The Kailāsa of Ellora and the Chronology of Rāshtrakūta Art

Author(s): H. Goetz
Source: Artibus Asiae , 1952, Vol. 15, No. 1/2 (1952), pp. 84-107
Published by: Artibus Asiae Publishers

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3248615

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Artibus Asiae Publishers is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Artibus Asiae

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 H. GOETZ, BARODA:
THE KAILASA OF ELLORA AND THE CHRONOLOGY
OF RASHTRAKUTA ART

TI IE KAILASA (Figs. I and 2) AT ELLORA (ELURA=ELAPURA) IS ONE OF THE MOST

A
famous monuments of Indian art.'

B-A | J.LsJ_******J jr !H ffln ijIt is an immense temple (ca. 200 feet

long, and ca. ioo feet broad and
high) completely carved out of the
virgin rock; however, it is not a
cave temple, but a freestanding
c i $W ? t Cl | t structure in the midst of a vast court
4" liL=3.?r^lBL(^^ r9 i f (280 feet long, 60o feet wide, o6
I\ts Wro | * * ? w feet deep at the back, where the
cliffs are highest), into the walls of

^j|? TB~ B): ::9 B P~ , (| l1 General views of the Kailasa are found
in practically every book on India or
Indian Art. In this article reference is made

only to such illustrations which show less

well-known aspects. In the books here-
* n ff ^ ll^tig flS| fafter quoted general views are found: Bur-
gess, Elu1r Cave Temples, pl. I; Burgess,
Guide to the Elurd Cave Temples, frontis-
piece, pls. 2, 3; Fergusson, History of In-
dian and Eastern Architecture, fig. 200;
?r^ _ ..... r ^^^Havell, Ideals of Indian Art, pl. 16; Study
of Intdo-Aryan Civilization, pl. 66; the
same, Himalayas in Indian Art, pl. 7;
Odette Bruhl and S. Levi, Indian Temples,

Fig. 2 Groundplan of the Kailasa fig. 85; E. Nawrath, Glories of Hindustan,

Afi ter J. Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture pl. 227.

84

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fig. I General View of the Kailisa, seen from the northern end of the Entrance Screen
Photo by courtesy Arch. Department Hyderabad

which genuine cave shrines and galleries have been pierced. The Kailasa is generally dated
into the middle of the 8th century approximately, on the evidence of references in in-
scriptions of the Rashtrakuta dynasty which attribute its erection to Krishnaraja I (A.D.
757-772)2; the caves in the court walls are regarded to be slightly later. Thus the Kailasa
is for us the most representative monument of the Rashtrakuta style and, for this reason,
a landmark in the history of Indian art.3

2 D. R. Bhandarkar, Epigraphic Notes and Queries, 8: The Kailasa Temple at Elura, (Ind. Antq. 40, p. 237
ff., I9I I ). For the regnal dates of the Rashtrakuta rulers I follow A. S. Altekar, The Rashtrakitas and
their Times, Poona 1934.-However Burgess, Elurai Cave Temples, p. 26, and Guide, p. 37, attributes the
Kailasa to Dantidurga and believes it to be earlier than the Virupaksha at Pattadakal.
3 C. B. Havell and Jas. Fergusson have seen this very well; however, V. A. Smith, History of Fine Art in
85

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
However, on a closer inspection the problem appears not so simple. The Kailasa is not a
homogenous building erected under one ruler. Its very size alone excludes the possibility
of its having been excavated and sculptured within the fifteen years of Krishnaraja's reign.

For the narrowness of the space and the technical resources 4 then available had to keep in
bounds even the ambitions of such a strong ruler.
Moreover, both the architecture and the sculpture of the Kailasa are not uniform at all. At
least ten distinct styles can be discovered, not arbitrarily spread over the whole complex,
but each belonging to some particular part of the excavation. If the Kailasa would in fact
have been the creation of one mighty ruler only, how could so many different styles exist side

by side in the same work?5 And if even part of these prove to belong to different periods,
what, then, has been the share of Krishnaraja? Unfortunately, for supplementary evidence

we can appeal to very few monuments outside the Elura group of cave temples. Most
of the Brahmanical caves at Elura and even some of the Buddhist caves may with consider-

able probability be attributed to Rashtrakuta times;6 likewise the Ghatotkacha7 Dharasimha,8

India and Ceylon (both the original edition, I9II, and the recent one by K. de B. Codrington, 1930)
mentions the Kailasa only passim; P. Brown, Indian Architecture, neither does sufficient justice to it.
4 The masses of rock were removed in big blocks broken off by boring rows of holes into which dry
wooden plugs were driven; then a channel on top was filled with water which was soaked up by the plugs;
their expansion burst the rock. But the procedure is slow and only moderately effective. The rest of the
work had to be done by hand, and its progress was determined by the number of masons and sculptors
who could work side by side.
5 Such a possibility exists at least in the first years of a new dynasty when ambitious schemes have to be
started with the help of artists summoned from various older centres. But it is shortlived, as in a common
work such styles quickly are fused
6 Jas. Burgess, Report on the Eliira Cave Temples, 1883; Burgess, Guide to the Elura Cave Temples; V.
Goloubew, Le Kailasa d'Ellora, (Annales du Musee Guimet 41); A. R., Arch. Dpt. Hyderabad I9I9-20.
A. R., A. S. West India I9I0-I I; Fergusson; History of Indian and Eastern Architecture; P. Brown, Indian
Architecture; K. de B. Codrington, Ancient Sites near Ellora, Deccan, Ind. Antiquary, 59, p. 10 ff., I930;
etc.-Fergusson, Coomaraswamy and Percy Brown date most of these monuments into the 7th century,
and likewise the big cave temple at Elephanta. But as exactly the same style can be traced in the sub-
sidiary caves of the Kailasa, they cannot be earlier than the Kailasa proper.
7 Burgess, Buddhist Cave Temples, pi. 37.
8 Jas. Burgess, Bidar and Aurangabad, 1878; A. R., Arch. Dpt. Hyderabad I914-I5.

86

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bhokardan,9 Mahurl? and Karusa11 caves, the later ones of the Aurangabad caves,l2 the famous

cave temple of Elephanta (Gharapuri) 18 and some of the minor Kanheri caves 14 near Bombay.
But it is curious that not a single freestanding temple of the Rashtrakuta dynasty is known.

