Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Colas c35: Chapter XXVII. Cōḷa Art

The Cōḷas c35

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XXVII. Cōḷa Art

c35.2

The history of Art in the Tamil country begins for all practical purposes with the rise of the Pallavas of the Simhaviṣṇu line in the seventh century a.d. Having scooped out perhaps the first rock-cut shrine of his time at Maṇḍagappaṭṭu (Viluppuram taluq, S. Arcot), Mahendravarman records his achievement with boyish glee in an inscription which says that he caused a temple for Brahmā, Īśvara, and Viṣṇu to be made without the use of brick, timber, metal or mortar.¹ This is clear evidence that before his time temples were built of wood with the aid of metal nails or bands and raised over plinths of brick and mortar, or they may have been altogether brick and mortar structures in which timber and metal also found use. None of these early monuments have survived, but doubtless their forms and *motifs* must have been the basis for the Pallava structures, their pillars, capitals, and decorative designs. We have only literary references to palaces and temples, mansions and bazaars in cities, besides some detailed, but obviously overdrawn, descriptions which we have now no means of verifying. Under the Pallavas who ruled to the end of the ninth century, architecture and sculpture in stone made great advances; the Shore Temple of Māmallapuram, and the Kailāsanātha and Vaikuṇṭhaperumāḷ at Kāñcīpuram mark the zenith of Pallava art; they were followed by smaller structures bearing evidence of the dwindling resources of the Pallavas towards the end. No South Indian bronze can be said to have been identified as demonstrably Pallava in origin; but considering the heights attained in the art of metal-casting early in the period of Cōḷa rule, we may legitimately infer that the beginnings of the art must be placed also in the age of the Pallavas.

c35.3

The Cōḷas continued and developed the art-tradition of the Pallavas and Pāṇḍyas whom they succeeded. Under both the dynasties all the arts—architecture, sculpture and painting, were concentrated mostly in public structures, particularly temples; the palaces and houses and all other types of civil architecture have more or less totally disappeared, though careful study may reveal, as in the instance of Uttaramērūr,² the unbroken continuity of the town plan, and even of the names of streets in important centres from those days to ours. The practice of scooping out live rock into temples and pavilions had ceased under the later Pallavas, and structural temples of stone had become more or less the rule. It was the particular glory of the Cōḷas to have extended this practice all over the Tamil country, their early temples being unpretentious structures hardly to be distinguished from those of the later Pallavas in the decline; the size of the temple grew with the extent of the kingdom until the giant temples of Tanjore and Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-cōḷapuram proclaimed to the world the might and majesty of the greatest empire of the Tamils; two other temples at Dārāśuram and Tribhuvanam near Kumbakonam completed the tale of the most impressive Cōḷa monuments. Sculpture, painting and bronze-casting made corresponding advances.

c35.4

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, the founder of the scientific study of South Indian architecture, observed:³ 'The Pallavas excelled in sculpture. The Cōḷas were above all architects. Their style is distinguished by simplicity and grandeur'. Cōḷa sculptors, we shall see, however, were no less noteworthy than Cōḷa architects and in no way inferior to Pallava sculptors in stone; their achievements in big bronzes were unsurpassed for their beauty and for the technical skill in the sheer manipulation of large masses of metal.

c35.5

The South Indian temple came up in one of several ways. Some shrines were erected in places where trees had been regarded perhaps from pre-Aryan days as the abode of the deity and had been worshipped as such; these trees came to be regarded as *sthala-vṛkṣas* even after the rich hues of Indo-Aryan myths had gathered round these places; examples are found in the mango (*ēkāmra*) tree of Kāñcīpuram, the *Jambu* tree of Jambukēśvaram on the island of Śrīraṅgam, and the *tillai*-forest of Cidambaram. Other shrines arose on the spots where *purāṇic* stories and incidents were localised by popular belief. These two classes find a prominent place in the hymns of the Dēvāram and the Divyaprabandam; after being celebrated in song by the *nāyanārs* and *āḻvārs* they gained in importance and naturally attracted the attention of generous temple-builders. Then there were sepulchral shrines, *paḷḷipaḍais* as they were known, built on the relics of saints, heroes and kings. Temples of this class appear to have been more numerous than we are apt to imagine, though only some attained any great size or celebrity. Some examples of such shrines have been noticed here in the chapters on political history. Lastly, there were temples which rose at the bidding of powerful monarchs on sites of their choice—the most conspicuous instances of this class being the two Bṛhadīśvara temples of Tanjore and Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-cōḻapuram erected by Rājarāja I and his son Rājēndra I. Perhaps the Kailāsanātha of Kāñcī, and the Kailāsanātha of Ellora, must be included in the same category.

