III

LAYOUT AND ARCHITECTURE

The history of Indian temple architecture gets back to the time of the
great Mauryan Emperor Aśoka whose conversion to Buddhism is a
landmark event. The stupas erected by the great emperor are massive and
talk of the architectural/engineering skill of the ancient Indians. These are
found in various parts of North India, e.g. Sānchi, Saranath with an
extensive vihāra, Nālanda and so on. However the engineering skill of the
Mauryas, Suṅgas and Sāyavāhans were exhibited in the excavation of mega-
caitya-gṛhas that are found in western India, parcicularly those of Bhāja,
Beḍsa, Karle and so on. The Buddhists were the pioneers in Indian temple
architecture. The cave temples in Ajanṭa, Ellora (Caves I to XIII), Nāśik,
Kanheri in Mumbai and Mumbai (the Navakālī group) are good examples of
the Buddhist-Jain genius in early temples [1]. The way showed by the
Buddhist/Jains led to a renaissance in Hindu temple architecture under the
Guptas (cf. Annexure of Malaiyaṭikkuṟicci as a Jain Cave). To begin with
they favoured the rock-cut caves as may be found in Udayagiri (District
Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh). A small structural temple built by them is found
on the Sānchi hill top, numbered 17. This temple consists of the cella and
appended with a small mukhamanḍapa. Bereft of any iconographical
illustration, this is the earliest of the Hindu structural temples [2]. More
temples in central India and the north were discovered in course of time as
they are found in Ter (Sholapur district) and Chezerla, dated in the 4th and 5th
century CE. The Iron Pillar of Chandragupta II in the Kutb Minār complext
45
in Delhi would reveal the fact that there was a Gupta temple there that was
pulled down by the iconoclastic Muslims. Temples of Samudragupta were
found in Tigawa and Eran [3]. Other famous Gupta temples were found at
Nachna-Kuthara and Bhumara. The earliest structural temples in the south
are from the early Cālukyan site at Aihole, e.g. Lad Khan (dated in the 4th
century AD), Kont-guḍi and Meghuti of the time of Pulakeśi II CE 609/10-
42 [4].

The earliest works of art in the South are dated to the time of the
Sātavāhanas whose cave temples are found in western India. The stūpas of
Amarāvati and temples of Nāgarjunakonḍa followed suit [5]. According to
Raju Kalidos, by about this time stones from the north seem to have been to
Tamilnadu for making images of Kannaki as told in the third book of the
Cilappatikāram called Vancikkānṭam. The earliest surviving temples in
Tamilnadu are dated to the time of the early Pānḍyas of Maturai and
Pallavas of Kāncīpuram. There are references to gods and temples in the
earliest stratum of Tamil, viz., Caṅkam, but no trace of the monuments of
the Caṅkam period have been reported [6]. The gods and temples reported
during the earliest phase of the history of Tamilnadu are Śiva, Viṣnu, the
Vṛṣnis (Kṛṣna/Baladeva, e.g. Paripāṭal), Murukaṉ, Indra, Varunan, Koṟṟavai
(e.g. Cilappatikāram) and so on. With regard to the surviving monuments
scholars of an earlier generation held the opinion that Manṭakappāṭṭu is the
earliest rock-cut cave with regard to an inscription found in the cave [7]. In
recent times this idea has been questioned because the Manṭakappaṭṭu
inscription is not self-evident with regard to the fact that it is the ealiest. It
only says a temple without the the employment of wood, brick and metal
was built and that it was of stone (śilagṛha, Tamil kaṟṟaļi, e.g. the
46
Malaiyatikkuṟicci inscription kal-tiruk-kōyil). Perhaps the earliest stone
rock-cut cave was in the Pānḍināḍu zone as the Piļļaiyārpaṭṭi rock-cut cave
could be dated back to the end of the 5th century AD as the foundation
inscription therein is in the transitional phase from Brahmi to Vaṭṭeḻuttu [8].
The Pānḍyas of the First Empire (Kaḍuṅkōṉ to Rāhasiṁha II CE 590-920)
and Pallavas of Kānci (Mahendravarmaṉ I to Nṛpatuṅgavarmaṉ CE 610-
913) excavated/built the earliest rock-cut caves and structural temples in
Tamilnadu. These are found all over the south from Mahendravāḍi in the
north to Viḻinam in Kerala [9]. The temples of early Pānḍyas (i.e. Empire I)
are found south of the river Kāviri. However, those in the Putukkōṭṭai
region, a bufferstate between the Pallava and Pānḍya, are either Pallava (e.g.
Malaiyaṭippati for Raṅganātha) or Pānḍya (Nārttāmalai Viṣnu cave) [10].

