These were followed by temples constructed “from scratch,” such as the
carved shore temple at Maha ̄balipuram or those at Ka ̄ñcı ̄puram, the Pallava
capital. These later temples had come to reflect much of the imagery
of brahmanically “orthodox” temples – the tower (vima ̄n
̄
a) was Mt. Meru or
thehiran.yagarbhaand its parts were named as though it were a human torso.
One entered an “omphalos” to reach the inner sanctum or “womb house”
(garbhagr.ha). At the same time, the temple served as a center of a town (u ̄r)
and reflected the social and political reciprocities of its elites. For example,
in the royal temples, kings, ve ̄l.a ̄l.as(landowners), and brahmans expressed
their political-social reciprocities in the ritual life of the temple. Donations
were made by landowners and royalty, both male and female; honors were
afforded these patrons and the gifts and/or land were redistributed. In
effect, the temple became an economic as well as a social and cultural space.^8
By the time the Co ̄l
̄
as had gained hegemony in the South (ninth to
thirteenth centuries CE), with their capital in the Ka ̄ve ̄ri basin, the temple
had become a major institution. Architecturally, by the twelfth century the
ko ̄puram(Skt:gopura– entrance way) came to be the dominant tower on
the temple precincts, thanks to the donations of nobility and wealthy
patrons, though, in some temples, such as at Citamparam, the central tower
(vima ̄n
̄
a) was gilded in gold. The Co ̄l
̄as were patrons of S ́iva, but in an effort
to incorporate rural areas under their hegemony, local village goddesses
94 The Post-classical Period
Figure 2The Shore Temple at Maha ̄ balipuram, port city of the Pallavas. Photograph by
Rob F. Phillips.