Demons in the detail: temple architecture of the Hoysala dynasty

Fig 1. Narasimha at Chennakeshava temple, Belur

I recently visited the state of Karnataka, India, where I fulfilled a long-standing ambition to see the ancient temples of the Deccan region. But not everything translated well into print or pictures: the famous site of Hampi, for example, is a vast complex of ruined temples dotted across a rocky landscape which quite defeated my pathetic phone-camera.

Instead, it was the less famous though equally beautiful temples that provided good blog material. And this image (Fig 1)  has always been a favourite of mine, partly because it’s deliciously gory but also because of its underlying legalistic humour.

What we see is the god Vishnu disembowelling the demon-king Hiranyakashipu (those two long chains are his intestines, meticulously carved in stone). As told in the Bhagavata Purana (an 8th-9th C religious text), the demon persuaded the god Brahma to make him invincible. The terms of the gift, however, were that Hiranyakashipu could not be killed (a) by man or beast, (b) indoors or outdoors, or (c) by night or day. 

Vishnu overcame these parameters easily by assuming the form of the man-lion Narasimha (neither man nor beast ✓) and killing the demon on the threshold of his home (neither indoors nor outdoors ✓) at the point of sunset (neither night nor day ✓). Which goes to show that even a demon-king needs to check the small print.

This particularly gruesome version comes from the Chennakeshava temple at Belur, a 12th C temple dedicated to Vishnu, built by the kings of the Hoysala dynasty. The Hoysalas ruled a large part of the Deccan from the 10th to the 13th C, but are not especially famous today: they never achieved the domination of the Cholas (whose rule extended to South-east Asia) or the glory of the Mughals. 

Fig 2. Approximate area of Hoysala kingdom, 10th-13th C

Their place in history is secured, however, by their temple architecture which is ornate to the point of obsession. The level of detailing stands out even in a milieu that is not known for restraint. Italian Rococo is perhaps the only other school that comes close.

In Fig 3 for example we see the 12th C Hoysaleswara temple at Halebidu, dedicated to Shiva.  As at Belur and the other great temple at Somnathpur (which I didn’t visit), the façade is densely layered and segmented, providing multiple surfaces for the display of religious sculpture. The material used was chloritic schist, also known as soapstone (not to be confused with the soapstone in fake jade jewellery). This relatively soft but supple stone can be carved intricately without crumbling, a quality of which the Hoysala sculptors took full advantage.

Fig 3. Hoysaleswara temple, Halebidu

Each of the carved panels looks like it took a lifetime to complete. And from the architectural plans (below), it seems that each of the linga sanctuaries (the star-shaped sections on the left) was designed with as many facets as possible to provide space for ornamentation.

Source: Temples of Deccan India, George Michell

The two door-guardians at the main entrance (Fig 4) are perfect examples of the microscopic detailing typical of Hoysala sculpture.

Fig 4. Door-guardians at Halebidu

The outer walls are covered with carved panels with borders of leaves, flowers or animals. The one in Fig 5 depicts Ganesha (right) and a rare image of Brahma riding a peacock (left). Each bead in their jewellery and head-gear is carved in three-dimensional detail. Even Ganesha’s pet rat (under his feet) wears a jewelled harness and has sharp little claws on each toe. 

Fig 5. Brahma (L) and Ganesha (R) at Halebidu

Stories from the Bhagavata Purana, the Mahabharata or the Ramayana were the sculptors’ favourite subjects. The panel in Fig 6 depicts the ace archer Arjuna (from the Mahabharata) shooting an arrow into the eye of a fish-shaped target suspended high above. In the story, Arjuna uses only a reflection in a bowl of water to take his aim. The sculptor depicts Arjuna’s right arm pulled back and his hand wide open as if he has just released the arrow. His right leg is bent so that he can shoot upwards but his eyes are downcast, looking only at the reflection in the water.

Fig 6. Arjuna the archer, Belur

In Fig 7 at Belur, Vishnu outwits another demon-king, named Bali, who has taken over the universe. Vishnu, disguised as a dwarf, begs Bali to give him a little piece of land, so small that he can cover it in three steps. The demon-king agrees. Vishnu then reveals himself and takes two gigantic steps covering the earth and the universe. Bali, admitting defeat, offers his own head as the last step and Vishnu takes it, thus securing his victory. 

Fig 7. Trivikrama panels at Belur

The story is carved on two neighbouring niches: the dwarf on the left (with his little umbrella) making his request to Bali, and Vishnu on the right, taking one of his giant steps which makes him look like he's dancing the can-can. This popular image, known as Trivikrama (the three steps), appears at Vishnu temples across southern India. 

It was touching to see these stories being re-told to groups of local visitors (we were the only foreigners there), as they probably were hundreds of years ago. 

More trip-based posts to come when I finish sorting out my 300+ photos.

Fun-loving sculptors of 7th century India

I’ve just returned from south India, where I spent several days visiting temples and archaeological sites in Tamil Nadu. This area is bristling with historic monuments, but one of the most impressive (and a key reason for my visit) was this carved rock-face at Mamallapuram, about 60km south of Chennai on the Coromandel Coast.

Mamallapuram was an important sea-port for the Pallava dynasty that ruled most of south India from the 6th to 8th century AD. The Pallava kings - notably Mahendravarman I and his son Narasimhavarman I of the early 7th century - were keen builders with an eye for beautiful architecture. The stretches of granite rock on this coastline provided ample material for their sculptors. The temples they built in Mamallapuram are of great historical significance, providing the template for subsequent religious buildings in south India. But for sheer attractiveness, it is difficult to beat this massive piece of free-form relief carving, 30m wide by 15m high.

The work is often referred to either as “Arjuna’s Penance” or “The Descent of the Ganges”, but no-one actually knows its original name, or indeed what it was for. None of that matters much when you are standing in front of it (cringing from the traffic that roars along inches behind you), because it is simply amazing. 

The rock-face is divided by a cleft down the middle, into which are carved two large images of naga (serpent) deities. The natural element of nagas is water, suggesting that the cleft represents a waterway or river. On the left is an image of the god Shiva, who once helped to channel the Ganges to avoid a flood, hence the suggested name “Descent of the Ganges”. But Shiva is also gesticulating towards a thin ascetic man standing on one leg with both arms raised (see below). Some believe that this is Arjuna, from the Indian epic Mahabharata, who performed a rigorous penance in order to persuade Shiva to grant him a weapon of deadly power. Surrounding these figures are a host of divine, human and animal images. It’s like a stone version of the Sistine Chapel ceiling: the more you look at it, the more you see.

It has been written about extensively but none of the studies prepares you for the playfulness and exuberance of the sculpture. Most commentators point out the mischievous cat who mimics Arjuna’s pose, attracting a group of gullible mice who will soon become lunch (below). But it was only when I stood in front of the rock-face that I noticed, for example, the jaunty little ganas (dwarves) who make up Shiva’s retinue. The cheeky one standing between Shiva and Arjuna looks like he’s about to give Arjuna a crafty shove to see if he can keep his balance.

A herd of elephants occupies the lower right quadrant, accompanied by their babies, one of whom is trailing behind but grinning cheerfully anyway (he’s obviously used to being left behind). On the upper left and right, the celestial beings are all giving you a cheery wave as they float by, looking so realistic that you involuntarily move your head to follow their flight. They seem to be in pairs or couples, each with a unique pose and expression that is quite unlike the systematized style of China's Terracotta Warriors. They reminded me of Olympic teams marching in the opening ceremony, full of happy optimism, waving to the crowd: at least, if Olympic teams were accompanied by pet lions with long curly tails. You get the feeling that the sculptors didn't feel the need to explain themselves.

It’s frustrating therefore that so little is known about the many different sculptures and monuments of Mamallapuram. We don’t know where the artists came from, how they learned their skills or why many of the works are unfinished. One suggestion is that Mamallapuram was a training ground for sculptors. This might explain why it contains what the historian Richard Blurton calls a “conspectus” or broad overview of rock-cut architectural styles, dotted all over the town.

Blurton also notes that the 'easy familiarity' and 'earthy' aspects of Pallava sculpture eventually gave way to the 'purest classical style' of the Cholas. In other words, south Indian sculpture became less fun and more restrained, which is a bit of a shame. But the fun-loving artists of Mammallapuram at least left their mark on other Pallava monuments, notably at the Kailasanatha temple in Kanchipuram, about 50km inland, which was the personal chapel of Narasimhavarman II of the 8th century. Below for example is an image of the goddess Durga with her lion companion, both displaying that air of bold liveliness that is so appealing.

And also at Kailasanatha, there is this wonderful image of the god Shiva in his long-haired mendicant form, baring his bum and (I swear) twerking. Perhaps after this, as Miley Cyrus discovered, there was just nowhere further to go.  

Reference material: Hindu Art (1992) by T Richard Blurton ; Indian Art (1997) by Vidya Dehejia