Earliest temples of Tamilnadu:

The cave and structural temples of the Pallavas are concentrated in

Tonḍaināḍu. From Mahedravāḍi in the north to Tirucirāppaļļi in the south
these are scatterd all over. However the concentration is in Māmallapuram
and Kāncīpuram. These temples are mostly dedicated to Śiva and Viṣnu with
rare exceptions for the goddesses and other gods. Early structural temples
are intact mostly in the Pallava zone. They are the Shore temple and
Mukunda Nāyaṉār temple in Māmallapuram, Kailāsanātha temple and
Vaikunṭha Perumāļ temple for Viṣnu in Kānci; others being at Tiruppattūr
(north Ārcot), Uttiramērūṛ and so on.

Of the early Pānḍyan works their cave temples alone are intact; e.g.
Nārttāmalai, Tirukōkarnam, Ariṭṭāpaṭṭi, Āṉaimalai, Tirupparaṅkuṉṟam,
47
Tirumalaipuram, Kaḻukumalai (incomplete monolithic) and so on. The
Pānḍyas erected structural temples from Tiruppattūr (Tiruttaļinātha) in the
north (close by are Mahipālaṉpatti cave and those in Putukkōṭṭai e.g.
Tirukōkarnam, Tirumeyyam) to places in the Tirunelvēli district. Examples
of these places are Kāliyāpaṭṭi, Tiruppūr, Visalūr, Panakuṭi, Naṅgāvaram,
Kannanūr, Viralūr, Tiruvālīśvaram and so on [11]. However, these temples
are not intact when compared with the Pallava in Kānci and the region
around. The Pānḍyan structural temples have undergone renovation from
time to time and have not kept their original framework. What all exists in
the region beyond the Kāviri are later Pānḍya or Vijayanagara-Nāyaka. For
example, the temple at Maturai (Kūṭal), Māliruncōlai, Mōkūr and Kōṭṭiyūr
are extolled in the bhakti hymns of the early medieval period (7th-89h
century), either the Tēvāram or the Nālāyiram. Today no structure that could
be dated to early period is found in these temples. The reason is perplexing.
When they stand intact in the Pallava zone (e.g. Kānci and Māmallapuram),
why it is not so in the Pānḍyan zone? Was it due to Muhammadan invasion
that pulled down the temples? Or the type of rock that they employed that
could not withstand the test of time.

Indian Temple types: An Introduction:

Indian temple architecture is broadly divided into three schools that

are called Nāgara, Veśara and Drāviḍa. There are regional varieties such as
Āndhraka (Āndhradeśa) and Kaliṅgaka (Kaliṅga/Orissa). These are
attributed to typified geographic zones, geometrical shapes and presiding
gods. They
are as follows:
48
__________________________________________________________Tem
ple-type Geographical area Geometrical form Atidevatā
__________________________________________________________

Nāgara Himālayas to the Vindhyas square Brahmā

Veśara Vindhyas to the River Kṛṣnā circular Śiva

Drāviḍa South of Kṛṣnā octagonal Viṣnu

However, temples from the base (upapīṭha) to the final (kalaśa) in circular
or octagonal form are very rare. Temples in Kerala are circular (Sarkar 1978:
Pl. XXXV-A). The Saundararaja Perumāļ temple at Aḻakarkōyil is circular
from the base to the finial. In all other cases the śikhara alone is in the
geometrical form, noted above.

The temple type popular in the Tamil country is known as drāviḍa-

ṣaṭaṅga-vimāna. Ṣaṭaṅga means six parts and the type of temple is supposed
to consist of six aṅgas. From the base to the finial these are upapitha,
adhiṣṭhāna, pāda or bhiṭṭi, prastara, grīva/śikhara, and kalaśa. These six
parts are compared to the organs of human beings and so the Hindu temple
is considered to be a Puruṣa or Vastupuruṣa. These are as follows:

Upapīṭha: feet
Adhiṣṭhana: thigh
Pāda or bhiṭṭi: torso
49
 Prastara: shoulder
Śikhara: head
Kalaśa: tuft.

In its horizontal order the layout of the temple is called vātupuruṣa-manḍala

and its vertical order Vatupuruṣa. Vāstu stands for the building site and vastu
the building [12]. The horizontal setting is divided into several mandalas
with the core at Brahmasthāna and called Vāstupuruṣamanḍal (cf.
Champakalakshmi 2001: 12 figs).