Perhaps we may tentatively attribute to it the Vaishnava temple at Dichpalli,5 part of the
ruins of Bodhan, I6 perhaps sculpture fragments from Moram 17 and Patancheru,18 and bronzes

from Buddhaped, Bhattiprolu and Bezwada.19 Possibly also some of the older temples at
present attributed to the Western Chalukya dynasty of Kalyani may some day be identified
as Rashtrakuiita monuments.20 The ruins of the Rashtrakuta capital Malkhed (Manyakheta)
might teach us something, at least, of art developments since the reign of Govinda III
(A. D. 79314-814); but Malkhed has been sacked and burned at least twice in the history
of the Rashtrakutas, early in the I oth century by Vijayaditya III of the Eastern Chalukya
dynasty of Vengi, and in A. D. 972 by Slyaka Paramara. Soon after that second sack the
Rashtrak-uta Empire collapsed in A. D. 974, and today Malkhed is so utterly blotted out that

9 A.R., Arch. Dpt. Hyderabad I935-36, 1936-37. 10 A.R., Arch. Dpt. Hyderabad I916-I7.
11 Burgess, Bidar and Aurangabad.
12 Burgess, Bidar and Aurangabad; Fergusson-Burgess, Cave Temples of India; A. R., A. S. West India
1894-95; A. R., Arch. Dpt. Hyderabad I933-34; M.-Th. de Mallmann, Introduction a I'Etude d'Avaloki-
teCvara; Cousens, Architectural Antiquities of Western India, 1926.
13 Jas. Burgess, Report on the Elurd Cave Temples; Hirananda Sastri, Guide to Elephanta, Delhi 1934
(dates most of the caves too early); Sohoni, The Great Temple of Elephanta, (_7. Bombay Univ., V, pt. Io,
p. IO ff., 1936-37); Rodin, Coomaraswamy, Havell and Goloubew, Sculptures ivaites, 1924; A. R., A. S.
Western India I900-I90o, I 9 8-I 9; see also R. V. Leyden, The Buddhist Cave of Lonad, (7.1.S. O.A. XV,
p. 84 ff., I947). Many illustrations also in the books of Havell and elsewhere.
14 Burgess, Cave Temples of Western India; A. R., A. S. Western India I 9 I 0- I I; Kielhorn, Date of the
Kanheri Inscription of Amoghavarsha I, (Ind. Antq. 20, p. 421 ff., I89I ).
15 A.R., Arch. Dpt. Hyderabad I9I6-I7, I9I7-I8.
16 A. R., Arch. Dpt. Hyderabad I9I4-I 5, I92 I -24; Narasimhacharya, Bodhan Stone Inscription of the Reign
of Trailokyamalla (Hyderabad Arch. Series 7), I925.
17 A. R., Arch. Dpt. Hyderabad I933-34.
18 A. R., Arch. Dpt. Hyderabad 19 I 5-I6.
19 R. Sewell, Some Buddhist Bronzes and Relics of Buddha, Y. R. A. S. I895, p. 617 ff.).
20 The temples of the Western Chalukyas continue the style of the late temples of the Chalukyas of Ba-
dami. In case that this did not mean a conscious renaissance of the earlier Chilukya style, we have to
assume that also the Rashtrakuta style had followed the same line.

87

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
archaeologists have hitherto not thought it worth even to survey the field of ruins.21 And

yet sufficient seems to survive as to repay a careful examination.

We have no informations which would permit us to explain the disappearance of almost all
Rashtrakuta monuments. For there must have existed plenty of them, and most impressive
ones, too. But the Rashtrakutas had been a violent and, as it seems, sometimes zelotic race. And

it is well possible that the hatred which their bloody rule had generated amongst their subjects

and vassals, especially the Western Chalukyas, had led to a systematic effacement of their mo-
numents. In practice, Hindu rulers had been not so tolerant as it is often claimed. And there

is sufficient evidence to prove that in an age, when religious nonconformists were impaled by
the thousands,22 also temples of other creeds were unhesitatingly destroyed or appropriated.23

Temple destruction did not start with the Muslim invasions. Elephanta escaped because it
belonged to the, later independent, vassal kings of the Silahara house; Elura, Bhokardan,
Mahur, Aurangabad, etc. probably because at the time of retribution they were no more
centres of Rashtrakuta glory. At Elura the Jains were the principal occupants in the
loth century; and the Kailasa was such a holy place that it was embellished also by the
new rulers, the Paramaras of Dhar and probably also the Chalukyas of Kalyani who alternat-

ingly occupied the area. Whatever the reasons may have been, the paucity of Rashtrakuta
ruins, in contrast to the wealth of Western Chalukya,24 Silahara 25 and Paramara 2 temples,
is a remarkable fact.

21 Or Malkair, Mulkaid. See Epigraphia Indica XIII, p. I79 iff., 1915-6.

Ramachandran, Tiruparuttikunram and Its Temples, Madras I934; etc. Jain as well as late Buddhist records;
e. g. Taranatha, the chronicles of Nepal, the Rajatarangini, etc. often refer to bloody persecutions.
23 Jain temples transformed into Saiva shrines are rather common. An example of the transformation of
a Vishnu into a Siva temple is the Papanatha at Pattadakal. Also appropriations of Muslim tombs and
mosques are not rare at all.
24 H. Cousens, Chalukya Architecture, I926; the same, Architectural Antiquities of Western India, 1926;
Burgess, Report on Belgam and Kaladgi Districts, 1874; Rea, Chalukyan Architecture, 1896; A. R., A. S.
Western India; A. R., Arch. Dpt. Hyderabad, variis locis.
25 Cousens, Architectural Antiquities of Western India, 1926; the same, Mediaeval Temples of the Dekhan,
1931; Chalukyan Architecture, 1926; A.R., A.S. Western India 1897-98, 1905-1906; Sankalia-Naik, The
Ambarnath Temple, (Bull. Deccan College Res. I, p. I69 ff., I940).
26 Cunningham, Arch. Survey Report VII, (Gwalior Arch. Survey Reports I923-24, 1928-29, I929-30; A. R.,

88

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Thus, in analyzing the art of the Kailasa we are forced to have recourse even to more
distant styles, and we are justified in doing so. For the Rashtrakutas extended their cam-
paigns in the North as far as Kanauj, in the East to Vengi and Chedi (Jubbulpore), in the
South to the Chola kingdom near Madras, the early Chilukya empire of Badami and the
Western Ganga kingdom of Mysore. And likewise in other states, the influence of these
campaigns can be traced in art.27 It does not matter for our purpose whether those foreign

artisans were brought back as prisoners, or whether they came on their own free will, forced

by unemployment in a devastated and exploited homeland and under the pressure of the
police authorities, or attracted by the liberality of a court spending the spoils of its victories
on monuments to glorify its successes. Nor, whether their influence had been the result of
a practical need for expert labour, or of a conscious fashion.
These considerations are valid already for the problem of the original excavation of the
Kailasa. In analyzing it we must keep in mind that the Kailasa is a rock temple, i. e. that if
there be a historical sequence of styles, it follows not the usual course from the foundations

to the top, and from the sanctuary to the entrance, but the other way round, from the
surface of the rock to the bottom, and from the entrance where the rock surface is lowest,

towards the back of the sanctuary where the cliffs are highest. We have, therefore, to search

for the original portion of the Kailasa near the entrance and in the top storey. Fortunately
we find very valuable guidance for our investigations in the next cave temple (no. 15) to
the south, the Dasavatara.28 This latter contains an inscription of Dantidurga (ca. A. D. 735l
42-57), the predecessor of Krishnaraja and actual founder of the Rashtrakuta Empire.29
However, some of the most impressive reliefs of the Kailasa belong to exactly the same style

as those of the Dasavatara Cave, e. g. the Gaja-LakshmT at the end of the entrance passage,

A. S. Western India I9I3-I4; Adris Banerji, Some Mediaeval Temples of Malwa, (Y. U. P. Hist. Soc. 16,
p. 83 ff., 1943); Kramrisch, The Hindu Temple.
27 Rashtrakuta influence can be traced in the art (especially in the iconography) of the whole of Northern
India, up to Bengal, Nepal, Kashmir and Afghanistan. Especially the Dancing Siva image was spread by
the Rashtrakutas.

