The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence

The Konark Temple’s Construction: A... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1540" }, "headline": "The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence", "datePublished": "2024-12-20T11:04:02", "dateModified": "2025-05-15T15:49:51", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Susanta Bahinipati" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Dipti Ranjan Biswal" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Damodar Suar" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": "Drawing from historical accounts, cultural practices, archaeological discoveries, and indigenous technical knowledge, the research presents a critical review of varied aspects of the construction of the Konark temple and presents future research directions. To fulfill the purpose, documents were sourced from Scopus, Google Scholar, and ancient texts and palm leaves. Findings suggest the legacy of Narasimhadeva I, the Hindu monarch who remained undefeated during his reign, safeguarded the kingdom from encroaching Muslim rulers. The narrative highlights the bravery of a faithful elephant that revived the king on the battlefield. The Konark temple was built with the dual purpose of showcasing the glory of his victory and devotion to the Sun God. The ancient artisans’ knowledge, skills, and commitment were crucial in erecting this tallest temple structure. The investigation further illuminates the use of sea routes for transporting monumental stones, the ingenuity in laying the temple’s foundation, the selection of high-grade stones, the monumental task of lifting colossal stones, like the world’s heaviest stone hoisted to a height of about two hundred feet, the use of rust-resistant iron, and the application of advanced astronomical knowledge by ancient artisans. The study provides insights into ancient engineering ingenuity, encouraging further exploration of the enduring legacy of the Konark temple’s construction." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1540/v1", "name": "The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical,..." } } ] } Home Browse The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical,... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Bahinipati S, Ranjan Biswal D and Suar D. The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1540 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.157831.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Review The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Susanta Bahinipati https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4209-1163 1 , Dipti Ranjan Biswal https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2113-7615 2 , Damodar Suar https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6766-5451 3 Susanta Bahinipati https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4209-1163 1 , Dipti Ranjan Biswal https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2113-7615 2 , Damodar Suar https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6766-5451 3 PUBLISHED 20 Dec 2024 Author details Author details 1 School of Film and Media Sciences, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, 751024, India 2 School of Civil Engineering, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, 751024, India 3 School of Liberal Studies, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, 751024, India Susanta Bahinipati Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Dipti Ranjan Biswal Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Damodar Suar Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) collection. Abstract Drawing from historical accounts, cultural practices, archaeological discoveries, and indigenous technical knowledge, the research presents a critical review of varied aspects of the construction of the Konark temple and presents future research directions. To fulfill the purpose, documents were sourced from Scopus, Google Scholar, and ancient texts and palm leaves. Findings suggest the legacy of Narasimhadeva I, the Hindu monarch who remained undefeated during his reign, safeguarded the kingdom from encroaching Muslim rulers. The narrative highlights the bravery of a faithful elephant that revived the king on the battlefield. The Konark temple was built with the dual purpose of showcasing the glory of his victory and devotion to the Sun God. The ancient artisans’ knowledge, skills, and commitment were crucial in erecting this tallest temple structure. The investigation further illuminates the use of sea routes for transporting monumental stones, the ingenuity in laying the temple’s foundation, the selection of high-grade stones, the monumental task of lifting colossal stones, like the world’s heaviest stone hoisted to a height of about two hundred feet, the use of rust-resistant iron, and the application of advanced astronomical knowledge by ancient artisans. The study provides insights into ancient engineering ingenuity, encouraging further exploration of the enduring legacy of the Konark temple’s construction. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Konark Temple, Construction Techniques, Historical Significance, Sundial, Astronomy, Indigenous Knowledge Corresponding Author(s) Susanta Bahinipati ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Susanta Bahinipati Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2024 Bahinipati S et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Bahinipati S, Ranjan Biswal D and Suar D. The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1540 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.157831.1 ) First published: 20 Dec 2024, 13 :1540 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.157831.1 ) Latest published: 15 May 2025, 13 :1540 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.157831.2 )  There is a newer version of this article available. Suppress this message for one day. Introduction The Sun Temple of Konark, also known as the Konark Temple (KT) in Odisha, stands out among the multitude of exquisitely crafted temples spread throughout India. It has fascinated countless generations with its remarkable magnificence, radiance, splendor, and enigma. The KT is included in the list of seven wonders of India and the list of World Heritage monuments, as designated by UNESCO in 1984 ( Dey, 2016 ; Donaldson, 2003 ; Jana et al. , 2016 ). The KT with 19.8921° N, 86.0912° E, is situated 64 kilometers in the southeast direction from Bhubaneswar, and 35 kilometers in the northeast direction from the city of Puri along the coastline of the Bay of Bengal. The temple’s construction was initiated by the king, Narasimhadeva I, known as Langula Narasimhadeva, during the Eastern Ganga dynasty ( Behera, 2005 ; Bussagli, 1971 ; Chakravarti, 1904 ; Chauley, 1997 ; Das, 2015 ; Dey, 2016 ; Donaldson, 1985 ; Edwards, 1969 ; Eschmann, et al. , 1978 ; Ganguly, 1912 ; Jana, et al. , 2021 ; Joshi & Srivastava, 2021 ; Mahapatra, 1989 ; Mohanty, 2001 ; Percy, 1959 ; Rowland, 1953 ; Swarup, 1910 ). The temple, dedicated to Surya Deva (Sun God), was constructed in the mid-thirteenth century. Despite significant deterioration, the remaining portions of the temple now exhibit the delicate craftsmanship of that historical period. The construction of the temple began around the fifth anka (regnal year) of Narasimhadeva I’s rule, employing 1200 workers ( Behera, 2005 ; Boner et al. , 1972 ; Das, 2011 ; Dey, 2016 ; Donaldson, 1985 ; Mahapatra, 1989 ; Mishra, 1919 ; O’Malley, 1908 ). It took about 12 years, 10 months, and 14 days to finish, completing in the 18th anka of Narasimhadeva I’s reign ( Dey, 2016 ; Donaldson, 1985 ). The temple was sanctified on a Sunday, namely on the day of Magha Saptami (seventh day in a lunar fortnight of January or February month), which fell on the 27th of January in the year 1258 A.D. ( Dey, 2016 ; Donaldson, 1985 ). The occurrence of Magha Saptami on a Sunday is regarded as propitious and this event takes place just once in seven years which is also called Vijaya saptami (seventh day of triumph) ( Swarup, 1910 ). Narasimhadeva I desired to consecrate the temple on a highly favorable day, and hence he persistently urged the Sutradhara (master architect) to finish the work within the planned timeframe. Studying the ancient temple of Konark is imperative for the techniques it embodies, which continue to influence modern architectural and engineering practices. Experts’ studies undertaken by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Central Building Research Institute (CBRI), and the Indian Institute of Astrophysics (IIA), demonstrate the sophistication and ingenuity of ancient craftsmanship. Analyzing the architectural feats of the KT, researchers gain insights to integrate ancient techniques with modern structures. It was evident in the Ram Temple in Ayodhya on 17 April 2024. The direct sunlight casting a ‘Surya tilak’ on Ram’s forehead facing east at specific times during Ram Navami (celebration of Lord Ram’s birth on ninth day of Chaitra: March or April) symbolizes the fusion of ancient KT’s technical knowledge with modern innovations. Furthermore, an exploration of the techniques used to transport and lift massive stone sculptures, along with the discovery of rust-resistant iron beams within the KT compound, showcases the engineering prowess of ancient times and emphasizes the importance of delving deeper into the construction methods and artisanal craftsmanship. The presence of colossal sculptures that have endured for generations also underscores the necessity of conducting comprehensive studies to uncover the intricacies involved in such aspects of KT. Beneath the KT grandeur lies a tapestry woven with controversies, myths, and scholarly debates, each thread contributing to the intricate narrative surrounding its construction. We examine the temple’s construction purpose, the socio-economic conditions of the kingdom at the time, and the temple’s original dimensions obscured by its ruined state upon excavation in the early twentieth century. We further scrutinize the folk legends surrounding the temple and its completion, stone selection, transportation of large stones from distant quarries, and the indigenous technology used in constructing this colossal structure. Against this backdrop, the study aims to present a critical review of the historical, cultural, and scientific evidence from past to present to provide a full account of the KT construction. These three aspects are not mutually inclusive. The structure of the paper is shown in Figure 1 . Next, it mentions the sourcing of documents in the method section, followed by the reporting of the findings from the narrative inquiry on each of the nine issues. Then, the discussion section summarizes the findings, mentions theoretical and practical implications, limitations, provides directions for research, and concludes with a novel contribution to knowledge ( Figure 1 ). Figure 1. Structure of the paper (Source: Authors). Method A systematic review methodology was adopted for documents search and selection. Documents were extracted from Scopus, the largest scientific database of journals, and Google Scholar, the automated, inclusive database. Those yield maximum access to published documents ( Bar-Ilan, 2008 ). Documents were extracted using search strings “KONARK” OR “SUN AND TEMPLE” in title, abstract, and keywords. A total of 329 documents were extracted from Scopus and 912 were extracted from Google Scholar. Seventy documents relevant to the purpose of the study and related to architecture, construction, water bodies, and folklore connected to the KT were retained. As KT is an ancient structure, many documents appeared in books and ancient informal writings were considered relevant, 39 books and ancient writings were thoroughly read to satisfy evidence requirements. Figure 2 presents a flowchart outlining the process for selecting papers for a comprehensive review. The narrative analysis of these documents is reported in the next section. Figure 2. Systematic review framework for extraction of documents (Source: Authors). Findings Cause of construction The KT was built with the dual purpose of expressing devotion and gaining fame. Narasimhadeva I is acknowledged in the field of art, thereby earning him the title of ‘Shilpajna’ (knowledgeable in sculpture), elaborated in Ekabali, written by Vidyadhara a Sanskrit poet of 13 th century ( Chakravarti, 1904 ; Donaldson, 2003 ; Mahapatra, 1959 ). The monument is believed to be a memorial dedicated to commemorating his military campaigns ( Behera, 2005 ; Boner et al. , 1972 ; Bussagli, 1971 ; Dey, 2016 ; Donaldson, 1985 ; Edwards, 1969 ; Ganguly, 1912 ; Jarrett, 1891 ; Joshi & Srivastava, 2021 ; Mahapatra, 1959 ; Mahapatra, 1989 ; Subbarao, 1939 ). The construction of the monument began shortly after his military triumph, and the campaigns persisted until the completion of the construction. The war concluded with his remarkable victory over the Muslim rulers ( Banerji, 1930 ; Boner et al. , 1972 ; Chinnappa, 1978 ; Donaldson, 2003 ; Panigrahi, 1986 ; Sarkar, 2003 ; Subbarao, 1939 ). This is manifested in several ornamental sculptures depicting war horses, diverse combat actions, and notably over 1,700 elephants ( Donaldson, 2003 ), thereby substantiating the title Gajapati (Lord of elephants) ( Eschmann et al ., 1978 ; Fabri, 1974 ; Kulke, 1993 : Kulke & Rothermund, 2016 ). As per the inscription of the Kapilash temple, Dhenkanal, Odisha, of 1246 A. D, he was the first king of Odisha to be bestowed the title of Gajapati, with a huge troop of elephants in his army. Few sculptures in the KT were created by soldiers who took part in the conflict. It depicts the firsthand experience of the victorious and joyful moment ( Boner et al. , 1972 ). In a separate palm leaf document, namely XLVII.20 ( Boner et al. , 1972 ), Sutradhara requested a skilled warrior as well as a sculptor to create a monument depicting the act of ‘Suasamala fighting’ while mounted on a horse. Observing the pair of life-size war horses at the south gate of the KT, an European art historian, E. B. Havell, expressed that the Indians showcased their pride in victorious warfare through the immense strength depicted in these sculptures, comparable to the fiery and passionate expressions found in the greatest European art ( Havell, 1908 ). Upon observing the deteriorated condition of the impressively grand statue, he expressed that if this exceptional work of art were identified as ‘Greek’ or ‘Roman’, it would have been exhibited in a renowned museum in America or Europe ( Behera, 2005 ; Dey, 2016 ; Ganguly, 1912 ; Havell, 1908 ). It is understood that Indians in ancient times possessed exceptional abilities to comprehend and effectively utilize their creative skills in harnessing the natural resources of their homeland. In antonymous, a pair of galactic elephants standing at the north gate, there is a great memory of king Narasimhadeva I lying behind the elephant sculptures; which has been mentioned in the Madalapanji (a chronicle of Jagannath temple) ( Boner et al. , 1972 ; Dey, 2016 ). It was all about a day in the war field at Sasipur, when King Narasimhadeva I was stuck and got unconscious. Everyone on the battlefield searched for the dead body, suspecting the king had been killed. In the meantime, a small elephant of the king, named Sudehi, carried him up to the camp with its trunk and saved his life. From that day, Narasimhadeva I liked him as his son; in consequence, a special team had been allocated responsibility to make a sculpture of Sudehi with the instruction that he should look real; the intention of the king was to immortalize him for all times. Mark Roland Shand, a travel writer and conservationist (BBC) visited the KT on the back of an elephant named Tara. An interesting incident happened in front of the pair of elephants at the north gate when Tara performed “her ceremonial ‘ pranam ’ by lifting her trunk in salute” ( Shand, 1992 ). Appreciating the pair of elephant sculptures he said that the colossal war elephant would be mistaken by the visitors on a moonlit night as real. Not only war and struggle have been portrayed in the decorated sculpture: there are vast varieties of the endless richness of life, living, profession, approach, originality, culture, music, sensuous themes and nymphs. Every part of the temple exterior is ornamented with details, endless varieties of work carved with minute detail, it is said that “Indians plan like titans, finish like jewels”. Even, Ananda Coomaraswami states that “it would be hard to find anywhere in the world a more perfect example of the adaptation of sculpture to architecture” ( Coomaraswamy, 1913 , p.75). The KT is an epic, where eternal truth had been encrypted in the form of art defying time through chiseling the stones. Financial allocation Abu’l Fazl commented in Ain-i-Akbari, suggesting that the king allocated the revenue of twelve years of the kingdom for the completion of the construction of KT ( Jarrett, 1891 ). According to historical records, during his reign, Kalinga (ancient name of Odisha) experienced a period of great wealth. Contrarily, Abu’l Fazl acknowledges this fact by stating that it is a “mighty memorial to posterity” ( Donaldson, 2003 ; Jarrett, 1891 ). Before ascending to the throne, he led the war as a commander and achieved numerous victories, which enabled him to amass substantial wealth. Returning from war, his mother proposed to utilize his newfound riches to construct a Sun temple in Konark ( Dey, 2016 ; Donaldson, 1985 ) as a sacred place, like Biraja temple in Jajpur, Lingaraj temple in Bhubaneswar, and Jagannath temple in Puri, that was lagging with a supper structure. According to the Madalapanji , Anangabheemadeva III regularly approved annual budgets for the daily worship and upkeep of the temple, considering the offerings made during the puja ceremonies, the Seven Dhupas , as well as all the rituals, festivals, and special events. Anangabheemadeva III raised the sanction from 42,500 Kahanas (cowrie) to 52,000 Kahanas ( Dey, 2016 ; Donaldson, 2003 ; Swarup, 1910 ). Additionally, the kingdom’s currency was changed from Kahana to gold coin, with 15 Kahanas being equivalent to 1 gold coin. This change symbolizes the kingdom’s wealth and prosperity. Architectural design The project commenced during the reign of Narasimhadeva I, when Sadasiva Samantaraya, the second minister of King Anangavimadeva III, was appointed as the chief architect for the construction ( Mishra, 1919 ; Mohanty, 2001 ). The preliminary tasks, consisting of drafting blueprints, extracting stones from quarries, and hiring labourers, lasted nearly six years ( Behera, 2005 ; Dey, 2016 ; Donaldson, 2003 ; Mahapatra, 1989 ; Swarup, 1910 ). In 1837, James Fergusson visited the temple and created a drawing of the KT ( Figure 3 ), which provided a clear depiction of the temple’s physical condition at that time. According to Fergusson (1848) , the height of the sanctum in the painting is around 140 to 150 ft, which is taller than Jagamohana (porch). The KT is encompassed by boundary walls measuring 261.2m (857 ft) by 164.6m (540 ft) ( Donaldson, 2003 ; Edwards, 1969 ; Ganguly, 1912 ), with a height of 14 ft and thickness of 5 ft and 4 in ( Ganguly, 1912 ). The architectural style of the Orissan temples (Kalinga style of architecture) is completely ‘Astylar’, meaning unmixed, pure, and consistent ( Fergusson & Spiers, 1910 ). When comparing KT with other similar temples, Fergusson stated that it is significantly superior, particularly praising the grandeur of the edifice and its elaborate decoration, claiming that it is the finest in the world. Figure 3. The 3D view of KT ( Fergusson, 1848 ). In Hindu mythology, the Sun God is believed to travel across the sky in a chariot drawn by seven horses, with his charioteer Aruna guiding the way ( Basham & Rizvi, 1956 ; Bedbak, 1999 ; Rao et al., 2015 ). In the parapets of the porch , rise the dynamic standing figures of celestial musician-girls playing flutes, drums, strings and cymbals to accompany the chariot for its daily course. Along with myriad dancing girls in the form of Odissi dance, anterior to the seven horses carved bas-relief in the wall of nata mandapa (dance hall) to chronicle the journey of the Sun God. This amusing architecture is a larger scale of European baroque art of the late 16 th century which has been mentioned by Fabri Charles Louis, Hungarian Archaeologist and Historian ( Fabri, 1974 ). With original thinking in design, the architectural design was to appease the Sun God ( Figure 3 ). Dimensions of the temple The KT is thought to have consisted of a main vimana (sanctum), a jagamohana , a nata mandapa that is currently lacking in its superstructure, and a bhogamandapa (offering hall) that is in a state of ruin. Adjacent to these constructions, there were additional minor temples devoted to various deities, including the Aruna pillar which was relocated to Puri during the Maratha period and placed in front of simhadvara (main gate) of Jagannath temple ( Behera, 2005 ; Boner et al. , 1972 ; Dey, 2016 ; Donaldson, 2003 ; Mahapatra, 1989 ; O’Malley, 1908 ; Stirling, 1825 ; Sterling, 1846 ; Swarup, 1910 ; Tripathy & Kulke, 1987 ). The porch has been relatively well-preserved, but it was filled with sand in 1903 on the directive of Sir John Woodburn, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. This measure was necessary at the time to protect the monument ( Donaldson, 2003 ). The deadening process of filling the sand to preserve the Jagamohana, was completed early in 1905 ( Swarup, 1910 ). Indeed, the porch is refilled using stone masonry with lime, dry stone masonry with lime and sand, layered in various compositions ( Figure 4 ). The current porch lacks the main temple, as it has fallen due to multiple reckless depredations. The underlying mode of this monument is a colossal chariot adorned with twelve pairs of intricately carved wheels, designed for the Sun God. Figure 4. The interior layers of the porch ( Swarup, 1910 ). KT’s measurement The first measurement of the KT was made by Gajapati Purusottama Deva during his 4 th anka in the year 1610 A. D ( Dey, 2016 ; Donaldson, 2003 ), in which the height of the sanctum estimated was 68.5m (224.73 ft). Again, the measurement was undertaken in 1627 A. D, in the presence of Gajapati Narasimhadeva II, who was the son of Purusottama Deva and the grandson of Ramachandra Deva. The task was carried out by Natha Mahapatra, under the supervision of Bakhar Khan, who served as the subedar of Orissa under the Mughal emperor Jahangir ( Chakravarti, 1908 ). The Sanskrit version of the Madalapanji, has been acknowledged as an authentic account ( Behera, 2005 ; Ganguly, 1912 ; Mishra, 1919 ; Swarup, 1910 ). Translating the Sanskrit version of the Madalapanji, it was observed that Gajapati Narasimhadeva II inspected the vacant temple and recorded its dimensions. The temple complex was measured using a native method that took into account the finger width of the king. A unit called kathi (stick) was established, with 28 angula (finger width) being equivalent to one kathi. Local calculations have been revised to correspond with modern measuring standards, accounting for the width of an adult’s finger, with one kathi equating to 19 in. To corroborate the local calculations, the height of the porch had been considered, the only surviving segment of the monument, for which the height is known. During the excavation, Swarup (1910) meticulously measured almost every part of the temple complex, focusing especially on the height of the porch; the height of the porch from the platform level was recorded as 112 ft and 5 in, excluding the Kalasa (finial) and Dhwaja (flag), which were absent, instead, a piece of iron still protruded from the center of Amala (crown stone) ( Figure 4 ), supporting both. According to measurements, the platform height of the Temple from the plinth is recorded as 13 ft and 3 in. ( Ganguly, 1912 ; Swarup, 1910 ). Consequently, the height of the porch above ground level is calculated to be 125 ft and 8 in, not including Kalasa and Dhwaja. Ganguly (1912) calculated the height of the porch above ground level utilizing theodolite which was found to be 129 ft and 8 in. Referring to measurements taken during 1627 A. D, the height of the porch was recorded as 73 kathi. Converting this to feet by multiplying by 19 in, it was found to be 1387 in, which equals 115 ft and 7 in. Moreover, with the inclusion of the height of the platform, which is 13 ft and 3 in, the total becomes 128 ft and 10 in. This closely aligns with the calculation of Ganguly, deviating by 3 ft and 2 in from Swarup’s measurement due to the omission of the height of Kalasa and Dhwaja. Including the height of the porch, the measurement taken in 1627 A. D was factual. The measurement of the sanctum was conducted precisely, considering various segments. For instance, the measurement from below the lion upon Amala to the platform is 87 kathi , with an additional 12 kathi and another 12 kathi from the lion to Garuda , totaling 111 kathi which equals 175 ft and 9 in. Similarly, the measurement from above the lion of the Amala is recorded as 21 kathi 3 angula , equivalent to 33 ft and 5 in, excluding the Kalasa and Dhwaja , which were absent during the measurement. Thus, the total height of the sanctum from the platform is 209 ft and 2 in without Kalasa and Dhwaja. According to the measurements specified in the Madalapanji , the combined length of the Kalasa and Dhwaja is recorded as 3 kathi 8 angula , which is equivalent to 5 ft and 3 in. Including the height of the Kalasa , Dhwaja , and the platform from the plinth, which is 13 ft and 3 in, the total height of the sanctum reaches 227 ft and 8 in. This matches with Ganguly’s calculation of 228 ft ( Ganguly, 1912 ; Behera, 2005 ; Dey, 2016 ). Accordingly, the measurement taken in 1627 A. D was accurate, and the KT was the tallest temple in Odisha ( Figure 5 ). Figure 5. Sketch of the KT in its complete state ( Swarup, 1910 ). During the measurement of the temple, the stone kalasa , adorned with a lotus finial, was absent from the sanctum, similar to the porch’s state when Swarup undertook the measurement. However, the iron rod mentioned by Swarup, which was positioned above the porch and referred to in the Madalapanji as “ Chumbaka luha dharana ” (the magnetic iron rod), remained in place and projected above the top of the sanctum. Use of magnet Based on the interaction with the nearby villagers, Sterling (1846) mentioned about a massive lodestone, which was believed to possess magnetic power capable of disturbing the direction of ships navigating through this route. Allegedly, a group of discontented Muslim sailors (Mughals) from troubled ships removed the magnetic stone ( Behera, 2005 ; Donaldson, 2003 ; Hunter, 1872 ; Jana et al. , 2021 ; Laurie, 2000 ; Lowe, 2016 ; Rath, 2021 ; Sterling, 1846 ), akin to the tale of ‘Sinbad the Sailor’s Rock,’ in hopes of resolving the navigation issues during their voyage. Forthwith, the priests migrated to the shrine in Puri. While a more precise conclusion remains contingent on affirmative evidence, an alternate rendition of the legend suggests that the image of the Sun God was suspended in the air through the use of magnets. Considering the memory of people, another legend revolves around the loadstone and the Kalasa atop the sanctum. It recounts the story of a person who completed the sanctum by installing the Kalasa. The story also speaks about the skilled manpower who constructed the temple. Recollections of construction and human resources Given the absence of authentic records detailing the construction of the KT ( Dey, 2016 ; Jana et al. , 2021 ), the approach was to explore incidents recounted and heard from earlier generations by the local people. Among enigmatic legends encircling the construction of the KT, the most prevalent tale is of ‘Dharama’ or what localities recall as Dharmapada. He was the son of Bishu Maharana ( Jana et al. , 2021 ; Rath et al. , 2015 ), the chief craftsman in charge of the construction of the temple. Legend has it that, over twelve years, 1,200 carpenters and masons worked on constructing the temple. Before construction began, Bishu Maharana, the master craftsman, departed for the site as per the King’s orders, leaving behind his pregnant wife. Days later, she gave birth to a son named Dharmapada. After twelve years, Dharmapada learned that his father was constructing a great temple for the king, sparking his interest in meeting him. He sought permission from his mother to embark on a journey for this purpose. His mother then gave him the fruit of Barakoli (Apple Ber) from the tree in their courtyard as a symbol of recognition. After a long journey, he arrived in Konark and began selling fruits near the construction site. Bishu Maharana recognized the fruit from his courtyard and assured the boy that he was none other than his son. However, the joy of their union was short-lived as Dharmapada learned of a decree issued by the king. If the craftsmen failed to complete the sanctum up to the Kalasa by that night, the 1,200 craftsmen would face execution following morning. Upon hearing this, that very night Dharmapada ascended the temple and, with his craftsmanship, completed the sanctum up to the ‘ Kalasa ’. The following morning, witnessing Dharmapada’s achievement, the artisans feared the consequences to be beheaded. Aware of risking their jobs and lives, they turned to Bishu Maharana for guidance. Reluctantly, he chose to save his fellow craftsmen over Dharmapada. Upon hearing this, Dharmapada immediately climbed to the top of the sanctum and jumped into the sea, sacrificing his life to save the 1,200 craftsmen. This narrative underscores Dharmapada’s selfless act for the greater good, set against the backdrop of the temple’s proximity to the sea. This folktale, initially documented in 1876 A. D in “Dhagamala” by Kapileshwar Vidyabhushan, presents the adage “ Barasha badheire daya ki puare daya ” (whether responsible to the 1,200 artisans or responsible to the son). O’Malley (1908) collected and published the story in English, differing slightly from the popular folklore. He changed it, depicting Bishu Maharana sorrowfully accepting the preference for his fellow workers and climbing to the top where his son was still working, intending to hurl him down to the pavement below. Nationalist writers like Kripasindhu Mishra ( Mishra, 1919 ) and Nilakantha Das (1919) supported O’Malley’s version. Pandit Gopabandhu Das (1924) introduced the name “Dharmapada” in his poem, emphasizing the theme of self-sacrifice. During the era of nationalism, Pandit Gopabandhu Das, a frontrunner in the Odiya nationalist movement, slightly tweaked the tale of Dharmapada to motivate the Odia youth, establishing the legend of self-sacrifice for the greater good. Ashvini Kumar Ghosh’s play, performed by the Annapurna group in Cuttack during 1950 A. D, revived the folklore and popularized the characters of Dharmapada and Bishu Maharana ( Das, 2011 ; Dey, 2016 ). Ghosh also introduced the name “Bishu Maharana” for the first time in the play ( Das, 2011 ). It is evident that Dharmapada (Dharma Mahapatra) was indeed a real person ( Boner, 1970 ; Boner et al., 1972 ; palm leaves: L7, L12, L13, LI 1-11, LIII 4, LIII 7). He was the son of Sadashiba Samantaray Mahapatra, also known as Shivai Samantaray ( Boner, 1970 ), who served as the sutradhara. The palm leaves also mention Dharma Mahapatra’s significant role in completing the Kalasa , the crown stone of the temple. Additionally, other prominent artisans involved in the construction of the KT were: Narayana Mahapatra (master sculptor), Gadadhara Mahapatra (chief executive architect), Viswanatha Mahapatra (sculptor specialized in royal scenes), and Ganga Mahapatra (head of the silpis ) ( Baumer & Konishi, 2007 ; Boner et al., 1972 ; Boner, 1970 ). This established historical fact serves as the foundation of these folklores that passed from one generation to another through words-of-mouth. The construction of the huge structure of the Konark in ancient times was a group endeavour of 1,200 artisans, assigned by the head of the kingdom, under the supervision of many master artisans. Threat to the artisans by the king was the means for the completion of the construction of the temple work and Dharmapada’s self-sacrifice was the action to protect the insult and life of artisans’ community in ancient times. Obstacles during the early stages of construction An anecdote of note revolves around Shivai Samantaray, the master architect of the temple complex ( Mohanty, 2001 ; Rath et al. , 2015 ). The initial task entailed the placement of stones in a section of the Padmatola river gorge, which was a pool covered with lotus plants. The objective was to construct the temple in this filled area. Nevertheless, the stone blocks, that were being dropped into the water, were being carried away by the powerful currents of the gorge. Shivai Samantaray regularly beseeched the Goddess Ramachandi, whose temple was situated near the building site, to proceed in the construction site. Once, the deity Ramachandi manifested in the form of an elderly lady and presented him with a portion of steaming Khiri (a sweetened porridge), for consumption. At that juncture, he was both disturbed and famished. Without any hesitation, he began consuming the gruel from the centre of the dish, which caused his fingers to be burned and subsequently pulled back and recoiled. The disguised goddess chuckled at him and advised him to consume the meal from the periphery, unlike Shivai Samantaray who was attempting to fill the gorge with stones, that is, from the centre instead of one side of the gorge. This incident served as a revelation for Shivai Samantaray, enabling him to effectively accomplish his task of filling the canyon. Upon receiving the solution from the elderly woman, purportedly the deity Ramachandi, Shivai Samantaray initiated the creation of an island by extending a bank and filling the gorge, thereby establishing a stable foundation for the entire structure. Foundation of KT Based on a recent scientific investigation by the Central Building Research Institute (CBRI), Roorkee, the foundation of the KT consists of a block-type foundation that is 10.82 m deep ( Dwivedi et al. , 2022 ). The foundation comprises layers of Khandolite and Laterite stones, with the lowest layer being a dense sand stratum extending further for 11.5 m. In total, the foundation measures 22.32 m in depth (see Figure 6 ). Figure 6. The engineering aspect of the foundation of KT (Source: Authors). The most suitable foundation for an architectural plan in a sea beach location, according to modern engineering practice, is a block-type foundation with a sand footing over a compacted layer of dense sand. According to the norm, the foundation of a temple structure should typically be one-third of its height ( Meister, 1985 ; Kak, 2017 ). Previous records indicate that the height of the platform from the plinth of the KT was documented as 13 ft and 3 in ( Swarup, 1910 ; Ganguly, 1912 ). However, the current measurement in the cross-section indicates 4.12 m, equivalent to 13 ft and 6 in. Subtracting the platform height from the sanctum height, it amounts to 214 ft and 6 in. This comparison with the foundation, which measures 22.32 m (73 ft and 3 in), reveals a well-maintained height-to-foundation ratio, showcasing the remarkable technical expertise and skill of the sthapati (architect) of Kalinga. Geotechnical engineers’ research has established that the rate of consolidation of sand is higher than that of silt, clay, and other soils ( Das & Sobhan, 1990 ), making it a suitable material for filling below the foundation. Sand can also be compacted rapidly by saturating it with water, thereby reducing the need for the application of compaction energy. The thickness and width of the khandolite stone and laterite stone layers below the platform level were carefully determined to achieve a load dispersion angle close to 60°, which is less than the dispersion angle observed with stones ( Figure 6 ). Due to the high dead load of the 10m thick stone platforms and the temple itself, there is a risk of general shear failure and soil heaving. To mitigate this risk, artisans have incorporated 5.5m stone layers around the main stone foundations, demonstrating their sound engineering knowledge in the construction of the KT (see Figure 6 ). Stone selection in KT The architectural framework of the temple and the sculptures were constructed using Khondalite stones, supplemented by Laterite and Chlorite ( Dey, 2016 ; Donaldson, 2003 ; Nayak et al. , 2017 ; Saxena & Srivastava, 2021 ). Laterite stones were mostly utilised in the subterranean section, situated beneath the plinth level, for foundational purposes; Chlorite stones were specifically employed for ornamental purposes, such as crafting statues of the Sun God, the Simghasana (pedestal), the puja image, Nabagraha (nine planet) statues positioned above the lintels, the Aruna stamba (Aruna pillar), sculptures housed within mundi niches, and other decorative elements found in the doorframes. The meticulous selection of stones was subjected to remarkably minimal decay over time, compared to