07-22-2010, 01:13 AM
Some lost styles or schools of Indian architecture. This is based upon treatises like the Samarangana Sutradhara, Aparajitaprccha, Shilparatna, etc.
Indian architecture involves Vastu (architecture), Shilpa (sculpture and Chitra (painting). The Sthapati was not only an architect-mason, but also an engineer and townplanner. Around him were several guilds or Shrenis of other Sthapatis, Sutragrahins, Takshakas and Vardhakis.
Vastushastra is more than only temple architecture. It involves:
1. city, town, village and fort architecture (suburbs were called Shakha-nagara)
2. civil and public art and architecture (Veshma and Sabha)
3. palace art and architecture (Rajaveshma: rich and with royals had their NivAsa = residence and VilAsa = pleasure mansions)
4. temple art and architecture (Prasada)
And each had its distinct and overlapping and also regional styles. Where are those mansions, not only the varied temples, but also the palatial ones? How come that everything of the middle ages and later is Muslim or branded as such?
According to the Vastushastras till the rule of the Delhi Sultans, there were many schools and regional styles of architecture.
In temple architecture, we learn from the standard works that we have principally a Nagara, Dravida and a mixed style, called Vesara. But there were many more:
DrAviDa (Deccan and S.India), Latina (or LATa), VAvAta (or VArATa, Berar), SAndhAra, BhUmija, Mishra (mixed), ValabhI (Gujarat), Napumsaka, SimhAvalokana, DAruja, NAgara (N.Indian). There is also a VairATa style (Alwar) of temple construction.
The principle Palace architecture styles from a selected point of view (eastern, central and southern India, probably referring to the more traditional or orthodox styles) are: PAncAlI (doab), MAgadhI (S.Bihar), VAngI (Bengal), KAlingI(Orissa), ShaurasenI (Hindi speaking area, variants of Braj Bhasha) and DrAviDI (Deccan and south).
Both temples and palaces could have overlapping styles. The Panchayatana construction can be seen in Khajurahu, the palatial ones are Humayun's rauza and the Taj Mahal.
Mansions can have (n)one to many domes or Chhatris. In that case we have Ekaratna, Triratna and Pancaratna. Pancaratna was already recognized by Babur as a Hindustani style.
With reference to the dome styles, we have the following different styles: Kaurava (Haryana), PancAla (central doab), Vaideha (N.Bihar), MAgadha (S.Bihar), Kaushala (E.UP), KAlinga (Orissa), KAshya (Banaras), VArATa (Berar), Kaulaka (?), Shandila(close to Kannauj?)), Shaurasena (Mathura), GAndhAra NW), Avantika (Malwa), KAshmIra, GAngeya (Bengal?).
The domes, also called StUpikA (derived from the stupa shape), ShikhA and ANDa, must have contained also a bulbous shape.
Mandapas were of different shapes, square(caturashra), round (vrttanta), but also octagonal (ashtashra), etc. The same shapes for supporting pillars, pillars/towers in walls (bhitt-stambhas) and monolithic pillars/towers (dhvajastambhas and manastambhas, dipamanastambhas).
Temples did have a monolithic tower/pillar, but the Digambaras already had their Samava-Sharanas with a Manastambha at each direction, giving four monolithic towers or pillars in front of the sacred Hall. Bauddha temples, especially in Gandhara before the Guptas may have had 4 monolithic towers topped with lions surrounding the Hall too, but then positioned like the Taj Mahal towers. At least their sculpture does show this in two miniature models. See: Gandhara, 2nd century CE, has 4 lion-crowned Stambhas surrounding the Stupa on a platform. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...entury.jpg
An stylistical miniature example: Model of a stupa (Buddhist shrine), ca. 4th century, Pakistan, ancient region of Gandhara, Bronze; H. 22 3/4 in. (57.8 cm), W. 7 1/2 in. (19.1 cm). Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Donald J. Bruckmann, 1985 (1985.387ab) Source of description: Model of a stupa (Buddhist shrine) [Pakistan, ancient region of Gandhara] (1985.387ab) | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Material used, could be wood, bricks and stones. Marble (sphatika = originally crystall quartz) was also known, at least the stonecutters and mines from Gujarat and Rajasthan were very famous. For construction two techniques were also used, which were Sudhashila (sudha = plaster) and Vajralepa (adamantine glue coating). When both were combined it was also called Vajralepa.
White radiance of temples through plaster was called Sattvika, red radiance was Rajasika and black was Tamasika. There was a white temple dedicated to Surya, according to the Mandasor inscription of 473 C.E. with the phrase "the temple resembling a mountain shines white", in line 16. (Indian Antiquary, vol. xv, p. 196)
The Lakshmana temple in Khajurahu was also white plastered 'like the peaks of the mountains of snow'. (inscription of 1011 C.E.)
