Origin of Sculptural Art (c): Pallava period

The rise of the Pallava dynasty can be traced back to the middle of the 3^rd century A.D., as can be known through the inscriptional evidences. All the extant architectural and sculptural remains of the Pallava period are however found from late 6^th century A.D., except for a number of sati panels from various places of Tamilnadu^[1], datable variously from 3^rd –4^th century A.D. to 9^th century A.D.^[2]. These panels have depictions of various gods and goddesses like Brahma, Siva linga, Parvati, Narasimha, Srivatsa with a human head, Subrahmanya and in some places a pair of bangled arms placed on a lotus pedestal, identified as representing the woman, who committed sati. Apart from such panels, individual sculptural panels of Srivatsa seated on a lotus flanked by lamps, chauris and elephants pouring water over the head of the goddess are also on stylistic grounds can be regarded as of early period. Similarly the panels depicting dancing scenes found fixed in the now modern temple of Thantonrisvara at Kanchipuram, which shares closer similarity with the Amaravati school of art, can also be dated to about 6^th century A.D.^[3] It is interesting to note that even though the cave temples excavated by Mahendravarman I do not have any presiding deity, yet his contemporary Nayanmar Appar mentions about an image of dancing Siva, taken in procession on the ashtami day in the temple at Chidambaram. Probably the image was ought to have been made of wood. From the 6^th century A.D. onwards and till the first half of the 10^th century A.D., sculptural art in Pallava period witnessed tremendous growth. This period marks the rise and fall of three major dynasties in South India viz., the Pallavas of Kanchipuram, the Chalukyas of Badami, the early Pandyas of Madurai and other minor dynasties and chieftains. The sculptural creations of this age was inspired not only by the traditionally acquired sources such as Puranas and epics, but also by the hymns of Alvars and Nayanmars, which stressed on a personal god and devotion rather than mere ritualistic dogmas. Along with this new wave of devotional renaissance, also emerged the contrasting Agamic dictates, which prescribed various standard rules and rituals for the modelling of sculptures and for worshipping them. Thus this period produced for the first time an amalgam of images of gods, goddesses; demi-gods and celestial beings interspersed with some royal and saintly personages.

While discussing the origin of particular style of art of any period, always two possible hypothetical explanations are offered i.e., either indigenous development or due to foreign influence. Many views are proposed by various scholars regarding the origin of sculptural art during the Pallava period and the various influences it had absorbed within its fold. The early Pallavas shared their power with their neighbouring dynasties viz., Salankayanas, Vishnukundins, Western Gangas, Kadambas and Kaikeyas. Their northern contemporaries are the Guptas and the Vakatakas. Thus, it is the most natural to expect that the Pallavas may have incorporated influences from other equally vital centres of art. Jouveau Dubreuil postulates the theory of Roman origin for Pallava art^[4], and even assigns some of the sculptural remains of Amaravati to the early Pallava period, based on the fact that they had ruled over the Krishna region as known through Mayidavolu plates^[5] and on the assumption that they not only succeeded the Satavahanas, but they were their feudatories as well and had matrimonial alliances with them^[6]. He in fact traces the Amaravati style of art to Greco -Roman workmanship with its period of zenith in the 2^nd –3^rd century A.D., and localization by the 5^th century A.D. In support of the Pallava connection with the Amaravati sculptures, he points to a statue of Buddha modelled in Amaravati style discovered by T. A. Gopinatha Rao^[7] in the last prakara of the Kamakshidevi temple at Kanchipuram and concludes that “at Kanchipuram as well as at Amaravati and Bezawada, the Pallava Art, inspired by Roman models, attained great perfection at the time of those early Pallava kings”^[8].

Jouveau Dubreuil opines that the artistic style of Mahendravarman I, had its origins in the Telugu country. Tracing the history of the Pallavas, it becomes clear that the early Pallavas began their rule in the Krishna -Guntur districts of Andhra Pradesh, as feudatories of the Satavahanas and the Ikshvakus, who had immensely contributed to the development of art in that region and due to its peculiar features, it had attained the status of a separate school of art in the eyes of art connoisseurs. Thus, it is natural to suggest that the artists who worked under the patronage of the Pallavas got inspired and also incorporated in their art work many similar features akin to the Amaravati school of art. By the 6^th century A.D. the Pallavas were ruling around Nellore-Guntur districts and they were neighbours of the Vishnukundins, with whom they probably had matrimonial alliances. Some of the cave temples excavated by their contemporary Vishnukundins in the Krishna region, especially those at Undavalli (Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh) bear striking resemblance to the earliest cave temples of Mahendravarman I (580 A.D. -630 A.D.) in its plan, style and ornamentation of the pillar, doorway, niches and the dvarapalas. It seems that the Vishnukundins had matrimonial alliances with the Vakatakas^[9] and thus, according to Dubreuil the Pallava art of Mahendravarman period is indirectly inspired by the cave temples of the Deccan shaped under the patronage of the Vakatakas, through the cave temples of the Krishna region executed by the Vishnukundins and assimilated within its fold the sculptural style of Amaravati school of art.

