The Place of M.A. Dhaky within the Historiography of Indian Temple Architecture

Shivaji K Panikkar*

Apart from acknowledging certain apparent awe towards the scholarship of Madhusudan Dhaky  (1927-2016), the purpose of this introductory note is to propose a brief historiographical perspective on his work. As such the publication as a whole tangentially would also reflect upon the influences and relationship that Dhaky inherited and radiated upon some of his contemporaries, including his colleagues and a few of his students. Historiography as an important tool in this case can enable undertaking two crucial purposes; one to revisit, reflect and asses the lineage Dhaky belonged, his contribution which can delineate contours of the extensive body of his research and publications. Secondly, a historiographical perspective may enable to critically   engage with the contributions of the scholar and to understand what are the methodological directions and resolves the scholar has taken, which then can open up a way ahead for future research specifically with architecture and Indic art in general.

The Noble Lineage of M.A. Dhaky: Inherited Historiography

From mid-19^th to mid-20^th century, scholarship on the religious monuments in the subcontinent had already established its district identity to the world at large. A “native” Judge and Magistrate, Ram Raz’s Essay on the Architecture of the Hindus was posthumously published in 1834, which marks the beginning of the arrival of the “history of the science of architecture.”[1] About the time Raz’s work was being published, two pioneers working in the field of Indian antiquities — the Scotsman James Fergusson (1808–86) and surveyor-explorer (also Scottish) Alexander Cunningham(1814– 93),  played  crucial foundational roles. These two parallel careers unfold over the middle years of the 19^th century, mark the formation of two distinct disciplines namely the Indian architectural, and secondly archaeological studies. While Fergusson  developed his own method of ‘direct approach’[2], he gave India its first comprehensive history of architectural forms and styles, marking the birth of a new disciplinary field namely the history of Indian architecture, while spending months together among monuments, Cunningham opened up its ancient sites to the specialized investigations of field archaeology. The former  went on to understand true principles of beauty in Art,  or theory of art making a transition to this new scholarly field, he was demarcating architecture as a fine art and a new scientific and professional discipline.[3]

With their contributions, Indian architecture thus arrived as an exemplary field on the world map, following which Archaeological Survey of India was formally opened in 1861  for the work of conservation and restoration of the new Department of the Curator of Ancient Monuments in India that would follow in the decades to follow. Another Scotsman, James Burges (1832 -1916), followed the footsteps of Fergusson, “although lacking penetrating analysis and forceful presentation.”[4]  Vast numbers of publications in the form of architectural reports by him in the late 19th and early 20th centuries are works of great importance for the study of Indian temple architecture. Facilitated by Archaeological Survey of India, Burges and Henry Cousens contributed greatly to the survey of monuments in the South India, Deccan, Western India including (Maharashtra, Gujarat and Rajastan). Talking of Burgess, Pramod Chandra notes that, “His publications with their clear and succinct descriptions, wealth of illustration, and excellent epigraphical studies are models of their kind, and scholars can and do apply to them as sources of the greatest reliability.”[5] While, this tradition was continued by Henry Cousens (1854-1934) and Alexander Rea (1858-1924), and two French archaeologist-scholars namely  A. Foucher (1865-1952) and Jouveau-Dubreuil (1885-1945); the former in using architectural ruins in studying Gandhara   architecture, and the latter’s engagement with ornamental motifs in tracing the  evolution of Dravidian architecture are exemplary. Similar, clear descriptions of temples in Western India and Rajasthan were the contribution of D.R. Bhandarkar (1875-1950) too.