The upapīṭha and adhiṣṭhana are fitted with a number of mouldings

that serve to increase the height of the plinth. These are called kanṭha, paṭṭa,
kumuda, vyalavari, siṁhavari and so on. The bhiṭṭī “wall” is the venue that
houses the mūlabera in its dark chamber. Outwardly it is decorated with
fittings such as devakoṣṭha, kuṁbhapanjara and koṣṭha-panjara. The
devakoṣṭha is a subsidiary chamber; Adam Hardy calls it aedicule that
accommodates images. In some temples as in the present study the aedicule
alone may be found and the intended to be enshrined (infra) images missing.
These from the later Pallava period onward are the following:

Garbhagṛha section South: Dakṣināmūrti

West: Liṅgodbhavamūrti, Ardhanārī or
Sthānaka-Viṣnu
North: Brahmā

Antarāla section South: Ganapati

50
 North: Mahiṣāsuramardinī that stands on the
head of the demon, mahiṣa.

This stereotyped norm of setting the āvaranamūrtis continued to persist

since the later Pallava and early Pānḍya to the Vijayanagara-Nāyaka time. In
many of the Śiva temples in the present study these images are missing. That
may suggest they are of post-Nāyak origin.

The earliest temples were very simple. For example no. 17 on the
Sānchi hill consists of a garbhagṛha and mukhamanḍapa. The
Mukundanāyaṉār temple on the Māmallapuram beach consists of the cella,
antarāla and mukhamanḍapa. The Kailāsanātha temple at Kānci adds the
mahāmanḍapa. In the Vaikunṭha Perumāl temple the mahāmanḍapa is
detached from the garbhagṛha but linked to the core. Later from the middle
Cōḻa period onward a number of ornate manḍapas were added in various
corners of the temple. The Airāvateśvara temple provides for an
agramanḍapa consisting of nearly 100 pillars. The kalyanamanḍapa
(Aḻakarkōyil), vasantamanḍapa (Maturai Sundareśvara), 100-pillared
mandapa, 1000-pillared manḍapa (Citamparam) were added in course of
time down to the Vijayanagara-Nāyaka time. R,K.K. Rajarajan and K.V.
Raman from a study of inscriptions and field observations add a long list of
the following manḍapas (m):

R.K.K. Rajarajan (2006: ): Tiruppū-m. (TTDES, I, no. 78)

Lakṣmī-Nṛsiṁha-m. (TTDES, I. no. 191)
Vyākhyāna-m. (110 of 1912)
Mallaga-m) SITI, III, no. 1167)
51
 Raṅga-m. (692 of 1909)
Tiruccitirakūṭatam at Tiruveṟumpūr 127 of
1914 (cf. the Cittirakutam of Citamparam Kalidos 1997: fig. 1)
Ōlakka-m. (452 of 1903)
Devāciriya-m. (561 of 1904)
Bhoga-m. (3131 of RL)
Dola-m (320 of 1896)
Vīra-m. (20 of 1915) for offering
navakanḍam such as heads and tongues
Abhiṣeka-m. (595 of 1919)

K.V. Raman (2006: 106-11):

Kiļi-m (cf. Kiļikktaṭṭu in Maturai) - Kānci
Vāhana-m. - Kānci
Tulābhāra-m. – Kancī
Kalyāna-m – for marriage festival -
Aḻakarkōyil and Maturai
Snapāna-m for titual bath. Vṛddhācalam
Tulābhāra-m. – for ritual offering o grants in
gold or kind
Vasanta-m for Spring Festival
Saṅgīta-m. for music recital
Nṛtta-m. (Nāṭmandir in Orissan tempes) –
for dnce recial of devadāsis
Tiruvāymoḻi-m. for recital of Tiruvāymoḻi or
Nammāḻvār
Vākkanikkum-m. debating hall?
52
 Sandhyāvandana-m. for performance of
sandhyāvandana
Gāyatri-m. for reciting Gāyatrimantra
Navarātrikolu-m. for Navarātri festival
Eḻuttu-m – for recording temple transactions
Ūnjali-m. for swing festial
Kannāḍi-m – mirror hall
Tirumāmani-m. for keeping the temple bell,
ghanṭa
Pārivēṭṭai-m. – for hunting festival
Bhoga-m (cf. the Bhogmandir in Orissa)
Navaraṅga-m. in Hoysala temples for
housing Aṣṭadikpālakas (Settar 1992: I 414
index see plans in the book)
Raṅga-m with enchanting images, alternaed
with yālis, in sculptural 16 pillars of the
Nāyaka time, e.g. Vīrabhadra)*

* Such pillars may be found in most Nāyaka temples, e.g.

