The Curious Case of Galaganatha Dolmen: Possible Links ...

The Curious Case of the Galaganatha Dolmen: Possible Links between Megalithic Monuments and Early Temples at Aihole

Srikumar M. Menon1 1. Faculty of Architecture, Manipal University, Manipal – 576104, Karnataka (Email: [email protected])

Received: 17 August 2014; Accepted: 02 September 2014; Revised: 08 September 2014 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2 (2014): 54‐73

Abstract: Aihole is known for its temples and temple complexes built by the Early Chalukyas. The megalithic monuments onMeguti Hill, south of the Jain temple are well known, too. In this paper, we study a unique dolmen located among the temples of the Galaganatha group and make a case that this protohistoric monument was modified by the temple builders. We also explore the possibility that many of the early temples were memorial, or even sepulchral, in purpose. The Galaganatha group of temples, as well as the Ramalingeshwara group to the south of it, occupies the northern portion of a ridge that runs nearly parallel to, and west of Meguti Hill. In a clear similarity to Meguti Hill, the portion of the ridge to the south of these temple‐groups is strewn with megaliths. We argue that the early sacred landscape of the Aihole region was memorial, maybe even sepulchral in nature.

Keywords: Aihole, Badami Chalukyas, Galaganatha Group of Temples, Megaliths, Dolmens, Cairns, Early Temples

Introduction Aihole is a village on the right bank of the Malaprabha River in Hungund Taluk of Bagalkot District in Karnataka. Aihole is well known as a centre of temple architecture under the Western Chalukyas (also known as the BadamiChalukyas) who ruled from Badami during sixth to eighth centuries AD, though temple‐building activity continued here until the eleventh‐twelfth centuries AD under the Chalukyas of Kalyan. Aihole, along with Pattadakal and Badami, situated along a 25‐km stretch of the Malaprabha River is considered as a crucible of early temple architecture – with monuments ranging from the cave temples of Aihole and Badami to the numerous structural temples that dot these three sites and several other locations in the valley.

There is evidence for earlier architecture too, in this region. Megalithic monuments have been observed on Meguti Hill in Aihole and at Bachinagudda near Pattadakal (Sundara 1975: 31). Prehistoric rock shelters and rock art at several locations in the

Menon 2014: 54‐73

55

valley, like Sidilephadi, RanganathaGudda and Kutukanakeri near Badami, point to a very early date of occupation, from the Palaeolithic (Michell 2011: 68‐69).

The Megaliths of Meguti Hill at Aihole Meguti Hill is situated in the southern part of the settlement at Aihole and is well known for the Jain Temple (Figure 1) with an inscription attributed to Ravikirti – a court poet during the reign of the Chalukyan ruler Polekeshi II and dated to AD 634. On the flat top of the sandstone hillock between the Meguti Temple in the north and a rock‐cut Jaina cave in the south are about forty port‐holed dolmens in various stages of repair (Sundara 1975:31). Kadambi (2011: 122) reports 80 standing or collapsed dolmens. This discrepancy in numbers is accounted by the fact that dolmens with four (vertical) orthostats covered by a (horizontal) capstone slab are distinguished by Sundara from simpler monuments he calls “Irregular Polygonal Chambers” (henceforth IPC’s), which are rough slabs raised on small boulders and packed on all sides with rubble to make a chamber; while Kadambi does not make this distinction. IPC’s are much lower than dolmens – the lower surface of the capstone of a typical IPC is usuallymerely20‐50cm above the ground whereas the lower surface of a capstone of a dolmen may be raised by as much as 75‐120cm above the ground (Figures 2, 3). The Meguti hill top is also strewn with the rubble and large stone blocks, presumably packing from the collapsed dolmens as well as raw material for megalith‐building.

Figure 1: The Meguti Jain Temple at Aihole

There has been a lot of speculation involving the proximity of the megaliths and the Jain temple. The megaliths, attributed to the Iron Age, pre‐date the temple, though admittedly not all researchers agree with this view and deem it possible that the megaliths and the temple could be contemporaneous (Korisettar, pers. comm.). Cousens

ISSN 2347 – 5463 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 2: 2014

56

(1926: 138) surmised that “Since they stand upon the rock it is not likely they were put up as sepulchral cells: it is more likely they were erected as huts to live in, and, perhaps, by the stone workers engaged upon the building of Meguti.”However, today it is generally agreed upon that megaliths like dolmens and IPC’s are associated with sepulchral/commemorative activities (Sundara 1975; Moorti 1994; Morrison 2009; Kadambi 2011; Menon 2012), i.e., either holding the mortal remains of dead persons or commemorating the dead.