c35.6

The rule of the Cōḷas covered roughly a period of four centuries (a.d. 850-1250). During this long period not only was the entire Tamil country studded with stone temples of varying sizes, the erection of *karṟaḷis*, all-stone temples from base to finial (*upānādi-stūpi pariyantam*), being often mentioned as a mark of distinction, but the canon of Cōḷa architecture was adopted and followed in areas outside the Tamil country—Ceylon, Mysore, Drākṣārāma and other places in Andhra for instance. It is not possible to survey here all these monuments; we must confine our attention to the Tamil country proper and to a few typical structures that possess the leading characteristics of each stage in the development of architectural motifs and designs. The number of temples of which the precise date of construction is known is not many, but the architectural motifs when carefully studied reveal features typical of each phase of the art; the Śiva temple at Koṟkai in Tinnevelly district, (Pl. III, fig. 5) for instance, looks like a very early Cōḷa temple, but its walls bear no inscriptions earlier than the time of Kulōttunga I; if, however, it is noted that the late inscriptions occur only in the *mahāmaṇḍapa*, and that the *garbhagṛha* and *ardhamaṇḍapa* have nearly the same external and internal dimensions as the early Cōḷa temples of Pudukkottah, that the cornice here carries a *haṁsa* frieze underneath, and that there are no niches on the exterior of the walls of the sanctum, there can be little doubt left that the main shrine was certainly pre-Rājarāja in date, and the *mahāmaṇḍapa* a later addition. On the other hand, some features of the early Cōḷa and in places even pre-Cōḷa style, like the plain bevelled corbel without the triangular tenon-like projection, appear in temples known to have been built late in the Cōḷa period like the Mayūranātha of Māyavaram (Tanjore) and Brahmēśvara in Brahmadeśam (S. Arcot). Another difficulty arises from the additions made to early temples in later times; they are mainly in the form of pillared *maṇḍapas* and corridors which often obscure the leading traits of early art; subsidiary structures, surrounding walls and *gōpuras* on them create a somewhat confusing temple complex, the growth of which through its several stages is not always easy to trace. The temple of Uyyakkoṇḍān-Tirumalai near Trichinopoly, for instance, was at first a free-standing early Cōḷa temple on a hill; under Rājēndra I it was surrounded by *maṇḍapas* erected at some distance from the main shrine so as not to obscure its features; but subsequent additions have not been marked by such taste, and have made it difficult to visualise the original beauty of the shrine and its situation.

c35.7

The replacement of brick by stone structures went on steadily under the Cōḷas, and is often mentioned in the inscriptions. Perhaps the earliest instance is that of Tirukkaḷukkunṟam in the Chingleput district; all the early inscriptions of the temple occur in an apsidal stone building with a flat top which now serves as a strong-room; its architectural features are either late Pallava or early Cōḷa in character; an inscription of the twenty-seventh year of Rājakēsari⁴ suggests that the temple must have been in existence as a brick structure from the days of Skandaśiṣya (if not earlier) to those of Āditya I, when it was built of stone and its original grants dating from Skandaśiṣya’s time renewed and confirmed. At a later date even this stone temple was abandoned in favour of another large stone temple. Āditya I is praised for his having built stone temples of Śiva from Sahyādri to the sea. In his reign, however, brick temples were also built; a Paḷuvēṭṭaraiya chieftain Kandan Maṟavan built a brick temple of Tiruttōrram-uḍaiya-mahādēva which was rebuilt of stone many years later in the reign of Kulōttunga I;⁵ at the same time another fine stone temple of Agastyeśvara (Pl. IV, fig. 8) was built in the same place in Āditya’s reign, and this temple well preserved to this day conserves the most notable features of the transition from Pallava to Cōḷa architecture—such as pillars with squatting lions forming their lower half and marked by large thick *palagais* over their capitals (Pl. V, fig. 9). At Tirukōḍikāval (Tanjore district) Queen Śembiyan-mahādēvi rebuilt of stone an old brick temple in the eleventh year of her son Uttama-Cōḷa’s reign, and Rājarāja I ordered in his twenty-eighth year the reconstruction in stone of the temple at Tirumalavāḍi, a task completed by his son as recorded in one of the inscriptions.⁶ Other examples need not be recounted; obviously brick and stone architecture flourished side by side, and to this day we have the all-brick Cōḷa temple at Nāngūr (Tanjore district) which reproduces all the mouldings in the basement and other architectural features typical of the Cōḷa style.

c35.8

Jouveau-Dubreuil observed: ‘The pagoda of Bāhūr represents the style of the Pallava epoch, at the beginning of the ninth century; and the temple of Tanjore dates from the commencement of the eleventh century. During this interval of two centuries were constructed monuments of an intermediate style’, and proceeded to illustrate that style by a study in some detail of the temple of Śrīnivāsanallūr (Muśiri taluq, Trichinopoly district). But the period of the intermediate style may be further divided into two—an earlier phase of transition from the Pallava to the Cōḷa style, a period marked by a number of small and medium temples which share the Pallava

c35.9

and Cōḷa architectural features in varying proportions and which still retain generally the appearance of Pallava structural temples; and a later more pronounced Cōḷa phase; the former includes the reigns of Vijayālaya and Āditya I, and the latter the reign of Parāntaka I and the interval between him and Rājarāja I.

c35.10

The smaller early Cōḷa temples hardly differed in their appearance from those of Mukteśvara and

c35.11

Mataṅgeśvara in Kāñcī, and the temples of Tiruttaṇi and Bāhūr—all stone temples of the late Pallava period. The mouldings in the basement (*upapīṭha*⁷) the disposition of the niches and pilasters on the body of the temple, and the *vimāna* rising on a square sanctum (*garbhagṛha*) in diminishing tiers were more or less the same. The topmost members of the *vimāna*, viz., the *grīva*, *śikhara* and *stūpi* conformed to the plan of the *garbhagṛha*, generally square, but sometimes circular in section as in the case of the Vijayālaya-cōḷēśvara of Nārttāmalai which resembles the Tripurāntakeśvara, Mukteśvara and Mataṅgeśvara of Kāñcī. Some of these early Cōḷa temples have a number of subsidiary shrines round about and to understand the disposition of these shrines, we must again turn to Pallava shrines. The *garbhagṛha* of the Kailāsanātha (Rājasimheśvara) of Kāñcī is a composite structure, with a central cella facing east to which are attached smaller shrines built on to its walls on the three free sides and the four corners; all the subshrines contain images of Śiva. At Panamalai subshrines are attached to the middle of the three free sides, while in the Aivarkōyil at Koḍumbāḷūr they are found in the four corners of the main shrine; the integration of Kailāsanātha is reached by a combination of both the conceptions. In the early Cōḷa temples the subshrines are detached from the main sanctum, and arranged as separate shrines round it in the courtyard, facing the main shrine and its axis, dedicated each to a subsidiary deity (*parivāra-devatā*). These peristylar subshrines, each a miniature of the central sanctum, generally abut on the enclosing wall (*tirumadil*) which usually has a *gōpura* in front. The *gōpura*, however, is a relatively small structure calculated in no way to detract from the domination of the *vimāna*. The number of subshrines increased in later times with the size of the temple.

