The Rāma story finds its earliest complete literary expression as the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa in

Sanskrit. Evil. The scholarly consensus for its timeframe spans from the 7th century BCE for its
earliest parts to the 3rd century CE for the latest additions and interpolations. This great poem
(mahākāvya) has since held a significant place in the moral, social, cultural, and political
fabric of India and Southeast Asia. Over the centuries, it has cut across diverse geographical,
political, religious, and social boundaries and has been written, carved, painted, recited, and
performed in different artistic genres. In the process, it has been continuously adapted,
localized, and assimilated. The diverse Hindu Rāmāyaṇa traditions, Buddhist Dasaratha-jātaka,
Jaina Rāmāyaṇas beginning with Vimalasūri’s Paumacariu, and Muslim Māppila Rāmāyaṇaṃ
among others testify to a widespread acceptance of this epic in ways that have defied rigid
boundaries.

(TILL DECCAN, YOU CAN JUST MEMORISE THE ONES THAT ARE YOUR FAVOURITE)
Post Maurya: A few terracottas from the Gangetic valley belt belonging to the post-Maurya
timeframe (c. 2nd century BCE to 2nd century CE) portray the abduction of a woman by a
gigantic or demonic figure. This depiction shares several features in common with the episode
of Sītā’s abduction by Rāvaṇa in the Rāmāyaṇa. It is likely that such dispersed fables belonged
to a common pool of ancient Indian stories that had a presence in folkloric and epic genres.

Terracotta (4th - 6th centuries): The Rāmāyaṇa gained a more definitive visual presence as
part of the sculptural repertoire of temples during the period of Gupta dominance in India (c. 4th
to 6th centuries CE). A robust tradition of making Rāmāyaṇa terracottas for brick temples
appears to have been in vogue during the 5th and 6th centuries CE. Given that relatively few
brick structures have survived in an appreciable state of preservation from this period,
the Rāmāyaṇa panels that had once adorned brick monuments of early medieval India have
either been damaged, lost forever, or have landed in museums and private collections in India
and abroad. In such a situation, examples of in situ Rāmāyaṇa terracottas acquire special
significance.

Central India: The well-known brick temple of Bhitargaon, despite having lost much of its
superlative terracotta adornment, still bears a few discernible narratives. This temple has
terracotta plaques placed within niches on the jaṅghā (wall) and in inverted U-shaped niches on
the lower courses of the superstructure. A portrayal of the demon-king Rāvaṇa in the guise of
an ascetic mendicant (parivrājaka), seeking alms from Sītā, as described in the Rāmāyaṇa’s
Araṇyakāṇḍa graces the lower course of the temple’s superstructure on the northwest corner on
the West side. A cunning Rāvaṇa holding back in contrast with a trusting Sītā who leans forward
to offer alms and water—qualify this sculpture as a fine example of the artistic excellence
achieved during this period.

Inscribed Terracottas: A few sites located in the states of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh have
yielded terracotta plaques inscribed with names identifying the Rāmāyaṇa characters sculpted
on them. Some among them bear abbreviated lines of verses from the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa
inscribed in the Gupta-period Brāhmī letters of about 5th century CE. Recitation, visual
transcreation, and theatrical performance of epic and purāṇic themes were an integral part of
pre-modern Indian cultures. Scenes from the Rāmāyaṇa are depicted on several terracottas
attributed to Nācharkheḍā in the Jind district of Haryana, of which the largest group is housed in
the Gurukul Museum at Jhajjar in Haryana. The surviving panels and fragments suggest that
this series of carved and inscribed epic narrations must have graced a magnificent 5th-century
brick temple in the region. In one of the fragments, Sītā and Lakṣmaṇa are seen on their way to
the forest after being exiled from Ayodhyā. Rāma, who would expectedly have been ahead of
Sītā, is not seen as that part of the panel is damaged and lost. The iconography of Lakṣmaṇa,
like Rāma at this stage, is that of a young warrior hero sporting a top-knot (jaṭā), the cross-belt
ornament (channavīra), a bow resting on his left shoulder, and a quiver full of arrows fastened
on his back. The visualization of “Rāma with a bow” (kodaṇḍa-rāma) later became his chief
iconographic attribute. The young faces convery a nobility of character. On the top margins
there is a verse which seems to be an abbreviated version from the Aranyakanda. There’s a
sculpture where the inscription reads his name: Trishara, and a verse below refers to the
demons sent by Ravana. There is no exact corresponding passage in the Araṇyakāṇḍa
but some references to the fourteen demons come close to it, and one of them also mentions
Tṛśira.

