Hoysala architecture has a special place in South Indian history in the region of Karnataka in particular, from the11th century onwards. Among the many special features of this particular style, the ceiling art is something exceptional. Though the figures of the ceiling had varied from temple to temple, the basic concept had remained the same – the concept being a corbelled dome with a circular stone-carving in the middle, mounted on one or more layers of square or polygonal beams that are also exquisitely carved.
Let me show a model here from Sowmya Narayana Swami temple at Nāgamaṅgala in Mandya district of Karnataka.
This ceiling dome in front of the inner sanctum has a circular carving on a square slab mounted on a finely carved square beam that is resting on an elaborately carved octagonal beam. Similar ceiling design is seen in many temples of the period starting from Hoysala Vishnuvardhana.
Based on the views of his contemporaries and predecessors, William Coelho proposes in his book “The Hoysala Vamsam” that Hoysala architecture was an improvisation of the pre-existing Kadamba style for most part and to some extent, the Chālukya architecture. It must be mentioned that this architecture made its presence only from the 11th century onwards.
Now let me show another piece of ceiling
architecture of similar genre.
The above picture shows the ceiling dome of carvings made into a circle on a square slab, mounted on a decorated square beam that is resting on another large square beam carved with intricate designs.
Now let us take a long shot of this dome.
We are now seeing two more beams below the top two beams shown in the previous picture. The third beam is a square while the fourth is octagonal. The entire set of beams is resting on a lintel supported by pillars – but the pillars look odd for Indian temple architecture.
As I further the zoom out the figure we see the following – that definitely looks odd for the Indian style of ceiling art!
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum_at_Halicarnassus#/media/File:Milas_Gumuskesen_4847.jpg
This is a tomb found in Milas in south western Turkey built in the 2nd century BCE by the Romans modeled after the Mausoleum of Mausolus, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The base and the pillars are Roman and Greek but the dome looks like Hoysala which does not appear in India until the 11th century, i.e. 1000 years after this structure.
This raises a number of questions; who were the original patent holders of this style, the sculptors of Rome and Turkey? If so why is this style not seen in other structures of west Asia or Europe? Or were the Indians the original innovators of the technique of this style? If so why is there a huge gap of 1000 years to appear in India? Any technique would get lost if not pursued continuously. How was this technique retained for so long if it is assumed that the Indians were the pioneers of this style?
A cursory look at the names of the builders of Hoysala temples shows that they were all locals. Jakkanāchāri of Tumkur who was the chief architect of the Chenna Kesava temple at Belur was a home grown person following his occupation as a family tradition. The builders of Hoysalesvara temple at Halibid were Ballanna, Bochana, Changa, Devoja, Harisha and others whose names are common in the local region. Even if it is said that their remote ancestors had learned the skill from Rome or Turkey, it is difficult to believe that they were able to retain it in the absence of evidence of this style in the intervening period.
With all these questions and doubts, if we take a close-up
view of the load bearing pillar, we see designs that are characteristic of
Hindu temples. (Below)
The petal like design on top, if seen without the
pillar would make any temple goer in India to vouchsafe that this is from a
Hindu temple. Interestingly the pillars and the arrangement of roof stones
found in the lower part of the tomb are typically Indian. (Below)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum_at_Halicarnassus#/media/File:Milas_Gumuskesen_4840.jpg
The rectangular pillar and the design of the capital, bearing the lintel beam, upon which long slabs of stone are arranged for the roof, are of the same style found in many old south Indian temples. When seen with the Hoysala style ceiling dome, the chance presence of an Indian hand in the structure cannot be dismissed. The only odd ones are the outer pillars.
The importance of this style lies elsewhere, in the Mausoleum
of Mausolus, after which this Roman tomb is
designed. The location map of that structure is given below.
It was built by Mausolus, a native of Anatolia and a Satrap of the Achaemenid Empire based at Caria. He married Artemisia, his own sister by whom he had several daughters and sons. One of his daughters, Ada by name, became the adoptive mother of Alexander the Great.
