PALLAVA ELEMENTS IN SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIAN ART – VISUAL APPRAISAL

It is a known fact that contact between the Tamil country and Southeast Asia, including Śrī Laṅkā and China was a long -established tradition. References to the yavanas in Tamil Ca ṅ kam literature and the notes supplied by Greek, Roman, and Egyptian classical authors would establish the fact that commercial intercourse between the east and west was an immemorial process 1 , datable to at least a few centuries earlier than the Christian era 2 . However, it was under the Pallavas and Cōḻ as that the arts of the country made a daring intrusion into the distant lands 3 . In this process of sharing artistic idioms from the subcontinent, the Āndhras of the Amarāvati School, the Guptas, and the Pālas of Be ṅ gal played a vital role. The Pallava link with the Malaya peninsula was blood-based because a collateral branch of the family is said to have ruled the distant land under Hiranyavarma ṉ whose son Nandivarma ṉ Pallavamalla (731-96 CE) became the ruler of Kāñci when there was no direct male heir to occupy the throne aft er the premature death of Parameśvaravarmaṉ II (Minakshi (1941), Subramaniam (1967) 80-94).

1 Yavanas denotes aliens; originally, they came from Ionia and meant the Greeks.It later came to denote the Romans, Egyptians and Arabs.They brought fine wine to the Tamil country and took spices and teak-wood from coastal Tamil Nadu and Kerala.They had a settlement in the port-metropolis of the Caṅkam Cōḻas at Pukār.They spoke a rough foreign language.Vide, Akanāṉūru 149; Puṟanāṉūru 56; Cilappatikāram 5. 10, 14.67 (Subrahmaniyan (1990) 716, Rajarajan (2016) 101-102).
The Greek and Roman accounts are discerned from the writings of Megasthenes (also Indica of Arrian), Strabo, Pliny, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, Ptolemy and the Peutingerian Tables, all datable down to the 3rd century CE, excepting Megasthenes who is dated in the 4th century BCE (Subrahmaniyan (1966(Subrahmaniyan ( /1980) ) [19][20] 2 I am told by archaeologists that in recent times Indian teak, datable to 1000 B.C. has been found in the ruins of Egypt. 3 We may note here that ideas from ancient Tamiḻakam not only migrated eastward, but ideas came from the north of India and western Hellenic world to the Tamil country.Gopalachari (1976), 10 speaks of the gem-workers of Magadha, the goldsmiths of Marāṭha, the blacksmiths of Avanti and the yavana sculptors: Makata viṉaiñarum marāṭṭak kammarun/Avantik kollarum yavaṉat taccarum/taṉ Tamil viṉaiñarum kūṭi (Kalidos (1999) 152n).The cited Caṅkam poem would reveal the fact that the Tamil art-makers collaborated, kūṭi, with those from Magadha, Maratha, Avanti and the Yavanas.

INTRODUCTION
This small article throws light on some of the Pallava elements that are present in the art of Ilaṅkai (Laṅkā), Thailand, and Vietnam (erstwhile Champa or Annan).At the outset, I categorically declare that I have not visited these countries and my impressions are based on the photographs, published by Museum Bulletins and earlier scholars in the field.Right or wrong, an Indian student is not affluent enough to visit these countries for the sake of writing a paper.When the time comes, I shall make it a point to examine these images as they are found in the museums or in situ.Even if research is photo-based, what is wrong in expressing ideas for sake of interpretation on certain enigmatic issues?
The iconographical specimens taken for examination follow a simple methodology.That is to say, the earlier Indian counterparts are taken into account for explaining the outgoing or incoming ideas for the portrayal of iconographical typologies.The themes examined are the following: 1) Seated male image with the head of a horse behind in the Isurumuniya (Tisāvāva) bas relief in Anurādhapuram, Śrī Laṅka.2) Umāmaheśvara collected from Vietnam by the Norton Simon Foundation, Pasadena, California.3) Broken male divinity of Viṣṇu in the National Museum, Bangkok, Thailand4 , and so on.