c35.12

Of these early Cōḷa temples Percy Brown observes: ‘All these small structures are very complete in their formation and display a freshness and spirit in marked contrast to the last productions of the declining style of the Pallavas. So much so that they appear to herald either a new movement, or to denote some stimulation received from another and more virile source. The latter assumption is the more likely as all the temples of the group show by their treatment a close affinity to those of the more distant Cāḷukyans than to any revival of their predecessors the Pallavas’.^8 It is well known that the Cāḷukyas of Bādāmi drew upon Pallava experience for their chief temples in Paṭṭadakal, and that about the middle of the eighth century they gave place to the Rāṣṭrakūṭas who continued the Pallava-Cāḷukya tradition in structural temples and in the rock-cut style; the Cāḷukya power did not revive till towards the close of the tenth century. Most obviously, Brown’s first alternative, the heralding of a new movement, is the correct explanation of the freshness of the early Cōḷa monuments.

c35.13

PLAN I. Vijayālaya-cōḷēśvara temple.

c35.14

The Vijayālaya-cōḷēśvaram of Nārttāmalai (Pl. I figs. 1 and 2) is the first of these monuments to claim attention. Its name occurs in a later Pāṇḍya inscription, and the date of its construction is not as clearly attested as might be wished.⁹ But there seems to be little reason to doubt the identity of the structure or its age as suggested by its name. The temple stands on a hill and faces west, and is surrounded by seven small attendant shrines now in ruins (see plan) besides the *nandi* in front which has left no trace; the enclosing wall of the group has totally disappeared. The main temple is built entirely of well-dressed gneiss blocks accurately fitted, and covers an area of 1240 square feet. The *garbhagṛha* is circular and enclosed by a solid wall five feet thick; it has a diameter of 8 feet 6 inches inside, and a height of 8 feet. The circular wall is enclosed by a square structure of 29 feet side which leaves a narrow circumambulatory between the two walls. The closed *antarāḷa* (porch) in front on the same basement as the main shrine is carried on six pillars and an equal number of pilasters, and has a flat roof drawn out into a massive cornice, arched and decorated with *kūḍus* at intervals; inside the *kūḍus* are seen human heads or animal figures under trifoliated finials. There is a parapet over the edge of the entire roof relieved by a series of *pañjaras*, cubical at the corners with curvilinear roofs, and rectangular in the middle with wagon-shaped roofs, all the *pañjaras* being adorned with figure niches bearing dancing figures of women in graceful poses. The *vimāna* above the circular shrine, unique in style, rises in three diminishing tiers, each with its own cornice and *kūḍus*, the two lower ones being square, and the upper-most circular and forming a sort of plinth for the *grīva*, *śikhara* and *stūpi* on top. On the four sides above the circular tier, at the points corresponding to the four corners of the lower square tier there are placed four fine *nandis* (bulls) facing out; there are also niches for sculptures at the four cardinal points of the circular tier. The *śikhara* is a smooth dome circular in section unlike the ribbed octagonal Pallava type; it too has projecting *kūḍus* crowned by lion faces (*simhalalāṭa*) and surmounting the niches in the *grīva* (neck) below. The *stūpi*, now missing, must have been circular also. The *vimāna* is hollow and diminishing in size as it rises owing to the corbelling of the stones on their inner face. The pillars within the *antarāḷa* (unlike the pilasters on the external walls which have developed Cōḷa features) are still of the Pallava order, square in section and chamfered into an octagon in the middle; the corbels exhibit the *taranga* (roll) ornament with a medial band and no lotus medallion. An elegant floral design crowns the main gateway bearing in lateral niches graceful two-armed *dvārapālakas*, five feet in height facing front, but body flexed towards the entrance; one leg crossed over the other (fig. 84). Of the seven subshrines six are intact and the seventh in ruins. They are all cut-stone replicas of the main shrine.

c35.15

Other temples, though smaller, belonging to the same class are also found in the Pudukkottah area. In Virālūr the small Śiva temple has a circular *vimāna* which dispenses with the square stages and is set right on the roof, and there are remains of subshrines. The Bālasubrahmaṇya temple of Kaṇṇanūr, which is marked by entire *yāḷis* in the frieze of the entablature and not merely their busts as in other instances, belongs to the reign of Āditya I, while the small Śiva temples of Viśalūr, Tiruppūr and Kāḷiyāpaṭṭi are all apparently of the time of Vijayālaya. They are all compact little edifices of the typical square type with a sanctum about eight feet square on the outside and five feet inside, and a small *ardhamaṇḍapa* in front closed on the sides with a low entrance facing the east. The *vimāna* of these temples, square in section, rests right on the roof, the *śikhara* being curvilinear and bearing large *kūḍus* with scroll work and *siṁha-mukha* superposed on niches in the *grīva* below. In the niches are found generally Indra on the east, Dakṣiṇāmūrti on the south, Viṣṇu on the west and Brahmā, on the north—a disposition which is repeated on the walls round the *garbhagṛha* in larger shrines with the omission, of course, of the Indra figure on the east and the substitution, at times, of a Lingodbhava for Viṣṇu on the west. These small shrines may with advantage be compared with that represented in the famous rock relief of Māmallapuram showing Bhagīratha's (or Arjuna's?) penance. The Agastyeśvara of Panangudi (II fig. 3) is also of the same class but rather more elaborate as it has niches on the walls of the *garbhagṛha* and excavation has revealed the presence of seven subshrines round it, as round all the others so far mentioned.