As with Fergusson, Cunningham’s career stands at the forefront of the colonial preoccupation  with scientific, institutionalized knowledge, the legacy established by them was largely followed by Coomaraswamy and Stella Kramrish.  Yet, they made substantial differences in the matter of aesthetic and philosophical assessment of Indian art in general. On the same vain is the contribution of English art educationist E.B. Havell(1861-1934) in Calcutta, who published two works on Indian architecture in 1913 and 1915, which challenged the Eurocentric judgements of  Western scholars and asserted inner meanings that is to be understood through symbolism inherent in Indian architecture. The polemic was further deepend and became sharper with the entry of the Ceylonese Tamil philosopher, art historian Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy (1877 − 1947) who can be said as the founder of the nationalist art historical discipline as we know today.  Narrating the significant contribution of the scholar, Tapati Guha-Thakurta delineates his importance thus:

“Coomaraswamy embodied, as no one else, the national and international prestige of Indian art and the authority of India’s art historical scholarship…the core obsession of nationalism—with the idealism and spirituality of Indian art—remained unscathed in later readings of symbols and significations. If anything, this reigning image of Indian art found constant renewal in art history’s new involvements with form and its iconographic and philosophic meanings.” Further she points out that, “The new national scholarly establishment stood consecrated by a privileged line of succession that ran from Coomaraswamy to another prominent scholar, Stella Kramrisch, and from her to figures such as V. S. Agrawala, or C. Sivaramamurti who had become the new forces in the field.”[6]

Establishing the ‘fine art’ status to the art of India’s past, in its new definition it encompassed the Western triad of fine arts – architecture, sculpture and painting. Coomaraswamy’s pioneering art historical work,  ‘History of Indian and Indonesian Art (1927), with  sections on Buddhist, Hindu and Jain Architecture, significantly included both cave and structural architecture. He correlated various studies on individual monuments therein, based on the Archeological Survey of India data; the focus was on regional styles and evolution as well as chronological development.

 

However, his article on Indian architectural terms of 1928 was more seminal in furthering the study of the subject by bringing into purview actual architecture, the shilpi tradition, shilpa-shastra in order to explain their significance in architectural studies.[7]

Further, Coomarswamy dwells deeply into early Indian architecture, in his Cities and City Gates, Bodhigharas, (1930) and Early Indian Architecture, Palaces (1931). These ingenious architectural studies were based on the representations of architecture within architecture, such as architectural representations in narrative reliefs on cave architecture or on Stupa railings and gateways. As pointed out by Pramod Chandra, “In the process he established beyond doubt the origins of the north Indian shikhara and the jala patterns…”[8]

Subsequently, the German/Austrian scholar, Stella Kramrisch (1896–1993), enlarged Coomaraswamy’s work, while she also broke a new ground through her publication titled The Hindu Temple, (1946).[9] The book carries a detailed analysis of all architectural components of a developed temple, its plinth (adhisthana and pitha), its walls (jangha, mandovara) and superstructure (shikhara). She establishes the role of religious and literary texts, structural elements, decorative repertoire and sculptural programme, along with their symbolism and traditional and textual nomenclatures based on shilpa-shastra texts, used in relation to actual structural temples in a comprehensive manner and according to specific regions of India. Kramrisch extensively quoted from the important traditional treatises vastu and shilpa shastras , from different regions such as, Samarangana Sutradhara (Central India), Apparajitapriccha (Western India) and Isanshiva gurudeva padatti  (South India). She correlated their contents with the great range of temples and her theorization of the ground plan namely the Vastupurusha Mandala is compared with the living organism of human body. Further opening-up ways of studying regional traditions of temple architecture, Kramrisch had examined the evolution of the provincial varieties of temple architecture during the early medieval period in Orissa, Rajasthan and also in Western Himalayas and central India.

The art historians who emerged in the post-independent phase of India were inheritors of the above legacy. The past over seven decades or so have witnessed a range of perspectives from which the Indian temple has been studied by art and architectural historians, moving much beyond archaeological reporting, surveys and documentation, and by incorporating the study of morphological evolutions, noting typological variations and symbolism, the area of scholarship has grown extensively. These include the study of new sites, formalistic and stylistic analyses of architectural forms, chronological sequences and reassessments, studies of ritualistic specifications and symbolism, iconographical schemes/layout and iconological considerations of sculptures, issues of regional patronage and power, craftsman-artists and artisans, re-evaluation of functions and forms of temple, aesthetic considerations, and very crucially the shaping of regional and cultural identities of architectural traditions. The most prominent stylistic typologies and groups, their chronology and morphological evolution, prominent regional and religious distinctions, inherent symbolism, the forms and functions of the tradition were inherited by Dhaky from Western archaeologists when he sets out his earliest architectural surveys in the post-independent decade. These perhaps became largely possible due to the establishment of Architectural Survey of Temples within the Archaeological Survey in 1955-56, with Krishna Deva in charge of North India and K.R. Srinivasan responsible for South India.[10]