The Garbhamana system of measuring divides the sacred plot in nine divisions, called Ashtapada or Padashta. This is the real origin at least from Gupta times of the Hasht Bihisht concept in architecture, wrongly ascribed by some modern authors to Persians and as a concept used by Mughals, but this last word can be found nowhere in literature before Amir Khushro of India. And that too in a non-architecture use. Ashtapada in Garbhamana method denotes 8 Padas or squares surrounding a central one. Every Pada has its own Vasu and Vastupurusha. Every 8 major Pada, further divided, gives 32 minor Padas, represented by 32 Devatas; the central 9th major Pada, the Brahmasthana is represented by the 33th Devata.
One Mandapa using eight courts and 12 peristyle pillars (Barahkhambha or Barahdari) around a central Pada with 4 pillars is the Navaranga mansion. Perhaps the ancient Palace of Vasantasena as described in the Mrcchakatikam with 8 great courts and a garden is also arranged as a grand Ashtapada. But, I am not sure about this. Even though it is described in an ancient Sanskrit play, it must be based upon a real grand mansion complex of a wealthy person in Ujjain. An example of the old Malwa school of architecture.
Many types of laid-out gardens attached to mansions are described, collectively called KAnana.
Many types of Yantras are described, especially the ones supplying waters being used for the gardens, fountains, etc.
City planning included different shapes, like square (caturashra), rectangular (ayatana) like the Taj Mahal, round (vrttanta), semicircular or bow-shaped (Karmuka, like an Arddha-Chandra) like the Agra Red Fort and a citadel above the Delhi Red Fort, etc.
According to one authority, a metropolis (Nagara) could have a capital city (Rajadhani), with a secondary city (Pattana) attached to it, all with their suburbas (Shakha-Nagaras), including quarters for merchants/traders, artisans, soldiers, etc.
In short, Indian Vastu architecture is grossly misunderstood and one-sided described. And its value coupled to indigenous and Rajput architecture and creativity before and during the Sultanate and Mughal period is enormously underestimated, by giving its credits to the newly created and non-existent Pathan and Saracenic architecture and overestimated Timurid and Mughal architecture, even though they have their own beauty. But if claims or credits for creation can discredited through primary sources, what then is Mughal architecture? The real credit in any way should be given rightly to Indian architects, masons, sculptors, carpenters, common labourers and their shastras and creative minds.
Indian architecture involves Vastu (architecture), Shilpa (sculpture and Chitra (painting). The Sthapati was not only an architect-mason, but also an engineer and townplanner. Around him were several guilds or Shrenis of other Sthapatis, Sutragrahins, Takshakas and Vardhakis.
Vastushastra is more than only temple architecture. It involves:
1. city, town, village and fort architecture (suburbs were called Shakha-nagara)
2. civil and public art and architecture (Veshma and Sabha)
3. palace art and architecture (Rajaveshma: rich and with royals had their NivAsa = residence and VilAsa = pleasure mansions)
4. temple art and architecture (Prasada)
And each had its distinct and overlapping and also regional styles. Where are those mansions, not only the varied temples, but also the palatial ones? How come that everything of the middle ages and later is Muslim or branded as such?
According to the Vastushastras till the rule of the Delhi Sultans, there were many schools and regional styles of architecture.
In temple architecture, we learn from the standard works that we have principally a Nagara, Dravida and a mixed style, called Vesara. But there were many more:
DrAviDa (Deccan and S.India), Latina (or LATa), VAvAta (or VArATa, Berar), SAndhAra, BhUmija, Mishra (mixed), ValabhI (Gujarat), Napumsaka, SimhAvalokana, DAruja, NAgara (N.Indian). There is also a VairATa style (Alwar) of temple construction.
The principle Palace architecture styles from a selected point of view (eastern, central and southern India, probably referring to the more traditional or orthodox styles) are: PAncAlI (doab), MAgadhI (S.Bihar), VAngI (Bengal), KAlingI(Orissa), ShaurasenI (Hindi speaking area, variants of Braj Bhasha) and DrAviDI (Deccan and south).
Both temples and palaces could have overlapping styles. The Panchayatana construction can be seen in Khajurahu, the palatial ones are Humayun's rauza and the Taj Mahal.
Mansions can have (n)one to many domes or Chhatris. In that case we have Ekaratna, Triratna and Pancaratna. Pancaratna was already recognized by Babur as a Hindustani style.
