the durga temple, aihole, and the saṅgameśvara temple, kūḐavelli: a sculptural review

The Smithsonian InstitutionRegents of the University of Michigan

The Durga Temple, Aihole, and the Saṅgameśvara Temple, KūḐavelli: A Sculptural ReviewAuthor(s): Carol Radcliffe BolonSource: Ars Orientalis, Vol. 15 (1985), pp. 47-64Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the Historyof Art, University of MichiganStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4543046 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 07:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Smithsonian Institution and Regents of the University of Michigan are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Ars Orientalis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:49:35 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=si

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4543046?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE DURGA TEMPLE, AIHOLE, AND THE SAN;GAMESVARA TEMPLE, KUDAVELLI: A SCULPTURAL REVIEW

BY CAROL RADCLIFFE BOLON

IN 1979 THE SAN&GAMESVARA TEMPLE AT KUJDAVELLI Safigam, at the confluence of the Krishna and Tungabhadra rivers in Andhra, was cleaned of centuries of coats of plaster in preparation for its relocation to Alampur, and dismantled. This cleaning revealed the temple's abundant imagery (figs. 1 and 2).1 Although both temples were built during the reign of the Early Chalukyas (ca. A.D. 543-757), it is remarkable to find at this outpost sculpture closely resembling that seen on the sophisticated and famous Durga Temple at Aihole (fig. 3). The Kadavelli temple is here described as it existed in situ.

Also revealed during cleaning of the Kadavelli temple was an imposing wall surrounding the temple, of which only about one meter had previously been visible above the base of the temple. The entire wall is about five meters high and also bears sculpture (fig. 2). The wall extends about four meters below the base of the temple itself. Around the base of the temple, therefore, the top of the wall forms a one-meter high "railing." It seems plausible that the Dravidian- style wall was added after the Nagara-style temple was completed, in order to protect it from the seasonal flooding of the rivers. Silting then seems to have buried the wall.

The possibility that the wall was added after the temple was built is supported by the figures of its base, or gala (figs. 4-6), which are carved in a different style and are less carefully executed than those found on the temple itself. The gala includes elephant busts (fig. 5) similar to those found on the Pattadakal, Papanatha, Viropaksa, and Mallikarjuna temples, but they are most like those above the pillars of the mandapa hall in the Alampur Vi'va Brahma Temple. The Visva Brahma Temple is about twelve miles from the Kadavelli temple and seems to have been the last temple built at Alampur, probably between 690 and 696.

The presence of an enclosing wall around a Chalukya temple is also known from the Pat- tadakal VirpIksa Temple (ca. 735). The simpler (mostly buried) enclosing walls of the Alampur Bala Brahma Temple (ca. 660-90) and Mahanan- diivara Temple (ca. 660-70) may have been pre- decessors. The Durga Temple at Aihole may have

had a wall too, now lost, with its surviving gate one of a symmetrical pair.

The Kodavelli wall's tall base moldings (fig. 4) include these elements: an upana, a high padmajagatt, a multifaceted kumuda, a gala (or kantha) segmented by pilasters framing ganas (dwarfs), dancers, gods, mithunas (couples), and large elephant busts (fig. 5). The iconography of the Varaha carved on the gala is not that seen in the caves and early structural temples of the Chalukyas; it is found again only on the Alampur Viiva Brahma Temple (ca. 690) and on the Aihole Huchchapayya Temple (ca. 720). Varaha is posed in each case as if in flight, ascending from the ocean floor with Bhodevi seated on his raised elbow (figs. 6 and 7). A comparison of such iconographic and sculptural details as these to the corresponding details of other temples allows us to assign the construction of the wall to the period between 690 and 720.

The gala is surmounted by a curved eave (kapota). Above this is a garland (vyalamala) and a pilastered segment supporting the encircling miniature shrine series (kuta-sala parivaralaya). The projections of the wall correspond to the locations of the decorative shrines above.

At the southeast corner of the wall a Sala element is expanded into a rectangular matrka shrine.2 Its entrance is on the north side. The corresponding northeastern subshrine is lost.

The temple at Kudavelli Safigam is large (12 by 20 m.) and rectangular. Before it stands a small, four-pillared, open Nandi mandapa. Its Nandi, similar to the one in front of the Alampur Viiva Brahma Temple, is of a distinct type, with its head tossed up.3 The temple's sandhara plan includes a vestibule (antarala) before the four- pillared sanctum, which holds a liriga, and a large mandapa with four rows of pillars creating five aisles. The pillars of the mandapa are of two types: the outer pillars are of the square racaka shape of standard Chalukya style, but the long vertical bands on the two inner rows of pillars are unique for this period. They are carved with foliage and the shaft cubes are carved with figures. The roof above the side aisles slopes in the typical Chalukya fashion.4



48 CAROL RADCLIFFE BOLON

These details of the wall and the temple's basic sandhara plan are the features the Kodavelli temple shares with the Alampur temples. Yet some architectural and sculptural features are pe- culiar to this temple, such as the many sculpture- bearing niches found inside and outside the sanctum. Other features of the large Kodavelli temple bypass Alampur and can be related directly to the temple art of the Chalukyas' western sites, especially to the Durga Temple at Aihole in Karnataka. Most striking is the similarity of niche images in the Safigamesvara and Durga Temples.

The exterior walls of the Kodavelli temple, like those of the Durga Temple, are generously en- dowed with sculpture in niches. The north and south sides of the Safigameivara Temple have four windows alternating with five niches. The eastern niche on both sides is empty. Iconographi- cally, the program of the temple is like that of no other Chalukya temple. Starting from the southeast niche and reading clockwise around the temple, one finds Yama on his buffalo; an anthro- pomorphic serpent king (nagaraja); Andhakasura; and a Siva or a guard with one hand on his hip- the other one is lost (fig. 8). On the west wall three male figures are depicted with one hand on the hip and the other holding a lotus. The north side has four figures: two more of these Padmapani-like male figures, a Nataraja (fig. 18), and a standing two-armed Lakulisa holding a rosary and a club (fig. 9).5 On the east wall wealth deities (nidhis) in niches, carved with virtuoso foreshortening, flank the entrance (fig. 10). Yamuna (fig. 23) on her tor- toise appears on the south side of the east wall. The goddess Gafiga may have appeared in the northeast niche, now empty; such a placement for river goddesses, in facade niches, is unique among Chalukya temples. Visnu appears on the east side, south corner, standing; he holds a staff, rosary, and cakra, while the fourth hand rests on his hip.

The proportions of the Kodavelli temple figures are somewhat stunted from the waist down. All are inset, high-relief figures in red sandstone, about 117 cm. high by 61 cm. wide.

A seventh Padmapani-like male figure is de- tached from its original location and was found loose within the temple (fig. 11). Two more figures of this type are kept in the Alampur Museum.6 They are carved in a distinctive broad- plane style. These are odd images for niches, especially in such quantity. Unidentifiable due to their lost attributes, they recall the placid and broadly carved door guardians (dvarapalas) of Badami Cave Temple 2 (ca. 550) (fig. 12),

although with a more extreme posture, and a more fully shaped chest. Also in the Alampur Museum is Andhakasuravadha, which may be the original image from the temple since the one placed in the niche seems a later and poor rendition.7 The fourth Kfdavelli temple figure now in the Alampur Museum may be a Lakulisa carrying an axe in his left hand. His other hand is lost. He wears a tigerskin dhott (skirt). Each standing figure has a broad, round face, adopts the tribhariga pose, and has a clinging cloth covering the geni- tals, which are thereby subtly emphasized.8

These details and the modeling of the figures are similar to some figures of the Durga Temple at Aihole. For example, the Surya (with Chaya) (fig. 13) from an eastern pillar is similarly stout and broad-chested, and the faces are similar in shape and expression. The handling of ornamentation is similar, too. Figures like the anonymous males of the Kadavelli temple are also seen in the interior porch pillar medallions in groups of mithunas (fig. 14) and in a large carved slab in the apse end of the cloister (fig. 15); the latter figure is too damaged to identify but can be described as a four-armed, standing male with two females and three ganas at his feet and a host of flying figures above.9 The Harihara niche image of the Durga Temple also shares features of proportion and modeling with sculptures seen in the Kadavelli temple (fig. 16).

The Varaha image on the Durga Temple (fig. 17) is iconographically distinct from the one on the Kodavelli temple wall. However, if we compare the modeling of the Varaha to that of the Padmapani-like Kodavelli temple figures, we find distinct similarities in the treatment of the broad chest, with its distinct muscular curvature in the pectoral area and the curved, ridged flesh- fold beneath the rib cage. The treatment of the armbands, the necklace, and the sweep of the Brahmasatra thread across the chest is almost identical in both images. If we move from the Varaha to the Narasirihha image (fig. 18) on the same temple, it is difficult to accept one scholar's opinion that the Varaha is original and the Narasirihha a replacement.10 The proportions and details are the same: note especially the armbands, the fold of flesh under the rib cage, the manner of tying, draping, and pleating the sashes, and the manner of dividing the multiple arms. Although there are differences in the quality of carving and in matters of composition, the Durga Temple images seem to be close relatives of those on the Kodavelli temple.



THE DURGA TEMPLE 49

Six images of deities are still in situ within the eleven niches of the Durga Temple. All are carved in high relief on inset slabs. Lippe's opinion is that the Narasirhha is a replacement piece, a copy of the Badami Cave Temple 3 Narasirhha, which he believes to be a Pallava recutting dating to the period following the Pallava victory over the Chalukyas at Badami in 642.1 He considers the others to be original but notes that the supposed substitute Narasirinha was carved on a slab which was crudely fitted into the niche. Possibly this tailoring of the slab to the niche shape, which is also evident on the

Kf.davelli temple, is due to

the working method of the sculptors, who may have begun work on a stone without being certain where it might be placed.12

While there do seem to be divergent sub- styles in the images of the Durga Temple, this circumstance may be the result of their being the work of different sculptors; perhaps a single sculptor was responsible for the images of Narasimiha, Vrsavahana Siva, Visnugarudasana, and Mahisasuramardini, all of which show a mas- tery of line and volume.13 These particular images are somewhat similar to those on the Mahakata Safigamesvara Temple, which share the refine- ment of surface and the taut, supple outlines.14 Comparing the Mahakuta Safigameivara Temple's

Urdvaliliga Siva image to the Durga Temple's

Vrsavahana, we find the proportions and body shapes similar and a subtlety of gesture and re- laxed attitude in both. The images of Vrsavahana and the others by this particular artist on the Durga Temple are unique within the context of Early Chalukya sculpture. These figures, buoy- ant with an energy generated by their lines, sur- pass earlier images such as the Lad Khan facade mithunas in their weight and earthiness, yet have none of the attenuation that sometimes character- izes the figures on the early eighth-century temples at Pattadakal.'I There is a freshness and vigor about these images that distinguishes them from most Chalukya sculpture.

The Varaha and Harihara images, by contrast, are by a more conservative or less masterful hand. They are stout and shortwaisted, and their modeling is not as appealing as that of the other figures.

The Kudavelli temple's Nataraja (fig. 19) is so like a Nataraja now in the Aihole Museum (fig. 20) in style and iconography that one is led to suppose either that one hand carved both or that the second is a copy.16 The Aihole Nataraja's original or intended location is unknown." The

figure is most like those of the Durga Temple in style but too large to fit into one of its niches. The face is petite like that of Mahisasuramardini or Vrsavahana Siva and it is slightly less open, broad, or moonlike than that of the Kadavelli temple image. The extreme bend (bhariga) of the tandava dance pose is duplicated, and each image had either fourteen or sixteen arms, the front left one thrown across the chest in the gaja hasta gesture. The accompanying figures are in slightly different locations on each Nataraja panel, and the Aihole Nataraja adds flying gandharvas to either side of his halo. The arms of the Nataraja images were carved partially free of the slab, as were the legs. These two dancing Siva figures remind one of the lower relief image of Siva on Badami Cave Temple 1 (ca. 550), which has eighteen arms (fig. 21).18 All three figures radiate from a center point, and move in balance as they dance, like a pinwheel.* The treatment of the genital area of the Aihole figure is similar to that of others found in the Kodavelli temple (fig. 11).

The sculpture of the Saiigamesvara and Durga temples is of fine quality, but that of the former has a slightly odd character. Soundara Rajan described the Kodavelli Safigamesvara Temple as representing a "fringe style" of Chalukya art," but this seems to be true more of the architecture and decorative carving than of the niche images. The temple walls and niches are short, and the difficulty involved in shortening the figures to this height may have resulted in their being stunted somewhat from the waist down. The decoration atop niches and the gana garland crowning make the wall seem ponderous (fig. 24). The single upana base molding of the temple also stunts the wall. On the other hand, the Durga Temple's Harihara figure exhibits the same stunted proportions (fig. 16). The Kodavelli images, except for the Nataraja, have much in common with the work of the lesser master of the Durga Temple. The large number of two-armed male figures shown in a strongly bent (bhariga) pose on the KUdavelli temple is also unusual. In fact, the temple's entire iconographical program is atypical.

Is it possible that the very productive Aihole workshop sent some pieces via the Malaprabha River to the Krishna, and thence down to Kodavelli? The Kodavelli panels, like the Durga Temple panels, are carved on slabs obviously ad- justed to fit into the temple niches.

Other aspects of the Kodavelli temple may be related to the Durga Temple. Divakaran noticed




the similarity in the distribution of niches and windows on the two temples.20 Niches and windows alternate all around the Kodavelli temple. The pierced windows are unusually bold in design: wheels with fish spokes (fig. 22), di- amonds, swastikas, or eight-pointed flowers in a circle. They are most like the boldly pat- terned windows of the Pattadakal Vijayesvara (Safigameivara) Temple (dated 696-733/4) (fig. 23). The windows are framed, like the niches, with pilasters and a lintel of flamboyant con- vergent or divergent figures of sea monsters (makaras) (fig. 24), kinnaras (harpies) (fig. 25), geese (harhsa), or Gaja Laksmi. Over most of the niches, various shrine types of the southern order are displayed in miniature. None of the niches bears the crowning udgama net design typical of the Early Chalukya temples at nearby Alampur. A similar, though not as deeply carved, makara portal (torana) is found above a window of the Durga Temple (fig. 26). The treatment of these decorative elements of the niches and windows in the Kodavelli temple is bizarre. The provin- cial quality of these details suggests that whereas the main images were imported from Aihole, the decorative carving on the temple was done by local artists.21 Furthermore, these local artists were not those who had worked at Alampur. The Alampur workshop, it seems, was moved to Pat- tadakal before A.D. 700; there its artists worked on the Galaganatha Temple, among others.22 By 700, work at Alampur was finished except for the wall enclosing the site, and the center of power and temple patronage shifted back to the Chalukya homeland-Karnataka.23

The Durga Temple contains much sculpture aside from the six preserved niche figures. There are also figures (most of them damaged) on the shafts of the twelve eastern pillars of the outer row and four of the inner porch area. These pillars are also carved with medallions. On the temple's inner and outer plinths are decorative carving and a Ramayana frieze. Above the beams of the inner porch are figures framed between miniature pilasters.

In addition, the inner porch ceiling of the Durga Temple also has panels of a nagaraja (fig. 27) and a matsyacakra (fish-wheel), and there were originally four gandharva couples as ceiling panels above the eastern cloister aisle, to the north and south of the porch. Two damaged ones remain in place, while two others are preserved in the Delhi National Museum.24 The doorway of the mandapa is elaborately carved. The mandapa

itself, with its eight pillars, has been restored. Where there are now incorrectly restored brackets, which resemble tusks, at either side of the entrance to the veranda, there may once have been single figures or mithunas, similar in type and analogous in location to those carved in Badami Cave Temple 3.25

If we compare the Durga Temple's nagaraja ceiling panel, which is remarkable in many ways, to the ceiling panel of Tarakari Subrahmanya of the nearby Huchchimalli Temple (fig. 28) we see, possibly, two works by one master sculptor. There is a sense of drama present in the poses of the nagaraja and the Subrahmanya that is not found in other Chalukya ceiling panel figures. The human torso of the nagaraja emerges from his scaly snake coils and turns to the right. This turn is a break from the symmetry of all other Chalukya nagaraja ceiling panels, in which the figure is frontal and symmetrical. The figure bears in his right hand a garland for the enshrined sun god Aditya and in the other a bowl of offerings.26 The line of his arched, ridged brow is parallel with the line of the crown (makuta) resting on his forehead. This face is the same as is found on the other Durga Temple gandharva ceiling panels. It is also the same as that of the Huchchimalli Temple's boy Subrahmanya on his peacock trampling the demon. The Huchchimalli Temple has an inscriptional terminus ante quem of A.D. 708.27

The only Chalukya precedent for the use of two porch ceiling panels rather than one is the Badami Jambulifiga Temple, dated 699.28 Furthermore, the two ceiling panels of the Durga Temple use some patterns that also appear in the Jambulifiga Temple's ceilings. The designs and figures in the panels of these two temples, the Jambulifiga and the Durga, are carved at much larger scale than those in earlier temples.29

Although the Durga Temple's abundance of carving marks it as the most elaborately adorned temple at Aihole, it is more modest in its program than are the early eighth-century Chalukya temples at Pattadakal.

The sculpture of the Durga Temple bears affini- ties to that found on the Kudavelli and Mahakata Sanigameivara temples and the Huchchimalli Tem- ple at Aihole. The sculpture of the Kodavelli temple is related to that on the Durga Temple, the Pattadakal Safigameivara Temple, and, iconographically, the Alampur Svarga Brahma Temple. Rather than identify the two divergent image types on the Durga Temple as original and replacement



THE DURGA TEMPLE 51

images (although there are certainly cases where images are replacements) I would suggest that in this instance they are all original and that the dif- ference is explained by the fact that one of the artists excelled in his work. Basic features are shared by all of them, features which vary in sub- sequent imagery. By the late seventh century in the Aihole area, temple construction and adorn- ment with carved images had become an estab- lished industry. The sculptors who contributed to the Durga Temple also were responsible for images on the Kodavelli Safigamesvara and Huchchi- malli temples, which were carved within a short period of time.30

Regarding the date of the construction of the

Ktidavelli temple, the Tummeyanuru copper-plate inscription of Pulikesin II commemorates the grant of a village in the area of the Safigamesvara Temple.3' It mentions that the grant was made in the presence of the god Safigamesvara. Some scholars have taken this as evidence that the grant was made at the Kodavelli Safigameivara Temple and therefore date the temple to Pulikesin's

reign (609-42).32 On stylistic grounds this early dating seems impossible. Perhaps another temple preceded this Chalukya one on this ideal temple location and was also dedicated to Safigamesvara, Siva Lord of the Confluence.

Based on the similarities between the Durga and Kodavelli temples, in sculptural style and the way in which niche images are displayed, the creation of the latter may be placed in the late seventh century.33 Its wall may have been added ca. 700-20.

In terms of sculptural and architectural evidence, the Durga Temple seems to postdate the Aihole Lad Khan, Huchchimalli, and Konti south- eastern temples and to be nearly contemporary with the Sulebhavi gatehouse (pratol) and the Badami Jambulifiga Temple. It would thus pre- cede the two large temples at Pattadakal-the Viropaksa and Mallikarjuna temples, which date to 733/4-744/5.34 We can plausibly assign its date of construction to ca. 700, which would make it contemporaneous with the Kodavelli Safigame'vara Temple.35




Notes

1. The temple's relocation was necessitated by the construction of the Srisailam Hydroelectric Dam, which flooded the area. For "before" photographs, see Odile Divakaran, "Les Temples d'Alampur et de ses environs au temps des Calukya de Badami," Arts Asiatiques 24 (1971), figs. 52- 62. See also the report in Archaeological Survey of India: Indian Archaeology 1978-9-A Review, ed. B. K. Thapar (New Delhi, 1981), p. 118 and pl. 59b; R. Sengupta, "Sav- ing Sangameshwara from Srisailam Waters," Indian and Foreign Review 16, no. 19 (15 July 1979), pp. 15-18.

2. As reported in Thapar, Indian Archaeology 1978-9-A Review, p. 118.

3. C. Radcliffe, "Early Chalukya Sculpture" (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1981), figs. 891 and 897.

4. For example, the Chikki Temple at Aihole; see Divakaran, op. cit., fig. 5.

5. Divakaran suggests the possibility of Buddhist influence on the figures I refer to as "Padmapani-like" (ibid., p. 72).

6. M. Abdul Waheed Khan, Stone Sculptures in the Alampar Museum, Andhra Pradesh Government Archaeological Series no. 39 (Hyderabad, 1973), fig. 20.

7. Divakaran, op. cit., fig. 57.

8. Abdul Waheed Khan, Stone Sculptures, fig. 21. There is no excess of figures dislodged for the number of vacant niches, but there are doubles of particular marti, including Andhakasuravadha, Lakulita, and the uttanapad goddess (figs. 52 and 53) which were removed from the Kadavelli Safigameivara Temple. I know of no records of original find-spots.

9. The badly damaged Durga Temple panel is of interest be- cause its complex composition marks it as an environ- mentally set figure, similar in this regard to the Ambika now in the Aihole Museum, which not only is set in a diorama full of detail, but is modeled with exception- ally involved planes of depth when considered within the genre of Chalukya-period sculpture. See Radcliffe, "Early Chalukya Sculpture," fig. 220.

10. Aschwin Lippe, "Additions and Replacements in Early Calukya Temples," Archives ofAsian Art 23 (1969-70), p. 17.

11. This victory is recorded on the face of a boulder at Badami (near the museum); see J. F. Fleet, "Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions," Indian Antiquary 9 (1880), pp. 99-100.

12. Although the names of some Chalukya guilds are recorded we know little about their working methods. It seems that there were two methods of carving images for placement on Chalukya temples. The Durga Temple's images were carved on separate stone slabs and set into the niches with a mortise and tenon joint at the bottom. On

many other temples the images apparently were carved out of the temple's masonry blocks and were worked in situ, as on Pattadakal's Sanlgamesvara Temple. The Durga Temple may have been provided with eleven major niches, perhaps never filled. Individual patrons may have sponsored the carving and placement of images set in the niches. Such images may have been purchased from artists of the local workshop. Alternatively, all of them may have been filled, with five slabs now lost. On temples where the carving was done directly on the wall, the images are often unfinished, perhaps suggesting a waning interest on the part of patrons.

13. For illustrations of these images see R. S. Gupte, The Art and Architecture of Aihole (Bombay, 1967), figs. 117, 120, and 123.

14. Illustrated by Aschwin Lippe, Indian Mediaeval Sculpture (Amsterdam, N.Y., and Oxford, 1978), pl. 127. I believe the Mahakata Safigamevara Temple dates to ca. 660-75.

15. For the Lad Khan mithunas see Gupte, Art and Architecture of Aihole, fig. 66; cf. Pattadakal mithunas illustrated in Lippe, Indian Mediaeval Sculpture, pl. 133.

16. Divakaran, op. cit., p. 72, notes that the modeling, pose, and ornaments of the Kodavelli Nataraja in particular prefigure the style of images on the Durga Temple.

17. The image was moved to the museum after being found loose inside the Huchchimalli Temple. There is no place within that temple in which it could have been installed.

18. The Nataraja figures introduced into porticos of the Alampur temples, such as the Svarga Brahma (Divakaran, op. cit., fig. 22), have a similar abundance of arms but were carved differently, apparently with separate arms that are now lost, but also with less sensitive modeling. The chests are quite flat and less full of life, and the torsos are leaner.

19. Archaeological Survey of India: Indian Archaeology 1967-8 -A Review, ed. B. B. Lal and K. V. Soundara Rajan (New Delhi, 1968), p. 82.

20. Divakaran, op. cit., p. 71.

21. The style and quality of decorative carving on the pillars in the mandapa suggest that this was also locally done.

22. C. R. Bolon, "Reconstructing Galaganatha," Sri Sivarama- murti Commemorative Volume, ed. M. S. Nagaraja Rao (forthcoming).

23. My reasons for believing this to be true are based on the evidence of inscriptions and sculpture: see Radcliffe, "Early Chalukya Sculpture," pp. 26-28, 282-83.

24. C. Sivaramamurti, "Some Recent Sculptural Acquisitions in the National Museum," Lalit Kala 1 (1955), pp. 113-20, pl. 35, figs. 1-2; and Heinrich Zimmer, The Art ofl Indian Asia (Princeton, 1955), pl. 118-19.

25. The brackets are visible in Gupte, Art and Architecture of Aihole, figs. 32 and 39.



THE DURGA TEMPLE 53

26. S. V. Padigar identifies the temple as dedicated to Aditya in "The Durga Temple at Aihole: An Aditya Temple," Archaeological Studies (Karnatak University, Dharwar) 2 (1977), pp. 59-64.

27. J. F. Fleet, "Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions," Indian Antiquary 8 (1879), pp. 284-850.

28. R. S. Panchamukhi, Karnatak Inscriptions (1941), pp. 2- 4; see also Odile Divakaran, "Le Temple de Jambulifiga A Badami," Ars Asiatiques 21 (1970), pp. 15-39.

29. Divakaran, "Le Temple de Jambulifiga," figs. 16-22.

30. The idiom within Chalukya-period sculpture changed rapidly. It is not unusual to find similar or identical images or details on figures in two or three different temples: for example, the uttanapad goddesses from the Mahakiata, Naganatha, and Bala Brahma temples; or the identical but smaller Ardhanarrivara found on the Mahakuta, Mallikarjuna, Mahakotevara, and Aihole Lad Khan temples. Such similarities allow us to group temples within relatively short periods.

31. The grant was dated with reference to an eclipse that could have occurred in 618, 619, 635, 636, or 637. N. Ramesan, Copper Plate Inscriptions in the Andhra Pradesh Government Museum (Hyderabad, 1962), pp. 40- 45.

32. Ibid., p. 43.

33. B. R. Prasad dated the Kodavelli temple to the time of King Vinayaditya (681-96) in "Temples of the Latina Form at Alampur," Journal of the Indian Society of Oriental Art, n.s., vol. 5, no. 2 (1972-73), p. 97, but later favored a date in Vikramaditya's reign (654-81) (Art of South India, Andhra Pradesh [Delhi, 1980], p. 97); Divakaran dated it to the mid-seventh century ("Les temples d'Alampur," p. 73).

34. J. F. Fleet, "Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions," Indian Antiquary 10 (1881), pp. 168-69.

35. George Michell summarizes the dating of the Durga Temple in Early Western Calukya Temples (London, 1975), p. 44, n. 57.




FIG. 1. Safigameivara Temple, Kudavelli, as it appeared in 1977, before clearing by the Archaeological Survey of India.

FIG. 2. Safigameivara Temple, Ktidavelli, as it appeared in 1978.

FIG. 3. Durga Temple, Aihole.



THE DURGA TEMPLE 55

FIG. 4. Safigamesvara Temple, Kadavelli; temple and enclosing wall.

FIG. 5. Safngamesvara Temple, Kudavelli; enclosing wall, elephant.

FIGc. 6. Sanlgameivara Temple, Kudavelli; enclosing wall, Varaha.




FIG. 7. Viiva Brahma Temple, Alampur; dentils beneath niche, Varaha.

FIG. 8. Safigameivara Temple, Kodavelli; male figure.

FIG. 9. Sanfgamegvara Temple, Kaodavelli; Lakulita (?).



c3 tl

ni

r-

-,

FIG. 10. Sanfgamevara Temple, K.davelli;

nidhi. FIG. 11. Safigamesvara Temple, Kodavelli; male image, loose.



00

C)

0

~r

tTI

OT

0

z

FIG. 13. Durga Temple, Aihole; Surya with Chaya. FIG. 12. Cave Temple 2, Badami; dvarapala.



THE DURGA TEMPLE 59

I So~~~~~~~~~~ IX~~~~~~~~~~~~F

Cd

a.~~~ g~

,U2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ·:·

~-~,~FP~~,~ ~4( -~, ui: ~'""

:77~U

- g~, _ · - b

UcC Z

IS

CZ

~~d·l~i~ '~ i

~~''~~i

'6`crJ~~~=



CAROL RADCLIFFE BOLON 60

Cd

,J

'o

64 43

<

E

CI to

r~

.

^3



34 H

t::

ni rTi

FIG. 19. Safigamesvara Temple, Kudavelli; Nataraja. FIG. 18. Durga Temple, Aihole; Narasirhha.



CAROL RADCLIFFE BOLON

FIG. 20. Aihole, Museum, Nataraja.

FIG. 21. Cave Temple 1, Badami; Nataraja.

62



THE DURGA TEMPLE

FIG. 22. Sangamesvara Temple, Kudavelli; pierced window.

FIG. 23. Vijayesvara Temple, Pattadakal; pierced window.

FIG. 25. Safigame§vara Temple, Kudavelli; lintel kinnaras.

FIG. 24. Sangamesvara Temple, Kudavelli; Yamuna.

63



CAROL RADCLIFFE BOLON

FIG. 26. Durga Temple, Aihole; makara torana.

FIG. 27. Durga Temple, Aihole; nagaraja ceiling panel.

FIG. 28. Huchchimalli temple, Aihole; Tarakari Subrahmanya ceiling panel.

64



the durga temple, aihole, and the saṅgameśvara temple, kūḐavelli: a sculptural review

Documents