[401] Vol. i. (N.S.) p. 247, et seqq.
[402] Professor Eggeling tells me he has great reason for suspecting the date 411 for Palakesi I. (‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. p. 8) to be a forgery. There is something certainly wrong about it, but how the error arose is not yet clear. It seems at least a century too early. See the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. p. 12; ibid., vol. iv. (N.S.) p. 93.
[403] ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. iv. p. 10, et seqq.
[404] Prinsep’s ‘Useful Tables,’ re-edited by Thomas, pp. 267-268.
[405] If all the quadrants of this portico were equal the numbers ought to be 300, or 75 in each, but I fancy a considerable portion of two of them was cut off by the site of the temple. As I have nothing but photographs to go by, and they only show the exterior, even this is uncertain, and the dimensions I cannot even guess at. They are very large, however, for a Hindu temple.
[406] These dates are taken from a list of this dynasty among the Mackenzie MSS., quoted by Prinsep, ‘Useful Tables,’ xli., and are confirmed by the architectural evidence and other indications.
[407] I regret that I have been unable to get a plan of this temple or, indeed, of any triple temple. That at Girnar ([Woodcut No. 127]) belongs to another religion, and is too far distant in locality to assist us here. An imperfect one might be compiled from the photographs, but I have not even an approximate dimension.
[408] In a very few years this building will be entirely destroyed by the trees, which have fastened their roots in the joints of the stones. In a drawing in the Mackenzie collection in the India Office, made in the early part of this century, the building is shown entire. Twenty years ago it was as shown at p. 398. A subsequent photograph shows it almost hidden; a few years more, if some steps are not taken to save it, it will have perished entirely. A very small sum would save it; and, as the country is in our charge, it is hoped that the expenditure will not be grudged.
[409] Plates 1 and 32-40. Published by Murray, 1864.
[410] In 1848 Gen. Cunningham applied the term Aryan to the architecture of Kashmir, apparently on the strength of a pun (‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ September, 1848, p. 242). This, however, was limiting a term that belongs to two continents to an insignificant valley, in one of them. It was, besides, wholly uncalled for. The term Kashmiri was amply sufficient, and all that was wanted for so strictly local a style.