Manasara Series (I. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture; II. Indian Architecture according to Manasara-Shilpashastra; III. Manasara on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text; IV. Architecture of Manasara: Translation; V. Architecture of Manasara: Illustrations; VI. Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad; VII. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture) v6.c41.s16.t3: City Plan
Mānasāra Series (I. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture; II. Indian Architecture according to Mānasāra-Śilpaśāstra; III. Mānasāra on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text; IV. Architecture of Mānasāra: Translation; V. Architecture of Mānasāra: Illustrations; VI. Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad; VII. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture) v6.c41.s16.t3
- Language
- English
City Plan
v6.c41.s16.t3.1
The description of the city of Champa is available from a Chinese text.³ It is stated to have been situated at a distance of about 6½ miles from the sea coast. ‘At the north-west angle of the ramparts of the city were high mountains and a long chain of hills. To the north of these hills flowed a river, to the south also there was another river which joined the former to the east of the city.’
v6.c41.s16.t3.2
³ *Chouei King Tchou* (A.D. 527) referred to by Dr. Majumdar, *loc. cit.*, p. 19.
v6.c41.s16.t3.3
‘The city was surrounded by a wall about a mile and a half in circumference. On a brick wall, about 200 feet high, was raised a second brick wall of half that height, pierced by square loop-holes. On the walls were placed wooden boards supporting many-storeyed pavilions, on the roof of which again arose towers varying in height from 40 to 70 feet. There were four gates in the walls. The main gate was on the east. It opened near two islands in the river Houai. The western gate opened on a double ditch which turned to the north and reached a hill. The southern gate, likewise, opened on a double ditch. The northern gate opened on the river Houai.’
v6.c41.s16.t3.4
‘Within the walls were a small enclosure, the assembly rooms, and brick palaces. There was a palace, opening to the east, of which the loose pieces supporting the rafter looked like the tail of an owl.’ The towers are also stated to have been of an owl shape, ‘with its tail turned towards the wind and touching the mountains and the clouds, looking as if towards the water and ascending to the highest peak of the mountains.’¹ In design, the city itself, it should be noticed, may correspond to the Kheṭa plan of the *Mānasāra*, while *pechaka* (owl) has been distinctly referred to in the *Mānasāra* as a site-plan, which appears to have been carried to the towers and palaces built within the city, probably of the same plan.²
v6.c41.s16.t3.5
¹ M. Auroussean, *B. E. F.*, Vol. XIV, no. 9, pp. 23-34. Dr. Majumdar, *loc. cit.*, Vol. I, pp. 19-20.
v6.c41.s16.t3.6
² *Vide Mānasāra*, Chap. VII ; and *see* pp. 101-102, 104 of this volume.
v6.c41.s16.t3.7
There are also scanty remains of some fortified cities. The citadel of Śrī Banoy, an irregular quadrangle in shape, is situated on the right bank of the river Song Luy. This ‘shows greater knowledge in the art of fortification than any other.’ Thank Ho, about ten miles from the mouth of the river Song Da Rang, is ‘enclosed between a mountain and the left side of the river, and the open face is protected by a wall. It was also protected by reduits and towers and had several gates.’ Of the citadel of Chausa and Coy Luy very little remains to enable a description.
v6.c41.s16.t3.8
Remains of ‘a first class military fortification’ have been discovered at Caban, the ancient capital town of Vijaya. ‘They cover a rectangular area of over 1,500 yards from north to south and of 1,200 yards from east to west. It was protected by an arm of the Binh Dinh river on the north, and a strong wall, without any flanking, on either sides. The wall was built of earth with revetment of limonite, and was pierced through by tunnels for the ingress and egress of a small brook. There are a number of high mounds on all sides which probably conceal some towers or gates.’¹
v6.c41.s16.t3.9
¹ Majumdar, *loc. cit.*, Vol. I, p. 261–262. Parmentier, *loc. cit.*, Plates IV, XXVII, XLIX, LV.
v6.c41.s16.t3.10
This brief account of Champa architecture does not lack in the variety of structures. Except private dwelling-houses of simple character, all other types of buildings, namely, cities, forts, palaces, and temples have been referred to. In most cases their Indian origin is more than indicated. But there has been difference of opinion on this point, on account of the inaccessability of the *Silpa-śāstra*, like the *Mānasāra*, wherein alone one can find the basic principles of Hindu architecture. Thus M. Parmentier, who has discussed the question of the Champa art at great length and who possesses a thorough knowledge of the art and architecture of Champa, was faced with a real difficulty. In order to come to the conclusion that Champa might have borrowed from India through the Indian colonizers, it was naturally necessary for Parmentier to see such structures in India of some earlier dates than those of Champa. On this ground he is perfectly justified in denying a connexion of the Champa art with that of Cambodia and Java. So far as India is concerned, even in the absence of archaeological remains, there are convincing literary evidences which clearly show that Champa art might have easily migrated from India.
v6.c41.s16.t3.11
Even on purely archaeological grounds, Dr. Majumdar and others have joined issue with M. Parmentier when the latter says that, ‘with the exception of the curved roof, no typical element of Indian architecture appears in Cham style, nor is any typical motif of the Cham art traceable in the old Indian style.’
v6.c41.s16.t3.12
By way of refuting M. Parmentier, Dr. Majumdar rightly says that, ‘to us, the characteristic feature of a Cham temple seems to be its storied roof of several stages, in gradually diminishing proportions, each of which is again a miniature of the whole. Now this is the characteristic feature of what is known as the Dravidian style, The *rathas* of Mamallapuram and temples of Cenjeeveram and Badami of the seventh century a.d. are cited as examples. The essential resemblance between the *śikharas* of normal Cham temples and of the Dharmarāja Ratha and Arjuna Ratha is also referred to. The elongated curved roof with ogival ends has its counterpart in Gaṇeśa Ratha and Sahadeva Ratha. The third type of curved roof of Champa temples ‘ resembles Draupadi's Ratha, and is probably derived from those of North-Indian style, as Parmentier himself admits.’ It is, however, clear and natural that the Chams did not blindly imitate the Indian prototypes, but added new elements of their own. ‘ But the fact,’ concludes Dr. Majumdar, ‘ that their style was throughout based upon the essential and characteristic features of Indian style seems to be beyond question.’ Dr. Majumdar is equally convinced that Cham sculptures bear striking ‘ agreement with the Indian style in both essential and non-essential elements.’¹
v6.c41.s16.t3.13
¹ Majumdar, *loc. cit.*, Vol. I, pp. 272–274.