After Kramrisch, and within the above larger developments, it is possible to consider Dhaky as a distinct, original and an outstanding architectural historian of post-independent India. This is despite his dependence on the colonial archaeology of temple architecture.  As pointed out by Ratan Parimoo, “Nearly the six decades not only of his (that is M.A. Dhaky) generation but for several generations before and after him from around 1945 to around 2000, could be considered the great phase of very concentrated studies on Indian architecture, particularly Hindu Temple architecture. Several scholars from India emerged, and interestingly a few sensitive and dedicated scholars from western countries, especially United States, committed themselves to the field of architectural histories of Hindu temples of different regions of India.”[11]

Dhaky’s engagement with architectural monuments began early – his involvement since 1953, with the Archaeological Research Society of Porbandar, Gujarat, inaugurated his life-long dedication to the subject. Dhaky’s Chronology of the Solanki Temples of Gujarat, (1961) is among his early research that was carried out during the late 1950’s. Pramod Chandra maintained that, “It remains the definitive work on the subject, displaying a through knowledge of the monuments, an easy acquaintance with the texts, fine powers of analysis and stylistic perception.”[12] Dhaky’s wider perception of the Hindu temple, is the significance and placement of decorative motifs which are pure ‘decoration’, such as on the ceilings, the Vyala figures, the toranas, pranala etc.  which are apart and different from his work in relation to Encyclopedia of Indian Temple Architecture.[13]

The monograph on the ceilings of Gujarat temples [14], which displays extensive use of shilpa shastra texts in making classifications and with acute sense of an aesthete, he involves in the formal descriptions of the architectural decorations. Similar in methodology is his monograph titled, The Vyala Figures on the Medieval Temples of India, of 1965 which while using extensive textual sources enumerates the origin, distribution and the concept of Vyala in Asian art.[15] He continued to engage with such rather minor or less significant parts of the temples with great insights in his crucial articles such as (1)“The Nandi Images of Tamilnadu and Kannadanadu” (1972), (2)“The ‘Pranala’ in Indian, South-Asian, Sacred Architecture” (1982), and (3)“Bhutas and Bhutanayakas; Elementals and Their Captains” (1984).[16]

His early article, “The Date of the Dancing Hall of the Sun temple, Modhera” (1963) displays his detailed, critical and acute examination of the discrepancies and dissimilarities of style between the main temple and the Dancing Hall pointing towards difference in the date of construction of the two edifices.[17]  It is with the publication of The Maitraka and Saindhava temples of Gujarat, (1969); Dhaky’s contribution to the study of architectural traditions from Gujarat (more precisely, of Saurashtra region) began to be recognized.[18] Through this, he established that there was early (i.e., Pre-Solanki Dynasty) phase of structural temple architecture in Gujarat during the Maitraka Period (6th, 7th and 8th century with their capital at Vallabhi) and short period of Saindhava rule in 8th century. It significant that here he sets out to map the relatively less prominent smaller temples of Saurashtra.   His Maitraka and Saindhava Temples of Gujarat undertook to survey, document and describe in chronological sequence the early examples of pre-medieval/post-Gupta/regional temple architecture. This by itself was a significant contribution since the group of unicellular temples Dhaky analyses largely forms the basic/essential, germinal idea of temple form, which throws light on the origins of the nagara temple architecture as a whole.   As noted by Ratan Parimoo, “While Stella Kramrisch had examined the evolution of the provincial varieties during the early medieval period in Kanarese region, i.e. Deccan, in Orissa, in Rajasthan and also in Western Himalayas and central India, the material from Gujarat (Saurashtra) of the Maitraka Saindhava period, was an eye opener and important addition by Sri Dhaky.”[19] Significantly, these initial fruitful engagements had prepared him to undertake the monumental project on the Encyclopedia of Indian Temple Architecture starting in 1966, initiated by the American Institute of Indian Studies (then American Academy of Benares), which brought together like-minded scholars within this  stupendous project.[20] It is to be noted that Dhaky not only mastered proficiency in Sanskrit and the Prakrit languages so that he could delve dexterously into the Shilpa Shastras but also in in Jaina philosophical texts.