This Mausoleum was his dream project, but before its completion he died in the year 353 BCE. His wife continued the project but died within two years. The urns containing the ashes of the two were kept in the unfinished structure. Nevertheless the project was not given up “considering that it was at once a memorial of his own fame and of the sculptor's art”, in the words of Pliny the Elder. This monument became celebrated as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world and left an imprint in modern architecture that we find some of the important buildings in the USA, UK and Australia modeled after its design.
This monument in ruins now appeared as in the
following figure.
This monument is termed as a tomb, notwithstanding the fact that no dead bodies are buried or preserved here. This houses only the urn pots of the ashes of the Mausolus couple. From Mausolus, the monument came to be called as “Mausoleum’ – a name generically given for any tomb built above the ground.
Was Mausoleum originally meant to be a
tomb?
This structure is supposed to have had the Hoysala style of ceiling! The Roman tomb shown earlier was a replica of this Mausoleum. Our interest lies in exploring the nature of and the precedence for this structure.
Historians believe that Mausolus built this structure as a tomb for himself!! Nothing can be more bizarre than this considering that anyone would love to construct a spectacular structure for living and not to house one’s ashes! Perhaps historians were led to think so, considering the way gigantic pyramids were built to house the dead body! The pyramid concept was different and based on a belief of after-life till such a time they thought the body must be preserved. Another distinct feature is that the pyramid is completely sealed. The Mausoleum of Mausolus does not come anywhere close to a comparison with the pyramids.
There is another opinion that the elevated tombs of the neighboring Lycia inspired Mausolus to build this. The Tomb of Payava a Lykian aristocrat, built around 375-360 BCE in Lycia is the source of this perception. This tomb is preserved in British Museum. (Below)
This construction is like any Mausoleum seen today.
The coffin containing the dead body is kept on a raised structure and is
completely sealed on all sides. The dome is barrel
vaulted with a semi-cylindrical formation. Similar in appearance is the
tomb of Cyrus the Great,
who lived a couple of centuries before Mausolus. It is also on a raised
platform and looks like a coffin with a semi-cylindrical dome on top of it.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire#/media/File:CyrustheGreatTomb_22057.jpg
Compared with these tombs of previous times, the
Mausoleum of Mausolus looks different. Certainly it doesn’t resemble the tomb
at Lycia!
Statues of gods and goddesses are seen in the outer
wall along with lions carved on stone, making us think if this was originally meant to be a temple. With the death of
Mausolus, his wife seemed to have converted this into a kind of memorial to
preserve his ashes.
Upon her death, her ashes were also preserved here. With that the entire concept of this building underwent a change it seems. The change is on the lines of Stupa-s built to preserve the relics of the great people of Buddhism!
Indic semblance of the Mausoleum of Mausolus
When we compare the monuments in India of the same period of Mausolus, we find some interesting parallels. The Buddhist temple at Sanchi identified as Temple 40 has a similar raised structure with a barrel vaulted semi cylindrical dome. It was said to have been built by Bindusara, the father of Ashoka in the 3rd century BCE!
The semi- cylindrical dome seems to be commonplace
design in ancient India, particularly in pre-Ashoka times. The conjectural
reconstruction of the main gate of Kushinagara of 500 BCE, based on a relief in
the South Gate of the Great Stupa of Sanchi shows similar domes on many
buildings in the city. (Below) This clearly predates the time of Cyrus the
Great and the Lykian aristocrat whose barrel vaulted tomb is believed to have
influenced the design of the Mausoleum.
The same design can be seen in a number of engravings of South Indian temples too, adding credence to the view that this design was indigenous to India.
