Defence Architecture in Early North Karnataka c15.s2.t1: Chronology
Defence Architecture in Early North Karnataka c15.s2.t1
- Language
- English
Chronology
c15.s2.t1.1
Now, this extensive fort complex in view of the political history of the region on one hand and of the structural complex on the other, evidently indicates that the four forts one within the other were built in different periods. The innermost and the II form as if one complex and probably belong to one period. The innermost is probably the earliest. Both the citadel and the fort wall including the moat in height and structural details are of the same period. In view of the place being an important Headquartere described as Pānktipura during the Early Kadamba period and also of the size and the type of bricks used for the construction it may be suggested that this complex of defence was built during the 5th century.
c15.s2.t1.2
The location of this small fort with the citadel and also the characteristic entrances i.e. gateways providing separate entrances to the city and the citadel parts are curiously interesting and support the above dating. The fort is about 250 m. away from the river Dharma. No doubt it has a moat all round on the exterior. Separate entrances to the citadel and the city area and the location of the complex on a slopy ground level a little away from the river suggest that the complex is more of protective walls rather than regular defensive fort walls. We are reminded of similar construction in Sannati discussed in Chapter III PP.
c15.s2.t1.3
The III fort wall was probably built during the time of the Later Kadambas probably during the period of Irivabedanga (967-980 A.D.) and Kēmadēva (1180-1217 A.D.) i.e. late 10th and 12th century A.D. (Mores George,M. 1931, P.146).
c15.s2.t1.4
It may be noted here that the outermost fortification is smaller in height and breadth and is entirely of mud. The space in between also is considerably narrow, so much so a planned habitation could not have been there. Local tradition speaks of the rich cultivation of gardens and trees. Even today the area is used for development of the gardens. Thus it appears that the outermost wall was intended more to check inroads of attacking forces, for the III fort is double the height of the outermost and the space in between is very small, with gardens and forest. Naturally enemies cannot approach the III fort in a planned way and with speed. If they get into the space in between they could be easily attacked by guarding soldiers from the top of the III fort. Here, therefore, we find an intelligent device but in a simple way of attacking enemies at a distance with ease during the medieval times. This aspect is therefore verily noteworthy for we do not have examples of this kind elsewhere.
c15.s2.t1.5
It may also be noted that no exterior bastions are provided at regular intervals – a feature common in the other forts, but similar to that of Banavāsi. It appears therefore that this feature seems to be distinctive of the mud forts of this region with many forts. However, it may be noted that the forts of this region had battlements at the top, for there is an excellent sculptural illustration with inscription¹ (Mores George,M., 1931, Plates 23 and 24) from the same locality belonging to the Hāngal Kadambas showing this architectural feature (See Chapter V Appendix). It may therefore be presumed that originally the III fort must have probably been provided with the battlements at the top.
c15.s2.t1.6
¹ The inscription on the Vīragal of the time of Kāmadēva (1180-1217 A.D.) refers to the fort as "Chaturvidha Durgga Sankulengalada" (line 4) deciphered and translated by Prof.Kundanagar,K.G. (Mores George,M., 1931, pp. 349-350).