The History of Monuments, Historical Interpretation, and Formalism:

Dhaky’s formalistic imagination and scholarship can be seen beginning to flourish with his The Genesis and Development of Maru- Gurjara Temple Architecture (1975),[21] where he formulated a theory of three styles namely Maha Maru , Maha Gurjara and Maru Gurjara. Interestingly, these are purely formalistic and stylistic nomenclatures based on the regions they belonged and based upon formal and structural details of the monuments. With these innovative terminologies, he did try surpass the cumbersome and tricky questions regarding political patronage.

To put it simply, until the early Solanki rule up to the middle of the tenth century, Maha Maru style flourished in the territories of Rajasthan with its characteristics features, while Maha-Gurjara style prevailed in the region of Gujarat and Saurashtra. Maha Gurjara style is marked by an increase in scale and a conspicuous elaboration and exuberance in every section of the total temple edifice. As described by Ratan Parimoo, Dhaky in a “poetic manner explained the genesis of Maru-Gurjara as the offspring of the marriage between the Maha Maru and Maha Gurjara styles. The result was the passionate embrace of the two leading styles of Western India, one virile and handsome, the other ornate and bewitchingly beautiful. The Solanki dynasty patronage is interpreted by Shri Dhaky as the great empire honoring and supporting the beautiful off-spring. Dhaky aptly and eloquently concludes that the Maru-Gurjara style inherited the propensities of its parents, the basic structural forms and organization.”[22] Or, as pointed by Parul Pandya Dhar in a more matter of fact manner,“In this ground-breaking work, he analyses the union of the ‘sculpturesque’ Mahā-Māru style with the ‘architectonic’ Mahā-Gurjara style, leading to the creation of the Māru-Gurjara style.” [23]

Arguing against the established norm that everything medieval is essentially decadent, and recognizing that architecture saw the culmination and fruition of experimentation during this phase of history, at the very outset of his scholarly career in 1961, Dhaky with the essay, The Chronology of the Solanki Temples of Gujarat reveals an early awareness of the problems of using dynastic appellations for designating art styles. To quote him, “The Solanki style of architecture, as we know it, appears on the scene with its full vocabulary in the early eleventh century, or about three generations after the first Solanki king Mularaja ascended the throne of Patan Anhilvad.”[24] In the very next sentence he quickly clarifies that: “Since kings do not create a style in India, but being important patrons, give powerful impetus to the continuation and development of the style, the true makers of the style being the architects and sculptors themselves, the denomination Solanki is a convenient label only.”[25] Despite such a conclusion, it is interesting to note that though out the essay he employs the terminology of ‘Solanki style’ and ‘Solanki architecture’ in understanding the genesis, and development of architecture of the region.