Inscribed Rama from LACMA: The earliest known definitive sculpture of Rāma, attested by the
letters “rā ma” inscribed in Brāhmī beneath his left elbow, is of considerable artistic and
historical significance. Presently housed in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA),
USA, it also finds a place in the LACMA catalog, Indian Sculpture, by Pratapaditya Pal, where a
doubtful provenance (Nācharkheḍā?) and a 5th century CE date is recorded. The sculptural
style, however, does not bear resemblance to the Nācharkheḍā terracotta Rāmāyaṇa series.
The general bearing and stylistics of the sculpture suggest an earlier date in the 4th century CE.
Rāma’s dress resembles the type of tunic worn by the king on some Gupta coins of
Chandragupta I, Samudragupta, and Kumāragupta I. A comparison of Rāma’s stylized jaṭā or
headgear in this sculpture with the “tight-fitting cap” worn by the Gupta kings as depicted on
their coins is also worthy of note. Such parallels between royalty and divinity are also known
from the epigraphic corpus of ancient India. Direct comparisons of Gupta kings and their allies
with Rāma are admittedly few. The “Gangdhar stone inscription of the Aulikara ruler
Viśvavarman” describes the king Kumaragupta I as a standard of comparison even for Rāma
and Bhagīratha. The Gupta king, Skandagupta, is described as “rāma tulyo dharma paratayā”
(like Rāma in righteous conduct), alongside comparisons with a Cakravartin (universal king) and
Yudhiṣṭhira. A 5th century time frame is untenable due to the paleography of inscription.

The Visualisation of Ravana: A a 5th-century relief sculpture in the reserve collection of the
National Museum, New Delhi, portrays the favorite theme of events leading up to Sītā’s
abduction from the Araṇyakāṇḍa. Rāvaṇa, having manufactured the circumstances to find Sītā
alone in her forest cottage, appears before her in the guise of a parivrājaka (mendicant ascetic)
seeking alms. The broken brick fragment only shows Rāvaṇa, yet this is a significant artifact as
it offers the earliest example of an iconographic variant of Rāvaṇa with an ass-head. There, the
name “Saṅkukarṇa” (lit. one possessing conical/arrowhead-shaped ears) means an ass or
donkey. This is an important ancient textual source for the iconography of the ass-head
associated with Rāvaṇa. Earlier, Brockington (2020) had drawn our attention to a 9th century
Khotanese version where there is a reference to a horse’s head.
Some of the best-known examples of Rāvaṇa with an ass-head are seen in the Brahmanical
caves of Ellora, where sculptures of a ten-headed Rāvaṇa are often crowned with a donkey’s
head. In popular understanding, it symbolizes the stubborn arrogance that leads him to the path
of self-destruction despite his great learning and prowess. During the 5th and 6th centuries CE,
Rāvaṇa is most often depicted with a single head; his multiple heads begin to appear in Indian
art from about the end of the 6th century CE, with the notable exception of Rajaona. The fine
aesthetics of this sculpture is revealed in the persuasive expression on Rāvaṇa’s bearded face
that fails to hide his lust for Sītā, his eyes gazing at her in frank admiration. The donkey’s head
could not have been more opportunely placed: it is this misguided moment of greed that caused
the epic battle and Rāvaṇa’s demise. Another climactic moment from the abduction episode is
captured in a horse-shoe-shaped terracotta panel that is now housed in the Asian Art Museum
in San Francisco. The Provenance is unknown but a time period of 5th century can be attributed
based on paleography.

