CHAPTER – I

INTRODUCTION

The Kampaharesvara temple at Tribhuvanam, near

Kumbakonam, District Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, is the last of the

four great _temples in the south. In the inscription, the temple

has been called Tribhuvana. viresvaram, its shortened form being

still preserved in the name of the locality. But it is not known

when or how the name Kamphaharesvara came into vogue.

According to tradition, the temple has been so called because the

god relieved a Chola king of his kampa or shivering, caused by the

sin of killing a Brahmapasa

Tribbuvanavira is the title of the king Kulottunga III (1178-

1218), who actually built the temple, perhaps towards the latter part

of his long reign. On its superficial appearance, it recalls the

Rajarajesvara or Brahadeeswara temple at Thanjavur, that being the

first Great temple in the south raised by Rajarilija (985-1014), the

greatest of the Chula rulers, in the Early years of the eleventh

century. Indeed it was Rajraja, I who initiated the architecture of the

Great temple, with its lofty tower soaring high in the horizon.

Proclaiming the glory and grandeur of the Chola ascendancy stands

another Great temple at Gangaikondasolpuram built by

Rajendra I (1012-1044), the worthy son and successor of

Rajaraja, in about A. D. 1030. The temple came into existence

within twenty years of the completion of the Thanjavur monument,

and both constitute a series by themselves. But they are not

identical. Perhaps architecture epitomizes the ethos of a

particular society and period; as a result, no two monuments, if

they are of true artistic creation, are alike. The temple at

gangaikondasolispuram, mentioned in the inscription as

Gangaikonda solapuram, is indeed vibrant with an altogether

different spirit — a different personality.

The Kampaharesvara at Tribhuvanam and the

Airavateswara temple at Darasuram form another series of Great

temples coming into existence during the period c. A. D. 1167 to

1218.1 The Airavatavara has been called Rajarajesvara in the

inscription as it was built by Rajaraja II (1146 -1173). Darasuram, in

fact, is the corrupt form of Rajarajesvaram or Rajajapuram, both these

names are mentioned in an inscription dated to A. D. 1186. These two

temples represent, as it were, the last flicker of a dying lamp. Soon

after, the curtain fell on the history of the China architecture in the

south.
2. EARLY SERIES

A. BACKGROUND

The Cho1a rulers were the great builders of temples, and also

harbingers of religious awakening in the south. Innumerable

temples were built since the revival of the Chola power under

Vijayalaya in c. A. D. 850, but most of them are of modest

proportions. Aesthetically, many of them may claim to be

masterpieces of south Indian architecture: the Nagelvara temple at

Kumbakonam, the Vijayalayacholisvaram at Narttamalai, the small

diva temples variously at Visalur, Tiruppur, Kaliyapatti, the Sunda-

ravara temple at Tirukkattalai, the Agastesara temple at Panangudi,

the Mahii,d6va temple at Tiruchendurai, Koranganatha temple at

Srinivasanallur, the Muvar-kovil at Kodumbalur, the Pasupatikovil at

Pullamangai, the twin temples at Paluvur and a host of others are

undeniably creations of charming simplicity. In the period of Great

temples itself, were also raised countless shrines of unpretentious

dimensions though embodying in them all the grace and vitality of

Chola art and architecture. Evidently, the epical compositions,

symbolized by the Great temples, are rare phenomenon and, as

already stated, only four, out of a galaxy of Chola rulers, ventured

on such stupendous enterprise.

Rajaraja I had doubtless the required ability, vision and

resources to turn a new leaf in the history of temple-architecture.

As the greatest monarch that south India has ever produced, he can

easily boast of having laid the foundation of the greatest empire of the

south. His empire comprised the whole of Tami . 1 country, Andhra,

parts of Karnataka and the eventually reached its perfection in the

temple of Darasuram. The images adorning the niches of Darasuram

are so highly polished that it is almost impossible to plaster and

paint them. Obviously from the time of Kul5ttuiriga I onwards

the niche figures were not painted, though the rest of the structure

had to be painted as before. What we find in the Tribhuvanam temple

is the same trend, which, however, betrays signs of does- deuce. But

an exception to this trend is the fine bronze image of garabha, which

was, in all probability, gifted to the Pribavanam temple by

Kul5ttufiga III himself.

