See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331548129

Rock-Cut Architecture of Western India, 1. Momentum I: Origins of lena

cetiyagharas, ca. 120-300 CE.

Article  in  History Today · December 2018

CITATION READS

1 2,363

1 author:

Rajesh Kumar Singh

Independent
8 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ajanta caves View project

Rock-cut architecture of western India View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rajesh Kumar Singh on 06 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

216 History Today, No.19, 2018

History Today, the Journal of the Indian History & Culture Society, vol. 19, 2018, 216–231.

Rock-Cut Architecture of Western India 1

Momentum I: Origins of len±a cetiyagharas, ca. 120–300s CE
Rajesh Kumar Singh*

The legacy of the Buddhist architecture in India is
found in two formats: structural and rock-cut caves. The
collective corpora of them is so huge and diverse and
so wide in the time span (Fig. 1) that it sounds nearly
improbable to classify them all in one system, and also
simultaneously do the justice with all the different kinds
of varieties and typologies that exist.i Perhaps, that is why
there is no comprehensive classification system devised
until this day which is all-inclusive and systematically
stratified. Even the present paper, which is part of a
series, does not pretend to fill the gap. What it does is
to propose a timeline, a reclassification or taxonomy,
and identifications of certain new typologies within
the corpus of the western Indian caves, i.e. from the
earliest to the last period of activities. Even this corpus is
huge comprising of more than a thousand caves spread
over dozens of sites. All of them, of course, cannot be
accommodated in a paper with the necessary scientific,
analytical, and illustrative apparatus. They will require
many papers or a monograph. However, what has been
achieved in the paper may be numerated through some
points. First, a single-page time chart (Fig. 1) has been
prepared for the first time to depict the ups and down in
the history of the rock-cut architecture in Western India.
The novelty of the timeline consists in the identification
of eight momentums (or momenta) and four ruptures
or discontinuities in the history of the Western Indian
rock-cut architecture. The second aim of the paper
is to highlight an ignored or insufficiently explored
architectural typology (Type V, Fig. 3) whose origins
were humble and rooted in what I call ‘Momentum I’
(ca. 250 CE–ca. 300 CE) of the history of the rock-cut
architecture (Fig. 1). It became the most central and
all-pervasive architectural type in the later periods or
momenta. Yet its significance was never duly explained
in the published scholarship; it was not even identified
as a distinctive variety. The third aim of the paper is
to offer a reclassification of the W. Indian caves. The
fourth aim of the paper is to describe in brief the origins
and developments of the Type V caves, i.e. the len±a-
cetiyagharas. In doing so, a new narrative is presented
with new revelations and propositions.
Reclassification of Western Indian caves
James Fergusson first attempted a classification of the
rock-cut architecture.1 His corpus was wide-ranging,
all encompassing, and devised at a time when so little
was known about the subject, and so little data were
available.ii His corpus of the Buddhist architecture

*
Consulting Art Historian, Email: rksingh1970@gmail.com
i. In this paper, diacritical marks are used not only for the Indic words not found in the English dictionaries, but also for certain names of persons or places if they are relatively
obscure or variously printed in the scholarship, e.g. ‘Hari Ṣeṇa’ and ‘Kōṇḍāṇé’ have diacritical marks, but ‘Nagaraju’ and ‘Ajanta’ do not.
ii. One wonders how during the mid-nineteenth century, even before the invention of photography, motor car, and rail engines, Fergusson was able to formulate a rudimentary
chronology and classification of the monuments ranging from East Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia to Central Asia; from the earliest monuments to the latest Islamic
buildings. The greater wonder is that he was not a trained archaeologist/historian (but primarily a ‘businessman’)!
 TIMELINE OF EIGHT 'MOMENTA' & FOUR 'RUPTURES' IN HISTORY OF ROCK-CUT ARCHITECTURE OF W. INDIA INCLUDING A PART OF KIZIL. Ca. 250 Bce–ca. 900 ce.

300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

1. W. India. Momentum I. Buddhist. Ca. 250 bce–ca. 300 ce. ↓ R.K. Singh

2. Kizil. Periods I–II. Buddhist. Ca. 250 ce–ca. 480 ce. Dharmaguptaka & other schools.
3. W. India. Rupture I. Ca. 300 ce–ca. 460 ce.
4. W. India. Momentum II. Buddhist. Ca. 460 ce–ca. 470 ce. MSV school in over 35 caves. Bāgh ca. 460 ce–ca. 480 ce.
5. W. India. - do - Procedural 'central block' devised for stupas in inner shrines.
6. W. India. Rupture II. Ca. 470 ce–ca. 472 ce. Desertion: some go to Bāgh, a few reach Sigiriya and Kizil?
7. W. India. Momentum III. Ca. late 460s–ca. 480 ce. Work resumes; caves develop but never get fully completed due to Rupture III.
8. W. India. Rupture III. Ca. 480 ce–ca. 530 ce. No major cave excavated for half a century after Hari Ṣeṇa / fall of Vākāṭakas.
Rock-Cut Architecture of Western India 1

9. Kizil. Momentum IV = 'Period III'. Buddhist. Ca. 480 ce–ca. 550 ce.
10. W. India. Momentum V. Śaivite. Ca. 530 ce–ca. 600 ce.
11. W. India. Momentum VI. Buddhist. Late 6th c. ce.
12. W. India. Momentum VII. Buddhist. 7th c. ce.
13. W. India. Rupture IV for Buddhists. Ca. 700 ce–present.
14. W. India. Momentum VIII. Hindu & Jaina. Ca. 700 ce–1300 ce
'Central block' and MSV school introduced from Ajanta to Kizil, etc.
Jogeshwari; Elephanta 1, east wing; Ḍhokeshwar; Ellora 20, 21, 26, 19, 14, 17.
Revival from Aurangabad caves 2, 5, 7, 6; Banōṭī (Phase II), and Lōṇāḍ.
Buddhist domination of Ellora. Caves 6, 5, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 9, 11, 12 (II floor), and 15 (Phase I).
Buddhism extinguished in Deccan; no more caves. (1956: Neo-Buddhism launched by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.)
Mainly Ellora. Some Buddhist caves were converted into Hindu temples.

Fig. 1. Notes on some of the above points: (4) Reign of Vākāṭaka king Hari Ṣeṇa (ca. 460–477 ce; Spink 2016, 187). Monuments: Bāgh caves 4, 2; later Ajanta caves; Ghaṭotkacha; Banōṭī (Phase I); Mahāḍ 1; Dhārāshiva 2
(Jaina); on some of the
NotesAurangabad 1, above
3; Nasik points
20 (last phase); and Phase I of: Ellora 7, 19B, & 27. Most of the Ajanta narrative murals are most closely related to the Mūlasarvāstivāda scriptures.
(6)(4) the sites
AllReign of Momentum
of Vākāṭaka king Hari II, except
Ṣeṇa Bāgh, were
(ca. 460–477 affected.
ce; Spink 2016, 187). desertion460s
MassMonu- happened. Some went to Bāgh and
ce). Localisation/transformations: few to Sigiriya
the a'mushroom' on the and Kizil?
'central block', the 1 (east wing); Ḍhōkéśwara; and Ellora caves 20, 21, 26, 19, 14, 17. The inspiration
Rupture
(8)ments: BāghIII caves
lasted4,for 2; nearly
later Ajanta century.
half acaves; The Buddhists
Ghaṭotkacha; faced headwinds
Banōṭī (Phase I); pyramidal the death
after ceilings, niche Hari
offor theṢeṇaBuddha forinwhom
the central donors
the block, Ajanta
theofhands and Ghaṭotkacha
of the were the Types hadV(A) inscribed eulogies.
and V(B) shrines of Momentum
The fall ofII. the Vākāṭakas
The lingam worship to a
ledposed
protracted
Mahāḍ 1; Dhārāshiva
struggle to2 (Jaina); gap. An unknown
fill theAurangabad 1, 3; NasikHūṇa
20 (lastincursion
phase); andcould
Phase not be local
ruledmasters,
out forand thethe sudden lack
regional and patronage.
ofother sources of motifs, styles, materials, new demands from architecture. The maṇḍapa (hall) was not crucial at the time
(9)IThe transported
of: Ellora 7, 19B, & 27.ideas
Mostinclude: (a) the
of the Ajanta conversion
narrative muralsofare residential
most closelycaves temples;
re- into and themes.(b)Bycentral
the endblock; quadrangular
of Kizil's(c)so-called Period IIIambulatory;
(ca. 550 ce) the vaulted
(d)'central pil-ceiling;and
(e)thethemonastic
Buddhacells image
wereinstead
never needed.
of the Theystupa; (f) the
rather Mūlasarvāstivāda
needed a special kind of
scriptures;
lated to the and (g) the Mahāparinirvāṇa
Mūlasarvāstivāda theme (Ajanta
scriptures (Schlingloff 2013; ZinCave
2017; Zin executed during
26;2000). lar' had late 460s
ca.become ce). Localisation/transformations:
the standard. The dimensions and features were the ‘mushroom’
controlled by on the ‘central
sanctum block’, the
sanctorum that pyramidal
disallowed the ceilings,
'internal'niche for the Buddha
circumambulation in the
but allowed
central block, the hands of the local masters, and the regional and other sources of motifs,
the limits styles,
of patronage, materials, and themes.
cost-effectiveness, convenience By ofthe execution,
end of local
Kizil’srock
so-calledthePeriod III (ca.
'external' one.550 Thus,ce)
thethe ‘central
Ajanta pillar’
'central block' had become
from Momentumthe standard.
II was the
The(6)dimensions
All the sitesand of Momentum
features were II, except Bāgh, were
controlled by theaffected.
limitsMass
of patronage,
desertion cost-effectiveness, convenience of execution, local rock quality, local talents, human resources, and overall ecosystem. Thus, the first ‘central pillars’
quality, local talents, human resources, and overall ecosystem. Thus, the first archetype that was punctured to create the inner chamber, and corridors were
happened.
in Kizil should Somenotwent
be earlier
to Bāghthan 2016,
(Spinkca. 48031–36) and a few
ce. Earlier to to Sigiriya
this dateandweKizil?
had Momentum II in W. (ca. 460–ca. Prior nothing happened due to Rupture 300–ca. 460 ce). Because the ‘central block’ was
'central pillars' in India
Kizil should not be earlier470 than
ce). ca. 480toce .that
Earlier to this date we created around it Ito(ca.function as quadrangualar ambulatory.
devised at Ajanta
(8) Rupture during
III lasted Momentum
for nearly II, it was,
half a century. seems, the
The itBuddhists facedonly source of inspiration
headwinds had Momentum for Kizil’s central
II in W. pillars.
India (ca. 460–ca. The470 date
ce). Prior
musttobe thatafter,
nothing linked to, Rupture II (ca. 470–ca. 472 ce) while allowing some years for the monks’
andhappened
travel Ajanta and ideas incubate in Kizil before the implementation. (11) The second revival of the Buddhist rock-cut architecture began from Aurang-
afterfromthe death of to
HariKizil
Ṣeṇa forsome
whomfor thethedonors of to
Ajanta and Ghaṭotkacha dueactual
to Rupture I (ca. 300–ca. 460 ce). Because the 'central block' was devised at
(10) Rupture III of the W. Indian rock-cut architecture came to an end, and Momentum V was launched by a new player on the scene. For the first time, abad
the caves
Śaivites2, 5,took Banōṭī (Phase
7, 6; interest II), and Lōṇāḍ.
in excavating The activities
rock-cut temples: were sporadic
Jogéśwarī;
had inscribed eulogies. The fall of the Vākāṭakas led to a protracted struggle to Ajanta during Momentum II, it was, it seems, the only source of inspiration for
Elephanta Cave (east wing); Ḍhōkéśwara; 26, 19, 14, The inspiration were V(B) shrines and limited. The central block containing
Momentum II. The lingam worship posed new demands from architecture. the inner chamber moved into the cen-
The
fill the gap. An 1unknown Hūṇa incursion could andnot beEllora
ruled caves
out for20,
the 21,
sudden Kizil's
17.central pillars. The date mustthebeTypes
after, and
V(A)linked
and to, Rupture II (ca.
of470–ca.
maṇḍapa needed. rather needed a special kind of sanctum sanctorum tre of the hall. Thus, the ambulatory was outside the inner chamber—or inside
lack of patronage.
(hall) was not crucial at the time and the monastic cells were never472 ce) whileTheyallowing some years for the monks' travel from Ajanta to Kizil andthat disallowed the ‘internal’ circumambulation but allowed the ‘external’
one. Thus, the Ajanta ‘central block’ from Momentum II was the archetype that was to create and corridors were created hall—just
thearound it to was in the
as itfunction asŚaivite caves of Momentum
quadrangualar ambulatory. V.
(9) The transported ideas include: (a) the conversion of residential caves into some for punctured
the ideas to incubate in the
Kizil inner
before chamber,
the actual implementation.
(11) The second revival of the Buddhist rock-cut architecture began from Aurangabad caves 2, 5, 7, 6; Banōṭī (Phase II), and Lōṇāḍ. The activities were sporadic and limited.
(14) The Hindus re-dominate
The W.central
India. block containing
The Buddhists werethe inner chamber
apparently expelled
temples; (b) central block; (c) quadrangular ambulatory; (d) vaulted ceiling; (e) Rupture III of the W. Indian rock-cut architecture an end, and Mo-
moved into the centre of the hall. Thus, the ambulatory was outside the inner (10)chamber—or inside the hall—just as it was incame the to Śaivite caves of Momentumfrom theV.Deccan, this time forever. A few Buddhist caves were converted into
the Buddha image instead of the stupa; (f) the Mūlasarvāstivāda scriptures; mentum scene. first time,
(14) The Hindus re-dominate W. India. The Buddhists were apparently expelled fromVthe wasDeccan,
launchedthis by atimenew forever.
player onAthe few Buddhist
For thecaves werethe convertedHindu into
temples,
Hindue.g. temples,
Phase III e.g. Phase
of Banōṭī; Phase
III ofII ofBanōṭī;
Ellora 15,Phase
19B & 27; Ellora
II ofand 15,
Leṇyādrī
and (g) the Mahāparinirvāṇa theme (Ajanta Cave 26; executed during ca. late interest in excavating rock-cut temples: Jogéśwarī; Elephanta Cave
19B & 27; and Leṇyādrī in Junnar. Hindu and Jaina caves continued to be builtŚaivites at Elloratookand elsewhere. in Junnar. Hindu and Jaina caves continued to be built at Ellora and elsewhere.
217
218 History Today, No.19, 2018