28 Burgess, Elura Cave Temples, p.23 ff., pls. 21, 22, 24; Burgess, Guide, p. 32; V. A. Smith, History, I930,
p. 90, pl. 5 I; Havell, Indian Sculpture and Painting, pl. 24.
29 Burgess, Elura Cave Temples, p. 25 ff., 87 ff., where earlier references are quoted.

89

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
the Mahayogi and the Kala-Bhairava opposing each other in the passage between the Nandi
Mandapa and the temple proper, the Gaja-LakshmI at the end of the corridor leading up to
the Lankesvara Cave temple (left cliff wall), the two elephant statues (fig. i) in the front
courts, a guardian figure in the N. W. corner of the court,8? nearby to the chapel of the
Three River Goddesses, another guardian figure at the left end of the Lankesvara cave, and
finally the front of the vimana (Yajnasala) of the great temple proper (fig. 3). This style
group stands for itself. It is rather uncouth, but of gigantic proportions and of a tremend-
ous vitality; it is in harmony with the little we know of the indomitable Dantidurga31 who
first had thrown off the yoke of the conqueror Lalitaditya-Muktapida of Kashmir, then had
overthrown Kirtivaman II, the last ruler of the Chilukya dynasty of Badami, the original

liege lords of the Rashtrakutas, who had brought under his control his cousin Karka II, the
new lord of Lata (Southern Gujarat), and who had kept in check also his uncles Krishnaraja
I and Nannaraja. It is obviously not connected with the contemporary Chalukya style of
Pattadakal, and only indirectly related to part of the majority of the Buddhist caves at Elura

except, perhaps, Cave 6 and the Do-Thal (cave X X). For on the average, the Buddhiet caves
of Elura belong to the last phase of the Chalukya style, before, after the loss of control
over the Northern provinces, it had succumbed to South-Indian influences.32 But in the
Dantidurga style other trends are in evidence, heavy and robust bodies and bulky head-dresses
(in contrast to the elongated conic mitres in fashion with the Chalukyas) which we can trace

30 Burgess, Elura Cave Temples, fig. 16; E.A. Nawrath, Glories of Hindustan, I935, pl. 225.
81 For Dantidurga see Altekar, op. cit.; Fleet, in Ind. Antq. 11, p. I08 ff., 1882; S. K. Dikshit, Ellora Plates
of Dantidurga, (Epigraphia Indica 25, p. 25, 1940); V. V. Mirashi, Dantidurga, the Founder of Rashtrakuta
Imperial Power, (y. Baroda Or. Inst. I, , p. 3I ff., I95I); H. Goetz, The Conquest of Western India by
LalitadityaMuktapidaofKashrtir,(7.B.B.R.A.S., 27, pl. I, p.43ff., I95I). Mirashi, for palaeographic reasons,
places the beginning of Dantidurga's reign considerably earlier than other scholars, but it is difficult to
bring his conclusions in harmony with whatever else we know of the historical circumstances of the time.
32 Early Chalukya art offers considerable difficulties. Though a common trend-rather difficult to define
-goes through its development, its style has fluctuated considerably with every reign. We may succes-
sively trace an archaic and early Gupta (Jayasimha, Ranaraga), early Pallava (Mangalesa), high Gupta
(Pulakesin II), late Gupta (Vinayaditya-Vijayaditya) and late Pallava (Vikramaditya II - Kirtivaman II)
phase. See H. Goetz, Some Early Chalukyan Sculptures from Gujarat, (7. Ind. Mus. VII, p. 13 ff., i95 )
As far as Chalukya parallels go, the Dantidurga style stands nearest to that of Mangalesa, ca. A. D. 600.

90

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Figs. 3 -6
Fig. 3 Siva protecting Markandeya from the God of Death. Relief on the Front of the Vimana (Yajnasala). [Style
of Dantidurga or Krishnaraja I]. Photo H. Goetz.
Fig. 4 Niche on the South Facade of the Central Sanctuary ["Pattadakal" style under Krishnaraja I]. Photo H. Goetz.
Fig. 5 Durga attacking the Demon Mahisha. Relief on the North Wall of the Entrance Gopura. ["Pallava" style
under Krishnaraja I]. Photo H. Goetz.
Fig. 6 The Triumph of Mahishamardini. South Wall of the Entrance Corridor [Style of Krishnaraja I]. Photo H. Goetz.

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 back to the sculptures of the Ajanta cave no. 2. Unfortunately we have no evidence who
had got that latter excavated. Though the paintings of cave 2 also represent a variety of the
Gupta style, its sculptures already reveal considerable differences from contemporary
Gupta types, and there may be some justification for attributing this cave to the early, still
feudatory Rashtrakutas.83 We may, therefore, accept the Dantidurga style as the local sculp-
tural tradition of Elura.84

The just mentioned sculptures at Elura are of a more grandiose conception than those of
the Dasavatara cave; but otherwise they are so similar that the conclusion is inevitable that
it had been Dantidurga, not Krishnaraja who had conceived and begun the Kailasa. Elura
had been his capital as is obvious also from the find of his copperplate grant of A. D. 742 35
when he still had been a vassal of Lalitaditya of Kashmir; and it is but natural that with
growing successes he dreamt of a mightier monument than the Dasavatara Cave Temple.
But at his death the excavation of the immense court was not yet completed. The above
mentioned sculptures show that at least the sections of the court nearer to the entrance
and the passages connecting its right and left wing, and also the front of the vimana had
been laid out.

It was Krishnaraja I who completed Dantidurga's work and who, therefore, gained the fame
of having been the builder of the Kailasa. As such he is mentioned in two later inscriptions,
the Baroda Grant of Karkaraja Suvarnavarsha, and the Kadaba Grant of Govinda II Prabhu-
tavarsha.36 However, there are reasons to surmise that Dantidurga's share in the work has
been consciously suppressed. Krishnaraja's succession was not peaceful. He removed the
two minor sons of Dantidurga, and defeated and killed Karka who probably had been their
guardian.
33 Burgess, Buddhist Cave Temples, 1883, pi. 23; Mukul Dey, My Pilgrimage to Ajanta, pi. opp. p. 182.
For the early Rashtrakutas see M.H. Krishna (K. V. Ramaszevami Aiyangar Volume, Madras 1940, p. 5
ff., and Proc. 7th Ind. Hist.Congress Madras I944, p. 70 ff.), and Altekar, (Annals Bkandarkar Or. Res.
Inst., 23, p. I49 ff., I942), and op. cit.
34: The heavy crowns of the Dantidurga sculptures can be traced back even to Vakataka times; however,
in a few cases we find also almost pointed cones, an Eastern Chalukya fashion.
35 S. K. Dikshit, Ellora Grant of Dantidurga, (Epigraphia Indica, 25, p. 25 ff., I939-40).
36 D R. Bhandarkar, (in Ind. Anzq. 40, p. 237 ff., I9I ); Ind. Antq. 12, p. 228 f.; Epigraphia Indica IV,
P. 337 ff.

