365bet娱乐

APPENDIX B A DISCUSSION ON THE PRINCIPLES OF STABILITY IN THE STRUCTURAL FORM OF THE TEMPLES IN GUJARAT

A question about the stability of the structural form of the temples of Gujarat was raised in 1903 by Cousins and Burgess. They remark, "They are constructed without mortar. The stones are carefully dressed and retain their positions by the mere weight of the superincumbent masses. Hence however the foundation subsided or pillars gave way, the loosened stones slid off one another and whole structure fell to pieces."1 Later on in 1931 Counsins treated this question more elaborately as follows: "The weak points in the construction of these temples are the poor foundations, the masonary without cementing material, and beams unable to bear the great weight piled upon them. In the better class of these buildings, in northern Gujarat the stone temple is often raised upon a brick foundation; but as the foundations, whether brick or not, were not sufficiently deep and solid, the least subsidence of the ground, below, brought down the walls in a crumbling heap, the stones having been piled dry one upon the other. In some cases, wooden or iron cramps have been used but these simply split the stone away whenever any unequal strain was brought upon the coupled blocks. The want of mortor or other cementing material, and binding or through-stones, is responsible for the stones sliding upon their beds, and the walls falling to pieces, the outer shell frequently parting company with the inner which has remained standing intact. The failure of beams by cracking, which has been the commonest failure of all, has been due to too great a span for the section, and the inferiority of the stone used. Thus it has come about that great number of these old temples have rolled down, wholly or in part, like a house of cards. 2 1. Architectural Antiquities of Northern Gujarat p. 29. 2. Somanatha and other Medieval Temples of Kathiawad Int. p. 8.

540 The Structural Temples of Gujarat The question about the stability of the superstructure of temples of Gujarat was, in 1955, rediscussed by Shri Nirmal Kumar Bose³ when he paid a visit to the new Somanath temple under construction. On comparing with medieval temples in Orissa and elsewhere in India, he contends that the Solanki (Caulukyan) temples of Gujarat were flimsy structures in which (i) the thickness of the walls was no more than perhaps a fifth of the length of the cella and (ii) there were no fransverse walls to divide the interior of the tower several chambers. 5 into If the remark that the foundations of the Caulukyan stone temples in Northern Gujarat were not sufficiently deep and solid is based on adequate data acquired by full investigation, and if the remark applies to the classical temples of entire Gujarat, the foundations must be admitted to be weak points in the construction of these temples. ! However, many of the monuments have stood the taste of time for several centuries and most of the well known temples entirely or partly in ruins are known to have been victims of human forces. The extant two-storied portion of the Rudramahalaya at Siddhpur, for instance, has stood almost in tact even after the lapse of about a millenium. The want of mortor or other cementing material is relieved by dressing the stones preceisely as well as by joining them by means of nails of wood or metal. Moreover the elevation of the temples was primarily based on architectural principles of stable equilibrium. ! 3. N. K. Bose, 'A question about the Somnath Temple' Vigil Vol. Vedic Index, No. 10. 4. It was equal to a half in Orissa. 5. In Orissa there were transverse floors at different height within the tower, which added strength to the building by tying together.

Appendix B 6 541 As regards the thickness of walls, the general ratio found to be 1/5 th of the length of the cella, is in full accordance with that given in the canonical works like Aparajitapriccha The canons followed in Gujarat seem to have prescribed the minimum thickness required according to the degree of the solidity of the material. The plan and the technique of the superstructure seem adjusted to the thickness of the wall as perfectly as possible. The same applies to the beams the dimensions of which are determined by the thickness of the walls. In most of the temples of Gujarat there are no transverse floors at different height within the tower" but the necessity of this device arises only in the case of storied structures. In the storied spire of the Dwarkadhisa temple at Dwarka, for instance, we do come across the adoption of this device. Moreover wooden beams were often laid diagonally between the different walls to add strength to them as in the case of Ajitanatha temple at Taranga. Again the cella was covered by a dome like ceiling made by diagonal corbels. The spire of the temples in Gujarat was rendered light and shell-like by certain devices. Blocks of stones were laid vertically (rather than horizontally) in the upper part of the spire, the height gained by adding each coarse being great in comparision with the extent of the horizontal extent of the courses. The burden on the walls of the cella was further relieved by throwing the weight of the spire on the outer ring of pillars and walls of the circumambulatory of short width. 6. According to Aparajitapriccha the thickness of the walls of the Prasadas built of mud and the brick must be of the length of the cella, while that in the case of stone-temples should be 1/5 or even 1/4 in ratio. 7. Bose N. K. Ibid.