There is scope to believe that the Indian architectural design such as this had travelled to the West of India. Lending support to this view is the presence of friezes in the Great Stupa of Sanchi showing devotees of foreign origin. The official notice for the panel shown below says “Foreigners worshiping Stupa”.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanchi#/media/File:Sanchi_Great_Stupa_Northern_Gateway_foreigners.jpg
The appearance, the attire, the headband, the sandals and the musical instruments of the persons in this carving identify them as mostly of Greek origin. The wind instruments held by the two on the left of the above picture are known as Carnyx used by Celts between 200 BCE to 200 CE. Panels like this are proof of visitors from Central and West Asia to shrines where the relics of worshipful persons were preserved. The relics mainly include the cremated ashes and bones.
It seems this practice had inspired Artemisia to preserve some relic of her husband. This resulted in a decision not to bury his body but to cremate it to collect the ashes. It is only after the death of Mausolus, Artemisia could have decided to change the very purpose of the building that was already under construction. After the death of her husband, she sent messengers to Greece to bring the best sculptors of the day to build this monument.
There are records to show that the four sides of the
structure were built by four popular Greek sculptors, Leochares,
Bryaxis, Scopas of Paros, and Timotheus. Looking at the four sides,
there is not much difference architecturally. They are the similar in style. The only odd looking structure
is the ceiling – which was not attributed to anyone and which had no
parallel in Europe of that time.
·
Does it mean that an unknown
or unnamed sculptor was engaged in the making of the ceiling?
·
Was he from India, for,
such a probability cannot be ruled out given the fact that Artemisia sent out
messengers to bring skilled sculptors to work on the monument?
· Did she reach out to Indian artisans too, whose workmanship must have already been known to her from the visitors of the Stupas of Buddhism?
The earliest surviving Buddhist Stupa is dated at the 3rd century BCE, but the Mausoleum was built in the middle of the 4th century BCE. The kind of engraving skill witnessed in this Stupa could not have come up all in a sudden but developed over centuries or even millennia. From an inscription in Stupa 1 it is known that the intricate works of the Gateways of the Stupa were made by the ivory workers of Vidisha and those skilled in working on wood and metal. The expertise had clearly existed long before but put into different use in different medium at the request of different people – perhaps from outside India of those times.
The chariot at
the apex resonating with Silappadhikaram-event.
The concept the Stupas (preservation of relics), the monument on a raised structure and most importantly the specific designs at the crown of the dome, are all found replicated in the Mausoleum. A Chattra or Umbrella surrounded by a square railing is found on top of the dome of the Stupa. The Mausoleum is also found with a unique carving of horse drawn chariot carrying a man and a woman- obviously the Mausolus couple!
This concept is certainly missing in any other tomb of those regions. This idea must have been a later version devised by the architects, after the death of Artemisia.
The idea of the chariot atop the roof is something new and unique in Europe, but amazingly reflective of Indic culture, particularly from Tamil roots!
There is a description in the Tamil literary work called Silappadhikaram of a chariot carrying Kovalan, the departed husband of Kannagi, coming to the hill top where she was waiting to depart from the earth. She was picked up in the chariot by her departed husband and together they went off to higher realms (heaven) in the chariot. The incident happened sometime around the beginning of the Common Era. The hill tribes who had seen this reported this amazing event to the king of the Chera country.
The chariot on top of the Mausoleum, carrying the couple is similar to the event of Silappadhikaram. The couple, who built the structure to live together, when found not fulfilling their desire, was made to unite atop the very structure where their ashes – not bodies- were preserved. The idea of going to heaven together in a chariot, present in Indic culture is found immortalized in stone in Turkey by a people who seemed to be aware of the Indic practices.
Now only one issue remains to be sorted out. It is the Indic skill in ceiling architecture. The Stupas offer evidences in this issue too.
Engraved circles, precursor to ceiling
domes
Cutting intricate designs in circles was well
perfected by the time the Stupas were built. The railings in the Stupas of
Sanchi are seen with numerous circular designs, mostly of petals.