92

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
To Krishnaraja I we may attribute the execution of most of the upper storey of the Kailasa
(fig. 4). It is more or less a copy of the Viripaksha Temple at Pattadakal,37 erected for a
queen of Vikramaditya II Chalukya, and that latter again was an elaboration of the Kailasa-
na t Kanchlpuram (Conjeeveram).8 In one respect the Eliira fane stands nearer
to its Kanchi prototype than to the Virupaksha, i. e. the subsidiary shrines which surround
the principal sanctuary. However, this may as well have other reasons. Clusters of minor
shrines, regularly grouped around a big temple89 had been very common in Northern India
(e. g. Gupta temple of Deogarh, Osian, Masrur, Martand, Harshnath, etc.), partly in imitation
of the Buddhist practice of minor votive stupas surrounding a great stuipa, partly as an effort

for reconciling the claims of various competing Hindu cults.'? Thus this peculiarity of the
Kailasa may as well go back to North Indian tradition.
But apart from this, the upper storey of the Kailasa "41 is almost a complete imitation of the

Virupaksha."6 Perhaps with that difference that the rudimentary roof storey is more develop-
ed than in the latter. Indeed, the decoration of the walls of the sanctuary, of the subsidiary

shrines and even of most of the Vimana, even the stylistic treatment of the figures, is so
identical with Pattadakal, that it must have been the same architects, masons and sculptors,
who executed both the two great temples of Pattadakal and most of the upper storey of the

Kailasa. This is not so surprising, as Dantidurga had in his last years overthrown the Cha-
lukya empire, and Krishnaraja had mopped up its remnants.
87 H. Cousens, Chalukyan Architecture, pls. 38-48; Burgess, Belgam and Kaladgi, pls. 38-39. It had been
Fergusson (History, I9O0, I, p. 342 ff.) who first pointed out the interconnection between the three mo-
numents. Coomaraswamy, History, p. I I I, thinks rather of the Papanatha, but I fail to see the similarity.
38 Rea, Pallava Architecture, Madras 1909, pi. 24 ff.; H. H. Longhurst, Pallava Architecture, III, I930.
39 Likewise the small chapels at the corners of the Vimana are a feature known in North Indian Mediaeval
architecture, e. g, at Dhamnar, Masrur, Baijnith, etc.
40 A characteristic of the iconography of the 6t th centuries is the composite images which represent
Siva, Vishnu or Surya, even Nrisimha and Varaha as the source of all the other Hindu gods and thus pro-
claiming the leadership of their respective votaries. To the same time, however, belongs the system of
combined shrines or image niches on temple walls or in caves, balancing the orthodox gods one against
the other: Siva, Vishnu, Brahma and Surya. With the decline of the Saura cult Siirya was superseded by
Ganega, apparently the successor of Kubera; sometimes also Brahma is replaced by Durga. The last
remnants today are the pillar-shaped paliyas and kirtistambhas.
41 Burgess, Elura Cave Temples, pls. 26 and 32; Havell, The Himalayas in Indian Art, I924, pi. ga.

93

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
However, the Vir-ipksha as well as the Mallikarjuna 2 are one-storeyed buildings whereas
today the Kailasa stands on such a high plinth that the temple proper practically seems to
occupy merely its upper storey. But this appears originally not to have been the situation.
Even the court sections near the entrance may first have been planned on a higher level.43
Otherwise it is difficult to explain why some rooms, especially the hall (in the Aihole-"Gup-
ta" style) on top of the Chapel of the River Goddesses,30 are without access, so that their
entrance can be reached only by means of a ladder. However, this idea seems very soon to
have been abandoned. For, as already mentioned, the sculptures ofDantidurga's time already
presuppose the existence of courts on the present level. Likewise is the present entrance,
in the same style as the original temple,4' on the present ground level. Most of the court
decoration seems to have been completed early in Krishna's reign. For most of the sculp-
tures there still stand near to the Dantidurga style, though they are less gigantic and filled

with less vitality. Apparently, when the work at the temple proper was left to the expert
Chalukya masters from Pattadakal, the original set of sculptors got the front courts allotted.
But even there the influence of the South is evident. For number of scenes are imitations

of Chalukya reliefs; this is especially evident e. g. in the Mahishamardini (fig. 5) on the north

wall of the entrance gopura which is a variation of a Mahishamardini in the Mallikarjuna of

Pattadakal, which latter again is an elaboration of the famous Pallava relief in the Mahishasura

Mandapa at Mamallapuram.45 It suffices to compare these scenes with the older Chalukya and
the average Rashtrakuta representations of the subject, to realize that the the first had been

an import. The genuine Mahishamardini of the Chalukya and Rashtrakuta type stands or

42 Cousens, Chalukyan Architecture, pl. 38 ff.

43 This would imply a lay-out comparable to that of the Dasavatdra Cave, the court of which is reached
by a long flight of steps from the plain; or even better, that of the Chhota Kailasa which likewise belongs
to the early Rashtrakuita period. See Burgess, Eltra Cave Temples, pl. 6; Havell, Study of Indo-Aryan
Civilization, I915, pl. 69.
" Havell, Study of Indo-Aryan Civilization, pls. 67 a.
45 Elura: Burgess, Elurai Cave Temples, pi. 4, 7; Pattadakal: non published; Mamal apuram:
Longhurst, Pallava Architecture, II, pi. 25 a; V. A. Smith, History of Fine Art, 19I 1, pi. 45; Coomaraswamy,
History of Indian and Indonesian Art, fig, 208. Also the Gaja-Lakshmi groups at Elura are ultimately
derived from the Mamallapuran (Var5ha Mandapa) type, see Longhurst, ibid., pl. 21.