THE MĀMALLAPURAM-ISURUMUNIYA ARTISTIC LINK
Indian contact with Ilaṅkai gets back at least to the time of Aśoka Maurya (c.273-232 BCE) who after the Third Buddhist Council at Pāṭaliputra (c.250 BCE -Thapar (1966/1972), 73) is said to have sent his daughter and son to the island kingdom for the propagation of the Buddhist dhamma.The Ilaṅkai contact during the Pallava period led to a long-lasting exchange of idioms typical of the Indian Hindu tradition.During the time of Nṛsiṃhavarmaṉ I (c.630-68 CE), a prince of the Ilaṅkai or Tamil Īḻam5 ruling family, Māṇavarmaṉ (Siṃhala: Māṇavamma), sought political asylum and alliance with the Pallava Emperor to get himself reestablished in his ancestral throne, having been ousted by a rival claimant (Kalidos (1976), 89, citing Mahalingam (1968))6 .He had to stay in Kāñcīpuram for a pretty long time; maybe the emperor (who sent him with Parañcōti) was busy with his Calukyan rival, Polakeśi7 , in a war with Badāmī (around 642 CE) or was getting ready a naval power to embark on his Ilaṅkai project.It is even said that Māṇavarmaṉ led the army against the Calukyas of Badāmī (Rabe (2001), 22-23), based on the Siṃhala chronicle, Mahāvaṃśa.Nṛsiṃha and Māṇavarmaṉ were good friends and when the time came, the Pallava navy completed its mission and Māṇavarmaṉ was reinstated on the Ilaṅkai throne.When Māṇavarmaṉ stayed in Kāñci, he is likely to have visited Māmallapuram and observed the kind of rock-cut work going on there, initiated during the previous reign of Mahēndravaramaṉ .With the result, Māṇavarmaṉ back at home is likely to have undertaken a project on the model of the Great Penance Rabe (2001).Maybe some artists also went with him as it so happened in the case of the Virūpākṣa temple at Paṭṭadakkal under Vikramāditya I (c.654/655-681 CE)8 .The result is likely to have been the bas relief of Isurumuniya at Anurādhapuram.Scholars have already written about these carvings in detailed studies (Leeuw (1971), 116-17, Dohanian (1983), 6-21, Rabe (2001), 20-32).Several others, beginning with A.K. Coomaraswamy, have pointed out the Pallava hand in Isurumuniya (Longhurst (1937), 16-19, Paranavitana (1953), 174, Rowland (1967), 370, Vogel (1936/1977), 174).The concern here is the identification of a seated royal personage with the head of a horse behind him in the Isurumuniya bas relief (Figure 1).The authorities cited above have presented their impressions as follows: 1) Paranavitana (1953), 174 considers the image of a Man and Horse.
2) Leeuw (1971), 116-17 identified the image with Aiyaṉār, a popular village god of Tamilnadu.3) Dohanian (1983), 11 reiterates what Leeuw says.4) Rabe (2001), fig.38 identifies the images with a seated horseman (cf.Paranavitana (1953)).I do not fall in line with the above views.The image may have to be linked with the head of a horse, appearing close to him, and not in isolation, leave alone the frolicking elephants that are found around in the Great Penance at Māmallapuram and the Isurumuniya bas relief, which is a clear pointer of the Pallava element in the art of Ilaṅkai.To understand the horse-head, one will have to travel from Anurādhapuram to Nāmakkal.The Atikaimāṉ cave temple for Nṛsiṃha among its iconographical themes includes one of Trivikrama (Figure 2) in the upper part of which a horse-head of the same mode appears (Dehejia (1969), Pls.5-6, Rajan (1999), Figure 4).Linking these two (Figure 1, Figure 2), one might suggest the seated royal person in the Isurumuniya relief is the model of Mahābali with the head of a sacrificial horse (aśvamedayāga) appearing behind him as it is found in the Nāmakkal cave.
Certain questions will have to be answered at this point, the most important among them being the dates of the two reliefs under consideration.Māṇavarmaṉ is likely to have undertaken the Isurumnuniya excavation after stabilizing his position on the Ilaṅkai throne.So, it might be dated toward the end of the 7th century CE.The Nāmakkal caves are assigned to the first half of the 8th century.An Atikaimāṉ chief Guṇaśīla is said to be its founder whose inscription in the Raṅganātha cave calls it Atiyendra-Viṣṇu-gṛham (Srinivasan (1972), 59)9 .There is no poignant deviation in the chronological framework as the end of the 7th and early half of the 8th could have been around 700 CE.This is to suggest that the two rock-cut works are near contemporary.We need not discuss the issue of whether the idea went