Tāṭikkompu (Gopalakrishnan 1996: fig. 5), Śrīvilliputtūr Ānṭāļ,
Kuṟuṅkuṭi, Tāramaṅkalam, Kṛṣnāpuram, Vaikuntam, Maturai,
Alakarkōyil (Rajarajan 2006) and so on.

Few manḍapas were named after rulers of the land: e.g.

Rajagambhira-m, Kōyiklponvēynta Perumāļ-m, Ēḻicaimohana-m,
Gaṅgaikonḍa-m, Cempyiyaṉmātēvi-m and so on.

53
These were to serve the purpose of festivals that fell in various months of the
year, e.g. vasantamanḍapa to hold the Spring Festival. The manḍapas were
fitted with ornate pillars from simple to the most compound type of which
the yāli pillar is the most conspicuous in Vijayanagara-Nāyaka art (these are
conspicupously absent in the temples under study). Another important
addition to the south Indian temple that is missing in the north is the gopura
“gateway”. The earliest of these appear in the Kailāsamatha temple at Kānci
and make a progress during the middle Cola period as found in the
Bṛhadīśvara temple in Tancāvūr. Soaring rāyagopuras with hundreds of
stucco images were added during the later Pānḍya and Vijayanagara-Nāyaka
period (Harle 1963). Though J.C. Harle 1963 studied the Citamparam
gateways the pride of Indian gopuras is in Śrīvilliputtū. At the acme of its
development each prākāra in its cardinal direction came to be fitted with a
rāyagopura as may be found in the Śrīraṅgam, Maturai, Maṉṉārkuṭi and
Tiruvannāmalai temples. An important dimension of these gopuras is that
they are studded with a wide variety of stucco images that has not been
researched eeeply, excepting in R.K.K. Rajarajan 1997 & 2006. Vāhanas,
e,g, tēr, in wood and metal covered were added to meet the festival needs.
The Hindu temple in the south reached the acme of its development during
the Nāyaka period in the 17th-18th century. Scholars like K.V. Soundararajan
are of the opion there was no progression after the Nāyaka period and that
the growth was petrified after this.

The above may said to be the background for the study of temple
architecture in Tamilnadu. It is now pertinent to see how these norms are
applied and followed in the temples selected for the present study.

54
Vaidhyanātha temple, Maṭavārvalākam (Figs. 1-24, 97-100):

Next to the Vaṭapatraśāyī temple in Śrīvilliputtūr for Viṣnu the biggest

temple in the area is for Śiva at Maṭavārvilakam. The ground plan of the
temple would find there are two separate chapels for Śiva and Śivakāmi
within a huge tirumatil (Plan 1). A rāyagopura comparable to the one at
Śrīvilliputtūr stands in an axial line with the garbhagṛha for Vaidhyanātha.
The temple faces the east and is in two prākāras. The inner prākāra and
outer prākāra are fitted with tirumatils that enclose the whole structure. The
temple occupies an area of 75 m. by 1.8 m. by length and width. Two temple
tanks lay to the east and north outside the second prākāra (Figs. 1-5).

The garbhagṛha for Śiva is oblong in shape and houses a Liṅga in its
cella. The cella is appended with mukhamanḍapa and mahāmanḍapa. The
garbhagṛha for Śivakāmi is square (Figs. 6-8). It is also fitted with a
mukhamanḍapa and mahāmanḍapa. Inside the second prākāra at the
northeast corner stands the sthalavṛkṣa that is the Vaṉṉi (Prosopis spicigera)
tree. At the southeast corner lay the maṭappaļļi, the temple kitchen. At the
southwest corner is a small chapel for Ganapati, called Kaṉṉi Vināyakar,
Virgin Vināyaka. On the northewest corner is a chapel for Murukaṉ. The
images of the Nayaṉmār are stationed along the wall of the first prākāra in
the south. There is a chamber for Naṭarāja on the northeast corner of the
inner prākāra. On the southwest and northwest corners of the inner prākāra
are small chapels for Ganapati and Murukaṉ. Close to the sthalavṛkṣa is the
Citrasabhāmanḍapa, also called Nāyaka-manḍapa with images of Nayka
kings on pillars.The temples for Svāmi and Ammaṉ have separate balipīṭhas
and dvajasthaṁbas.
55
 The vimāna for Svāmi is tritala (Fig. 7). Each of the tala is fitted with
karnakuḍus on corner and śālapanjaras in the middle. The grīvakoṣṭha in
the front is added with an image of Sukhāsanamūrti and Nandipuruṣa
appears on the corners. The second and third talas are fitted with images of
Śiva with two assistants. The śikhara is global and so veśara.