Central and North-Central Stone Sculptures: Some stone temples of the 5th and 6th
centuries CE from north-central and northeastern India included Rāmāyaṇa narratives on the
jagati (raised platform) of the temples. A set of six late 5th to early 6th century panels illustrating
episodes from the epic was recovered from the site of Nācnā-Kuṭhārā in the Panna district of
Madhya Pradesh showing a local, provincial idiom of expression within a larger Gupta-Vakataka
period style. A group of ten Rāmāyaṇa stone panels belonging to the Vishnu temple at Deogarh,
located in the Lalitpur district of the state of Uttar Pradesh, form the largest such series in stone
from this period. The disfigurement of Śūrpaṇakhā, one of the most evocative panels from this
series takes place in Pañcavaṭī, the forest abode of Rāma, Sītā, and Lakṣmaṇa, and is
described in the Araṇyakāṇḍa. The visualization at Deogarh differs in one important respect
from the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa: the artist portrays Śūrpaṇakhā disguised as a beautiful woman,
whereas the text describes her as an ugly, pot-bellied demoness throughout. Like the men in the
panel, she sports a channavīra (cross-belt) that symbolizes her martial character. To recreate
the natural habitat of Pañcavaṭī, the artist has conjured a canopy of lush foliage filled with
flowering and fruiting trees in the upper portion of the composition. The warrior-ascetic princes
and Sītā are bejeweled, an artistic license perhaps, that serves to reinforce their royal status.
Her kneeling stance is in the vṛṣcika āsana (scorpion posture), which is employed to portray
flying figures in ancient and early medieval Indian art. The choice of vṛṣcika āsana here serves
the dual purpose of representing a struggling, kneeling Śūrpaṇakhā writhing in pain and of
presaging the next moment of her flight or escape from Pañcavaṭī.

Eastern India and Bangladesh: Despite an early allusion to Rāma in the 5th-century Gangdhar
inscription of Viśvavarman from the region of Jhalawar in Rajasthan, the states of Gujarat and
Rajasthan have not yielded Rāmāyaṇa narrative panels for the period under consideration.
Eastern India, on the other hand, reveals a rich tradition of epic narrative sculptures that
continues from the 5th and 6th centuries to the 7th and 8th centuries CE.
Palace Portrayal: Rāmāyaṇa terracotta panels recovered from Palasbari (Palashbari) near
Mahasthangarh in the Bogra district of Bangladesh were published by Gouriswar Bhattacharya.
the Palasbari series deserves special mention for the unique interventions and innovations in
visualizing Rāmāyaṇa themes in the premodern cultural zone of eastern India. Bhattacharya
mentioned thirty inscribed plaques that would have belonged to a brick temple in the vicinity and
are now part of the Bangladesh National Museum collections. A late 7th-century date has been
indicated by him. One of the most striking features of this set is its unique emphasis on themes
from the Bālakāṇḍa and Ayodhyākāṇḍa, with several episodes illustrating palace settings. Since
surviving Rāmāyaṇa narratives of the 5th to 7th century from different parts of India rarely
highlight the Bālakāṇḍa and Ayodhyākāṇḍa episodes, what is offered by the artists of the
Palasbari terracottas in terms of theme and visual compositions adds great value to the
available repertoire of the Rāmāyaṇa in the visual arts of early South Asia. A boldly rendered
composition evokes grief as experienced by king Daśaratha’s queens upon his demise. The
king’s deceased body is covered in cloth and his three queens mourn their bereavement. As in
the other Palasbari Rāmāyaṇa terracottas, the identities of the four characters are known by
their names inscribed carelessly near each of the figures. The eldest queen, Kausalyā, mourns
her grief with restraint and maturity; the youngest one, Sumitra, prostrates helplessly at
Daśaratha’s feet; while the scheming and guilt-ridden Kaikeyī mourns the loudest, her mouth
agape and hands thrown wide open, the movement of the upper scarf further registering her
state of agitation. Kaikeyī is shown larger than the others and occupies a central position,
drawing attention to her role in bringing about the huge shadow of grief and darkness cast on
the kingdom of Ayodhyā due to their beloved king’s death.

