When one attempts to prosecute in a undertaking, which seeks to relocate/recontextualize impressions of advancement or invention to a non Euro-American context, the undertaking does acquire framed by the political relations of representation, and threatens to acquire caught up in the A‘Identity-Difference ‘ inquiries. Though I do non wish to shy away from any battle with the political relations of representation, I decidedly do non desire to be caught up in the A‘Identity- Difference ‘ inquiries. The lone option left for me is to short-circuit the rhetoric of the Self and Other, and decline any parochial fastness of my capable place. This undertaking could besides acquire entangled in the political relations of comparing. In a certain sense this is ineluctable, the best that I can make is to clear up my purposes behind originating the comparing and to spell out why A‘innovation ‘ as a phenomenon is of import plenty to be stressed. The comparative value of A‘innovation ‘ comes from the prestigiousness it enjoys in post-industrial Capitalism, and it is through this that the location of this undertaking is best understood.
For a long clip, this undertaking kept stealing back into the kingdom of cultural relativism, and this I in a heartfelt way wanted to avoid. Seriously we have had sufficiency of A‘Indian Art is this versus Western Art is that ‘ . I am non afraid of being essentialist because station modernism has rendered essentialism unstylish. Indeed Spivak and Radhakrishnan show us that strategic essentialism can be a utile tool for counter hegemonic representation. A‘Innovation ‘ and advancement as they are applied in the subject of Art History are still rooted in Euro American impressions of history as consecutive progressive, traveling from point A to point B and assailing point C. Any tradition that does non follow this theoretical account seems relatively dead and nonmoving.
Over the last two hundred old ages or so, there has been a turning hegemonization of this impression of time/history/progress. This has played a major function in organizing the political orientation of Capitalism and beef uping the growing of neo-colonialism. Any effort to rub this impression of advancement A‘against the grain ‘ is counter hegemonic.
A profound western Marxist review of the modernist impression of history is already present in Walter Benjamin ‘s A‘Theses on the Doctrine of History ‘ , which opens up possibilities for counter hegemonic theorisations on advancement. Post colonial review of advancement from assorted locations are indispensable to give impulse and add dimensions to the motion in order to dispute the domination of neo-colonialism and station industrial capitalist economy. My enterprise to make so from within the subject of Art History in the context of pre-modern India is antagonistic hegemonic and junior-grade plenty to theoretically let myself to set forward an essentialist representation. However one ca n’t disregard Spivak ‘s protagonism of A‘double consciousness ‘ while stand foring the subaltern. Exerting Spivakian dual consciousness is non easy and I do n’t cognize how far I shall be successful. However working within double stars and yet leveling double stars is important if I have to avoid sinking into a homogeneous straitjacketing of India and A‘Indian invention ‘ in the cause of planetary heterogeneousness.
There seems to be an already bing theorisation about an allegedly A‘Indian understanding ‘ of invention. Prof. Ratan Parimoo in his category talks and private treatments has been suggesting that A‘improvisation ‘ as it is allowed and practiced in the rendition of Hindustani Classical music, offers us a model for understanding the pattern of A‘innovation ‘ in A‘pre modern India ‘ . In his A‘Space and Time in Representation and Design ‘ , Thomas R. Metcalf uses Vishaka Desai ‘s survey of eighteenth century painters to speculate that through the act of copying and recopying an A‘artist ‘ was encouraged to digest tradition and so rearticulate it in footings of modern-day gustatory sensation. There has been ( about excessively much of ) an easy apprehension on this respect. As a new entrant into this concern I realized that the consensus sing an Indian version of A‘innovation ‘ was near commonsense. It seemed that the lone work possible was a confirmation of these drifting but recognized articulations. My uncomfortableness with the un-problematised pan Indianness ( both perpendicular and horizontal ) straitjacketing of Indian civilization inherent in Metcalf and Ratan Parimoo ‘s preparations has enabled this intercession.