The vimāna for Ammaṉ is dvitala (Fig. )8). It is in the same pattern as
is the vimāna for the Lord. Karnakūḍus and śālapanjaras appear in each
tala. The front elevation shows Devī alone seated on the grīvakoṣṭha and the
second tala. Images of dwarf femine ganas appear on corners of the grīva
and couchant bulls. The śihara is square in form and so nāgara.

The śikharas in both the vimānas are fitted with mahānaśikas and the
kalaśa in both is one. Few stucco images appear here and there in both the
vimānas that are not iconographically significant. The manḍapas that lay in
the front are roofed.

Another important monument that is the pride of the Maṭvārvalākam

temple is the rāyagopura (Figs. 2, 4-6)). It is a skycrapper in eight talas.
Eahc tala is is fitted with kuṭaśālas, śālapanjaras and karnakūḍus. The
towering śikhara is barrel-shaped. It is fitted with mahānāśikas at the further
end. The kalaśas are nine. The gopura is bereft of any stucco decoration as
in the Śrīvilliputtūr rayagopura.

The chapels for Ganapati and Murukaṉ are very simple (Figs. 9-10).
They consist of a cella and manḍapa and fitted with alphavimānas. The
56
pillars in the mandapas are simple and are evenly arranged as in the
Rāmeśvaram temple. The ceiling of the mahāmanḍapa is decorated with
paintings of the Tiruvilāiyātal Purānam.

The Maṭavārvalākam is the most conspicuous monument in the

Śrīvilliputtūr region next to the Vaṭapatraṣāyī temple. It claims origin since
the later Pānḍya period and reached perfection during the Vijayanagara-
Nāyaka time.

The big tank to the west of the temple has yielded some inscriptional
slabs that were brought to light by the author. These are also pieces of
artistic work as images of Gajalakṣmī and Ganapati are carved on to of the
inscriptional slabs.

There are few vāhanas in the temple, including two temple cars (Figs.
97-98). Votive Nāga imags are found below a papal tree (Fig. 99). Festivals
are celebrated (Fig. 100).

Kṛṣna Temples (Figs. 25-34):

Within the Śrīvilliputtūr city there is a temple for Kṛṣna (Figs. 25-34,
101-114). It is called Navanīta Kṛṣna. It is near the Tāsildār office and the
other on the way to Maturai. One is a pretty big temple and the other
moderate.

57
 The Navanītakṛṣna temple lies within a tirumatil and occupies a space
of 72 x 44 m (Plan 2). A moṭṭaigopura greets as one step into the complex
[13].

As one steps into the complex he finds the balipīṭha, garuḍastambha

and dvajasthambha that falls in between the moṭṭaigopura and the
alaṅkāramanḍapa [14] with sculptural pillars that include dancing
Vīrabhadra (Figs. 25, 28, 33).

Partly dilapidated temple, it is under worship and has been taken care
of. The garbhagṛha is a square and is fitted with an antarala,
mukhamanḍapa and mahāmanḍapa. There is an alaṅkāramanḍapa at the
entrance. This inner part of the temple is enclosed by a wall that constitutes
the first prākāra. There are two manḍapas on the south and north.

The second prākāra is without any structural addition. The temple

well do fall on the west. There is a dilapidated manḍapa in the northeast
corner. There is a ruined teppakkuļam to the east.

The vimāna is ekatala (Figs. 26-27, 101-105). It is fitted with

karnakūḍus and śālapanjaras. There are some stucco images. The śikhara is
globular and so veśara. It is fitted with a kalaśa.

The pāda part of the vimāna is provided with kumbha- and koṣṭha-
panjaras but is bereft of scultural decoration (Fig. 27).

58
 The pillars in the mandapas are simple and provide for sculptural
decoration in their square sections. Few compound pillars are found without
any ornamentation but for the projecting corbels.

The compound pillars are appended with sculptures as one may find
other Vijayanagara-Nāyaka temples (Figs. 33). These are very few in
number.

II

The other temple for Kṛṣna is on the Mautrai road (Plan 3, Figs. 35-
41, 92-96). It is a ruined temple, renovated and under worship [15].

The plan is very simple. Though in two prākāras, the outher cloister is
an empty space. The inner prākāra has a peculiar set up and provides for an
oblong garbhagṛhas as though it is meant for Raṅganātha. There is a
spacious mahāmanḍapa.

