Which of the following was a difference between the temples and the secular buildings of the royal centre at Vijayanagara?
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 1
The correct answer is Option (1) → Temples were built entirely of masonry, while the superstructure of secular buildings was of perishable materials
Option (1) Temples were built entirely of masonry, while the superstructure of secular buildings was of perishable materials — Correct. Temples were built entirely of masonry, but the upper parts of secular buildings used perishable materials. This is why mostly their platforms survive today.
Option (2) Secular buildings were built entirely of masonry, while the superstructure of temples was of perishable materials — Incorrect. This reverses the feature. Masonry belongs to the temples, and perishable upper parts to the secular buildings.
Option (3) Temples were built of fired brick, while the superstructure of secular buildings was of dressed granite — Incorrect. The upper parts of secular buildings were not of stone. They were made of materials that decay, so granite does not fit.
Option (4) Temples were roofed with timber beams, while the superstructure of secular buildings had stone vaults — Incorrect. Temples were built wholly of masonry, so a timber roof does not fit them. The upper parts of secular buildings were perishable, which rules out stone vaults.
NCERT (2026-27): “4. The Royal Centre … “Some of the more distinctive structures in the area have been assigned names based on the form of the buildings as well as their functions. The “king’s palace” is the largest of the enclosures but has not yielded definitive evidence of being a royal residence. It has two of the most impressive platforms, usually called the “audience hall” and the “mahanavami dibba”. The entire complex is surrounded by high double walls with a street running between them. …” |