Source: https://kevinstandagephotography.wordpress.com/2018/04/04/sanchi-stupa-2/
The same can be seen in Amaravati Stupa in Guntur,
Andhra Pradesh, now preserved in the British Museum. It is dated at the 3rd
century BCE. Only few decades before this, the Mausoleum was completed. The
expertise found in India at that time must have been known as far as West Asia
through the regular visitors to the Buddhist shrines.
Source: https://kevinstandagephotography.wordpress.com/2018/04/03/sanchi-stupa-1-sanchi-gateways/
It would not have taken much effort to convert it into larger engravings to be fitted in the dome supported by corbelled structures. The oldest corbelled structure in ancient India is found in the drain of the Great Bath of Mohenjo-Daro, made 5000 years ago. The knowledge of the underlying technique could have been used in planning the dome.
The corbelled roof of the drain of the Great Bath
The craftsmen must have belonged to the Harappan regions originally. The similarity in the paleography of the inscriptions of Sanchi Stupa No 2 and Heliodorus pillar points out the origins of the craftsmen from North West India, in today’s Afghanistan that was part of Harappan culture and also the epicenter of Buddhism and Jainism.
So what we now recognize as Hoysala ceiling architecture had developed over a period of time, from cutting circular motifs in plain slabs and pillars to mounting them on the ceiling supported by corbelled beams. What we see in the Roman tomb is perhaps the earliest display of that skill. The improvisations must have been happening continuously and used in the temples and palaces of North India –but most of them must have been lost in the rage of the invading monotheistic iconoclasts who razed down every standing structure in the north of Vindhyas particularly.
What we see from the 11th century onwards
is the continuity of the same skill by the fortunate ones who had migrated much
earlier to South India. The Hoysalas claim themselves
to be Yadavas of Krishna clan in their inscriptions. The Yadavas living
in the Harappan regions in particular started migrating
south ward in the wake of the decline of the Harappan culture around 1500 BCE.
A section of those skilled in stone works also had migrated to south India for
which evidences are found in literature and archaeology. They were instrumental
in building the famous ‘Kallanai’ (Grand Anicut) –
the dam across the river Kaviri. Only with their help, the Pallavas claimed
credit for building everlasting temples in stone.
Those settled in Karnataka came under the banner of the Yadava kings named after ‘Sala’, as Hoysala. The names may change with time, and the skill also changes – for the better.
The popularity of those artisans must have reached far and wide, or otherwise we won’t be seeing the Hoysala architecture in a remote location in Turkey.
In a nutshell,
·
The popularity of the Stupa culture of Buddhism had spread to west and
central Asia through the devotees from those regions visiting the Buddhist
shrines in India.
·
The preservation of ashes in the
Mausoleum is a strong proof of Buddhist influence on venerating
relics.
·
The Chariot carrying the dead on top of
the dome is also influenced by the Hindu Thought of the departed couple uniting after death and going to heaven in a chariot.
·
The Mausoleum offers the earliest
evidence of Hoysala art that stated as circular engravings on stone. This
perhaps had its origin in the engraving of the Dharma Cakra. This cakra
having its presence across the western neighborhood of India was unfortunately
treated as Witch symbol in the later period.
·
The presence of Hoysala art in West Asia
long before it made its presence in South India raises the scope for the hand
of the artisans of Indian origin in other monuments of those regions in the
past. This mingling opens up a new window of understanding
the presence of linguistic and other similarities in those regions.
As I sign off this article, I cannot help thinking why Indic architecture of the old
is not at all in the list of Wonders of the World. At least the Stupas
of the old must have found a place. On deeper probe, it is found that the list
was given by ancient Hellenistic tourists. It
seems they had not visited India! Those who visited were not tourists but
devotees seeking spiritual bliss. The outer beauty had
apparently not gone into their mind, but somehow managed to reach their lands
only as hearsay. The Mausoleum turned out to be a direct evidence of a
replication, though in parts, but there are other features such as the vaulted
domes of other structures of early Common Era that must be studied in detail for
Indic influence.
No comments:
Post a Comment