As will be seen from the annexed plan (Woodcut No. 128) the temple itself never could have been remarkable for its dimensions, probably it never exceeded about 130 ft. over all, but the dome of its porch, which measures 33 ft. across, is as large as any we know of its age. From the accounts, however, which we have of the siege, it is evident that it was enclosed like the temple of Neminatha (Woodcut No. 126) in a courtyard, and that may have been of surpassing magnificence. Though very similar in plan, it is nearly twice the dimensions of that of Neminatha, and if its court was proportionately large, it may really have justified all that has been said regarding its splendour. From what fragments of its sculptured decorations remain, they too must have been of great beauty, quite equal to anything we know of this class, or of their age. It has not yet been determined, however, whether what we now see are fragments of the temple attacked by Mahmood, and consequently whether they belong to the 10th or even the 9th century, or whether they may be due to a repair which was effected in the 12th. As the story is now told, after Mahmood’s departure it was restored by Bhima Deva of Anhilwarra Puttun, who reigned 1021-1073, and adorned by Siddha Raja, 1093-1143, and lastly by Kumara Pala in 1168. Generally it is thought that what we now see belongs to the last-named king. Any one on the spot, thoroughly acquainted with the subject, might discriminate among these and tell us its story. In so far as photographs enable us to judge, it would appear that a considerable portion of what we now see belongs to the original fane, though very much altered and knocked about by subsequent restorers. Another point of dispute is the name of the god to whom the temple was dedicated when the Moslem marched against it. From the name Someswara, it is generally assumed to have been Siva. If, however, that had been the case, the image in the sanctuary would almost certainly have been a lingam. The Mahomedan historians, however, represent it distinctly as having a head with eyes, arms, and a belly.[269] In that case it must either have been Vishnu or one of the Tirthankars. I can find no trace of Vishnuism in Gujerat at this period, but what seems to me to settle the case is, that all the kings above mentioned, who took part in the repairs after the departure of Mahmood, were undoubtedly Jains, and they would hardly have repaired or rebuilt a temple belonging to another sect. MOUNT ABU.