With reference to the dome styles, we have the following different styles: Kaurava (Haryana), PancAla (central doab), Vaideha (N.Bihar), MAgadha (S.Bihar), Kaushala (E.UP), KAlinga (Orissa), KAshya (Banaras), VArATa (Berar), Kaulaka (?), Shandila(close to Kannauj?)), Shaurasena (Mathura), GAndhAra NW), Avantika (Malwa), KAshmIra, GAngeya (Bengal?).
The domes, also called StUpikA (derived from the stupa shape), ShikhA and ANDa, must have contained also a bulbous shape.
Mandapas were of different shapes, square(caturashra), round (vrttanta), but also octagonal (ashtashra), etc. The same shapes for supporting pillars, pillars/towers in walls (bhitt-stambhas) and monolithic pillars/towers (dhvajastambhas and manastambhas, dipamanastambhas).
Temples did have a monolithic tower/pillar, but the Digambaras already had their Samava-Sharanas with a Manastambha at each direction, giving four monolithic towers or pillars in front of the sacred Hall. Bauddha temples, especially in Gandhara before the Guptas may have had 4 monolithic towers topped with lions surrounding the Hall too, but then positioned like the Taj Mahal towers. At least their sculpture does show this in two miniature models. See: Gandhara, 2nd century CE, has 4 lion-crowned Stambhas surrounding the Stupa on a platform. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...entury.jpg
An stylistical miniature example: Model of a stupa (Buddhist shrine), ca. 4th century, Pakistan, ancient region of Gandhara, Bronze; H. 22 3/4 in. (57.8 cm), W. 7 1/2 in. (19.1 cm). Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Donald J. Bruckmann, 1985 (1985.387ab) Source of description: Model of a stupa (Buddhist shrine) [Pakistan, ancient region of Gandhara] (1985.387ab) | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Material used, could be wood, bricks and stones. Marble (sphatika = originally crystall quartz) was also known, at least the stonecutters and mines from Gujarat and Rajasthan were very famous. For construction two techniques were also used, which were Sudhashila (sudha = plaster) and Vajralepa (adamantine glue coating). When both were combined it was also called Vajralepa.
White radiance of temples through plaster was called Sattvika, red radiance was Rajasika and black was Tamasika. There was a white temple dedicated to Surya, according to the Mandasor inscription of 473 C.E. with the phrase "the temple resembling a mountain shines white", in line 16. (Indian Antiquary, vol. xv, p. 196)
The Lakshmana temple in Khajurahu was also white plastered 'like the peaks of the mountains of snow'. (inscription of 1011 C.E.)
The Garbhamana system of measuring divides the sacred plot in nine divisions, called Ashtapada or Padashta. This is the real origin at least from Gupta times of the Hasht Bihisht concept in architecture, wrongly ascribed by some modern authors to Persians and as a concept used by Mughals, but this last word can be found nowhere in literature before Amir Khushro of India. And that too in a non-architecture use. Ashtapada in Garbhamana method denotes 8 Padas or squares surrounding a central one. Every Pada has its own Vasu and Vastupurusha. Every 8 major Pada, further divided, gives 32 minor Padas, represented by 32 Devatas; the central 9th major Pada, the Brahmasthana is represented by the 33th Devata.
One Mandapa using eight courts and 12 peristyle pillars (Barahkhambha or Barahdari) around a central Pada with 4 pillars is the Navaranga mansion. Perhaps the ancient Palace of Vasantasena as described in the Mrcchakatikam with 8 great courts and a garden is also arranged as a grand Ashtapada. But, I am not sure about this. Even though it is described in an ancient Sanskrit play, it must be based upon a real grand mansion complex of a wealthy person in Ujjain. An example of the old Malwa school of architecture.
Many types of laid-out gardens attached to mansions are described, collectively called KAnana.
Many types of Yantras are described, especially the ones supplying waters being used for the gardens, fountains, etc.
City planning included different shapes, like square (caturashra), rectangular (ayatana) like the Taj Mahal, round (vrttanta), semicircular or bow-shaped (Karmuka, like an Arddha-Chandra) like the Agra Red Fort and a citadel above the Delhi Red Fort, etc.
According to one authority, a metropolis (Nagara) could have a capital city (Rajadhani), with a secondary city (Pattana) attached to it, all with their suburbas (Shakha-Nagaras), including quarters for merchants/traders, artisans, soldiers, etc.
In short, Indian Vastu architecture is grossly misunderstood and one-sided described. And its value coupled to indigenous and Rajput architecture and creativity before and during the Sultanate and Mughal period is enormously underestimated, by giving its credits to the newly created and non-existent Pathan and Saracenic architecture and overestimated Timurid and Mughal architecture, even though they have their own beauty. But if claims or credits for creation can discredited through primary sources, what then is Mughal architecture? The real credit in any way should be given rightly to Indian architects, masons, sculptors, carpenters, common labourers and their shastras and creative minds.