Figure 2: An Irregular Polygonal Chamber (IPC) – a type of megalith south of the

Meguti Temple

Figure 3: A dolmen on Meguti Hill (the Meguti Jain Temple is seen in the backdrop)

Menon 2014: 54‐73

57

Morrison (2009: 65) opines that “While the co‐occurrence of this early shrine and the megalithic complex may be simple coincidence, this seems unlikely given their probable temporal proximity as well as the excellent visibility of the Aihole megaliths which are built on a large, level, vegetation‐free terrace covered with sheetrock.” Since it is inconceivable that the builders of the temple would not have noticed the megaliths, which are both numerous and prominent, the fact that they left them undisturbed despite so much construction activity in the neighbourhood suggests that the megaliths held cultural significance for them.

The Galaganatha Dolmen Another megalith in Aihole which has been reported very early on is the “dolmen” in the Galaganatha temple complex. The Galaganatha temple complex is a cluster of sixteen temples of varying forms and sizes situated on a hillock on the eastern bank of the Malaprabha River (Soundararajan 2009: 36‐37), about a kilometre to the west of Meguti hill. In the northern part of this cluster are two shrines with Dravidavimanas. To the north, behind one of these is the dolmen of the Galaganatha complex (Figure 4).

Figure 4: The Galaganatha “dolmen”, with one of the temples of the Galaganatha

group in the background

Cousens (1926: 138‐139) describes the megalithic dolmen at the Galaganatha complex thus: “A single dolmen stands close beside the temple of Galaganatha at Aihole, but in this case, it is not a closed‐in cell, for the great top slab rests upon rough pillar‐like


58

stones, which leave the sides open all around. It stands upon rocky soil, and has no particular frontage. It could hardly have been intended for burial puposes, else more of them would have been found.” He goes on to say that “…the largest dolmen met with in these districts is one which stands in the village of Motebennur. It is of the same type as near the temple of Galaganatha at Aihole. Four roughly‐hewn uprights, standing about eight feet out of the ground, support a great flat horizontal slab, seventeen and a half feet long by four feet broad. There are two other uprights, whose tops have fallen away from the support of the slab” (Cousens 1926: 139).

In a discussion of “peculiar megalithic monuments in Karnataka and outside”, Sundara (1975: 167) does not mention the Galaganatha dolmen, but says of the Motebennur megalith that “In view of its size and type as can be surmised from the present state of its preservation, it does not come under any of the megalithic tomb types and thus is very peculiar. Whether it is really a sepulchral dolmen or ritualistic altar requires to be examined.”

It is clear from the above accounts that the alleged dolmen in the Galaganatha Temple complex is of a unique type with only the Motebennur megalith showing similar characteristics – of a horizontal slab supported by six pillar‐like uprights.

In the course of this investigation, the Galaganatha dolmen and its neighbourhood were visited several times during 2012‐2014 (See Figure 5). The horizontal capstone is a large, irregular sand stone slab measuring approximately 3.5m x 2.4m and its thickness varies from 15 – 30cm. It is raised to a height of 1.2m above the ground on six roughly hewn pillar‐like blocks of sandstone of varying size. The long axis of the capstone is

Figure 5: A close up of the Galaganatha “dolmen” showing six uprights that hold up the large capstone. Clearly visible on the far left upright are a series of chisel marks.

Menon 2014: 54‐73

59

oriented east‐west (azimuth 278o). The uprights vary in size from 28cm x 23cm in cross section to 60cm x 28cm and three each support the shorter sides of the capstone. The two rows of three uprights each are spaced roughly 2.2m apart and the spacing between adjacent uprights in a row varies from 32cm to 53cm. All the uprights except the middle one in the eastern row have chisel marks on at least one of their edges where they were separated from the parent rock. The chisel marks are oval shaped and measure 7.5cm wide and 7.5‐10cm deep. They closely resemble the chisel marks employed by the Early Chalukyan builders in their quarries to extract stone. We will refer to this point later.

The Megaliths of the Ramalingeshwara Hill South‐west of the Galaganatha group of temples, on slightly higher ground of the same hillock, is the Ramalingeshwara group of temples (Figure 6). To the south and north of these temples a few megaliths have been identified. Kadambi (2011: 122‐125) discusses two cairns, one of which has what looks like three hero stones embedded in it (Figure 7) and one passage chamber burial again associated with a cairn (Figure 8). He also describes two “dolmens” – north and south of the Ramalingeshwara group (Figures 9, 10, 15). Upon inspection, both these dolmens appear to fit the IPC designation better – both being rough horizontal slabs raised on boulders.

