As Orissa at the period when this was written was practically a part of Akbar’s kingdom, there seems little doubt that this description was furnished by some one who knew the place. There are seven-storeyed palaces at Jeypur and Bijapur still standing, which were erected about this date, and one of five storeys in Akbar’s own palace at Futtehpore Sikri, but none, so far as I know, of nine storeys, though I see no reason for doubting the correctness of the description of the one just quoted.

240. Hindu Bridge at Cuttack. (From a Photograph.)

Although it thus consequently happens that we have no more means of ascertaining what the civil edifices of the Indo-Aryans of Orissa were like, than we have of those of the contemporary Dravidians, there is a group of engineering objects which throw some light on the arts of the period. As has been frequently stated above, the Hindus hate an arch, and never will use it except under compulsion. The Mahomedans taught them to get over their prejudices and employ the arch in their civil buildings in later times, but to the present day they avoid it in their temples in so far as it is possible to do so. In Orissa, however, in the 13th century, they built numerous bridges in various parts of the province, but never employed a true arch in any of them. The Atarah Nullah bridge at Puri, built by Kebir Narsingh Deo, about 1250, has been drawn and described by Stirling, and is the finest in the province of those still in use. Between the abutments it is 275 ft. long, and with a roadway 35 ft. wide. That shown in the above woodcut (No. [240]) is probably older, and certainly more picturesque, though constructed on the same identical plan. It may be unscientific, but many of these old bridges are standing and in use, while many of those we have constructed out of the ruins of the temples and palaces have been swept away as if a curse were upon them.

Conclusion.

The above may be considered as a somewhat meagre account of one of the most complete and interesting styles of Indian architecture. It would, however, be impossible to do it justice without an amount of illustration incompatible with the scope of this work, and with details drawn on a larger scale than its pages admit of. It is to be hoped that Babu Rajendra’s work may, to some extent, at least, supply this deficiency. The first volume can only, however, be considered as introductory, being wholly occupied with preliminary matters, and avoiding all dates or descriptions of particular buildings. The second, when it appears, may remedy this defect, and it is to be hoped will do so, as a good monograph of the Orissan style would convey a more correct idea of what Indian art really is than a similar account of any other style we are acquainted with in India. From the erection of the temple of Parasurameswara, A.D. 500, to that of Juganât at Puri, A.D. 1174, the style steadily progresses without any interruption or admixture of foreign elements, while the examples are so numerous that one might be found for every fifty years of the period—probably for every twenty—and we might thus have a chronometric scale of Hindu art during these seven centuries that would be invaluable for application to other places or styles. It is also in Orissa, if anywhere that we may hope to find the incunabula that will explain much that is now mysterious in the forms of the temples and the origin of many parts of their ornamentation. An examination, for instance, of a hundred or so of the ruined and half-ruined temples of the province would enable any competent person to say at once how far the theory above enunciated ([Woodcut No. 124])—to account for the curved form of the towers—was or was not in accordance with the facts of the case, and, if opposed to them, what the true theory of the curved form really was. In like manner, it seems hardly doubtful that a careful examination of a great number of examples would reveal the origin of the amalaka crowning ornament. I feel absolutely convinced, as stated above, that it did not grow out of the berry of the Phyllanthus emblica, and am very doubtful if it had a vegetable origin at all. But no one yet has suggested any other theory which will bear examination, and it is only from the earliest temples themselves that any satisfactory answer can be expected.

It is not only, however, that these and many other technical questions will be answered when any competent person undertakes a thorough examination of the ruins, but they will afford a picture of the civilization and of the arts and religion of an Indian community during seven centuries of isolation from external influences, such as can hardly be obtained from any other source. So far as we at present know, it is a singularly pleasing picture, and one that will well repay any pains that may be taken to present it to the English public in a complete and intelligible form.

Tentative List of Dates and Dimensions of the Principal Orissan Temples.

Dates. External
Dimensions
of Towers.		 Internal
Dimensions
of Cells.
ft. ft. ft. ft.
500-600{ Parasurameswara20×20 11×9
{ Mukteswara14×14 6×6
600-700{ Sari Dewala24×22 12×12
{ Moitre Serai
{ Ananta Vasu Deva26×26 16×14
657...Bhuvaneswar66×60 42×42
700-850{ Sideswara
{ Vitala Devi
{ Markandeswara in Puri
{ Brahmeswara
873...Kanaruc60×60 40×40 (?)
900-1000{ Kedareswar
{ Raj Rani32×25 12×12
1104...Nat Mandir at Bhuvaneswar
1198...Juganât, Puri73×73 29×29[445]