included not only the rock-cut architecture, but also
the structural architecture. His classification had
five categories: 1. stambhas or la¯μs (single pillar as
a monument in itself); 2. stupas or topes; 3. rails;
4. chaityas or assembly halls; and 5. viha¯ras or
monasteries. Fergusson’s classification was expanded
to six by James Burgessiii. The classification perpetuated
for the next century and more. It permeated deeply into
scholarship to such an extent that some of the inherent
problems and inconsistencies remained undetected or
unchallenged up to this day. The inconsistencies and
anomalies become apparent when we try to apply the
categories or labels to certain monuments of certain
sites, about whom, of course, we have much better
knowledge today than he had in his time.
However, the first systematic, scientific, and
comprehensive classification system was formulated
by S. Nagaraju.2 He devised the first taxonomy of the
caves based on the first ever identification of distinctive
typologies and subtypes. He categorized the caves
under multiple hierarchical structures and stratified
patterns of developments, which used scientifically
analysable data. He also suggested evolutionary patterns
that the caves followed. It is surprising, however, that his
reclassification was not adopted in the later scholarship.iv
The only serious view taken about Nagaraju classification
is found in the works of the Chinese scholar Chongfeng
Li.3 He understood the relevance and importance of the
classification made by Nagaraju. But even Li does not
seems to have noted that there are some lurking issues
in the classification by Nagaraju.
Lets first spend a minute to understand, very
briefly, how Nagaraju classified the Indian Buddhist
cave architecture (Fig. 2). His scope, first of all, was
limited to ca. 250 BCE–ca. 300 CE. It does not cover
the later developments. For example, Ajanta, Ellora,
Ba¯gh, Aurangabad, Elephanta, etc. are excluded.
Further, Nagaraju confessed that contrary to his plan
he was unable to survey Kara¯d± and Nadsur.4 Now the
fact is that little has advanced since the attempt by
Nagaraju.v Notwithstanding the novelty of his approach
there are certain problems. First, a great corpus of the
Buddhist rock-cut architecture that ensued in the later
periods did not find a place in the Nagaraju system. The
second problem in the Nagaraju classification is that he
ascribed a distinctive typology to the po¯d±hıs (rock-cut
cisterns) as was done by Fergusson and Burgess, but the
po¯d±hıs are invariably filled with dirty water today; they
are neglected and inaccessible. Garbage and insects
are often found in them. In many places they have
been cemented or filled with earth. Worse, a systematic
documentation of them does not exist in the published
scholarship. Their dispositions, measurements, etc. are
all unknown. The situation in the 21st century has not
changed a bit since the times of Fergusson. Therefore,
to put it as a separate category without supplementary
information is hardly helpful to scholarship. The third
problem in the Nagaraju classification is that he gives the
ko¯d±hıs, i.e. the recesses in the walls a separate category
(Fig. 2). Scientifically, the recesses in the walls do not
call for a separate category because they are part of
the already classified structures or types within the said
classification. Ko¯d±hı may be a subset or a subtype, for it
is a component of something else. The fourth problem
is that Nagaraju failed to identify that the quadrangular-
and-flat-roofed caves deserve a separate category (Fig.
3, Type V). He mixed the concerned monuments into
three different types.
In order to find a solution to the above issues,
certain re-adjustments in the classification of Nagaraju
are warranted. An attempt to reclassify the same with
certain necessary adaptations has been made here
(Fig. 3) that has some old and some new categories or
subcategories. It is basically an exercise of revision with
more updates in order to make it more inclusive and
furthermore scientific in the light of the material and
current research.
Type I, ‘cetiyaghara’: The term is found with varying
spellings in the inscriptions of many concerned caves
from ca. 250 BCE to ca. 300 CE.vi It is clear that the

iii. Reclassification by Burgess: ‘1. stūpas or topes; 2. ornamental rails; 3. stambhas or lāṭs; 4. chaitya-halls or temples; 5. vihāras or monasteries; and 6. poṇḍhis or cisterns
(Fergusson and Burgess 1880, 171).
iv. Partly because, in my view, his invaluable monograph is badly produced, which does not make it a smooth reading experience. Apparently, the publisher did not go the extra
mile to depute a team of copy editors and illustrators to improve the typescript, layouts, charts, and artworks submitted by the author, who single handed put together a vast
corpus of new content and material, a majority of which were not to be found in any other publication.
v. M. K. Dhavalikar did something regarding this by surveying some under- or un-reported caves of certain lesser known sites. His work is also very important (Dhavalikar
1984).
vi. Vide (Nagaraju 1981, 93, n. 11). An example from Junnar Shivaneri, Cave 43 (Burgess 1883a, 93):
Vīraseṇakasa gahapatipamughasa
Dhaṁmanigamasa deyadhaṁmaṁ chetiyagharo
Niyuto savalokahitasukhāya [II]
 (I) CETIYAGHARA
Rock-cut temple consisting of a hall or cell with the stupa (dome-shaped votive structure)
(A) (B) (C) (D)
HALL TYPE CELL TYPE CELL, HALL & VERAN- ABERRANT
DAH TYPE. QUADRANGU- TYPE
LAR, FLAT-ROOF.
(i) (ii) (iii) (i) (ii)
Apsidal, usually vault-roofed Oblong, usually flat-roofed Circular, dome roofed Oblong, flat roof Circular, dome/flat roof

(a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c)

With open front With stone With stone screen Without verandah With verandah Untitled
screen wall wall & verandah
Junnar Tulaja-Lena 3. Nagaraju Junnar Manmodi. ASI/ Kanheri. ASI/ Nagaraju 36, Burgess Shailarwadi 8. Nagaraju 1981, 295. Kondivite 9. Nagaraju
1981, fig. 27. Nagaraju 25, Burgess 19. 16. Dhavalikar 1984, 55. 1981, fig. 48.
Nagaraju 1981, fig. 29.
Ajanta 10. Burgess 1880, Ajanta 09. Burgess 1880, Kanheri 3. Nagaraju 1981, fig. Kanheri. Nagaraju No. 2c, Kuda. ASI 19–20, Burgess/ Kuda. ASI 29, Burgess/ Nagaraju
XXXIV. XXXIV. 39. d, e. Burgess 1880, LIII. Nagaraju 9. Burgess 1883, VIII. 1. Burgess 1883, VIII.

(II) LEṆA
Rock-Cut Architecture of Western India 1

Monastic hall of residence with cells. Flat-roofed & quadrangular.

(A) (B) (C)
SINGLE CELL TYPE MULTIPLE CELLS TYPE ABERRANT TYPE

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (i) (ii)
Simple cell variety Cell & verandah Cell, hall & verandah Cell, hall & recess Cells & verandah Cells, hall, Cells, hall & verandah Cells, hall, Cells around an Cells or hall with
without verandah verandah & shrine apsidal hall vaulted roof
(a) (b) (a) (b)
Open front Front wall & Cell, hall, recess Cell, hall, recess (a) (b)
doorway with open front with verandah Cells on 1 or Cells on 3 walls
2 wall(s)

Kuda. ASI 23, Nagaraju/ Kanheri. ASI/ Nagaraju 56, Junnar Manmodi. ASI/ Ajanta 13. Mahad 8. Burgess 1883, IX. Bedsa 11. Burgess 1880, XI. Pitalkhora 4. Burgess
Burgess 7. Burgess 1883, VIII. Burgess 45. Dhavalikar 1984, Nagaraju 28, Burgess 15. Burgess 1883, 1883, VII.
55. Nagaraju 1981, fig. 29. XXVIII.
Jivadana Virar 1-2. Nagaraju Junnar Shivaneri. Junnar Ganesh Pahar. ASI/ Shailarwadi 11. Burgess Kanheri 50. Dhavalikar Nasik. ASI/ Nagaraju 19,
1981, fig. 26. Nagaraju 3, Burgess 4. Nagaraju 25, Burgess 26. Nagaraju 1880, V. 1984, 55. Burgess 14. Burgess 1880, XXVI.
Nagaraju 1981, fig. 37. 1981, fig. 35.
(III) MAṬAPA (IV) POḌHI (V) ĀSANAPEḌHIKA (VI) KOḌHI
Hall without cells for resting, assembly & dining. Flat-roofed & quadrangular. Water cistern Bench for reclining Recess in wall

(A) (B) (A) (B)

HALL WITHOUT BENCH HALL WITH BENCH PĀNIYA POḌHI SANĀNA POḌHI CLASSIFICATION OF THE BUD-
Drinking watern cistern Bathing cistern
DHIST ROCK-CUT MONUMENTS
(i) (ii) (i) (ii)
C. 250 BCE – C. 300 CE
With verandah Without verandah With verandah Without verandah
By S. Nagaraju
Tabular interpretation & artwork: R.K. Singh. Data
source: Nagaraju 1981, 68–71. Displayed monuments are
Junnar Ganesh Pahar. ASI/ Nagaraju Junnar Shivaneri. Nagaraju 18, Kuda. ASI/ Nagaraju 4. Burgess Kanheri 7. Dhavalikar 1984, 53. random samples. Indic words/terms are from the
9, Burgess 10. Nagaraju 1981, fig. 32. Burgess 26. Nagaraju 1981, fig. 36. 26. Burgess 1883, VIII. concerned Brāhmī inscriptions in Prakrit.

Fig. plate
The 2: an info-graphic
Theisplate chart prepared
is an info-graphic to show
chart prepared tothe
showdescriptive
the descriptive problem may
clas- classification by S.
beNagaraju about the
noticed (1981, 'leṇa-cetiyagharas'
68–71). (residence
His classification needs certain
cum taxonomical separate category.
warrant a readjustments to accommodate
Whereas Typesthe IV,later VI are rather space
V, anddevelopments.
Asification
problembymay be noticed
S. Nagaraju about
(1981, the ‘leṇa-cetiyagharas’
68–71). (residence
His classification needs cum temples)
certain temples) seen in
inboxes.
boxes.They are
Theyare unscientifically
unscientifically placed
placed under
under three
three sepa-separate categories:
consuming whileI(A)(ii)(c),
offering little
I(C),help
andtoII(B)(iv). The leṇa-cetiyagharas
the researcher for lack of systemat-
actually warrant
taxonomical readjustments
a separate tocategory. Whereas
accommodate theTypes
later IV,
developments.
V, and VI areArather space
rate consuming
categories: I(A)(ii)(c), offering
whileI(C), little help
and II(B)(iv). Theto the researcher for
leṇa-cetiyagharas lack of systematic
actually documentation
ic documentation in the published
in the published scholarship. scholarship.
219
 RECLASSIFICATION OF I. TEMPLE (’Cetiyaghara’ = caityagṛha)
220
ROCK-CUT ARCHITECTURE Hall or cell with a stupa (dome-shaped votive structure with or without relic)
IN W. INDIA (B) (C)
(A)
Ca. 250 BCE – ca. 700 CE HALL TYPE CELL TYPE ABERRANT TYPES
By R. K. Singh, after Nagaraju 1981, 68–71.
(i) (ii) (iii) (i) (ii)
Apsidal, usually vault-roofed Oblong, usually flat-roofed Circular, dome roofed Oblong, flat roof Circular, dome/flat roof

(a) (b) (c) (d) (a) (b) Kondivite 9. Nagaraju 1981,

With open front With stone With stone screen I.A.i.c + adjuncts Without verandah With verandah fig. 48.
screen wall wall & verandah
Junnar Tulaja-Lena. Junnar Manmodi 25. Kanheri 36, Burgess No. 16.
Nagaraju 1981, fig. 27. Nagaraju 1981, fig. 29. Dhavalikar 1984, 55.

Ajanta 10. Burgess 1880,
XXXIV.
Ajanta 09. Burgess 1880, XXXIV. Kanheri 3. Nagaraju 1981, fig. 39. Ajanta 26. Spink 2009, fig. 32. Kanheri 2 - c, d, e. Burgess 1880, LIII. Kuda 9. Burgess 1883, VIII.
II. LODGING (’Leṇa’ = ‘layaṇa’)
Monastic hall of residence with cells. Flat-roofed & quadrangular.
(A) (B) (C)
SINGLE CELL TYPE MULTIPLE CELLS TYPE ABERRANT TYPES

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (i) (ii) (iii) (i) (ii)

Simple cell variety Cell & verandah Cell, hall & verandah Cell, hall & recess Cells & verandah Cells, hall, without Cells, hall & verandah Cells around an Cells or hall with
veranda apsidal hall vaulted roof
(a) (b) (a) (b)
Open front Front wall & Cell, hall, recess Cell, hall, recess (a) (b)
doorway with open front with verandah Cells on 1 or Cells on 3 walls
Kuda 7. Burgess 1883, VIII. Kanheri 56, Burgess No. 45. 2 wall(s)
Junnar Manmodi 28. Ajanta 13. Burgess Bedsa 11. Burgess 1880, XI. Pitalkhora 4. Burgess 1883,
Dhavalikar 1984, 55.
Nagaraju 1981, fig. 29. 1883, XXVIII. VII.

