Indian rock cut arch

The author makes it explicitly from the start that intention is to solve the problem as to why these elegant monuments were left unfinished.

He starts by saying or rather stating Mamalla wasn’tthat involved with Mamallapuram monuments. In fact, right from the beginning he says he has sufficient reasons to say that.

He says that scholars have based some assumptions to the fact thatMahendra introduced rock-cut techniques to the south of India. Previous to this fact the author goes on saying, that all temples were built from different materials such as brick, and “perishablematerials.”

He mentions that rock-cut techniques were continued after by Mamalla, and that he had the idea of cutting the rock into monolith temples, which are known as rathas.
Among his introductionwas changes in the pillars. An example of this is the lion at the base.

Monoliths work was continued by Paramesvaravarman-I. He introduced structural temples built f granite slabs. However, theauthor says that monoliths contruction ended because of wars with his neighbor Chalykya

The author gives credit to Rajasimha for the structural shrines on Kanchi and the sea-shore temple ofMamallapuram and the introduction of rampant icons at the base of pillars

Also the author says that rock-cut techniques dissapear, and instead structural temples predominated. Examples of thisVaikuntaperumal temple of Kanchi which was built by Nandivarman.

Here the author reminds us that this is a view share by scholars, which then shows he’s approach is different.
He also claims that thesescholars think that rathas architectural details are a copy from Buddhist Viharas.

Basing his argument on this assumption he posits the question about the influence of Buddhist architecture.
--- Ifthey were copies from Buddhist architecture already in place in South India, which structure is an example.
--- If it’s from the North , which structure is an source of inspiration.

He...