Figure 6: The temples of the Ramalingeshwara group, seen from the south

During the fieldwork undertaken for this study, it was observed that the hilltop behind (south of) these two temple clusters is littered with a large number of megaliths – a fact which has not been reported before. Most of the megaliths are IPC’s or their remnants


60

(Figure 11) similar to that of Meguti Hill, but there are also a large number of cairns, many of them overgrown with vegetation (Figures 12, 13), stretching all the way to the southern extreme of the hill, close to the road connecting Pattadakal with Aihole. There is also a small west‐facing shrine (Figure 14) overlooking the Malaprabha River very close to the IPC that is north of the Ramalingeshwara temple group. There are also three pillared pavilions of different sizes in this area, which look like unfinished structures.

Figure 7: A cairn with hero stone in the foreground with the temples of the Ramalingeshwara group in the background. The square block of the modern

building housing the temple car is clearly visible.

Menon 2014: 54‐73

61

Figure 8: A chamber tomb embedded in a cairn south of the Ramalingeshwara group

of temples

Figure 9: An IPC north of the Ramalingeshwara group, with a west‐facing shrine in

the background


62

Figure 10: An IPC south of the Ramalingeshwara group

Figure 11: IPC’s in the foreground on Ramalingeshwara Hill, with some temples of

the Galaganatha group in the background

Menon 2014: 54‐73

63

Figure 12: A cairn south of the Ramalingeshwara group

Figure 13: Another cairn, on which a termite‐hill has grown, south of the

Ramalingeshwara group


64

Figure 14: A close up view of the west‐facing shrine shown in Figure 9

Figure 15: Another view of the IPC shown in Figure 10. It can be seen that the capstone has been pried loose of the bedrock and raised on boulders in nearly the

same position.

Menon 2014: 54‐73

65

The IPC south of the Ramalingeshwara group (16o 00’ 22.8”N, 75o 52’ 58.0”E), which has been described as a dolmen by Kadambi (2011), has a capstone that looks very similar to that of the Galaganatha dolmen. It is an irregular slab, approximately 3.3m x 2.0m, with a thickness that varies from 15cm to 33cm, raised on small boulders to a height that varies from 35cm to 50cm. It is evidently a slab that has been pried loose from the bedrock and raised in the same location (Figures 9, 14). The long axis of the slab is oriented roughly east‐west (azimuth 298o).

Discussion The hilltop south of the Meguti Temple has a large number of megaliths scattered around on it (in an area roughly 180m x 550m), though there are none inside the walled premises of the temple itself. The temples of the Ramalingeshwara and Galaganatha groups seem to have been placed in what is an extensive field of megaliths and other funerary/commemorative monuments, judging by the distribution of megaliths south of, and among the temples.

The presence of a megalith of unique form within the premises of the Galaganatha group is interesting. Judging by the close similarity of the capstone of this megalith to the IPC south of the Ramalingeshwara temple group, it is quite likely that both of these were IPC’s of similar type, existing in a group that was scattered all over the area currently covering the Galaganatha and Ramalingeshwara groups as well as the existing megaliths, roughly an area over 1km long and 250m wide.

An interesting observation addresses the uprights on which the capstone of the Galaganatha dolmen is raised. Five out of six of them sport chisel marks (Figure 5). None of the stones of any of the Aihole megaliths have chisel marks on them. In fact, on the whole, megalithic construction throughout the range of its occurrence in peninsular India does not contain stones with chisel marks (except in the case of a few where the chisel marks were made in later periods by vandals to break some of the large slabs), because other methods, like firing, were probably employed to extract the stones.

One of the exciting archaeological finds of recent times in this region is of two quarries used by the architects of the Pattadakal temples during the Early Chalukyan period at Shankaralingana Gundu (15o 58’ 33”N, 75o 48’ 42”E) and Motara Maradi (15o 58’ 12”N 75o 48’ 12”E) by Venkateshiah and his colleagues (Singh 2009: 631). These sites contain engravings of deities and other figures, inscriptions and quarried blocks of stone for construction as well as waste blocks. In this study, these quarries were visited and the chisel marks of the masons, of which there are plenty of examples, were studied. It is interesting to note that the Early Chalukyan stonemasons used wedge‐holes of lenticular shape (Figures 16, 17), compared with the rectangular ones employed in later times, to split stone by hammering wedges into it (Figures 18, 19). It is possible to identify these characteristic chisel marks of the Early Chalukyans at other sites of their enterprise, too, like Badami, Mahakuta, Pattadakal, Huligyemmanna Kolla and Aihole.