Jivadana Virar 1-2. Nagaraju Junnar Shivaneri 3. Junnar Ganesh Pahar 25. Shailarwadi 11. Burgess
Kanheri 50. Nasik 19. Burgess No.
1981, fig. 26. Nagaraju 1981, fig. 37 Nagaraju 1981, fig. 35. 1880, V.
Dhavalikar 1984, 55. 14, 1880, XXVI.

III. COMMUNITY HALL (’Maṭapa’ = ‘manḍapa’) IV. MISCELLANEOUS V. LODGING-CUM-TEMPLE (’Leṇa-cetiyaghara’) VI. SANCTUM IN HALL
Hall without cells for resting, assembly & dining. (A) Quadrangular & flat roofed with sanctum sanctorum. Quadrangular, flat roof & ambulatory.
POḌHI = AMBUNIDHĀN
Flat-roofed & quadrangular. (A) (B) (C)
(A) (B)
Water cistern
HALL WITHOUT BENCH HALL WITH BENCH
(i) (ii)
(i) (ii) (i) (ii) PĀNIYA POḌHI SANĀNA POḌHI
With verandah Without verandah With verandah Without verandah Drinking watern cistern Bathing cistern
(B) Mahad 8. Adadapted from Ajanta Upper 6. Burgess 1880, Ellora 3. Burgess 1880, LVII. Kizil 13. Period III, ca. Jogeshwari cave. (ca. 525 Ajanta Upper 6.
ĀSANAPEḌHIKA Burgess 1883, IX. XXXII. 490s-550 CE. From Li & CE; Spink in Brancaccio Burgess 1880, XXXII.
Bench for reclining Jie 2000, 20. 2013). After Burgess 1883,
(C) ASWI, V, XLIV.
Junnar Ganesh Pahar 9. Jivadana Virar 4. Kuda 4. Burgess 1883, Kanheri 7. Dhavalikar 1984, KOḌHI = Kōṣṭhika Note: The floor plans are random samples. The Indic words are
Nagaraju 1981, fig. 32. Nagaraju 1981, fig. 26. VIII. 53. Recess in wall from the Brāhmī inscriptions in Prakrit language. R.K. Singh

Fig. 3. The plate shows a re-classification of the rock-cut architecture in W. India, adapted from Nagaraju’s classification (1981, 68–71). The changes include the creation of: (a) a new subcategory, I(A)(i)(d), to accommodate a later
The plate shows a re-classification of the rock-cut architecture in accommodate a later variety of the caityagṛhas; (b) a new category, IV tinct architectural variety, which Nagaraju had labelled variously and
variety of the caityagṛhas; (b) a new category, IV Miscellaneous, to group together the Nagaraju Types IV, V, and VI for economy and brevity; (c) another new category, V, to recognise a distinct architectural variety, which Nagaraju had
W.
labelled
India,variously
adaptedandfrom
unscientifically
Nagaraju'sasclassification
I(A)(ii)(c), I(C),(1981,
and II(B)(iv);
68–71).and Miscellaneous,
The(d) a new category, VI, to
to group
accommodate the Nagaraju
togethera major typologyTypes
of theIV,
6thV,century for
and VI CE. unscientifically as I(A)(ii)(c), I(C), and II(B)(iv); and (d) a new category,
changes include the creation of: (a) a new subcategory, I(A)(i)(d), to economy and brevity; (c) another new category, V, to recognise a dis- VI, to accommodate a major typology of the 6th century ce.
History Today, No.19, 2018
Rock-Cut Architecture of Western India 1 221

donors or makers themselves called these monuments as
cetiyagharas. Close examination will reveal that the word
cetiyaghara meant the house of the caitya/stupa whether
it is apsidal, quadrangular, vaultroofed, flatroofed, with
or without halls, or a chamber containing the stupa,all
are cetiyagharas. By ‘caitya/stupa’ they evidently meant
the dome-shaped votive, cultic, structure having the five
elements or parts: the med±hı, and±a, vedika¯, harmika¯, and
chhatra. There were more elements to a stupa, e.g. yu¯pa,
yas±μi, dha¯tu/¡arira (bodily remains), etc. Speaking of the
relics, some rock-cut cetiyagharasalso had reliquaries as
in Bha¯je™vii, Ka¯rle™n±,viii and Pitalkho¯ra¯.ix The cetiyaghara
(literally, home of the cetiya) housed the stupa. It is an
exclusive category of the Buddhist architecture whose
complete documentation at one place is still at large.
Nagaraju further classified the cetiyaghara into many
sub-categories or subtypes, which again have further
subtypes (Fig. 2; cf. Fig. 3, which has the addition of a
subcategory, Type 1(A)(i)(d)).
Type II, ‘len±a’: It is the next classification in the
Nagaraju system (Fig. 2). The term is found in the
inscriptions of many concerned monuments.x The word
is found in Prakrit and Pali.5 When Sanskrit became
the language of the Buddhist inscriptions, as in the 5th
century Ajanta caves, the word len±a was rendered as
layan±a.xi In Marathi, the word is le™n±ı. The word len±a is
found only in the early periods, while layan±a is found
in the later periods. The semantic of the term comes
from the architectural typology and function. It has been
surveyed that the len±a or layan±a was a special type of
rock-cut architecture that was meant exclusively for the
monastic dwelling. It could be a single cell or a large
hall with many cells. They were not meant for worship
or congregation or dining. The norm was rather strict in
the earliest centuries of the rock-cut architecture.
However, from the 2nd century CE onward, some
of them witnessed typological changes, which was to
accommodate a change in function, or to add another
function. Thus, some len±as were converted into len±a-
cetiyagharas (Type V, Fig. 3-5). Len±ashad many varieties.
In the course of time, they became larger and elaborate.
Type III, ‘maμapa’: This Prakrit word is called
man±d±apa (hall or pavilion) in Sanskrit. The Prakrit form
is found in the inscriptions of the earlier monumentsxii
while the Sanskrit form is found in the inscriptions
of the later monuments, e.g. at Ajanta.xiii Synonyms
and variations denoting different functions are also
found in the inscriptions, such as bho¯jana-maμapa and
upaμha¯na.6 During Momentum I, maμapa was a special

vii. The drum of the stupa in the Bhājé cetiyaghara has many sockets whose stone plugs are missing along with the contents. M. N. Deshpande has deduced that the sockets
perhaps contained reliquaries, as found in the identical locations in the part-monolithic-part-masonry stupa of Pitalkhōrā Cave 3. He postulated that beneath the shaft of the
wooden chhatra (umbrella), which is still extant in-situ in the Bhājé cetiyaghara, a socket or chamber might be found containing a reliquary (Deshpande 1959, 73, 88).
viii. When the Kārléṇ caves were first reported in the early nineteenth century, this was the spelling the nearest villagers were using, which is interesting because the last three
letters are rooted in the Prakrit leṇa and Marathi leṇī both meaning rock-cut dwelling. In the later times, the name acquired a distortion as Kārlā or Kārlé.
ix. Deshpande recovered six crystal reliquaries containing relics and rings from the part-monolithic-part-masonry stupa of Pitalkhōrā Cave 3 and from the debris in Cave 4. They
were contained inside many plugged sockets especially chiselled on the left and back side of the monolithic meḍhī (drum), and plugged by close-fitting stone slabs. In the
pivot between the meeting point of the meḍhī and anḍa, Deshpande found a rock-cut chamber, which he perhaps rightly deduced, might have contained the main reliquary
(Deshpande 1959, 72–73, 88). It is impossible to believe that a sumptuous site like Ajanta did not have any relic. It is a fact that we have not found any, and the published
scholarship has never made it a subject of inquiry. There is no evidence, but one wonders if there were no relics inside the stupas of the Ajanta caves 9 and 10. The lower
parts of the stupas have been damaged due to centuries of debris that was there, and now the lower parts are all cemented. The sockets for the relics might have been there
in the lower parts of the stupas. Even in the fifth-century period of Ajanta, one cannot rule out the presence of the relic. The likely place may be Cave 16. There is a finely
carved square socket on the proper right foot of the colossal Buddha figure inside the inner shrine. No logical explanation has come forward as to the purpose of the socket.
It should not be surprising if relics were kept in that socket. The possibility also arises from the new revelation that a stupa was originally planned for Cave 16’s inner shrine
(Plates 5-6), which was even excavated to a certain extent. The partially excavated stupa was adapted during ca. late 470s to turn it into a colossal Buddha image. It was due
to the change of plan, from the stupa to image, that the best place to enshrine the relic was presumably found to be the top surface of the Buddha’s proper right feet.
x. For a list, vide (Nagaraju 1981, 93, n. 12). An example inscription from Kuḍā Cave, ASI No. 14 = Burgess No. 15: ‘Karahākaḍakasa lohavāṇiyiyasa Mahikasa deyadhaṁmaṁ
leṇaṁ’(Burgess 1883a, 87). For plan of cave, see Plate 4, Fig. 7.
xi. For example, Varāhadeva’s inscription, Ajanta Cave 16 (Mirashi 1963, 109), (Burgess and Indraji 1881, 71):
Line 24: ‘. . . . . . layanaṁ surendramauliprabhōpachit[mangalasangrahāya] . . . . . .’;
Line 26: ‘vividhalayanasānussevyamānō mahādbhirggiriraya-. . . .’
xii. For example, inscription in Junnar-Manmodi Cave 7 (Burgess 1883a, 103):
‘[Raño] Mahākhatapasa sāmi-Nahapānasa
[Ā]mātyasa Vachchasagotasa Ayamasa
[de]yadhama cha [po?]ḍhi maṭapo cha puñathaya vase 46 kato.’
xiii. For example, Varahadeva’s inscription, Ajanta cave 16, line 26: ‘. . . . . . . . . . sevyatām- antarṁmaṇḍapa-ratnametada-malaṁ . . . .’ (Mirashi 1963, 109). Antarṁmaṇḍapa
literally means the inner pavilion, which in the case of the monument denotes to the pillared inner shrine, which is so unique at Ajanta and rare in the history of rock-cut
architecture.
222 History Today, No.19, 2018
type of edifice, different from the cetiyaghara and len±a,
architecturally as well as functionally. The function, of
course, dictated the architectural typology. The maμapas
from the 5th century onwards lost the raison d’eƒtre to
Type V, which was a multi-purpose building (Figs. 3-5).
Type IV, ‘len±a cetiyaghara’: The term, without
hyphen, was used by the makers of certain caves as in
Maha¯d± Cave 8 (Fig. 4.10).xiv The distinctive character
of the monument escaped the attention of Burgess7
but not of Nagaraju8 and Dhavalikar.9 However, none
could identify it as a candidate for a separate category.
None explained the justification, relevance, and future
taxonomy of the unique typology. Called by the necessity
and significance, the present author has accorded a
separate category to it, i.e. Type V (Figs. 3-8). In the
Nagaraju classification, the concerned monuments
have been classified under three types: I(A)(ii)(c), I(C),
and II(B)(iv) making it unscientific (Fig. 2). His attention
to detail missed the point that the len±a-cetiyagharas
evolved dramatically into complex structures in the
future developments. It enjoyed real supremacy over
all the other typologies on both terms: quantitative
and qualitative. Therefore, assigning a new typological
category to the len±a-cetiyagharas(= layan±a-caityagr±has)
corrects a significant error of the past scholarship and
paves the way for a greater, holistic, and more accurate
understanding of the history of rock-cut architecture. It
also removes the dubious and unscientific categories
‘caityagr±has’and ‘viha¯ras,’ which have been used
so systematically in the published scholarship that a
separate essay is perhaps needed to prove them as
misnomers.
The Type V caves originated in the 2nd century CE
(Fig. 4) and continued up to the last phase of the rock-cut
architecture. The type was adopted even by the Jainas, as
at Ellora. A big number of some very sumptuous caves fall
into this category. In terms of function, it was basically a
combination of two types: Type I (cetiyaghara) and Type
II (len±a). The two came together during the 2nd century
CE at Na¯sik, Junnar, Naina¯va|∆ı, Kud±a¯, Kara¯d±, and Khe™d±
with the structural counterparts in Na¯ga¯rjunako¯n±d±a¯. The
later monuments of the type flourished everywhere, and
became the standard in Ajanta, Ba¯gh, Aurangabad, and
xiv. Mahāḍ Cave 8 inscription (Burgess 1883a, 88):
[1.] ‘Sidhaṁ Kumārasa Kāṇabhoāsa Vheṇupālitasa
[2.] [e]sa leṇa chetiéghara ovarakā chā atha 8 vi[ti*]kamaṁ niyu
[3.] taṁ leṇa [sa] cha ubhato pasesu poḍhiyo be 2 leṇasa
[4.] alugaṇake patho cha dato etasa cha kumarasa deya
[5.] Dhamaṁ [II]
Ellora with increasing complexities and the addition of
more and more features.
The ‘len±a cetiyagharas’ (Type V caves)
We have attempted to reproduce the plans of many
Type V monuments from the published scholarship (Fig.
4). However, it is not perhaps the entire corpus, as many
sites are still not thoroughly documented, and the plans
of many caves have still not been made/published. The
plate merely indicates how Type V is really distinct from
the rest, and how it gradually evolved within the span
of Momentum I. It is all about the synthesis of the len±a
with the stupa.
The significance of the innovative len±a cetiyaghara
could further be understood by the fact that 24 out of
the total 35 rock-cut edifices of Ajanta and the related
sites that were excavated during Momentum II (ca. 460s
CE) are of the Type V (Fig. 5). The reason why the type
enjoyed the virtual supremacy is not difficult to seek.
Quadrangular-and-flat-roofed temples (Type V) were
less challenging to excavate than the vault-shaped-and-
apsidal counterparts (Type I). Moreover, Type V was
three-in-one. It offered triple benefits: worship, dwelling,
and congregation. It was far more economical. One did
not need three buildings. One was enough for the three
functions. No wonder why it became the most favourite
type in the future, so much so that it became the norm.
Only four apsidal and vault-roofed caityagr±has were
ever to be excavated in the future, namely, Ajanta caves
26, 19, 29, and Ellora Cave 10, in this chronological
order. Such was the colossal impact of the most humble
beginnings at Nasik. Type V format was standardized
in the future and became pan-pervasive across multiple
sites, periods, and religions, because the Jainas and
Hindus also came to adopt this format as evidenced
most readily at Elephanta, Ellora, etc.
A survey of the ‘ len±a cetiyagharas’ during
‘Momentum I’
Nasik Cave 17xv (Fig. 4.1): It may be the earliest
known len±a cetiyaghara (Type V). There is a dedicatory
inscription in the cave, which stipulates a ‘cetiyaghara’
 MOMENTUM-I.—WESTERN INDIA. GENESIS AND EVOLUTION OF 'TYPE V' CAVES. Ca. 250–300 ce.
Residence-cum-temples ('leṇa-cetiyaghara'). Ca. 120–300 ce.
MOMENTUM-I.—WESTERN
Rock-Cut Architecture INDIA.
of Western India 1 GENESIS AND EVOLUTION OF 'TYPE V' CAVES. Ca. 250–300 ce. 223

A Residence-cum-temples ('leṇa-cetiyaghara'). Ca. 120–300 ce.