94

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
kneels, fighting or triumphing, on the bull demon;46 its Pallava and later Chalukya variety
attacks him, galopping on her lion.
But this court must have ended somewhere near the present staircases to the vimana. The
northern court gallery there breaks off; the southern cliffside likewise ends in irregular
chapels. And parallel, also the Mahabharata (North side) and Ramayana (South side) re-
liefs 47 (fig. 7), by the side of the two staircases leading up to the temple proper, come to
an end. They have not the least connection with the adjoining temple plinth. Their style
is identical with that of the heavy square pilasters in the interior of the Virupaksha and
Mallikarjuna temples at Pattadakal.48 It almost looks as if they are the last remnants of a
once more comprehensive decoration covering the entire back walls of the lower front
courts. The vast halls in the north and south cliffs opposite the vimana have never been
completed, the great gallery around the eastern end of the temple court likewise is of a
considerably later period, its sculptures reminding rather of works of the later Chola
school.49

And the elephant and lion frieze (fig. i8)5 ?on the present plinth of the temple proper is
of such an exceptional size that it almost looks as if it had to be expanded beyond normal
proportions in order to fill the gap between the earlier and later floor levels. Lion and
elephant friezes had been common in the late Pallava temples,5" but are much smaller. Some

considerable lion figures appear at least at the older (Vaishnava) portion of the (Saiva)
Papanatha Temple at Pattadakal,52 but even they cannot stand comparison. Possible links,
however, might be the less conspicuous elephant friezes of the Indra Sabha Jain Cave 53 and

46 A ih o le: Durga Temple, small temple north of town; Brahmanical Cave (Burgess, Elura, Cave Temples,
pi. 43).- B am da m Z: Relief in the town. - Pa I t a d a k a 1: Relief near the northern temple group.
E l r d: Ravana-ka-Khai, Dasavatara, Kailasa entrance passage, Lankesvara, Cave 17.
47 Odette Bruhl and S. Levi, Indian Temples, I937, fig. 85; E. A. Nawrath, Glories of Hindustan, I935, pi. 229.
48 Cousens, Chahlkyan Architecture, pls. 39, 41, 43, 44.
49 Burgess, Elrad Cave Temples, pl. 27.
50 Havell, Study of Indo-Aryan Civilization, pi. I; Odette Bruhl and S. Levi, Indian Temples, fig. 87;
Nawrath, Glories of Hindustan, pls. 227, 229.
51 Rea, Pallava Architecture; Longhurst, Pallava Architecture, III.
52 Burgess, Belgam and Kaladgi, pl. 46. A later (W. Chalukya) case is the plinth of the Khedrapur temple.
53 Burgess, Elubra Cave Temples, pi. 7, Nawrath, pi. 122.

95

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
the socle frieze of the Lankesvara.54 The only genuine parallel is the temple of Khedrapur 55
which belongs to the Western Chalukya style. However, this temple has been rebuilt often,
and no other Western Chalukya example is known. It is, therefore, rather risky to draw
conclusions from this evidence. Moreover, the figures between the elephants there are of
a later type than those at Elura. Thus, if there be any interrelation, the Khedrapur temple
must have been inspired by the Kailasa, not vice versa. On the other hand the small figure
groups (fig. i) in the interstices between the elephants at Elubra remind more of the type
of sculptures we are accustomed to find in Northern India in the Iith century.56 Thus it
looks as if this back court was added at a very late date, at least as late as the loth century.

In the upper storey there is likewise evidence for an originally higher court level. Above
the heads of the lion and elephant frieze there appears another plinth. All the halls in the
temple proper as well as in the cliffs, i. e. the Chapel of the Mother Goddesses, the adjoining
three-storeyed set of halls on the South, and the Lankesvara Temple on the North, open
outside as if they had originally been accessible from there.57 The later masons have never
dared completely to remove the stone ledges outside those former entrances; but there is
no evidence for the former existence of stone bridges between those halls and the great
vimana.58 Moreover, the staircases which at present lead up from the court to those halls,
are so clumsily set in, that it is quite evident that they represent later adjustments. And
with this also Havell's Theory 59 that the Kailasa had been copied on the mountain of this
name in the Himalaya, collapses; at best this might have been an afterthought in the last
recasting of the sanctuary. This seems the more probable as the Rashtrakutas could have
got a clear idea of the Himalaya only in the loth century when they temporarily controlled
the Gangetic plains.

54 Havell, Study of Indo-Arvan Civilization, pi. 68.

55 G. Goetz, Masterpieces of Oriental Art: Two Heavenly Dancers from Khedrapur (7RAS I950, pt. 3-4,
p. I05 ff.).
56 Cp. the examples from the Nilkanthesvar-Udayesvar, in Stella Kramrisch, Indian Temples, II, pls. 43-53
57 Burgess, Eluria Cave Temples, pl. 21, I.
58 P. Brown, Indian Architecture, I, p. 89 ff.
59 E.B. Havell, Studo of Indo-Aryan Civilization, London 1915; the same, The Himalayas in Indian Art,
London I924.

96

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 I ?

WSut, 0:0
I
'a '

I J -- ' 1k 4 f ;.t-?
A"* .

% ''S ^^ .
II

Figs. 7-9
Fig. 7 Ramayana Relief Cycle. Exterior Wall of the Southern Staircase to the Vimana ["Pattadakal" style ofKrish-
naraja I]. Photo H. Goetz.
Fig. 8 Ganga. Central Relief in the Chapel of the River Goddesses ['Eastern Chalukya" style of Dhruva]. Photo
H. Goetz.

Fig. 9 Central Group ofMatrikas. Chapel of the Mother Goddesses in the South ClifFs [Style of Govinda III]. Photo
by courtesy Arch. Department, Hyderabad.

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
If, however, such a decisive alteration in the plan of the Kailasa proves to be so late, we
have to raise the question how much of the other buildings and sculptures can be attributed
to Krishnaraja's I time, how much has to be taken as later.
The vimana (yajnasala) must still have been completed under Krishnaraja. As the temple
was consecrated under him, such an essential part had to be ready for the cult. But style
evidence also corroborates such a conclusion. The type of the pillars in the vimana6? is
again taken over from Chalukyan art;6 "as such it represents a fusion of earlier "Gupta"62
and Chalukya63 forms. But the style must be slightly later than that of the sculptures so
far discussed, i. e. of the king's last years; for it has become uniform and balanced and much

richer, elegant and delicate (though in a different, more ponderous und majestic manner
than the late Chalukya style). To this same style have to be reckoned the two high Stam-
bhas 64 in the front court and the two elegant reliefs on both sides of the entrance passage

to the Kailasa Compound, representing Ganesa and an elegant "triumphant" Mahishamardinm

(fig. 6), further the Ravana-ka Khai (Cave no. 14),65 and parts of the Indra Sabha (no. 32)66
and Jagannatha Sabha (no. 33). 67