Kalinga Temple Friezes: In the eastern Indian state of Orissa, the usual location for Rāmāyaṇa
narratives on early medieval temples is the baraṇḍa or varaṇḍikā (recessed band of the
moldings connecting the temple walls [bāḍa] to its curvilinear superstructure [gaṇḍī]). The
earliest representation is on the Śatrughneśvara temple in Bhubaneswar (beginning of the 7th
century) where, exceptionally, scenes leading up to Vāli-vadha (Vālin’s death caused by Rāma)
from the Kiṣkindhākāṇḍa are placed on dentils above a wall-niche. An interesting innovation is
introduced by the Orissan artists in their visualization of the golden deer narrative. The demon
Mārīca, who had disguised himself as the golden deer to lure Sītā, is shown emerging from the
body of the slain deer. The late 8th century Siṃhanātha temple, Baramba, also harbors
Rāmāyaṇa narratives, including the much-favored Vāli-vadha as a band above a niche on the
rear side

Deccan Sculptures (Most Important):

The earliest known Rāmāyaṇa sculptures from the Deccan and South India are found on a
petite, early 7th-century temple at Bādāmi in northern Karnataka. Known today as the ‘Upper
Śivālaya,’ it was originally a Vaiṣṇava temple. It is closely followed by temples at Aihoḷe and
Paṭṭadakal (mid-7th to mid-8th century CE). These are still two centuries later than the ones in
terracotta and stone from the period of Gupta dominance in Northern India. The first phase
looks at the earliest visual representations carved on the early Calukya temples and the second
phase considers temples from the period of the Hoysaḷas of Dorasamudra, who ruled large
parts of Karnataka from the 11th century until the rise of the Vijayanagara empire in the 14th
century.

Karnata Inscriptions: The 5th-century Tāḷagunda inscription of Śāntivarman describes

Mayūraśarman’s establishment of Kadamba power and mentions the early Kadamba kings,
Bhagīratha, Raghu, and Kāku(t)stha, whose names are inspired by the Ikṣvāku lineage to which
Rāma, the hero of the Rāmāyaṇa, belonged The comparison with Rāma is even more direct in
the 6th-century Dāvaṇagere plates of Ravivarman, which mention four preceding Kadamba
kings—Raghu, Kākustha, Śāntivarman, and Mṛgeśavarman in the dynastic praśasti (eulogy)
portion. Using the poetic figures of yamaka and upamā simultaneously, it compares the
Kadamba king Kākustha to Kāku(t)stha or Rāma himself. In the imprecatory verse of the
5th/6th-century Maḍikēri (Mercara) copper-plate inscription of the Western Gaṅga king Avinīta,
whose mother was a Kadamba princess, the king is referred to as Rāmabhadra (later,
Rāmacandra) who urges future kings to always protect the dharma-setu (bridge of dharma).
This is the earliest such exhortation, an allusion to the Rāma story, which is frequently repeated
in inscriptions of medieval Karṇāṭa dynasties. An 11th century epigraph from Panchabasti
speaks of Gaṅga Durvinīta as having become formidable in this world after he defeated
Kāduveṭṭi of Kāñcī (the Pallava king), who was celebrated as Rāvaṇa on earth. While Durvinīta
is compared indirectly with Rāma, the likeness drawn between a powerful Pallava monarch and
Rāvaṇa reflects a positive estimation of the king of Lanka as a formidable enemy.

ANother inscription from 1125 CE mentions the later Kadamba king Ṣaṣtadeva II (Caṭṭayadeva)
as the ‘lord of the western ocean’ who, having ‘built a bridge with lines of ships reaching as far
as Laṅkā, claimed tribute’ among asuras, and caused the exaltation of Kadamba dominion,
which was known to many as ‘a religious estate for the establishment of Rāma’. The Mahākūṭa
pillar inscription of Calukya Maṅgaleśa (595/6 CE) includes excerpts from the Raghuvaṃśa and
Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, employed as metaphors (rūpaka) and similes (upamā) in the dynastic
eulogy of Calukya kings. Maṅgaleśa, in this case, is invincible as Rāma. In the same inscription,
Maṅgaleśa is also compared to Mahendra (Indra) and legendary figures like Yudhiṣṭhira,
Māndhātṛ, and Bṛhaspati. Although the ambitious Calukya ruler Pulakeśī II’s own inscriptions do
not compare him to Rāma, in the Sanjān plates of Buddhavarasa, his skills in archery are
likened to Rāma-deva and king Daśaratha, his father. In the Nausari plates of Shryasraya
Siladitya, Rama and Yudhishtira are the upamana or standard of comparison for Pulakeshi II.
Rama as a motif in early epigraphs is a part of a garland of motifs that also include other
legendary heroes and gods to underscore kingship ideals: as upholders of dharma, protectors of
their people, savious of Earth, destroyer of demons and conqueror of enemies. Over the next
centuries. References to Rama and Hanuman increases: Ravana is especially seen as a
powerful enemy king as an opposition to a righteous Rama-like ruler. In a late Kadamba
inscription (1095 CE) of the period of Dayasiṃha-mahārāja, for example, the king’s courage is
compared to the ten-headed Rāvaṇa as part of a long list of virtues and accomplishments
compared with a host of mythical heroes and gods.