A
A A
B A A
A
A
B A A

1. Nasik, ASI No. 17/ Burgess No. 2. Nasik 3. Ca. 124–149 ce (Nagaraju 3. Nasik. ASI No. 10/ Burgess No. 8. 4. Junnar, Ganesh Pahad 7. Ca. 5. Junnar Shivaneri. ASI No. 42/
12. Started ca. 120 ce (Nagaraju 1981, 262, 277–78). After Burgess Started ca. 120 ce (Dhavalikar 1984, 120–30 ce (Dhavalikar 1984, 67), Burgess No. 50. Early 2nd c. ce . (Ca.
1981, 270; Dhavalikar 1984, 8). After 1880, XIX. 8). After Burgess 1880, XIX. ca. 100–150 ce (Nagaraju 1981, 164). late 3rd c. CE., Nagaraju 1981, 183).
1. Nasik, ASI No.1984,
ibid. 17/ Burgess
7. No. 2. Nasik 3. Ca. 124–149 ce (Nagaraju 3. Nasik. ASI No. 10/ Burgess No. 8. 4. Junnar, Ganesh Pahad
After Nagaraju 1981, 32.7. Ca. 5. Junnar Shivaneri.
From ibid. fig.ASI
37. No. 42/
12. Started ca. 120 ce (Nagaraju 1981, 262, 277–78). After Burgess Started ca. 120 ce (Dhavalikar 1984, 120–30 ce (Dhavalikar 1984, 67), Burgess No. 50. Early 2nd c. ce . (Ca.
B A
1981, 270; Dhavalikar 1984, 8). After 1880, XIX. 8). After Burgess 1880, XIX. ca. 100–150 ce (Nagaraju 1981, 164). late 3rd c. CE., Nagaraju 1981, 183).A
ibid. 1984, 7. After Nagaraju 1981, 32. From ibid. fig. 37.
B A B
A
A
B

6. Nenavali caitya. Mid-2nd c. ce .
(Ca. 70–100 ce, Dhavalikar 1984, 37).
After ibid., 36.
6. Nenavali caitya. Mid-2nd c. ce .
(Ca. 70–100 ce, Dhavalikar 1984, 37).
A After ibid., 36.
7. Kuda. ASI No. 14/ Burgess No. 15.
Mid-2nd c. ce (Nagaraju 1981, 249).
After Burgess 1883, ASWI IV, VIII.
7. Kuda. ASI No. 14/ Burgess No. 15.
Mid-2nd c. ce (Nagaraju 1981, 249).
After Burgess 1883, ASWI IV, VIII.
8. Karad 48. From Dhavalikar 9. Karad 7. (Hall: mid 2nd c. ce;
1984, 32. shrine: late 2nd c. CE. Dhavalikar
1984, 30). After ibid., 31.
8. Karad 48. From Dhavalikar 9. Karad 7. (Hall: mid 2nd c. ce;
1984, 32. shrine: late 2nd c. CE. Dhavalikar
1984, 30). After ibid., 31.
10. Mahad 8. 100 ce (Dehejia 1972,
182–83); late 3rd c. ce (Nagaraju 1981,
252); mid-3rd c. ce (Dhavalikar 1984,
46). After Burgess
10. Mahad 8. 100 ce1883, ASWI 1972,
(Dehejia IV, IX.
182–83); late 3rd c. ce (Nagaraju 1981,
252); mid-3rd c. ce (Dhavalikar 1984,
46). After Burgess 1883, ASWI IV, IX.

11. Shailarwadi 8. (Late 3rd c. ce;
Nagaraju 1981, 295). After Dhavalikar
1984, 45.
11. Shailarwadi 8. (Late 3rd c. ce;
Nagaraju 1981, 295). After Dhavalikar
1984, 45.
12. Pohale 2. (Late 2nd c. ce
(Dhavalikar 1984, 71); late 3rd c.
ce (Nagaraju 1981, chart V)). From
12. Pohale
ibid.2.1984,
(Late33.2nd c. ce
(Dhavalikar 1984, 71); late 3rd c.
ce (Nagaraju 1981, chart V)). From
ibid. 1984, 33.
13. Wai caitya. (Late 3rd c. ce; Dhav-
alikar 1984, 35). From ibid., 34.
13. Wai caitya. (Late 3rd c. ce; Dhav-
alikar 1984, 35). From ibid., 34.
14. Karad. ASI No. 17/Burgess No. 16.
(Late 3rd c. ce; Dhavalikar 1984, 30).
From ibid., 32.
14. Karad. ASI No. 17/Burgess No. 16.
(Late 3rd c. ce; Dhavalikar 1984, 30).
A From ibid., 32. B
15. Kuda 29. (Late 3rd c. ce; Nagara-
ju 1981, chart V). From Burgess 1883,
ASWI IV, VIII.
15. Kuda 29. (Late 3rd c. ce; Nagara-
ju 1981, chart V). From Burgess 1883,
ASWI IV, VIII.

A B

16. Kuda. ASI No. 24/ Burgess &
Nagaraju No. 6. (Late 3rd–early
4th c. CE; Nagaraju 1981, 242). From
Burgess 1880, V.
16. Kuda. ASI No. 24/ Burgess &
Nagaraju No. 6. (Late 3rd–early
4th c. CE; Nagaraju 1981, 242). From
Burgess 1880, V.
17. Khed 3. (Hall earlier, stupa
shrine ca. late 3rd–early 4th c. ce;
Dhavalikar 1984, 48). From ibid., 45.
17. Khed 3. (Hall earlier, stupa
shrine ca. late 3rd–early 4th c. ce;
Dhavalikar 1984, 48). From ibid., 45.
18. Nagarjunakonda. Soundara-
rajan Site No. 5. After ibid. 2006,
fig. 40.
18. Nagarjunakonda. Soundara-
rajan Site No. 5. After ibid. 2006,
fig. 40.
19. Nagarjunakonda. Soundararajan
Site No. 3/ Ramachandran site 6.
(Ca. 225–350 ce; Weiner 1977, 120). R.K. Singh
19. Nagarjunakonda. Soundararajan
After Ramachandran 1938, 8.
Site No. 3/ Ramachandran site 6.
(Ca. 225–350 ce; Weiner 1977, 120). R.K. Singh
After Ramachandran 1938, 8.

Fig. 4. The plate shows the earliest Type V caves. The variety evolved through Momentum I of the long tradition of the rock-cut architecture in W. India. First the
The plate
stupa, then shows the earliest entered
the ambulatory, Type V caves.Type II, The
i.e.variety
‘leṇas’evolved
(rock-cutthrough Momen-
dwellings). left by removing
The synthe-sis the left wall andFig.
was the leṇa-cetiyaghara. cells,
4.1:and then,
The wordcarving new cells
‘cetiyaghara’ on theinnew
is found the
tum I ofdonative
cave’s the longinscription,
tradition ofbut the the
rock-cut
innerarchitecture
shrine was neverin W. India. First the
completed. (A)stupa, left and
A relief stupa wasrear walls.
likely Masonary
intended. stupa
(B) The onknown
first a monolithic base was then erected
shrine-antechamber. in the
Figs. 4.1-4–5:
All
then have
the relief stupas entered
ambulatory, as the central object
TypeVII,caves. of worship, which
i.e. 'leṇas' requiredTheno ambulatory. Fig.gained
4.2: (A)spaces
The relief stupa isprobably
inset in the wall, suggesting an afterthought.
The 4.3:
Fig. plate shows
(A) the earliest
The relief Type
stupa projects forth The (rock-cut
from variety
the wall,
dwellings).
evolved through
suggesting
synthe-
Momen-
planning. Fig.
newly
left4.4:
by removing ofthe
of the
left wallhall, andtothen,
and cells,adapted commemorate
carving new a deceased
cells on themonk.
new
sis
tum was
I of the
the leṇa-cetiyaghara.
long tradition of theFig. 1: The
rock-cut word 'cetiyaghara'
architecture in W. is found
India. inprior
First the
the cave’s
stupa, Fig.
left and
(A)The
9: (A)
rear
Onehall.
walls.
the
(B)Aṣṭa-vināyakas,
The bench
Masonary stupa seems
on a to have
monolithic
from
been thecut
base
earlier
was away relief
then for stupa.
the
erected
The
shrine.
in the
shrine doorway has the early Buddhist motif of the elephants carrying lotuses. Fig. 4.6: The edifice had two phases. Phase I: the stupa-shrine ‘A’ was on the axis of
donative
thenerstwhile
the
inscription,
the ambulatory,
hall. Phase
but the
entered inner
II: ForType
shrine was
II, i.e.reasons
unclear
never
'leṇas' (rock-cutcompleted. (A)
dwellings).
the hall was
A
enlargedThe
relief stupa
synthe-
towards
Fig.
the leftnewly
10: (A) The
gained spaces
by removing
traces
the left of
of a stupa
theand
wall
on the
hall,cells,
probablyfloor
and then,
and the
to commemoratewell-preserved
carving new cells a deceasedumbrella
on the new monk. in
left
was
and likely
rearthe
sis was intended.
walls. (B) The
Masonary stupa
leṇa-cetiyaghara. first
Fig.known
on1:aThe shrine-antechamber.
monolithic base was then
word 'cetiyaghara' Figs. 1–5:
erected
is found in the All have
in cave’s the ceiling.
Fig. 9: spaces
the newly gained Figs.
(A) Theofhall.18–19:
the(B) Two
hall, examples
Theprobably
bench seems of the structural
to commemorate
to have been architecture
a deceased
cut away monk. from Nāgār-
for theFig. 4.9:
shrine.
relief
(A) Thestupas
donative hall. asThe
(B) thebench
inscription, central
but the object
seems
inner to of
have
shrine worship,
beennever
was which
cut away required noAambulatory.
for the (A)
completed. shrine.relief 4.10: (A) junakoṇḍā
Fig.stupa The
Fig. traces
10: (A)of show
The the standardized
a stupa
traces onof the flooron
a stupa coalescence
andthethe andamong
well-preserved
floor theumbrella
'stupa shrine,'
the well-preserved 'image
inumbrella
the ceiling.in
Fig.
was 2:
Figs.4. (A) The
18–4.19:
likely relief
Twostupa
intended. is first
examples
(B) The insetofknown
inthe
thestructural
wall, suggesting
architecture
shrine-antechamber. 1–5: AllFig.
an afterthought.
from Nāgār-junakoṇḍā
Figs. 3:
have shrine,'
theshow the pillared
ceiling. hall,
standardized
Figs. 18–19:andTwomonastic
coalescence
examples cells. Other
among
of the such
the structures
‘stupa
structural shrine,’are
architecture Site shrine,’
‘image
from Nos.
Nāgār- 2,
pillared
(A) The hall,
relief and
stupa monastic
projects cells.
forth Other
from such
the structures
wall, are
suggesting Site
priorNos. 2,
planning.5, 9, 24,
Fig. 38, 78,
5, 9, 85,
24, 97,
38, 105,
78, 85, 106,
97, and
105, 108
106, (Soundararajan
and 108 2006).
(Soundararajan Figs.
2006). 4.11, 4.18–4.19:
Figs. 11, 18–19: The
The
relief stupas as the
circumambulation central
could object
not have beenof worship,
convenient which required
due to no ambulatory.
constricted junakoṇḍā
Fig. 4.19.circumambulation showinthe standardized coalescence among the 'stupaFigs. shrine,' 'image
4.14–4.17:
4:
Fig.(A)2:One
(A) of
The therelief
Aṣṭa-vināyakas,
is insetadapted
stupareappears inafter
the wall,fromsuggesting
the earlier relief
an stupa. space.
afterthought.The shrine (B) A blockage
Fig. 3: sequencing
shrine,' pillared
the ambulatory
could
andis not havedisallowed circumambulation.
been convenient due to constricted space.
The shrine-antechamber about two centuries. — The chronological of thehall,
caves monastic
regardlesscells.of theOther
citedsuch
dates. structures are Site Nos. 2,
doorway has stupa
(A) The relief the early Buddhist
projects forthmotif
fromofthethewall,
elephants carrying
suggesting priorlotuses. Fig.Fig.
planning. 6: Fig. 19. 38,
5, 9, 24, (B) 78,
A blockage
85, 97, 105,in106,
theand
ambulatory disallowed 2006).
108 (Soundararajan Figs. 11, 18–19:Figs.
circumambulation. The
The
4: (A)edifice
One ofhad
the two phases. Phase
Aṣṭa-vināyakas, I: the stupa-shrine
adapted 'A' relief
from the earlier was on the axis
stupa. of the
The shrine 14–17: The shrine-antechamber
circumambulation could not havereappears after about
been convenient duetwo centuries. —
to constricted The
space.
erstwhile
doorway has hall.the
Phase
earlyII:Buddhist
For unclear reasons
motif the hall was
of the elephants enlarged
carrying towards
lotuses. Fig.the
6: chronological sequencing
Fig. 19. (B) A blockage in of
thethe caves is regardless
ambulatory disallowedof circumambulation.
the cited dates. Figs.
The edifice had two phases. Phase I: the stupa-shrine 'A' was on the axis of the 14–17: The shrine-antechamber reappears after about two centuries. — The
erstwhile hall. Phase II: For unclear reasons the hall was enlarged towards the chronological sequencing of the caves is regardless of the cited dates.
224 History Today, No.19, 2018

