140. Temple at Gyraspore. (From a Photograph.)
and like them deprived of their walls ([Woodcut No. 140]). In the Mokundra pass there is a third example.[278] Was it that their walls were of sun-burnt bricks? or merely of small square stones which, being easily removed, were utilised? My impression is, the latter was the case; but be this as it may, these Gyraspore pillars are undoubtedly the remains of a Jaina edifice, but of an age considerably more modern than the Ganthai. They can hardly under any circumstances be ascribed to an age anterior to the great civil war which commenced A.D. 650; but they are almost certainly anterior to the great revival in the 10th century. In the same town of Gyraspore is a very grand old temple apparently of about the same age as these pillars. Its details at least are old, but it has been so ruined and repaired, and almost rebuilt, that it is extremely difficult to say what the form or purpose of the original erection may have been. There is also a toran of great beauty in the village, probably of the 11th century, and in fact throughout this region there are numberless remains partially made known to us by photography, but which if scientifically examined would probably suffice to fill up some of the largest gaps in our history, and especially in that of Jaina architecture.
At Bhanghur for instance, in the Alwar territory, there are some very beautiful Jaina temples. One in that neighbourhood, photographed by Captain Impey, belongs to the 10th or 11th century, and is as beautiful as any of its class, either at Khajurâho or elsewhere, and near it again is a colossal Jaina image, called Nan Gûngi, some 20 ft. in height, which is apparently of the same age as the temples, and consequently superior to any of the colossi at Gualior or in the south of India.[279] The Jains as a sect are hardly now known in Rajputana, and their temples are consequently neglected and falling into decay; though some of them, being of the best age and unrestored, are of extreme interest to the investigator of Indian art.
Among these, few are more pleasing than the little temple at Amwah, near Ajunta ([Woodcut No. 141]). It is only a fragment. The sanctuary with its spire are gone, only the portico remaining; and its roof externally is so ruined, that its design can with difficulty be made out. Yet it stands so well on its stylobate, and the thirty-two small columns that support the roof externally are so well proportioned and so artistically arranged, as to leave little to be desired.
The great feature of the interior is a dome 21 ft. in diameter, supported on twelve richly carved pillars, with eight smaller ones interspersed. Like all Indian domes, it is horizontal in construction, and consequently also in ornamentation, but as that is done here, it is as elegant or more so than the ribbed domes of western art. This one is plain in the centre, having no pendant—which, however, is one of the most marked and pleasing features of Jaina domes, as may be gathered from the example in the temple of Vimala Sah at Mount Abu ([Woodcut No. 131]).
As before mentioned, the Buddhists, though always employing circular roofs, and in all ages building topes with domical forms externally, never seem to have attempted an internal dome, in stone at least. The Hindus occasionally essayed a timid imitation of those of the Jains, but in no instance with much success. It is essentially a feature of Jaina architecture, and almost exclusively so among the northern Indians, though, why this particular sect should have adopted it, and why they, and they only, should have persevered in using it through so long a period, are questions we are not yet in a position to answer. It was an essential feature in the architecture of the Moslems before they came into India, and they consequently eagerly seized on the domes of the Jains when they first arrived there, and afterwards from them worked out that domical style which is one of the most marked characteristics of their art in India.