A moṭṭaigopura geets as one gets into the complex (Figs. 35-37). In

between the moṭṭaigopura and the mahāmanḍapa some pillars are found
(Fig. 39).

The temple well and the kitchen are found on the southwest corner.

59
 The vimāna is recently renovated. It is in two talas and proved with
karnakūḍus and śālapanjaras (Figs. 92-96). The śikhara is square and so
nāgara. There are few stucco images that are housed in the śālapanjaras.

The moṭṭaigopura is fitted with kumbha- and kostha- panjaras. Few

kudhastambha are fitted with sculptural themes are the base.

Viluppaṉūr (Figs. 42-53):

The temple for Aḻagapperumāļ (slang) alias Aḻakar Perumāļ (Skt.

Saundararāja) also is simple in lay out. The entire temple falls within a
rectangle of 22.5 x 52.5 meters. A moṭṭaiogopura greets the visitor as he
steps into the complex. The temple is fitted with a tirumatil and kept intact
(Fig. 47). The temple faces the east (Plan 4).

The garbhagṛha is a square 4 meters by 4 (Figs. 42-45). It is added in

the east with an antarāla (2 meters long), mukhamanḍapa (1.5. meters long)
mahāmanḍapa (1.5 + 9 meters long) and two-layered. The temple is in one
prākāra, the entire outer part of an empty space. In front of the mahāmnḍapa
lay a pillared hall. The garudasthambha in located here.

An one enters the main gteway through the moṭṭaigopura the upper
part of the matil [16] “wall” is fitted with images of Garuḍa, Hanumat and
tirunāmam [17].

The vimāna is of the alphavimāna category, i.e. which consists of no

talas above the prastara (Figs. 43). It does incude the other integral parts of
60
the drāviḍa-ṣaṭaṅga-vimāna such as upapīṭha, adhiṣṭhāna, pāda, prastara,
śikhara and kalaśa. The pāda is decorated with even set koṣṭhapanjaras and
kuḍyastambhas (Figs. 42, 45). The koṣṭhapanjaras are devoid of sculptural
installation.

The śikhara is globular and so veśara (Fig. 43). It is fitted with

mahānāśikas. The grīvakoṣṭhas are decorated with images. On the corners of
the prastara are images of seated Garuḍpuruṣa [18].

Arjunapuram (Figs. 54-64):

The temple goes after the name of Taṉimalai Aḻakiyar-kōyil (menas

the temple of the Handsome Lord of the secluded Hill). It is also known as
of Sāntavana Perumāļ, Lord of the Peaceful Forest (Plan 5).

The temple in one prākāra faces the east. It is partly in ruins and set
below a granite hillock. The temple lay within a tirumatil.

The garbhagṛha is a 5 meter square. It is fitted with an antarāla (two

feet), mukhamanḍapa (4 meters long) and mahāmanḍapa (10 meters long).
The latter is oblong and merges with the matil. The rest of the inner part in
the temple is empty. On the southeast corner lay the well and the kitchen.
Outside the wall lay the garuḍastaambha.

The vimāna is square and fitted with mahānāśikas (Figs. 54-59). It is

ekatala. Fitted with karnakūḍus, śālapanjaras, the vimāna is decoated with

61
stucco images. The pāda is fitted with koṣṭhapanjaras. It is devoid of
sculptural decoration. The panjaras extend up to the mukhamanḍapa.

The mahāmandapa is norante with simple and compound pillars

(Figs. 60-61). It is to be noted that the entire temple, including the vimāna,
in infested with vegetation. Though under worship, the temple is gravely
neglected and under condition of poor conservation. There is a deserted
manḍapa outside the temple (Fig. 62).

Nattampaṭṭi [19]:

Nattampaṭṭi is on a par with Mūvaraiveṉṟāṉ in as far as there is not

stately temple here.

A small boulder on the village houses an image of Viṣnu on the back

wall. It is added with a modern mukhamanḍapa.

The cella is 8.6 x 8.3 meters [20]. This temple is not earlier reported
either in C. Sivaramamurti 1961 or Raju Kalidos 2006.

This temple has not been reported in an scholarly study either C.

Sivaramamurtiu or Raju Kalidos.

Mūvaraiveṉṟāṉ (Figs. 65-74, 115-117):

62
 Three temples are found here: (1) Early Medieval rock-cut cave for
Malaikkolntīśvara (Plan 6), (2) Temple for Mīnākṣi-Sundareśvara (Plan 7)
and (3) Śrīnivāsa Perumāļ (Plan 8). The latter two temples seem to date from
the later Panḍya period with Vijayanagara additions.