inside.xvi The denotation is obviously to the sanctum
sanctorum, which has not been fully excavated. Clearly,
the inscription was inscribed in advance whereas the
planned stupa chamber could never be completed. The
excavation commenced in ca. 120 CE.10 The donor was
Indagnidatta, a ‘yavana’ (Greek) hailing from Bactria.
Dhavalikar has rightly proposed that Indagnidatta
should be credited for the import of the three-in-one
format (Type V) from the Greater Gandhara Region or
Bactria. In those regions, many structural monasteries
have been found that have the Buddha figures or stupas
in the niches, chambers, pedestals, or plinths. Those
complexes are often quadrangular and flat-roofed. In
Taxila, e.g.: Dharmara¯jika¯, court B11 (Pl. 61), Pippala,12
Jaulia¯n, 13 Ka¯lwa¯n,14 Takht - i - Bahi, main monastery,
etc.15
Nasik Cave 3 (Fig. 4.2): It belongs to roughly the
same time or a little later. Originally, it was purely a len±a
of Type II (B)(iii)(b) (Fig. 2) having a front court, a shallow
porch, and a big rectangular hall with many cells. When
the cave was fully excavated, the neighbouring caves 17
and 10 had already started. We can tell this because of
an interesting piece of evidence in the form of a large
relief stupa carved in the centre of the hall’s rear wall.
The unique feature of the relief stupa is that it is sunk
into the wall surface; it is inset. It indicates that they had
no plan of the stupa while excavating the hall. The stupa
was not in the original plan. Thus, the stupa was actually
a retro fitment. After the retro fitment, the function of
the edifice had changed from a len±a (dwelling) to len±a-
cetiyaghara (dwelling-cum-worship hall). It had become
a temple. It is perhaps the earliest known example of a
‘conversion’ from Type II to Type V. At this time there
was absolutely no thought of a separate chamber for the
stupa.
Nasik Cave 10 (Fig. 4.3): It was originally a len±a too
(Type II). It has an equally sizable stupain relief located
in the same place. But, the contrast is that the stupa is
not inset; it is not sunk into the wall; rather it projects
forth from the wall. It means that there was already
the plan of the stupa when they were excavating the
rear wall. Therefore, we may deduce that Cave 10 is
a younger contemporary of Cave 3. When Indagnidatta
began his ‘cetiyaghara’ No. 17 (Fig. 4.1) the excavations
had already begun as plain dormitories. Had this not
been so, there is no reason why the two caves were not
provisioned with similar ‘cetiyagharas’ (stupa chambers)
as in Cave 17.
The two examples indicate the birth of a new type
of architecture, i.e. len±a cetiyaghara (Type V). We are
also in the position to securely deduce the chronological
sequence of the three excavations at Nasik. The credit
of the innovation must be given to Indagnidatta who
brought the idea from Bactria. It is a telling example how
a single man was responsible for the creation of a whole
new type of architecture, which was given the red carpet
in the future course of developments.
Junnar Ganesh Paha¯d± 7 (Fig. 4.4): It has a
frontcourt, a shallow porch, a big rectangular hall, and
many monastic cells. The cardinal importance of the
edifice comes from the sanctum sanctorum, a stupa-
shrine excavated on axis beyond the hall’s rear wall. It
is difficult to say whether the stupa chamber was there
in the original plan or whether it was simply a len±a
(dormitory, Type II) adapted later to create the stupa
chamber. In any case, the idea certainly came from
Nasik Cave 17. In the scenario of the ‘conversion’ all
they had to do was to removethe wall between the two
central cells to create the sanctum sanctorum. It was a
smart move, a method that was going to be applied at
Maha¯d±, Dha¯rashiva, Ajanta, Ghaμo¯tkacha (Fig. 6) and in
the distant lands as far as Kizil. Burgess indicated that
on the rear wall of the sanctum sanctorum there must
have been a relief stupa later adapted to the image of

xv. ASI No. 17 = Burgess No. 12.

xvi. Nasik Cave 17 inscription of Indragnidatta:
[1.] ‘Sidhaṁ otarāhasa Daṁtāmitiyakasa Yoṇakasa Dhaṁmadeva putasa Idāgnidatasa dhamātmanā
[2.] ima leṇaṁ pavate Tiraṇhumhi khānitaṁ abhaṁtaraṁ cha leṇasa chetiyagharo poḍhiyo cha mātāpi
[3.] taro udisa ima leṇa kāritaṁ sava-Buddha pujāya chātudiśasa bhikhūsaṁghasa niyātitaṁ sa
[4.] ha putena Dhaṁmarakhitena’.
Success! The righteous Yavana Indragnidatta, son of Dharmadeva, a native of northern country (and) inhabitant of Dantamitri, caused this cave to be excavated on Mount
Trirashmi (Tiranhu) and inside the cave a chaitya griha and (three) cisterns, for the sake of his parents. This cave, caused to be made for the worship of all Buddhas, has
been made over to the community of monks from the four points of horizon (by him), together with his son Dharmarakshita (Dhammarakhita)’. (Senart 1905-1906, 90); also
quoted in (Nagaraju 1981, 344), and (Dhavalikar 1984, 5).
Rock-Cut Architecture of TAXONOMY
Western India 1
OF AJANTA AND CERTAIN OTHER ROCK-CUT MONUMENTS 225

MOMENTUM I.—EARLY AJANTA. 3rd–2nd c. BCE.

'Cetiyaghara' (temple)
Type I(A)(i).—'Cetiyaghara' a' (lodging)
Type II.—'Leṇa'

I(A)(i)(a) I(A)(i)(b) II(A)(i)(b) II(B)(ii)

1. Ajanta 10 2. Ajanta 9 3. Ajanta 26A, rough 4. Ajanta 12 5. Ajanta 13 6. Ajanta 15A R.K. Singh
sketch plan

MOMENTA II & III.—LATER AJANTA AND W. INDIA. Ca. 460–ca. 480 CE.
Momentum II.— Momentum II.—Type II(B)(iii)(b) Momentum II.— Momenta II & III.—Type V.
Type I(A)(i)(d) 'Layaṇa' (lodging), quadrangular & flat-roofed, early 460s Type IV(A) Layaṇa-caityagrha, quadrangular & flat-
Caityagṛha
Caityagṛ
ṛha (apsidal 'Ambunidhān' roofed, ca. 460–ca. 480 CE
& vaulted with quad-
(cistern)
rangular & flat-roofed
adjuncts)

❒ Adjuncts
retrofitted, ca. late 10. Ajanta 25 11. Ajanta 27 12. Ellora 27. 13. Ellora 19B. 14. Ajanta cave 18
460s CE

Momentum II.— Momentum II.—Type V(B). Momentum III.—Type V(C). Momentum III.—
Type V(A). Retrofitted stupa shrine with ambulatory, ca. mid-460s–480. Retrofitted Buddha shrine without ambu- Type V(D).
Original 'Central block' devised (except in Ajanta 11). latory, ca. late 460s–ca. 480 CE. Original Buddha
stupa shrine with 'Central block' discarded. shrine without ambu-
7. Ajanta 26 with ad-
ambulatory, ca. latory, late 470s.
juncts, caves 25 & 27
mid-460s CE.

17. Dharashiva 2 18. Mahad 1 19. Ajanta 11 26. Ajanta 2 27. Ajanta 6 upper 32. Ajanta 22

8. Ajanta 19

❒ Adjuncts expect-
ed in original plan, 15. Bagh 4 20. Ajanta 16 21. Ajanta 6 lower 22. Ajanta 17 28. Ajanta 7 29. Ajanta 8 33. Ajanta 21
late 470s

9. Ajanta 29 16. Bagh 2 23. Ajanta 4 24. Ajanta 1 25. Banoti, Phase I, 30. Ajanta 15 31. Ajanta 20 34. Ajanta 23
late 460s.

Fig. 5. The chart depicts a taxonomy of the Ajanta and related caves in general and
that
Theof thedepicts
chart sancta asanctorum
taxonomy in particular.
of the Ajanta and It seeks
related to caves
satisfyinseven
generalparameters:
and that
1.ofarchitectural typology; 2.
the sancta sanctorum evolutionary
in particular. pattern;
It seeks 3. function;
to satisfy seven 4.parameters:
iconology; 1.5.
epigraphy;
architectural 6. analytical
typology; chronology
2. evolutionary of the caves;3. and
pattern; 7. analytical
function; chronology
4. iconology; 5. epig-of
the sancta sanctorum. The following caves could not be accommodated for want 38. Nasik 20/Burgess 15. 37. Aurangabad 3 36. Ajanta 14 35. Ajanta 24
raphy; 6. analytical chronology of the caves; and 7. analytical
of space: Ajanta Cave 5, which is of Type II(B)(iii)(b); the Ghatotkacha cave of
chronology of the Hall, ca. 170 ce . Shrine,
sancta
Type sanctorum.
V(C); the AjantaThe following
caves 3, 28, caves
and the could not be accommodated
Aurangabad Cave 1, whichfor arewant of
of Type ca. late 470s
space: Ajanta
V(D).Figs. 5.1–5.6:CaveThese
5, whichareisofofTypes
Type II(B)(iii)(b); the Ghatotkacha
I and II of Momentum I (ca.cave
250 of Type
bce–ca. the stupa plans were aborted and replaced by the Buddha figures to be carved on
V(C);
300 theFigs.
ce). Ajanta caves 3,These
5.7–5.38: 28, andaretheof Aurangabad
Momenta II Cave 1, which470
(ca. 460–ca. are ce)
of Type
andV(D).
III (ca. the same central
Buddha figure wasblock.
betterLater,
than they realised
the stupa. So,that the Bodhisattva,
the stupa plans were gandharva,
aborted andand
late 460s–480Figs. ce), except
1–6: TheseNasikareCave 20 (Fig.
of Types I and38), whose
II of hall was
Momentum excavated
I (ca. 250 bce–in donor portraits
Momentum III. Figs. 470
5.12–5.13: replaced by the were
Buddha needed.
figuresButto the central on
be carved block
thehad
same only insufficient
central block. matrix
Later, of
ca. 300 ce). IFigs.
but the7–38:inner shrine
These are during
of Momenta Momentum II (ca. 460–ca. ce) and IIIPhase
(ca. I rock. The ambulatories had consumed much space. So, they aborted the ongoing
oflate
the460s–480
two Elloracecaves should belong II. Figs. 5.7–5.9: they realised that the Bodhisattva, gandharva, and donor portraits were needed.
), except Nasik Caveto20Momentum
(Fig. 38), whose hall Momentum
was excavated in plans of the ambulatories. Figs.5.32–5.38: The caves that commenced during
II witnessed only three Type I caves (apsidal-and-vault-roofed temples). Figs. But the central
Momentum III block
had not hadonly
onlythe
insufficient matrix
inner shrines of rock.
inbuilt Theoriginal
in the ambulatories hadbut
blueprint
Momentum I but the inner shrine during Momentum III. Figs. 12–13: Phase I of
5.10–5.38: Through Momentum II & III, Type I was gradually supplanted by Type consumed much space.
also the Buddha, So, they gandharvas,
Bodhisattvas, aborted the ongoing
and donor plans of the ambulatories.
portraits. The ambulatory
Vthe two Ellora caves
(quadrangular should belong
and flat-roofed to Momentum II. Figs.
residence-cum-temple). 7–9:5.15–5.38:
Figs. Momentum TypeII
Figs.
was no 32–38:
longer Theincaves
the newthatblue-print.
commenced during
Figs. 5.12,Momentum
5.13, 5.25:IIIThese
had not onlystudied
lesser the
Vwitnessed
was like aonly threewith
torrent TypetwoI caves (apsidal-and-vault-roofed
tributaries. One was Type II, i.e.temples). Figs.
the residential inner
cavesshrines inbuilt in Buddhist
were originally the original blueprint
edifices but alsolater
converted the Buddha,
into Hindu Bodhisattvas,
temples. Fig.
10–38:(Figs.
caves Through
10–13; Momentum
17–31) some II & III,ofType
whom I wasweregradually
converted supplanted
into Type by Type
V (Figs.V 5.38: The shrine has been ascribed
gandharvas, and donor portraits. Theto 6th c. ce, whereas
ambulatory was no longerit should actually
in the belong
new blue-
17–31). The other
(quadrangular and was original
flat-roofed Type V (Figs. 15–16).Figs.
residence-cum-temple). Figs.15–38:
5.17–5.25:
Type VThese
was to Momentum III 25:
because
are print. Figs. 12, 13, Theseitlesser
is Type V(D) shrine.
studied In theoriginally
caves were 6th century, Type edi-
Buddhist VI was
likethe earliest
a torrent withcommenced sancta
two tributaries. Onesanctorum
was Type II,ini.e.the theDecan in the
residential late (Figs.
caves 5th c. the standard.Illustration sources.—Author: Figs. 3, 14, 25. Burgess 1880: Figs. 1,
ce. Under thesomeconversion plan from Type II to Type fices converted later into Hindu temples. Fig. 38: The shrine has been ascribed
10–13; 17–31) of whom were converted into TypeV, Vthe shrine
(Figs. chamber
17–31). The other was 2, 4, 38, 8, 17, 22, 21, 20, 23, 19, 24, 26, 27, 32, 37. Burgess 1883a, ASWI, IV: Figs.
initially concieved with a stupa and ambulatory. After the Cave 11 (Fig. 19) stupa to5,6th
18,c.33,
ce , whereas it should actually belong to Momentum III because it is Type
28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36. Burgess 1883b, ASWI, V: Fig. 12. Marshall 1927:
was original Type V (Figs. 15–16). Figs. 17–25: These are the earliest commenced
was excavated without a central block, it was realised that a central block was V(D)
Figs.shrine.
15, 16.InNagaraju
the 6th century, Type
1981: Fig. 13.VISoundararajan
was the standard. 2006: Fig. 7. Spink 2009: Fig.
sancta for
needed sanctorum
convenientlyin thecarving
Decan thein the late 5th
stupa. Thec.workce . Under the inconversion
resulted the creation planof
32. Jadav 1987: Illustration sources.—Author:
Fig. 29. Jadav 2009: Figs. 11,Figs. 3, 14, 25.1952:
9. Yazdani Burgess
Figs.1880: Figs. 1,
10, 17.
from
the Type II to Type
quadrangular V, the shrine
ambulatories chamber
instead was initially
of apsidal ones.concieved with a stupa
Figs. 5.26–5.31: During 2, 4, 38, 8, 17, 22, 21, 20, 23, 19, 24, 26, 27, 32, 37. Burgess 1883a, ASWI, IV: Figs. 5, 18,
and ambulatory.
Momentum After
III, they the Cave
realised that11the
(Fig.Buddha
19) stupa waswas
figure excavated without
better than the astupa.
centralSo,
33, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36. Burgess 1883b, ASWI, V: Fig. 12. Marshall 1927: Figs. 15, 16.
block, it was realised that a central block was needed for conveniently carving
Nagaraju 1981: Fig. 13. Soundararajan 2006: Fig. 7. Spink 2009: Fig. 32. Jadav 1987:
the stupa. The work resulted in the creation of the quadrangular ambulatories
Fig. 29. Jadav 2009: Figs. 11, 9. Yazdani 1952: Figs. 10, 17.
instead of apsidal ones. Figs. 26–31: During Momentum III, they realised that the
226 History Today, No.19, 2018