From 1961 onwards, it is possible to observe the above-mentioned underlying discomfort and tension with identifying architectural monuments with dynastic denominations, and more specifically in engaging with the role and intention of the patron/s.   It is possible to see that the issue lingered on as scholars discussed the problematic continuously for at least two decades if not more, without arriving at any definite conclusion/resolution. Formally considered, it was A. Ghosh who originally asserted the viewpoint in 1962 denying the role of dynasty as the sole parameter for the study of Indian art and architecture.[26] To quote the author, “I note that al the tree subjects of the seminar have been given dynastic appellations, as if art must go hand in hand with royal conquests. I would wonder if art should not reflect something less ephemeral and should not be treated as something more deep rooted in the soil and its environments than dynastic vagaries.” He further explains his position in relation to various dynastic labels and actual art objects viz., Satavahana, Kushana and Gupta art.  He concludes thus:

“It may be argued that the dynastic appellations are more convenient stylistic labels to denote certain class of art-products. …Perhaps, a more logical, if arduous, way would be to isolate the elements of individual dated art-products and thereafter examine the spatial and temporal spread of these elements. The groups that will emerge after this examination may then be names after the region and period of their currency. In such stylistic groupings, the groups should be given stylistic and not dynastic labels.” [27]

M.A.Dhaky has duly absorbed this proposition in his article in 1968 where he quotes A. Ghosh in his essay Some Early Jaina Temples in Western India.[28] Moving back and forth in the history of Western India (what he names as Maru-Gurjara culture), with special reference to Jainism, the article names three distinct styles without naming them. The first two belonged to later half of 8^th cent to the end of 10^th cent. And the third style had born in the beginning of 11^th cent, which got spread all over Western India.  Architectural history thus understood solely on the basis of morphology of form “… there arises a problem of denomination of each single style in question.”[29] Noting that dynastic labels “overemphasizes the role of political history, oversimplifies cultural currents, and, underestimates, sometimes even ignores, the potential of the indigenous ‘area elements’ entrenched deeply in the soil of a given region. The causative factors of a style are, generally speaking, complex; it would be erroneous to reduce them to a few, watertight, rigid rudiments which tend to refer everything to the impact of and initiation by the ruling dynasties and their matrimonial relations.”  Dhaky further quotes A. Ghosh as mentioned above, while establishing his methodological framework, as he writes thus, “In Post Gupta period, the regional idioms have begun to materialize, to develop, and to attain distinctness of expression. From this time on, we can be positive in dissociating art and architecture from the dynastic denominations and think of, say, regional terms colligated ineradicably but abstractly with the time factor, the chronological axis.”[30]

In his 1975 article, as mentioned above,  Dhaky proposed the formal, imaginative nomenclatures of Maha-Gurjara and Maha-Maru for the medieval architecture of Gujarat and Rajasthan respectively and Maru-Gurjara for the ensuing style, which he considered as the amalgamation of the two.[31]  It is to be noticed that the skepticism on the use of describing Indian art on the basis of dynastic nomenclature was fairly widely shared among scholars of Dhaky’s generation is evident from the quote below:  Pramod Chandra opines that, the classification on the basis of dynastic appellations (Maurya, Gupta, etc.):

“… in my opinion, have outlived, for the most part, whatever usefulness they once may have had. Except in very rare instances, there is little evidence that political dynasties played a leading role in the production of works of art, which is quite the opposite of what the older nomenclature suggests. In any case, our knowledge of dynastic history is often scant, so that the extent of the areas ruled and the precise chronology of reigns remain quite uncertain. The communal classification of Indian art into Hindu, Buddhist, and Jaina is quite unacceptable, for it falsely implies an essential difference between the art produced for each of these religions. … time and place are the elements that determine the character of a work of Indian art, its style being conditioned chiefly by the individual traditions of the area in which it was produced.”[32]

Considering the given problematic, Joanna G. Williams while talking about the role of the patron in shaping the work of art, point towards something very crucial, “It has been objected that discussion of such specific historical circumstances is nigh to impossible for a culture that does not record ephemeral details. Documents do not exist to permit the kind of archival research that is taken for granted in much Western art history. And while Indian art has sometimes been classified in dynastic terms, in recent years there has been a justifiable reaction against this in favor of   broader regional and chronological categories.”[33] It is obvious that the primacy for developing insights into “form” and “style” over the political label surely had far reaching implication on Art History as a discipline. Primarily, the delinking helped to study art forms as autonomous entities, but this was largely detrimental in developing insights into the political meaning of art and monuments.    Providing historical background, as a method solely remained a mechanical procedure, lending no intrinsic value as far as interpretation of art was concerned. In the case of Dhaky it is possible to note that he is neither able to totally reject the political and social patronage altogether, nor he is able see art and architecture integral to political and social ideology or serving any specific political purpose as such. It is evident that Dhaky looks beyond dynastic patronage as a total, conclusive reality and finality, as he brings in many other power centers and players in the making of the idea of patron.  In this regard in the Encyclopedia of Indian Temple Architecture series, Dhaky writes:

“The building activity in the tenth century was underway in the domains of several different regional and imperial dynasties. Buildings, in a few cases, were erected by the rulers themselves, some by their vassals, provincial governors, wealthy and powerful generals, and other officers such as those on ministerial posts, also treasury officers, next the opulent merchants, and, no less, a few were founded by the heads of different religious sects, particularly the Śaivaite pontiffs and Jaina abbots” [34], which surely is a fairly open-minded and flexible opinion based on available facts.

While concluding as above, it must be noticed however that though inventing ingenious formal classification, using text based terminology, and employing archaeological method in general, Dhaky’s art historical writings is informed by historical research that combines aesthetic interpretation as a porous veneer exuding his sensitivity to art. In several of his works, one encounters this balance, avoiding the drab archaeological approach, while establishing that it is neither intrinsic nor is it a prime objective of the discipline of history of art. As a result, while maintaining the classificatory, nomenclatural, and chronological history of monuments, these lose centrality and become somewhat secondary in importance in relation to understanding the qualities of form and their aesthetic appeal, which makes them art historical constructs according to Dhaky. This could be said as the ultimate determinants in the domain of the making history of art.

To quote Dhaky in this regard here will be most relevant:

“But an exclusively archaeological approach is not intrinsic to nor is it a prime objective of the discipline of history of art. As a result, the classificatory, nomenclatural, and metrographical aspects of buildings, and iconographical/ icononomical, even iconological considerations for sculptures… lose centrality and become somewhat secondary in importance even when they can never be neglected since they provide firm fixtures for art historical constructs. They are auxiliary agents but not the ultimate determinants in the domain of history of art.” [35]

It is in the aesthetic distinctions of the visual and the critical insights into art historical method of form and style, which makes Dhaky an art historian of significance. However, he simply doesn’t remain a formalist and this methodological aspect is detailed by Parul Pandya Dhar as follows:

(Dhaky) “clarifies the intricacies of the temple’s formal logic, the relationships of the ground plans to the elevations, and the relative configuration of the architectural mouldings, elements, and motifs in relation to the overall structure. His insistence on the use of precise terminology and systematic classification based on structural, ornamental, and functional criteria is certainly a gift of the pure sciences to temple studies.” Further she argues that, “In Dhaky’s approach, terms are not applied to temple descriptions; rather, the distinctive logic of varied temple forms, elements, and motifs enter into a meaningful dialogue with the texts, each illuminating the other.”[36]

*I would like to thank the staff members of the American Institute of Indian Studies, Gurugram, especially Dr. Vandana Sinha, Director (Academic) in enabling assistance in accessing the reference materials in the AIIS library and Shri. Sushil Sharma, Assistant Director (CA&A) in assisting in the photo archive if AIIS.

[1] Pramod Chandra, “Introduction: The Study of Indian Temple Architecture”, Studies in Indian Temple Architecture Papers Presented at a Seminar held in Varanasi, 1967, Ed. Pramod Chandra, American Institute of Indian Studies, 1975, p.1.

[2] Ibid. p. 4.

[3] Tapati Guha-Thakurta, Monuments, Objects, Histories: Institutions of Art in Colonial and Postcolonial India, Part I, The Coloniel Past, Chapter –I, The Empire and its Antiquities: Two Pioneers and  their Scholarly Fields, 2004, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 1 – 43.