c35.16

Most typical of the transition period is the larger and very well preserved temple at Tirukkaṭṭaḷai (see plan) now known as Sundareśvara. It was built in the third year of Āditya I.¹⁰ The modern name of the place is derived obviously from the old name of the temple called Karkuṟicci-Tirukkaṟṟaḷi in the earliest inscriptions. The central shrine comprises a square *garbhagṛha* (12ʹ outside and 6ʹ 6ʺ inside) and an *ardhamaṇḍapa* besides a *mukhamaṇḍapa*, an obviously later addition of the time of Kulōttunga I. The *vimāna* is almost square and has a stone finial of corresponding shape. There are *simhalalāṭas* facing each cardinal direction below the *stūpi*, and the bulls in the next tier below. Further down, in two rows one above the other on the tiers of the *vimāna* are found in niches a seated Dakṣiṇāmūrti and Bhikṣāṭanamūrti in the south, Varāhamūrti and Viṣṇu on the west, two Brahmās on the north. And on the main wall of the *garbhagṛha* there are a standing Viṇādhara Dakṣiṇāmūrti on the south (fig. 37), a Lingōdbhava on the west and Brahmā on the north. The

c35.17

PLAN II. Ground plan of Sundarēśvara Temple at Tirukkaṭṭaḷai.

c35.18

pilasters on the walls are typically Cōḷa, but the corbels though with an angular profile bear the Pallava roll-ornament with a hollow moulding (in place of the roll at its lower angle or bend), and further up above the cornice there runs a frieze of rampant *yāḷis* with projecting *makara* heads at the corners. There is a frieze of *gaṇas* below the cornice. The seven sub-shrines, miniatures of the main shrine, abut the surrounding wall (*tirumadil*), and enshrine Sūrya; the Saptamātṛkas (seven mothers) in a row with Gaṇeśa and Vīrabhadra at either end (this shrine has necessarily a wagon-top roof with a row of finials); and then in *pradakṣiṇa* order, Gaṇeśa, Subrahmaṇya, Jyeṣṭhā, Candra and Caṇḍikeśvara. There is a small *gōpura* over the front gateway of this very complete early Cōḷa temple extant.

c35.19

The Nāgēśvara at Kumbakonam (Pl. III fig. 6), though its appreciation has become difficult by the too close proximity of a number of later structures, shares all the main features of Tirukkaṭṭaḷai; specially notable here are the *ardhanārī* figure at the back of the *garbhagṛha* and the number of fine portrait figures in the recesses and niches of the *ardhamaṇḍapa* and the tableux of Rāmāyaṇa scenes beneath the pilasters of the same *maṇḍapa*, which will call for further discussion under sculpture; the top members of the *vimāna* above the third tier are now finished in stucco though originally they must have been of stone. The presence of four lion-pillars built into later sub-shrines shows that the sanctity of the site goes back to the Pallava period. A shrine of Gaṇeśa in the s.-w. corner, one of Vaidyanātha to the north of the *mahāmaṇḍapa*, a Sūrya shrine in the n.-e. corner and a loose bas-relief of Jyeṣṭhā seem to be the only survivals of the original *parivāra* shrines. This temple may with reason be identified with the Tiruk-kuḍandai-kīḻkōṭṭam of Appar. The Mahādēva temple at Tiruccendurai (Trichinopoly district) built by Bhūti Āditya Bhaṭṭārikā, queen of the Cōḷa prince Arikulakēsari, in the reign of Āditya I,¹¹ the Agastyeśvaram of Mēlappaḻuvūr (Pl. IV fig. 8) with a circular *vimāna* on a square *garbhagṛha* of the time of Vijayālaya or Āditya, are other notable temples of this early phase of the transition to the Cōḷa style.

c35.20

Before taking up the temples of the next period, Parāntaka I to Rājarāja I, when Cōḷa temples proper came into existence, we may stop to consider the definite characteristics of the transition and the typical features of the developed Cōḷa style. The most notable general features are the emphasis on the central shrine which dominates the whole group of sub-shrines by its position and its architecture; then the exterior of the main shrine displays a remarkable simplification in all its parts; much unnecessary and fretful detail is eliminated and the value of plain spaces receives greater appreciation than in the Pallava structures, and much more than in the later Cāḷukya and Hoysala temples. The *antarāla* or porch in front of the *garbhagṛha* forms an integral part of the central shrine, so that the lowermost tier of the *vimāna* covers both in Pallava temples; this feature which persists in the early Cōḷa temples, e.g. Vijayālaya-cōḷēśvaram, soon disappears; the *antarāla* true to its name becomes a communicating passage between the *garbhagṛha* and the *mahāmaṇḍapa* in front, and the *vimāna* rises in the newer temples only over the sanctum; the *antarāla* is also known as *ardhamaṇḍapa* (vestibule). In the basement (*upapīṭha*), the *kumudam* starts by having an octagonal section but later becomes a rounded moulding; likewise the *kapōtam* starts by being straight, a projecting tier of rectangular blocks, but later develops into a curved cornice. The dominating lion-motif in pillars and elsewhere of the Pallava style gradually disappears altogether, and the pillars and pilasters evolve into ‘purely abstract conventions of mouldings and other similar forms’ (Brown). The Cōḷa order of the capital differs from the Pallava in two respects: a neck-moulding (*padmabandha*) is introduced between the shaft and the capital adding another member to the latter at the lower end in the form of a pot (*kalaśa*); the abacus or *palagai* becomes much expanded, a thick square slab of stone which together with the petal moulding (*idaḷ*) on its lower side becomes the most striking element in the order. The *palagai* becomes thinner later, and the *idaḷ* undergoes interesting modifications.