The rock-cut cave is on a granite hillock, little away from the village.
The rock-cut cave is alos added with later additions, which means it
continued to receive patronage down to the Nāyaka time. The original
excavation is a monolithic Liṅga, images of Ganapati, Murukan and
Naṭarāja on the boulders [21].

Cave temples in the Panḍyan zone consist of three types: i) the cella
alone (e.g. Nattampaṭṭi), ii) cella with mukhamanḍapa (Muvaraiveṉṟāṉ), iii)
monolithic temple (Kaḻukumalai) [22]. The Mūvairaiveṉṟāṉ cave belongs to
the second type.

The cella of the cave is a square of 3.5. x 3.5 meters, facing east. It is
supported by two square pillars and two kuḍyastambhas (Figs. 65-67). The
pillars are 2.5 meters tall. It houses a svayambhū-Liṅga that is rock-cut. It
may be noted that most Liṅgs in the Pānḍyan zone rock-cut, e.g.
Tirmveyyam. The rock-cut manḍapa is oblong and exends 6 x 1.5 meters.
The back wall provides for the images of Ganapati and Murukaṉ. The side
left wall accommodates the images of Naṭarāja and Śivakāmī. It is not clear
whether these iconographical images were later carvings, post-dating the
original cave.

63
 A recent temple for Devī, called Kaṟpakāmpāļ, has been erected to the
left of the cave (Fig. 116). It houses some some stucco images on the
ekatalavimāna. A small chapel for dakṣiṅāmūrt is being built to the south of
the rock (Fig. 117).

The two structural temples are small edifices, both facing east (Figs.
72-74). The Śrīnivāsa Perumāļ temple consists of a garghagṛha and
mukhamanḍapa. The garbhagṛha is a square of 2.5 meters. The
mukamanḍapa is a square of of two meters.

The Mīnākṣī-Sundareśvara temple is a similar edifice. Its garbhagṛha

is a square of 5 meters. It is fitted with an antarala and mukhamanḍapa.
Both these are 5 meters long.

Govindanallūr:

The local temple is called Kariyaḻaka Perumāļ (Plan 9). It wass in

ruins and and rebuilt simply (Figs. 75-78). Much of the sculptural work is
based on archaeological excavation undertaken under initiative of the author.

The temple that remains consists of the garbhagṛha, a square of 4.5 x

4.5 meters (Fig. 75). There is a mukhamanḍapa that is a square of 3.5
meters. Strangely the manḍapa is smaller than the garbhagṛha.

The temple is good for sculptural study and serves no good purpose
for arhitecture.

64
Kuṉṉūr:

The temple is called Sundararāja Perumāļ (slang for Saundararāja

Plan 10). The garbhagṛha is a square of 3.5 meters. It is added with an
antarāla, mukhamanḍapa and mahāmanḍapa.The mukhamandapa is 3.5
meters long. The mahāmanḍapa is a rectangle of 2 x 3 meters. There is no
enclosing wall. Outside at the southeast is the kitchen. On the northeast is
the well.

The vimāna is tritala and the śikhara globular that means it is veśara.
The devkoṣṭhas are only plasters (Figs. 79-82).

Piļļaiyār-nattam [23] (Figs. 85-91):

It wass a ruined temple, called Raṅgatīrtha Perumāļ, rebuilt recently

(Plan 11). It consists of a garbhagṛha, mukhamanḍapa and mahāmanḍapa.
Sculptures in this complex hae been unearthed by excavation under direction
of the author. These are reported in the chapter on Iconography-Viṣnu.

A number of sculptures have been excaated by recent archaeological

explorations of the Virudhunagar Historical Research Center. These images
are reported in the present thesis in the chapers on iconography [24].

The temples in the Śrīvilliputtūr region are many. Few have been
selected in the study for the present doctoral project. It may be noted that
many of the temples for Viṣnu take the name, Aḻakar or Saundararāja that is
remniscient of the Aḻakarkōyil (Māliruncōlai) tradition. Similarly Śiva
65
temples are after Mīnākṣī [25]. These would prove the fact that the cultural
network in Śrīvilliputtūr is rooted in the Maturai Mīnākṣī-
Sundareśvara/Aḻakar tradition. Even now when the famous Cittirai (April-
May) festival takes place in Maturai a flower garland is sent from the
Śrīvilliputtūr temple for Aḻakar who sets his feet in the River Vaikai [26]
during the famous Cittirai festival. Thus the religio-cultural matrix from
Śrīvilliputtūr in the south to Maturai in the north is interwoven with religious
entanglements that were arranged by Tirumalai Nāyaka in the 17th century.
This is akin to the Tiruvārūr tradition where the Saptavitaṅgasthalas or the
Aṣṭavīraṭṭānams are rooted in the core at Ārūr called mūlaṭṭānam in the
hymnsof the Nayanmār (Tēvāram 6.242. all hymns, 6.244. all hymns, 6.246.
all hymns). The mūlaṭṭānam in the Far South of peninsular India is Maturai.
In the south the core is Kūṭal (meaning junction), the meeting place of
Vaiṣnavite and Śaivite religio-cultural traditions where the breathspell is
religious harmony and not disharmony.
NOTES