Kulottunga III enclosed the main prasada with pillared cloister,

as found in other three great chola temples. Only a part of it

survives towards the southern side. This brings us to an

important question, namely, the date and authorship of outer eastern

g5pura. Dr. Harle casts doubt on the inscription of Kulottuhga III of

this g5puras and Sarkar, too, thinks that it could possibly be a

later copy. I have examined the epigraph in situ and am

convinced that it is absolutely of the age of Kulotunga III, and

is exactly the same, both in content and script, as the one found

on the main virminn. Architecturally also there is nothing to

show that this gopura could be late. We have two fine gopuraa

Kulottunga III to compare with one at the Tyagaraja temple of

Thiruvarur and the other at Palaiyarai. Probably the outer gopura of

the Nagavara temple at Kumbakonam also belongs to this period, and

all of them exhibit similar features. We are thus convinced that

the outer gapura of Tribhuvanam is coeval with main vimana.

My view that the Great temple of Tanjore was modelled

probably on the lines of the Thiruvadigai temple, a Pallava

foundation, is not accepted by Sarkar, who thinks that the extant

structure at Thiruvadigai was a later Chola renovation because the

adhistana has been replaced completely. As this has to be dealt with

at length, we will, have occasion to discuss this elsewhere but the

following points may be of interest to scholars of south Indian

architecture. Renovations have been going on in this temple till

recent times, the latest being as late as the 60's and it is thus

difficult to say anything definite about this structure. However the

core of the temple, the present plan, elevation etc., seem to be of the

period of Nripatithga (9th century). The side-shrines (atigalayas)

attached to the main shrine are found in the Pallava temples of Kanchi

and not in Cho ja temples. The stucco figures lo not resemble the

cult images placed inside the niches as in Chola temples, but resemble

very much the wall-figures of the Pallava structural temples. Inside the

sanctum, the Somaskands panel is seen as in Pallava temples. In

addition to the above two Pallava inscriptions, one of Tellarrerinda

Nandi and another of Nripatunga, are found on the door-jambs of the

extant mukha-mandapa. The inscription of NFipatuhga specifically

mentions that the Virattanesvara temple was renovated in his reign.

Thus we have every reason to believe that the core of the main

prasada belongs to the period of the Pallavas. Since the entire

superstructure is of brick, it is possible that the adhistana part suffered

damage in rains and has been reinforced with granite base at a much

later date possibly Sarkar is right when he says that this could have

been done in the thirteenth century.

Mention must also be made of the erection of separate

shrines for the goddess. In my book Gangaikondacholapuram, I have

mentioned that the Northern Kailasa, which now enshrines the

goddess, was a Rajendra foundation and was originally intended

for a sivalinga. I have also stated that the installation of the

image of Goddess is late. I now hold the view that present image

seems to be as late as the Vijayanagara period and should have

been consecrated in about the 16th century.

As mentioned earlier, Sri Sarkar writes in a lucid style,

never failing to point out the essential characteristic of each

component of the temple-complex, be it art, architecture, literature or

philosophy. We hope that this book would serve as model for future

writings on South Indian temples.

island of sri lanka; his military achievement included victory over

Kerala rulers as well. All this campaign, apart from filling his

exchequers with plundered wealth, enabled him to have effective

control over the inland trade-routes feeding the ports of the Cho la

country. The maintenance of a naval force provided great

advantage over the control of the overseas trade with China and

other Far Eastern countries. Further, his organized administrative

system established peace and guaranteed civil liberties. Moreover,

the presence of a strong army served as a check on the emer gence of

various feudal lords as the actual lever of political power. Thus, the

stage was set, both economically and politically, for his

undertaking the gigantic project of giving south India her tallest

temple. Here the entire architectural composition breathes an

air of freshness and spontaneity. Its emphasis is on the loftiness,

with the wide horizon as the backdrop, apart from the elevational

rhythm of its towering height.

Rajendra I extended further the boundaries of the chola empire,

which included, at least for some time, the Eastern Archipelago. It

was by far the largest empire held by an Indian monarch of his

time. His northern expedition, which penetrated into the Gangs

delta, proved to be a brilliant success from military point of view.

The apparent object of the expedition was to fetch the water from

the ganga but that can hardly be a real objective, especially when it

involved ceaseless war for two years in adverse terrain and distant

lands. Undoubtedly, it was some sort of a digvijaya to

demonstrate his might to his contemporaries in the north but the fact

that the expedition took largely a coastal route may not be

without any significance, considering his stake and interest in the

maritime trade of his times. These expeditions, including those

carried out in Kerala, must have disrupted the arterial trade-routes,

resulting in the diversion of the overseas trade to the safer ports

of his own kingdom. His expedition to Sri Vijaya in Sumatra seems

THE KAMPARARESVARA TEMPLE AT TRIBEUVANAM

to have been motivated by the same objective of stabilizing the

commercial interests of his country with China and other Far Eastern

regions.