66

Figure 16: Lenticular‐shaped wedge‐holes or chisel marks of the Early Chalukyans in

the quarry at ShankaralinganaGundu

The chisel marks observed on the uprights of the Galaganatha dolmen match the chisel marks of the Early Chalukyans at the quarries in both size and shape. It is evident that the capstone of an earlier extant IPC was raised by the Early Chalukyan temple‐builders during the phase of temple construction. The purpose of this is unclear.

Another possibility that comes to mind is the possible sepulchral/commemorative nature of the temples themselves. Mate and Gokhale (1971), raising the point that the numerous temples of Aihole are mostly distributed in clusters, generally with one or two large temples and surrounded by several smaller shrines, speculate that these might be memorial in nature. In general, memorial temples are not unknown in India, with Mate and Gokhale quoting the example of the Chhatris of Malwa and Rajasthan. Pallipadai, or funerary temples of the Cholas, are also well‐documented (Chakravarthy 2011). An inscription from the times of Chandragupta II of Mathura, dated AD380, describes the setting up of Sivalingas called Kapilesvara and Upamitesvara in memory of two departed Saiva gurus (Mate and Gokhale 1971; Willis 2009).

In the immediate vicinity of Aihole, too, the practice of erecting funerary temples is not unheard of. At HuligyemmannaKolla (15o 58’ 20”N, 75o 46’ 32”E) – an isolated rock shelter site near Pattadakal, that also has ten Early Chalukyan temples scattered in the neighbourhood, there is an inscription on one of the temple walls that has been interpreted to mean that it is a funerary temple for Vikramaditya II – the penultimate ruler of the BadamiChalukyas (Ramesh 1984) (Figure 20). Though not everyone agrees

Figure 17: Chisel marks on a block of stone split by Early Chalukyan stone workers

using their trademark wedge‐holes


68

Figure 18: A study in contrast between the lenticular wedge‐holes of the Early Chalukyan stone workers (upper left) and the rectangular wedge‐holes of modern stone workers (lower right, on freshly cut surface) illegally quarrying the site at

Shankaralingana Gundu

Figure 19: A close up of the rectangular wedge‐holes used by modern stone workers

to split stone

Menon 2014: 54‐73

69

Figure 20: The temple at Huligyemmanna Kolla bearing the inscription referring to the funerary casket of Vikramaditya II. The inscription is to the right of the

dwarapala at the left of the picture.

with this interpretation (Mohite 2012), and though the interpretation of the site as the locale of an ambush in which the ruler lost his life along with his two wives and


70

retinue seems rather far‐fetched, there is a distinct possibility that this site is associated with death, further strengthened by the presence of a hero stone a few metres to the north of the temple with the inscription (Figure 21).

Figure 21: The hero stone at HuligyemmannaKolla (right) with the temple shown

with the temple shown in Figure 20 in the distance

Menon 2014: 54‐73

71

Hence it is quite likely that the sites at Meguti Hill and Ramalingeshwara Hill continued to fulfil the roles they played as commemorative spaces in the proto‐historic megalith‐building phase even into the phase of temple building. The reuse of sepulchral megalithic sites for similar purpose in modern times is known elsewhere, too. At Byse in southern Karnataka, the southern portion of a megalithic site containing menhirs and cairn burials was used for two sepulchres with hero stones which apparently belong to the Keladi Nayakas, who ruled the region during AD1499‐1763 (Menon 2012).

Figure 22: A collapsed passage grave megalith on Meguti Hill

Other discussions of later monuments occupying megalithic sites have concentrated on a view that favoured takeover of these proto‐historic sepulchral sites by later religious groups (Schopen 2010: 361‐381), ostensibly to strengthen their “legitimacy” by associating with the proto‐historic dead and the sacred memorial spaces they occupied. While this could be true, it is also possible that stupas, temples and other religious structures could have also evolved from earlier “rude stone monuments” (as megaliths were once called), along with the evolution of stone‐working skills. These possibilities should be investigated at every site where there is spatial as well as temporal overlap of megalithic monuments and later religious monuments.

In the case of the Aihole region, the landscape is imbued with monuments of a

sepulchral/commemorative nature. Ramesh (1984: 45) proposes that the Ravulaphadi Cave is a royal commemorative monument. Radcliffe (1981) ascribes a dolmen‐like character for both Ravulaphadi as well as the Jain rock‐cut temple (Mena Basadi) in the southern face of Meguti Hill. This aspect is accentuated by the observation of several IPC like structures on the rock just above the Ravulaphadi cave, though it is difficult to tell if these are natural or artificially enhanced. At Bachinagudda, near Pattadakal, too there are two south‐facing megaliths north of the Bachinagudda Hill. Sundara (2008: 14) feels that these two are but the remnants of an extensive site with many such monuments. There is a shrine on the eastern shoulder of Bachinagudda Hill, some 500m south of the megalith close to the road, which is ascribed to the Rashtrakuta period (Sundara 2008: 13). The location of the shrine in close proximity to the sepulchral site lends credence to the view that it could be of sepulchral/ commemorative nature. The several single‐celled subsidiary shrines of the Pattadakal complex could also be of similar nature (Mate and Gokhale 1971).