The, most beautiful, Chapel of the Three River Goddesses,68 Ganga (fig. 8), Yamuna and
Sarasvati, in the cliffs of thie northern front court, apparently represents a rather complex

transition style under Dhriiva Dharavarsha (A.D. 780-793/4) and in the early reign of Go-
vinda III (A.D. 793/4-814). Those years were preoccupied with campaigns against the
60 Burgess, ElGrd Cave Temples, pl. 23, I; 28.
61 Burgess, Belgam and Kaladgi, pl. 37.
62 E. G. Ajanta, Cave 2; Aurangabad Cave 3.
63 The simple rectangular pilaster so common at Aihole, Ajanta, Elura (early caves), Bhamburda and even
Pattadakal (the interior pilasters of the Viriipaksha, Mallikarjuna and Samgamesvar).
64 Fergusson, History, fig. 202; Burgess, Elurad Cave Temples, pi. I; Burgess, Guide, pi. I; Bruhl-Levi,
Indian Temples, fig. 86; Nawrath, pls. 228, 229.
65 Burgess, Elurd Cave Temples, p. 22 f; Burgess, Guide, p. 29; Bruhl-Levi, figs. 89-90.
66 Burgess, Elurd Cave 7Tenples, p. 44 ff., pi. 7: Burgess, Guide, p. 62, pls. 7-9; Havell, Study of Indo-Aryan
Civilization, pl. 7 I.
67 Burgess, Elrad Cave 7emples, p. 48 ff., pl. 40; Burgess, Guide, p. 66 ff.
68 Burgess, El?urd Cave Temples, fig. I6; Fergusson, History, fig. 201; Havell, Study of Indo-Aryan Ci-
vilization. fig. 62; the same, Himalayas in Indian Art, fig. 10; Nawrath, pi. 225; Grousset. Civilization of
the East: India.

98

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Pallavas and Eastern Chalukyas. The structure of the columns still retains an echo of the
late Gupta tradition. But the elegant arch with the central Kirtimukha mask is derived from
the same (Eastern) Chalukyan prototype from which all the door frames in the Hindu
colonial art of Indonesia, Funan, Cambodia and Champa have been evolved. The bodies
reveal, all, the slim but healthy elegance of the Pallava figures, and the high cones of the
crowns represent a cross breed between Pallava and Chalukya fashions. On the other hand
the principal columns as well as the human bodies already have all the mighty force cha-
racteristic for the high Rashtrakuta style. Which other monuments at Eltra might be
associated with this style, is not easy to say. Possibly the two-storeyed hall 69 in the southern

cliffs opposite the vimana may be adduced. And the Tara and SarasvatI reliefs in the Bud-
dhist caves 2 and 6 which are modelled on the river goddesses and their framing pillars and
arches, though they belong already to the next style phase, like the SarasvatI in cave 8.70

This next style phase has to be regarded as the zenith of Rashtrakuta art, and with con-
siderable probability may be connected with the later reign of Govinda III (A.D. 793/4-814).
This ruler likewise was a great conqueror though his campaigns led him mainly towards the
North, against the Pratiharas who, after earlier conquests and reverses, now were stretching

out their hands for the imperial capital of Northern India, Kanauj.71 It is, therefore, not
surprising that in his reign the Rashtrakuta style became influenced by Pratihara art, 72 in the

style which it developed in the period from Vatsaraja (ca. A. D. 780-800) until Bhoja Adi-
variha (A.D. 840-890), and that it likewise influenced that latter. Vitality and refinement
meet in a poised exuberance. The spirit of brutal activity has given way to a quiet self-as-
surance of immense strength, the refined luxury appears as a mere accessory of the glory
radiating from that same strength. Architectural forms are mighty, but well proportioned.

69 Burgess, Elura Cave Temples, pl. 23, I (right); Burgess, Guide, p. 47 f.

70 Burgess, Elura Cave Temples, pls. I3, I, 2, 16, i.
71 Both Vatsaraja and Nagabhatta II overran Northern India, but were successively thrown back by the
Palas and Rishtrakutas. In A.D. 814 at last, after the death of Govinda III, Nagabhatta succeeded in
overthrowing Chakrayudha and occupying Kanauj-See R. S. Tripathi, History of Kanauj, I937.
72 The key monuments for our knowledge of the earlier Pratihara style are the temples of Osian (see
D. R. Bhandarkar, The Temples of Osian, A. R., A. S. I., I908-og09, p. 00oo ff.), the Chaturbhuj at Gwalior,
the Jain temples of Deogarh, the Kalika-Mati at Chitorgarh, the ruins of Bhinmal, etc.

99

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Figures are not less mighty, of gigantic size and herculean build, and yet appear slim. As a
matter of fact the individual body forms are rather buxom, but the legs are excessively elon-

gated; a certain slight angularity likewise emphasizes the upward trend, and the crowns now

rise high up, not in the Chalukya cone, but in a cylindrical shape slightly rounded on top,
and broader, but less high than the Pallava crowns. Or they are replaced by other crowns
or head-dresses of approximately the same effect. In the Kailasa the representative of this
style is the Chapel of the Mother Goddesses.78 The statues of these Mother Goddesses
(figs. 9-1o) are amongst the most glorious works of Indian sculpture, of an overwhelming
might, vivacity and beauty. But most of them are so badly mutilated that they have been

neglected by archaeologists and art historians. A great number of other cave temples at
Elura belong to the same style group, e.g. nos. 2, 4, 8, 20, 21 (?), 22, 25, 26, 29.74 The
best of these, the Ramesvara cave (no. 21),75 is the jewel of all the Elira shrines. How

far the Dumar Lena (no. 29)76 may be reckoned to the same group is more difficult to say.
Its sculptures are very unequal; whereas the guardian figures round the central shrine and
the river goddesses at both side entrances are excellent, the other reliefs look like lifeless
journey-men's imitations of the scenes in the Ramesvara. Outside Eluira we have to mention

here Bhokardan caves,9 the later Buddhist caves of Aurangabad,l2 the wall reliefs of Cave

73 Curiously enough Burgess, Elura Cave Temples, does not mention this chapel at all, and as far as I can
see, practically all other writers seem likewise to be silent about it. I suspect that Burgess has mixed up
his notes on this chapel with those on the subsidiary shrines to the great temple. However, he describes
it in his Guide, p. 45 f. The Hyderabad Archaeological Survey has prepared photos of the sculptures.
74 Fergusson, Coomaraswamy and P. Brown place most of them earlier, ca. A. D. 650-750. However, as
they are in the same style as the Mother Goddesses Chapel, and as this latter is later than the Kailasa
proper (being inside the same excavation) this earlier date is untenable. The minor caves of Elephanta,
Jogesvari, Aurangabad I-2, most of Ajanta, and most of the Buddhist caves at Eliiura can with some cer-
tainty be assigned to the Chalukya period. In dating the big Elephanta cave end of the 8th century,
Coomaraswamy comes nearest to the truth.
75 Burgess, Elura Cave Temples, p. 38 ff.; pls. 5, 32, 3, 34, I, fig. 17; Burgess, Guide, p. 53, pls. 4 and 5;
Havell, Study of Indo-Aryan Civilization, pi. 64; P. Brown, Indian Architecture, pi. 48, i.- Coomaraswamy,
History of Indian and Indonesian Art, fig. I90.
76 or SitB-ki Nahani.-Burgess, Elura Cave Temples, p. 41 ff., pls. 36, 37, I; Burgess, Guide, p. 59, pi. 61:
P. Brown, Indian Architecture, pi. 48, 2.