Trade and commerce must have brought economic prosperity,

and considerable part of this surplus wealth was invested, but hardly

with any tangible return, to the construction of temples. To this

wealth was added enormous quantity of booty collected in the

course of various campaigns. A part of such plundered wealth was

to go to the maintenance of temples and religious establishments.

Rajendra, in all probability, had built up a. sounder economic base for

his kingdom than his great predecessor.

Culturally also, no other period was as favourable as that of

Rajaraja's for the growth of temples and other related

institutions.saiviam received its greatest fillip in the hands the Cho

la rulers. And it was at its zenith when Rajendras campaign opened

out the gate of close cultural contact between the south and the

north. He brought saiva teachers from the banks of the Ganga and

established them in different parts of his territory. His patronage

to saivism extended even beyond his own dominion. For

example, Rajendras made annual allotment of grain not only to

Udayar saiva siva Pandita of the Thanjavur temple but also to his

various lines of disciples living in Aryadesa, Madhyadasa or

Gaudadesa. In that period, an establishment of temple meant

the settlement of the Brahmin population around it Sometimes,

as the temple-inscription of Agaram (District Chingleput) says, no

less than four thousand Brahmana families were settled by Rajendra

Chola in a village called Vanamangai.

EARLY EXPERIMENTS

A temple of great magnitude cannot be built by wealth alone,

for it needs technical skill of very high order in various fields of

specialization. In south India, the Pallavas and the Pandyas, apart

from a number of minor dynasties, had established sound tradition

of stone-architecture. Truly speaking, the Brahadeesvara temple at

Thanjavur is the supreme realization of temple-architecture after

countless experiments. The Pallavas, however, never built any

temple beyond the height of '73 feet (22.25 m.); as a matter of

fact, this is the approximate height of the Vaikliptlaperumii.1

temple at Kanchipuram (see Table I) built by Nandi-malls,

Pallavamalla (731-796). Its height has been raised to this extent

by introducing four functional talas or storeys, without taking recourse

to corbelling or kadalikakarana. The Sundaravaradaperumal

temple at Uttaramerur follows identical method of construction

although its height is only 59 feet (17.98 n3.). Both are Vaishnava

temples and it is not known if the technique of construction was

followed to accommodate the ideological need of enshrining the three

forms of Vishnu—standing (sthanaka), seated (asina) and reclining

(sayana). Normally, the technique of corbelling-and never the true

arch—has been widely practised for spanning the space between

the walls. As a result, the height of a temple depends, in no

email measure, on the extent of horizontal space to he

covered by this method of construction.

Next in height to the Vaikuolhaperumil temple, is the

Kaillisanitha temple at Kg - 10bl standing to a height of 66.33 ft.

(20.27 - Compared to all this, the Rajaratgvars. or BrihadlAvara

temple of Thanjavur has a soaring height of 190.50 ft. (59.98 m.)

standing on a basal square of 30 m. side. Tt is achieved not only by

accentuating the height of the spire but also by increasing the

height of the aditaks, Consequently, the ratio between the two

factors, i.e., the height of &Utak; in relation to the height of the

superstructure does not indicate any appreciable change from what

can be noticed in the Pallava tradition. In the Orissan architecture,

one finds an interesting development so far as the ratio between the

height of the iikhara and the height of the sanctum is concerned. 1

Unlike south Indian temples, the height has been steadily increased

here by widening the ratio. In the initial stage, as in the

Paraisuramdivara temple at Bhubaneswar, Orissa, it is 1:3, while

it has reached 1:7 in the case of the Sun temple at Konarak. In

south Indian architecture, the proportion varies from 1:1 to 1:2k.

So, like the Kailisanatha or Vaikunthaperumal temples at kanchi,

the Brahadeeswara temple at Thanjavur has a proportion of about

1:21. Only one early temple in the south has a ratio of 1:3 and that

is the Shore temple at Mahabalipuram, while among the later group

the Airivatesvara temple at Darasuram exhibits a ratio of 1:3.