[4] Pramod Chandra, op.cit, 1975, p. 12

[5] Pramod Chandra, ibid. p. 14.

[6] Tapati Guha-Thakurta, Ibid.,  2004, p. 187-188

[7] Ananda Coomaraswamy, “Indian Architectural Terms”, Journal of American Oriental Society, XLVIII, 1928.

[8] Pramod Chandra, Op.Cit , 1975. P. 28.

[9] Stella Kramrisch, The Hindu Temple, University of Calcutta, 1946.

[10] The objectives of the Architectural Survey of Temples was to fine tune the earlier efforts with regard to “the evolution and regional characterizations” of temples through “extensive fieldwork and intensive examination of the data collected therefrom.” Parul Pandya Dhar, Indian Art History : Changing Perspectives / edited by Parul Pandya Dhar, National Museum Institute, New Delhi, published by D K Printworld, Delhi, 2011.P. 14. As pointed out by Dhar “With Krishna Deva, K.R. Srinivasan, M.A. Dhaky, K.V. Soundararajan, S.R. Balasubrahmanyam, S.K. Saraswati, R.D. Banerji, Debala Mitra, Thomas Donaldson, D.R. Das and some others, the study of the history of Indian temple architecture on a regional and chronological basis came of its own.” ibid.

[11] Ratan Parimoo, Shri Madhusudan Dhaky- The Outstanding Architectural Historian, in the present volume.

[12] Pramod Chandra, “Introduction: The Study of Indian Temple Architecture”, Studies in Indian Temple Architecture Papers Presented at a Seminar held in Varanasi, 1967, Ed. Pramod Chandra, American Institute of Indian Studies, 1975.   Elsewhere Pramod Chandra points out that Dhaky’s, active involvement with Prabhashankar Sompura – a traditional artist/architect, which helped bringing out publication of shilpa texts, which in turn assisted Dhaky in interpretation and critical assessment of these in relation to monuments.(Pramod Chandra, On the Study of Indian Art,   Published for the Asia Society by Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1983, p. 36.

[13] For a comprehensive list of M.A. Dhaky’s publications see, M.A. Dhaky, Footprints of Vishvakarma: Studies in in Indian Sculpture and Architecture, Ed. Shehal Shah, 2017/2018, American Institute of Indian Studies, Gurgaon and Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad.

[14] M.A. Dhaky and J.M. Nanavati, “ceilings in the Temples of Gujarat”, Bulletin of the Baroda Museum and Picture Gallery, XVI –XVII, 1963, pp. 1-117.  

[15] M.A. Dhaky, The Vyala Figures on the Medieval Temples of India, Indian Civilisation series II, General Editor, Prof. V.S. Agrawala, Prithivi Prakashan, Varanasi,  1965.

[16] M.A. Dhaky, “The Nandi Images of Tamilnadu and Kannadanadu” Artibus Asiae, Vol. XXXIV,  No.2-3, 1972;  “The Nandi Images of Tamilnadu and Kannadanadu”, “The ‘Pranala’ in Indian, South-Asian, Sacred Architecture”, Rupa Pratirupa, Alice Boner Commemoration Volume, ed. Bettina Baumer, New Delhi, 1982, “Bhutas and Bhutanayakas; Elementals and Their Captains” Discourses on Shiva, Proceedings of a Symposium on the Nature of Religious Imagery, Ed. Michael W. Meister, Bombay, 1984.

[17] M.A. Dhaky, “The Date of the Dancing Hall of the Sun temple, Modhera”, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay, Vol. 38, 1963, New Series.

[18] M.A. Dhaky, “Chronology of the Solanki Temples of Gujarat”, Journal of the Madhyapradesh Itihas Parishad, No.3, Bhopal,1961 (entire issue). “The Maitraka and Saindhava Temples of Gujarat”, Artibus Asiae Supplimentum, XXXVI, Ascona, 1969. Although the work was completed in 1963, the publication jointly authored with J.M. Nanavati was published only in 1969.

[19] Ratan Parimoo, ibid.