I00

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Figs. Io- 13

Fig. Io Left Group of Matrikas. Chapel of the Mother Goddesses in the South of the Court Cliffs [Style of Govinda
III]. Photo H. Goetz.
Fig. 1 Pillar in the Lankesvara Cave Temple, Northern Court Side [Style of Amoghavarsha I]. Photo H. Goetz.
Fig. i: Nataraja in the Lankesvara Temple [Style of Amogavarsha I]. Photo H. Goetz.
Fig. 13 Nataraja in the Front Screen to the right of the Entrance [ Style of Amoghavarsha I]. Photo H. Goetz.

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
26 at Ajanta77 and last, but not least, the great cave temple of Elephanta. 13 The bronze
statuette of a goddess, recently discovered with other Jain images at Baroda, belongs to the
same style group and forms a valuable chronological corroboration.78 For it was under
Govinda III that a Rashtrakuta branch dynasty was placed on the throne of Lata, i. e. Sou-
thern Gujarat, and it was annihilated already under his successor Amoghavarsha.
For Elura this was the last golden age. For Govinda III built a new capital at Manyakheta
(Malkhair) which his successor Amoghavarsha (A. D. 814-880) completed. But as an abandon-
ed political capital generally was recompensated by religious endowments, excavations work
at the Kailasa did not come to an end. With Amoghavarsha's reign we may connect the
beautiful Lankesvara cave temple79 in the cliffs to the north of the Kailasa vimana (figs. i -i 2),80
and likewise the reliefs on the side of the entrance screen of the Kailasa court which looks

towards the plains (figs. 13, 14). Amoghavarsha was a rather peaceful ruler, more interested
in the luxuries of life, in art, literature 8 and religion.82 Nevertheless a serious civil war
shook the empire during his minority. Later on devoted generals, such as Karka Suvarna-
varsha and Bankeya, defended his throne and continued the wars inherited from his pre-
decessor. The style of his time, i. e. of most of the gth century A. D., we might characterize

as "Rashtrakuta Baroque". The architecture is ponderous, almost oppressive and excessively,

but beautifully decorated (fig. ii). The sculptures (figs. 12-14) are of a delicate sensitiveness,

77 Burgess, Buddhist Cave Temples, pi. 36; M. Dey, /ly Pilgrimnage to Ajanta, pi. opp. p. I95; Kramrisch,
Indian Sculpture, fig. 70. Possibly also the Mara Caves, see A. Cunningham, Arch. Survey Report XIII, p. 20.
78 U. P. Shah, Female Chauri Bearer from Ankottaka, (Bull. Prince of Wales Museum, I, p. 43 ff., 1952).
On the evidence of the present analysis we have to place the other Rashtrakuta sculptures discovered at
Baroda, into the reign of Dantidurga, or more exactly in that of his cousin Karka I of Lata. As already
mentioned, Karka II was killed by Krishnaraja I. U. P. Shah and R. N. Mehta, A Few Early Sculptures
from Gujarat, (Y. Baroda Or. Inst. I, no. 2, p. I60 ff., 1952).
79 Burgess, Elra Cave Temples, p. 31 ff., pls. 23, I (left), 29, 30; V. A. Smith-Codrington, History, p. 89;
Havell, A Study of Indo-Aryan Civilization, pl. 68.
80 A figure on the utmost left of the arcade towards the court shows that the cave had been begun already
by Dantidurga. But thereafter this work seems to have been abandoned until it was resumed under Amo-
ghavarsha I.
81 J. F. Fleet, Amoghavarsha I as a Patron of Literature, (Ind. Antq. 33, p. 197 ff., 1904); Altekar, op. cit.
82 He abdicated several times in order to retire to a recluse life, sympathized with Jainism, and on one
occasion cut off his finger in order to propitiate the Goddess.

102

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Figs. 14 - 17

Fig. I4 Nrisimha in the Front Screen to the Right of the Entrance [Style of Amoghavarsha I]. Photo H. Goetz.
Fig i S Siva on Kailasa keeping down the rebellious Ravana. Relief Group beneath the Southern Balcony of the
Vimana [Style of Krishna III]. Photo by courtesy, Arch. Department, Hyderabad.
Fig. I6 Lovers. Relief in the South Wall (lower storey) of the Nadi Mandapa [ Style of Krishna III ]. Photo H. Goetz.
Fig. 17 Siva. Relief on the foot of the cliff wall behind the temple, beneath the gallery [Style of Krishna III].
Photo H. Goetz.

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
almost naturalistic. They still retain the traditional mighty poses, but these are acted, not
result of an inner urge, and often even the poses are those of weaklings. Refinement has
won the upper hand over vitality, and the once so exuberant joy of life has given way to
a gloomy mysticism. Probably also the sculptures of the Indrasabha (no. 32) and Jagannatha

Sabha (no. 33) at Elura were then completed. So far only one example of the Amoghavarsha
style is known outside Elura, i. e. the brass frame of a Buddha Avatara image in the Srinagar
Museum 83 which, for a number of considerations discussed elsewhere, has to be attributed

to the reign of Sathkaravarman of Kashmir. It proves that the style still was in fashion in
the early reign of Krishna II Akalavarsha (A. D. 880-914), who resumed the imperialistic
policy of the Rashtrakuta house.
Krishna II8 again led his armies to the North, attacking Bhoja II (A.D. 908-og) of Kanauj.
His work was continued by Indra III (A. D. 914-917). Even under their weak successors
Amoghavarsha II (A.D. 917-91I8), Govinda IV (A. D. 918-935) and Amoghavarsha III
(A. D. 935-939) Rashtrakuta control extented up to Allahabad, though the vassal princes be-
gan to disregard the orders from Manyakheta. But in Krishna III (A.D. 939--968) the
empire found a last ambitious conqueror expanding his realm from Mysore to the Hima-
layas, though he spent the manpower and financial resources to such an extent that six
years after his death the Rashtrakuta Empire had ceased to exist, and Manyakheta lay in
ruins A.D. 974.
Now it is remarkable that the well-known "Kailasa" (Ravana shaking Mt. Kailasa, but kept
down by a slight pressure of Siva's foot) relief (fig. iS)85 beneath the south balcony of the
vimana of the Kailasa temple, likewise the reliefs in the lower storey of the Nandi Mandapa
(fig. i6), and the minor ones (fig. 17) along the foot of the cliffs around the back court of
the temple are executed in a style most reminiscent of Chahamana, Kachhwaha, Chandella
and Kalachuri sculpture, e.g. the Harshanatha of Sikar (A.D. 956-973), Suhania, (loth cent-

83 A special study is in preparation.

84 N. Venkataramayya, The Rashtrakuta King Krsna II and the Gurjara-Pratiharas of Kanauj, (Proc. 6th
Ind. Hist. Congress Aligarh 1943, P. x83 ff.).
85 Havell, pture nd Painting, I908, pi. 22; the same, Study of Indo-Aryan Civilization, pi. I;
the same, The Himalayas in Indian Art, pi. gb; Bruhl-Levi, Indian Temples, fig. 88; Coomaraswamy?
History of Indian and Indonesian Art, fig. I93.