c35.21

Again the bracket or corbel develops an angular profile instead of the curved one of the late Pallava style, and is often bevelled so as to leave a triangular tenon-like projection, which, in turn, starts on a long line of varied and interesting evolution culminating in the *pūmunai* of modern times (see drawing 5 at the end of the chapter). The roll ornament with its median band is either shed, or at times varied with an involution or ‘throating’ at its bend. Both forms of the corbel, the plain bevel as well as the bevel with the *taranga* (roll), often appear together as inside the Agniśvara at Cittūr (Pudukkottah). Vestiges of the old order survive sometimes like the massive capital surmounted by a *kūḍu* in the Śiva temple at Uḍaiyārguḍi, the Mūvarkōvil of Koḍumbāḷūr and the Śiva temple at Puñjai—all of which will be referred to again in some detail. Besides the strictly architectural treatment of the exterior, a considerable amount of bold sculpture appears in prepared niches containing icons and *purāṇic* or human figures. String courses or friezes of *yāḷis* above the plinth, and of *bhūtaganas* in various humourous postures below, and *yāḷis* again above the upper cornices, which also carry *kūḍus* at intervals and scroll ornamentation (*koḍikkarukku*) are other notable features of the new style. The *kūḍus* have changed form, their shovel-tops giving place to a trefoil or to a lion-face (*simha-mukha*), arches giving place to circles in the centre containing no figure sculpture unlike the Pallava *kūḍus*.

c35.22

The peristylar subshrines, already mentioned, are another essential feature of the Cōḷa temple-complex. An inscription in the Śiva temple of Erumbūr (S. Arcot)¹² counts eight subshrines including that of Nandi in front of the main shrine. The deities occupying the subshrines and the positions they take in relation to the main shrine vary in different instances, and the inscriptions often give full details regarding each temple. We need not stop to reproduce them here as some idea has been given in the account of individual temples.

c35.23

The earliest specimen of the time of Parāntaka I is the temple popularly known as Koranganātha in Śrīnivāsanallūr (Muśiri taluq, Trichinopoly district), of which the deity is described as Tirukkurakkuttuṟai Perumānandigaḷ in the earliest inscriptions.¹³ A medium-sized temple (fig. 10) with an overall length of 50 feet, it has a square *garbhagṛha* of 25 feet side, and a *maṇḍapa* in front 25 feet by 20. The top of the *śikhara* is 50 feet from the ground and the cornice of the *maṇḍapa* and *garbhagṛha* 16 ft. The cella, which has the appearance of being doublestoried on account of a cornice at its middle height, is 12 feet square inside and entered by an *antarāla* borne on four pillars. A projecting niche in the middle of each of the three free sides of the *garbhagṛha*, and the recesses on either side of it accommodate icons or portrait sculptures of about half lifesize and of such high relief as to appear almost as in the round. The north and south walls of the *antarāla* have similar niches which must once have enshrined Durgā and Gaṇapati. The niches for the *dvārapālas* are also empty. The decorative designs of the arches above the niches are intermediate between those of the Kailāsanātha of Kāñcī and of Tanjore. There is no *kapota* on the basement and its place is taken by the frieze of *simhas* nearly as prominent as at Tanjore in the next period. There is no *gaṇa*-frieze below the cornice of the *garbhagṛha*, where we see instead over the beam the projecting ends of the rafters inside, imitated from the wooden rafters of a brick and mortar temple.

c35.24

The Agastīśvara of Kiḻiyanūr (South Arcot) dates from the time of Parāntaka I also;¹⁴ here the lowest course of the square basement comprising a series of plinth stones (*upāna* or *jagatip-paḍai*) scalloped on top in the form of lotus petals, the idea being that the entire *vimāna* from the *kumuda* upwards stands within a blossoming lotus forming a *padmakośa* (pistil inside the lotus). The *kumuda* moulding has semi-circular cross section as at Śrinivāsanallūr. The Tiruttiṇḍīśvara of Tiṇḍivanam¹⁵ (S. Arcot) dating from before A.D. 961; the Pipilīkeśvara of Tiruverumbiyūr (Trichinopoly) built by about the same time by Śembiyan Vēdivēḷān, a feudatory of Sundara CōḶa,¹⁶ and notable for the sculptures of *purāṇic* scenes in panels below the pilasters in the exterior as in the Nāgeśvara of Kumbakonam, are other temples in the same class. The Tiruvālīśvaram near Brahmadēśam (Tinnevelly district) is almost unique for its fine workmanship and its wealth of iconographic sculpture on the upper tiers of the *vimāna*, and dates from some time before the accession of Rājarāja I whose inscriptions, however, are the earliest traced on the walls of the extant structure, later additions being the *mahāmaṇḍapa* of the period of CōḶa-Pāṇḍya viceroys and the *amman* shrine of the thirteenth century. The Brahmapurīśvara of Puḷḷamaṅgai (Tanjore district) built in the early years of Parāntaka I¹⁷ resembles the Nāgeśvara of Kumbakonam in many ways, and is notable for its corbels bearing the *taraṅga* ornament—one of the earliest instances in this period, and for the excellence of its niches and their sculptures to be considered later in some detail.

c35.25

The Mahāliṅgasvāmi temple of Tiruvidaimarudūr (Tanjore district) must have been built of stone about 910. An inscription in the temple of the fourth year of Parāntaka I¹⁸ states that at a meeting held in the *nāṭakaśālā* of the temple it was resolved to have the old inscriptions copied and re-engraved in the *garbhagṛha* and *vimāna*, and one of the old recorded gifts related to the reign of Kāḍupaṭṭigaḷ Nandipōttaraiyar, i.e. Nandivarman II or III. The basement of the temple has an octagonally moulded *kumuda* and a short *kaṇṭha* studded with pilasters supporting a straight *kapota*, over which is a dado much like the *kaṇṭha* below adorned by sculptured panels and surmounted by a thick projecting cornice scalloped underneath in the form of lotus petals. Such variations of architectural motifs which attest the artistic freedom and initiative of the school cannot be traced in any detail in this general account of Cōḷa art. The early inscriptions of the temple mention a shrine of Purāṇa Gaṇapati, implying the presence at one time of subshrines round the main one, and of a *maṇḍapa* called after the famous merchant-guild Tiśaiāyirattu-aiññūṟṟuvar.