Normally, the height of the sanctum in south India (see

Table I) during the Pallava period is not more than 21 ft. (8.40

m.) but in the case of the brahdeeswara temple it has been

increased to two and a half times by introducing in the exterior an

architectural pattern similar to the five-fold *Ws conception of the

Orissan tradition. In the interior, however, the lower part of the

height is divided into four functional storeys, a method followed

in the Pallava tradition of Vaikuntaperumal, at Kanchi or

Sundaravarada-perumal temple at Uttaramerur. Above the storeyed

construction rises a series of horizontal arches until the gap is

closed by a slab of enormous dimensions weighing about 81.3

tonnes.''

Incidentally, the octagonal sikhara is made of several pieces of

stones joined together. Anyway, storeyed construction was in

vogue in the Eastern Chalukyan tradition as testified by the

Bhimesvara temple of Draksharama and of Bhimavaram, Andhra

Pradesh. These are early experiments which might have

influenced, to some extent, the con structional aspect of the Great

temple.

It needs no explanation to say that the height of a temple

depends largely on the basal square upon which the structure has

to be raised. The basal square of the Thanjavur temple is about

96.50 ft. (29.50 m.), thus obtaining a proportion of 1:2 (see Table

II). Almost similar proportion is observed in the Airavatesvara

temple and the Piravatanevara temple at Kanchi, whereas the

Shore temple at Mahabalipuram, the Kailasanathar temple at

Tiruppattur, Sundaravaradaperumal temple at Uttaramerur,

Vaikundaperumal temple at Kanchi and the Virupaksha temple at

Pattadakal have the proportion of less than 1:14. The

Kailasanatha temple has almost the same ratio if all the projections

from the main square are taken into account; and without them it

comes to about 1:3. In this respect also the Great temple at

Thanjavur does not show any innovation.

C. ARCHITECTURE

The Brihadesvara temple shows the maximum number of

fourteen talas, while there is no Pallava temple having more than four.

The vimana with four talas has been mentioned in the Vastu-sastras

as jati-vimana, and that with five or more than five is called

mukhya-vimana, which may have a maximum number of sixteen

talas. According to this criterion the Great temple of Thanjavur,

Gangaikondacholapurana, Darasuram and Tribhuvanam, having

respectively fourteen, nine, five and six talas of diminishing tiers,

belong to the mukhya-vimana. It is thus evident that the Great

temple at Thanjavur remains unsurpassed in height like the

unparalleled glory of its builder, Rajaraja the Great.

The temple at Gangaikondaoholapuram has a height of

about 180ft. (54-86m.), the basal square measuring about 100ft.

(30-48m.) side. Thus, here the proportion comes to 1:1.80 as

against 1:2 of the.Brihadeesvara temple of Thanjavur;

conseqeuently, it does not suffer from overemphasis on

verticality. Its sanctum-walls extend upwards to a height of

48-501t. (14.79m.), thus giving almost the same ratio as that of

the Thanjavur temple. Yet all its upward contour lines offer an

impression of gradual rise. This mellowing effect has been

brought about by introducing receding corners, an outcome of

the "clever interposition of octagonal kutas in the hara elements

of the upper talas as karnakutas." Though raised on a square plan,

the talas are endowed with a rhythm of wavy lines that has broken the

monotony of sharp corners. As a result, the circular s ikhara is in

complete harmony with the alignments of the successive talas, free

from any sharp angles of the basal square. Aesthetically, this is

certainly an improvement over the earlier attempt. Even in

plastic decorations, the Gangaikondacholapuram excels over the

Brihadesvara temple at Thanjavur. The other differences in the

layout of the two temples may be summed up in the following

paragraph.

The temple at Thanjavur, an example of sarvatobhadra type

i.e., temple having four doorways, is enclosed by two enclosures —a

two-tiered prakara and a double-storeyed cloister or mailed, perhaps

each one having a gopura, apart from three smaller torana-

entrances. In the case of the temple at Gangaikondacholapuram only

one prakara with a gopura on the east, and a plain torana-entrance on

the north can now be seening Another p oi nt of d ep ar t ur e i s t h e

pr es en ce of m ur al s on t h e w al l s of t h e pradakshina-patha, and

sculptures of dance-scenes on the upper floor of the Thanjavur temple

—both these elements being absent at Gangaikondacholapuram,

Yet, the constructional features of both the temples. with

.sandhara arrangement, are similar, since in both the oases tapering

talas rise above the storeyed formation of the lower part of the

structure. Variations introduced in the general layout and in the

elevation of the main temple are pos3ibly intended to impart

distinct personality.