Lord Ganapati.xvii The presence of the stupa is inferred
from the typical Buddhist motif of the elephants pouring
water, carved on either side of the shrine doorway, and
the Buddhist rail pattern elsewhere in the cave. What
is noteworthy here is that we are able to see a crucial
advancement on the model devised first by Indagnidatta
in Nasik Cave 17. We may notice the fact that the stupa
that was placed on the rear walls in Nasik caves 3 and
10, has now moved inside a separate chamber. The
Buddha symbolically residing in the stupa is no longer
shy of sharing the same roof with other monastics. The
separate abode for the Buddha as was the case in the
apsidal-and-vault-roofed cetiyagharas (Type I, Fig. 1) is
no longer the necessary typology. In such edifices, the
Buddha is present on the earth with other monastics.
The temple is no longer the heavenly abode. These
monuments and experiments are testimonies of the
birth of a new ideal, a set of new beliefs reflected in the
architectonics of the changing age.
Junnar Shivaneri 42xviii (Fig. 4.5): The edifice
witnessed experiments on similar lines. It was primarily
a len±a (Type II = dormitory) having a square hall with
monastic cells on the left and rear walls, but none on
the right! The oddity was because there was already
excavated the adjoining cetiyaghara (No. 43) of which it
was an adjunct. Because of the pre-existing cetiyaghara
no cells could be excavated on the right wall. On a later
date, when the planners observed the experiments in
Junnar Ganesh Paha¯d± 7 (Fig. 4.4), they carved a shrine in
it. Whereas a chamber for the shrine was impossible due
to the two rear cells. Therefore, the relief stupa as carved
between the two cells on the rear wall. These were the
times when the sanctum sanctorum in such edifices,
as seen in the formerly discussed caves from Nasik
and Junnar Ganesh Pahad, had the deity as relief stupa
with or without a chamber. The functional definition of
the sanctum sanctorum is the place of the deity in the
innermost spaces of temples. There is no precondition
that such a space has to be a chamber. To this end
these were the earliest sancta sanctorum in the history
of rock-cut architecture. As to why Cave 42 in Junnar
Shivaneri does not have a chamber for the sanctum
sanctorum there are some very interesting and revealing
factors. The first problem was the great thickness of the
intermediary wall between the two rear cells. However,
the second problem was insurmountable. If the wall
was somehow removed, the resultant chamber would
have been excessively wide and rectangular, almost as
wide as the hall itself! That would hardly have been an
ideal ghara (home) for the cetiya. So, they opted for the
standard solution and format. They carved the stupa in
bas-relief, which is inset, in the centre of the rear wall.
This is exactly what was seen in Nasik 3 (Fig. 4.2).
Theologically, the relief stupa was never a problem. A
representation of the stupa, whether in relief or round,
whether painted or sculpted, was equally fit for worship.
None of the caves analysed so far has ambulatory.
The fact reveals that circumambulation of the stupa at
the time were not the concern. Even in Indagnidatta
Nasik Cave 17 (Fig. 4.1) there was the feasibility to
excavate the ambulatory had circumambulation been
a necessary ritual. In that case, a three-dimensional
stupa would have been required rather than the relief
alternative. Although the excavation of the shrine
chamber remained incomplete the fact that the rocks
from the upper areas have been cut away indicates that
the planned cetiya was a relief one rather than three
dimensional. Ambulatories were to be found only in
the cetiyagharas of Type I (Fig. 2) or in free standing
stupas, such as those at Amaravati, Bharhut, and Sanchi.
The norms were quite flexible in these early len±a-
cetiyagharas, which also indicates that the rituals were
flexible too. The aspect assumes significance because
there came a time in the future (Momentum II) when the
ambulatories were deliberately discarded from certain
cave temples of Ajanta, Ghaμo¯tkacha, and Bano¯μı (Figs.
6-7).
Naina¯val±ı caitya (Fig. 4.6): The edifice was first
studied by Dhavalikar.16 The neglected cave is very
important to understand how the typological adaptations
had begun, what functional necessities were there, what
problems were encountered, and what solutions were
arrived at. Originally, the edifice was a modest size
cetiyaghara with an oblong hall. In a later period the
cave underwent significant adaptation. It was enlarged
on the left side, benches carved, and many cells added.
The unique thing done at the time was the addition of

xvii. Burgess did not notice any trace of the stupa, ‘this fine cave has been appropriated by some low Brāhmans in which to enshrine an image of the pot-bellied, elephant-snouted
Ganapati… It has seven cells on each side, and five at the back—the central one altered to make a shrine for the rat-riding god, whose large image is cut out of the rock,
probably from a dāgoba in relievo that may originally have occupied this cell’ (Burgess 1880, 256). The enshrined Gaṇapati is one of the Aṣṭavināyakas considered extremely
holy by the Maharashtrian Hindus today. The adaptation appears to have been carried out in the eighth century ce. In that century when Buddhism was wiped out from
Maharashtra there appears to have come a wave of such adaptations or conversions of many Buddhist monuments into Hindu ones. The Leṇyādri Gaṇapati could not have
been later, because the shrine is mentioned in the Purāṇas, which were likely codified after the 8th century CE.
xviii. ASI Cave No. 42 = Burgess Cave No. 50.
 MOMENTUM
Rock-Cut II.—W.
Architecture INDIA. EVOLUTION
of Western India 1 OF TYPES 'V(A)' AND 'V(B)' SANCTA SANCTORUM. Ca. 460–ca. 470 ce. 227

Sancta sanctorum without antechamber (commenced somewhat earlier)

A CB A
SF
CB A
A S
S

C
P
B B
1. Bagh 4. After Marshall, et al. 1927, IX. 2. Dharashiva 2. After Burgess 1880, XCIII. 3. Mahad 1. After Burgess 1883, ASWI IV, IX. 4. Ajanta 11. After Burgess 1880, XXVIII.
Full ambulatory

Sancta sanctorum with antechamber (commenced somewhat later)

A SF SF A SF
A Pillar A
S B Moonstone CB
CB B
B

5. Bagh 2. After Marshall, et al. 1927, I. 6. Ajanta 16. After Burgess 1880, XXX. 7. Ajanta 6, lower. After Burgess 1880, XXXII; 8. Ajanta 17. After Burgess 1880, XXX.
1883 ASWI IV, XXVI.

A
A CB A CB CB A. Ambulatory
Partially excavated

B
B B. Buddha
ambulatory

C. Cell

R.K. Singh
CB. Central block
D. Doorway
P. Pārśvanāth
9. Ajanta 4. After Burgess 1880, XLVI. 10. Ajanta 1. After Burgess 1880, XL. 11. Banoti, Phase I, late-460s. Conjectural plan S. Stupa
by R. K. Singh. SF. Stupa's rear is flattened