c35.26

Among other clearly dated temples of this period which cannot be studied in any detail may be named the Mucukundeśvara of Koḍumbāḷūr (c. 912), the twin shrines of the Cōḷeśvara group at Mēlappaḻavūr (Trichinopoly),¹⁹ the Bhaktajaneśvara of Tirunāmanallūr (S. Arcot),²⁰ the Vaṭatīrthanātha of Aṇḍanallūr (Trichinopoly),²¹ and the Kadambavanēśvara of Erumbūr (S. Arcot).²² In the last named temple built in 935 we find the Aruṇācaleśvara form of Śiva in the western niche of the sanctum in the place of the usual Viṣṇu, Ardhanārī, or Liṅgōdbhava. The Naltuṇai Īśvaram of Puñjai of the time of Āditya II should also be mentioned.²³

c35.27

There are several temples in the same class; passing these by, we may make particular mention of the Pudukkottah temples—Agniśvaram at Cittūr and the Mūvarkōvil of Koḍumbāḷūr. The first bears a record of the fourth year of Rājakēsari (Gaṇḍarāditya)²⁴ and must have been built about 950; here the corbel has the angular profile, the *taraṅga* ornament with the 'throating' at the bend, and also the median band; the other type of corbel is also used, and the same latitude is observed in the shape of the pilasters in the different sections of the temple. Of the 'Temple of Three' at Koḍumbāḷūr, a very fine temple-complex of the time of

c35.28

Sundara Cōḷa built by Bhūti Vikramakēsari,²⁵ only two members survive (IV, fig. 7). Excavation has revealed that the *vimāna-trayam* together with the surrounding subshrines was placed within a large enclosure with a gateway on the west (see plan). Of the three central shrines each 21 feet square and standing on a north-south line at intervals of about 10 feet, all facing west, the middle and south *vimānas* are intact, but only the basement of the northern one. Each had an *ardhamaṇḍapa* of 18 feet square of which all but the plinth has gone. At a distance of 8 feet from this, and common to all the three, was a *mahāmaṇḍapa* 91 feet by 41 feet, in front of which at a distance of 1 foot 9 inches in the centre was a small *nandi* shrine (11' 3" square); midway between the *nandi*

c35.29

PLAN III. Mūvarkōvil: Koḍumbāḷūr.

c35.30

shrine and the gateway (*gōpura*) on the central axis was the *balipīṭha* or *dhvajastambha* about 5' 9" square. Of all these only the plinths have survived. Around this principal group and abutting the enclosing wall ran a covered cloister with fifteen subshrines. The basements of 14 of these are intact while the one at the south-east corner is altogether missing. The enclosing wall is massive, 3' 4" of stone; the main gate on the west is 4' 6" wide, and there is besides a passage (4' wide) on the north-east corner leading down a flight of steps to a circular stone well of ten feet diameter just outside. The principal shrines are *padmakośas*, and the mouldings of the basement, as indeed all that has survived of this temple-complex, are very fine work. The *bhūta* or *gaṇa* friezes below the massive arched cornices of the *vimāna* contain particularly fascinating studies in the funny and bizarre. Many of the fine sculptures of Śiva in his various forms on the *vimāna* and of the *parivāra devatas*, lying loose or excavated, deserve notice; these include Ardhanārī, Vīṇādhara Dakṣiṇāmūrti, Gajāri, Antakāsurasamhāra, Kirāta, Gaṅgādhara, Harihara, Umāprasāda, Saptamātṛkas, Mohinī and others.

c35.31

By its three central shrines of equal beauty and importance, and the multiplicity of its subshrines the Mūvarkōvil reminds one of the celebrated Brahmanical temple-complex of Prambanam in Java. Built within less than half a century of each other, and at a time when there were many opportunities of active intercourse between South India and Indonesia, the two temple-complexes exhibit very interesting differences in the application of the same idea. The Javanese temple takes up the pre-Cōḷa Indian idea of representing the manifestations of the same deity in the principal and subordinate shrines, and multiplies the latter indefinitely, the Prambanan complex having for instance 156 minor shrines; the Cōḷa architects resist the temptation to display by sheer number of subshrines, confining them to a more or less schematic and traditional group of attendant divinities waiting upon the main deity as it were. On the other hand, while the central temples in Prambanam enshrined Śiva, Viṣṇu and Brahmā, the Trinity of Hinduism, at Koḍumbāḷūr Śiva alone occupied the sanctum of all the three central shrines.

c35.32

We now come to the Middle Cōḷa period as we may call it (985-1070) when Cōḷa Art reached and passed its meridian.

c35.33

The number of temples built during this period continued to be large, and the constructions were as widespread as the Cōḷa empire itself. But in this general account we must necessarily pass over many instances of intrinsically interesting and well-dated examples,²⁶ and fasten attention on the two great temples of Tanjore and Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-cōḶapuram which constitute a landmark in the history of Indian Architecture.

c35.34

Compared with the smaller temples of the same age, these two, as Percy Brown observes, ‘are as cathedrals to a village church.’²⁷ Begun according to the records in the temple some time about 1003, the Rājarājeśvara (now called Bṛhadīśvara) of Tanjore was sufficiently advanced in construction by 1006 to allow of Rājarāja worshipping in the central shrine with the offer of golden flowers on his return from the war against the Cāḷukya Satyāśraya, and we have seen that on the 275th day of the twenty-fifth year (1009-10) of his reign he solemnly dedicated the copper-pot (*kalaśa*) meant to serve as the finial (*stūpi*) at the top of the *vimāna*.²⁸ This was apparently the most ambitious undertaking of Tamil architecture quite in keeping with the vast power and the growing extent and resources of the Cōḷa empire (VI fig. 11). The main structure is 180 feet long, and the massive pyramidal *vimāna* rises to a height of 190 feet over the sanctum excelling thus even the Lingarāj (160 feet) of Bhuvaneśvar, then a recent construction. Barring the portico, the *nandimaṇḍapa*, the Karuvūr Devar shrine, the *amman* shrine and that of Subrahmaṇya which are the most substantial later accretions, most of the structures of this grand temple are of one period, and it is not difficult to appreciate the majesty and simplicity of its unitary plan. The axial structures, the *vimāna*, the *ardhamaṇḍapa*, *mahāmaṇḍapa* and the big *nandi* are set in a walled enclosure of suitable proportions with a *gōpura* in front on the east. Abutting the *madil* inside runs a pillared cloister connecting together a number of subshrines, thirty-five in all, placed at the cardinal points and at intervals along the four sides. There is a second *gopura* in front which formed the gateway of a second outer enclosure.