from Nāmakkal to Isurumuniya or vice versa in the process that took place.The vital issue is the identification of the motifs under consideration.Coming to the question of whether the seated image could be that of Aiyaṉār, it may be added that Cāttāṉ is noted in pre-Pallava literature and not Aiyaṉār.The question is whether Aiyaṉār and Cāttāṉ (or Sātavāhana) were considered the same then10 .In making this point felt, one may keep in mind that the Sanskrit Skanda and Tamil Kantaṉ were found to be analogous at one point in time around the 4th century CE and not earlier.Therefore, the Cāttaṉ of Caṅkam literature may not be Aiyaṉār.Aiyaṉār and Cāttaṉ came to be treated as the same God in later times when the cult got mixed up with the Ārya-Sāsta.However, the question is open for discussion.
Another literary consideration is that Buddhist and Hindu mythologies are analogous in patterns of thought and presentation in art (Dehejia (1998), 80-106) The Buddha himself came to be accommodated in the Hindu pantheon as one among the daśāvatāras of Viṣṇu as noted in a Māmallapuram inscription. 11The Kūrma Purāṇa at one place says: "This Lord Śiva becomes the god of Time…He is Viṣṇu bearing the discus, Indra wielding the thunderbolt…and in our present fourth age, he is the Buddha" (Davis (n.d.), 643).Therefore, if Mahābali with his yūpāśva appears in the Isurumuniya relief, it is no wonder.In arriving at this generalization, we keep track of the norm-setting iconographical model in the Nāmakkal cave.An image of Umāmaheśvara in the collection of the Norton Simon Foundation finds Śiva and Umā seated on the bull vāhana.12The bull is zoomorphic.In the background behind the Liṅga appears.All are set on a bhadrapītha, the images of the divinities circumscribed within a semicircular line that is marked on the Liṅga.Śiva is seated in sukhāsana with the right leg pendant and left resting on the pedestal.Umā is seated close to the Lord in an undefinable posture as Indian women sit during their domestic avocations, the left leg laid flat and the right knee up.Both are decorated with beautiful makuṭas.The most interesting feature of the figural representation is that Śiva and Umā with their Nandi-vāhana appear within a phallus, the Liṅga.The image is dated to the 11th-12th century, the waning phase of Cōḻa art, and suggests later Cōḻa impact.In this representation, the theme is more important than the style.The type of thematic representation was popular in India since the Gupta period, dating around the 5th century CE. 13 These Gupta and post-Gupta images of Caturmukha-or Pañcamukha-Liṅgas show the four or five faces of Śiva in the cardinal directions.These five integral members of the Sadāśiva group are called Tatpuruṣa, Aghora, Satyojāta, Vāmadeva (the left-God, a feminine), and Īśāna (up-looking).14Vāma means left and the left half of Śiva is feminine in Ardhanārīśvara (Kalidos (1993), figs. 3, 4, 8, 10;Goldberg (2002): figs. 1.12-16, Rajarajan (2006), 131 & Rajarajan (2022)).Another good example in the present context is a Mukhaliṅga reported by Goetz (1965), 275-79 from Kāshmīr.The mukha of Śiva in this image appears on one side, and on the other, the Lord with his Devī is shown.Though the date of the image is uncertain, on certain iconographical considerations it is said to display Gāndhāran influence and assigned to the 10th century CE.

UMĀMAHEŚVARA IN VIETNAM
Therefore, for the Vietnamese representation of Umāmaheśvara within the Liṅga, the idea has gone from either Central India of the Gupta period or Kāshmīr.It is a blend of the traditions typical north India and Cōḻa, which need not be a surprise because of the political interaction that the Imperial Cōḻas had with the north, e.Though the present study has concerned itself with three samples, there are several more that scholars have taken into consideration to show the Indian (Gupta, Āndhra, Pallava, Cōḻa, Pāla, and so on) on Southeast Asian and Śrī Laṅkan art.In the present panel, there are three more articles.These would show there is more scope for examining the stylistic and ideological input of Indian thought on Far Eastern and Southeast Asian art. 15An enormous literature exists on the subject but the Tamil quota of thought in this sculptural art has not been properly examined.It is high time that scholars think along these lines and try to examine Tamil literary ideas as they may be found embedded in Southeast Asian art.