Sculptures:
Upper Shivalaya, Badami: One of the early built temples from the times of Badami Chalukyas,
the upper Shivalaya bears Vaishnava iconography on its walls. Relief carvings organized in the
clockwise order of circumambulation (pradakṣiṇa) along the southern side of the temple’s base
mouldings (adhiṣṭhāna) mark the beginnings of the Rāmāyaṇa in stone in the Deccan. The
narrative commences with a youthful, royal figure resplendent in a crown and wearing the
sacred thread (yajñopavīta), flanked by two female flywhisk bearers, seated regally, and
surrounded by four weapon-bearing men. However, as some of the panels on this temple were
reassembled during restoration, one cannot be certain that this was the original sequence. The
appearance of the attendants, the weapons they hold, and the seat on which the figure sits are
akin to the scene of Rāvaṇa’s court in the same series. This suggests that the seated royal
figure may be an advisor (or brahma-rākṣasa?) in Rāvaṇa’s court, or possibly his brother
Vibhīṣaṇa. We next encounter an effaced panel depicting the journey of the exiled Rāma, Sītā,
and Lakṣmaṇa to the forest, which figures at the end of the Ayodhyākāṇḍa. This theme is
particularly appropriate, for it marks the southward journey of Rāma—from Ayodhyā across the
Ganges and towards the banks of the Godāvarī river, where Rāma lived with Sītā and
Lakṣmaṇa in Pañcavaṭī on the advice of sage Agastya. Moving to the Araṇyakāṇḍa (forest
book), Śūrpaṇakhā is visualized as an attractive woman who proposes to Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa
one after another and is defaced by the latter. The story continues with a majestic Rāvaṇa
seated amidst his courtiers, to whom a humiliated, furious, and lamenting Śūrpaṇakhā appeals.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the earliest elaborate example of Rāvaṇa in court in Indian
art. The scenes then shift to Dandakaranya episodes including the Marica episode (who is rare
from this age), the hunt of golden deer, Ravana-Jatayu battle and Kishkindha episodes follow.

Durga Temple: Episodes from the Rāmāyaṇa are carved on the base mouldings (adhiṣṭhāna)
of the porch (mukhacatuṣkī) of the late 7th-century Durga temple at Aihoḷe. The northern side
bears episodes from the later part of the Ayodhyākāṇḍa while the southern side is carved with
themes from the Sundarakāṇḍa. This relative placement of episodes is of special interest as it
initiates a tradition in early medieval Karnataka where Rāmāyaṇa episodes generally, and the
more southerly scenes in its mythical geography especially, are carved on the southern side of a
monument. On the northern side of the Durga temple’s base, the onward journey of Rāma, Sītā,
and Lakṣmaṇa is depicted from the time of their exile, them resting in Śṛṅgaverapura and
crossing the Ganges in Guha’s boat. Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa are always shown with their bows,
bereft of royal attire, and with their hair in austere topknots. The southern side harbours events
that transpired during Hanumān’s visit to Laṅkā. At the Durga Temple, Sītā is missing; Rāvaṇa
and Hanumān dominate the narrative. The visual focus of the narrative register rests on
Rāvaṇa, who in a seated position occupies the entire height of the narrative register which is
otherwise divided into two parts vertically (except in the case of a standing Indrajit). The artist
has imaginatively conjured visions of the luxurious interiors of the ten-crowned king’s palace,
Indrajit’s capture of Hanuman, and the latter’s encounter with Rāvaṇa.mAt the Hosa
Makuṭeśvaranātha temple in Mahākūṭa, portrayals of Rāvaṇa as an ardent demon-devotee are
better-preserved as compared to a few, barely identifiable Rāmāyaṇa scenes.