Fig.
The6.plate
The plate
showsshows the evolution
the evolution of theofsanctum
the sanctumsanctorum sanctorum(hereafter(hereafter
'shrine')‘shrine’)
rearduring Momentum
cells 'c' having equal II (ca.
gaps460–ca.
among470 themce)were through
already Bāgh, Dhārāshiva,
excavated beforeMahāḍ,
the
Ajanta, and Banōṭī. There were at least five stages: (1) stupa-shrine with ambulatory, but, without antechamber; (2) stupa-shrine with ambulatory, and, ante-
during Momentum II (ca. 460–ca. 470 ce) through Bāgh, Dhārāshiva, Mahāḍ, frenzy of converting
chamber; (3) ‘central block’ for stupa; (4) stupa supplanted by Buddha figure; (5) central block and ambulatory supplanted by Bodhisattva, gandharva, and donor
Type II into Type V gripped Ajanta. (2) After Bāgh Cave 2, a
Ajanta, The
figures. and above
Banōṭī.are Therethewere
earliestat least
shrinesfivetostages:
have been(1) stupa-shrine
commenced with
after Rup-tureshrine
ambu- I in W.antechamber
India (ca. 300–ca.was planned
460 ce).for retrofitment,
Except Bāgh and which
Banōṭī, wasthe partly
above excavated
caves had
latory,asbut,
begun Type without antechamber;
II (dormitories), but were(2) stupa-shrine
converted midway with ambulatory,
into Type and, ante- with two antechamber
V (res-idence-cum-temple). Bāgh caves pillars.
4 and(3)2 But,
werethe thework
first on the antechamber
projects that broughtwas Typeabort-
V from
chamber;
the margins(3)of'central
Momentum block' Ifor stupa;
(ca. (4) stupa300
250 bce–ca. supplanted by Buddha figure;
ce) and established as the(5) ed for unknown
most preferred varietyreason. (4) Focustemples
of the rock-cut now to for carve out theregions,
all times, stupa and andambulatory.
religions. The
Bāgh blueprints
central block and had not only the
ambulatory shrines by
supplanted butBodhisattva,
also the stupas and ambulatories
gandharva, and donor to which From the theavailable
initial planners
matrix ofofrock the above
a 'central Ajanta
block' caves
wasweresomehow quite shaped
oblivious upduring
for
the sameThe
figures. Momentum
above areII.the earliest shrines to have been commenced after Rup- the stupa, which automatically created the so-called ambulatory. The adjacent
Figs.
ture6.1–6.4:
I in W. IndiaThese (ca.sancta
300–ca. sanctorum
460 ce). Exceptwere commenced
Bāgh and Banōṭī, earlier thebecause
above caves there is nocells antechamber.
posed limitations.Figs. 6.5–6.11:
So, they Commenced
worked on thesomewhat later because
walls in between to create theythe have
antechambers (in Cave 16, antechamber excavation was aborted). Figs. 6.1-6.5: Remarkably, the first rock-cut temples initiated after a gap of nearly one and a half
had begun as Type II (dormitories), but were converted midway into Type V (res- pillars inside the shrine.
century of Rupture I (ca. 300–ca. 460 ce) was not planned as the standard Type I (apsidal-and-vault-roofed) of Momentum I. The Bāgh planners radically chose Type
Soon came Rupture II. (5) In Momentum III, the idea of
Vidence-cum-temple).
(residence-cum-temple) Bāghvariety,
caves partly
4 and because
2 were the of thefirstporous
projects rock thatbutbrought the stupa
mostly because TypewasV was dead.
much Instead, a colossal Buddha
more economical and practical. figure One was building
created.was Workenough
on
Type
for twoV from the margins
functions: worship of and
Momentumlodging.I (ca.Fig.250
6.2:bce –ca. 300aceJaina
Although ) and temple,
established the so-called
Dhārāshiva ambulatory
Cave 2 followed neverVresumed.
the Type variety ofIt the hadBuddhists.
become anThe eyesore
central long ago,was
block
as the most
reserved preferred
for the figure of variety of the rock-cut
God Pārśvanāth templesbut
Śeṣaphanī, for all
then times,
the workregions, wasand halted for
dueitto consumed
Rupture IImuch space that
(ca. 470–ca. 472was needed
ce), and the (later) for theonly
image could newbeideascarved of the
at the
end of Momentum
religions. The BāghIIIblueprints
(ca. late 460s–ca.
had not only 480 the Fig. 6.3:but
ce).shrines Thealsoolder
thedormitory,
stupas andMahāḍ 1 (Type II.B.iii.b)
Bodhisattva, gandharva,was retrofitted
and donorwith a stupa-shrine
figures. Thus, the rear during sideMomentum
of the central II. Like
Dhārāshiva
ambulatories 2 (Fig. 2), thethe
to which ambulatory
initial plannerswas mostly excavated
of the above Ajantawhile
caves reserving
were quite the central
block block for not
'sf' did the require
stupa. Then, the work
an apsidal shape. was similarly
Hence, therehalted
remaineddue to theRupture II, and
'corridors.'
the image during
oblivious could only be carved
the same at the end
Momentum II. of Momentum III. Fig. 6.4: The erstwhileThese cell ‘c’stages,
was re-worked
more or less, to retrofit a stupaseen
are a pattern shrine. The ambulatory
in other shrines too.‘a’ and stupa ‘s’
were being ex-cavated when came the Rupture II. However, during Momentum III, the planners had changed the mind; they neither completed the stupa nor the
Figs. 1–4: These sancta sanctorum were commenced earlier Figs. 7–9: During certain years of Momentum II, the moonstone
ambulatory. Instead, a Buddha image ‘b’ was carved on the front of the stupa. The central block had not been concieved so far. Fig. 6.5: The shrine-antechamber,
because
first seen in there
Nasik is Cave
no antechamber.
17 (Burgess No. Figs. 5–11:
2) of Commenced
Momentum I was somewhat
re-introduced. later From before herethe onshrine
it became antechamber
a standard hadcomponent
made a temporary of the Indian temple Figs.
appearance. 7–8:
architecture.
becausethe
Whereas theysamehavecouldantechambers
not have been (in Cave 16, antechamber
retrofitted in the shrines excavation
already excavatedwas The
(Figs.central
1–4) itblocks 'cb' meantinfor
was retrofitted the stupas
those were already
that commenced a bitexcavated
later (Figs. when
7–10).theFig.
aborted).
6.6: The shrineFigs.of1,Ajanta
5: Remarkably,
Cave 16 had thefive
firstdistinct
rock-cut temples
stages: (1) Theinitiated
doorways after ofa the idea
five torearreplace thehaving
cells ‘c’ stupa equal
with the Buddha
gaps among figure
them 'b'were
descendedalready theexcavated
site. Nothing before
the
gapfrenzy
of nearlyof converting
one and aType II into Type
half century V gripped
of Rupture I (ca.Ajanta.
300–ca. (2) 460
AfterceBāgh
) wasCave not 2, acould
shrine beantechamber
done about the was planned for but
ambulatories retrofitment,
the Buddhawhich figures waswere
partly excavated
somehow
with two antechamber
planned as the standard pillars.
Type(3) But, the work on the antechamber
I (apsidal-and-vault-roofed) of Momentum was I.abort-ed
The for unknown reason.
accommodated within(4)theFocus nowblocks.
central to carve Fig.out the stupa
7: The evidence andofambulatory.
the erstwhile From
the
Bāghavailable
planners matrix of rock
radically a ‘central
chose Type block’ was somehow shaped
V (residence-cum-temple) up forpartly
variety, the stupa,stupawhichisautomatically
the unique inverted createdlotus the so-called
above theambulatory.
Buddha's head The (see
adjacent
inset),cells posed
which
limitations. So, they worked on the walls in between to create the pillars inside the shrine. Soon came Rupture II. (5) In Momentum III, the idea of the stupa was dead.
because of the porous rock but mostly because Type V was much more eco- originally was the umbrella of the stupa. Another evidence is the enigmatic 'loft'
Instead, a colossal Buddha figure was created. Work on the so-called ambulatory never resumed. It had become an eyesore long ago, for it consumed much space
nomical
that and practical.
was needed (later)One for building
the newwas ideas enough
of thefor two functions:
Bodhisattva, worshipand
gandharva, and donorover the rear
figures. wall,the
Thus, which
rearresulted
side of duethe to the deeper
central blockcut ‘sf’for
didreaching
not require downantoapsidal
the
lodging.
shape. Fig. 2:
Hence, Although
there remained a Jainathetemple, Dhārāshiva
‘corridors.’ These stages,Cave 2more followed theare
or less, Type planned
a pattern seendepth
in other of the chamber
shrines too. at a time when they were working downwards
V variety
Figs. 6.7–6.9:of the Buddhists.
During certainThe central
years block was reserved
of Momentum for the figure
II, the moonstone of God
before fromantechamber
the shrine the top to excavate had made the stupa and ambulatory.
a temporary appearance. Figs.Figs.
9–11:6.7–6.8:
What appears to
The central
blocks ‘cb’ meant
Pārśvanāth for thebut
Śeṣaphanī, stupas
then werethe workalready
was excavated
halted duewhen the idea
to Rupture II (ca.to470–
replace the
be the stupa
'halfwith the Buddha
ambulatories' arefigure
actually‘b’ the
descended
aborted the extentsite.ofNothing could beatdone
the excavations a
about
ca. 472thece),ambulatories
and the image butcould
the Buddha
only be figures
carved were
at thesomehow
end of Momentumaccommodated III (ca. within
timethe when central
they blocks. Fig. 6.7: the
were revealing Thecentral
evidence block.of the
Theerstwhile
work wasstupa is the unique
simultaneously
inverted lotus above
late 460s–ca. 480 cethe Buddha’s
). Fig. 3: The headolder (see inset), Mahāḍ
dormitory, which originally was thewas
1 (Type II.B.iii.b) umbrella of the stupa.
progressing Another
on the stupa evidence
blocks when is the enigmatic
suddenly the‘loft’
idea over
camethe thatrear
thewall,
Buddha which
resulted due to the deeper cut for reaching down to the planned depth of the chamber at a time when they were working downwards from the top to excavate
retrofitted with a stupa-shrine during Momentum II. Like Dhārāshiva 2 (Fig. 2), figure was better than
the stupa and ambulatory. Figs. 6.9–6.11: What appears to be the ‘half ambulatories’ are actually the aborted extent of the excavations at a time when they were
the stupa. The cut is shallow in Fig. 9 and deeper in Figs.
the ambulatory
revealing the centralwas block.
mostlyThe excavated
work was while reserving theprogressing
simultaneously central block onfor thethestupa 10 & 11. when
blocks They had, subsequently,
suddenly the idea cameto levelthatup the
the Buddha
horizontal and was
figure vertical
bettersurfaces
than the
stupa.The
stupa. Then, cutthe work wasinsimilarly
is shallow Fig. 9 and halted
deeper dueintoFigs.
Rupture 10 &II,11.andThey
the image could of the
had, subsequently, half-cut
to level up theambulatories
horizontal to and cleverly
verticalhide the aborted
surfaces plans. Fig.
of the half-cut 11: Banōṭī to
ambulatories
only behide
cleverly carved theataborted
the endplans.
of Momentum Fig. 4:cave,
Fig. 6.11:III.Banōṭī The erstwhile
Phase I, ca. celllate
'c' was
460s—the cave, Phaseplan
re- conjectural I, ca.islate 460s—the conjectural
unmistakably close to Ajanta plan isCave unmistakably
7, for the hall closeistoabsent
Ajantaand
the pillared
worked shrine aantechamber
to retrofit stupa shrine.isThe present. But the
ambulatory 'a' absence
and stupaof's'the were central
beingblock,ex- stupa,
Caveor7, image
for the connects
hall is absent the interior
and the to the shrine
pillared shrineofantechamber
Ajanta Cave 8. is Was a portable
present. But
Buddha
cavatedimagewhen likewise
came theinstalled
Ruptureupon the platform
II. However, during abutting
Momentum theIII,rear
thewall?
planners Phase II,thelate 6th c. ce:
absence based
of the on the
central Typestupa,
block, VI caves of Aurangabad,
or image connects there was retrofitted
the interior to the
ahad
quadrangular
changed the ambulatory
mind; theyoutside,
neitherand surrounding,
completed the stupa the inner
nor the chamber.
ambulatory.Residentialshrinecellsofwere
Ajanta alsoCave
being excavated.
8. Was a portablePhase III, 8thimage
Buddha c. ce?:likewise
perhapsinstalled
an attempt uponwas
made to convert the cave to a Śaivite temple indicated by a Naṭarāja image on the right porch pilaster. Was the Buddha image, if it was there inside the shrine,
Instead, a Buddha image 'b' was carved on the front of the stupa. The central the platform abutting the rear wall? Phase II, late 6th c. ce: based on the Type VI
removed for a Śivalinga, as in Ellora caves 15, 19B, and 27?
block had not been concieved so far. Fig. 5: The shrine-antechamber, first seen caves of Aurangabad, there was retrofitted a quadrangular ambulatory outside,
in Nasik Cave 17 (Burgess No. 2) of Momentum I was re-introduced. From here and surrounding, the inner chamber. Residential cells were also being excavat-
on it became a standard component of the Indian temple architecture. Whereas ed. Phase III, 8th c. ce?: perhaps an attempt was made to convert the cave to
the same could not have been retrofitted in the shrines already excavated (Figs. a Śaivite temple indicated by a Naṭarāja image on the right porch pilaster. Was
1–4) it was retrofitted in those that commenced a bit later (Figs. 7–10). Fig. 6: the Buddha image, if it was there inside the shrine, removed for a Śivalinga, as in
The shrine of Ajanta Cave 16 had five distinct stages: (1) The doorways of the five Ellora caves 15, 19B, and 27?
228 History Today, No.19, 2018
another stupa. The second stupa was located in the left,
expanded, side of the hall. It was a part monolithic and
part masonry stupa. The base of the stupa was monolithic
whose traces have survived while the upper portions
were masonry that have been perished. The rational of
adding the second stupa is not clear.
Kara¯d± Cave 7 (Fig. 4.9): In this edifice, the
cetiyaghara seems to have been an afterthought. There
are clear signs that the rear bench was cut in a later
period. Originally it ran along the lateral and rear walls.
The cutting was done to create the door of the shrine
chamber. After the door was cut, the quadrangular
shrine chamber (cetiyaghara) was excavated.
Maha¯d± 8 (Fig. 4.10): This monument is quite
special. Its specialty has not been sufficiently explained
in the published scholarship. After Indagnidatta’s Nasik
Cave 17 (Fig. 4.1) everything was planned here from
the very beginning. No adaptions or later additions are
seen. It is an original piece of unmatched creativity. It
deserves a special place in the history of Buddhist rock-
cut architecture because it was alen±a cetiyaghara from
the start. Specialities are also seen in the architectonics,
layout, and in the finely balanced and symmetrically
composed elements. Nothing is inconsistent here. The
hall is a perfect square with three cells on the left, three
on the right, and two in the rear. The separate stupa
chamber is the largest, which too is square. The stupa
was three-dimensional and situated in the centre. The
chatra (umbrella) of the stupa is preserved in the ceiling
while the stupa itself has perished in the course of time.
There are benches running along the walls making it
a mixture of three types: cetiyaghara (Type I) + len±a
(Type II) + maμapa (Type III). Because the excavations
proceeded from the top to bottom the chhatra could not
have been an afterthought. Thus, we find that this early
len±a cetiyaghara was finely conceived and executed
from the start to the finish.
Space does not permit us to analyse every monument
in Pl. 4. A word may be said about Kud±a¯ 29 (Fig. 4.15)
and Kud±a¯ 24xix (Fig. 4.16). The workmanship is as fine as
Maha¯d± Cave 8. According to the donative inscriptions
the edifices were donated by two brothers. Epigraphic
analysis would show that the caves were planned
together and executed within a decade or so.
Khed± 3 (Fig. 4.17): This edifice has suffered neglect
xix. ASI No. 24 = Burgess and Nagaraju No. 6.
in scholarship. Dhavalikar published the plan for the
first time.17 It can be identified as a maμapa (Type III.B.i)
because there were apparently no cells originally. The
three asymmetrically placed cells seem to be later
additions. The well finished maμapa has a front court,
porch, and oblong hall with the bench running along
the walls. However, the way the cells are positioned,
two on the front right, and one on the rear left, shows
an odd asymmetry. Moreover, the stupa is not on the
axis of the hall. The mismatch between the fine hall and
the asymmetrically positioned cells and the cetiyaghara
(stupa chamber) indicates that the cave perhaps had two
phases. In Phase I, it must have been a nicely completed
maμapa. In a later century, when the development of
the lena-cetiyagharas started, the monastics decided
to convert it to a maμapa-cetiyaghara, as the case was
with Nasik 3, Junnar Ganesh Paha¯d± 7, Naina¯va|∆ı caitya,
Maha¯d± 8, and Kud±a¯ 25 (Fig. 4). Since Nagaraju created
a separate category for the maμapa (Type III, Fig. 2)
as distinct from the len±a (Type II), there is a case of a
new category maμapa-cum-cetiyaghara. However,
since we do not find many such examples in the future
developments, it is better to leave it under the same
category of len±a cetiyaghara. When the ‘conversion’
of Khed± 3 was happening in Phase II, obviously, the
initiative wasn’t very well-planned. The stupa is not in
the centre. The task of adding monastic cells remained
incomplete for reasons we do not know. We might
expect, however, that if the work was completed we
would have found three cells on the left and three on
the right walls.
Na¯ga¯rjunako¯n±d±a¯ (Figs. 4.18-4.19): These are
not cave temples. They are examples of the structural
architecture. They were built, constructed, or erected,
but not excavated. The monasteries are datable from
the second to early 4th century CE. Our examples show
quadrangular halls with neatly arranged cells on the
left, right, and rear walls. Because these were structural
edifices, the roof needed support of pillars. Thus, these
are multi-pillared halls, even though the monolithic
counterparts from the same age in Maharashtra show
only astylar halls with the exception of Ko¯n±d±a¯n±e™ Cave 2,
2nd century BCE.18 Remarkably, in the porch area of the
Na¯ga¯rjunako¯n±d±a¯ edifices we find a stupa shrine and an
image shrine, each situated within independent apsidal
structures. On one side of the porch we find the stupa.
On the other side is the Buddha image. In the Deccan,
not a single Buddha figure was carved until Momentum
Rock-Cut Architecture of Western India 1 MOMENTUM III.—W. INDIA. 229
Evolution of Type 'V(C)' sanctum sanctorum. Late 460s—early 470s ce.