It is to be noted that the raw material utilized by the predecessors and contemporaries of the Pallavas like the Satavahanas at Nasik, Karle, Kanheri, Kondovite and Ajanta (Maharashtra); the Guptas at Udyagiri (Madhya Pradesh); the Vakatakas at Ajanta (Maharashtra); the Vishnukundins at Undavalli (Andhra Pradesh) and the Chalukyas at Badami and Aihole (Karnataka), are all of soft tractable stones such as sandstone, khondolite, schist, Deccan trap etc., easy to chisel and shape in required forms. The only exception was the creations of the Mauryas, who had carved out the cave temples out of the hard granitic hills of Barabar, Nagarjuni near Gaya and Sitamarhi near Rajagriha in Bihar. Thus, it is the Pallavas who after a hiatus of nearly a millennium from the time of Mauryas, again renewed and experimented with the technique of excavating rock-cuts out of hard rock such as granite, gneiss and charnockite. Perhaps knowing well of this fact, Mahendravarman I proudly proclaims in his inscription in the Lakshitayatana cave temple at Mandagapattu^[10] that he caused to make the brickless, timberless, metalless and mortarless temple of Lakshita dedicated to Brahma, Isvara and Vishnu. Very aptly he also styles himself as Vichitrachitta (‘curious minded’). Alongside the Pallavas, the Pandyas, Muttaraiyars, Attiyamans and Ay dynasties in southern Tamil Nadu and Kerala also produced cave temples out of hard rocks, as well as few in sandstone and limestone. Probably the reason could be due to the non-availability of softer rock cliffs in Tamil Nadu and the comparable durability of these hard rocks.

Thus, it will be more correct to say that, there is a possibility of indigenous development in the technique of carving the rock-cut temples and the monolithic rathas, in spite of some influences with regard to the theme and style adopted in the carving out of the sculptures. Owing to the hard nature of the locally available rocks, the technique of scooping out cave temples and chiselling of the monolithic rathas had to be different from that employed by the contemporaries and predecessors of the Pallavas elsewhere, as the material chosen are soft to chisel like, sandstone, trap, schist, laterite, etc. It is more probable that the sthapathis patronized by the Pallava kings are the descendents of those who had working knowledge in the technique utilized by the people of the Megalithic culture regarding blasting out of huge boulders and shearing out slabs for erecting burials.

Architecturally speaking the rock-cut cave temples is a replica of the contemporary religious and secular edifices made of perishable materials like wood, brick and stucco. This can be said certainly as can be noticed by the several non-functional members in them, which serve no purpose of load bearing like beams, rafter-ends, pillars with various components, cornice, entablature, etc. Percy Brown^[11] indeed calls such a type of sculpture as ‘rock architecture’.

This theory of indigenous development in the technique of carving out rock-cut cave temples and monolithic rathas can be best supported by a study of the architectural and sculptural evolution of the temples excavated and built by the Pallavas. A study of the cave temples and sculptures of the period of Mahendravarman I show an evolution from simple to elaborate. His early cave temples like the Lakshitayatana at Mandagapattu (Villupuram district), Cave numbers 1 and 2 at Mamandur and Kalmandapam at Kuranganilmuttam (Tiruvannamalai district) have simple plan and elevation. Even the dress, ornamentation on the sculptures and other ornamental embellishments in the cave temple are limited in quantity. However, an elaboration of all these aspects can be noticed in his later cave temples, such as the Lalitankura-pallavesvara-griha at Tiruchchirappalli, Satrumallesvaralaya at Dalavanur (Villupuram district) and Avanibhajana-pallavesvara-griha at Siyamangalam (Tiruvannamalai district). The early sculptures of Mahendravarman I’s period are limited to the dvarapalakas flanking the shrine cells or facade. Their lower garment was treated translucent, fastened with a waist-cloth and is provided with simple ornaments like a single flat necklet studded with gems around the neck, yajnopavita, coiled armlet, bracelet and circular ear-ornament (patra-kundala). The physical features show that they have well-built bodies with broad chest and narrow waist. The legs are tubular and gradually rounds at the thigh. The face is oval, crowned with short karanda-makuta or with a tiara ornamenting the jata-makuta. When these sculptures are compared with similar ones of contemporary or even earlier period in the regions to the north and north-west of Tondaimandalam and even as far as Deccan, the Pallava sculptures of the period of Mahendravarman I (circa 580 A.D. -630 A.D.) appear simple in dress and ornamentation. Probably this is due to the hardness of the rock and the artists were not much familiar in working with such a hard material. It seems that there are two groups of artisans. One group gave a rough shape and outline to the cave by quarrying out huge blocks and the other group worked on carving the sculptures and other flourishes on the architectural parts. The former group may be a descendant of those who have knowledge of the tradition of quarrying rocks for megalithic burials and the later group of artisans are entirely new to hard rock and are accustomed only in working on soft rocks. This latter group of artisans would have been procured by the Pallava kings from the Krishna-Guntur region, where the Amaravati school of art flourished or even further Deccan, where such artistic sculptures were carved out of rock albeit in softer medium. This might be the reason for the simpler appearance and fewer sculptures in the initial stages of the Pallava sculptural art.