Virupaksha Temple, Pattadakal: Rāmāyaṇa narratives are carved on the Virūpākṣa (c. 740
CE), Mallikārjuna (c. 740 CE), and Pāpanātha (c. 720-750 CE), all three being royal temples.24
The architectural context of the epic scenes now shifts from the recesses of the base mouldings
to the outer wall surfaces and the pillars in the interior of the temple’s hall, giving them far
greater visibility.

Episodes from the Rāmāyaṇa are located within wall-niches (bhitti-koṣṭhas) on the
south-western outer wall of the Virūpākṣa’s maṇḍapa.

The episode from the Aranyakanda, where a distant Maricha is representing the catastrophe
about to befall. Rama is in the tribhanga posture, with Sita on left and Lakshmana on the right,
making this an almost iconic image, a development that happens later. Sīta’s backward tilt of the
head suggests her yearning for the deer. Above, Shurpaṇakha’s encounter with Lakṣmaṇa,
which had preceded the golden deer episode, provides narrative continuity to the central
composition in the wall-niche. This visual arrangement, which links distinct episodes from the
epic and encourages the viewer to contemplate upon their inter-relationships, is a remarkable
achievement of the Paṭṭadakal artists. It is also carried forward on the walls of the Papanatha
temple in the vicinity

There is a charged portrayal of Ravana and Jatayu, probably drawing inspiration from the
performance art that was performed at the temple. Ravana’s leg is slightly bent, torso is turned
towards the vulture king Jatayu with his right hand pulling out a sword. The left leg is bent
upwards, almost to his chest! They are close to each other and the fierceness is captured
beautifully by the artist. Above the niche, Sītā’s visage peeps out of the half-opened door of her
cottage, carved here as a single-storeyed Drāviḍa vimāna, leading the viewer’s mind to the
complex cause-effect relationships of the unfolding encounter in the central niche.

The third wall-niche panel brings the story forward to the Kiṣkindhākāṇḍa. Identified thus far as
a wrestling match between the sibling monkey-kings, Vāli and Sugrīva, it has been recently
reinterpreted by Shrinivas Padigar. The central panel is occupied by the brothers in combat, with
a wealth of detail surrounding it that elaborates upon the episode creatively. Just above the
heads of the simian brothers, a figure of Rama peeps through the foliage; another figure with his
bow strung and ready to aim an arrow appears nearby. The young, noble face donning a jaṭā
(top hair-knot) and peeping through the foliage is also Rāma (who appears twice in continuous
narrative mode) before he fixed his spot to take aim. On the pillars flanking the lower portion of
the central panel are two seated figures. The one to the viewers’ right is Aṅgada, based on the
name inscribed just above him. Beneath the central panel, one notices a fatally injured Vāli
looking up at Rāma, and the lament of Tārā. The image on the viewers’ left, corresponding to
Aṅgada, is damaged but it is likely to have been either Sugrīva’s wife Rumā or Vāli’s wife Tārā.
This composition narrates the entire episode in a single panel, giving it an iconic focus while
also framing other significant narrative details on the periphery of the central composition,
reminding the viewer of the order in which the episode unfolded.

In the interior of the temple’s big hall (mahā-maṇḍapa) the massive, square pillars are populated
with stories from the epics and purāṇas, organized at eye-level in horizontal registers that tell a
story from the right-to-left and back. One such pillar bears a detailed representation of
Śūrpaṇakhā’s infatuation with Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa, her mutilation by Lakṣmaṇa,
Rāma-Lakṣmaṇa’s destruction of Khara-Dūṣaṇa’s army, Śūrpaṇakhā’s lament to Rāvaṇa,
Rāvaṇa meeting Mārīca, Mārīca’s transformation into a golden deer, Rāma’s deer hunt, Rāvaṇa
arriving at Sītā’s cottage, Sītā’s abduction, and the Rāvaṇa-Jaṭāyu duel Inscribed labels in early
Kannaḍa, along the upper margins of each of the four horizontal registers, identify the epic
characters: Khara-Dūṣaṇan, Suppaṇagi, Lakkaṇa, Rāma, Sītē, . . ., It is likely that those visiting
the temple would have experienced the epic and participated as rasikas in its performed and
localized tellings. The names of the characters also suggest local adaptations. The identity of
the ‘man and bird’ at the viewers’ far left can only be partially established by the identity labels
on its upper margin. The man seated cross-legged in a gesture of appeal is Rāvaṇa as per the
inscribed label but the inscribed name of the bird with its wings spread out is unclear; however,
it is clearly not Jaṭāyu (IA, 10: 168, no. CX; Padigar 2010: 273-274).30 If the label-identities are
for a moment overlooked for this pair, one may consider this to be Jaṭāyu reporting Rāvaṇa’s
abduction of Sītā to Rāma before he dies. But the vulture appears too powerful, unharmed, and
in control and one must then favour the idea that the cross-legged man in a suppliant gesture
represents Rāvaṇa when he was momentarily overpowered by Jaṭāyu before he fatally
wounded the elderly vulture- king and left with Sītā to Laṅkā.