other renowned structures such as St. Paul’s Cathedral and Norwich Cathedral. St. Paul’s Cathedral eroded by 30 mm in 250 years, and 95% of the outer stones of Norwich Cathedral were renewed during nine centuries, whereas the decay of the KT was only 2.4 mm ( Behera, 2005 ). In an investigation conducted by UNESCO ( Lemaire & Laurenzi Tabasso, 1981 ), the condition of the stones was found to be satisfactory following chemical testing of the existing materials. Despite the close proximity of the temple to the sea, the stones have not suffered significant damage, indicating the remarkable foresight of the people who selected stones, even in the 13th century. Stone quarrying and transportation of stones Upon examining the outskirts of Konark, it is evident that there are no stone quarries in close proximity, even within a range of 30-40 kilometers. Stones were obtained from various locations including Naraj, Narasinghapur, Siddha Durga, Jagadalpur, Tapang, Ghantasila, Neelagiri, and Khiching, from a distance of 40 to 290 km from the temple structure ( Behera, 2005 ; Boner et al ., 1972 ; Donaldson, 2003 ; Dey, 2016 ). When the temple was constructed, there were no efficient means of road transportation, and people did not utilise mechanised vehicles. People who visited the temple from the late eighteenth century to the early twentieth century noted that there was a lack of appropriate road communication ( Boner et al. , 1972 ; Cumberland, 1865 ; Fergusson, 1848 ; Hunter, 1872 ; Kittoe, 1838 ; Mishra, 1919 ; Mitra, 1880 ; Stirling, 1825 ; Sutton, 1833 ; Swarup, 1910 ). According to James Fergusson, waterways were utilised to transport stones that were subsequently looted from the KT and Barabati Fort in order to construct a lighthouse at False Point by the Europeans ( Fergusson, 1848 ; Fergusson & Spiers, 1910 ). Consensus prevails that water served as the mode of transportation for conveying the stones to the site ( Behera, 2005 ; Boner et al. , 1972 ; Dey, 2016 ; Donaldson, 2003 ; Fergusson, 1848 ; Fergusson & Spiers, 1910 ; Jana et al. , 2022 ; Mishra, 1919 ; Saxena, & Srivastava, 2021 ). Upon analysing the origins of the stones and the water connectivity, it is evident that, except Naraj, Narasinghapur, and Siddha Durga, there are no direct river connections to the work site. These three locations are in close proximity to the banks of the Mahanadi river. The Mahanadi river served as the lifeline of the region, intricately connected with other rivers. This was a key consideration in the Eastern Ganga dynasty’s choice to move their capital from Kalingapatnam to present-day city of Cuttack ( Banerji, 1930 ; Chinnappa, 1978 ; Panigrahi, 1986 ; Rao, 1941 ; Singh, 1973 ; Sundaram, 1963 ). It enabled smoother travel along the Mahanadi river and its tributaries, enhancing communication and connectivity with other kingdoms. Additionally, the geographical position seemed to be central, facilitating interactions from both the north and south of the kingdom. In the era of the Eastern Ganga empire, the capital resided at the convergence of the Mahanadi river, precisely where it bifurcates into several branches, closer to the Barabati Fort cum Palace. One of the tributaries of Mahanadi, the Kushabhadra river, flows into the Bay of Bengal near the KT ( Jana et al. , 2018 ). Examining alternative stone quarries and transportation methods, the construction site presents a challenge to transport heavy materials upstream of rivers, such as from Jagadalpur, Tapang, and Ghantasila in the Chilika lake zone ( Figure 7 ). The proposed route involves travelling upstream of the Daya river and then connecting with the Kushabhadra river downstream to reach the site. Nilagiri does not have a direct river connection ( Acharya, 1955 ; Dey, 2016 ; Donaldson, 2003 ). However, there used to be a water path called Bhirudi Nala (Bhirudi Canal) that connected Nilagiri to the Salandi river downstream ( Dey, 2016 ). From there, it was possibly flowing through the downstream of the Baitarani river and connected with the Birupa river, a distributary of the Mahanadi river upstream, eventually reaching Cuttack. To reach the site, one would then need to follow the course of the Kushabhadra river. Another location, Khiching, is easily accessible the downstream of the Baitarani river, and then the upstream of the connecting Birupa river, following a similar route as transportation from Nilagiri (see Figure 7 ). Figure 7. The river system connected to the KT site (Source: Authors). Logistics of stone transportation During the time of 1870 A.D., according to the estimation and firsthand account of Hunter (1872) , the rivers had the ability to transport weight, taking into account their depth and width. Specifically, the river routes that were used to transport stones and other materials to the construction site of the KT could carry a capacity of 20-25 tonnes ( Hunter, 1872 ), sometimes even more, particularly during the rainy season. There were lot many huge sculptures and stone blocks used in the temple which were more than 25 tonnes, one example of a large stone block is the monolithic Nabagraha slab weighed about 28 tonnes (Indian Museum, 1893 ), was originally over the lintel of the eastern door of the porch. As per eyewitness experience of Sterling, during his visit in 1822 A.D., that he had made a drawing of it when the Nabagraha slab was at its position, he compared it with that of the Gothic art of European architectural ornamentation, even in this dilapidated state looking at chlorite stone works around the doorways he said that the sculptures seem as if these came out from the chisel of the sculptors ( Sterling, 1846 ). Even, when Fergusson visited in 1837 A.D., it was at its position ( Figure 3 ). Observing the Nabagraha slab missing from its original position, Ferguson said when he visited again around 1869 that “an abortive attempt was made to carry the lintel to Calcutta”. During British rule over India, an attempt had been made by the Asiatic Society to carry the Nabagraha slab to the Indian museum, Calcutta, on 11 th January 1869 A.D., but failed due to its heavy weight and low fund allocation for the execution of the job (Indian Museum, 1893 ). As per the same report of the Indian museum, a second attempt had been made in 1892 A.D. by slicing the large piece longitudinally into two considering the uncarved portion of the slab from its back to reduce the weight; but again, failed due to the opposition from natives ( Ganguly, 1912 ). Despite attempts to transport the slab via waterways, it proved unsuccessful, leading to the decision to transport it by road. In fact, the Nabagraha slab was observed loaded onto a truck in front of the temple ( Mitra, 1880 ). Moreover, the Amala of the Sanctum was measured by the Archaeological Survey of India, which excavated a hole through the stone block, revealing a measurement of 25 ft and an estimated weight of 2,000 tonnes ( ASI, 1906 ). Considering the logistic challenges posed by the river’s width and depth, it seems impossible to transport such a large stone via river routes; instead, sea routes must have been utilized for this purpose. Maritime legacy: Navigating ancient sea routes and seafaring knowledge The tradition of river and sea routes is deeply rooted in Odisha’s history, reflecting its cultural heritage and maritime past. Festivals like Boita Bandana (ritual of boat worship) during Kartika Purnima (full moon day in October or November month) and Khudurukuni Osha (a traditional fasting ritual observed by unmarried girls in Odisha) honour this legacy, with symbolic boats set afloat to commemorate the state’s maritime heritage ( Das, 2020 ; Guy, 1999 ; Sahoo, 2017 ). Additionally, festivals like Chaiti Ghoda (a folk festival featuring small wooden horse in March or April) and Brata Khulanasundari (vow of a legend Khulanasundari) celebrate the connection to maritime activities, with fishermen worshiping their boats and tales of sea voyages intertwined into folk practices ( Behera, 1999 ; Das, 1991 ; Das, 2020 ). These festivals celebrated throughout the year, serve to preserve the memory of Odisha’s maritime history through folk traditions and tales. The interpretation of inscriptions found at Udayagiri and Khandagiri Caves in the post-Buddha period, it becomes apparent that ancient Kalinga was a prominent hub of trade and commerce ( Prinsep, 1837 ). Due to its advantageous geographical position, Kalinga’s monarchs once wielded significant influence throughout India. Young princes received education in ‘Nawa-Byapara ’ (ship-commerce), highlighting the longstanding tradition of maritime trade and commerce education among monarchs dating back two thousand years. When English merchants established their first factory in Odisha near Harishpur Garh in the Mahanadi delta in 1633 A.D. ( Wilson, 1895 ; Bowrey, 1993 ), under the leadership of Mr. Cartwright, they obtained permission from Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan at the state palace of “Malcandy” (Mughals’ renaming the Barabati Fort cum Palace as such) in Cuttack, Orissa. Harishpur Garh, located at the river mouth, held historical significance for sea trade, as indicated by the names “Boita-kuilya” and “ship-haven,” ( Bowrey, 1993 ; Wilson, 1895 ); reflecting the maritime traditions of the Kalinga kingdom that persist in present-day folk culture, in the festival of Boita Bandana. The maritime activities of ancient Kalinga drew the attention of artists to be depicted in the form of sculptures at different places. An interesting sculpture preserved at Orissa State Museum depicts the journey of a boat over water carrying people along with elephants. A 12 th -century sculpture of a reverse-clinker boat is portrayed in the Bhogamandapa of Jagannath temple; the block of sculpture with the splash of oars, and ripple of waves indicates the desperate speed of the boat ( Barnes & Parkin, 2015 ; Behera, 1999 ; Bhowmick, 2005 ; Mookerji, 1912 ; Nayak, 2009 ; Parkin, 2016 ); as if, it is escaping from a danger: purportedly it was brought from the KT. There are two other boat sculptures of the medieval period from ancient Orissa preserved in the museums of Victoria and Albert Museum, London, one of which is labelled as Khelana (toy) instead, the name of the boat is supposed to be Khulana as it is known for Bhowmick (2005) . An illustration of a boat pettoo-a “from Balassora or the coast of Palmira” by a Flemish Marine painter Frans Balthazar Salvyns displayed in the National Maritime Museum Greenwich, which is the reminiscent of Patia boat of Orissa ( Behera, 1999 ; McGrail, 2001 ; McGrail et al. , 2003 ). The construction of the Patia boat is considered as one of the most complex traditional boats in the world ( Bhattacharrya, 2006 ; Blue et al. , 1997 ). Even a few more museums of India and abroad have evidence of different types of ancient boats of Kalinga preserved, which reveal ingenious skills. There were different types and sizes of boats used by the people that has been detailed in a Sanskrit book Yukti Kalpataru (wish-fulfilling tree) which elaborates on the ship building along with measurement and varieties 25 names of ships ( Mookerji, 1912 ; Sahai, 1996 ; Sastri, 1917 ; Sinha, 1999 ). There is a temple of the 8 th century named Boitala Deula, in Bhubaneswar, Odisha, the name of the temple suggests it is having the resemblance of a Boita (ship). The temple is also giving evidence of the sustained level of maritime activities. Archeological survey reports that a port was discovered at Khalkatapatana near the banks of the river Kushabhadra ( Bandi, 2000 ; Manjhi et al. , 2000 ; Sinha, 1999 ), in close proximity to the KT. Excavation efforts led by K. Veerabhara Rao and his team led to the conclusion that an active port-town existed during the 12th to 15th centuries ( Bandi, 2000 ; Tripati et al. , 2015a , 2015b ). However, the port-town declined following the downfall of the Eastern Ganga dynasty. This affirms that the sea routes and ships were used for transporting huge stone blocks during the construction of the Sun Temple. Stone elevation technology Evidence emerged suggesting that ancient artisans possessed the expertise to move the massive stone blocks. An intriguing example is the weight of the crowning stone of 2000 tonnes, with a thickness of 25 ft. It was one of the largest stones in the world ( Childress, 2013 ). There are other monumental stone blocks arranged in the shape of sculptures at varying elevations, featuring impressive figures such as the huge Gaja singha (lion upon elephant), Nabaghraha slabs of different lintels, a lion trampling on an elephant and musicians positioned at different heights, and other large sculptures. Childress (2013) hypothesized that advanced technology was employed during the construction of the edifice, such as large-scale saws, power grinders, drills, and some unidentified method of levitating massive stones or rendering them weightless. Childress’s assumption that the ancient people made heavy stones weightless using their scientific knowledge. As explained in ‘Baya Chakada’, the heavy lifting was accomplished through the use of scaffolding, skilled workers, various tools, and most importantly, trained elephants. Records of this tradition are evident in a sculpture panel originally housed in the KT, now gracing the walls of the Siddha Mahavir temple in Puri. These sculptures, relocated to the Siddha Mahavir temple during the Maratha period ( Behera, 2005 ; Dey, 2016 ; Donaldson, 2003 ), vividly depict the method of hoisting massive stone blocks with the aid of scaffolding. In the scene, two individuals are seen working at the top while four masons carry a rectangular stone block along an inclined path. Three elongated pillars are visible, providing support to the inclined slope, with one end positioned on the temple surface and the other resting on the ground. In conclusion, scaffolding was constructed of wood ( Behera, 2005 ; Dey, 2016 ). This also refutes the notion of filling sand inside and outside the temple to aid in transporting stone blocks and other materials for smoother construction progress. However, considering the substantial use of iron beams and clamps throughout the temple by ancient builders, it is likely that they employed iron beams, rods, and clamps for the scaffolding used in lifting large stone blocks. Native technology The use of enormous stone blocks and colossal iron beams in the construction is remarkable to all the scholars who have visited the site, ranging from Mahmud Bin Amir Wali, and Baba Brahmachari to European and Indian scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as those visiting today. To ensure the stability of the building, heavy stone blocks were strategically placed on top, which was the primary function of the Amala ( Swarup, 1910 ). The term ‘ Amala ’ is abbreviated from "Amara-shila," indicating that the “sila” (stone) was intended to sustain the structure as ‘ Amara ’ (immortal). Furthermore, another heavier stone block was selectively placed beneath the Amala , similar to the porch ( Figure 5 ), to make it more stable. This demonstrates that the builders were keenly aware of the importance of weight distribution while designing a large structure. Considering iron beam were neither utilized for decorative purposes in the temple nor were employed in the construction of the Vijayastamba (triumph pillar), similar to the pillars in Delhi or Dhar. Every individual iron component utilized in the temple’s construction served the purpose of providing support to various sections and corners, as well as reinforcing the monument. In addition to natural adhesives, iron clamps were frequently employed in construction to strengthen the seams. As per Swarup’s measurements, the porch is a square hall, spanning 60 ft by 60 ft, upheld by four pillars and reinforced with robust iron beams to support the ceiling ( Swarup, 1910 ). Additionally, beams were integrated into the lintels to strengthen the structure and uphold the sizable Nabagraha slabs positioned above each doorway of the porch. Moreover, numerous beams were installed as a false ceiling to offer additional support, alongside the extensive use of iron clamps in the stone joints. During the course of demolition, nearly all of the beams were fragmented, with the longest pillar measured to be 35 ft ( Graves, 1912 ). Fergusson (1910) noted that the beams in the ceiling had variable thickness, gradually widening from the sides towards the centre. It is indicative that artisans had expertise in the technical aspects and had the ability to use knowledge about the strength and properties of the metals being utilized. Use of high-grade iron The ancient artisans were able to shape and join large iron beams over eight centuries ago. Engineer M.H. Arnott, who was involved in the rehabilitation crew during the early 20th-century excavation, discovered the manufacturing secret when he examined a broken iron beam. The iron was forged into small pieces of one to one and a half feet in length and three to four inches in width. These pieces were then arranged side by side in a row, similar to bricks in a wall ( O’Malley, 1908 ). The segmented components were inserted into a quadrilateral hollow iron bar and then welded together to create a secure and seamless connection. The upper surface was subsequently polished to eliminate any visible signs of the joints, resulting in a robust and sturdy beam. The material’s composition is akin to contemporary military-grade steel ( Edwards, 1969 ; Friend, 1926 ; Singh & Kaur, 2014 ). Moreover, in order to obtain certainty, Newton conducted a test to directly compare the corrosion resistance of the iron of the KT with modern military-grade steel ( Friend, 1926 ). To do this, he obtained samples of both metals that were identical in shape, size, and weight. These samples were then exposed to various atmospheric conditions, including normal water wet and dry tests for one year, followed by an artificial sea water test for an additional year. Following a two-year scientific observation, he found that the resistance capacity of the iron used in the KT surpasses the contemporary military-grade steel. This finding was a learning lesson to him and to the Iron and Steel Industry. Such observation questions the correlation between technological advancement and the quality of products produced by the new generation, encapsulated in the adage “the good die young?” In order to test the limits of current technology, numerous lengthy iron beams have been left in place inside the KT for almost four centuries. The mixture of technical proficiency with local knowledge in ancient times provides a remarkable level of dexterity to the art of constructing buildings, which is impressive to the globe today. Astronomical wonder: Illuminating the magnificence of construction The KT’s wheel functions as a vertical sundial, meticulously designed to align with the exact latitude of Konark ( Bhatnagar & Livingston, 2005 ; De, 2022 ; John, et al. , 2015 ; Joshi & Srivastava, 2021 ; Yadav, 2021 ). This design allows for the accurate determination of time throughout the day, with minimal error, by casting shadows when a long stick is positioned at a zero-degree angle to the axle of the wheel, parallel to the ground in relation to the angle of the sun. The circular wheel is divided into eight major spokes, each representing a three-hour interval, effectively dividing the twenty-four-hour day. Between each major spoke, there are eight minor spokes, further dividing the space into halves and indicating intervals of one and a half hours, or ninety minutes. Additionally, thirty beads are positioned along the edge of the wheel between a major and a minor spoke. Each bead corresponds to three minutes of time. Moreover, by observing the gap between each bead and its center, finer subdivisions of time are discernible, with intervals as precise as one and a half minutes. The sundial functions in a counterclockwise manner. This intricate design showcases the ancient sculptors’ knowledge of astronomy, making the wheel an instrument for celestial timekeeping. The temple was built with precision, enabling the first ray of the rising sun to penetrate through the porch and illuminate the idol of the Sun God in the sanctum of the KT ( Das, 2015 ). A discussion with Soumit Biswal, a scientist from ISRO, the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, suggests that the temple is aligned along the east-west axis with one-degree accuracy. Observations indicate that on March 21st and September 22nd, twice a year, the sun’s rays were expected to directly illuminate the idol. Taking into account the width of the main door of the porch, Suvendu Patnaik of Pathani Samanta Planetarium, Bhubaneswar, suggests that sunlight would fall for approximately thirty days twice a year: from March 6 th to April 5 th and from September 7 th to October 6 th ( Dey, 2016 ). He further specifies that with an opening of one degree, the sun illuminates the area for about 11-12 days during each of these periods annually. This also validates the name of the monument, KT, derived from two Sanskrit words Kona meaning angle and Arka meaning Sun. It signifies the precise Kona ( angle) through which the rays of Arka (sun) enter to illuminate the idol of the Sun God in the temple. Discussions Summary of findings The study sheds light on varied aspects of the KT construction. It uncovers the purpose behind the temple’s construction, emphasizing its cultural and religious significance within the kingdom’s context. Additionally, the relative security of the kingdom during construction implies a stable political environment, revealing the king’s achievements in different wars and contributing to monumental projects. The identification of diverse artisans involved underscores the collaborative effort and diverse skills required for such endeavors. Trained elephants played a vital role in providing support during the construction process. Additionally, they were employed as a formidable troop in the wars waged by King Narasimhadeva I, earning him the title of Gajapati, which he proudly bore as the first king of Kalinga. The temple sculptures act as repositories of encrypted facts and historical narratives, enriching the understanding of that era. The accuracy of the temple’s measurements, as recorded in the Sanskrit version of Madalapanji dating back to 1627 A.D., has been confirmed through translation. The meticulous selection of high-quality stones demonstrates dedication to craftsmanship. Innovative transportation methods like sea routes and ships, alongside the use of iron scaffolding, highlight advanced engineering techniques. Notably, lifting the world’s heaviest stone to a height of around 200 ft showcases remarkable engineering prowess. The knowledge of utilizing iron ores for rust-resistant iron exemplifies the ingenuity of ancient craftsmen. Again, the intricately crafted wheel of the KT serves as a vertical sundial, perfectly aligned with the precise latitude of Konark. Its construction allows the first ray of the rising sun to illuminate the idol of the Sun God within the sanctum, showcasing ancient sculptors’ mastery of astronomy and architectural precision. Implications The advanced indigenous technology utilized in the construction of the ancient KT showcases remarkable sophistication, demonstrating a fusion of artisans’ skills, commitment, folk knowledge, and the quality of construction materials. Delving into the intricacies of this indigenous technology illuminates historical architectural achievements and revitalizes the forgotten art form of Kalinga, offering insights into ancient construction techniques. Limitations The limited journal publications on KT restricts the access to authentic evidence. Nevertheless, the archival data are employed from indigenous knowledge dating back to the 13th century, and folk stories and prevailing cultural practices. Documentation includes incidents and eyewitness accounts found in books, diaries, palm leaf inscriptions, and stone inscriptions. Furthermore, the study involved analyzing sculptures from the KT, along with those housed in museums of different locations, and exploring the ancient maritime traditions of the kingdom’s predecessors. Here the text also includes literature authored by King Narasimhadeva I’s court poet and historical records of the kingdom. Directions for research The evidence surrounding the KT can be researched through multiple lenses. First, there are many festivals, cultural practices, and narratives that exist among the localities surrounding the KT as a reminiscence of the past. Those have passed on from one generation to another through observation of festivals, cultural practices, and words-of-mouth. Such knowledge of Dharma is derived here from secondary sources. Acquiring such folk evidence on festivals, cultural practices, and stories from primary sources through qualitative research and analyzing their contents and themes can provide insight into the history, cultural-orientation, craftmanship, and the science and technology surrounding the KT and its present state of affairs. To further understand the construction of KT and shed light on the transportation of its massive stones, a geotechnical investigation can be carried out to analyze soil properties and borehole assessments to unveil ground conditions that may have influenced construction techniques and structural stability. Additionally, employing geophysical methods such as ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) can help detect subsurface features like buried water channels or geological anomalies, while radar satellite data analysis can offer a broader perspective of the landscape, revealing hidden watercourses or geological formations relevant to the temple’s construction. Plus, Geographic Information System (GIS) technology facilitates the integration and analysis of various spatial data layers, including topography, hydrology, and historical maps, aiding in the identification of potential water bodies, ancient river courses, or coastal features that could have influenced the temple’s location and construction. Supplementing these methods with map analysis, including examination of historical maps, archaeological surveys, and aerial photographs, can provide valuable context for understanding the KT’s surroundings and changes in the landscape over time. By synthesizing these diverse investigative approaches, the research can provide a comprehensive understanding of the environmental context in which KT was built, unraveling its construction logistics, resource utilization, and the cultural and environmental factors shaping its design and placement in the landscape. Conclusion This study has emphasized the significant contributions of an array of artisans involved in the construction process of the ancient monument of the KT. By exploring the true incidents preserved in the form of folk stories, cultural practices, and sculptures, the understanding of historical narratives has been enriched. Additionally, delving into the techniques and principles behind the ancient structures provides insights to architects and engineers to innovate and adapt improvised methods for sustainable and resilient monument design. Through this process, historical, cultural, and scientific evidence has been debunked, bridging the gap between past and present technologies to rationalize architectural excellence in the future. This research reveals the enduring legacy of Narasimhadeva I. The ancient measurements of the temple, translated from the Sanskrit version of the Madalapanji , align with modern-day calculations, serving as a testament to the completion of this architectural marvel. Furthermore, our investigation unveils the remarkable utilization of sea routes for transporting massive stones to the construction site, shedding light on the logistical prowess of ancient engineers. Amidst the stone engravings, a poignant tale emerges, immortalized in sculptures, revealing the valor of Sudehi, the faithful elephant who played a pivotal role in reviving Narasimhadeva I from the battlefield. The artisans’ skills, knowledge, local wisdom during the 13th century played significant roles in the construction of the temple. The temple’s foundation has undergone modern engineering scrutiny and has been found suitable for an architectural blueprint in a seaside setting. It further unveils the feat of lifting the world’s heaviest stone to towering heights, a testament to the ingenuity of ancient construction techniques. As we delve deeper, we discover echoes of modernity within the ancient framework, with the utilization of iron scaffolding mirroring contemporary construction practices. Lastly, the inquiry unveils the enduring presence of rust-resistant iron within the temple compound. Alongside the temple’s wheel serving as India’s earliest sundial, offering a glimpse into the celestial intricacies revered by ancient astronomers. The first ray falling on the idol inside the temple is another astronomical keenness of ancient artisans. In this study, we find not just answers, but a gateway to further research on the KT. Ethical approval Ethical approval and consent were not required Data availability statements No data are associated with this article. References Acharya P: Ancient routes in Orissa. Proceedings of the Indian history congress, Location? 1955, January; 18 : 44–51. Archaeological Survey of India: Annual report 1903-4. Calcutta: Government Printing India; 1906. Bandi K: Indian archaeology 1994-95: a review. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India; 2000. Banerji RD: History of Orissa (vol I). Calcutta: 1930. Bar-Ilan J: Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics. 2008; 74 : 257–271. Publisher Full Text Barnes R, Parkin D: Ships and the development of maritime technology on the Indian ocean. Routledge; 2015. Basham AL, Rizvi SAA: The wonder that was India. London: Sidgwick and Jackson; 1956. Baumer B, Konishi MA: Konarka chariot of Sun God. DK Printworld; 2007. Bedbak SR: Sun worship in Orissa. Sambalpur, India: Sambalpur University; 1999. Behera KS: Maritime activities of Orissa.Behera KS, editor. Maritime heritage of India. Aryan Books International; 1999; p 160–171. Behera KS: Konark-the black pagoda. India: Publications Division Ministry of Information & Broadcasting; 2005. Bhattacharyya S: Balagrahi Dingi: An anthropological approach to traditional technology. In International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology (Ed.), Connected by the sea: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde 2003. Oxford: Oxbow Books; 2006; pp. 243–251. Bhatnagar A, Livingston WC: Fundamentals of solar astronomy. World Scientific; 2005; vol. 6 . . Bhowmick AC: Evolution of water craft — traditional voyage. Journal of the Department of Museology. 2005; 4 . University of Calcutta. Blue L, Kentley E, Mcgrail S: A case study in ethno-archaeology: the Patia fishing boat of Orissa. South As Stud. 1997; 13 : 189–207. Publisher Full Text Boner A: Economic and organizational aspects of the building operations of the sun temple at Konarka. J. Econ. Soc. Hist. Orient. 1970; 13 (1): 257–272. Publisher Full Text Boner A, Rath Śarmā S, Dās RP: New light on the sun temple of Koṇārka: four unpublished manuscripts relating to construction history and ritual of this temple. Jayakṛṣṇadāsa-Kṛṣṇadāsa prācyavidyā granthamālā. 1972; 6 . Bowrey T: A geographical account of countries round the Bay of Bengal, 1669 to 1679. New Delhi, India: Asian Educational Services; 1993. Bussagli M: 5000 years of the art of India. New York: Harry N Abrams; 1971. Chakravarti BM: Chronology of the eastern ganga kings of Orissa. J Asiat Soc Bengal. 1904; 72 (2): 97–147. Chakravarti M: Certain unpublished drawings of antiquities in Orissa and Northern Circars. J Pro Asiat Soc Bengal (Series 6). 1908. Calcutta Asiat Soc. Chauley GC: History of conservation and preservation on sun temple Konark. New Delhi: Om Publication; 1997. Childress DH: Vimana: flying machines of the ancients. USA: Adventures Unlimited Press; 2013. Chinnappa P: The eastern Ganga expansion into the south. Proceedings of the Indian history congress. 1978; 39 : 99–103. Coomaraswamy AK: The arts and crafts of India and Ceylon. London and Edinburgh: TN Foulis; 1913. Cumberland RB: Stray leaves from the diary of an Indian. Whitfield Green & Son; 1865; 97–98. Das BM, Sobhan K: Principles of geotechnical engineering.1990. Das G: Dharmapada. Cuttack, India: Gopabandhu Sahitya Mandira; 1924. Das K: Sun Temple Konark Orissa. India. Spine. 2015; 40 (5): i. Publisher Full Text Das KB: Folklore of Orissa. Bhubaneswar: Orissa Sahitya Akademi; 1991. Das KC: The Dharmapada tradition revisited. Stud. Hist. 2011; 27 (1): 21–40. Das N: Konarke [Konarke in Odia language]. Bharati Bihar, Cuttack India: 1919. Das S: Ancient trade and traditional festival of Odisha. Language, literature, culture & integrity. Bhubaneswar, India: institute of Odia studies and research, Institute of Odia studies and research, Jagannath Graphices; 2020. De S: Sundial to the atomic clock. Resonance. 2022; 27 (6): 941–959. Publisher Full Text Dey A: The Sun Temple of Konark. New Delhi: Niyogi Books; 2016. Donaldson TE: Hindu temple art of Orissa. Leiden: Brill; 1985. Donaldson TE: Konarak. India: Oxford Press; 2003. Dwivedi A, Samanta M, Mittal AK: Foundation features investigation of a heritage structure in India through noninvasive and invasive techniques. J. Appl. Geophys. 2022; 196 : 104491. Publisher Full Text Edwards M: Indian temples and palaces. London: Hamlyn; 1969. Eschmann A, Kulke H, Tripathy GC: Cult of Jagannath and the regional tradition of Orissa. New Delhi: Manohar; 1978. Fabri CL: History of the art of Orissa. New Delhi, India: Orient Longman; 1974. Fergusson J: Picturesque illustrations of ancient architecture in Hindostan. London: J Hogarth; 1848. Fergusson J, Spiers RP: History of Indian and eastern architecture (vol II). London: John Murray; 1910. Friend JN: Iron in antiquity. London: C Griffin & Company; 1926. Ganguly MM: Orissa and her remains ancient and medieval Thacker. Calcutta, India: Spink & Company; 1912. Graves HG: Further notes on the early use of iron in India. J Iron Steel Inste. 1912; 85 : 187–202. Guy J: A boat model and State ritual in eastern India. Bull École fr Extrême-Orient. 1999; 86 : 105–126. Publisher Full Text Havell EB: Indian sculpture and painting. London: J Murray; 1908. Hunter WW: Orissa. London: Smith, Elder & Co; 1872; vol. 2 . . Jana S, Mohanty WK, Patnaik GS, et al. : Delineation of two ancient rivers (Chandrabhaga in Konark and Saradha in Puri, Odisha): a multi-disciplinary approach. Riverine systems: understanding the hydrological, hydrosocial and hydro-heritage dynamics. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022; pp. 387–401. Jana S, Mohanty WK, Gupta S, et al. : Palaeo-channel bisecting Puri town. Odisha. Curr Sci. 2018; 115 (2): 300–309. Publisher Full Text Jana S, Mohanty WK, Gupta S, et al. : Multi-pronged search for palaeo-channels near Konark temple, Odisha–implications for the mythical river Chandrabhaga. Curr. Sci. 2016; 111 : 1387–1393. Jana S, Mohanty WK, Kumar P, et al. : Neotectonic activity along the Odisha coast India. Implications for the collapse of the Konark Sun temple and extinction of the ancient River Chandrabhaga. J. Earth Sys. Sci. 2021; 130 : 1–19. Jarrett HS: The Ain-i Akbari of Abul Fazl Allami (vol II). Translated from the original Persian. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal. Baptist Mission Press; 1891. John AJ, Thampuran AL, Akella V, et al. : 08 solar passive energy efficient techniques: study in context of composite North Indian cimate.2015. Joshi A, Srivastava A: Original anatomy of the temple: sun temple Konark, India. Int. J. Archt. Herit. 2021; 4 (2): 53–61. Kak S: Space and cosmology in the Hindu temple. Space. 2017; 1101. Kittoe M: J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal. Calcutta Baptist Mission Press; 1838; 7 (1): 681–682. Kulke H: Kings and cults. Manohar Publishers & Distributors; 1993. Kulke H, Rothermund D: A history of India. Routledge; 2016. Laurie WFB: Orissa, the garden of superstition & idolatry. R. N. Bhattacharya Antiquarian Booksellers Publishers & Exporters; 2000. Lemaire RM, Laurenzi Tabasso M: Conservation of the Konarak Temple Orissa India. FMR/CC/CH/81/146, RP/1979-80/4/7/6/02/Assignment report.1981. Lowe D: Suspending Disbelief: magnetic and miraculous levitation from antiquity to the middle ages. Class. Antiq. 2016; 35 (2): 247–278. Publisher Full Text Mahapatra K: King Narasimha eulogised in the Ekavali of Vidyadhara OHRJ.1959; 8 (3): 118–127. Mahapatra RP: Temple legends of Orissa. Orissha Sahitya Academy; 1989. Manjhi H, Dorje C, Banerji A, editors. Indian archaeology 1994-95: a review. New Delhi Archaeological Survey of India, Government of India; 2000. McGrail S: Boats of the world from the stone age to medieval times. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001. McGrail S, Blue L, Kentley E, et al. : Boats of south Asia. Routledge curzon studies in south Asia. London: The British Museum; 2003. Meister MW: Measurement and proportion in Hindu temple architecture. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 1985; 10 (3): 248–258. Publisher Full Text Mishra K: Konark in Odia language. Subemarekha Chambers Bhouma Nagar, Bhubaneswar: India Lark Books; 1919. Mitra R: Antiquities of Orissa. Calcutta: W Newman; 1880; vol. 2 . . Mohanty A: Madalapanji Odia-language essay book. Orissa Sahitya Academy; 2001; 41–42. Mookerji R: A history of Indian shipping. London: William Clowes and Sons; 1912; 36–37. Museum I: Annual report April 1892 to March 1893. Kolkata: 1893. Nayak AK: A rare early medieval sculptural representation of a ship from Ratnagiri in Odisha. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 2009; 70 : 1028–1033. Nayak SK, Behera PK, Bajpai R, et al. : Lichens growth on sun temple of Konark in Odisha, India-A curse or blessing. Cryptogam Biodivers and Assess. 2017; 2 (2): 48–52. Publisher Full Text O’Malley LSS: Puri. Bengal District Gazetteers Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Book Depot; 1908; vol. 13 . . Panigrahi KC: History of Orissa. 2nd ed.State Committee for Compilation of History of the Freedom Movement Orissa; 1986. Parkin D: Ships and the development of maritime technology on the Indian Ocean. 2nd ed.Routledge; 2016. Percy B: Indian architecture. 4th ed.Bombay: Buddhist and Hindu Periods; 1959. Prinsep J: Note on inscriptions at Udayagiri and Khandgiri in Cuttack. J Asiat Soc Bengal. 1837; 6 (2): 1072–1089. Rao JS, Bhonsle BR, Kumar B: Hindu temple carts Rathams. Essays on the history of mechanical engineering. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015; pp. 367–388. Rao RS: The eastern Ganga era and connected problems: summary. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 1941; pp. 181–187 Rath CS, Behera RR, Jana S, et al. : Exploring the lost river(s) at Konarka: a multi-disciplinary approach. Odisha Rev. 2015; 72 : 92–96. Rath SS: Myths, facts and controversies associated with the sun temple of Konark. Odisha Rev. 2021; 51–67. Rowland B: The art and architecture of India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain. London: Penguin Books; 1953. Sahai B: Indian shipping: a historical survey. New Delhi: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Director Publications Division, Government of India; 1996. Sahoo SS: Tapoi katha a reconstruction of history through an Odia folk travel narrative. The Internatonal Academic Forum; 2017. Sarkar J: The history of Bengal-Muslim period (vol II) 1200 AD–1757 AD. Dacca: University of Dacca; 2003. Sastri IC: Yukti Kalpataru of Bhoja Raja I. Shastri C, editor. Calcutta Siddheswar Machine Press; 1917. Saxena A, Srivastava A: Konark sun temple style and architecture. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2021; 4 (2): 32–38. Shand M: Travels on my elephant. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press; 1992. Singh D: The history of the Eastern Ganga Dynasty, circa 1038-1238 A.D. London: University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies United Kingdom; 1973. Singh T, Kaur R: Scientific and technological developments in Indian heritage: a review. Proceedings of the National Seminar on Indian heritage: perspectives and prospects. 2014; pp. 10–11 Sinha BK: Maritime activities of the Kalingas and the new light thrown by the excavations at khalkatapatna.Behera KS, editor. Maritime heritage of India. Aryan Books; 1999; pp. 172–178. Sterling A: Orissa: its geography statistics history religion and antiquities. Author; 1846. Stirling A: An account geographical statistical and historical of Orissa proper or Cuttack. Asiat Res. 1825; 163–338. Subbarao R: Relations between the Eastern Ganga rulers and the Sultans of Delhi and Bengal during the period AD 1205 to 1435. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Indian History Congress. 1939; 3 : 766–779. Sundaram K: The Simahachalam Temple. Waltair: Department of History and Archaeology, Andhra University; 1963. Sutton A: A narrative of the mission to Orissa (the site of the temple of Jugurnath supported by the new connexion of general Baptists in England). D. Marks for the Free-will Baptist Connexion. 1833. Swarup B: Konarka, the black pagoda of Orissa. Star Press, Cuttack Published by the Government of Bengal; 1910. Tripati S, Patnaik SK, Pradhan GC: Maritime trade contacts of Odisha, east coast of India with the Roman world: an appraisal.Mathew KH, editor. Imperial Rome, Indian Ocean, Regions and Muziris. New Delhi: Manohar Publisher and Distributor; 2015a. Tripathy GC, Kulke H: Katakaraj bansabali. Vohra OP, editor. Vohra Publishers & Distributors; 1987. Tripati S, Murali RM, Seelam JK, et al. : Khalkattapatna port the lost archaeological heritage of Odisha, east coast of India. Curr. Sci. 2015b; 109 (2): 372–377. Wilson CR: The early history of the English in Bengal. London: Thacker; 1895. Yadav G: The Konark sun temple: mathematics behind the architecture of an astronomical wonder. Int. J. Recent Sci. Res. 2021; 12 (1): 40690–40692. Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 20 Dec 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 School of Film and Media Sciences, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, 751024, India 2 School of Civil Engineering, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, 751024, India 3 School of Liberal Studies, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, 751024, India Susanta Bahinipati Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Dipti Ranjan Biswal Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Damodar Suar Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 15 May 2025, 13:1540 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.157831.2 version 1 Published: 20 Dec 2024, 13:1540 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.157831.1 Copyright © 2024 Bahinipati S et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Bahinipati S, Ranjan Biswal D and Suar D. The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1540 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.157831.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 20 Dec 2024 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Farhan SL. Reviewer Report For: The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1540 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.173339.r356835 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1540/v1#referee-response-356835 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 05 Feb 2025 Sabeeh Lafta Farhan , Wasit university, Kut, Iraq Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.173339.r356835 Thoroughness & Scope – The article provides an extensive review of historical, cultural, and scientific aspects of the Konark Temple’s construction. The depth of research and integration of multiple sources, including historical texts, archaeological findings, and indigenous knowledge, is commendable. ... Continue reading READ ALL Thoroughness & Scope – The article provides an extensive review of historical, cultural, and scientific aspects of the Konark Temple’s construction. The depth of research and integration of multiple sources, including historical texts, archaeological findings, and indigenous knowledge, is commendable. Interdisciplinary Approach – The combination of historical analysis, engineering insights, and cultural narratives enriches the discussion. However, a more structured comparison with contemporary temple architecture across different regions of India could provide additional context. Scientific and Engineering Aspects – The discussion on iron usage and rust-resistant techniques is fascinating. It would be helpful to include a comparison with other ancient iron structures, such as the Iron Pillar of Delhi, to establish technological linkages. Specific Comments: Historical Narratives & Myths – While the study effectively explores historical accounts and folklore, some claims (such as the floating deity using magnets) require additional corroboration from scientific sources or metallurgical studies. Methodology Clarification – The systematic review method is well described, but the inclusion criteria for selecting historical texts, palm leaf manuscripts, and indigenous narratives should be elaborated. How were these sources validated for accuracy? Illustrations & Figures – The inclusion of figures is helpful in visualizing the temple’s architectural layout. However, some of them lack detailed captions or references to their sources (e.g., Figure 5’s sketch of the temple in its complete state). Construction Techniques & Materials – The identification of Khondalite, Laterite, and Chlorite stones is insightful. However, the decay rate comparison with Western structures like St. Paul’s Cathedral might need more quantitative backing with geological studies. Maritime & Transportation Hypothesis – The theory of stone transportation via sea routes is intriguing. Have geological or sedimentary studies been conducted along these proposed routes to confirm ancient maritime trade or transport links? References: Lafta Farhan S.et.al. 2022 (Ref 1) This study discusses the transformation of historical city centers and could provide a comparative perspective on the cultural and architectural sustainability of heritage sites, similar to the preservation efforts and architectural significance discussed in the Konark Temple study. Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature? Yes Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Yes Is the review written in accessible language? Yes Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature? Yes References 1. Lafta Farhan S, Nasar Z: The social transformation of the historical city centre of Karbala , Iraq. Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal . 2022; 15 (3). Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Farhan SL. Reviewer Report For: The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1540 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.173339.r356835 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1540/v1#referee-response-356835 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 15 May 2025 Susanta Bahinipati , School of Film and Media Sciences, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar, 751024, India 15 May 2025 Author Response Reviewer 2 Sabeeh Lafta Farhan , Wasit university, Kut, Iraq We are grateful for your appreciation of the work and constructive comments/ suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. ... Continue reading Reviewer 2 Sabeeh Lafta Farhan , Wasit university, Kut, Iraq We are grateful for your appreciation of the work and constructive comments/ suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. Thoroughness & Scope The article provides an extensive review of historical, cultural, and scientific aspects of the Konark Temple’s construction. The depth of research and integration of multiple sources, including historical texts, archaeological findings, and indigenous knowledge, is commendable. Interdisciplinary Approach – The combination of historical analysis, engineering insights, and cultural narratives enriches the discussion. However, a more structured comparison with contemporary temple architecture across different regions of India could provide additional context. Scientific and Engineering Aspects – The discussion on iron usage and rust-resistant techniques is fascinating. It would be helpful to include a comparison with other ancient iron structures, such as the Iron Pillar of Delhi, to establish technological linkages. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the interdisciplinary approach and the depth of research. In response to your suggestion, we have incorporated a structured comparison with contemporary ancient iron structures, including the Iron Pillar of Delhi, in the revised section “Use of High-Grade Iron”. Listed Reply to Comments/ Suggestions Historical Narratives & Myths While the study effectively explores historical accounts and folklore, some claims (such as the floating deity using magnets) require additional corroboration from scientific sources or metallurgical studies. Response: We acknowledge the need for scientific validation. Cultural accounts are presented, and future metallurgical studies are outlined in the third paragraph of the “Directions for research” section. Metallurgical and archaeological studies can also test historical claims, such as the possible use of magnets in KT. Methodology Clarification The systematic review method is well described, but the inclusion criteria for selecting historical texts, palm leaf manuscripts, and indigenous narratives should be elaborated. How were these sources validated for accuracy? Response: The inclusion criteria for historical texts, palm leaf manuscripts, and indigenous narratives were based on their relevance to nine thematic areas. Sources were validated through cross-referencing with academic literature and comparative analysis with archaeological findings. These details have been incorporated into the ‘Methodology’ section, which has been revised as follows: Methodology A systematic review methodology was adopted for the search and selection of documents. Documents were sourced from Scopus, the largest scientific journal database, and Google Scholar, an inclusive, automated repository offering access to a vast range of published works (Bar-Ilan, 2008). Two search strings were employed: “KONARK” OR “SUN AND TEMPLE” within the title, abstract, and keyword fields. This search yielded 329 documents from Scopus and 912 from Google Scholar. After removing duplicates (n = 235), the remaining documents were screened on the basis of titles and/or abstracts for relevance to nine thematic areas: (1) causes of construction, (2) financial allocation, (3) dimensions of Konark Temple (KT), (4) human resources, (5) obstacles during construction, (6) foundation of KT, (7) stone selection, transportation and lifting, (8) native technology, and (9) astronomical phenomena. This process resulted in 80 documents, comprising 29 journal articles and 51 books, and excluded 926 documents. Following a full-text review, 69 documents, containing 29 journal articles and 40 books, were retained as relevant to the aforementioned themes, while 11 books were excluded by the first author. The inclusion and exclusion of documents were subsequently discussed among all three authors, and the exclusion was agreed upon. Limited programmatic research and publications in journals on the KT resulted in the retention of 29 journal articles. As KT is an ancient structure dating back to the 13th century, 36 documents related to its architecture, construction, water bodies, and associated folklore were selected from cross-referenced old books and ancient writings (n = 29), palm-leaf inscriptions and indigenous narratives on stones (n = 6), and copper plates (n = 1). Also, 13 journal articles were selected for a comparative analysis of KT with other monumental structures worldwide (Aveni, Gibbs, & Hartung, 1975; Evans et al., 2013; Farhan et al., 2022; Gaffney et al., 2018; Ghoneim et al., 2024; Sheisha et al., 2022; Uchida & Shimoda, 2013), for assessing the quality of stone and iron used (Basu, Orr, & Aktas, 2020; Church of England, 2019; Ghosh, 1963; Gilchrist, 2001; Phys.org, 2012; Vincent, 1993). An additional journal article was included to rationalise the database for selection and inclusion of documents for review (Bar-Ilan, 2008). These were initiated by the first author and agreed upon by the remaining two authors, with no documents removed. Of 130 documents, 119 documents were included for this review (see Fig. 2). The inter-rater reliability (Number of agreed documents/ Total number of documents) was 91.54%. Illustrations & Figures The inclusion of figures is helpful in visualizing the temple’s architectural layout. However, some of them lack detailed captions or references to their sources (e.g., Figure 5’s sketch of the temple in its complete state). Response: Thank you for your feedback. Figure 5 cites its source in the legend (Swarup, 1910). We have reviewed all figures to ensure clear captions and citations. Minor revisions were made: in Figure 1. We have changed "Theoretical and practical implications" to "Implications"; in Figure 2, we corrected it as per the methodology section; and in Figure 7, we corrected "Kusabhagra" to "Kusabhadra." Construction Techniques & Materials The identification of Khondalite, Laterite, and Chlorite stones is insightful. However, the decay rate comparison with Western structures like St. Paul’s Cathedral might need more quantitative backing with geological studies. Response: The ‘ Stone selection in KT’ section has been revised to include a quantitative comparison of decay rates with Western structures such as St. Paul’s Cathedral and Norwich Cathedral, supported by geological studies for analytical rigor. Corresponding references have been added. The changes are as follows: Stone selection in KT The architectural framework of the temple and its sculptures were constructed using Khandalite stones, supplemented by Laterite and Chlorite (Dey, 2016; Donaldson, 2003; Nayak et al., 2017; Saxena & Srivastava, 2021). Laterite stones were primarily used in the subterranean section beneath the plinth level for foundational purposes, while Chlorite stones for ornamental features, including statues of the Sun God, the Simghasana (pedestal), the puja image, Nabagraha (nine planet) statues above the lintels, the Aruna Stamba (Aruna pillar), sculptures within mundi niches, and decorative elements on the doorframes. The meticulous selection of stones has resulted in remarkably minimal decay over time compared to Western structures such as St. Paul’s Cathedral and Norwich Cathedral. St. Paul’s Cathedral, built with Portland limestone, has undergone significant weathering due to environmental exposure. Studies show that its decay rate varies between 130–220 µm per year, leading to an estimated erosion depth of 40.82 mm to 69.08 mm over 314 years since its completion in 1710 A.D. (Phys.org, 2012; Basu et al., 2020). Additionally, long-term measurements using lead plugs indicate surface recession rates of 0.066 mm to 0.081 mm per year over 262 years, with a total erosion depth of 17.3 mm to 21.2 mm (Vincent, 1993). The highest deterioration occurs on surfaces facing southwest due to increased exposure to pollutants and weathering effects. Similarly, Norwich Cathedral, constructed primarily of Caen limestone since 1096 A.D., has undergone extensive erosion over centuries. The outer layers of its stonework have been significantly renewed (Church of England, 2019), with approximately 95% of its exterior stones replaced over nine centuries due to weathering, fire damage, and pollution (Behera, 2005). Historical evidence unravels the environmental exposure and structural modifications of Cathedrals over time, emphasizing the preservation of limestone-based heritage structures (Gilchrist, 2001). In contrast, the Khandalite stones of the KT have eroded by only 2.4 mm over 750 years (Behera, 2005). Such lower decay rate suggests that the stone’s intrinsic properties, along with environmental factors and historical preservation efforts, have contributed to its longevity. The chemical testing of existing materials of KT during 1979-1984 confirmed the satisfactory condition of the temple stones (UNESCO: Lemaire & Labasso, 1981). Despite the temple’s proximity to the sea, the stones have not suffered substantial damage, highlighting the advanced scientific knowledge of 13th-century artisans in selecting durable materials resistant to coastal weathering. Reference Basu, S., Orr, S. A., &Aktas, Y. D. (2020). A geological perspective on climate change and building stone deterioration in London: Implications for urban stone-built heritage research and management. Atmosphere, 11 (8), 788. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11080788 Church of England. (2019). Norwich Cathedral. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/norwich-cathedral.pdf Gilchrist, R. (2001). Norwich Cathedral tower and spire: Recording and analysis of a cathedral's longue durée.Archaeological Journal, 158 (1), 291–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00665983.2001.11078997 Phys.org. (2012, October 26). Erosion of iconic St. Paul’s could benefit from laser scanning technology. https://phys.org/news/2012-10-erosion-iconic-st-paul-benefit.html Vincent, K. (1993). Atmospheric particulate matter and historic buildings (Doctoral dissertation, Middlesex University). Maritime & Transportation Hypothesis The theory of stone transportation via sea routes is intriguing. Have geological or sedimentary studies been conducted along these proposed routes to confirm ancient maritime trade or transport links? Response: Historical texts and the discovery of an ancient port at Khalkatapatana port suggest sea transport, but geological validation is needed. This is addressed in the third paragraph of the "Directions for research" section. Additionally, sediment coring, sonar, and bathymetric surveys using tools like sub-bottom profilers and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) can explore potential maritime transport links. References Lafta Farhan S. et.al. 2022 (Ref 1) This study discusses the transformation of historical city centers and could provide a comparative perspective on the cultural and architectural sustainability of heritage sites, similar to the preservation efforts and architectural significance discussed in the Konark Temple study. Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Lafta Farhan S. et al. (2022) is acknowledged in the fifth paragraph of the “Directions for Research” section to support future comparative heritage studies. Lastly, the transformation and sustainability strategies of historic city centers (Farhan et al ., 2022), offer insights for preservation of KT. Tools like GIS-based urban analysis, 3D documentation, and heritage assessments, combined with adaptive reuse and conservation models, can support resilient, sustainable preservation. Reference: Farhan, S. L., Alobaydi, D., Anton, D., & Nasar, Z. (2022). Analysing the master plan development and urban heritage of Najaf City in Iraq. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development . Reviewer 2 Sabeeh Lafta Farhan , Wasit university, Kut, Iraq We are grateful for your appreciation of the work and constructive comments/ suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. Thoroughness & Scope The article provides an extensive review of historical, cultural, and scientific aspects of the Konark Temple’s construction. The depth of research and integration of multiple sources, including historical texts, archaeological findings, and indigenous knowledge, is commendable. Interdisciplinary Approach – The combination of historical analysis, engineering insights, and cultural narratives enriches the discussion. However, a more structured comparison with contemporary temple architecture across different regions of India could provide additional context. Scientific and Engineering Aspects – The discussion on iron usage and rust-resistant techniques is fascinating. It would be helpful to include a comparison with other ancient iron structures, such as the Iron Pillar of Delhi, to establish technological linkages. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the interdisciplinary approach and the depth of research. In response to your suggestion, we have incorporated a structured comparison with contemporary ancient iron structures, including the Iron Pillar of Delhi, in the revised section “Use of High-Grade Iron”. Listed Reply to Comments/ Suggestions Historical Narratives & Myths While the study effectively explores historical accounts and folklore, some claims (such as the floating deity using magnets) require additional corroboration from scientific sources or metallurgical studies. Response: We acknowledge the need for scientific validation. Cultural accounts are presented, and future metallurgical studies are outlined in the third paragraph of the “Directions for research” section. Metallurgical and archaeological studies can also test historical claims, such as the possible use of magnets in KT. Methodology Clarification The systematic review method is well described, but the inclusion criteria for selecting historical texts, palm leaf manuscripts, and indigenous narratives should be elaborated. How were these sources validated for accuracy? Response: The inclusion criteria for historical texts, palm leaf manuscripts, and indigenous narratives were based on their relevance to nine thematic areas. Sources were validated through cross-referencing with academic literature and comparative analysis with archaeological findings. These details have been incorporated into the ‘Methodology’ section, which has been revised as follows: Methodology A systematic review methodology was adopted for the search and selection of documents. Documents were sourced from Scopus, the largest scientific journal database, and Google Scholar, an inclusive, automated repository offering access to a vast range of published works (Bar-Ilan, 2008). Two search strings were employed: “KONARK” OR “SUN AND TEMPLE” within the title, abstract, and keyword fields. This search yielded 329 documents from Scopus and 912 from Google Scholar. After removing duplicates (n = 235), the remaining documents were screened on the basis of titles and/or abstracts for relevance to nine thematic areas: (1) causes of construction, (2) financial allocation, (3) dimensions of Konark Temple (KT), (4) human resources, (5) obstacles during construction, (6) foundation of KT, (7) stone selection, transportation and lifting, (8) native technology, and (9) astronomical phenomena. This process resulted in 80 documents, comprising 29 journal articles and 51 books, and excluded 926 documents. Following a full-text review, 69 documents, containing 29 journal articles and 40 books, were retained as relevant to the aforementioned themes, while 11 books were excluded by the first author. The inclusion and exclusion of documents were subsequently discussed among all three authors, and the exclusion was agreed upon. Limited programmatic research and publications in journals on the KT resulted in the retention of 29 journal articles. As KT is an ancient structure dating back to the 13th century, 36 documents related to its architecture, construction, water bodies, and associated folklore were selected from cross-referenced old books and ancient writings (n = 29), palm-leaf inscriptions and indigenous narratives on stones (n = 6), and copper plates (n = 1). Also, 13 journal articles were selected for a comparative analysis of KT with other monumental structures worldwide (Aveni, Gibbs, & Hartung, 1975; Evans et al., 2013; Farhan et al., 2022; Gaffney et al., 2018; Ghoneim et al., 2024; Sheisha et al., 2022; Uchida & Shimoda, 2013), for assessing the quality of stone and iron used (Basu, Orr, & Aktas, 2020; Church of England, 2019; Ghosh, 1963; Gilchrist, 2001; Phys.org, 2012; Vincent, 1993). An additional journal article was included to rationalise the database for selection and inclusion of documents for review (Bar-Ilan, 2008). These were initiated by the first author and agreed upon by the remaining two authors, with no documents removed. Of 130 documents, 119 documents were included for this review (see Fig. 2). The inter-rater reliability (Number of agreed documents/ Total number of documents) was 91.54%. Illustrations & Figures The inclusion of figures is helpful in visualizing the temple’s architectural layout. However, some of them lack detailed captions or references to their sources (e.g., Figure 5’s sketch of the temple in its complete state). Response: Thank you for your feedback. Figure 5 cites its source in the legend (Swarup, 1910). We have reviewed all figures to ensure clear captions and citations. Minor revisions were made: in Figure 1. We have changed "Theoretical and practical implications" to "Implications"; in Figure 2, we corrected it as per the methodology section; and in Figure 7, we corrected "Kusabhagra" to "Kusabhadra." Construction Techniques & Materials The identification of Khondalite, Laterite, and Chlorite stones is insightful. However, the decay rate comparison with Western structures like St. Paul’s Cathedral might need more quantitative backing with geological studies. Response: The ‘ Stone selection in KT’ section has been revised to include a quantitative comparison of decay rates with Western structures such as St. Paul’s Cathedral and Norwich Cathedral, supported by geological studies for analytical rigor. Corresponding references have been added. The changes are as follows: Stone selection in KT The architectural framework of the temple and its sculptures were constructed using Khandalite stones, supplemented by Laterite and Chlorite (Dey, 2016; Donaldson, 2003; Nayak et al., 2017; Saxena & Srivastava, 2021). Laterite stones were primarily used in the subterranean section beneath the plinth level for foundational purposes, while Chlorite stones for ornamental features, including statues of the Sun God, the Simghasana (pedestal), the puja image, Nabagraha (nine planet) statues above the lintels, the Aruna Stamba (Aruna pillar), sculptures within mundi niches, and decorative elements on the doorframes. The meticulous selection of stones has resulted in remarkably minimal decay over time compared to Western structures such as St. Paul’s Cathedral and Norwich Cathedral. St. Paul’s Cathedral, built with Portland limestone, has undergone significant weathering due to environmental exposure. Studies show that its decay rate varies between 130–220 µm per year, leading to an estimated erosion depth of 40.82 mm to 69.08 mm over 314 years since its completion in 1710 A.D. (Phys.org, 2012; Basu et al., 2020). Additionally, long-term measurements using lead plugs indicate surface recession rates of 0.066 mm to 0.081 mm per year over 262 years, with a total erosion depth of 17.3 mm to 21.2 mm (Vincent, 1993). The highest deterioration occurs on surfaces facing southwest due to increased exposure to pollutants and weathering effects. Similarly, Norwich Cathedral, constructed primarily of Caen limestone since 1096 A.D., has undergone extensive erosion over centuries. The outer layers of its stonework have been significantly renewed (Church of England, 2019), with approximately 95% of its exterior stones replaced over nine centuries due to weathering, fire damage, and pollution (Behera, 2005). Historical evidence unravels the environmental exposure and structural modifications of Cathedrals over time, emphasizing the preservation of limestone-based heritage structures (Gilchrist, 2001). In contrast, the Khandalite stones of the KT have eroded by only 2.4 mm over 750 years (Behera, 2005). Such lower decay rate suggests that the stone’s intrinsic properties, along with environmental factors and historical preservation efforts, have contributed to its longevity. The chemical testing of existing materials of KT during 1979-1984 confirmed the satisfactory condition of the temple stones (UNESCO: Lemaire & Labasso, 1981). Despite the temple’s proximity to the sea, the stones have not suffered substantial damage, highlighting the advanced scientific knowledge of 13th-century artisans in selecting durable materials resistant to coastal weathering. Reference Basu, S., Orr, S. A., &Aktas, Y. D. (2020). A geological perspective on climate change and building stone deterioration in London: Implications for urban stone-built heritage research and management. Atmosphere, 11 (8), 788. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11080788 Church of England. (2019). Norwich Cathedral. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/norwich-cathedral.pdf Gilchrist, R. (2001). Norwich Cathedral tower and spire: Recording and analysis of a cathedral's longue durée.Archaeological Journal, 158 (1), 291–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00665983.2001.11078997 Phys.org. (2012, October 26). Erosion of iconic St. Paul’s could benefit from laser scanning technology. https://phys.org/news/2012-10-erosion-iconic-st-paul-benefit.html Vincent, K. (1993). Atmospheric particulate matter and historic buildings (Doctoral dissertation, Middlesex University). Maritime & Transportation Hypothesis The theory of stone transportation via sea routes is intriguing. Have geological or sedimentary studies been conducted along these proposed routes to confirm ancient maritime trade or transport links? Response: Historical texts and the discovery of an ancient port at Khalkatapatana port suggest sea transport, but geological validation is needed. This is addressed in the third paragraph of the "Directions for research" section. Additionally, sediment coring, sonar, and bathymetric surveys using tools like sub-bottom profilers and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) can explore potential maritime transport links. References Lafta Farhan S. et.al. 2022 (Ref 1) This study discusses the transformation of historical city centers and could provide a comparative perspective on the cultural and architectural sustainability of heritage sites, similar to the preservation efforts and architectural significance discussed in the Konark Temple study. Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Lafta Farhan S. et al. (2022) is acknowledged in the fifth paragraph of the “Directions for Research” section to support future comparative heritage studies. Lastly, the transformation and sustainability strategies of historic city centers (Farhan et al ., 2022), offer insights for preservation of KT. Tools like GIS-based urban analysis, 3D documentation, and heritage assessments, combined with adaptive reuse and conservation models, can support resilient, sustainable preservation. Reference: Farhan, S. L., Alobaydi, D., Anton, D., & Nasar, Z. (2022). Analysing the master plan development and urban heritage of Najaf City in Iraq. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development . Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 15 May 2025 Susanta Bahinipati , School of Film and Media Sciences, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar, 751024, India 15 May 2025 Author Response Reviewer 2 Sabeeh Lafta Farhan , Wasit university, Kut, Iraq We are grateful for your appreciation of the work and constructive comments/ suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. ... Continue reading Reviewer 2 Sabeeh Lafta Farhan , Wasit university, Kut, Iraq We are grateful for your appreciation of the work and constructive comments/ suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. Thoroughness & Scope The article provides an extensive review of historical, cultural, and scientific aspects of the Konark Temple’s construction. The depth of research and integration of multiple sources, including historical texts, archaeological findings, and indigenous knowledge, is commendable. Interdisciplinary Approach – The combination of historical analysis, engineering insights, and cultural narratives enriches the discussion. However, a more structured comparison with contemporary temple architecture across different regions of India could provide additional context. Scientific and Engineering Aspects – The discussion on iron usage and rust-resistant techniques is fascinating. It would be helpful to include a comparison with other ancient iron structures, such as the Iron Pillar of Delhi, to establish technological linkages. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the interdisciplinary approach and the depth of research. In response to your suggestion, we have incorporated a structured comparison with contemporary ancient iron structures, including the Iron Pillar of Delhi, in the revised section “Use of High-Grade Iron”. Listed Reply to Comments/ Suggestions Historical Narratives & Myths While the study effectively explores historical accounts and folklore, some claims (such as the floating deity using magnets) require additional corroboration from scientific sources or metallurgical studies. Response: We acknowledge the need for scientific validation. Cultural accounts are presented, and future metallurgical studies are outlined in the third paragraph of the “Directions for research” section. Metallurgical and archaeological studies can also test historical claims, such as the possible use of magnets in KT. Methodology Clarification The systematic review method is well described, but the inclusion criteria for selecting historical texts, palm leaf manuscripts, and indigenous narratives should be elaborated. How were these sources validated for accuracy? Response: The inclusion criteria for historical texts, palm leaf manuscripts, and indigenous narratives were based on their relevance to nine thematic areas. Sources were validated through cross-referencing with academic literature and comparative analysis with archaeological findings. These details have been incorporated into the ‘Methodology’ section, which has been revised as follows: Methodology A systematic review methodology was adopted for the search and selection of documents. Documents were sourced from Scopus, the largest scientific journal database, and Google Scholar, an inclusive, automated repository offering access to a vast range of published works (Bar-Ilan, 2008). Two search strings were employed: “KONARK” OR “SUN AND TEMPLE” within the title, abstract, and keyword fields. This search yielded 329 documents from Scopus and 912 from Google Scholar. After removing duplicates (n = 235), the remaining documents were screened on the basis of titles and/or abstracts for relevance to nine thematic areas: (1) causes of construction, (2) financial allocation, (3) dimensions of Konark Temple (KT), (4) human resources, (5) obstacles during construction, (6) foundation of KT, (7) stone selection, transportation and lifting, (8) native technology, and (9) astronomical phenomena. This process resulted in 80 documents, comprising 29 journal articles and 51 books, and excluded 926 documents. Following a full-text review, 69 documents, containing 29 journal articles and 40 books, were retained as relevant to the aforementioned themes, while 11 books were excluded by the first author. The inclusion and exclusion of documents were subsequently discussed among all three authors, and the exclusion was agreed upon. Limited programmatic research and publications in journals on the KT resulted in the retention of 29 journal articles. As KT is an ancient structure dating back to the 13th century, 36 documents related to its architecture, construction, water bodies, and associated folklore were selected from cross-referenced old books and ancient writings (n = 29), palm-leaf inscriptions and indigenous narratives on stones (n = 6), and copper plates (n = 1). Also, 13 journal articles were selected for a comparative analysis of KT with other monumental structures worldwide (Aveni, Gibbs, & Hartung, 1975; Evans et al., 2013; Farhan et al., 2022; Gaffney et al., 2018; Ghoneim et al., 2024; Sheisha et al., 2022; Uchida & Shimoda, 2013), for assessing the quality of stone and iron used (Basu, Orr, & Aktas, 2020; Church of England, 2019; Ghosh, 1963; Gilchrist, 2001; Phys.org, 2012; Vincent, 1993). An additional journal article was included to rationalise the database for selection and inclusion of documents for review (Bar-Ilan, 2008). These were initiated by the first author and agreed upon by the remaining two authors, with no documents removed. Of 130 documents, 119 documents were included for this review (see Fig. 2). The inter-rater reliability (Number of agreed documents/ Total number of documents) was 91.54%. Illustrations & Figures The inclusion of figures is helpful in visualizing the temple’s architectural layout. However, some of them lack detailed captions or references to their sources (e.g., Figure 5’s sketch of the temple in its complete state). Response: Thank you for your feedback. Figure 5 cites its source in the legend (Swarup, 1910). We have reviewed all figures to ensure clear captions and citations. Minor revisions were made: in Figure 1. We have changed "Theoretical and practical implications" to "Implications"; in Figure 2, we corrected it as per the methodology section; and in Figure 7, we corrected "Kusabhagra" to "Kusabhadra." Construction Techniques & Materials The identification of Khondalite, Laterite, and Chlorite stones is insightful. However, the decay rate comparison with Western structures like St. Paul’s Cathedral might need more quantitative backing with geological studies. Response: The ‘ Stone selection in KT’ section has been revised to include a quantitative comparison of decay rates with Western structures such as St. Paul’s Cathedral and Norwich Cathedral, supported by geological studies for analytical rigor. Corresponding references have been added. The changes are as follows: Stone selection in KT The architectural framework of the temple and its sculptures were constructed using Khandalite stones, supplemented by Laterite and Chlorite (Dey, 2016; Donaldson, 2003; Nayak et al., 2017; Saxena & Srivastava, 2021). Laterite stones were primarily used in the subterranean section beneath the plinth level for foundational purposes, while Chlorite stones for ornamental features, including statues of the Sun God, the Simghasana (pedestal), the puja image, Nabagraha (nine planet) statues above the lintels, the Aruna Stamba (Aruna pillar), sculptures within mundi niches, and decorative elements on the doorframes. The meticulous selection of stones has resulted in remarkably minimal decay over time compared to Western structures such as St. Paul’s Cathedral and Norwich Cathedral. St. Paul’s Cathedral, built with Portland limestone, has undergone significant weathering due to environmental exposure. Studies show that its decay rate varies between 130–220 µm per year, leading to an estimated erosion depth of 40.82 mm to 69.08 mm over 314 years since its completion in 1710 A.D. (Phys.org, 2012; Basu et al., 2020). Additionally, long-term measurements using lead plugs indicate surface recession rates of 0.066 mm to 0.081 mm per year over 262 years, with a total erosion depth of 17.3 mm to 21.2 mm (Vincent, 1993). The highest deterioration occurs on surfaces facing southwest due to increased exposure to pollutants and weathering effects. Similarly, Norwich Cathedral, constructed primarily of Caen limestone since 1096 A.D., has undergone extensive erosion over centuries. The outer layers of its stonework have been significantly renewed (Church of England, 2019), with approximately 95% of its exterior stones replaced over nine centuries due to weathering, fire damage, and pollution (Behera, 2005). Historical evidence unravels the environmental exposure and structural modifications of Cathedrals over time, emphasizing the preservation of limestone-based heritage structures (Gilchrist, 2001). In contrast, the Khandalite stones of the KT have eroded by only 2.4 mm over 750 years (Behera, 2005). Such lower decay rate suggests that the stone’s intrinsic properties, along with environmental factors and historical preservation efforts, have contributed to its longevity. The chemical testing of existing materials of KT during 1979-1984 confirmed the satisfactory condition of the temple stones (UNESCO: Lemaire & Labasso, 1981). Despite the temple’s proximity to the sea, the stones have not suffered substantial damage, highlighting the advanced scientific knowledge of 13th-century artisans in selecting durable materials resistant to coastal weathering. Reference Basu, S., Orr, S. A., &Aktas, Y. D. (2020). A geological perspective on climate change and building stone deterioration in London: Implications for urban stone-built heritage research and management. Atmosphere, 11 (8), 788. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11080788 Church of England. (2019). Norwich Cathedral. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/norwich-cathedral.pdf Gilchrist, R. (2001). Norwich Cathedral tower and spire: Recording and analysis of a cathedral's longue durée.Archaeological Journal, 158 (1), 291–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00665983.2001.11078997 Phys.org. (2012, October 26). Erosion of iconic St. Paul’s could benefit from laser scanning technology. https://phys.org/news/2012-10-erosion-iconic-st-paul-benefit.html Vincent, K. (1993). Atmospheric particulate matter and historic buildings (Doctoral dissertation, Middlesex University). Maritime & Transportation Hypothesis The theory of stone transportation via sea routes is intriguing. Have geological or sedimentary studies been conducted along these proposed routes to confirm ancient maritime trade or transport links? Response: Historical texts and the discovery of an ancient port at Khalkatapatana port suggest sea transport, but geological validation is needed. This is addressed in the third paragraph of the "Directions for research" section. Additionally, sediment coring, sonar, and bathymetric surveys using tools like sub-bottom profilers and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) can explore potential maritime transport links. References Lafta Farhan S. et.al. 2022 (Ref 1) This study discusses the transformation of historical city centers and could provide a comparative perspective on the cultural and architectural sustainability of heritage sites, similar to the preservation efforts and architectural significance discussed in the Konark Temple study. Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Lafta Farhan S. et al. (2022) is acknowledged in the fifth paragraph of the “Directions for Research” section to support future comparative heritage studies. Lastly, the transformation and sustainability strategies of historic city centers (Farhan et al ., 2022), offer insights for preservation of KT. Tools like GIS-based urban analysis, 3D documentation, and heritage assessments, combined with adaptive reuse and conservation models, can support resilient, sustainable preservation. Reference: Farhan, S. L., Alobaydi, D., Anton, D., & Nasar, Z. (2022). Analysing the master plan development and urban heritage of Najaf City in Iraq. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development . Reviewer 2 Sabeeh Lafta Farhan , Wasit university, Kut, Iraq We are grateful for your appreciation of the work and constructive comments/ suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. Thoroughness & Scope The article provides an extensive review of historical, cultural, and scientific aspects of the Konark Temple’s construction. The depth of research and integration of multiple sources, including historical texts, archaeological findings, and indigenous knowledge, is commendable. Interdisciplinary Approach – The combination of historical analysis, engineering insights, and cultural narratives enriches the discussion. However, a more structured comparison with contemporary temple architecture across different regions of India could provide additional context. Scientific and Engineering Aspects – The discussion on iron usage and rust-resistant techniques is fascinating. It would be helpful to include a comparison with other ancient iron structures, such as the Iron Pillar of Delhi, to establish technological linkages. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the interdisciplinary approach and the depth of research. In response to your suggestion, we have incorporated a structured comparison with contemporary ancient iron structures, including the Iron Pillar of Delhi, in the revised section “Use of High-Grade Iron”. Listed Reply to Comments/ Suggestions Historical Narratives & Myths While the study effectively explores historical accounts and folklore, some claims (such as the floating deity using magnets) require additional corroboration from scientific sources or metallurgical studies. Response: We acknowledge the need for scientific validation. Cultural accounts are presented, and future metallurgical studies are outlined in the third paragraph of the “Directions for research” section. Metallurgical and archaeological studies can also test historical claims, such as the possible use of magnets in KT. Methodology Clarification The systematic review method is well described, but the inclusion criteria for selecting historical texts, palm leaf manuscripts, and indigenous narratives should be elaborated. How were these sources validated for accuracy? Response: The inclusion criteria for historical texts, palm leaf manuscripts, and indigenous narratives were based on their relevance to nine thematic areas. Sources were validated through cross-referencing with academic literature and comparative analysis with archaeological findings. These details have been incorporated into the ‘Methodology’ section, which has been revised as follows: Methodology A systematic review methodology was adopted for the search and selection of documents. Documents were sourced from Scopus, the largest scientific journal database, and Google Scholar, an inclusive, automated repository offering access to a vast range of published works (Bar-Ilan, 2008). Two search strings were employed: “KONARK” OR “SUN AND TEMPLE” within the title, abstract, and keyword fields. This search yielded 329 documents from Scopus and 912 from Google Scholar. After removing duplicates (n = 235), the remaining documents were screened on the basis of titles and/or abstracts for relevance to nine thematic areas: (1) causes of construction, (2) financial allocation, (3) dimensions of Konark Temple (KT), (4) human resources, (5) obstacles during construction, (6) foundation of KT, (7) stone selection, transportation and lifting, (8) native technology, and (9) astronomical phenomena. This process resulted in 80 documents, comprising 29 journal articles and 51 books, and excluded 926 documents. Following a full-text review, 69 documents, containing 29 journal articles and 40 books, were retained as relevant to the aforementioned themes, while 11 books were excluded by the first author. The inclusion and exclusion of documents were subsequently discussed among all three authors, and the exclusion was agreed upon. Limited programmatic research and publications in journals on the KT resulted in the retention of 29 journal articles. As KT is an ancient structure dating back to the 13th century, 36 documents related to its architecture, construction, water bodies, and associated folklore were selected from cross-referenced old books and ancient writings (n = 29), palm-leaf inscriptions and indigenous narratives on stones (n = 6), and copper plates (n = 1). Also, 13 journal articles were selected for a comparative analysis of KT with other monumental structures worldwide (Aveni, Gibbs, & Hartung, 1975; Evans et al., 2013; Farhan et al., 2022; Gaffney et al., 2018; Ghoneim et al., 2024; Sheisha et al., 2022; Uchida & Shimoda, 2013), for assessing the quality of stone and iron used (Basu, Orr, & Aktas, 2020; Church of England, 2019; Ghosh, 1963; Gilchrist, 2001; Phys.org, 2012; Vincent, 1993). An additional journal article was included to rationalise the database for selection and inclusion of documents for review (Bar-Ilan, 2008). These were initiated by the first author and agreed upon by the remaining two authors, with no documents removed. Of 130 documents, 119 documents were included for this review (see Fig. 2). The inter-rater reliability (Number of agreed documents/ Total number of documents) was 91.54%. Illustrations & Figures The inclusion of figures is helpful in visualizing the temple’s architectural layout. However, some of them lack detailed captions or references to their sources (e.g., Figure 5’s sketch of the temple in its complete state). Response: Thank you for your feedback. Figure 5 cites its source in the legend (Swarup, 1910). We have reviewed all figures to ensure clear captions and citations. Minor revisions were made: in Figure 1. We have changed "Theoretical and practical implications" to "Implications"; in Figure 2, we corrected it as per the methodology section; and in Figure 7, we corrected "Kusabhagra" to "Kusabhadra." Construction Techniques & Materials The identification of Khondalite, Laterite, and Chlorite stones is insightful. However, the decay rate comparison with Western structures like St. Paul’s Cathedral might need more quantitative backing with geological studies. Response: The ‘ Stone selection in KT’ section has been revised to include a quantitative comparison of decay rates with Western structures such as St. Paul’s Cathedral and Norwich Cathedral, supported by geological studies for analytical rigor. Corresponding references have been added. The changes are as follows: Stone selection in KT The architectural framework of the temple and its sculptures were constructed using Khandalite stones, supplemented by Laterite and Chlorite (Dey, 2016; Donaldson, 2003; Nayak et al., 2017; Saxena & Srivastava, 2021). Laterite stones were primarily used in the subterranean section beneath the plinth level for foundational purposes, while Chlorite stones for ornamental features, including statues of the Sun God, the Simghasana (pedestal), the puja image, Nabagraha (nine planet) statues above the lintels, the Aruna Stamba (Aruna pillar), sculptures within mundi niches, and decorative elements on the doorframes. The meticulous selection of stones has resulted in remarkably minimal decay over time compared to Western structures such as St. Paul’s Cathedral and Norwich Cathedral. St. Paul’s Cathedral, built with Portland limestone, has undergone significant weathering due to environmental exposure. Studies show that its decay rate varies between 130–220 µm per year, leading to an estimated erosion depth of 40.82 mm to 69.08 mm over 314 years since its completion in 1710 A.D. (Phys.org, 2012; Basu et al., 2020). Additionally, long-term measurements using lead plugs indicate surface recession rates of 0.066 mm to 0.081 mm per year over 262 years, with a total erosion depth of 17.3 mm to 21.2 mm (Vincent, 1993). The highest deterioration occurs on surfaces facing southwest due to increased exposure to pollutants and weathering effects. Similarly, Norwich Cathedral, constructed primarily of Caen limestone since 1096 A.D., has undergone extensive erosion over centuries. The outer layers of its stonework have been significantly renewed (Church of England, 2019), with approximately 95% of its exterior stones replaced over nine centuries due to weathering, fire damage, and pollution (Behera, 2005). Historical evidence unravels the environmental exposure and structural modifications of Cathedrals over time, emphasizing the preservation of limestone-based heritage structures (Gilchrist, 2001). In contrast, the Khandalite stones of the KT have eroded by only 2.4 mm over 750 years (Behera, 2005). Such lower decay rate suggests that the stone’s intrinsic properties, along with environmental factors and historical preservation efforts, have contributed to its longevity. The chemical testing of existing materials of KT during 1979-1984 confirmed the satisfactory condition of the temple stones (UNESCO: Lemaire & Labasso, 1981). Despite the temple’s proximity to the sea, the stones have not suffered substantial damage, highlighting the advanced scientific knowledge of 13th-century artisans in selecting durable materials resistant to coastal weathering. Reference Basu, S., Orr, S. A., &Aktas, Y. D. (2020). A geological perspective on climate change and building stone deterioration in London: Implications for urban stone-built heritage research and management. Atmosphere, 11 (8), 788. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11080788 Church of England. (2019). Norwich Cathedral. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/norwich-cathedral.pdf Gilchrist, R. (2001). Norwich Cathedral tower and spire: Recording and analysis of a cathedral's longue durée.Archaeological Journal, 158 (1), 291–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00665983.2001.11078997 Phys.org. (2012, October 26). Erosion of iconic St. Paul’s could benefit from laser scanning technology. https://phys.org/news/2012-10-erosion-iconic-st-paul-benefit.html Vincent, K. (1993). Atmospheric particulate matter and historic buildings (Doctoral dissertation, Middlesex University). Maritime & Transportation Hypothesis The theory of stone transportation via sea routes is intriguing. Have geological or sedimentary studies been conducted along these proposed routes to confirm ancient maritime trade or transport links? Response: Historical texts and the discovery of an ancient port at Khalkatapatana port suggest sea transport, but geological validation is needed. This is addressed in the third paragraph of the "Directions for research" section. Additionally, sediment coring, sonar, and bathymetric surveys using tools like sub-bottom profilers and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) can explore potential maritime transport links. References Lafta Farhan S. et.al. 2022 (Ref 1) This study discusses the transformation of historical city centers and could provide a comparative perspective on the cultural and architectural sustainability of heritage sites, similar to the preservation efforts and architectural significance discussed in the Konark Temple study. Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Lafta Farhan S. et al. (2022) is acknowledged in the fifth paragraph of the “Directions for Research” section to support future comparative heritage studies. Lastly, the transformation and sustainability strategies of historic city centers (Farhan et al ., 2022), offer insights for preservation of KT. Tools like GIS-based urban analysis, 3D documentation, and heritage assessments, combined with adaptive reuse and conservation models, can support resilient, sustainable preservation. Reference: Farhan, S. L., Alobaydi, D., Anton, D., & Nasar, Z. (2022). Analysing the master plan development and urban heritage of Najaf City in Iraq. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development . Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Dwijendra NKA. Reviewer Report For: The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1540 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.173339.r356838 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1540/v1#referee-response-356838 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 09 Jan 2025 Ngakan Ketut Acwin Dwijendra , Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.173339.r356838 The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence Summary of the Article The article critically reviews the historical, cultural, and scientific evidence surrounding the construction of the Konark Temple in ... Continue reading READ ALL The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence Summary of the Article The article critically reviews the historical, cultural, and scientific evidence surrounding the construction of the Konark Temple in Odisha, India. The research incorporates data from ancient texts, folklore, palm leaf manuscripts, archaeological evidence, and historical records. It explores themes such as the temple's purpose, the techniques and materials used, the role of indigenous knowledge, and its architectural and astronomical precision. Key findings include: The temple served as a monument of devotion to the Sun God and a symbol of King Narasimhadeva I’s military victories. Advanced construction techniques included using rust-resistant iron, innovative stonelifting technologies, and precise architectural designs. The temple's alignment with astronomical phenomena demonstrates ancient artisans' mastery of astronomy. Indigenous technologies, including the use of high-grade iron and efficient transportation of massive stone blocks via sea routes, highlight the engineering ingenuity of the time. The article concludes that the Konark Temple embodies a blend of artistic mastery, cultural significance, and technological innovation, offering insights for contemporary architecture and engineering. Evaluation and Recommendations 1. Comprehensiveness of the Topic in Current Literature Evaluation: Partly . The article extensively reviews the historical and cultural significance of the Konark Temple, presenting a rich narrative of its construction and legacy. However, its engagement with contemporary research methodologies in archaeology, materials science, and geotechnical studies is limited. While the authors mention some modern studies, such as those by CSIR and CBRI, these are not deeply integrated into the analysis. For example, insights from recent archaeological technologies like ground-penetrating radar or 3D modeling could enhance the study’s relevance. Recommendations: Incorporate more recent geotechnical or archaeological studies to substantiate claims about the temple’s construction techniques and materials. Review and discuss contemporary literature on similar historical structures globally for comparative insights. 2. Factual Accuracy and Citation Support Evaluation: Partly . While the article is well-cited and draws on historical sources, its reliance on folklore and secondary sources raises questions about the verifiability of some claims, such as the legend of Dharmapada or the use of magnets to suspend objects. Some claims, like the rust resistance of the iron used, require more robust validation through referenced scientific studies. Recommendations: Ensure that all key assertions, especially those based on folklore or oral traditions, are marked as such and distinguished from evidence-based claims. Include peer-reviewed scientific studies to corroborate statements about materials, such as the selection processes for rust-resistant iron and stone. 3. Accessibility of Language Evaluation: Yes . The language is clear, engaging, and accessible to academic and general audiences. The integration of technical and cultural narratives is particularly commendable. Recommendations: Maintain this clarity while adding more technical terms and methodologies if engaging with geotechnical or engineering audiences. 4. Appropriateness of Conclusions Evaluation: Partly . The conclusions are generally appropriate, synthesizing the findings effectively. However, they are somewhat limited by the scope of the evidence presented. For example, the findings could better integrate critiques or limitations of ancient techniques compared to modern methodologies. Recommendations: Discuss how the findings contribute to or challenge current historical architecture and engineering knowledge. Acknowledge gaps in evidence and propose specific areas for future research. Specific Points to Address for Scientific Soundness Integration with Current Research Include recent studies or methods, such as geotechnical assessments or 3D modeling, to validate claims about construction techniques. Provide a comparative analysis with other ancient monumental structures to position the findings in a broader context. Strengthening Evidence: Use scientific data to support claims about material properties, such as the corrosion resistance of iron used in the temple. Provide citations from peer-reviewed journals, especially for claims about astronomical alignment and structural engineering. Distinguishing Between Fact and Folklore: differentiate between historical records, archaeological evidence, and folklore. For example, legends like the story of Dharmapada should be framed as cultural narratives unless supported by evidence. Clarification of Methodology Elaborate on the systematic review process, specifying how documents were selected and analyzed. Discuss potential biases in the sources. Addressing Limitations: Acknowledge the study's limitations, such as the reliance on secondary sources and the lack of direct archaeological validation for some claims. Conclusion Overall, the article offers valuable insights into the construction of the Konark Temple and highlights its historical, cultural, and scientific significance. The authors should address the abovementioned limitations to make the article scientifically sound, particularly by integrating more recent research, strengthening evidence-based claims, and distinguishing folklore from verifiable facts. By doing so, the study can serve as a robust reference for both historical and scientific investigations into ancient construction techniques. Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature? Partly Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Partly Is the review written in accessible language? Yes Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Architecture, engineering, sustainable development, and cultural heritage studies I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Dwijendra NKA. Reviewer Report For: The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1540 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.173339.r356838 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1540/v1#referee-response-356838 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 15 May 2025 Susanta Bahinipati , School of Film and Media Sciences, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar, 751024, India 15 May 2025 Author Response Reviewer- 1 Ngakan Ketut Acwin Dwijendra , Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence We are grateful for your ... Continue reading Reviewer- 1 Ngakan Ketut Acwin Dwijendra , Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence We are grateful for your appreciation of the work and constructive comments/ suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. Summary of the Article The article critically reviews the historical, cultural, and scientific evidence surrounding the construction of the Konark Temple in Odisha, India. The research incorporates data from ancient texts, folklore, palm leaf manuscripts, archaeological evidence, and historical records. It explores themes such as the temple's purpose, the techniques and materials used, the role of indigenous knowledge, and its architectural and astronomical precision. Key findings include: The temple served as a monument of devotion to the Sun God and a symbol of King Narasimhadeva I’s military victories. Advanced construction techniques included using rust-resistant iron, innovative stonelifting technologies, and precise architectural designs. The temple's alignment with astronomical phenomena demonstrates ancient artisans' mastery of astronomy. Indigenous technologies, including the use of high-grade iron and efficient transportation of massive stone blocks via sea routes, highlight the engineering ingenuity of the time. The article concludes that the Konark Temple embodies a blend of artistic mastery, cultural significance, and technological innovation, offering insights for contemporary architecture and engineering. Response: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Listed Reply to Comments/ Suggestions Here follows the listed reply to comments/suggestions. Comprehensiveness of the Topic in Current Literature Evaluation: Partly . The article extensively reviews the historical and cultural significance of the Konark Temple, presenting a rich narrative of its construction and legacy. However, its engagement with contemporary research methodologies in archaeology, materials science, and geotechnical studies is limited. While the authors mention some modern studies, such as those by CSIR and CBRI, these are not deeply integrated into the analysis. For example, insights from recent archaeological technologies like ground-penetrating radar or 3D modeling could enhance the study’s relevance. Recommendations: Incorporate more recent geotechnical or archaeological studies to substantiate claims about the temple’s construction techniques and materials. Review and discuss contemporary literature on similar historical structures globally for comparative insights. Response: We have already included the geotechnical and archaeological studies as follows: Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) Studies: Dwivedi et al. (2022) on heritage structure foundation investigation (discussed in the "Foundation of KT" section). Jana et al. (2016) on palaeo-channel search near Konark (covered in "Introduction"). Multi-Disciplinary River System Analysis: Jana et al. (2022) on delineation of ancient rivers, providing insights into stone transportation (included in "Stone Quarrying and Transportation of Stones"). While detailed applications of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and 3D modelling were not directly incorporated into this study, their potential use has been outlined in the second paragraph of the ‘Directions for research’ section for future investigations. Comparative insights on similar global historical structures have also been included, as recommended and problem is derived for further research. Second, geological and remote sensing studies have revealed that the Giza Pyramids in Egypt were once connected to now-defunct branches of the Nile, likely used to transport limestone during construction (Ghoneim et al., 2024; Sheisha et al., 2022). At Angkor Wat in Cambodia, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and Geographic Information System (GIS) technologies uncovered a sophisticated hydraulic infrastructure integral to the site's construction and urban planning (Evans et al., 2013; Uchida & Shimoda, 2013). In the UK, investigations at Stonehenge using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), Electromagnetic Induction (EMI), and 3D modelling revealed buried features and refined interpretations of the monument’s astronomical alignments (Gaffney et al., 2018). Similarly, at Chichen Itza in Mexico, archaeoastronomical studies of the Caracol Tower revealed its precise alignments with solstices and Venus cycles (Aveni et al., 1975). These interdisciplinary approaches demonstrate the power of technologies in decoding ancient engineering and cosmological knowledge. Applying similar methods, such as GIS, 3D modelling, and GPR can help uncover the historical mysteries surrounding KT’s sites, including the locations of ancient water bodies and ports, construction materials, logistical systems, astronomical alignments, and broader environmental interactions. To understand KT's construction and stone transport, soil analysis and borehole data can reveal ground conditions that shaped building techniques. Geophysical tools like GPR and Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI) can detect buried features such as ancient water channels. Satellite radar imagery and GIS help trace historical water bodies and landscapes by layering topography, hydrology, and old maps. Additionally, sediment coring, sonar, and bathymetric surveys using tools like sub-bottom profilers and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) can explore potential maritime transport links. Metallurgical and archaeological studies can also test historical claims, such as the possible use of magnets in KT. References Aveni, A. F., Gibbs, S. L., & Hartung, H. (1975). The Caracol tower at Chichen Itza: An ancient astronomical observatory? Science, 188 (4192), 977–985. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1740708 Evans, D. H., Fletcher, R. J., Pottier, C., Chevance, J. B., Soutif, D., Tan, B. S., ... & Boornazian, G. (2013). Uncovering archaeological landscapes at Angkor using LiDAR. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (31), 12595–12600. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306539110 Gaffney, V., Neubauer, W., Garwood, P., Gaffney, C., Löcker, K., Bates, R., ... & Corkum, A. (2018). Durrington Walls and the Stonehenge Hidden Landscape Project 2010–2016. Archaeological Prospection, 25 (3), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1702 Ghoneim, E., Ralph, T. J., Onstine, S., El-Behaedi, R., El-Qady, G., Fahil, A. S., ... & Fathy, M. S. (2024). The Egyptian pyramid chain was built along the now abandoned Ahramat Nile Branch. Communications Earth & Environment, 5 (1), 233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01379-7 Sheisha, H., Kaniewski, D., Marriner, N., Djamali, M., Younes, G., Chen, Z., ... &Morhange, C. (2022). Nile waterscapes facilitated the construction of the Giza pyramids during the 3rd millennium BCE. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119 (37), e2202530119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2202530119 Uchida, E., & Shimoda, I. (2013). Quarries and transportation routes of Angkor monument sandstone blocks. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40 (2), 1158–1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.12.018 Factual Accuracy and Citation Support Evaluation: Partly . While the article is well-cited and draws on historical sources, its reliance on folklore and secondary sources raises questions about the verifiability of some claims, such as the legend of Dharmapada or the use of magnets to suspend objects. Some claims, like the rust resistance of the iron used, require more robust validation through referenced scientific studies. Recommendations: Ensure that all key assertions, especially those based on folklore or oral traditions, are marked as such and distinguished from evidence-based claims. Include peer-reviewed scientific studies to corroborate statements about materials, such as the selection processes for rust-resistant iron and stone. Response: The legends of Dharmapada and magnetic suspension are folklore and require scientific validation. This has been noted for future investigation in the third paragraph of the ‘Directions for research’ section, as stated in the following sentence. Metallurgical and archaeological studies can also test historical claims, such as the possible use of magnets in KT. To ensure robust validation, we have emphasized the need for peer-reviewed scientific studies on material properties, including rust-resistant iron. The discussion now integrates studies on ancient ironworking techniques and a comparative analysis of ironwork across India, which is detailed in the “Use of high-grade iron” section. Distinctions between historical evidence, oral traditions, and scientific analysis are reported below: Use of high-grade iron The artisans of Konark demonstrated remarkable metallurgical expertise in shaping and assembling large iron beams over eight centuries ago. Engineer M.H. Arnott, who worked on early 20th-century excavations and restorations, documented their manufacturing techniques. Upon examining a broken iron beam, he discovered that the iron was forged in small segments, approximately 1 to 1.5 feet in length and 3 to 4 inches in width, and arranged in a staggered pattern similar to bricks in a wall (O’Malley, 1908). These segments were inserted into a hollow quadrilateral iron bar and welded together, ensuring a seamless and durable structure. The final polishing concealed any visible joints, resulting in a robust beam with mechanical properties comparable to contemporary military-grade steel (Edwards, 1969; Friend, 1926; Singh & Kaur, 2014). A metallurgical analysis by Friend (1926) compared Konark iron (c. 1250 CE) with other notable ancient ironworks, including the Delhi Iron Pillar (c. 300 CE), the Dhar Pillar (c. 320 CE), and Ceylonese (Sigiriya) Iron (c. 450 CE). The study revealed significant differences in composition, hardness, and corrosion resistance. Konark iron had a low phosphorus content (0.015%), whereas the Delhi Iron Pillar (0.114%), Dhar Pillar (0.28%), and Ceylonese iron (0.34%) contained higher amounts, which contributed to their superior corrosion resistance. The carbon content in Konark iron (0.110%) was slightly higher than that of the Delhi Iron Pillar (0.080%), but its higher sulphur content (0.024%) made it more brittle. Brinell hardness tests indicated that Konark iron (72) was softer than the Delhi Iron Pillar (188). Despite these findings, Friend’s controlled experiment revealed that Konark iron exhibited remarkable durability. Identical samples of Konark iron and modern military-grade steel were exposed to alternating wet and dry conditions for one year, followed by submersion in artificial seawater for another year. The results showed that modern mild steel deteriorated completely, whereas Konark iron retained 89.3% of its original structure. Furthermore, under artificial seawater exposure, modern mild steel corroded extensively, while Konark iron preserved 75.3% of its integrity. These findings affirm the advanced metallurgical knowledge of ancient Indian artisans. Their ability to produce durable iron structures is superior to the twentieth century engineers. These findings affirm the advanced metallurgical knowledge of ancient Indian artisans, whose ability to produce durable iron structures surpassed that of many twentieth-century engineers. Ghosh (1963) provides a detailed metallurgical analysis of the Delhi Iron Pillar, emphasizing its high phosphorus content and the absence of manganese—key factors contributing to its exceptional corrosion resistance. The pillar was constructed through forge welding of small iron blooms, a technique similar to that used for the Konark iron beams. While the Delhi Iron Pillar benefited from a dry climate that minimized rust formation, the Konark beams are regularly and harshly exposed to humidity and salt-laden winds on the seacoast. Despite these challenges, the Konark iron beams have endured for centuries, indicating that the artisans employed advanced forging and welding techniques to enhance durability. Ghosh’s comparison highlights the ingenuity of ancient Indian artisans in adapting techniques to counter specific structural degradation. The enduring presence of iron beams at Konark, despite centuries of exposure to a harsh coastal climate, attests to the artisans’ sophisticated craftsmanship. The fusion of indigenous knowledge and technical proficiency continues to astonish researchers worldwide, reinforcing the ingenuity of ancient construction techniques in ensuring structural durability. Reference: Ghosh, M. K. (1963). The Delhi iron pillar and its iron. NML Technical Journal , 5 (1), 31-45. Accessibility of Language Evaluation: Yes . The language is clear, engaging, and accessible to academic and general audiences. The integration of technical and cultural narratives is particularly commendable. Recommendations: Maintain this clarity while adding more technical terms and methodologies if engaging with geotechnical or engineering audiences. Response: Thanks. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the clarity and engagement of the language. Appropriateness of Conclusions Evaluation: Partly . The conclusions are generally appropriate, synthesizing the findings effectively. However, they are somewhat limited by the scope of the evidence presented. For example, the findings could better integrate critiques or limitations of ancient techniques compared to modern methodologies. Recommendations: Discuss how the findings contribute to or challenge current historical architecture and engineering knowledge. Acknowledge gaps in evidence and propose specific areas for future research. Response: We have refined the conclusion section to integrate ancient techniques and their relevance to modern engineering. Conclusion This study highlights the remarkable expertise of the artisans involved in constructing the KT. By examining folk narratives, cultural practices, and sculptural evidence, we gain deeper insights into the historical and technological advancements that shaped this architectural marvel. Analysing ancient construction techniques enhances our understanding of past engineering methods while offering valuable lessons for modern architects and engineers seeking sustainable and resilient design solutions. Our research underscores the enduring legacy of Narasimhadeva I, as reflected in the temple’s precise measurements, originally recorded in the Sanskrit Madalapanji , which align with modern calculations. The study also sheds light on the logistical ingenuity of ancient artisans, particularly their use of maritime routes to transport massive stone blocks. Additionally, their selection of high-grade stones, resistant to erosion, demonstrates their advanced understanding of material durability. Furthermore, sculptural evidence reveals historical anecdotes, such as the valour of Sudehi, the faithful elephant, illustrating the intersection of history and legend in the temple’s narrative. Geotechnical evaluations validate the stability of the temple’s foundation in a coastal environment, reinforcing the feasibility of its architectural blueprint. Furthermore, the study reveals sophisticated construction techniques used to lift enormous stone blocks to great heights. The use of iron scaffolding, akin to modern construction methods, highlights parallels between ancient and contemporary engineering practices. A significant finding is the presence of rust-resistant iron beams within the temple compound, an aspect that continues to intrigue metallurgists and material scientists. However, while this study presents compelling evidence of advanced metallurgical knowledge, further analysis is needed to fully understand the composition and long-term durability of these materials. The temple’s wheels, serving as India’s earliest sundial, along with its astronomical alignments, attest to the artisans’ deep understanding of celestial mechanics, particularly in channelling the first rays of the sun into the inner sanctum. While this study consolidates historical, cultural, and scientific evidence surrounding the KT, it also acknowledges certain limitations. The absence of direct archaeological excavations and detailed material testing limits the verification of oral narratives. Future research should focus on metallurgical studies, geospatial analysis, and experimental reconstructions to further investigate construction techniques and environmental interactions. By bridging ancient and modern technologies, this study not only unfolds the 13th-century technological ingenuity but also opens new avenues for interdisciplinary research into the temple’s enduring mysteries. Specific Points for Scientific Soundness Integration with Current Research Include recent studies or methods, such as geotechnical assessments or 3D modeling, to validate claims about construction techniques. Provide a comparative analysis with other ancient monumental structures to position the findings in a broader context. Response: We appreciate the suggestion to incorporate recent methodologies. The manuscript integrates geotechnical and geophysical studies , including GPR and remote sensing , to analyze the structural and environmental context of the KT. These aspects are detailed in the section “Foundation of Konark Temple.” Additionally, the “Directions for Future Research” section highlights the potential applications of 3D modeling, GIS-based analysis, and advanced geotechnical investigation techniques. To strengthen interdisciplinary connections , we have expanded the comparative analysis of construction techniques in other ancient monumental structures such as the Giza Pyramids, Angkor Wat, Stonehenge, and Chichen Itza. Strengthening Evidence Use scientific data to support claims about material properties, such as the corrosion resistance of iron used in the temple. Provide citations from peer-reviewed journals, especially for claims about astronomical alignment and structural engineering. Response: We have expanded the "Use of High-Grade Iron" section to include metallurgical analyses comparing Konark iron with other ancient iron structures such as the Delhi Iron Pillar, Dhar Pillar, and Sigiriya Iron . This discussion now incorporates data on chemical composition, hardness, and corrosion resistance , citing relevant peer-reviewed studies (e.g., Ghosh, 1963; J. Newton Friend, 1926; Singh & Kaur, 2014). For astronomical alignments , we have integrated scientific references to substantiate claims regarding the temple’s wheels functioning as a sundial and its architectural design channeling the sun's first rays into the sanctum . These citations (e.g., Bhatnagar & Livingston, 2005; Das, 2015; De, 2022; Dey, 2016; John et al ., 2015; Joshi & Srivastava, 2021; Yadav, 2021) ensure that all astronomical interpretations are based on scientific validation rather than conjecture . Distinguishing Between Fact and Folklore Differentiate between historical records, archaeological evidence, and folklore. For example, legends like the story of Dharmapada should be framed as cultural narratives unless supported by evidence. Response: We appreciate the suggestion to distinguish between historical records, archaeological evidence, and folklore . We have discussed the Dharmapada legend to clearly separate cultural narratives from verifiable historical sources. The "Recollections of Construction and Human Resources" section explicitly categorizes the story of Dharmapada as an evolving folklore , shaped over centuries through oral traditions, nationalist influences, and literary adaptations (e.g., O’Malley, 1908; Mishra, 1919; Das, 1924). To provide historical grounding , we incorporate palm leaf manuscript references (Boner, 1970; Boner et al., 1972) that mention Dharma Mahapatra as a real historical figure involved in the temple’s construction, ensuring a fact-based distinction between folklore and documented accounts. We acknowledge that while folk traditions convey cultural values , they should not be conflated with empirical evidence. The text contextualizes Dharmapada’s story within the broader socio-political and artisan-based reality of the temple's construction. By adopting this approach, we ensure that folklore is presented as part of Konark’s cultural legacy , while historical claims remain firmly supported by documented sources . Clarification of Methodology Elaborate on the systematic review process, specifying how documents were selected and analyzed. Discuss potential biases in the sources. Response: We have elaborated on the systematic review process in the “ Methodology” section, detailing document selection, analysis, and potential biases in the sources. Additionally, the structure of the paper has been presented in Figure 1 for clarity. The changes are as follows: A systematic review methodology was adopted for the search and selection of documents. Documents were sourced from Scopus, the largest scientific journal database, and Google Scholar, an inclusive, automated repository offering access to a vast range of published works (Bar-Ilan, 2008). Two search strings were employed: “KONARK” OR “SUN AND TEMPLE” within the title, abstract, and keyword fields. This search yielded 329 documents from Scopus and 912 from Google Scholar. After removing duplicates (n = 235), the remaining documents were screened on the basis of titles and/or abstracts for relevance to nine thematic areas: (1) causes of construction, (2) financial allocation, (3) dimensions of Konark Temple (KT), (4) human resources, (5) obstacles during construction, (6) foundation of KT, (7) stone selection, transportation and lifting, (8) native technology, and (9) astronomical phenomena. This process resulted in 80 documents, comprising 29 journal articles and 51 books, and excluded 926 documents. Following a full-text review, 69 documents, containing 29 journal articles and 40 books, were retained as relevant to the aforementioned themes, while 11 books were excluded by the first author. The inclusion and exclusion of documents were subsequently discussed among all three authors, and the exclusion was agreed upon. Limited programmatic research and publications in journals on the KT resulted in the retention of 29 journal articles. As KT is an ancient structure dating back to the 13th century, 36 documents related to its architecture, construction, water bodies, and associated folklore were selected from cross-referenced old books and ancient writings (n = 29), palm-leaf inscriptions and indigenous narratives on stones (n = 6), and copper plates (n = 1). Also, 13 journal articles were selected for a comparative analysis of KT with other monumental structures worldwide (Aveni, Gibbs, & Hartung, 1975; Evans et al., 2013; Farhan et al., 2022; Gaffney et al., 2018; Ghoneim et al., 2024; Sheisha et al., 2022; Uchida & Shimoda, 2013), for assessing the quality of stone and iron used (Basu, Orr, & Aktas, 2020; Church of England, 2019; Ghosh, 1963; Gilchrist, 2001; Phys.org, 2012; Vincent, 1993). An additional journal article was included to rationalise the database for selection and inclusion of documents for review (Bar-Ilan, 2008). These were initiated by the first author and agreed upon by the remaining two authors, with no documents removed. Of 130 documents, 119 documents were included for this review (see Fig. 2). The inter-rater reliability (Number of agreed documents/ Total number of documents) was 91.54%. Addressing Limitations Acknowledge the study's limitations, such as the reliance on secondary sources and the lack of direct archaeological validation for some claims. Response: We acknowledge the study's limitations, particularly the reliance on secondary sources and the lack of direct archaeological validation for some claims. These constraints have been addressed in the Limitations section as follows: Limitations The limited availability of journal publications on the KT constrains access to authentic, peer-reviewed evidence. Nevertheless, this study relies on archival data derived from indigenous knowledge dating back to the 13th century, incorporating folk narratives and prevailing cultural practices. Documentation includes incidents and eyewitness accounts recorded in books, diaries, palm leaf manuscripts, and stone inscriptions. Furthermore, the study examines sculptures from the KT, as well as those housed in museums across various locations, alongside an exploration of the ancient maritime traditions of the kingdom’s predecessors. Literature authored by King Narasimhadeva I’s court poet and historical records of the kingdom also provide valuable insights. Additionally, the study acknowledges its reliance on secondary sources, which may introduce potential biases in historical interpretations. While efforts have been made to validate these sources through cross-referencing with archaeological records, geophysical surveys, and metallurgical analyses, the absence of direct archaeological validation for certain claims remains a constraint. To address this, future research may adopt a multidisciplinary approach integrating geotechnical, geophysical, and material analyses for a more comprehensive understanding. Conclusion Overall, the article offers valuable insights into the construction of the Konark Temple and highlights its historical, cultural, and scientific significance. The authors should address the abovementioned limitations to make the article scientifically sound, particularly by integrating more recent research, strengthening evidence-based claims, and distinguishing folklore from verifiable facts. By doing so, the study can serve as a robust reference for both historical and scientific investigations into ancient construction techniques. Response: We appreciate the constructive feedback on our manuscript. In response, we have addressed the identified limitations by: Integrating more recent research and peer-reviewed studies to strengthen evidence-based claims. Distinguishing folklore from verifiable historical facts by clearly categorizing narratives within the text. Expanding the methodology section to enhance transparency regarding source selection and validation. Regarding the comprehensive discussion of the topic, the study incorporates a multidisciplinary approach, integrating historical records, indigenous knowledge, metallurgical analyses, and geophysical insights. While the existing literature on the KT remains limited, we have ensured that the discussion aligns with current research findings and emerging perspectives on ancient construction techniques. Reviewer- 1 Ngakan Ketut Acwin Dwijendra , Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence We are grateful for your appreciation of the work and constructive comments/ suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. Summary of the Article The article critically reviews the historical, cultural, and scientific evidence surrounding the construction of the Konark Temple in Odisha, India. The research incorporates data from ancient texts, folklore, palm leaf manuscripts, archaeological evidence, and historical records. It explores themes such as the temple's purpose, the techniques and materials used, the role of indigenous knowledge, and its architectural and astronomical precision. Key findings include: The temple served as a monument of devotion to the Sun God and a symbol of King Narasimhadeva I’s military victories. Advanced construction techniques included using rust-resistant iron, innovative stonelifting technologies, and precise architectural designs. The temple's alignment with astronomical phenomena demonstrates ancient artisans' mastery of astronomy. Indigenous technologies, including the use of high-grade iron and efficient transportation of massive stone blocks via sea routes, highlight the engineering ingenuity of the time. The article concludes that the Konark Temple embodies a blend of artistic mastery, cultural significance, and technological innovation, offering insights for contemporary architecture and engineering. Response: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Listed Reply to Comments/ Suggestions Here follows the listed reply to comments/suggestions. Comprehensiveness of the Topic in Current Literature Evaluation: Partly . The article extensively reviews the historical and cultural significance of the Konark Temple, presenting a rich narrative of its construction and legacy. However, its engagement with contemporary research methodologies in archaeology, materials science, and geotechnical studies is limited. While the authors mention some modern studies, such as those by CSIR and CBRI, these are not deeply integrated into the analysis. For example, insights from recent archaeological technologies like ground-penetrating radar or 3D modeling could enhance the study’s relevance. Recommendations: Incorporate more recent geotechnical or archaeological studies to substantiate claims about the temple’s construction techniques and materials. Review and discuss contemporary literature on similar historical structures globally for comparative insights. Response: We have already included the geotechnical and archaeological studies as follows: Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) Studies: Dwivedi et al. (2022) on heritage structure foundation investigation (discussed in the "Foundation of KT" section). Jana et al. (2016) on palaeo-channel search near Konark (covered in "Introduction"). Multi-Disciplinary River System Analysis: Jana et al. (2022) on delineation of ancient rivers, providing insights into stone transportation (included in "Stone Quarrying and Transportation of Stones"). While detailed applications of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and 3D modelling were not directly incorporated into this study, their potential use has been outlined in the second paragraph of the ‘Directions for research’ section for future investigations. Comparative insights on similar global historical structures have also been included, as recommended and problem is derived for further research. Second, geological and remote sensing studies have revealed that the Giza Pyramids in Egypt were once connected to now-defunct branches of the Nile, likely used to transport limestone during construction (Ghoneim et al., 2024; Sheisha et al., 2022). At Angkor Wat in Cambodia, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and Geographic Information System (GIS) technologies uncovered a sophisticated hydraulic infrastructure integral to the site's construction and urban planning (Evans et al., 2013; Uchida & Shimoda, 2013). In the UK, investigations at Stonehenge using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), Electromagnetic Induction (EMI), and 3D modelling revealed buried features and refined interpretations of the monument’s astronomical alignments (Gaffney et al., 2018). Similarly, at Chichen Itza in Mexico, archaeoastronomical studies of the Caracol Tower revealed its precise alignments with solstices and Venus cycles (Aveni et al., 1975). These interdisciplinary approaches demonstrate the power of technologies in decoding ancient engineering and cosmological knowledge. Applying similar methods, such as GIS, 3D modelling, and GPR can help uncover the historical mysteries surrounding KT’s sites, including the locations of ancient water bodies and ports, construction materials, logistical systems, astronomical alignments, and broader environmental interactions. To understand KT's construction and stone transport, soil analysis and borehole data can reveal ground conditions that shaped building techniques. Geophysical tools like GPR and Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI) can detect buried features such as ancient water channels. Satellite radar imagery and GIS help trace historical water bodies and landscapes by layering topography, hydrology, and old maps. Additionally, sediment coring, sonar, and bathymetric surveys using tools like sub-bottom profilers and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) can explore potential maritime transport links. Metallurgical and archaeological studies can also test historical claims, such as the possible use of magnets in KT. References Aveni, A. F., Gibbs, S. L., & Hartung, H. (1975). The Caracol tower at Chichen Itza: An ancient astronomical observatory? Science, 188 (4192), 977–985. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1740708 Evans, D. H., Fletcher, R. J., Pottier, C., Chevance, J. B., Soutif, D., Tan, B. S., ... & Boornazian, G. (2013). Uncovering archaeological landscapes at Angkor using LiDAR. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (31), 12595–12600. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306539110 Gaffney, V., Neubauer, W., Garwood, P., Gaffney, C., Löcker, K., Bates, R., ... & Corkum, A. (2018). Durrington Walls and the Stonehenge Hidden Landscape Project 2010–2016. Archaeological Prospection, 25 (3), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1702 Ghoneim, E., Ralph, T. J., Onstine, S., El-Behaedi, R., El-Qady, G., Fahil, A. S., ... & Fathy, M. S. (2024). The Egyptian pyramid chain was built along the now abandoned Ahramat Nile Branch. Communications Earth & Environment, 5 (1), 233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01379-7 Sheisha, H., Kaniewski, D., Marriner, N., Djamali, M., Younes, G., Chen, Z., ... &Morhange, C. (2022). Nile waterscapes facilitated the construction of the Giza pyramids during the 3rd millennium BCE. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119 (37), e2202530119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2202530119 Uchida, E., & Shimoda, I. (2013). Quarries and transportation routes of Angkor monument sandstone blocks. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40 (2), 1158–1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.12.018 Factual Accuracy and Citation Support Evaluation: Partly . While the article is well-cited and draws on historical sources, its reliance on folklore and secondary sources raises questions about the verifiability of some claims, such as the legend of Dharmapada or the use of magnets to suspend objects. Some claims, like the rust resistance of the iron used, require more robust validation through referenced scientific studies. Recommendations: Ensure that all key assertions, especially those based on folklore or oral traditions, are marked as such and distinguished from evidence-based claims. Include peer-reviewed scientific studies to corroborate statements about materials, such as the selection processes for rust-resistant iron and stone. Response: The legends of Dharmapada and magnetic suspension are folklore and require scientific validation. This has been noted for future investigation in the third paragraph of the ‘Directions for research’ section, as stated in the following sentence. Metallurgical and archaeological studies can also test historical claims, such as the possible use of magnets in KT. To ensure robust validation, we have emphasized the need for peer-reviewed scientific studies on material properties, including rust-resistant iron. The discussion now integrates studies on ancient ironworking techniques and a comparative analysis of ironwork across India, which is detailed in the “Use of high-grade iron” section. Distinctions between historical evidence, oral traditions, and scientific analysis are reported below: Use of high-grade iron The artisans of Konark demonstrated remarkable metallurgical expertise in shaping and assembling large iron beams over eight centuries ago. Engineer M.H. Arnott, who worked on early 20th-century excavations and restorations, documented their manufacturing techniques. Upon examining a broken iron beam, he discovered that the iron was forged in small segments, approximately 1 to 1.5 feet in length and 3 to 4 inches in width, and arranged in a staggered pattern similar to bricks in a wall (O’Malley, 1908). These segments were inserted into a hollow quadrilateral iron bar and welded together, ensuring a seamless and durable structure. The final polishing concealed any visible joints, resulting in a robust beam with mechanical properties comparable to contemporary military-grade steel (Edwards, 1969; Friend, 1926; Singh & Kaur, 2014). A metallurgical analysis by Friend (1926) compared Konark iron (c. 1250 CE) with other notable ancient ironworks, including the Delhi Iron Pillar (c. 300 CE), the Dhar Pillar (c. 320 CE), and Ceylonese (Sigiriya) Iron (c. 450 CE). The study revealed significant differences in composition, hardness, and corrosion resistance. Konark iron had a low phosphorus content (0.015%), whereas the Delhi Iron Pillar (0.114%), Dhar Pillar (0.28%), and Ceylonese iron (0.34%) contained higher amounts, which contributed to their superior corrosion resistance. The carbon content in Konark iron (0.110%) was slightly higher than that of the Delhi Iron Pillar (0.080%), but its higher sulphur content (0.024%) made it more brittle. Brinell hardness tests indicated that Konark iron (72) was softer than the Delhi Iron Pillar (188). Despite these findings, Friend’s controlled experiment revealed that Konark iron exhibited remarkable durability. Identical samples of Konark iron and modern military-grade steel were exposed to alternating wet and dry conditions for one year, followed by submersion in artificial seawater for another year. The results showed that modern mild steel deteriorated completely, whereas Konark iron retained 89.3% of its original structure. Furthermore, under artificial seawater exposure, modern mild steel corroded extensively, while Konark iron preserved 75.3% of its integrity. These findings affirm the advanced metallurgical knowledge of ancient Indian artisans. Their ability to produce durable iron structures is superior to the twentieth century engineers. These findings affirm the advanced metallurgical knowledge of ancient Indian artisans, whose ability to produce durable iron structures surpassed that of many twentieth-century engineers. Ghosh (1963) provides a detailed metallurgical analysis of the Delhi Iron Pillar, emphasizing its high phosphorus content and the absence of manganese—key factors contributing to its exceptional corrosion resistance. The pillar was constructed through forge welding of small iron blooms, a technique similar to that used for the Konark iron beams. While the Delhi Iron Pillar benefited from a dry climate that minimized rust formation, the Konark beams are regularly and harshly exposed to humidity and salt-laden winds on the seacoast. Despite these challenges, the Konark iron beams have endured for centuries, indicating that the artisans employed advanced forging and welding techniques to enhance durability. Ghosh’s comparison highlights the ingenuity of ancient Indian artisans in adapting techniques to counter specific structural degradation. The enduring presence of iron beams at Konark, despite centuries of exposure to a harsh coastal climate, attests to the artisans’ sophisticated craftsmanship. The fusion of indigenous knowledge and technical proficiency continues to astonish researchers worldwide, reinforcing the ingenuity of ancient construction techniques in ensuring structural durability. Reference: Ghosh, M. K. (1963). The Delhi iron pillar and its iron. NML Technical Journal , 5 (1), 31-45. Accessibility of Language Evaluation: Yes . The language is clear, engaging, and accessible to academic and general audiences. The integration of technical and cultural narratives is particularly commendable. Recommendations: Maintain this clarity while adding more technical terms and methodologies if engaging with geotechnical or engineering audiences. Response: Thanks. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the clarity and engagement of the language. Appropriateness of Conclusions Evaluation: Partly . The conclusions are generally appropriate, synthesizing the findings effectively. However, they are somewhat limited by the scope of the evidence presented. For example, the findings could better integrate critiques or limitations of ancient techniques compared to modern methodologies. Recommendations: Discuss how the findings contribute to or challenge current historical architecture and engineering knowledge. Acknowledge gaps in evidence and propose specific areas for future research. Response: We have refined the conclusion section to integrate ancient techniques and their relevance to modern engineering. Conclusion This study highlights the remarkable expertise of the artisans involved in constructing the KT. By examining folk narratives, cultural practices, and sculptural evidence, we gain deeper insights into the historical and technological advancements that shaped this architectural marvel. Analysing ancient construction techniques enhances our understanding of past engineering methods while offering valuable lessons for modern architects and engineers seeking sustainable and resilient design solutions. Our research underscores the enduring legacy of Narasimhadeva I, as reflected in the temple’s precise measurements, originally recorded in the Sanskrit Madalapanji , which align with modern calculations. The study also sheds light on the logistical ingenuity of ancient artisans, particularly their use of maritime routes to transport massive stone blocks. Additionally, their selection of high-grade stones, resistant to erosion, demonstrates their advanced understanding of material durability. Furthermore, sculptural evidence reveals historical anecdotes, such as the valour of Sudehi, the faithful elephant, illustrating the intersection of history and legend in the temple’s narrative. Geotechnical evaluations validate the stability of the temple’s foundation in a coastal environment, reinforcing the feasibility of its architectural blueprint. Furthermore, the study reveals sophisticated construction techniques used to lift enormous stone blocks to great heights. The use of iron scaffolding, akin to modern construction methods, highlights parallels between ancient and contemporary engineering practices. A significant finding is the presence of rust-resistant iron beams within the temple compound, an aspect that continues to intrigue metallurgists and material scientists. However, while this study presents compelling evidence of advanced metallurgical knowledge, further analysis is needed to fully understand the composition and long-term durability of these materials. The temple’s wheels, serving as India’s earliest sundial, along with its astronomical alignments, attest to the artisans’ deep understanding of celestial mechanics, particularly in channelling the first rays of the sun into the inner sanctum. While this study consolidates historical, cultural, and scientific evidence surrounding the KT, it also acknowledges certain limitations. The absence of direct archaeological excavations and detailed material testing limits the verification of oral narratives. Future research should focus on metallurgical studies, geospatial analysis, and experimental reconstructions to further investigate construction techniques and environmental interactions. By bridging ancient and modern technologies, this study not only unfolds the 13th-century technological ingenuity but also opens new avenues for interdisciplinary research into the temple’s enduring mysteries. Specific Points for Scientific Soundness Integration with Current Research Include recent studies or methods, such as geotechnical assessments or 3D modeling, to validate claims about construction techniques. Provide a comparative analysis with other ancient monumental structures to position the findings in a broader context. Response: We appreciate the suggestion to incorporate recent methodologies. The manuscript integrates geotechnical and geophysical studies , including GPR and remote sensing , to analyze the structural and environmental context of the KT. These aspects are detailed in the section “Foundation of Konark Temple.” Additionally, the “Directions for Future Research” section highlights the potential applications of 3D modeling, GIS-based analysis, and advanced geotechnical investigation techniques. To strengthen interdisciplinary connections , we have expanded the comparative analysis of construction techniques in other ancient monumental structures such as the Giza Pyramids, Angkor Wat, Stonehenge, and Chichen Itza. Strengthening Evidence Use scientific data to support claims about material properties, such as the corrosion resistance of iron used in the temple. Provide citations from peer-reviewed journals, especially for claims about astronomical alignment and structural engineering. Response: We have expanded the "Use of High-Grade Iron" section to include metallurgical analyses comparing Konark iron with other ancient iron structures such as the Delhi Iron Pillar, Dhar Pillar, and Sigiriya Iron . This discussion now incorporates data on chemical composition, hardness, and corrosion resistance , citing relevant peer-reviewed studies (e.g., Ghosh, 1963; J. Newton Friend, 1926; Singh & Kaur, 2014). For astronomical alignments , we have integrated scientific references to substantiate claims regarding the temple’s wheels functioning as a sundial and its architectural design channeling the sun's first rays into the sanctum . These citations (e.g., Bhatnagar & Livingston, 2005; Das, 2015; De, 2022; Dey, 2016; John et al ., 2015; Joshi & Srivastava, 2021; Yadav, 2021) ensure that all astronomical interpretations are based on scientific validation rather than conjecture . Distinguishing Between Fact and Folklore Differentiate between historical records, archaeological evidence, and folklore. For example, legends like the story of Dharmapada should be framed as cultural narratives unless supported by evidence. Response: We appreciate the suggestion to distinguish between historical records, archaeological evidence, and folklore . We have discussed the Dharmapada legend to clearly separate cultural narratives from verifiable historical sources. The "Recollections of Construction and Human Resources" section explicitly categorizes the story of Dharmapada as an evolving folklore , shaped over centuries through oral traditions, nationalist influences, and literary adaptations (e.g., O’Malley, 1908; Mishra, 1919; Das, 1924). To provide historical grounding , we incorporate palm leaf manuscript references (Boner, 1970; Boner et al., 1972) that mention Dharma Mahapatra as a real historical figure involved in the temple’s construction, ensuring a fact-based distinction between folklore and documented accounts. We acknowledge that while folk traditions convey cultural values , they should not be conflated with empirical evidence. The text contextualizes Dharmapada’s story