For the minute allow me suspend my involvement in heterogeneousness, and say that cognition did go around in A‘pre-modern India ‘ in a peculiar manner, which lead to invention and advancement being understood in a peculiar manner. Surely no 1 will reason that this was racially or otherwise intrinsic. Thus the lone option is to presume that such an thought of invention was culturally constructed and hegemonized. This opens up possibilities of asking into assorted political orientations that might hold played functions in the procedure. Thus the impression of progress/innovation must hold been a site for controversy between the A‘dominant ‘ , A‘residual ‘ and the A‘emergent ‘ . Now we come to a occasion where it becomes logically impossible to go forth heterogeneousness in suspension. In fact by my preliminary observations, it does look that the curious manner in which texts like the Rig Veda or the Natyashastra attributed their writing to divine intercessions, played a cardinal function in how the ulterior writers were forced to warrant the A‘newness ‘ of their intercessions by taking resort to tradition. It must hold been really hard to claim a critical place towards, or reject a discourse that allegedly had Godhead beginnings. This is an highly generalised preliminary observation but it does indicate towards an interesting possibility for researching how the A‘residual ‘ might hold shaped the A‘dominant ‘ .
When I cited that the A‘dominant ‘ , A‘residual ‘ and the A‘emergent ‘ make it theoretically impossible to suspend the inquiry of heterogeneousness, it is more of a polemical statement which may prevent entries into greater complexnesss. However the historical location of India today, which is witnessing a rightist straitjacketing of Indian civilization by enforcing a Hindu upper class/caste apprehension of Indian civilization down the pharynx of pluralism, forces me to foreground the inquiry of heterogeneousness in footings of how assorted strata of society understood and adept A‘innovation ‘ .
In this work I shall be asking into A‘Early Medieval Southern Indian Temples ‘ through instance surveies of some royal memorials viz. Sangameswara, Virupaksha, Mallikarjuna at Pattatakal and Brihadeswara at Thanjavur.
Having decided that I will non be adhering to any theoretical account, which argues for a pan Indian concept of invention, I was forced to near my stuff without a pre bing model. I realized that the sites chosen are, the 1s considered to be A‘landmark ‘ memorials, therefore falling into the trap of looking for invention in memorials on which the subject had already passed a finding of fact of being A‘points of apogee ‘ . Though, I am cognizant that unless one really notices dissatisfaction, it is strategically safer to presume that every memorial was a fulfilment in its ain right- successfully jointing the socio-political, ritualistic, aesthetic and structural functions they were supposed to play- and that the best 1 can hold is an ideological review of their functions. On the other manus, I am so good entrenched in the modernist impression of A‘culmination ‘ and A‘newness ‘ that I invariably tend to bury my new apprehensions. In order to guard myself against such oversights, I began with a working apprehension of A‘innovation ‘ being A- alterations that fulfill needs originating out of displacements in the sociopolitical, ritualistic, aesthetic and structural demands of temple infinites.
The temples under consideration in my thesis were under the backing of early Western Chalukyan and Chola dynasties which were governing in present Deccan and Tamil Nadu at assorted points from 6th century to the twelfth century AD. Art historiographers have traditionally used these temples as un-problematised illustrations of A‘High Dravida ‘ . Traditionally the subject has studied their line of descents to determine stylistic evolutions- runing within assorted theoretical accounts of development ( little temple to large temple or frailty versa, simpleness to ornamentation or frailty versa ) . In recent old ages, there has been a turning involvement in the iconography and manner of these temples as looks of imperial powers. I contend that these attacks are excessively confining, and make non make justness to the complexnesss that the material nowadays. The first attack assumes that A‘style ‘ has a life of its ain and per se follows certain forms and the occupation of an art historiographer is to decrypt that form, particularly to understand through what forces certain A‘grand manners ‘ semen into being. The 2nd attack assumes that art is, but a contemplation of the political demands of the frequenters, and royal memorials merely reflects the kings/queens political power articulations. This attack becomes near simplistic when it unproblematically polarizes the swayer versus the topic and treats them as near homogeneous cabals. The polarisation will fall in if one introduces caste and governmental hierarchies and see the swayer as a topic and the A‘subject ‘ as an histrion within hegemony. Sociological plants on Dravida temples have revealed complex ritualistic, political, economic and cultural maps these temples performed. Thus one needs to turn up morphological and iconographical A‘innovations ‘ as a response to these demands, taking attention to turn up the temple edifice activity within these factors, non as a phenomenon outside of these, but located within these, determining them and acquiring shaped invariably. I see the temples of my instance surveies as sites of controversy and consolidation of power between Brahmin and the Kshatriya elite, and besides between the upper three castes ( viz. the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishyas ) and the untouchable Shudras. The controversy is over faith, cognition, and power, and the temples bit by bit go sites where these powers get concentrated.