c35.35

The main *vimāna* is of the *uttama* (high-class) type, also called a *māḍakkōvil* in Tamil and Dakṣiṇa-meru—the Koraṅganātha, as already noticed, being perhaps the earliest example of this type. It rests on a solid square base of 99 feet side, of which the horizontal outline is broken by five projecting bays, the central bay larger than the rest, alternating with recesses—all continued right up from the basement to the topmost storey of the pyramid above, where the *śikhara* springs. The base (*pīṭha*) is ornamented by pilasters alternating with recesses and carries a *kapota* (cornice) pressed down as it were by a *yāḷi* frieze. On this *pīṭha* rises the *upapīṭha* of a lesser area of 63 feet square of which the *upāna* covered with inscriptions forms a *padmadala* receptacle for the massive semi-circular *kumuda* with *padmadala* courses above and below; the *kumuda* is chamfered octagonally where it turns into the transept at the eastern end. The *kaṇṭha* and *kapota* have been virtually suppressed, and immediately above the *kumuda* is found the *varimānam*, a series of lion figures in profile with riders on their backs, the lions giving place at the corners to *makara* heads with warriors, horses or equestrian figures in their gapes. The vertical walls of the cella follow the contours of the pediment as already stated, and rise to a height of 50 feet; they are divided into two storeys by a massive curved cornice with a number of *kūḍus* bearing sculptures in low relief; the second storey also ends with an overhanging cornice on top with a frieze of *yāḷis* above. The niches and recesses throughout bear graceful figural sculptures and have the typical Cōḷa forms of architectural members and ornamental motifs. Some of these are so prominent and characteristic of the style as to deserve particular mention. As already indicated the niches (*devagoṣṭhas*) are no longer shallow recesses adorned with bas-reliefs as in Pallava times, but deep hollows serving as receptacles for statues almost in the round generally of the various manifestations of Śiva. On either side of the niche are pilasters with bulbous capitals which differ from other pilasters by their section being polygonal and not square. Again, beneath the architrave over the niche we find a *tiruvācci* whose form begins to resemble the *kūḍu*, a transformation which is fully effected in the next period. The centre of this *tiruvācci* is circular as in the *kūḍu*, but the *makaras* on the sides have pendant tails as in the Pallava period—a feature which disappears later. There is another motif peculiar to the Cōḷa epoch and unknown in Pallava monuments. It appears in the recesses between the niches carrying sculptures and takes the form of a tree or pillar growing out of a vase (*kumbha*) and crowned by a sort of capital with brackets of rearing horses supporting an ornament which in general resembles the *tiruvācci* described above and takes the shape of a flower bearing flames or arabesques. This ‘decorative pilaster’ motif develops in the fourteenth century into the *kumbhapañjara* in which the top member grows into something like a *pañjara*.

c35.36

As in the upper storeys of the *vimāna* the verticality of perpendicular walls and niches of the *garbhagṛha* is relieved by powerful horizontal members—the heavy *kumuda* moulding of the pediment, and the massive overhanging cornices of the two storeys. These vertical walls enclose a shrine chamber 45 feet square with a narrow circumambulatory passage 9 feet wide round it. The inner wall of the cella repeats the features of the outside with large central bay-niches enshrining sculptures and lighted by rectangular openings (doorways) on the outer wall, the openings being walled up later perhaps in the Nāyak period. These rubble walls have now been removed. It is in this circumambulatory, tucked away beneath the *vimāna* round the *garbhagṛha*, that the now well-known Cōḷa frescoes were discovered about 1930. The cella enshrines an enormous *linga* which with its pedestal nearly covers the height of both the storeys (as seen from outside) of the *garbhagṛha*.

c35.37

‘The pyramidal *vimāna* above the sanctum rises in thirteen diminishing tiers until the width of its apex equals one-third of its base. ‘On the square platform thus formed stands the cupola, the inward curve of its neck producing a pleasing break in the otherwise rigid outlines of the composition, while the bulbous dome poised like a light but substantial globe is a fitting finish to its soaring character’ (Brown). The effect of the pyramid is enhanced by the studied manner of its treatment in which the vertical lines of the *pañjaras* are so intersected by the horizontal lines of the diminishing tiers as to produce ‘an architectural texture of great beauty.’ ‘Finally’, says Percy Brown, ‘there is the contrast of the rounded cupola at the summit, its winged niches on all four sides relieving the severity of the outline just where this is required. In erecting the *vimāna* on the principle of a pyramid its builders were on safe ground, for such a form not only conveys the impression of solid strength and stability, but is in reality the most permanent structural shape yet devised . . . Unquestionably the finest single creation of the Dravidian craftsmen, the Tanjore *vimāna* is also a touchstone of Indian architecture as a whole.’

c35.38

The shrine of Caṇḍikeśvara is situated very near the main shrine to its north and looks like a miniature of it even in the double storey of the cella. The peristylar cloister connects as already noted a string of thirty-five subshrines—four at the four corners, six between them and on either side of the *gōpura* on the east, seven on the west, and nine each on the two sides. Most of them have now been walled up and converted to other uses; the corner ones which are intact recall the small early Cōḷa shrines already discussed. The full details of the *parivāra* deities enshrined in these subshrines and at Mūvarkōvil will perhaps never be known. The enclosing walls (*madil*) seen from outside also present the appearance of two storeys of equal height each topped by a massive curved cornice of its own. Their pilasters with quadrangular section and bulbous capital, superimposed one on the other, are quite impressive to look at and a series of *nandis* at regular intervals crown the walls.

