Page:Report of a Tour Through the Bengal Provinces of Patna, Gaya, Mongir and Bhagalpur; The Santal Parganas, Manbhum, Singhbhum and Birbhum; Bankura, Raniganj, Bardwan and Hughli in 1872-73.djvu/196

172 sculptured figures, ornaments, and devices differing from either of the previous ones. The ornamentation executed in the plaster coat resembles that used in the plaster coating put on the brick temple at Párá, and therefore presumably of the same age, that is, of the time of Mân Singh, to whom, therefore, I ascribe the extensive repairs and alterations executed in this temple, and in others of this group.

No. 7, a small temple, single cell, faces north; over the entrance Ganeça; the object of worship inside is a two-armed statue, holding a lotus in each hand, being the usual form of statues of Aditya, or the Sun: he has a high head-dress, bound by a fillet, flying horizontally outwards at the sides; four subordinate figures on each side, and two flying figures at the two upper corners, complete the sculpture. The temple, in material and execution, resembles No. 1.

No. 8 is a large temple, facing east: this, like the others, once consisted of the cell alone, but has had a large and very massively built and heavily roofed mahamandapa added on afterwards, the junction being quite distinct. In style, also, the tower and the mahamandapa differ, the tower being plainly, but tastefully, ornamented with sculpture and mouldings, the other being quite plain; the figure of Ganeça is sculptured over the entrances both of the original sanctum and of the later mandapa; the temple therefore was, and has always been, Saivic.

The cell has an inner low roof, as usual, of overlapping stones; the mahamandapa has a roof of overlapping stones also; the object of worship in the cell is a lingam.

The mahamandapa appears somewhat too large for the sanctum behind, and the apparent inequality is increased by the massive heavy style of the former contrasting with the lighter tower behind; altogether, the composition has not been so happily designed as it might have been, though it is probably better than the combination noticed in temple No. 6, the disproportion there being greater.

A wall of plain rough cut granite runs from the back of the temple No. 6 to the façade of No. 8, and is continued beyond the façade on the other side; this wall is pierced with a small true, arched opening; the wall at the opening is raised higher than elsewhere, and the projecting high piece is curved on top, as is often done in buildings in Lower Bengal. The occurrence of the true arch proves the wall to be a post-Muhammadan addition; and as it resembles in details of material and execution the mahamandapa of the temple, I regard