The coming up of big royal temples is a defining phase in this way, a opinion category endeavor to sabotage the importance of the priestly category by making powerful spiritual establishments over which they retained important control. It is this concentration of power that would be focused
in chapter three. In this thesis, I could hold tried to analyze invention in assorted ways ( technological, stylistic ) etc. However, my chief involvement has been towards locating invention in sculpto-architectural spiritual undertakings patronized by the province in the name of the royalty, which can be seen as cultural signifiers used for the intent of hegemony care. The invention, design and iconography which embody and perpetuate a new value system which the A‘dominant ‘ seeks to continue. ( Chapter 3 )
How am I seeking to travel beyond the A‘Identity-Difference ‘ inquiries and turn uping the construct and pattern of A‘innovation ‘ by the three major agents involved in the royal temple, viz. the royalty, the Brahmins and the Shilpin? It is interesting that, Ratan Parimoo ‘s and Metcalf ‘s preparations seem applicable at a general degree to the existent club patterns and are perfectly non reflected in the Shilpashastras ( treatises on icon devising and architecture ) . These texts were chiefly authored by the Brahmins, and carry the claims of incarnating ancient/semi godly preparations. The textual tradition is a inactive tradition when compared to the existent temple edifice tradition. The spread between the text and the existent pattern is so huge, that in most instances if one follows the textual instructions while constructing a temple, the construction will merely non stand. The lone manner this spread can be explained is by sing the textual tradition as an intercession by the priestly category in order to claim an sphere of cognition, which was outside their sphere ( Chapter 2 ) . The manners of controversy become clearer when one sees that there has been consistent privileging of intellectual activities over physical activities in Brahmanical discourses. By the 5th century AD, all sorts of manual activities runing from farming, cowss rise uping to weaving, carving and masonry were declared businesss of the Harijans. Now entry into the temple infinites was perfectly out to the Harijans. Therefore, interesting dramas of resistances came approximately. The Shilpin clubs had control over an sphere to which they were complete foreigners. How is it possible that people who were non even supposed to cognize them depicted spiritual mythologies? The constitution of the station of the Sthapati bypasses this job. Guild caputs were socially incorporated as Sthapatis and they had some entree to spiritual texts. The Brahmins felt that it was perfectly necessary for them to claim that it was merely through close reading of the Shilpashastras that it was possible for the Sthapati to steer his /her subsidiaries. My hypothesis is that the Shilpin clubs responded to the curious societal status by asseverating maximal originative freedom. Of class, the possibilities of this originative freedom were restricted by the ocular civilization they operated under, the demands of the frequenters, ritualistic and socio-political forces. Possibly that is why most of the new cosmetic motives or sculpting manners foremost made their visual aspect on the margins- normally in little panels off from the centre of the temple. Socially low-level Shilpins could non perchance have subverted a infinite to which they were complete foreigners, which they had to resign every bit shortly as the building work was over. Hence, it is possible that what appears to be an A‘Indian manner of invention ‘ that gets manifested in the manner temples retain their basic signifier but alterations appear merely in footings of size ornamentation and iconography can be seen ( in portion ) as being a manifestation of infinite dialogues between the untouchable creative persons and the priestly caste. This position seems to work when one looks at the memorials, but is hard to critically prolong. Leading me to believe that the argument on A‘agency ‘ demands to be re engaged with, giving me the focal point of the 4th chapter.
The relationship between the Shilpin-Sthapati and their frequenters ( i.e. the royalty ) was more complex. On the one manus the royalty as Kshatriyas were privileged upper caste and were active participants in and reinforcing stimuluss of the oppressive caste hierarchies. On the other manus, they were main employers of the Shilpin-Sthapati, non merely for edifice of temples but besides for building- rebuilding of castles, puting roads, Bridgess, delving canals, doing garrisons etc. The Shilpin-Sthapati must hold been of great service to the royalty. It is through this that in malice of being classified as Harijans by the Brahmins, the guild caputs gained important societal prominence, and the cognition they possessed became socially valuable. Recognizing that their societal mobility was based on their expertness, the Sthapatis must hold been locked in a competitory conflict with other guild caputs, lament to take part in ambitious undertakings and to do their memorials A‘grander ‘ ( by the impressions of importance go arounding in their modern-day ocular civilization ) . This could be the enterprise, which resulted in the famed technological inventions, addition in morphological complexness, and quest towards more complex narrative panels/profuse usage of cosmetic motives.
