1879.] V. A. Smith—Obdservations on some Chandel Antiquities. 293 
ham, and has been in part accepted by Mr. Fergusson, but, as regards the 
Ganthai temple at Khajuraho, we feel compelled to differ from these autho- 
rities.* The former is of opinion that this temple is a Buddhist building 
of the 6th or 7th century ; the latter declares it to be most likely Jain and 
not Buddhist, but accepts General Cunningham’s date as approximately 
correct. The arguments, however, adduced by General Cunningham in 
favour of the early age of this structure appear singularly weak. They are 
two, (1) that the seated 4-armed female statuette over the centre of the 
entrance “is most probably a figure of Dharmma, who was either the first or 
the second person of the Buddhist triad,’ and (2) that a pedestal lying 
near bore the well known profession of the Buddhist faith in characters of 
the 6th or 7th century. 
Of these two reasons the first is admittedly conjectural, and the second 
is of little force, for the General immediately goes on to say that several 
naked Jain statues of a much later date, one being actually dated 1085 
A. D.,+ are lying among the adjacent ruins. It seems to us therefore that 
these facts go as far to prove that the temple is of the 11th century, as 
they do to prove it to belong to the 6th or 7th, and General Cunningham 
admits that they “ would seem to show that the old Buddhist temple had 
been appropriated to their own use by the Jains of the eleventh century.” 
But in reality the position of detached statues in an ancient site like 
Khajuraho, which has evidently been the scene of repeated vicissitudes and 
restorations, is worthless as a proof of the antiquity of adjoining buildings. 
A close examination of the remains makes it plain, as we have above re- 
marked, that very many of the buildings have been more or less recon- 
structed, and a very cursory inspection shows that images and sculptures 
have been freely shifted about from place to place. 
On the second sandstone pillar on the left of the Ganthai temple as 
you enter there is a short pilgrim’s inscription not noticed by General 
_ Cunningham (Plate XIV). The characters in this inscription are certainly 
not of a very early form, and seem to be of about the eleventh century. 
The presence of this record of a comparatively late date, and the absence 
of any earlier inscription on the building itself tend to support the opinion 
that the temple is not so ancient as has been supposed.{ Mr. Fergusson _ 
bases his opinion of the high antiquity of the Ganthai temple on “the 
character of its architectural details,’ but he gives no explanation of this 
opinion, and in the absence of such explanation a mere expression of opi- 
-nion fails to carry conviction. 
* Arch, Rep. II, 414 and 4381. : 
+ This is now lost, as also is the pedestal with the Buddhist inscription, 
+ Ind. Arch. 1876, p. 247. 
00 