Thus, it can be summarized that the origin of sculptural art, with stone as a medium in Pallava period can be attributed to various combined factors and influences such as:

a. Cultural continuity of the region ruled by the Pallavas:—

In Tondaimandalam region, the earliest evidence of artistic or architectural activity with stone as the raw material can be traced back to the Iron Age period in the form of various types of Megalithic burials. Even though the period intervening between the Iron age and the Pallavas did not leave any sculptural remains of stone, yet the cultural richness of the region can be attested in the Sangam literature. The area ruled by the Early Pallavas i.e. the Krishna-Guntur region had a long history of artistic patronage not only by the ruling powers like the Satavahanas and the Ikshvakus, but also by the local mercantile guilds and common people as well. These two ruling powers played a vital role in nurturing the passion for artistic creation in the minds of the people. Indeed the Satavahanas had a much greater tradition of artistic activity in the Deccan and they acted as cultural diffusers between the artists of the Deccan and to the region south of the Vindhyas. It seems that the later Pallavas, starting from the line of Mahendravarman I had utilized the services of the artisans, who are either the direct descendants or inheritors of the tradition of Amaravati school of art.

b. Diffusion of ideas:—

It is well known that the tradition of rock-cut architecture and sculpture is not entirely new in Indian scenario and more especially in the Deccan. The adjoining regions of Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa and Bihar had a marvellous history of executing temples, viharas and chaityas out of live rock. Even in Andhra Pradesh, the tradition existed as can be seen in the Undavalli caves, executed by the early contemporaries of the Pallavas viz., the Vishnukundins. Thus, the idea of rock-cut architecture always existed albeit executed out of softer stone and the Pallava artists reinvented the long forgotten technique of excavating rock-cut temples out of hard rocks. However, it is to be noted that unlike the Mauryan rock-cut chambers, the Pallava creations do not have that lustrous polish.

c. Changed religious scenario:—

Prior to the rise of the Pallavas, the region ruled by the Pallavas is famous for Jaina faith and even Mahendravarman I was also a follower of Jainism prior to his conversion into the Saiva fold^[12]. It is interesting to note that many of his rock-cut temples are located near Jaina centre such as Dalavanur, Siyamangalam and Tiruchchirappalli. In spite of this changed religious condition, it seems that Mahendravarman I, influenced by the Jaina rock shelters and beds, desired to create such permanent durable structure to his newly embraced faith also. However, unlike utilizing the naturally formed rock shelters, he with his knowledge of rock-cut temples acquired through contact with neighboring kingdoms, had thus began a new method in Tondaimandalam, for excavating rock-cut temples and embellished it with sculptures, though in limited number with meager ornamentation.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Munnur, Manimangalam, Tenneri, Madhurantakam, Uttaramerur, Ukkal and Brahmadesam, vide Nagaswamy, R., ed. Damalica, Vol. I, Part II, pp. 1–5.

[2]:

R. Nagaswamy, “Sati stones from Tamilnad”, in Art and Culture of Tamilnad, Delhi, 1980, pp. 58–59.

[3]:

Ibid., Damalica, Vol. I, Part II, p. 1.

[4]:

Jouvieu Dubreuil, The Pallavas, Madras, 1917, Reprint 1995, pp. 7 -12.

[5]:

Epigraphia Indica vol. VI, p. 84.

[6]:

Jouvieu Dubreuil, op.cit., pp. 8 -9

[7]:

Indian Antiquary, vol. XLIV, part DLVII.

[8]:

Jouvieu Dubreuil, op.cit., pp. 12.

[9]:

Ibid., pp. 27–35.

[10]:

E.p. Ind., Vol. XVII, pp. 17ff

[11]:

Percy Brown, Indian Architecture –Buddhist and Hindu Period, 2^nd ed., Bombay, 1956, p. 24.

[12]:

South Indian Inscriptions, Vol. I, no. 33.