The simplest memorial shrines such as those at Huligyemmanna Kolla consist of a squarish garbhagriha containing the idol, usually a linga, and a pillared porch preceding it. This is quite similar to the simple shrine near a megalith shown in Figures 9 and 14. It is tempting to equate this form with that of megaliths like passage graves consisting of a square or rectangular chamber with a port‐hole in one of the orthostats flanked by two upright stones that constitute a passage (Figure 22). It would be very interesting to investigate whether at least some temples are an evolutionary product of the earlier class of monuments represented by megalithic architecture.

Conclusion It can safely be concluded that an existing megalithic monument was modified by Early Chalukyan temple builders at the Galaganatha temple complex at Aihole. Its unique form that stands out from other south Indian megaliths, close proximity to an IPC that has a similar capstone and the tell‐tale chisel marks on the uprights that raise its capstone all support this hypothesis. The location of so many temples of the Galaganatha and Ramalingeshwara group among an extensive megalithic field including the Galaganatha dolmen raises the question whether the smaller shrines, if not all of them, were sepulchral or commemorative in nature. This possibility should be investigated at this and other sites to address the very important question of whether a link, or continuity, exists between pre‐ and proto‐historic monumental architecture and early temples of various religious groups.

Acknowledgements This work is part of research undertaken on “Ancient Landscapes in South India” as a Homi Bhabha Fellow (2012‐2014) and the author wishes to gratefully acknowledge the HomiBhabha Fellowships Council for support. The author is also indebted to encouragement received from Prof. S. M. Chitre, Prof. Mayank N. Vahia, Prof. A. P. Jamkhedkar and Prof. A. Sundara, and also for the stimulating discussions with all of them.

Menon 2014: 54‐73

73

References Cousens, H. 1926. TheChalukyan Architecture of the Kanarese Districts. Calcutta, Central

Publication Branch, Government of India. Kadambi, H. 2011. Sacred Landscapes in Early Medieval South India: the Chalukya State and

Society (ca. AD 550‐750). PhD. Thesis, University of Michigan. KorisettarPeronal.Communication. Mate, M. S. and Gokhale, S. 1971. Aihole: An Interpretation.In RITTI, S. and Gopal, B. R.

(eds.) Studies in Indian History and Culture.Dharwar,B. R. Publishing Corporation.

Menon, S. M. 2012. Cosmic Considerations in Megalithic Architecture: An Investigation into Possible Astronomical Intent in the Design and Layout of Megalithic Monuments of the Indian Subcontinent with a View to Understanding Megalithic Knowledge Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Manipal University.

Michell, G. 2011. Badami, Aihole, Pattadakal. Mumbai, Pictor Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Mohite, M. 2012. Early Chalukya Art at Mahakuta. Delhi, B. R. Publishing Corporation. Moorti, U. S. 1994. Megalithic Culture of South India: Socio‐economic Perspectives. Varanasi.

Ganga Kaveri Publishing House. Morrison, K. 2009. Daroji Valley: Landscape History, Place, and the Making of a Dryland

Reservoir System. New Delhi, Manohar Publishers and Distributors. Radcliffe, C. E. 1981. Early Chalukya Sculpture. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Fine Arts,

New York University. Ramesh, K. V. 1984. Chalukyas of Vatapi. Delhi, Agam Kala Prakashan. Schopen, G. 2010. Immigrant Monks and the Protohistorical Dead: The Buddhist Occupation

of Early Burial Sites in India. InIndian Monastic Buddhism: Collected Papers on Textual, Inscriptional and Archaeological Evidence. Delhi, MotilalBanarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

Singh, U. 2009. A History of Ancient and Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Delhi, Pearson.

Sundara, A. 1975. The Early Chamber Tombs of South India: A Study of the Iron Age Megalithic Monuments of North Karnataka. Delhi, University Publishers (India).

Sundara, A. 2008. Pattadakal (World Heritage Series). New Delhi, Archaeological Survey of India.

Willis, M. 2009. The Archaeology of Hindu Ritual: Temples and the Establishment of the Gods. New Delhi, Cambridge University Press.

The Curious Case of Galaganatha Dolmen: Possible Links ...

Documents

Transcript of The Curious Case of Galaganatha Dolmen: Possible Links ...