1] James Fergusson, Cave Temples of India, 1886/1969 New Delhi; Percy Brown,
Indian Architecture, Bombay 1950 (reprint), Chaps. V, VI; K.V. Soundararajan, Cave
Temples of the Deccan, New Delhi 1981, Vidya Dehejia, Indian Art, London 1997.

2] Debala Mitra, Sanchi, New Delhi 1957/1978, Pl. VII.

3] B.S. Upadhyaya, The Temple Architecture of India, In Jaikishandas Sadani ed. Indian
Culture: Vol. IV Sculpture, pp. 254-55.

4] Krishna Deva, Temples of North India, pp. 7-14; J. Soundararajan, Early Chālukya
Temples: Art, Architecture and Iconography (with special reference to Aihole), Delhi

66
2009; Raju Kalidos, Portait of Histoircal Facts, Deccan Herald: Friday Spectrum, 24
Sep. 2001.

5] C. Sivaramamurti, Amaravati Sculptures in the Madras Government Museum, Madras

1977.

6] Jeyapriya Rajarajan, A Note on Vaccirakkōṭṭam, East and West, Rome 2004, Vol. 54:
1-4, pp. 291-302.

7] K.R. Srinivasan, Cave Temples of the Pallavas, New Delhi 1964, p. 47. For the
Manṭakappaṭṭu inscription see Epigraphia Indica, Vo. XVII, pp. 14-17.

8] Raju Kalidos, Origin of Cave Temples in Tamilnadu, Paper presented in the Indian Art
History Congress, Dharwad 1995.

9] Raju Kalidos, Encyclopaedia of Hindu Iconography: Early Medieval, Vol. I Viṣnu,

Chap. II.

10] Raju Kalidos, The Malaiyaḍippaṭṭi Cave Temles, South Asian Studies, Vol. IV, pp.
57-69; G. Gopalakrishnan, Early Pandyan Iconometry, Delhi 2005, Chap. II.

11] K.R. Srinivasan, Temples of South India, pp. 122-23.

12] Stella Kramrisch, The Hindu Temple, 2 vols, Delhi 1976.

13] It is an unfinished gopura with the plinth alone existing.

14] Moṭṭaigopura is a common feature in this area. That means the development of the
temples seem to have been hindered due to one reason or the other.

67
15] The large number of temples for Viṣnu and Kṛṣna would attest the fact that the
Naiḍus and Rājus were behind the patronage down to the present day. But for the
patronage these communities the temples would have gone into oblivion.

16] Or tirumatil, tiru (= śrī) is a honorific prefix.

17] P. Chandramohan, Garuda in Medieval Art and Literature, Delhi 2009. The tirumatil
in Viṣnu temples is fitted with images of garuḍa.

18] Ibid., Figs. XVIII.1, XXIV, XXV.

19] Nattam is a terminology that means an old settlement. Local archaeologists believe
any village of the name shall yield archeological materials.

20] It is acaully a cave temple of the early Pānḍya period. It stands on a par with
Kīḻmāvilaṅkai, near Tinṭivaṉam, in Ceṅkalpattu district of the Pallava period excavation.
Vide K.R. Srinivasan, Cave Temples of the Pallavas, pp. 130-32, pl. xxxvii a.

21] This temple is not reported in C. Sivaramamurti 1961. It may be found in R.K.K.
Rajarajan, New Finds, In Raju Kalidos, Encyclopaedia of Hindu Iconography: Early
Medieval, Vol. IV, Pt. II, pp. 105-106; Vol. II, Pl. CII.

22] S. Ganapati, Pandyan Cave Temples, Proceedings of the South Indian History
Congress I, Mautai 1980.

23] Cf. n. 19 for nattam.

24] These do not find a place in the Virudhunagar District Sourcebook that has been
hastily published recently. I am of the view that there is a need to rewrite this book in the
light of the recent discoveries.

68