Papanatha Temple, Pattadakal: The carving of epic narratives on temple walls receives
greater elaboration on the Pāpanātha temple. Its southern side is adorned with key episodes
from the Rāmāyaṇa, while the northern side bears Mahābhārata imagery. The Rāmāyaṇa thus
progresses in an anticlockwise direction, akin to the relative placement of the three wall-niches
at the Virūpākṣa. Rāvaṇa as the adversary demon-king has a prominent presence and appears
repeatedly. The Rāmāyaṇa here begins with Brahmā granting a boon to Rāvaṇa and moves
forward to Daśaratha’s yajña (sacrifice) for the birth of sons. On this temple, which has several
features of Nāgara affiliation, wall niches framed by pillarettes are crowned with pyramidal
udgama-pediments so that the chosen narrative focus is framed within a miniaturized
temple-like space The shifting levels and planes are used effectively to convey a change of
location or a twist in the tale, but the full-bodied, almost life-size treatment in high relief seen on
the Virūpākṣa’s wall-niches is absent here. Wechsler has interpreted the unprecedented
proliferation of epic imagery on the Pāpanātha temple’s walls, including the coronation scenes
of the front porch, as a metaphor for royal legitimation visualized for its last patron-king, Calukya
Kīrttivarma- II.

She, however, overlooked a significant inscription on a pillar of the temple’s front porch. This
inscription says that “Vibhīṣaṇa will reign as long as he recites the name of Rāma”. The
Rāmāyaṇa extols Vibhīṣaṇa’s loyalty to Rāma, which led to his eventual coronation as the king
of Laṅkā. Seen together with the representation of the two coronation scenes, Wechsler’s thesis
of royal legitimation through the projection of epic sculptures gains in strength. It is possible to
read in this word-image duet a political message of loyalty and its reward: Vibhīṣaṇa’s loyalty to
the Rāma-like Calukya king would be rewarded, whereas those who opposed, however
powerful (like Rāvaṇa), would meet a bitter end. If Kīrttivarma II, or those acting on his behalf,
played an important role in the patronage accorded to the Pāpanātha during the twilight years of
Calukya rule, then such a political equivalence is difficult to ignore. But the qualitative and
quantitative importance of the Rāmāyaṇa sculptures at the Virūpākṣa and Pāpanātha temples at
Paṭṭadakal cannot be explained solely or even dominantly by the political legitimation argument.
The socio-cultural motivations of a people who, at many levels, elite and popular, drew
sustenance from the moral and aesthetic universe of the epics were an important factor in the
carving and performance of epic narratives in temple spaces. A new zenith was reached
however during the reign of the Hoysalas. (Not as important) Hoysalas: Architects and
sculptors of Hoysaḷa-period temples (c. 11th–14th centuries) evolved new and intricately
detailed visual formulations of the Rāmāyaṇa (Settar 1992: 337-347). Of these, only a limited
number of Rāmāyaṇa sculptures carved on the Hoysaḷeśvara (c. 1121-1150 CE) and associated
temples at Haḷebīḍu and the Amṛteśvara at Amṛtapura (1196-1206 CE) are discussed here to
interpret significant developments in the architectural setting, compositional formats, and
thematic elaborations of the epic during the 12th and 13th centuries. Hoysaleshwara Temple:
‘Hoysaḷeśvara’ is the commonly used nomenclature for the twin temples of Hoysaḷeśvara (south)
and Śāntaleśvara (north) at Haḷebīdu. Architecturally connected internally and externally, they
were built during the time of Hoysaḷa Viṣṇuvardhana in the first half of the 12th century. Kirsti
Evans (1997) undertook the first detailed art historical study of the epic and purāṇic narratives