A B

A
B

1. Ajanta 2 with Yaksa temples. After Burgess 1880, plate XLIV. 2. Ajanta 6 upper. After Burgess 1880, XXXII. 3. Ghatotkacha cave near Janjālā. The 'stupa-vihāra' with nāga
& Yakṣa shrines. After Burgess 1880, plate LII.

4. Ajanta 7. After Burgess 1883, ASWI IV, XXVIII. 5. Ajanta 8. After Jadhav 1987. 6. Ajanta 15. After Burgess 1883, ASWI IV, XXVIII.

7. Ajanta 19. After Gill, ca. 1850 (shelfmark WD1092, courtesy of 8. Ajanta 20. After Burgess 1883, ASWI IV, XXVIII. 9. Ajanta 26 with four wings. After Yazdani 1952, 16.
British Library, London).

Evolution of Type 'V(D)' sanctum sanctorum. Late 470s ce.

R.K. Singh
10. Ajanta 21. After Burgess 1883, ASWI IV, 11. Ajanta 22. After Spink 2009, Fig. 27. 12. Ajanta 23. From Burgess 1883, ASWI IV, 13. Ajanta 24. After Burgess 1883, ASWI IV,
XXXIV. XXXIV. XXXIV.

thefeasible.
entire rearThewall.
reliefFor the new
setting, in thinking, therethe
fact, needed wasentire
absolutely no need
rear wall. For of
thethenew
'central block'
thinking, or corridors.
there was absolutelyThe retrofitment
no need ofofthe such an iconographic
‘central plan wasThe
block’ or corridors.
luckily allowed by
retrofitment the delayed
of such excavationplan
an iconographic of these
was shrines, for the earlier
luckily allowed by theplans
delayed
to excavation
carve out the of central block forfor
these shrines, thethestupa, ambulatory,
earlier or the out
plans to carve Buddha had bare-
the central block
ly for the stupa,
commenced by ambulatory,
then. or the Buddha had barely commenced by then.
Type V(D) are Typethe latest
V(D) are sancta
the latestsanctorum that developed
sancta sanctorum during Momentum
that developed during
14. Aurangabad 3. After Burgess 1880, LXVI. 15. Nasik 20/Burgess No. 15. Hall, ca. 170 CE III-B. They exhibit no trace of the stupa, central block, or ambulatory plans.
onwards; shrine ca. 473–ca. 480 ce . From Momentum III-B. They exhibit no trace of the stupa, central block, or ambulatory
Because of the delayed commencement of the shrine it was possible to plan
Burgess 1880, XXVI. plans. Because
the First Sermon of thescene
delayed commencement
without much ado. The of thecircled
shrineareas
it wasare
possible to
the Buddha
Fig. 7: The plate shows two distinct stages of the evolution of the sancta plan the First
shrines, Sermon
except scene
those in without muchi.e.
Fig. 7.1(A), ado.the shrine for Yakṣas Maṇibhadra
The plate shows two distinct stages of the evolution of the sancta sanctorum
sanctorum during Momentum III (ca. late 460s–ca. 480 ce). There evolved Type and Purṇabhadra,The circled andareas are thei.e.Buddha
Fig. 7.1(B), shrines,
the shrine except Hārītī
for Yakṣiṇī in Fig.
those and Yakṣa
during
V(C) Momentum
in the first stageIIIand
(ca.Type
late 460s–ca. 480
V(D) in the ce). There evolved Type V(C) in the
second stage. The former happened 1(A), i.e. the
Kubera (orshrine
Jambhālā for Yakṣas Maṇibhadra
or Pāñcika?). and Purṇabhadra,
Fig. 7.3(A&B): and Fig.came
The shrine-lets 1(B),toi.e.light
first stage
between andlate
circa Type
460sV(D)
andin early
the second
470s cestage. Thelatter
and the former happened
during between
circa late 470s. thea shrine
few years ago. ‘A’.Hārītī
for Yakṣiṇī Perhaps and Hārītī
Yakṣaand Kubera.
Kubera ‘B’. ‘Nāgendra’,
(or Jambhālā also found
or Pāñcika?). Fig. on
circa late
Neither had460s
anyand early block
central 470s ceorand the latter
corridors. during
Type V(C)circa
had late 470s. evolved
actually Neither the passage
3(A&B): to Ajanta came
The shrine-lets Cave to16light
donated
a fewbyyears
the ago.
same'A'.donor Hārītī andFig.
Varāhadeva.
Perhaps
had anybefore,
slightly centralbut
blockmostly
or corridors.
after Rupture II (ca. 470–472 ce). The sculptors 7.5: Perhaps, a portable Buddha figure was installed. Fig. 7.12: The cave was
wanted the maximum
Kubera. 'B'. 'Nāgendra', also found on the passage to Ajanta Cave 16 donated
Type V(C) space to sculpt
had actually the First
evolved Sermon
slightly scene.
before, The setting
but mostly after abandoned before the shrine Buddha could be excavated. Fig. 7.15: The leṇa
included by(dormitory)
the same donor Fig. 5: Perhaps,
Varāhadeva.I underwent manya phases,
portablebut Buddha figure was
Rupture IIthe
(ca.Buddha,
470–472 ce Bodhisattvas,
). The sculptorsgand-harvas, deer, Dharmacakra,
wanted the maximum and
space to sculpt of Momentum the Buddha shrine
donor portraits (instead of the five ascetics). It was planned in relief because
the First Sermon scene. The setting included the Buddha, Bodhisattvas, gand- should Fig.
installed. belong 12: to
TheMomentum
cave was abandoned
III based on before
Typethe shrine
V(D) thatBuddha could beonly
was prevalent
three dimensional sculptures were neither desirable for worship nor spatially excavated.
during this Fig. 15: The
period of leṇa (dormitory)
the rock-cut of Momentum I underwent many phas-
architecture.
harvas, deer, Dharmacakra, and donor portraits (instead of the five ascetics).
es, but the Buddha shrine should belong to Momentum III based on Type V(D)
It was planned in relief because three dimensional sculptures were neither
that was prevalent only during this period of the rock-cut architecture.
desirable for worship nor spatially feasible. The relief setting, in fact, needed
230 History Today, No.19, 2018

II, which was centred at Ajanta. The presence of the
stupa and the Buddha image within the same complex
at such an early date indicates that it was site inhabited
by the monks of a different school of Buddhism. The
Na¯ga¯rjunako¯n±d±a¯ monasteries might in some way be
related to the similar monasteries of Ga¯ndha¯ra. These
complex architectural settings grew over many centuries.
Therefore, the dating of each layer or level is still a work
in progress. In this paper, we are not going to analyse
either Na¯ga¯rjunako¯n±d±a¯ or Ga¯ndha¯ra, as our focus is the
caves in Maharashtra. The aims was only to highlight
that such structural counterparts in Na¯ga¯rjunako¯n±d±a¯ or
Ga¯ndha¯ra might also be classified under the same Type
V, while allowing a scope for future revision, as the term
len±a cetiyaghara is specific to the context of rock-cut
architecture only.
In the second paper of the series the present
author has explained the developments of Momentum
II focussing on how further typological advancements
flourished to new heights and new directions from
Ajanta and related sites.19 In the third paper of the series,
a time chart has been proposed for the first time wherein
eight momenta and four ruptures have been identified in
the history of the Western Indian rock-cut architecture.
Acknowledgements
The author’s Ajanta research project has received
generous funding from Dharohar Foundation of Secure
Meters Ltd., Udaipur under SML’s Corporate Social
Responsibility policy. The author is highly grateful to
Dharohar and the magnanimous Trustees for the kind
support. The author is thankful to the Office of the
Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New
Delhi and the Office of the Superintending Archaeologist,
Aurangabad Circle for certain special permissions for
field research and photographic documentation.

Further Reading

Brancaccio, Pia, The Buddhist Caves at Aurangabad: Transformations in Art and Religion, Brill, Leiden and Boston, 2011.

Burgess, James, Report on the Elura Cave Temples and the Brahmanical and Jaina Caves in Western India: Archaeological Survey of Western India, Vol.
V, Trubner & Co., London, 1883b.

Burgess, James and Bhagwanlal Indraji Pandit, Inscriptions from the Cave-temples of Western India with Descriptive Notes & c., Government Central
Press, Bombay, 1881.

Deshpande, M. N., The Rock-Cut Caves of Pitalkhora in the Deccan, Ancient India, Vol. XV, 1959, pp. 66-93.

Gill, Robert, Original Drawings from the Buddhist Temples of Ajanta, British Library, London, 1850.

Jadhav, Suresh Vasant, Ajanta Cave VIII: A Study, in M.S. Nagaraja Rao (ed.), Kusumanjali: New Interpretation of Indian Art & Culture, Vol. II, Agam Kala
Prakashan, Delhi, 1987, pp. 249–254.

Mirashi, V. V., Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum: Inscriptions of the Vākāṭakas, Vol. V, Ootacamund: Government Epigraphist for India, 1963.

Senart, E., No. 8 - The Inscriptions in the Caves at Nasik, Epigraphia Indica, Vol. VIII, 1905-1906, pp. 59-96.

Soundararajan, K. V., Cave Temples of the Deccan, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi, 1981.

Spink, Walter M., Ajanta: History and Development: Painting, Sculpture, Architecture Year by Year, Brill, Leiden and Boston, 2009.

Vignato, Giuseppe, Archaeological Survey of Kizil: It’s Groups of Caves, Districts, Chronology and Buddhist Schools, East and West, Vol. LVI (4), 2006,
pp. 359-416.

Weiner, Sheila L., Ajanta: Its Place in Buddhist Art, Uniersity of California Press, Berkeley, 1977.

Yazdani, Gulam, Ajanta: Monochrome Reproductions of the Ajanta Frescoes Based on Photography with an Explanatory Text by G. Yazdani and
Appendices on the Painted and Incised Inscriptions by N.P. Chakravarti and B. Ch. Chhabra, Vol. IV, Oxford University Press, London, 1952.
 Rock-Cut Architecture of Western India 1
References
1 Fergusson, James, James Burgess and R. Phene Spiers, History of
Indian and Eastern Architecture, John Murray, Albemarle Street,
London, 1910, pp. 54-55.
2 Nagaraju, S., Buddhist Architecture of Western India, c. 250
B.C.–c. A.D. 300, The Journal of the International Association of
Buddhist Studies, 1981, pp. 68-71.
3 Li, Chongfeng, The Sinicizing Process of Indian Cave-temples:
The Evolution of the Lēṇa, Maṭapa and Cetiyaghara, in Chongfeng
Li (ed.), Fo Jiao Kao Gu: Cong Yindu Dao Zhongguo/ Buddhist
archaeology from India to China, Shanghai Gu Ji Chu Ban She,
Shanghai, 2014, pp. 585-609.
4 Nagaraju, op.cit., p. 8, n. 21.
5 Kausalyayan, B. A., Pali-Hindi Shabdakosh, Buddhabhumi
Prakashan, Nagpur, 2015, p. 291.
6 Nagaraju, op.cit., p. 93, n. 13.
7 Fergusson, James and James Burgess, The Cave Temples of India,
W. H. Allen & Waterloo, London, 1880, p. 210; Burgess, James,
Report on the Buddhist Cave Temples and Their Inscriptions,
Archaeological Survey of Western India, Vol. IV, London,
Trubner & Co., 1883, p. 18.
8 Nagaraju, op.cit., p. 93, n. 11-12, 251- 252.
View publication stats
231
9 Dhavalikar, M. K., Late Hinayana Caves of Western India,
Deccan College Post Graduate and Research Institute, Pune,
1984, pp. 8, 43 and 46.
10 Dhavalikar, Ibid, pp. 5-8.
11 Marshall, John., Taxila: an Illustrated Account of Archaeological
Excavations Carried out at Taxila under the Orders of the
Government of India between the Years 1913 and 1934,
Cambridge University Press, London, 1951, pl. 61.
12 ibid, pl. 98.
13 ibid, pl. 103a.
14 ibid, pl. 76b.
15 Li, op.cit., p. 276.
16 Dhavalikar, op.cit., pp. 35-37.
17 Ibid, pp. 45.
18 Fergusson and Burgess, op.cit., pl. VIII.
19 Singh, Rajesh Kumar, Forthcoming-2. “Rock-cut architecture of
western India 2, Moment II, III-A, & III-B, Taxonomy of the Ajanta
and related caves, central block, and idea export to Kizal, ca.
460s–ca. 550 CE.”