c35.39

Built within twenty years of the completion of the great Tanjore temple, that of Gaṅgaikoṇḍa-cōḷapuram (VI, fig. 12) reproduces almost all the main features of Tanjore, but in quite a different spirit; Percy Brown has called it ‘the feminine counterpart of Tanjore,’²⁹ lacking the virile qualities and masculine vigour of its predecessor, but possessing a rich and voluptuous beauty of its own. The difference in effect is almost entirely the result of the introduction of more ornamentation as in the pediment and of curves in the place of straight lines in the composition of the *vimāna*. This great temple has suffered much from modern predatory engineering,³⁰ and seems once to have been as much fortress as temple; there is a large bastion on its south-west angle, and a smaller one on the western side.

c35.40

The temple itself forms a rectangle 340 feet long and 100 feet wide, composed of a *maṇḍapa* measuring 175 feet by 95, and a *garbhagṛha* with a square plan of 100 feet side, with a vestibule in between, the ends of which form, as in Tanjore, north and south entrances, both picturesque doorways with impressive *dvārapālakas* and approached by flights of steps, (VII, fig. 13).

c35.41

The main entrance at the eastern end of the *maṇḍapa* is obviously meant to be a large and impressive portal with architecture and sculpture of a colossal order. The *maṇḍapa* is a large hall of some 140 pillars arranged across its width in 8 rows rising from a platform 4 feet high, through the centre of which runs a wide passage at ground level continued in a somewhat narrower passage round the inner circuit of the entire hall, which is covered by a flat roof 18 feet from the ground at the centre, and 16 at the sides. The vestibule or transept at the farther end is important in the scheme; its exterior rises above the roof of the *maṇḍapa* and forms a double-storied mass between it and the pyramidal *vimāna*. Inside the vestibule are two rows of large square piers, four in each, thus producing a colonnade across, beyond which stands the sanctum.

c35.42

The *vimāna* rises to a height of 160 feet, thus not quite so high as its Tanjore counterpart; but here too it dominates the entire temple which, as recent excavation has shown, included a number of subshrines still awaiting detailed study.³¹ The vertical foundation of the *vimāna*, the walls of the *garbhagṛha* are 35 feet high and divided into two storeys by a massive cornice as at Tanjore; there are, however, no doorways except to the east. 'The pyramidal *vimāna* has only eight tiers and not thirteen. 'It is in this part of the building that there are indications of those sensuous curves which may denote that the style had passed beyond the narrow limits of its median. This is shown in the concave outline of the pyramid at its angles, and the embowed contours of its sides. Both these ultra-refinements are responsible for that fluent voluptuous grace already referred to. This wealth of embellishment is carried up into the cupola at its apex, where four ornamental “caitya” forms (*kūḍus*) project like wings from the aerial dome of the finial. In spite of its almost cloying richness viewed as a whole, there is a fine fully-matured beauty in this Cōḷa masterpiece' (Percy Brown).³²

c35.43

Besides the Caṇḍeśvara shrine which occupies the same position in relation to the main shrine as at Tanjore, we have to notice also the separate temple of the goddess, a closer imitation of the Tanjore model than the main shrine and apparently coeval with the latter.

c35.44

The mention of the *amman* shrine suggests the consideration of some new developments in general before we proceed to the last period of Cōḷa art. The Devī or goddess (*amman* in Tamil) has a separate name in each local shrine and is looked upon and worshipped as the consort of the deity in the main temple; the separate temple in which she comes to be enshrined at first rarely from the time of Rājēndra I, then more and more regularly, is called *tirukkāmakkōṭṭam*. Though at Gaṅgikoṇḍa-cōḷapuram this *kōṭṭam* came up along with or very soon after the main temple, in Tanjore the corresponding temple of Bṛhannāyaki came up only in the thirteenth century.³³ Another *amman* shrine of the time of Rājēndra I seems to be referred to in an inscription of his reign from the eastern wall of the Maṅgalāmbikā shrine in the Śiva temple at Kaṇḍiyūr (Tanjore district) but a gap in the record considerably obscures its import.³⁴ It is possible, but by no means certain, that the Śrī Bhaṭṭārakiyār, mentioned beside Durgā in a list of shrines enumerated in an inscription of the 26th year of Rājēndra I from Eṇṇāyiram (S. Arcot) also refers to a separate shrine for the goddess.³⁵ Clearer evidence of the existence and reconstruction of such

c35.45

shrines of the goddess comes from later reigns and from different parts of the Cōḷa empire.³⁶ In the reigns of Kulōttuṅga III and his successors, Rājarāja III and Rājēndra III, the addition of *tirukkāmakkōṭṭams* to existing temples and their inclusion in new constructions and lavish endowments in their favour appear to have become the order of the day as attested by the inscriptions of the time.³⁷ In his famous Tribhuvanam Sanskrit inscription Kulōttuṅga III claims to have himself embellished the temple of Śivakāmasundarī in the Naṭarāja temple at Cidambaram by the addition of a *gōpura* and the golden *prākāra-harmya*.³⁸ There can be little doubt that the last period of Cōḷa rule was characterised by many new constructions and endowments which emphasised the equal importance of the goddess with the god, and this continued in later times. The goddess's shrine was built usually on the northern side of the *mahāmaṇḍapa* and opening into it or in the forecourt facing south in front of that *maṇḍapa*; occasionally it was located at other points in the precincts of the temple as in the north-west corner of the north court in the Vaḻuvūr (Tanjore) temple.

First 44 of 123 passages. Read on

Linked texts (33)