[20] See Parul Pandya Dhar,  Introduction, Pioneering Perspectives: The Temple in M.A. Dhaky’s Writings, Temple Architecture and Imagery of South and Southeast Asia, Prāsādanidhi: Papers Presented to Professor M.A. Dhaky,  Edited by Parul Pandya Dhar & Gerd J.R . Mevissen, Aryan Books International, New Delhi, 2016,  “Until 1992, Michael W. Meister was the editor with M.A. Dhaky, who at first was the coordinator and next also the editor besides being one of the authors and the primary guiding force (EITA I.1; EITA I.2, EITA II.1; EITA II.2). Since 1992, Dhaky has the been the sole editor of the series for all but one of the parts (EITA I.4A), and the sole author of the most voluminous part on the later phase of Upper Drāviḍadēśa temples (EITA I.3; see also EITA II.3).10.”( Parul Pandya Dhar, 2016, P. xIi)  “As Michael W. Meister explains, these volumes have addressed the issue of style as a “nexus between region and patronage… [since] [a]rtistic traditions are taken to be rooted in a territory, given shape by dynastic patronage, thenspread by the course of empire” (EITA I.1, 1: v). .”( Parul Pandya Dhar, 2016, P. xIi)

[21] M.A.Dhaky, “The Genesis and Development of Maru- Gurjara Temple Architecture” (papers presented at a seminar held at Varanasi, 1967), Studies in Temple Architecture, Ed. Pramod Chandra, American Institute of Indian Studies, New Delhi, 1975.

[22] Parimoo, opcit.

[23] Parul Pandya Dhar, Op.Cit. 2016, P. xIii.

[24] M.A. Dhaky, op cit.  1975, P.1-2.

[25] Parul Pandya Dhar,  Pioneering Perspectives: The Temple in M.A. Dhaky’s Writings, Temple Architecture and Imagery of South and Southeast Asia Prāsādanidhi: Papers Presented to Professor M.A. Dhaky Edited by Parul Pandya Dhar & Gerd J.R . Mevissen, Aryan Books International New Delhi, 2016, p. xI,

[26] A. Ghosh, “Some Observations on Dynastic Appellations”, in Seminar on Indian Art History, Convener and Editor Dr. Moti Chandra, Lalit Kala Akademi, New Delhi 1962.

[27] Ibid. p. 12.

[28] MA Dhaky, “Some Early Jaina Temples in Western India”, in Shri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya Golden Jubilee Volume, Shri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya,  Bombay, 1968, p.307.

[29] Ibid. p. 307.

[30] MA Dhaky, Some Early Jaina Temples in Western India, in Shri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya Golden Jubilee Volume,Part I,  Shri Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya,  Bombay, 1968, p.308.

[31] M.A. Dhaky, “The Genesis and Development of Maru-Gurjara Temple Architecure”, op. cit. 1975 

[32] Pramod Chandra,  The sculpture of India, 3000 B.C. to 1300 A.D. 1985 Board of Trustees, National Gallery of Art, Washington, p.20.

[33] Joanna Williams, “Introduction: Whither the Study of Indian Art”,  Kaladarshana: American Studies in the Art of India”, Ed.  Joanna Williams, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.  New Delhi, in collaboration with American Institute of Indian Studies, 1981, p. vi.

[34]  M.A. Dhaky, Encyclopedia of Indian Temple Architecture, North India: Beginnings of Medieval Idiom, c. A.D. 900-1000 , edited by M.A. Dhaky. New Delhi: American Institute of Indian Studies and Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, 1998, p.  xvii

[35] M.A. Dhaky,  Encyclopaedia of Indian Temple Architecture, vol. I, part 4A, South India: Lower Draviḍadesha, Later Phase, c. A.D. 1289-1798, edited by George Michell and coordinated by U.S. Moorti, American Institute of Indian Studies, New Delhi, 2001, xvi.

[36] Parul Pandya Dhar, op.cit, 2016, P. xI and P. xIi.