Concentrating on merely two sites has restricted the possibilities of germinating a broader model. Even these two sites are located in the southern half of the peninsula. Memorials like Khajuraho, Modhera and Konark have been left out because of my inability to cover with so many memorials and time-spaces within the range of a thesis.
The cardinal methodological job with this paper is that I have been forced to utilize gross generalisations. This stems from my failure to decide the preparations at a theoretical degree, which does justness to the complexness of my stuff. My unfavorable judgment of the modernist impressions of advancement would hold been easier to joint if I could suspend my unfavorable judgment of essentialist cultural relativism. However, the Indian right-wing has emerged as a strong ally of the forces of globalisation. At the same clip, it uses the A‘Identity-Difference ‘ inquiries to propagate an Orthodox upper caste/class history of India, utilizing it to forbid difference and heterogeneousness in our times. The incoherency in my paper in a certain sense is a contemplation of my ain location being caught between the Satan and the sea.
A SPLIT WIDE OPEN?
Outside the range of iconography, the treatments in the A‘Religious and Textual Sources ‘ categories ( including categories of A‘Translation of Shilpa Text ‘ ) have been the most fruitful, or at least hold given me a broader apprehension of the pre modern art traditions, when we keep aside the Shilpashastras and prosecute with the other textual beginnings like the Puranas, the Kavyasatras etc. It is from this observation that I have begun my quest to see the Shilpasastas in the context of A‘textual beginnings ‘ alternatively of the context of A‘commentaries on art ‘ . This displacement in model I hope will assist us to obtain a wide apprehension of the mode, in which art was conceived, patronized, produced and viewed. This chapter basically is a supplication to put the Shilpa versus Shastras argument as a philosophical job, and to slightly research the job. In the last subdivision I have tried to present caste and see what kineticss, it can blossom.
Indian art historical research has yet non make a consensus position from which to measure its place in relation to the huge literary principal of Indian literature, peculiarly the Shilpashastras. May be one demand to travel beyond seeking mirroring and speculating on the absence of mirroring and get down a certain philosophical enquiry into the very nature of Shastras. The nucleus or what can be called the mainstream of Indian Art History, remains the elaborate survey of archeological grounds utilizing a stylistic attack. I say this even though I acknowledge that few serious plants today omit mentions to Sanskrit texts, or disregard letterings.
It must be admitted that many of the most exciting and communicative illustrations of Indian art, are far beyond the range of apparently precise Shastric preparations. The sheer originative force of the Parel Shiva, signal to us at one time that this sort of divine originality could non hold been perchance dictated by a rulebook. Indian art can be considered to hold progressed through A‘revolutionary ‘ sculptures of this stature. Surely, no 1 will reason that the sculpturers working in Kailashnath, Ellora actively called to mind the dogmas of the Shastric traditions. It is through this legitimate consideration that art historiographers have by and big overruled the importance of the Shastras.
“ If the texts have no evident utility, why do they be? ” is the basic inquiry I decided to get down with. Through assorted schoolroom and other treatments with instructors and schoolmates, I have come to an apprehension of the texts as memorials in themselves and looks of a controversy over cognition in a civilization where faith and power were closely related.
How make I, a pupil of art history trade with this apprehension and pattern it in my work is turning out to be the following large inquiry, which I am facing. I guess it is but obvious that one can non look for any direct aid from the texts except for iconography. That is why I have chosen to set his split as a philosophical job, a job that by nature needs some inventive enterprise to decide.
May be the Shilpashastras are memorials in themselves. Memorials belonging to both the Shilpa, every bit good as the Shastra tradition. Whatever be it, my personal apprehension is that it is no longer possible for the subject of Art History to disregard the demand to analyze the Shilpashastras for their ain interest. If one tries to do castles, following the prescriptions of Manasaullas, so in all possibilities the construction will non stand. However, that exactly may be our error and undoing. Our preparation is so Euro-centric that we historicize everything. We are trained to look beyond the literary rhetoric of the Shilpashastras and seek out the A‘mean ‘ prescriptions. Can we take a measure back and think that the bosom of Shilpashastras might lie in their rhetoric? If we shift our model therefore, we may detect that we get a wholly new cultural apprehension of temples and sculptures.