within the broader socio-political and artisan-based reality of the temple's construction. By adopting this approach, we ensure that folklore is presented as part of Konark’s cultural legacy , while historical claims remain firmly supported by documented sources . Clarification of Methodology Elaborate on the systematic review process, specifying how documents were selected and analyzed. Discuss potential biases in the sources. Response: We have elaborated on the systematic review process in the “ Methodology” section, detailing document selection, analysis, and potential biases in the sources. Additionally, the structure of the paper has been presented in Figure 1 for clarity. The changes are as follows: A systematic review methodology was adopted for the search and selection of documents. Documents were sourced from Scopus, the largest scientific journal database, and Google Scholar, an inclusive, automated repository offering access to a vast range of published works (Bar-Ilan, 2008). Two search strings were employed: “KONARK” OR “SUN AND TEMPLE” within the title, abstract, and keyword fields. This search yielded 329 documents from Scopus and 912 from Google Scholar. After removing duplicates (n = 235), the remaining documents were screened on the basis of titles and/or abstracts for relevance to nine thematic areas: (1) causes of construction, (2) financial allocation, (3) dimensions of Konark Temple (KT), (4) human resources, (5) obstacles during construction, (6) foundation of KT, (7) stone selection, transportation and lifting, (8) native technology, and (9) astronomical phenomena. This process resulted in 80 documents, comprising 29 journal articles and 51 books, and excluded 926 documents. Following a full-text review, 69 documents, containing 29 journal articles and 40 books, were retained as relevant to the aforementioned themes, while 11 books were excluded by the first author. The inclusion and exclusion of documents were subsequently discussed among all three authors, and the exclusion was agreed upon. Limited programmatic research and publications in journals on the KT resulted in the retention of 29 journal articles. As KT is an ancient structure dating back to the 13th century, 36 documents related to its architecture, construction, water bodies, and associated folklore were selected from cross-referenced old books and ancient writings (n = 29), palm-leaf inscriptions and indigenous narratives on stones (n = 6), and copper plates (n = 1). Also, 13 journal articles were selected for a comparative analysis of KT with other monumental structures worldwide (Aveni, Gibbs, & Hartung, 1975; Evans et al., 2013; Farhan et al., 2022; Gaffney et al., 2018; Ghoneim et al., 2024; Sheisha et al., 2022; Uchida & Shimoda, 2013), for assessing the quality of stone and iron used (Basu, Orr, & Aktas, 2020; Church of England, 2019; Ghosh, 1963; Gilchrist, 2001; Phys.org, 2012; Vincent, 1993). An additional journal article was included to rationalise the database for selection and inclusion of documents for review (Bar-Ilan, 2008). These were initiated by the first author and agreed upon by the remaining two authors, with no documents removed. Of 130 documents, 119 documents were included for this review (see Fig. 2). The inter-rater reliability (Number of agreed documents/ Total number of documents) was 91.54%. Addressing Limitations Acknowledge the study's limitations, such as the reliance on secondary sources and the lack of direct archaeological validation for some claims. Response: We acknowledge the study's limitations, particularly the reliance on secondary sources and the lack of direct archaeological validation for some claims. These constraints have been addressed in the Limitations section as follows: Limitations The limited availability of journal publications on the KT constrains access to authentic, peer-reviewed evidence. Nevertheless, this study relies on archival data derived from indigenous knowledge dating back to the 13th century, incorporating folk narratives and prevailing cultural practices. Documentation includes incidents and eyewitness accounts recorded in books, diaries, palm leaf manuscripts, and stone inscriptions. Furthermore, the study examines sculptures from the KT, as well as those housed in museums across various locations, alongside an exploration of the ancient maritime traditions of the kingdom’s predecessors. Literature authored by King Narasimhadeva I’s court poet and historical records of the kingdom also provide valuable insights. Additionally, the study acknowledges its reliance on secondary sources, which may introduce potential biases in historical interpretations. While efforts have been made to validate these sources through cross-referencing with archaeological records, geophysical surveys, and metallurgical analyses, the absence of direct archaeological validation for certain claims remains a constraint. To address this, future research may adopt a multidisciplinary approach integrating geotechnical, geophysical, and material analyses for a more comprehensive understanding. Conclusion Overall, the article offers valuable insights into the construction of the Konark Temple and highlights its historical, cultural, and scientific significance. The authors should address the abovementioned limitations to make the article scientifically sound, particularly by integrating more recent research, strengthening evidence-based claims, and distinguishing folklore from verifiable facts. By doing so, the study can serve as a robust reference for both historical and scientific investigations into ancient construction techniques. Response: We appreciate the constructive feedback on our manuscript. In response, we have addressed the identified limitations by: Integrating more recent research and peer-reviewed studies to strengthen evidence-based claims. Distinguishing folklore from verifiable historical facts by clearly categorizing narratives within the text. Expanding the methodology section to enhance transparency regarding source selection and validation. Regarding the comprehensive discussion of the topic, the study incorporates a multidisciplinary approach, integrating historical records, indigenous knowledge, metallurgical analyses, and geophysical insights. While the existing literature on the KT remains limited, we have ensured that the discussion aligns with current research findings and emerging perspectives on ancient construction techniques. Competing Interests: Not Applicable Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 15 May 2025 Susanta Bahinipati , School of Film and Media Sciences, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar, 751024, India 15 May 2025 Author Response Reviewer- 1 Ngakan Ketut Acwin Dwijendra , Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence We are grateful for your ... Continue reading Reviewer- 1 Ngakan Ketut Acwin Dwijendra , Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence We are grateful for your appreciation of the work and constructive comments/ suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. Summary of the Article The article critically reviews the historical, cultural, and scientific evidence surrounding the construction of the Konark Temple in Odisha, India. The research incorporates data from ancient texts, folklore, palm leaf manuscripts, archaeological evidence, and historical records. It explores themes such as the temple's purpose, the techniques and materials used, the role of indigenous knowledge, and its architectural and astronomical precision. Key findings include: The temple served as a monument of devotion to the Sun God and a symbol of King Narasimhadeva I’s military victories. Advanced construction techniques included using rust-resistant iron, innovative stonelifting technologies, and precise architectural designs. The temple's alignment with astronomical phenomena demonstrates ancient artisans' mastery of astronomy. Indigenous technologies, including the use of high-grade iron and efficient transportation of massive stone blocks via sea routes, highlight the engineering ingenuity of the time. The article concludes that the Konark Temple embodies a blend of artistic mastery, cultural significance, and technological innovation, offering insights for contemporary architecture and engineering. Response: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Listed Reply to Comments/ Suggestions Here follows the listed reply to comments/suggestions. Comprehensiveness of the Topic in Current Literature Evaluation: Partly . The article extensively reviews the historical and cultural significance of the Konark Temple, presenting a rich narrative of its construction and legacy. However, its engagement with contemporary research methodologies in archaeology, materials science, and geotechnical studies is limited. While the authors mention some modern studies, such as those by CSIR and CBRI, these are not deeply integrated into the analysis. For example, insights from recent archaeological technologies like ground-penetrating radar or 3D modeling could enhance the study’s relevance. Recommendations: Incorporate more recent geotechnical or archaeological studies to substantiate claims about the temple’s construction techniques and materials. Review and discuss contemporary literature on similar historical structures globally for comparative insights. Response: We have already included the geotechnical and archaeological studies as follows: Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) Studies: Dwivedi et al. (2022) on heritage structure foundation investigation (discussed in the "Foundation of KT" section). Jana et al. (2016) on palaeo-channel search near Konark (covered in "Introduction"). Multi-Disciplinary River System Analysis: Jana et al. (2022) on delineation of ancient rivers, providing insights into stone transportation (included in "Stone Quarrying and Transportation of Stones"). While detailed applications of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and 3D modelling were not directly incorporated into this study, their potential use has been outlined in the second paragraph of the ‘Directions for research’ section for future investigations. Comparative insights on similar global historical structures have also been included, as recommended and problem is derived for further research. Second, geological and remote sensing studies have revealed that the Giza Pyramids in Egypt were once connected to now-defunct branches of the Nile, likely used to transport limestone during construction (Ghoneim et al., 2024; Sheisha et al., 2022). At Angkor Wat in Cambodia, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and Geographic Information System (GIS) technologies uncovered a sophisticated hydraulic infrastructure integral to the site's construction and urban planning (Evans et al., 2013; Uchida & Shimoda, 2013). In the UK, investigations at Stonehenge using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), Electromagnetic Induction (EMI), and 3D modelling revealed buried features and refined interpretations of the monument’s astronomical alignments (Gaffney et al., 2018). Similarly, at Chichen Itza in Mexico, archaeoastronomical studies of the Caracol Tower revealed its precise alignments with solstices and Venus cycles (Aveni et al., 1975). These interdisciplinary approaches demonstrate the power of technologies in decoding ancient engineering and cosmological knowledge. Applying similar methods, such as GIS, 3D modelling, and GPR can help uncover the historical mysteries surrounding KT’s sites, including the locations of ancient water bodies and ports, construction materials, logistical systems, astronomical alignments, and broader environmental interactions. To understand KT's construction and stone transport, soil analysis and borehole data can reveal ground conditions that shaped building techniques. Geophysical tools like GPR and Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI) can detect buried features such as ancient water channels. Satellite radar imagery and GIS help trace historical water bodies and landscapes by layering topography, hydrology, and old maps. Additionally, sediment coring, sonar, and bathymetric surveys using tools like sub-bottom profilers and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) can explore potential maritime transport links. Metallurgical and archaeological studies can also test historical claims, such as the possible use of magnets in KT. References Aveni, A. F., Gibbs, S. L., & Hartung, H. (1975). The Caracol tower at Chichen Itza: An ancient astronomical observatory? Science, 188 (4192), 977–985. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1740708 Evans, D. H., Fletcher, R. J., Pottier, C., Chevance, J. B., Soutif, D., Tan, B. S., ... & Boornazian, G. (2013). Uncovering archaeological landscapes at Angkor using LiDAR. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (31), 12595–12600. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306539110 Gaffney, V., Neubauer, W., Garwood, P., Gaffney, C., Löcker, K., Bates, R., ... & Corkum, A. (2018). Durrington Walls and the Stonehenge Hidden Landscape Project 2010–2016. Archaeological Prospection, 25 (3), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1702 Ghoneim, E., Ralph, T. J., Onstine, S., El-Behaedi, R., El-Qady, G., Fahil, A. S., ... & Fathy, M. S. (2024). The Egyptian pyramid chain was built along the now abandoned Ahramat Nile Branch. Communications Earth & Environment, 5 (1), 233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01379-7 Sheisha, H., Kaniewski, D., Marriner, N., Djamali, M., Younes, G., Chen, Z., ... &Morhange, C. (2022). Nile waterscapes facilitated the construction of the Giza pyramids during the 3rd millennium BCE. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119 (37), e2202530119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2202530119 Uchida, E., & Shimoda, I. (2013). Quarries and transportation routes of Angkor monument sandstone blocks. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40 (2), 1158–1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.12.018 Factual Accuracy and Citation Support Evaluation: Partly . While the article is well-cited and draws on historical sources, its reliance on folklore and secondary sources raises questions about the verifiability of some claims, such as the legend of Dharmapada or the use of magnets to suspend objects. Some claims, like the rust resistance of the iron used, require more robust validation through referenced scientific studies. Recommendations: Ensure that all key assertions, especially those based on folklore or oral traditions, are marked as such and distinguished from evidence-based claims. Include peer-reviewed scientific studies to corroborate statements about materials, such as the selection processes for rust-resistant iron and stone. Response: The legends of Dharmapada and magnetic suspension are folklore and require scientific validation. This has been noted for future investigation in the third paragraph of the ‘Directions for research’ section, as stated in the following sentence. Metallurgical and archaeological studies can also test historical claims, such as the possible use of magnets in KT. To ensure robust validation, we have emphasized the need for peer-reviewed scientific studies on material properties, including rust-resistant iron. The discussion now integrates studies on ancient ironworking techniques and a comparative analysis of ironwork across India, which is detailed in the “Use of high-grade iron” section. Distinctions between historical evidence, oral traditions, and scientific analysis are reported below: Use of high-grade iron The artisans of Konark demonstrated remarkable metallurgical expertise in shaping and assembling large iron beams over eight centuries ago. Engineer M.H. Arnott, who worked on early 20th-century excavations and restorations, documented their manufacturing techniques. Upon examining a broken iron beam, he discovered that the iron was forged in small segments, approximately 1 to 1.5 feet in length and 3 to 4 inches in width, and arranged in a staggered pattern similar to bricks in a wall (O’Malley, 1908). These segments were inserted into a hollow quadrilateral iron bar and welded together, ensuring a seamless and durable structure. The final polishing concealed any visible joints, resulting in a robust beam with mechanical properties comparable to contemporary military-grade steel (Edwards, 1969; Friend, 1926; Singh & Kaur, 2014). A metallurgical analysis by Friend (1926) compared Konark iron (c. 1250 CE) with other notable ancient ironworks, including the Delhi Iron Pillar (c. 300 CE), the Dhar Pillar (c. 320 CE), and Ceylonese (Sigiriya) Iron (c. 450 CE). The study revealed significant differences in composition, hardness, and corrosion resistance. Konark iron had a low phosphorus content (0.015%), whereas the Delhi Iron Pillar (0.114%), Dhar Pillar (0.28%), and Ceylonese iron (0.34%) contained higher amounts, which contributed to their superior corrosion resistance. The carbon content in Konark iron (0.110%) was slightly higher than that of the Delhi Iron Pillar (0.080%), but its higher sulphur content (0.024%) made it more brittle. Brinell hardness tests indicated that Konark iron (72) was softer than the Delhi Iron Pillar (188). Despite these findings, Friend’s controlled experiment revealed that Konark iron exhibited remarkable durability. Identical samples of Konark iron and modern military-grade steel were exposed to alternating wet and dry conditions for one year, followed by submersion in artificial seawater for another year. The results showed that modern mild steel deteriorated completely, whereas Konark iron retained 89.3% of its original structure. Furthermore, under artificial seawater exposure, modern mild steel corroded extensively, while Konark iron preserved 75.3% of its integrity. These findings affirm the advanced metallurgical knowledge of ancient Indian artisans. Their ability to produce durable iron structures is superior to the twentieth century engineers. These findings affirm the advanced metallurgical knowledge of ancient Indian artisans, whose ability to produce durable iron structures surpassed that of many twentieth-century engineers. Ghosh (1963) provides a detailed metallurgical analysis of the Delhi Iron Pillar, emphasizing its high phosphorus content and the absence of manganese—key factors contributing to its exceptional corrosion resistance. The pillar was constructed through forge welding of small iron blooms, a technique similar to that used for the Konark iron beams. While the Delhi Iron Pillar benefited from a dry climate that minimized rust formation, the Konark beams are regularly and harshly exposed to humidity and salt-laden winds on the seacoast. Despite these challenges, the Konark iron beams have endured for centuries, indicating that the artisans employed advanced forging and welding techniques to enhance durability. Ghosh’s comparison highlights the ingenuity of ancient Indian artisans in adapting techniques to counter specific structural degradation. The enduring presence of iron beams at Konark, despite centuries of exposure to a harsh coastal climate, attests to the artisans’ sophisticated craftsmanship. The fusion of indigenous knowledge and technical proficiency continues to astonish researchers worldwide, reinforcing the ingenuity of ancient construction techniques in ensuring structural durability. Reference: Ghosh, M. K. (1963). The Delhi iron pillar and its iron. NML Technical Journal , 5 (1), 31-45. Accessibility of Language Evaluation: Yes . The language is clear, engaging, and accessible to academic and general audiences. The integration of technical and cultural narratives is particularly commendable. Recommendations: Maintain this clarity while adding more technical terms and methodologies if engaging with geotechnical or engineering audiences. Response: Thanks. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the clarity and engagement of the language. Appropriateness of Conclusions Evaluation: Partly . The conclusions are generally appropriate, synthesizing the findings effectively. However, they are somewhat limited by the scope of the evidence presented. For example, the findings could better integrate critiques or limitations of ancient techniques compared to modern methodologies. Recommendations: Discuss how the findings contribute to or challenge current historical architecture and engineering knowledge. Acknowledge gaps in evidence and propose specific areas for future research. Response: We have refined the conclusion section to integrate ancient techniques and their relevance to modern engineering. Conclusion This study highlights the remarkable expertise of the artisans involved in constructing the KT. By examining folk narratives, cultural practices, and sculptural evidence, we gain deeper insights into the historical and technological advancements that shaped this architectural marvel. Analysing ancient construction techniques enhances our understanding of past engineering methods while offering valuable lessons for modern architects and engineers seeking sustainable and resilient design solutions. Our research underscores the enduring legacy of Narasimhadeva I, as reflected in the temple’s precise measurements, originally recorded in the Sanskrit Madalapanji , which align with modern calculations. The study also sheds light on the logistical ingenuity of ancient artisans, particularly their use of maritime routes to transport massive stone blocks. Additionally, their selection of high-grade stones, resistant to erosion, demonstrates their advanced understanding of material durability. Furthermore, sculptural evidence reveals historical anecdotes, such as the valour of Sudehi, the faithful elephant, illustrating the intersection of history and legend in the temple’s narrative. Geotechnical evaluations validate the stability of the temple’s foundation in a coastal environment, reinforcing the feasibility of its architectural blueprint. Furthermore, the study reveals sophisticated construction techniques used to lift enormous stone blocks to great heights. The use of iron scaffolding, akin to modern construction methods, highlights parallels between ancient and contemporary engineering practices. A significant finding is the presence of rust-resistant iron beams within the temple compound, an aspect that continues to intrigue metallurgists and material scientists. However, while this study presents compelling evidence of advanced metallurgical knowledge, further analysis is needed to fully understand the composition and long-term durability of these materials. The temple’s wheels, serving as India’s earliest sundial, along with its astronomical alignments, attest to the artisans’ deep understanding of celestial mechanics, particularly in channelling the first rays of the sun into the inner sanctum. While this study consolidates historical, cultural, and scientific evidence surrounding the KT, it also acknowledges certain limitations. The absence of direct archaeological excavations and detailed material testing limits the verification of oral narratives. Future research should focus on metallurgical studies, geospatial analysis, and experimental reconstructions to further investigate construction techniques and environmental interactions. By bridging ancient and modern technologies, this study not only unfolds the 13th-century technological ingenuity but also opens new avenues for interdisciplinary research into the temple’s enduring mysteries. Specific Points for Scientific Soundness Integration with Current Research Include recent studies or methods, such as geotechnical assessments or 3D modeling, to validate claims about construction techniques. Provide a comparative analysis with other ancient monumental structures to position the findings in a broader context. Response: We appreciate the suggestion to incorporate recent methodologies. The manuscript integrates geotechnical and geophysical studies , including GPR and remote sensing , to analyze the structural and environmental context of the KT. These aspects are detailed in the section “Foundation of Konark Temple.” Additionally, the “Directions for Future Research” section highlights the potential applications of 3D modeling, GIS-based analysis, and advanced geotechnical investigation techniques. To strengthen interdisciplinary connections , we have expanded the comparative analysis of construction techniques in other ancient monumental structures such as the Giza Pyramids, Angkor Wat, Stonehenge, and Chichen Itza. Strengthening Evidence Use scientific data to support claims about material properties, such as the corrosion resistance of iron used in the temple. Provide citations from peer-reviewed journals, especially for claims about astronomical alignment and structural engineering. Response: We have expanded the "Use of High-Grade Iron" section to include metallurgical analyses comparing Konark iron with other ancient iron structures such as the Delhi Iron Pillar, Dhar Pillar, and Sigiriya Iron . This discussion now incorporates data on chemical composition, hardness, and corrosion resistance , citing relevant peer-reviewed studies (e.g., Ghosh, 1963; J. Newton Friend, 1926; Singh & Kaur, 2014). For astronomical alignments , we have integrated scientific references to substantiate claims regarding the temple’s wheels functioning as a sundial and its architectural design channeling the sun's first rays into the sanctum . These citations (e.g., Bhatnagar & Livingston, 2005; Das, 2015; De, 2022; Dey, 2016; John et al ., 2015; Joshi & Srivastava, 2021; Yadav, 2021) ensure that all astronomical interpretations are based on scientific validation rather than conjecture . Distinguishing Between Fact and Folklore Differentiate between historical records, archaeological evidence, and folklore. For example, legends like the story of Dharmapada should be framed as cultural narratives unless supported by evidence. Response: We appreciate the suggestion to distinguish between historical records, archaeological evidence, and folklore . We have discussed the Dharmapada legend to clearly separate cultural narratives from verifiable historical sources. The "Recollections of Construction and Human Resources" section explicitly categorizes the story of Dharmapada as an evolving folklore , shaped over centuries through oral traditions, nationalist influences, and literary adaptations (e.g., O’Malley, 1908; Mishra, 1919; Das, 1924). To provide historical grounding , we incorporate palm leaf manuscript references (Boner, 1970; Boner et al., 1972) that mention Dharma Mahapatra as a real historical figure involved in the temple’s construction, ensuring a fact-based distinction between folklore and documented accounts. We acknowledge that while folk traditions convey cultural values , they should not be conflated with empirical evidence. The text contextualizes Dharmapada’s story within the broader socio-political and artisan-based reality of the temple's construction. By adopting this approach, we ensure that folklore is presented as part of Konark’s cultural legacy , while historical claims remain firmly supported by documented sources . Clarification of Methodology Elaborate on the systematic review process, specifying how documents were selected and analyzed. Discuss potential biases in the sources. Response: We have elaborated on the systematic review process in the “ Methodology” section, detailing document selection, analysis, and potential biases in the sources. Additionally, the structure of the paper has been presented in Figure 1 for clarity. The changes are as follows: A systematic review methodology was adopted for the search and selection of documents. Documents were sourced from Scopus, the largest scientific journal database, and Google Scholar, an inclusive, automated repository offering access to a vast range of published works (Bar-Ilan, 2008). Two search strings were employed: “KONARK” OR “SUN AND TEMPLE” within the title, abstract, and keyword fields. This search yielded 329 documents from Scopus and 912 from Google Scholar. After removing duplicates (n = 235), the remaining documents were screened on the basis of titles and/or abstracts for relevance to nine thematic areas: (1) causes of construction, (2) financial allocation, (3) dimensions of Konark Temple (KT), (4) human resources, (5) obstacles during construction, (6) foundation of KT, (7) stone selection, transportation and lifting, (8) native technology, and (9) astronomical phenomena. This process resulted in 80 documents, comprising 29 journal articles and 51 books, and excluded 926 documents. Following a full-text review, 69 documents, containing 29 journal articles and 40 books, were retained as relevant to the aforementioned themes, while 11 books were excluded by the first author. The inclusion and exclusion of documents were subsequently discussed among all three authors, and the exclusion was agreed upon. Limited programmatic research and publications in journals on the KT resulted in the retention of 29 journal articles. As KT is an ancient structure dating back to the 13th century, 36 documents related to its architecture, construction, water bodies, and associated folklore were selected from cross-referenced old books and ancient writings (n = 29), palm-leaf inscriptions and indigenous narratives on stones (n = 6), and copper plates (n = 1). Also, 13 journal articles were selected for a comparative analysis of KT with other monumental structures worldwide (Aveni, Gibbs, & Hartung, 1975; Evans et al., 2013; Farhan et al., 2022; Gaffney et al., 2018; Ghoneim et al., 2024; Sheisha et al., 2022; Uchida & Shimoda, 2013), for assessing the quality of stone and iron used (Basu, Orr, & Aktas, 2020; Church of England, 2019; Ghosh, 1963; Gilchrist, 2001; Phys.org, 2012; Vincent, 1993). An additional journal article was included to rationalise the database for selection and inclusion of documents for review (Bar-Ilan, 2008). These were initiated by the first author and agreed upon by the remaining two authors, with no documents removed. Of 130 documents, 119 documents were included for this review (see Fig. 2). The inter-rater reliability (Number of agreed documents/ Total number of documents) was 91.54%. Addressing Limitations Acknowledge the study's limitations, such as the reliance on secondary sources and the lack of direct archaeological validation for some claims. Response: We acknowledge the study's limitations, particularly the reliance on secondary sources and the lack of direct archaeological validation for some claims. These constraints have been addressed in the Limitations section as follows: Limitations The limited availability of journal publications on the KT constrains access to authentic, peer-reviewed evidence. Nevertheless, this study relies on archival data derived from indigenous knowledge dating back to the 13th century, incorporating folk narratives and prevailing cultural practices. Documentation includes incidents and eyewitness accounts recorded in books, diaries, palm leaf manuscripts, and stone inscriptions. Furthermore, the study examines sculptures from the KT, as well as those housed in museums across various locations, alongside an exploration of the ancient maritime traditions of the kingdom’s predecessors. Literature authored by King Narasimhadeva I’s court poet and historical records of the kingdom also provide valuable insights. Additionally, the study acknowledges its reliance on secondary sources, which may introduce potential biases in historical interpretations. While efforts have been made to validate these sources through cross-referencing with archaeological records, geophysical surveys, and metallurgical analyses, the absence of direct archaeological validation for certain claims remains a constraint. To address this, future research may adopt a multidisciplinary approach integrating geotechnical, geophysical, and material analyses for a more comprehensive understanding. Conclusion Overall, the article offers valuable insights into the construction of the Konark Temple and highlights its historical, cultural, and scientific significance. The authors should address the abovementioned limitations to make the article scientifically sound, particularly by integrating more recent research, strengthening evidence-based claims, and distinguishing folklore from verifiable facts. By doing so, the study can serve as a robust reference for both historical and scientific investigations into ancient construction techniques. Response: We appreciate the constructive feedback on our manuscript. In response, we have addressed the identified limitations by: Integrating more recent research and peer-reviewed studies to strengthen evidence-based claims. Distinguishing folklore from verifiable historical facts by clearly categorizing narratives within the text. Expanding the methodology section to enhance transparency regarding source selection and validation. Regarding the comprehensive discussion of the topic, the study incorporates a multidisciplinary approach, integrating historical records, indigenous knowledge, metallurgical analyses, and geophysical insights. While the existing literature on the KT remains limited, we have ensured that the discussion aligns with current research findings and emerging perspectives on ancient construction techniques. Reviewer- 1 Ngakan Ketut Acwin Dwijendra , Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence We are grateful for your appreciation of the work and constructive comments/ suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. Summary of the Article The article critically reviews the historical, cultural, and scientific evidence surrounding the construction of the Konark Temple in Odisha, India. The research incorporates data from ancient texts, folklore, palm leaf manuscripts, archaeological evidence, and historical records. It explores themes such as the temple's purpose, the techniques and materials used, the role of indigenous knowledge, and its architectural and astronomical precision. Key findings include: The temple served as a monument of devotion to the Sun God and a symbol of King Narasimhadeva I’s military victories. Advanced construction techniques included using rust-resistant iron, innovative stonelifting technologies, and precise architectural designs. The temple's alignment with astronomical phenomena demonstrates ancient artisans' mastery of astronomy. Indigenous technologies, including the use of high-grade iron and efficient transportation of massive stone blocks via sea routes, highlight the engineering ingenuity of the time. The article concludes that the Konark Temple embodies a blend of artistic mastery, cultural significance, and technological innovation, offering insights for contemporary architecture and engineering. Response: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Listed Reply to Comments/ Suggestions Here follows the listed reply to comments/suggestions. Comprehensiveness of the Topic in Current Literature Evaluation: Partly . The article extensively reviews the historical and cultural significance of the Konark Temple, presenting a rich narrative of its construction and legacy. However, its engagement with contemporary research methodologies in archaeology, materials science, and geotechnical studies is limited. While the authors mention some modern studies, such as those by CSIR and CBRI, these are not deeply integrated into the analysis. For example, insights from recent archaeological technologies like ground-penetrating radar or 3D modeling could enhance the study’s relevance. Recommendations: Incorporate more recent geotechnical or archaeological studies to substantiate claims about the temple’s construction techniques and materials. Review and discuss contemporary literature on similar historical structures globally for comparative insights. Response: We have already included the geotechnical and archaeological studies as follows: Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) Studies: Dwivedi et al. (2022) on heritage structure foundation investigation (discussed in the "Foundation of KT" section). Jana et al. (2016) on palaeo-channel search near Konark (covered in "Introduction"). Multi-Disciplinary River System Analysis: Jana et al. (2022) on delineation of ancient rivers, providing insights into stone transportation (included in "Stone Quarrying and Transportation of Stones"). While detailed applications of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and 3D modelling were not directly incorporated into this study, their potential use has been outlined in the second paragraph of the ‘Directions for research’ section for future investigations. Comparative insights on similar global historical structures have also been included, as recommended and problem is derived for further research. Second, geological and remote sensing studies have revealed that the Giza Pyramids in Egypt were once connected to now-defunct branches of the Nile, likely used to transport limestone during construction (Ghoneim et al., 2024; Sheisha et al., 2022). At Angkor Wat in Cambodia, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and Geographic Information System (GIS) technologies uncovered a sophisticated hydraulic infrastructure integral to the site's construction and urban planning (Evans et al., 2013; Uchida & Shimoda, 2013). In the UK, investigations at Stonehenge using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), Electromagnetic Induction (EMI), and 3D modelling revealed buried features and refined interpretations of the monument’s astronomical alignments (Gaffney et al., 2018). Similarly, at Chichen Itza in Mexico, archaeoastronomical studies of the Caracol Tower revealed its precise alignments with solstices and Venus cycles (Aveni et al., 1975). These interdisciplinary approaches demonstrate the power of technologies in decoding ancient engineering and cosmological knowledge. Applying similar methods, such as GIS, 3D modelling, and GPR can help uncover the historical mysteries surrounding KT’s sites, including the locations of ancient water bodies and ports, construction materials, logistical systems, astronomical alignments, and broader environmental interactions. To understand KT's construction and stone transport, soil analysis and borehole data can reveal ground conditions that shaped building techniques. Geophysical tools like GPR and Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI) can detect buried features such as ancient water channels. Satellite radar imagery and GIS help trace historical water bodies and landscapes by layering topography, hydrology, and old maps. Additionally, sediment coring, sonar, and bathymetric surveys using tools like sub-bottom profilers and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) can explore potential maritime transport links. Metallurgical and archaeological studies can also test historical claims, such as the possible use of magnets in KT. References Aveni, A. F., Gibbs, S. L., & Hartung, H. (1975). The Caracol tower at Chichen Itza: An ancient astronomical observatory? Science, 188 (4192), 977–985. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1740708 Evans, D. H., Fletcher, R. J., Pottier, C., Chevance, J. B., Soutif, D., Tan, B. S., ... & Boornazian, G. (2013). Uncovering archaeological landscapes at Angkor using LiDAR. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (31), 12595–12600. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306539110 Gaffney, V., Neubauer, W., Garwood, P., Gaffney, C., Löcker, K., Bates, R., ... & Corkum, A. (2018). Durrington Walls and the Stonehenge Hidden Landscape Project 2010–2016. Archaeological Prospection, 25 (3), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1702 Ghoneim, E., Ralph, T. J., Onstine, S., El-Behaedi, R., El-Qady, G., Fahil, A. S., ... & Fathy, M. S. (2024). The Egyptian pyramid chain was built along the now abandoned Ahramat Nile Branch. Communications Earth & Environment, 5 (1), 233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01379-7 Sheisha, H., Kaniewski, D., Marriner, N., Djamali, M., Younes, G., Chen, Z., ... &Morhange, C. (2022). Nile waterscapes facilitated the construction of the Giza pyramids during the 3rd millennium BCE. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119 (37), e2202530119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2202530119 Uchida, E., & Shimoda, I. (2013). Quarries and transportation routes of Angkor monument sandstone blocks. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40 (2), 1158–1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.12.018 Factual Accuracy and Citation Support Evaluation: Partly . While the article is well-cited and draws on historical sources, its reliance on folklore and secondary sources raises questions about the verifiability of some claims, such as the legend of Dharmapada or the use of magnets to suspend objects. Some claims, like the rust resistance of the iron used, require more robust validation through referenced scientific studies. Recommendations: Ensure that all key assertions, especially those based on folklore or oral traditions, are marked as such and distinguished from evidence-based claims. Include peer-reviewed scientific studies to corroborate statements about materials, such as the selection processes for rust-resistant iron and stone. Response: The legends of Dharmapada and magnetic suspension are folklore and require scientific validation. This has been noted for future investigation in the third paragraph of the ‘Directions for research’ section, as stated in the following sentence. Metallurgical and archaeological studies can also test historical claims, such as the possible use of magnets in KT. To ensure robust validation, we have emphasized the need for peer-reviewed scientific studies on material properties, including rust-resistant iron. The discussion now integrates studies on ancient ironworking techniques and a comparative analysis of ironwork across India, which is detailed in the “Use of high-grade iron” section. Distinctions between historical evidence, oral traditions, and scientific analysis are reported below: Use of high-grade iron The artisans of Konark demonstrated remarkable metallurgical expertise in shaping and assembling large iron beams over eight centuries ago. Engineer M.H. Arnott, who worked on early 20th-century excavations and restorations, documented their manufacturing techniques. Upon examining a broken iron beam, he discovered that the iron was forged in small segments, approximately 1 to 1.5 feet in length and 3 to 4 inches in width, and arranged in a staggered pattern similar to bricks in a wall (O’Malley, 1908). These segments were inserted into a hollow quadrilateral iron bar and welded together, ensuring a seamless and durable structure. The final polishing concealed any visible joints, resulting in a robust beam with mechanical properties comparable to contemporary military-grade steel (Edwards, 1969; Friend, 1926; Singh & Kaur, 2014). A metallurgical analysis by Friend (1926) compared Konark iron (c. 1250 CE) with other notable ancient ironworks, including the Delhi Iron Pillar (c. 300 CE), the Dhar Pillar (c. 320 CE), and Ceylonese (Sigiriya) Iron (c. 450 CE). The study revealed significant differences in composition, hardness, and corrosion resistance. Konark iron had a low phosphorus content (0.015%), whereas the Delhi Iron Pillar (0.114%), Dhar Pillar (0.28%), and Ceylonese iron (0.34%) contained higher amounts, which contributed to their superior corrosion resistance. The carbon content in Konark iron (0.110%) was slightly higher than that of the Delhi Iron Pillar (0.080%), but its higher sulphur content (0.024%) made it more brittle. Brinell hardness tests indicated that Konark iron (72) was softer than the Delhi Iron Pillar (188). Despite these findings, Friend’s controlled experiment revealed that Konark iron exhibited remarkable durability. Identical samples of Konark iron and modern military-grade steel were exposed to alternating wet and dry conditions for one year, followed by submersion in artificial seawater for another year. The results showed that modern mild steel deteriorated completely, whereas Konark iron retained 89.3% of its original structure. Furthermore, under artificial seawater exposure, modern mild steel corroded extensively, while Konark iron preserved 75.3% of its integrity. These findings affirm the advanced metallurgical knowledge of ancient Indian artisans. Their ability to produce durable iron structures is superior to the twentieth century engineers. These findings affirm the advanced metallurgical knowledge of ancient Indian artisans, whose ability to produce durable iron structures surpassed that of many twentieth-century engineers. Ghosh (1963) provides a detailed metallurgical analysis of the Delhi Iron Pillar, emphasizing its high phosphorus content and the absence of manganese—key factors contributing to its exceptional corrosion resistance. The pillar was constructed through forge welding of small iron blooms, a technique similar to that used for the Konark iron beams. While the Delhi Iron Pillar benefited from a dry climate that minimized rust formation, the Konark beams are regularly and harshly exposed to humidity and salt-laden winds on the seacoast. Despite these challenges, the Konark iron beams have endured for centuries, indicating that the artisans employed advanced forging and welding techniques to enhance durability. Ghosh’s comparison highlights the ingenuity of ancient Indian artisans in adapting techniques to counter specific structural degradation. The enduring presence of iron beams at Konark, despite centuries of exposure to a harsh coastal climate, attests to the artisans’ sophisticated craftsmanship. The fusion of indigenous knowledge and technical proficiency continues to astonish researchers worldwide, reinforcing the ingenuity of ancient construction techniques in ensuring structural durability. Reference: Ghosh, M. K. (1963). The Delhi iron pillar and its iron. NML Technical Journal , 5 (1), 31-45. Accessibility of Language Evaluation: Yes . The language is clear, engaging, and accessible to academic and general audiences. The integration of technical and cultural narratives is particularly commendable. Recommendations: Maintain this clarity while adding more technical terms and methodologies if engaging with geotechnical or engineering audiences. Response: Thanks. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the clarity and engagement of the language. Appropriateness of Conclusions Evaluation: Partly . The conclusions are generally appropriate, synthesizing the findings effectively. However, they are somewhat limited by the scope of the evidence presented. For example, the findings could better integrate critiques or limitations of ancient techniques compared to modern methodologies. Recommendations: Discuss how the findings contribute to or challenge current historical architecture and engineering knowledge. Acknowledge gaps in evidence and propose specific areas for future research. Response: We have refined the conclusion section to integrate ancient techniques and their relevance to modern engineering. Conclusion This study highlights the remarkable expertise of the artisans involved in constructing the KT. By examining folk narratives, cultural practices, and sculptural evidence, we gain deeper insights into the historical and technological advancements that shaped this architectural marvel. Analysing ancient construction techniques enhances our understanding of past engineering methods while offering valuable lessons for modern architects and engineers seeking sustainable and resilient design solutions. Our research underscores the enduring legacy of Narasimhadeva I, as reflected in the temple’s precise measurements, originally recorded in the Sanskrit Madalapanji , which align with modern calculations. The study also sheds light on the logistical ingenuity of ancient artisans, particularly their use of maritime routes to transport massive stone blocks. Additionally, their selection of high-grade stones, resistant to erosion, demonstrates their advanced understanding of material durability. Furthermore, sculptural evidence reveals historical anecdotes, such as the valour of Sudehi, the faithful elephant, illustrating the intersection of history and legend in the temple’s narrative. Geotechnical evaluations validate the stability of the temple’s foundation in a coastal environment, reinforcing the feasibility of its architectural blueprint. Furthermore, the study reveals sophisticated construction techniques used to lift enormous stone blocks to great heights. The use of iron scaffolding, akin to modern construction methods, highlights parallels between ancient and contemporary engineering practices. A significant finding is the presence of rust-resistant iron beams within the temple compound, an aspect that continues to intrigue metallurgists and material scientists. However, while this study presents compelling evidence of advanced metallurgical knowledge, further analysis is needed to fully understand the composition and long-term durability of these materials. The temple’s wheels, serving as India’s earliest sundial, along with its astronomical alignments, attest to the artisans’ deep understanding of celestial mechanics, particularly in channelling the first rays of the sun into the inner sanctum. While this study consolidates historical, cultural, and scientific evidence surrounding the KT, it also acknowledges certain limitations. The absence of direct archaeological excavations and detailed material testing limits the verification of oral narratives. Future research should focus on metallurgical studies, geospatial analysis, and experimental reconstructions to further investigate construction techniques and environmental interactions. By bridging ancient and modern technologies, this study not only unfolds the 13th-century technological ingenuity but also opens new avenues for interdisciplinary research into the temple’s enduring mysteries. Specific Points for Scientific Soundness Integration with Current Research Include recent studies or methods, such as geotechnical assessments or 3D modeling, to validate claims about construction techniques. Provide a comparative analysis with other ancient monumental structures to position the findings in a broader context. Response: We appreciate the suggestion to incorporate recent methodologies. The manuscript integrates geotechnical and geophysical studies , including GPR and remote sensing , to analyze the structural and environmental context of the KT. These aspects are detailed in the section “Foundation of Konark Temple.” Additionally, the “Directions for Future Research” section highlights the potential applications of 3D modeling, GIS-based analysis, and advanced geotechnical investigation techniques. To strengthen interdisciplinary connections , we have expanded the comparative analysis of construction techniques in other ancient monumental structures such as the Giza Pyramids, Angkor Wat, Stonehenge, and Chichen Itza. Strengthening Evidence Use scientific data to support claims about material properties, such as the corrosion resistance of iron used in the temple. Provide citations from peer-reviewed journals, especially for claims about astronomical alignment and structural engineering. Response: We have expanded the "Use of High-Grade Iron" section to include metallurgical analyses comparing Konark iron with other ancient iron structures such as the Delhi Iron Pillar, Dhar Pillar, and Sigiriya Iron . This discussion now incorporates data on chemical composition, hardness, and corrosion resistance , citing relevant peer-reviewed studies (e.g., Ghosh, 1963; J. Newton Friend, 1926; Singh & Kaur, 2014). For astronomical alignments , we have integrated scientific references to substantiate claims regarding the temple’s wheels functioning as a sundial and its architectural design channeling the sun's first rays into the sanctum . These citations (e.g., Bhatnagar & Livingston, 2005; Das, 2015; De, 2022; Dey, 2016; John et al ., 2015; Joshi & Srivastava, 2021; Yadav, 2021) ensure that all astronomical interpretations are based on scientific validation rather than conjecture . Distinguishing Between Fact and Folklore Differentiate between historical records, archaeological evidence, and folklore. For example, legends like the story of Dharmapada should be framed as cultural narratives unless supported by evidence. Response: We appreciate the suggestion to distinguish between historical records, archaeological evidence, and folklore . We have discussed the Dharmapada legend to clearly separate cultural narratives from verifiable historical sources. The "Recollections of Construction and Human Resources" section explicitly categorizes the story of Dharmapada as an evolving folklore , shaped over centuries through oral traditions, nationalist influences, and literary adaptations (e.g., O’Malley, 1908; Mishra, 1919; Das, 1924). To provide historical grounding , we incorporate palm leaf manuscript references (Boner, 1970; Boner et al., 1972) that mention Dharma Mahapatra as a real historical figure involved in the temple’s construction, ensuring a fact-based distinction between folklore and documented accounts. We acknowledge that while folk traditions convey cultural values , they should not be conflated with empirical evidence. The text contextualizes Dharmapada’s story within the broader socio-political and artisan-based reality of the temple's construction. By adopting this approach, we ensure that folklore is presented as part of Konark’s cultural legacy , while historical claims remain firmly supported by documented sources . Clarification of Methodology Elaborate on the systematic review process, specifying how documents were selected and analyzed. Discuss potential biases in the sources. Response: We have elaborated on the systematic review process in the “ Methodology” section, detailing document selection, analysis, and potential biases in the sources. Additionally, the structure of the paper has been presented in Figure 1 for clarity. The changes are as follows: A systematic review methodology was adopted for the search and selection of documents. Documents were sourced from Scopus, the largest scientific journal database, and Google Scholar, an inclusive, automated repository offering access to a vast range of published works (Bar-Ilan, 2008). Two search strings were employed: “KONARK” OR “SUN AND TEMPLE” within the title, abstract, and keyword fields. This search yielded 329 documents from Scopus and 912 from Google Scholar. After removing duplicates (n = 235), the remaining documents were screened on the basis of titles and/or abstracts for relevance to nine thematic areas: (1) causes of construction, (2) financial allocation, (3) dimensions of Konark Temple (KT), (4) human resources, (5) obstacles during construction, (6) foundation of KT, (7) stone selection, transportation and lifting, (8) native technology, and (9) astronomical phenomena. This process resulted in 80 documents, comprising 29 journal articles and 51 books, and excluded 926 documents. Following a full-text review, 69 documents, containing 29 journal articles and 40 books, were retained as relevant to the aforementioned themes, while 11 books were excluded by the first author. The inclusion and exclusion of documents were subsequently discussed among all three authors, and the exclusion was agreed upon. Limited programmatic research and publications in journals on the KT resulted in the retention of 29 journal articles. As KT is an ancient structure dating back to the 13th century, 36 documents related to its architecture, construction, water bodies, and associated folklore were selected from cross-referenced old books and ancient writings (n = 29), palm-leaf inscriptions and indigenous narratives on stones (n = 6), and copper plates (n = 1). Also, 13 journal articles were selected for a comparative analysis of KT with other monumental structures worldwide (Aveni, Gibbs, & Hartung, 1975; Evans et al., 2013; Farhan et al., 2022; Gaffney et al., 2018; Ghoneim et al., 2024; Sheisha et al., 2022; Uchida & Shimoda, 2013), for assessing the quality of stone and iron used (Basu, Orr, & Aktas, 2020; Church of England, 2019; Ghosh, 1963; Gilchrist, 2001; Phys.org, 2012; Vincent, 1993). An additional journal article was included to rationalise the database for selection and inclusion of documents for review (Bar-Ilan, 2008). These were initiated by the first author and agreed upon by the remaining two authors, with no documents removed. Of 130 documents, 119 documents were included for this review (see Fig. 2). The inter-rater reliability (Number of agreed documents/ Total number of documents) was 91.54%. Addressing Limitations Acknowledge the study's limitations, such as the reliance on secondary sources and the lack of direct archaeological validation for some claims. Response: We acknowledge the study's limitations, particularly the reliance on secondary sources and the lack of direct archaeological validation for some claims. These constraints have been addressed in the Limitations section as follows: Limitations The limited availability of journal publications on the KT constrains access to authentic, peer-reviewed evidence. Nevertheless, this study relies on archival data derived from indigenous knowledge dating back to the 13th century, incorporating folk narratives and prevailing cultural practices. Documentation includes incidents and eyewitness accounts recorded in books, diaries, palm leaf manuscripts, and stone inscriptions. Furthermore, the study examines sculptures from the KT, as well as those housed in museums across various locations, alongside an exploration of the ancient maritime traditions of the kingdom’s predecessors. Literature authored by King Narasimhadeva I’s court poet and historical records of the kingdom also provide valuable insights. Additionally, the study acknowledges its reliance on secondary sources, which may introduce potential biases in historical interpretations. While efforts have been made to validate these sources through cross-referencing with archaeological records, geophysical surveys, and metallurgical analyses, the absence of direct archaeological validation for certain claims remains a constraint. To address this, future research may adopt a multidisciplinary approach integrating geotechnical, geophysical, and material analyses for a more comprehensive understanding. Conclusion Overall, the article offers valuable insights into the construction of the Konark Temple and highlights its historical, cultural, and scientific significance. The authors should address the abovementioned limitations to make the article scientifically sound, particularly by integrating more recent research, strengthening evidence-based claims, and distinguishing folklore from verifiable facts. By doing so, the study can serve as a robust reference for both historical and scientific investigations into ancient construction techniques. Response: We appreciate the constructive feedback on our manuscript. In response, we have addressed the identified limitations by: Integrating more recent research and peer-reviewed studies to strengthen evidence-based claims. Distinguishing folklore from verifiable historical facts by clearly categorizing narratives within the text. Expanding the methodology section to enhance transparency regarding source selection and validation. Regarding the comprehensive discussion of the topic, the study incorporates a multidisciplinary approach, integrating historical records, indigenous knowledge, metallurgical analyses, and geophysical insights. While the existing literature on the KT remains limited, we have ensured that the discussion aligns with current research findings and emerging perspectives on ancient construction techniques. Competing Interests: Not Applicable Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 20 Dec 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 2 (revision) 15 May 25 read Version 1 20 Dec 24 read read Ngakan Ketut Acwin Dwijendra , Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia Sabeeh Lafta Farhan , Wasit university, Kut, Iraq Isa Bala Muhammad , Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Muhammad I. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 23 Jun 2025 | for Version 2 Isa Bala Muhammad , Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria 0 Views copyright © 2025 Muhammad I. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This study highlights the Konark Temple as a symbol of ancient India’s cultural, political, and technological achievements. It reveals the temple’s religious significance, the king’s military success, and the collaborative efforts of skilled artisans. Advanced engineering, astronomical precision, and rust-resistant iron showcase scientific ingenuity, while sculptures preserve historical narratives. Overall, the temple stands as a testament to the era’s architectural brilliance and multifaceted excellence. Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature? Yes Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Yes Is the review written in accessible language? Yes Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Cultural landscape I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Muhammad IB. Peer Review Report For: The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1540 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.181512.r385522) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1540/v2#referee-response-385522 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Farhan S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 05 Feb 2025 | for Version 1 Sabeeh Lafta Farhan , Wasit university, Kut, Iraq 0 Views copyright © 2025 Farhan S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thoroughness & Scope – The article provides an extensive review of historical, cultural, and scientific aspects of the Konark Temple’s construction. The depth of research and integration of multiple sources, including historical texts, archaeological findings, and indigenous knowledge, is commendable. Interdisciplinary Approach – The combination of historical analysis, engineering insights, and cultural narratives enriches the discussion. However, a more structured comparison with contemporary temple architecture across different regions of India could provide additional context. Scientific and Engineering Aspects – The discussion on iron usage and rust-resistant techniques is fascinating. It would be helpful to include a comparison with other ancient iron structures, such as the Iron Pillar of Delhi, to establish technological linkages. Specific Comments: Historical Narratives & Myths – While the study effectively explores historical accounts and folklore, some claims (such as the floating deity using magnets) require additional corroboration from scientific sources or metallurgical studies. Methodology Clarification – The systematic review method is well described, but the inclusion criteria for selecting historical texts, palm leaf manuscripts, and indigenous narratives should be elaborated. How were these sources validated for accuracy? Illustrations & Figures – The inclusion of figures is helpful in visualizing the temple’s architectural layout. However, some of them lack detailed captions or references to their sources (e.g., Figure 5’s sketch of the temple in its complete state). Construction Techniques & Materials – The identification of Khondalite, Laterite, and Chlorite stones is insightful. However, the decay rate comparison with Western structures like St. Paul’s Cathedral might need more quantitative backing with geological studies. Maritime & Transportation Hypothesis – The theory of stone transportation via sea routes is intriguing. Have geological or sedimentary studies been conducted along these proposed routes to confirm ancient maritime trade or transport links? References: Lafta Farhan S.et.al. 2022 (Ref 1) This study discusses the transformation of historical city centers and could provide a comparative perspective on the cultural and architectural sustainability of heritage sites, similar to the preservation efforts and architectural significance discussed in the Konark Temple study. Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature? Yes Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Yes Is the review written in accessible language? Yes Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature? Yes References 1. Lafta Farhan S, Nasar Z: The social transformation of the historical city centre of Karbala , Iraq. Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal . 2022; 15 (3). Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 15 May 2025 Susanta Bahinipati, School of Film and Media Sciences, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar, 751024, India Reviewer 2 Sabeeh Lafta Farhan , Wasit university, Kut, Iraq We are grateful for your appreciation of the work and constructive comments/ suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. Thoroughness & Scope The article provides an extensive review of historical, cultural, and scientific aspects of the Konark Temple’s construction. The depth of research and integration of multiple sources, including historical texts, archaeological findings, and indigenous knowledge, is commendable. Interdisciplinary Approach – The combination of historical analysis, engineering insights, and cultural narratives enriches the discussion. However, a more structured comparison with contemporary temple architecture across different regions of India could provide additional context. Scientific and Engineering Aspects – The discussion on iron usage and rust-resistant techniques is fascinating. It would be helpful to include a comparison with other ancient iron structures, such as the Iron Pillar of Delhi, to establish technological linkages. Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the interdisciplinary approach and the depth of research. In response to your suggestion, we have incorporated a structured comparison with contemporary ancient iron structures, including the Iron Pillar of Delhi, in the revised section “Use of High-Grade Iron”. Listed Reply to Comments/ Suggestions Historical Narratives & Myths While the study effectively explores historical accounts and folklore, some claims (such as the floating deity using magnets) require additional corroboration from scientific sources or metallurgical studies. Response: We acknowledge the need for scientific validation. Cultural accounts are presented, and future metallurgical studies are outlined in the third paragraph of the “Directions for research” section. Metallurgical and archaeological studies can also test historical claims, such as the possible use of magnets in KT. Methodology Clarification The systematic review method is well described, but the inclusion criteria for selecting historical texts, palm leaf manuscripts, and indigenous narratives should be elaborated. How were these sources validated for accuracy? Response: The inclusion criteria for historical texts, palm leaf manuscripts, and indigenous narratives were based on their relevance to nine thematic areas. Sources were validated through cross-referencing with academic literature and comparative analysis with archaeological findings. These details have been incorporated into the ‘Methodology’ section, which has been revised as follows: Methodology A systematic review methodology was adopted for the search and selection of documents. Documents were sourced from Scopus, the largest scientific journal database, and Google Scholar, an inclusive, automated repository offering access to a vast range of published works (Bar-Ilan, 2008). Two search strings were employed: “KONARK” OR “SUN AND TEMPLE” within the title, abstract, and keyword fields. This search yielded 329 documents from Scopus and 912 from Google Scholar. After removing duplicates (n = 235), the remaining documents were screened on the basis of titles and/or abstracts for relevance to nine thematic areas: (1) causes of construction, (2) financial allocation, (3) dimensions of Konark Temple (KT), (4) human resources, (5) obstacles during construction, (6) foundation of KT, (7) stone selection, transportation and lifting, (8) native technology, and (9) astronomical phenomena. This process resulted in 80 documents, comprising 29 journal articles and 51 books, and excluded 926 documents. Following a full-text review, 69 documents, containing 29 journal articles and 40 books, were retained as relevant to the aforementioned themes, while 11 books were excluded by the first author. The inclusion and exclusion of documents were subsequently discussed among all three authors, and the exclusion was agreed upon. Limited programmatic research and publications in journals on the KT resulted in the retention of 29 journal articles. As KT is an ancient structure dating back to the 13th century, 36 documents related to its architecture, construction, water bodies, and associated folklore were selected from cross-referenced old books and ancient writings (n = 29), palm-leaf inscriptions and indigenous narratives on stones (n = 6), and copper plates (n = 1). Also, 13 journal articles were selected for a comparative analysis of KT with other monumental structures worldwide (Aveni, Gibbs, & Hartung, 1975; Evans et al., 2013; Farhan et al., 2022; Gaffney et al., 2018; Ghoneim et al., 2024; Sheisha et al., 2022; Uchida & Shimoda, 2013), for assessing the quality of stone and iron used (Basu, Orr, & Aktas, 2020; Church of England, 2019; Ghosh, 1963; Gilchrist, 2001; Phys.org, 2012; Vincent, 1993). An additional journal article was included to rationalise the database for selection and inclusion of documents for review (Bar-Ilan, 2008). These were initiated by the first author and agreed upon by the remaining two authors, with no documents removed. Of 130 documents, 119 documents were included for this review (see Fig. 2). The inter-rater reliability (Number of agreed documents/ Total number of documents) was 91.54%. Illustrations & Figures The inclusion of figures is helpful in visualizing the temple’s architectural layout. However, some of them lack detailed captions or references to their sources (e.g., Figure 5’s sketch of the temple in its complete state). Response: Thank you for your feedback. Figure 5 cites its source in the legend (Swarup, 1910). We have reviewed all figures to ensure clear captions and citations. Minor revisions were made: in Figure 1. We have changed "Theoretical and practical implications" to "Implications"; in Figure 2, we corrected it as per the methodology section; and in Figure 7, we corrected "Kusabhagra" to "Kusabhadra." Construction Techniques & Materials The identification of Khondalite, Laterite, and Chlorite stones is insightful. However, the decay rate comparison with Western structures like St. Paul’s Cathedral might need more quantitative backing with geological studies. Response: The ‘ Stone selection in KT’ section has been revised to include a quantitative comparison of decay rates with Western structures such as St. Paul’s Cathedral and Norwich Cathedral, supported by geological studies for analytical rigor. Corresponding references have been added. The changes are as follows: Stone selection in KT The architectural framework of the temple and its sculptures were constructed using Khandalite stones, supplemented by Laterite and Chlorite (Dey, 2016; Donaldson, 2003; Nayak et al., 2017; Saxena & Srivastava, 2021). Laterite stones were primarily used in the subterranean section beneath the plinth level for foundational purposes, while Chlorite stones for ornamental features, including statues of the Sun God, the Simghasana (pedestal), the puja image, Nabagraha (nine planet) statues above the lintels, the Aruna Stamba (Aruna pillar), sculptures within mundi niches, and decorative elements on the doorframes. The meticulous selection of stones has resulted in remarkably minimal decay over time compared to Western structures such as St. Paul’s Cathedral and Norwich Cathedral. St. Paul’s Cathedral, built with Portland limestone, has undergone significant weathering due to environmental exposure. Studies show that its decay rate varies between 130–220 µm per year, leading to an estimated erosion depth of 40.82 mm to 69.08 mm over 314 years since its completion in 1710 A.D. (Phys.org, 2012; Basu et al., 2020). Additionally, long-term measurements using lead plugs indicate surface recession rates of 0.066 mm to 0.081 mm per year over 262 years, with a total erosion depth of 17.3 mm to 21.2 mm (Vincent, 1993). The highest deterioration occurs on surfaces facing southwest due to increased exposure to pollutants and weathering effects. Similarly, Norwich Cathedral, constructed primarily of Caen limestone since 1096 A.D., has undergone extensive erosion over centuries. The outer layers of its stonework have been significantly renewed (Church of England, 2019), with approximately 95% of its exterior stones replaced over nine centuries due to weathering, fire damage, and pollution (Behera, 2005). Historical evidence unravels the environmental exposure and structural modifications of Cathedrals over time, emphasizing the preservation of limestone-based heritage structures (Gilchrist, 2001). In contrast, the Khandalite stones of the KT have eroded by only 2.4 mm over 750 years (Behera, 2005). Such lower decay rate suggests that the stone’s intrinsic properties, along with environmental factors and historical preservation efforts, have contributed to its longevity. The chemical testing of existing materials of KT during 1979-1984 confirmed the satisfactory condition of the temple stones (UNESCO: Lemaire & Labasso, 1981). Despite the temple’s proximity to the sea, the stones have not suffered substantial damage, highlighting the advanced scientific knowledge of 13th-century artisans in selecting durable materials resistant to coastal weathering. Reference Basu, S., Orr, S. A., &Aktas, Y. D. (2020). A geological perspective on climate change and building stone deterioration in London: Implications for urban stone-built heritage research and management. Atmosphere, 11 (8), 788. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11080788 Church of England. (2019). Norwich Cathedral. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/norwich-cathedral.pdf Gilchrist, R. (2001). Norwich Cathedral tower and spire: Recording and analysis of a cathedral's longue durée.Archaeological Journal, 158 (1), 291–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00665983.2001.11078997 Phys.org. (2012, October 26). Erosion of iconic St. Paul’s could benefit from laser scanning technology. https://phys.org/news/2012-10-erosion-iconic-st-paul-benefit.html Vincent, K. (1993). Atmospheric particulate matter and historic buildings (Doctoral dissertation, Middlesex University). Maritime & Transportation Hypothesis The theory of stone transportation via sea routes is intriguing. Have geological or sedimentary studies been conducted along these proposed routes to confirm ancient maritime trade or transport links? Response: Historical texts and the discovery of an ancient port at Khalkatapatana port suggest sea transport, but geological validation is needed. This is addressed in the third paragraph of the "Directions for research" section. Additionally, sediment coring, sonar, and bathymetric surveys using tools like sub-bottom profilers and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) can explore potential maritime transport links. References Lafta Farhan S. et.al. 2022 (Ref 1) This study discusses the transformation of historical city centers and could provide a comparative perspective on the cultural and architectural sustainability of heritage sites, similar to the preservation efforts and architectural significance discussed in the Konark Temple study. Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Lafta Farhan S. et al. (2022) is acknowledged in the fifth paragraph of the “Directions for Research” section to support future comparative heritage studies. Lastly, the transformation and sustainability strategies of historic city centers (Farhan et al ., 2022), offer insights for preservation of KT. Tools like GIS-based urban analysis, 3D documentation, and heritage assessments, combined with adaptive reuse and conservation models, can support resilient, sustainable preservation. Reference: Farhan, S. L., Alobaydi, D., Anton, D., & Nasar, Z. (2022). Analysing the master plan development and urban heritage of Najaf City in Iraq. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development . View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Farhan SL. Peer Review Report For: The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1540 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.173339.r356835) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1540/v1#referee-response-356835 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Dwijendra N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 09 Jan 2025 | for Version 1 Ngakan Ketut Acwin Dwijendra , Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Dwijendra N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence Summary of the Article The article critically reviews the historical, cultural, and scientific evidence surrounding the construction of the Konark Temple in Odisha, India. The research incorporates data from ancient texts, folklore, palm leaf manuscripts, archaeological evidence, and historical records. It explores themes such as the temple's purpose, the techniques and materials used, the role of indigenous knowledge, and its architectural and astronomical precision. Key findings include: The temple served as a monument of devotion to the Sun God and a symbol of King Narasimhadeva I’s military victories. Advanced construction techniques included using rust-resistant iron, innovative stonelifting technologies, and precise architectural designs. The temple's alignment with astronomical phenomena demonstrates ancient artisans' mastery of astronomy. Indigenous technologies, including the use of high-grade iron and efficient transportation of massive stone blocks via sea routes, highlight the engineering ingenuity of the time. The article concludes that the Konark Temple embodies a blend of artistic mastery, cultural significance, and technological innovation, offering insights for contemporary architecture and engineering. Evaluation and Recommendations 1. Comprehensiveness of the Topic in Current Literature Evaluation: Partly . The article extensively reviews the historical and cultural significance of the Konark Temple, presenting a rich narrative of its construction and legacy. However, its engagement with contemporary research methodologies in archaeology, materials science, and geotechnical studies is limited. While the authors mention some modern studies, such as those by CSIR and CBRI, these are not deeply integrated into the analysis. For example, insights from recent archaeological technologies like ground-penetrating radar or 3D modeling could enhance the study’s relevance. Recommendations: Incorporate more recent geotechnical or archaeological studies to substantiate claims about the temple’s construction techniques and materials. Review and discuss contemporary literature on similar historical structures globally for comparative insights. 2. Factual Accuracy and Citation Support Evaluation: Partly . While the article is well-cited and draws on historical sources, its reliance on folklore and secondary sources raises questions about the verifiability of some claims, such as the legend of Dharmapada or the use of magnets to suspend objects. Some claims, like the rust resistance of the iron used, require more robust validation through referenced scientific studies. Recommendations: Ensure that all key assertions, especially those based on folklore or oral traditions, are marked as such and distinguished from evidence-based claims. Include peer-reviewed scientific studies to corroborate statements about materials, such as the selection processes for rust-resistant iron and stone. 3. Accessibility of Language Evaluation: Yes . The language is clear, engaging, and accessible to academic and general audiences. The integration of technical and cultural narratives is particularly commendable. Recommendations: Maintain this clarity while adding more technical terms and methodologies if engaging with geotechnical or engineering audiences. 4. Appropriateness of Conclusions Evaluation: Partly . The conclusions are generally appropriate, synthesizing the findings effectively. However, they are somewhat limited by the scope of the evidence presented. For example, the findings could better integrate critiques or limitations of ancient techniques compared to modern methodologies. Recommendations: Discuss how the findings contribute to or challenge current historical architecture and engineering knowledge. Acknowledge gaps in evidence and propose specific areas for future research. Specific Points to Address for Scientific Soundness Integration with Current Research Include recent studies or methods, such as geotechnical assessments or 3D modeling, to validate claims about construction techniques. Provide a comparative analysis with other ancient monumental structures to position the findings in a broader context. Strengthening Evidence: Use scientific data to support claims about material properties, such as the corrosion resistance of iron used in the temple. Provide citations from peer-reviewed journals, especially for claims about astronomical alignment and structural engineering. Distinguishing Between Fact and Folklore: differentiate between historical records, archaeological evidence, and folklore. For example, legends like the story of Dharmapada should be framed as cultural narratives unless supported by evidence. Clarification of Methodology Elaborate on the systematic review process, specifying how documents were selected and analyzed. Discuss potential biases in the sources. Addressing Limitations: Acknowledge the study's limitations, such as the reliance on secondary sources and the lack of direct archaeological validation for some claims. Conclusion Overall, the article offers valuable insights into the construction of the Konark Temple and highlights its historical, cultural, and scientific significance. The authors should address the abovementioned limitations to make the article scientifically sound, particularly by integrating more recent research, strengthening evidence-based claims, and distinguishing folklore from verifiable facts. By doing so, the study can serve as a robust reference for both historical and scientific investigations into ancient construction techniques. Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature? Partly Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations? Partly Is the review written in accessible language? Yes Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Architecture, engineering, sustainable development, and cultural heritage studies I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 15 May 2025 Susanta Bahinipati, School of Film and Media Sciences, Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar, 751024, India Reviewer- 1 Ngakan Ketut Acwin Dwijendra , Udayana University, Denpasar, Indonesia The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence We are grateful for your appreciation of the work and constructive comments/ suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript. Summary of the Article The article critically reviews the historical, cultural, and scientific evidence surrounding the construction of the Konark Temple in Odisha, India. The research incorporates data from ancient texts, folklore, palm leaf manuscripts, archaeological evidence, and historical records. It explores themes such as the temple's purpose, the techniques and materials used, the role of indigenous knowledge, and its architectural and astronomical precision. Key findings include: The temple served as a monument of devotion to the Sun God and a symbol of King Narasimhadeva I’s military victories. Advanced construction techniques included using rust-resistant iron, innovative stonelifting technologies, and precise architectural designs. The temple's alignment with astronomical phenomena demonstrates ancient artisans' mastery of astronomy. Indigenous technologies, including the use of high-grade iron and efficient transportation of massive stone blocks via sea routes, highlight the engineering ingenuity of the time. The article concludes that the Konark Temple embodies a blend of artistic mastery, cultural significance, and technological innovation, offering insights for contemporary architecture and engineering. Response: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Listed Reply to Comments/ Suggestions Here follows the listed reply to comments/suggestions. Comprehensiveness of the Topic in Current Literature Evaluation: Partly . The article extensively reviews the historical and cultural significance of the Konark Temple, presenting a rich narrative of its construction and legacy. However, its engagement with contemporary research methodologies in archaeology, materials science, and geotechnical studies is limited. While the authors mention some modern studies, such as those by CSIR and CBRI, these are not deeply integrated into the analysis. For example, insights from recent archaeological technologies like ground-penetrating radar or 3D modeling could enhance the study’s relevance. Recommendations: Incorporate more recent geotechnical or archaeological studies to substantiate claims about the temple’s construction techniques and materials. Review and discuss contemporary literature on similar historical structures globally for comparative insights. Response: We have already included the geotechnical and archaeological studies as follows: Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) Studies: Dwivedi et al. (2022) on heritage structure foundation investigation (discussed in the "Foundation of KT" section). Jana et al. (2016) on palaeo-channel search near Konark (covered in "Introduction"). Multi-Disciplinary River System Analysis: Jana et al. (2022) on delineation of ancient rivers, providing insights into stone transportation (included in "Stone Quarrying and Transportation of Stones"). While detailed applications of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and 3D modelling were not directly incorporated into this study, their potential use has been outlined in the second paragraph of the ‘Directions for research’ section for future investigations. Comparative insights on similar global historical structures have also been included, as recommended and problem is derived for further research. Second, geological and remote sensing studies have revealed that the Giza Pyramids in Egypt were once connected to now-defunct branches of the Nile, likely used to transport limestone during construction (Ghoneim et al., 2024; Sheisha et al., 2022). At Angkor Wat in Cambodia, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and Geographic Information System (GIS) technologies uncovered a sophisticated hydraulic infrastructure integral to the site's construction and urban planning (Evans et al., 2013; Uchida & Shimoda, 2013). In the UK, investigations at Stonehenge using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), Electromagnetic Induction (EMI), and 3D modelling revealed buried features and refined interpretations of the monument’s astronomical alignments (Gaffney et al., 2018). Similarly, at Chichen Itza in Mexico, archaeoastronomical studies of the Caracol Tower revealed its precise alignments with solstices and Venus cycles (Aveni et al., 1975). These interdisciplinary approaches demonstrate the power of technologies in decoding ancient engineering and cosmological knowledge. Applying similar methods, such as GIS, 3D modelling, and GPR can help uncover the historical mysteries surrounding KT’s sites, including the locations of ancient water bodies and ports, construction materials, logistical systems, astronomical alignments, and broader environmental interactions. To understand KT's construction and stone transport, soil analysis and borehole data can reveal ground conditions that shaped building techniques. Geophysical tools like GPR and Electrical Resistivity Imaging (ERI) can detect buried features such as ancient water channels. Satellite radar imagery and GIS help trace historical water bodies and landscapes by layering topography, hydrology, and old maps. Additionally, sediment coring, sonar, and bathymetric surveys using tools like sub-bottom profilers and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) can explore potential maritime transport links. Metallurgical and archaeological studies can also test historical claims, such as the possible use of magnets in KT. References Aveni, A. F., Gibbs, S. L., & Hartung, H. (1975). The Caracol tower at Chichen Itza: An ancient astronomical observatory? Science, 188 (4192), 977–985. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1740708 Evans, D. H., Fletcher, R. J., Pottier, C., Chevance, J. B., Soutif, D., Tan, B. S., ... & Boornazian, G. (2013). Uncovering archaeological landscapes at Angkor using LiDAR. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (31), 12595–12600. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306539110 Gaffney, V., Neubauer, W., Garwood, P., Gaffney, C., Löcker, K., Bates, R., ... & Corkum, A. (2018). Durrington Walls and the Stonehenge Hidden Landscape Project 2010–2016. Archaeological Prospection, 25 (3), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1702 Ghoneim, E., Ralph, T. J., Onstine, S., El-Behaedi, R., El-Qady, G., Fahil, A. S., ... & Fathy, M. S. (2024). The Egyptian pyramid chain was built along the now abandoned Ahramat Nile Branch. Communications Earth & Environment, 5 (1), 233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01379-7 Sheisha, H., Kaniewski, D., Marriner, N., Djamali, M., Younes, G., Chen, Z., ... &Morhange, C. (2022). Nile waterscapes facilitated the construction of the Giza pyramids during the 3rd millennium BCE. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119 (37), e2202530119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2202530119 Uchida, E., & Shimoda, I. (2013). Quarries and transportation routes of Angkor monument sandstone blocks. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40 (2), 1158–1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.12.018 Factual Accuracy and Citation Support Evaluation: Partly . While the article is well-cited and draws on historical sources, its reliance on folklore and secondary sources raises questions about the verifiability of some claims, such as the legend of Dharmapada or the use of magnets to suspend objects. Some claims, like the rust resistance of the iron used, require more robust validation through referenced scientific studies. Recommendations: Ensure that all key assertions, especially those based on folklore or oral traditions, are marked as such and distinguished from evidence-based claims. Include peer-reviewed scientific studies to corroborate statements about materials, such as the selection processes for rust-resistant iron and stone. Response: The legends of Dharmapada and magnetic suspension are folklore and require scientific validation. This has been noted for future investigation in the third paragraph of the ‘Directions for research’ section, as stated in the following sentence. Metallurgical and archaeological studies can also test historical claims, such as the possible use of magnets in KT. To ensure robust validation, we have emphasized the need for peer-reviewed scientific studies on material properties, including rust-resistant iron. The discussion now integrates studies on ancient ironworking techniques and a comparative analysis of ironwork across India, which is detailed in the “Use of high-grade iron” section. Distinctions between historical evidence, oral traditions, and scientific analysis are reported below: Use of high-grade iron The artisans of Konark demonstrated remarkable metallurgical expertise in shaping and assembling large iron beams over eight centuries ago. Engineer M.H. Arnott, who worked on early 20th-century excavations and restorations, documented their manufacturing techniques. Upon examining a broken iron beam, he discovered that the iron was forged in small segments, approximately 1 to 1.5 feet in length and 3 to 4 inches in width, and arranged in a staggered pattern similar to bricks in a wall (O’Malley, 1908). These segments were inserted into a hollow quadrilateral iron bar and welded together, ensuring a seamless and durable structure. The final polishing concealed any visible joints, resulting in a robust beam with mechanical properties comparable to contemporary military-grade steel (Edwards, 1969; Friend, 1926; Singh & Kaur, 2014). A metallurgical analysis by Friend (1926) compared Konark iron (c. 1250 CE) with other notable ancient ironworks, including the Delhi Iron Pillar (c. 300 CE), the Dhar Pillar (c. 320 CE), and Ceylonese (Sigiriya) Iron (c. 450 CE). The study revealed significant differences in composition, hardness, and corrosion resistance. Konark iron had a low phosphorus content (0.015%), whereas the Delhi Iron Pillar (0.114%), Dhar Pillar (0.28%), and Ceylonese iron (0.34%) contained higher amounts, which contributed to their superior corrosion resistance. The carbon content in Konark iron (0.110%) was slightly higher than that of the Delhi Iron Pillar (0.080%), but its higher sulphur content (0.024%) made it more brittle. Brinell hardness tests indicated that Konark iron (72) was softer than the Delhi Iron Pillar (188). Despite these findings, Friend’s controlled experiment revealed that Konark iron exhibited remarkable durability. Identical samples of Konark iron and modern military-grade steel were exposed to alternating wet and dry conditions for one year, followed by submersion in artificial seawater for another year. The results showed that modern mild steel deteriorated completely, whereas Konark iron retained 89.3% of its original structure. Furthermore, under artificial seawater exposure, modern mild steel corroded extensively, while Konark iron preserved 75.3% of its integrity. These findings affirm the advanced metallurgical knowledge of ancient Indian artisans. Their ability to produce durable iron structures is superior to the twentieth century engineers. These findings affirm the advanced metallurgical knowledge of ancient Indian artisans, whose ability to produce durable iron structures surpassed that of many twentieth-century engineers. Ghosh (1963) provides a detailed metallurgical analysis of the Delhi Iron Pillar, emphasizing its high phosphorus content and the absence of manganese—key factors contributing to its exceptional corrosion resistance. The pillar was constructed through forge welding of small iron blooms, a technique similar to that used for the Konark iron beams. While the Delhi Iron Pillar benefited from a dry climate that minimized rust formation, the Konark beams are regularly and harshly exposed to humidity and salt-laden winds on the seacoast. Despite these challenges, the Konark iron beams have endured for centuries, indicating that the artisans employed advanced forging and welding techniques to enhance durability. Ghosh’s comparison highlights the ingenuity of ancient Indian artisans in adapting techniques to counter specific structural degradation. The enduring presence of iron beams at Konark, despite centuries of exposure to a harsh coastal climate, attests to the artisans’ sophisticated craftsmanship. The fusion of indigenous knowledge and technical proficiency continues to astonish researchers worldwide, reinforcing the ingenuity of ancient construction techniques in ensuring structural durability. Reference: Ghosh, M. K. (1963). The Delhi iron pillar and its iron. NML Technical Journal , 5 (1), 31-45. Accessibility of Language Evaluation: Yes . The language is clear, engaging, and accessible to academic and general audiences. The integration of technical and cultural narratives is particularly commendable. Recommendations: Maintain this clarity while adding more technical terms and methodologies if engaging with geotechnical or engineering audiences. Response: Thanks. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the clarity and engagement of the language. Appropriateness of Conclusions Evaluation: Partly . The conclusions are generally appropriate, synthesizing the findings effectively. However, they are somewhat limited by the scope of the evidence presented. For example, the findings could better integrate critiques or limitations of ancient techniques compared to modern methodologies. Recommendations: Discuss how the findings contribute to or challenge current historical architecture and engineering knowledge. Acknowledge gaps in evidence and propose specific areas for future research. Response: We have refined the conclusion section to integrate ancient techniques and their relevance to modern engineering. Conclusion This study highlights the remarkable expertise of the artisans involved in constructing the KT. By examining folk narratives, cultural practices, and sculptural evidence, we gain deeper insights into the historical and technological advancements that shaped this architectural marvel. Analysing ancient construction techniques enhances our understanding of past engineering methods while offering valuable lessons for modern architects and engineers seeking sustainable and resilient design solutions. Our research underscores the enduring legacy of Narasimhadeva I, as reflected in the temple’s precise measurements, originally recorded in the Sanskrit Madalapanji , which align with modern calculations. The study also sheds light on the logistical ingenuity of ancient artisans, particularly their use of maritime routes to transport massive stone blocks. Additionally, their selection of high-grade stones, resistant to erosion, demonstrates their advanced understanding of material durability. Furthermore, sculptural evidence reveals historical anecdotes, such as the valour of Sudehi, the faithful elephant, illustrating the intersection of history and legend in the temple’s narrative. Geotechnical evaluations validate the stability of the temple’s foundation in a coastal environment, reinforcing the feasibility of its architectural blueprint. Furthermore, the study reveals sophisticated construction techniques used to lift enormous stone blocks to great heights. The use of iron scaffolding, akin to modern construction methods, highlights parallels between ancient and contemporary engineering practices. A significant finding is the presence of rust-resistant iron beams within the temple compound, an aspect that continues to intrigue metallurgists and material scientists. However, while this study presents compelling evidence of advanced metallurgical knowledge, further analysis is needed to fully understand the composition and long-term durability of these materials. The temple’s wheels, serving as India’s earliest sundial, along with its astronomical alignments, attest to the artisans’ deep understanding of celestial mechanics, particularly in channelling the first rays of the sun into the inner sanctum. While this study consolidates historical, cultural, and scientific evidence surrounding the KT, it also acknowledges certain limitations. The absence of direct archaeological excavations and detailed material testing limits the verification of oral narratives. Future research should focus on metallurgical studies, geospatial analysis, and experimental reconstructions to further investigate construction techniques and environmental interactions. By bridging ancient and modern technologies, this study not only unfolds the 13th-century technological ingenuity but also opens new avenues for interdisciplinary research into the temple’s enduring mysteries. Specific Points for Scientific Soundness Integration with Current Research Include recent studies or methods, such as geotechnical assessments or 3D modeling, to validate claims about construction techniques. Provide a comparative analysis with other ancient monumental structures to position the findings in a broader context. Response: We appreciate the suggestion to incorporate recent methodologies. The manuscript integrates geotechnical and geophysical studies , including GPR and remote sensing , to analyze the structural and environmental context of the KT. These aspects are detailed in the section “Foundation of Konark Temple.” Additionally, the “Directions for Future Research” section highlights the potential applications of 3D modeling, GIS-based analysis, and advanced geotechnical investigation techniques. To strengthen interdisciplinary connections , we have expanded the comparative analysis of construction techniques in other ancient monumental structures such as the Giza Pyramids, Angkor Wat, Stonehenge, and Chichen Itza. Strengthening Evidence Use scientific data to support claims about material properties, such as the corrosion resistance of iron used in the temple. Provide citations from peer-reviewed journals, especially for claims about astronomical alignment and structural engineering. Response: We have expanded the "Use of High-Grade Iron" section to include metallurgical analyses comparing Konark iron with other ancient iron structures such as the Delhi Iron Pillar, Dhar Pillar, and Sigiriya Iron . This discussion now incorporates data on chemical composition, hardness, and corrosion resistance , citing relevant peer-reviewed studies (e.g., Ghosh, 1963; J. Newton Friend, 1926; Singh & Kaur, 2014). For astronomical alignments , we have integrated scientific references to substantiate claims regarding the temple’s wheels functioning as a sundial and its architectural design channeling the sun's first rays into the sanctum . These citations (e.g., Bhatnagar & Livingston, 2005; Das, 2015; De, 2022; Dey, 2016; John et al ., 2015; Joshi & Srivastava, 2021; Yadav, 2021) ensure that all astronomical interpretations are based on scientific validation rather than conjecture . Distinguishing Between Fact and Folklore Differentiate between historical records, archaeological evidence, and folklore. For example, legends like the story of Dharmapada should be framed as cultural narratives unless supported by evidence. Response: We appreciate the suggestion to distinguish between historical records, archaeological evidence, and folklore . We have discussed the Dharmapada legend to clearly separate cultural narratives from verifiable historical sources. The "Recollections of Construction and Human Resources" section explicitly categorizes the story of Dharmapada as an evolving folklore , shaped over centuries through oral traditions, nationalist influences, and literary adaptations (e.g., O’Malley, 1908; Mishra, 1919; Das, 1924). To provide historical grounding , we incorporate palm leaf manuscript references (Boner, 1970; Boner et al., 1972) that mention Dharma Mahapatra as a real historical figure involved in the temple’s construction, ensuring a fact-based distinction between folklore and documented accounts. We acknowledge that while folk traditions convey cultural values , they should not be conflated with empirical evidence. The text contextualizes Dharmapada’s story within the broader socio-political and artisan-based reality of the temple's construction. By adopting this approach, we ensure that folklore is presented as part of Konark’s cultural legacy , while historical claims remain firmly supported by documented sources . Clarification of Methodology Elaborate on the systematic review process, specifying how documents were selected and analyzed. Discuss potential biases in the sources. Response: We have elaborated on the systematic review process in the “ Methodology” section, detailing document selection, analysis, and potential biases in the sources. Additionally, the structure of the paper has been presented in Figure 1 for clarity. The changes are as follows: A systematic review methodology was adopted for the search and selection of documents. Documents were sourced from Scopus, the largest scientific journal database, and Google Scholar, an inclusive, automated repository offering access to a vast range of published works (Bar-Ilan, 2008). Two search strings were employed: “KONARK” OR “SUN AND TEMPLE” within the title, abstract, and keyword fields. This search yielded 329 documents from Scopus and 912 from Google Scholar. After removing duplicates (n = 235), the remaining documents were screened on the basis of titles and/or abstracts for relevance to nine thematic areas: (1) causes of construction, (2) financial allocation, (3) dimensions of Konark Temple (KT), (4) human resources, (5) obstacles during construction, (6) foundation of KT, (7) stone selection, transportation and lifting, (8) native technology, and (9) astronomical phenomena. This process resulted in 80 documents, comprising 29 journal articles and 51 books, and excluded 926 documents. Following a full-text review, 69 documents, containing 29 journal articles and 40 books, were retained as relevant to the aforementioned themes, while 11 books were excluded by the first author. The inclusion and exclusion of documents were subsequently discussed among all three authors, and the exclusion was agreed upon. Limited programmatic research and publications in journals on the KT resulted in the retention of 29 journal articles. As KT is an ancient structure dating back to the 13th century, 36 documents related to its architecture, construction, water bodies, and associated folklore were selected from cross-referenced old books and ancient writings (n = 29), palm-leaf inscriptions and indigenous narratives on stones (n = 6), and copper plates (n = 1). Also, 13 journal articles were selected for a comparative analysis of KT with other monumental structures worldwide (Aveni, Gibbs, & Hartung, 1975; Evans et al., 2013; Farhan et al., 2022; Gaffney et al., 2018; Ghoneim et al., 2024; Sheisha et al., 2022; Uchida & Shimoda, 2013), for assessing the quality of stone and iron used (Basu, Orr, & Aktas, 2020; Church of England, 2019; Ghosh, 1963; Gilchrist, 2001; Phys.org, 2012; Vincent, 1993). An additional journal article was included to rationalise the database for selection and inclusion of documents for review (Bar-Ilan, 2008). These were initiated by the first author and agreed upon by the remaining two authors, with no documents removed. Of 130 documents, 119 documents were included for this review (see Fig. 2). The inter-rater reliability (Number of agreed documents/ Total number of documents) was 91.54%. Addressing Limitations Acknowledge the study's limitations, such as the reliance on secondary sources and the lack of direct archaeological validation for some claims. Response: We acknowledge the study's limitations, particularly the reliance on secondary sources and the lack of direct archaeological validation for some claims. These constraints have been addressed in the Limitations section as follows: Limitations The limited availability of journal publications on the KT constrains access to authentic, peer-reviewed evidence. Nevertheless, this study relies on archival data derived from indigenous knowledge dating back to the 13th century, incorporating folk narratives and prevailing cultural practices. Documentation includes incidents and eyewitness accounts recorded in books, diaries, palm leaf manuscripts, and stone inscriptions. Furthermore, the study examines sculptures from the KT, as well as those housed in museums across various locations, alongside an exploration of the ancient maritime traditions of the kingdom’s predecessors. Literature authored by King Narasimhadeva I’s court poet and historical records of the kingdom also provide valuable insights. Additionally, the study acknowledges its reliance on secondary sources, which may introduce potential biases in historical interpretations. While efforts have been made to validate these sources through cross-referencing with archaeological records, geophysical surveys, and metallurgical analyses, the absence of direct archaeological validation for certain claims remains a constraint. To address this, future research may adopt a multidisciplinary approach integrating geotechnical, geophysical, and material analyses for a more comprehensive understanding. Conclusion Overall, the article offers valuable insights into the construction of the Konark Temple and highlights its historical, cultural, and scientific significance. The authors should address the abovementioned limitations to make the article scientifically sound, particularly by integrating more recent research, strengthening evidence-based claims, and distinguishing folklore from verifiable facts. By doing so, the study can serve as a robust reference for both historical and scientific investigations into ancient construction techniques. Response: We appreciate the constructive feedback on our manuscript. In response, we have addressed the identified limitations by: Integrating more recent research and peer-reviewed studies to strengthen evidence-based claims. Distinguishing folklore from verifiable historical facts by clearly categorizing narratives within the text. Expanding the methodology section to enhance transparency regarding source selection and validation. Regarding the comprehensive discussion of the topic, the study incorporates a multidisciplinary approach, integrating historical records, indigenous knowledge, metallurgical analyses, and geophysical insights. While the existing literature on the KT remains limited, we have ensured that the discussion aligns with current research findings and emerging perspectives on ancient construction techniques. View more View less Competing Interests Not Applicable reply Respond Report a concern Dwijendra NKA. Peer Review Report For: The Konark Temple’s Construction: A Critical Review of the Historical, Cultural, and Scientific Evidence [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1540 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.173339.r356838) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1540/v1#referee-response-356838 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "The Konark Temple\’s Construction: A...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1540/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1540/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1540/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Bahinipati S et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1540/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1540", templates : { twitter : "The Konark Temple\’s Construction: A Critical Review of the.... Bahinipati S et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1540/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/157831/173339") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "173339"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "356837": 0, "356836": 0, "356839": 0, "356838": 54, "356835": 46, "354605": 0, "354604": 0, "356844": 0, "354607": 0, "354606": 0, "356841": 0, "356840": 0, "354603": 0, "356843": 0, "354602": 0, "356842": 0, "385525": 0, "385524": 0, "385079": 0, "385527": 0, "385078": 0, "385526": 0, "354609": 0, "354608": 0, "354611": 0, "385523": 0, "354610": 0, "385522": 11, "385529": 0, "385528": 0, "385531": 0, "385530": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "b9e648f1-1617-4717-858b-102fe2144a08"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });