranged in two squares about 15 ft. apart, and
between the two are some square pillars and a carved doorway,
apparently the entrance to the mandap. On its lintel a four-
armed goddess is carved, mounted on a Garuda, and a small
nude male in each side niche: these could not have been
prepared for a Jaina temple. Then the granite pilasters for the
walls are of various lengths, several having one or more blocks
added above or below to make up the proper heights, and
pointing to a reconstruction.5 If it ever were completed the
temple would be in plan almost a copy of that of Panswanath
noticed above, having a porch on the east and a mandapa
21 ft. 6 in. wide, with the second group of four carved columns
1 ‘ Survey Reports,’ vol. ix. pp. 60-74,
and plates 12-15. The enclosure is 116
ft. diameter inside.
2 It is built of granite, and its plan and
the forms of its rikharas, induce me to
believe it to be exceptionally old.
3 ‘Archaeological Survey Reports,’
voh ii. p. 431, and vol. x. p. 16.
4 For plans of similar Jaina temples,
see ‘ Report on Belgam and Ivaladgi,’
plates 2, 10, and 45. These, however,
are more modern than this one.
5 Le Bon, ‘ Les Monuments del’Inde,’
p. 79> fig- 64; ‘Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal,’ vol. xlviii. pt. i.,
p. 294.
JAINA ARCHITECTURE.
Book V.
congeners.1 Both of these are circular enclosures with the
shrines ranged round the inside of the walls. The temple itself
it is true has gone—if any central structure ever existed—but
what we see is probably as old as the 9th century, if not older.2
The other exceptional building is one of totally different
character, and is as remarkable for its extreme elegance, even
at Khajuraho, as the other is for its rudeness. It is called
Ghantai, either from the bells sculptured on its pillars, or for
some other cause unknown. Unfortunately, it is only a frag-
ment — a skeleton without flesh — a few pillars of a double
portico now standing alone without the walls that may once
have enclosed them (Woodcut No. 292).
From the form of several letters in an inscription, found
near these ruins, General Cunningham was inclined to believe
that this temple may belong to the 6th or 7th century of our
era ; and from finding a Buddhist statue and a short Buddhist
inscription near them, he was at first inclined to assign them
to that religion. Later he made excavations on the site and
found some eleven figures apparently Digambara Jaina, and
two distinctively Vaishnava. Hence he concluded that it must
have been a Jaina temple.3 The plan, too, of the building, so far
as it can be made out, is unlike anything we know that is
Buddhist, but very similar to many that certainly are Jaina.4
Be this as it may, these pillars are singularly graceful in
their form, and elegant in their details, but they do not belong
to the early style to which they were at first ascribed. There
are eight of these sandstone shafts, each 14 ft. 6 in. in height.
These are arranged in two squares about 15 ft. apart, and
between the two are some square pillars and a carved doorway,
apparently the entrance to the mandap. On its lintel a four-
armed goddess is carved, mounted on a Garuda, and a small
nude male in each side niche: these could not have been
prepared for a Jaina temple. Then the granite pilasters for the
walls are of various lengths, several having one or more blocks
added above or below to make up the proper heights, and
pointing to a reconstruction.5 If it ever were completed the
temple would be in plan almost a copy of that of Panswanath
noticed above, having a porch on the east and a mandapa
21 ft. 6 in. wide, with the second group of four carved columns
1 ‘ Survey Reports,’ vol. ix. pp. 60-74,
and plates 12-15. The enclosure is 116
ft. diameter inside.
2 It is built of granite, and its plan and
the forms of its rikharas, induce me to
believe it to be exceptionally old.
3 ‘Archaeological Survey Reports,’
voh ii. p. 431, and vol. x. p. 16.
4 For plans of similar Jaina temples,
see ‘ Report on Belgam and Ivaladgi,’
plates 2, 10, and 45. These, however,
are more modern than this one.
5 Le Bon, ‘ Les Monuments del’Inde,’
p. 79> fig- 64; ‘Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal,’ vol. xlviii. pt. i.,
p. 294.