104

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ury A.D.), Osian (late), and later on Kiradu, SIdri, Bijolia, etc.86 These styles had been
a more or less faithful continuation and further evolution of late Pratihara art87 and continu-

ed to flourish, whether under Pratihara or Rashtrak-uta suzerainty. Thus the influencing

prototype of these reliefs at El-ura must have been late Pratihara art which, because of
the Rashtrakuta expansion towards the North, became pretty well known in the Deccan
during the period from Krishna II to Krishna III. Of course, also other factors must have
been responsible for this style. Its facile elegance, rich, involved composition and super-
ficial sensitiveness and recklessness, all, are the characteristics of the style of a late, already
decadent society, the style which we should expect just in the years before the fall of the
empire.

Under these circumstances it seems most probable that Krishna III had been the excavator
of the lower section of the back court of the Kailasa. Such a grandiose work would very
well be in harmony with the character of this ambitious and reckless ruler.88 However, the

lower plinth of the temple, with its lion and elephant frieze (figs. 18-I9) cannot be his work.

As already mentioned, though the big animal frieze looks like an adaptation of older mo-
tifs, the minor figures resemble rather sculptures of the Paramara style,56 and might thus be

contemporaneous with the second Paramara layer of paintings in the vimana (the "Rang
Mahal"), and in the Jain caves.89 As those minor figures differ not very much from those
of the Nilkanthesvar-Udayesvar at Udaypur (Malva), it is tempting to connect the big lion

86 R. P. Shad, The Sacred Mt. Hars, Sikar, s. a.; Satyaprakash Srivastava, Mt. Hars, Jaip r s. a.; Gwalior
Arch. Survey Reports; A. R., A. S. Western India I904-05, I905-06, I906-07, 1910-11, 1914-15; etc. For
Suhania see M. B. Garde, Archaeology in Gwalior, 1934, p. I22 ff. The later Chandella and Kalachur monu-
ments deviate much more from the Pratihara prototype than the Chahamana ruins; see R. D. Banerji, The
Haihayas of Tripuri and their Temples, 1931; A. Cunningham, Arch. Reports, IX, XVII; St. Kramrisch,
Candella Sculpture, (J. 1. S. O. A., I, no. 2, p. 97 ff., I933 ).
87 I shall deal with the problems of Pratihara and Chahamana art in a separate study.
88 It is possible that the famous "Kailasa" relief is an expression of this hybris. Krishna III might have
felt cocksure that he could quell the growing unrest and dissatisfaction within his empire, as easily as
Mahadeva could crush Ravana with the mere pressure of this toe.
89 St. Kramrisch, A Survey of Painting in the Deccan, Hyderabad 1937; D. V. Thomson, Preliminary Notes
on Some Early Hindu Paintings et Ellora, (Rupam 26, p. 45 ff.; 1926); . R. Arch. Dpt. Hyderabad 1927-28,
1933-34; Coomaraswamy, Fresco Paintings at Ellora, (0O. Z., N.F. III, p. I ff., 1926).

Io0

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fig. I8 Fig. 9
Lion and Elephant Friez
on the later Plinth of the Temple with Figure Groups in the Interstices
[Paramara Style of Bhoja] [Paramara Style]
Photo H. Goetz Photo H. Goetz

and elephant frieze with Udayaditya's pre

not less ambitious, adventurous and art-lovin
round the back court seems to be even later. It reminds of Chola art of the decadence

period, and thus probably is not earlier than the izth or 13th century. The last additions
(repairs and 3rd layer of painting) are as late as the time of Ahilya Bai Holkar who in
the later i8th century also erected an impressive temple and tank in the present Ellora
town. 90

Thus the Kailasa of Elura proves not to be simply a creation of the 3rd quarter of the 8th
century. Krishnaraja T merely consecrated its first complete version, considerably smaller
than the present temple. That latter, like all suchlike gigantic works of architecture, is the
product of centuries of patient work. It covers the whole course of Rashtrakuta history, and
even that of the subsequent Paramaras, and possibly also of the Western Chalukyas, Cholas
and Yadavas. And as such it offers us a chronological guide to the development of Rash-
trakuta art, one of the most important, but still very little known aspects of Indian art. For
Rashtrakuta art had been the mightiest, most forceful, most vital creation of the Indian spirit.
90 Burgess, Bzidar and Aurangabad Districts, I878, pls. 56, 57; Burgess, Guide, pi. Io.

I o6

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Appendix: Tentative Chronology of the Kailasa

Dantidurga First excavation around the upper storey, front Dasavatara Cave, Elura.
(A.D. 73 5-42-57) courts, entrance and passages between the front
courts, elephant statues, vimana facade, one fi-
gure of the Lankesvara cave.

Krishnara-j a I st Style: Exterior of the Sanctuary and the sup- [Pattadakal Temples ].
(A. D. 757-772) plementary chapels, completion of the entrance.
2nd Style: The walls of the two front courts,
the Mahabharata and Ramayana reliefs.
3rd Style: Interior of the Vimana, the two big Ravana-ka Khai (no. 15), Indra
Dhvajastambhas, reliefs on both sides of the Sabha (no. 32), Jagannatha
entrance passage. Sabha (no. 33) at Elfra.

Dhr9va Chapel of the River Goddesses. Some sculptures in cave 2, 6

(A. D. 780-793/4) and 8 (?), Eluri, [Pallava and
Eastern Chilukya influenc

Govinda III Chapel of the Mother Goddesses. Caves 2, 4, 8, 12 (partly), 21,

(A.D. 793/4-814) 25, 26, 29 at Elura; Caves 2,
3, 7 at Aurangabad, Bhok
dan; Elephanta; some Baro
bronzes; Ajanta 26 (inter
reliefs); Mara Caves.

Amoghavarsha I Lankesvara Cave; facade of the entrance

(A. D. 814-880) 33; Kanheri; Sarmkaravaman's
Buddha-Avatara frame, S
gar.

Krishna III The backcourt, the "Kailasa" relief, the lower Indra Sabha (later work) at
(A. D. 939-968) reliefs along the cliff walls of the lower court; Eluira. [Chahamana, Kachhwa-
part of the sculptures in the lower storey of the ha, Chandella and Kalachiiri
Nandi Mandapa. sculpture at Sikar, Suhania,
etc.].

Bhoja Paramara Lion and Elephant frieze on the lower plinth; [Nilkanthegvara- Udayesvara,
second layer of paintings. Udaypur].
Later Gallery around the back; court last layer of [Late Chola sculpture ?]. Jagan-
I2th - I3th cen- paintings under Ahilya Bai Holkar. nata Sabha (late work) at
turies A. D. Eluira.

107

This content downloaded from

49.37.34.184 on Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:19:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms