DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9541#0403
Chap. III.
CONCLUSION.
379
nor corridors, like those of Ramisseram ; but several have gopuraa
quite equal to or exceeding those mentioned above, and many have
mantapas of great beauty and extent. Several—such as Avadea
Covill, Veeringepuram, Taramungulam, and others—possess features
unsurpassed by any in the south, especially the first-named, which
may, perhaps, be considered as one of the most elegant of its class,
as well as one of the oldest. It would, however, be only tedious to
attempt to describe them without plans to refer to, or more extensive
illustrations than are compatible with a work of this class. They
are, however, worthy of more attention than has been paid to them,
and of more complete illustration than has hitherto been bestowed
upon them. Taken altogether, they certainly do form as extensive,
and in some respects as remarkable, a group of buildings as are
to be found in provinces of similar extent in any part of the
world—Egypt, perhaps, alone excepted ; but they equal even the
Egyptian in extent, and though at first sight so different, in some
respects present similarities which are startling. Without attempting
to enumerate the whole, it may be mentioned that the gopuras,
both in form and purpose, resemble the pylons of the Egyptian
temples. The courts with pillars and cloisters are common to both,
and very similar in arrangement and extent. The great mantapas
and halls of 1000 columns reproduce the hypostyle halls, both in
purpose and effect, with almost minute accuracy. The absence of any
central tower or vimana over the sanctuary is universal in Egypt,
and only conspicuously violated in one instance in India. Their mode
of aggregation, and the amount of labour bestowed upon them for
labour's sake, is only too characteristic of both styles. There are,
besides, many similarities that will occur to any one familiar with
both styles.
Is all this accidental ? It seems strange that so many coincidences
should be fortuitous, but, so far as history affords us any information,
or as any direct communication can be traced, we must for the present
answer that it is so. The interval of time is so great, and the mode in
which wre fancy we can trace the native growth of most of the features
in India seem to negative the idea of an importation; but there
certainly was intercourse between Egypt and India in remote ages,
and seed ma)- then have been sown which fructified long afterwards.
If we were to trust, however, to either tradition or to mytho-
logical or ethnological coincidences, it is rather to Babylonia than
to Egypt that we should look for the incunabula of what are found
in southern India. But here the architectural argument is far from
having the same distinctness; and, in fact, whichever way we turn, we
are forced to confess that these problems are not yet ripe for solution,
though enough is known to encourage the hope that the time is not
distant when materials will be gathered that will make all clear.
CONCLUSION.
379
nor corridors, like those of Ramisseram ; but several have gopuraa
quite equal to or exceeding those mentioned above, and many have
mantapas of great beauty and extent. Several—such as Avadea
Covill, Veeringepuram, Taramungulam, and others—possess features
unsurpassed by any in the south, especially the first-named, which
may, perhaps, be considered as one of the most elegant of its class,
as well as one of the oldest. It would, however, be only tedious to
attempt to describe them without plans to refer to, or more extensive
illustrations than are compatible with a work of this class. They
are, however, worthy of more attention than has been paid to them,
and of more complete illustration than has hitherto been bestowed
upon them. Taken altogether, they certainly do form as extensive,
and in some respects as remarkable, a group of buildings as are
to be found in provinces of similar extent in any part of the
world—Egypt, perhaps, alone excepted ; but they equal even the
Egyptian in extent, and though at first sight so different, in some
respects present similarities which are startling. Without attempting
to enumerate the whole, it may be mentioned that the gopuras,
both in form and purpose, resemble the pylons of the Egyptian
temples. The courts with pillars and cloisters are common to both,
and very similar in arrangement and extent. The great mantapas
and halls of 1000 columns reproduce the hypostyle halls, both in
purpose and effect, with almost minute accuracy. The absence of any
central tower or vimana over the sanctuary is universal in Egypt,
and only conspicuously violated in one instance in India. Their mode
of aggregation, and the amount of labour bestowed upon them for
labour's sake, is only too characteristic of both styles. There are,
besides, many similarities that will occur to any one familiar with
both styles.
Is all this accidental ? It seems strange that so many coincidences
should be fortuitous, but, so far as history affords us any information,
or as any direct communication can be traced, we must for the present
answer that it is so. The interval of time is so great, and the mode in
which wre fancy we can trace the native growth of most of the features
in India seem to negative the idea of an importation; but there
certainly was intercourse between Egypt and India in remote ages,
and seed ma)- then have been sown which fructified long afterwards.
If we were to trust, however, to either tradition or to mytho-
logical or ethnological coincidences, it is rather to Babylonia than
to Egypt that we should look for the incunabula of what are found
in southern India. But here the architectural argument is far from
having the same distinctness; and, in fact, whichever way we turn, we
are forced to confess that these problems are not yet ripe for solution,
though enough is known to encourage the hope that the time is not
distant when materials will be gathered that will make all clear.