After about a 100 old ages of serious art historical work, it is apparent that the alleged classical manner of Art History scholarship in India is coming under strain. However, it is this school of scholarship that has done enormous archival work, and through stylistic analysis A‘ordered ‘ a huge organic structure of graphicss. However, the chief unfavorable judgment against classical Art History in India has been that stylistic analysis really frequently fails to put plants of art in their socio-cultural, political and ethnographic context. Is such a recontextualization possible in the Indian context, when A‘factual information ‘ is at the best patchy and largely nonexistent?
I contend that it may be non that impossible. To do it possible, one needs to travel beyond the Euro-American modernist concept of A‘factual information ‘ ; may be we need to halt seeking it all together. Alternatively, one should turn to the wide principal of Shastric literature and look beyond prescriptions, and seek to conceive of what they are seeking to state.
The Shastric texts can at least be said to typify and consolidate the civilization in which the Shilpins lived and worked, the frequenters commissioned, and spiritual imagination operated. Can we get down by seeking to conceive of this procedure? All art signifiers are practical and symbolic looks of cultural intelligence ; the Shilpashastras seem to supply an ordered model of didacticism. It is merely through this didactic tenseness between theory and pattern can one travel beyond manner and seek an archeological endeavor A- archeology of the head.
The Markandeya of Vishnudharmottar III denies that a god carries arms, stating that they are infact the elements of being. The text goes on to explicate that the retention of arms is a presentation of the God ‘s control over being in all its stages. These and similar remarks appear to be original guesss on the portion of Brahmin writers, which straight relate to their existent ritual attitudes in the passage of their hieratic maps in temples of their time-space. Art history has every bit much interest in how they were made.
The didactic tenseness between Shilpa and Shastra A- theory and pattern – which lets us research the possibilities of the A‘archaeology of head ‘ is rendered more haptic if ( semi ) translated in footings of seeing ritual and doing. The inquiry as to what did represent a cannon in Indian tradition demands to be forced into the unfastened. Obviously, there is no A‘Panini ‘ at any phase in the development of sculpture. At any rate, the pattern of sculpturing is non reducible in the A‘paninian ‘ mode. Artistic creative activity being a procedure, every work of art is to the creative person a undertaking abandoned along a way of uninterrupted chase. In this sense all plants of art are A‘incomplete ‘ , and therefore inherently escape complete canonisation. If this can be considered to be a defining characteristic of art pattern ( for our concern pre-modern Brahmanical-Indian ) , what so can perchance be the function of the Shastras?
Alternatively of seeing a direct relationship, one can see Shilpashastra as one component in the multi dimensional Brahmanical tradition, which plays its portion in giving form to the overall articulation of the cultural lineation. Like other literary traditions, it contributes to and is itself shaped by the powerful impulses of a hegemonic civilization, to make a self-image, and like them it preserves parts of uninterrupted transmutation of perceptual experience and look generated in the class of this chase. The commentaries of Brahman iconographers articulate these fragments. However, one must non bury the self-image of the writers of these texts. The self image is two fold A- 1 that of the caste, the supremely knowing holding incontestable entree to and command over any signifier of cognition ; A- the other is of the ego, the individual who amongst this elect caste chooses to compose about the rules of art devising. The individual of course worked with a self-image of absolute authorization.
The tone of Shilpashastras is that of a hieratic declaration. Is n’t it but obvious that the writers would ne’er admit their deficiency of proficient know-how etc. Infact the really act of composing Shilpashastras is an act of pretension, an act of puting coins on a organic structure of cognition, which ne’er belonged to the Brahman caste. It is besides a statement of traditional governments, as ceremonially involved witnesss of art, and non of the artistically originative translators of the tradition.
As I have mentioned before, really frequently the instructions dictated by a putative A‘arseya ‘ or even A‘daiva ‘ authorization are seen to be wildly inaccurate or even unequal, when applied to a mass of antediluvian and mediaeval Indian art objects. The fact is that ( may be ) overall they merely were non used by the shilpins. This does non intend that art historiographers should abandon this literature. Alternatively, it can be treated as a literary class, to a certain extent divorced from worlds of image devising, and reflected the guesss of the hieratic category refering the right manner of gestating a divinity.
The Brahman category did non concern itself straight with the practical concern of hewing and carving rock, but instead with the familial broader undertaking of claiming and perpetuating the indispensable lineations of cultural tradition. They asserted the necessity of doing images and established their importance. It was beyond the sense of celebralism within Brahmanism to do the images. In this sense, their Shastric injunctions have the consequence of authorising and intellectually allowing the work of the Shilpin.
However in pattern the function of the Sutradhar / Sthapati has to be concentrated upon. There has to be a ground as to why the office of the guild caput was institutionalized in the curious mode. At one degree, he was a span between the Shudra craftsman and the elect Brahman. As person, who was authorized to have on the sacred yarn at the clip of building the temple, and at the same clip was ne’er allowed inside the chief temple premiss, one time the building work was complete ( till the clip of redevelopment ) . At a more practical and working degree, the Sthapatis embodied the full tradition of edifice and sculpting.
It is R.N. Mishra, who has efficaciously introduced the caste kineticss into the survey of duologue between creative persons and the Shastric tradition. His article A‘Art and Religion ‘ is a seminal work in this way. The lone complain I have against his work, is that his battle is non Marxian plenty. For although A‘power ‘ and A‘contestation ‘ as constructs are adequately emphasized in his analysis of archival stuff, his Hunt for corruption is in the kingdom of doctrine. Personally, I would wish to turn up the caste and cognition corruption by the artisan jatis, more in the kingdom of material civilization. But that is another argument.
At the clip when Brahmanical temple edifice and image activities flourished ( state station Gupta period ) , the Sthapatis must hold gained huge societal prestigiousness and the cognition of carving, edifice and picture must hold given the artisan jatis a enormous cultural capital. This seems to hold destabilized the equations of cognition and power that maintained the societal order.
The Brahmanical construct of Kali Yuga so talks about a destabilization of Dharma. It is in the era of Kali that all the Kalas are textually degraded. ( Though by common construct this procedure happened in the tenth century plus period, a careful reading clearly spells out that the procedure had already set in by the fifth century ) . The practicians of the Kalas must hold been really of import for the Kshatriya and Vaishya castes ( utilizing the classs slackly to denote the opinion and concern class/caste as a power counterpoint to the priestly category ) . The Shilpins, must hold been exceeding in this respect as their work was straight in the service of province and faith.
May be we can understand the Shastric intercessions better if we read them in the context of a controversy over power through cognition.
Fig 1 Concentration of Chalukyan sites
Fig 3 Durga Ground Plan with Gateway
Fig 4 Sangameshvara Elevation
Fig 5 Sangameshvara Ground Plan
Fig 6 Virupaksha Ground Plan
Fig 7 Mallikarjuna Ground Plan
Fig 8 Mahakuteshvara Elevation
Fig 9 Sangameshvara General View
Fig 10 Mallikarjuna General View
Fig 11 Virupaksha General View
Fig 12 Kailashnath, Kanjipuram General Views
Fig 13 Kanjipuram Kailashnath Ground Plan with iconographic inside informations
Fig 14 Kanjipuram Kailashnath, Inner Boundary Wall and Shrine
Fig 15 Shore Temple General View
Fig 16 Shore Temple Ground Plan
Fig 17 Brihadeshvara through Gopuram
Fig 18 Brihadeshvara from Outside
Fig 19 Brihadeshvara from Southeast
Fig 20 Brihadeshvara Boundary Wall
Fig 21 Brihadeshvara Site Plan
Fig 22 Brihadeshvara
Fig 23 Brihadeshvara Stairway to Antarala Southeast
Fig 24 Brihadeshvara West Elevation
Fig 25 Brihadeshvara with Chandikeshvara Shrine
Fig 26 Brihadeshvara Upper Story Pradakshinapath
Fig 27 Brihadeshvara Ground Floor Plan with Iconographic Design
Fig 28 Brihadeshvara Painting, Rajaraja and his married womans paying court to Chidambaram Nataraja
Fig 29 Kailashnath Kanjipuram Nataraja and Trivikrama
Fig 30 Examples of the Flamboyant Dance Like Style from Pattadakkal
Fig 31 Gangai Konda Chola Puram with Chandikeshvara Shrine
Fig 32 Gangai Konda Chola Puram Ground Plan
Fig 33 Udaigiri Vraha Panel with item of Ganga and Jamuna
Fig 34 Koranganath Swami Temple at Shrinivasanullur