on Hoysaḷa temples. At the Hoysaḷeśvara, Mahābhārata and Bhāgavata Purāṇa episodes are
more numerous in comparison with the Rāmāyaṇa. The epic battle between Rāma and Rāvaṇa
appears in a disconnected manner on the north-western side of the southern or Hoysaḷeśvara
vimāna, in between a detailed rendition of the purāṇic Prahlāda-Hiraṇyakaśipu story and the
Mahābhārata battle A masterpiece in miniature, the final confrontation between Rāma and
Rāvaṇa at the Hoysaḷeśvara positions the protagonist and antagonist in a dynamic yet balanced
composition (Fig. 1.14). Rāma stands as a war-hero in control; his bow is strung in the attitude
of striking from a quiver full of arrows even as he blocks those of the adversary. One of Rāma’s
arrows has pierced the donkey pulling Rāvaṇa’s chariot; a woman (Mandodarī?) is seen near
Rāvaṇa’s chariot-wheel, Some Rāmāyaṇa reliefs from the Kiṣkindhākāṇḍa present themselves
on the south- western part of the Śāntaleśvara’s navaraṅga Nagareshwara and Kedareshwara:
While the qualitative excellence of the Hoysaḷeśvara complex remains unmatched, it is at the
Kedāreśvara (c. 1200-1220 CE) and on the surviving base friezes of the ruined Nagareśvara
temple complex (c. second half of 12th century) in Haḷebīdu, both belonging to the time of
Hoysaḷa Ballāla II’s reign, that the Rāmāyaṇa sequence is detailed and continuous (Evans 1993:
221-239). As was the norm, Rāmāyaṇa episodes are found on the southern side and
Mahābhārata scenes are located on the northern side. At the Nagareśvara, the Kiṣkindhā-,
Sundara-, and Yuddha-kāṇḍas are well-represented. Episodes like Rāvaṇa’s yajña (sacrifice)
before the final battle with Rāma and vānaras molesting women in Rāvaṇa’s harem are close in
iconography and style to the same themes portrayed at the Amṛteśvara in Amṛtapura (Evans
1993: 91-92 & figs. 55-56), revealing local tellings that are further distanced from the Vālmīki
Rāmāyaṇa. The Kedāreśvara is a trikūṭa (triple-shrined) structure built in the first two decades of
the 13th century, with Rāmāyaṇa sculptures commencing on its southern shrine’s adhiṣthāna
and extending to the western shrine as well Amrteshwara: The main temple (vimāna) and its
attached closed hall (gūḍhamaṇḍapa) at Amṛtapura were built in c. 1196 CE and the larger hall
(navaraṅga or raṅgamaṇḍapa)32 was added in c. 1206 CE (Dhaky 1996: 352). Rāmāyaṇa
episodes, unlike those at Haḷebīdu, are placed on the exterior of the kakṣāsana (seat back) of
this temple’s large hall. The series commences with episodes from the Bālakāṇḍa on the south
side of the navaraṅga and proceeds in the anticlockwise direction (as at the
Pāpanātha-Paṭṭadakal) with scenes from the Ayodhyā-, Araṇya-, Kiṣkindhā-, Sundara-, and
Yuddha-kāṇḍas (Fig. 1.16), culminating on the eastern entrance of this hall (Evans 1993: 24-26;
37-104). The most detailed elaboration of the Rāmāyaṇa on Hoysaḷa temples is found here.
New visual themes and modes of representation are in evidence at the Amṛteśvara temple. In
Fig. 1.17 from the Yuddhakāṇḍa, Sītā is seated under a fruit-laden tree inhabited with birds in
the Aśokavana and being guarded by rākṣasīs; illusory, severed heads of Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa
are placed before her to convince her of Rāma’s death in the battle, weaken her will, and
compel her to yield to Rāvaṇa. Not her will but the illusion is dispelled when a noble woman
(Saramā?) dispels her worst fears. In many of the episodes, the visuals relate better with and, in
a sense, prefigure the slightly later Adhyātma Rāmāyaṇa, which suggests that a similar telling of
the epic—recited, performed, or written—prevailed in the Karṇāṭa region by the 12th century.