There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
It’s very normal to see stone carvings of wildlife such as tiger, wild pig, elephant, bonnet macaque, snakes and others animals in Indian temples. It shows the relationship of animals (both wild and domesticated) with people. But I was highly intrigued to see the carving of what mostly looks like a giraffe in the Saavira Kambada Basadi, a Jain temple in Moodbidre, in southern India. The construction of this enchanting temple was initiated in the year 1430 CE and took 31 years to complete. The shape, height, neck, face, hooves, ossicones (cartilage covered with skin), tail all indicate that it’s a giraffe. More interesting is that it’s depicted as a draught animal for ploughing! I am not sure if giraffes have ever been domesticated and used in their native homeland as draught animals. Why did they carve a giraffe in an Indian temple? Had the craftsmen seen a giraffe as the proportions of this carved exotic animal is quite accurate (except for the tail)? Though this was the first time I noticed a giraffe in an Indian temple, there are a couple of more such documentation in other temples.
Note on Giraffe Sculptures in India
---------------------------------------------
Taken from: Animals in Stone: Indian Mammals Sculptured Through Time By Alexandra Anna Enrica van der Geer
The earliest possible evidence in stone of a giraffe has been recognized on the southern plinth of the platform of the Sun temple at Konarak, Orissa (c. 1238–1258). Konarak was an important harbour at India's eastern coast at that time and foreign ships surely passed by. The scene in Konarak has been explained as a foreign delegation with a giraffe. Admittedly, the animal's neck is extremely long and its back slopes. On the other hand, the animal is too small, no coat pattern is indicated, and the presence of horns is not sure, though there is a lot of erosion in that area. If indeed such a delegation ever took place at the port of Konarak, then the artist never saw the animal, and modelled the relief upon a description or a drawing. Though it cannot be entirely excluded that the animal is a giraffe or okapi indeed, other explanations should be considered as well.
The size and overall appearance fits a young dromedary equally well with its relatively longer neck than in the adult. Dromedaries naturally do not occur in eastern India and would have presented an equally exotic but surely less expensive gift. Dromedaries were not portrayed on Orissan temples, which indicates that they were indeed unknown and therefore exotic. The relief on the Sun Temple has been restored, and the much eroded animal of the original panel resembles a giraffe much less than the restored panel.
The second reference to a 'giraffe' is provided by the exterior wall of the Mallikarjuna temple at Srisailam, Andhra Pradesh (sixteenth century). Among a row of animals, the two to the left are giraffe-like with their long neck, steeping back short tail, but they are followed by dromedaries with badly depicted hump, which is too flat, too elongated, giving the impression of a high back. The size of the 'giraffe' is too small with a withers' height of only about 1.5 time that of the accompanying man; the horns are further lacking, and no coat pattern seems to have been indicated. The identification is therefore not sure. Most likely, the frieze simply figures a caravan consisting of adult dromedaries with their young, walking from the port to their destination. Dromedaries had to be imported, because they do not occur naturally in eastern and southern India. It can therefore reasonably be expected that the depicted specimens are not very realistic. A similar long-necked, medium-sized animal with steep back, and no horns is seen on the Hosabasti at Mudbidri, Karnataka (first half of the fifteenth century) and on the basis of the western wall of the peristyle of the Vitthalasvamin temple at Hampi.
Is it possible that a giraffe, a strictly African mammal, has been portrayed on the Indian subcontinent? Some scholars are convinced that this is indeed the case, but studying the history and examining the evidences carefully, this is hard to prove. It appears that the rare examples of giraffes in medieval Indian painting are copied from Arabian bestiaries.
The even more rare stone depictions are, if not mythical, at their best interpretations of giraffe descriptions, in which only the typical long neck and steeping hindquarters survived. It is far more likely, however, that these strange giraffe-like animals in stone are just young dromedaries. They, too, had to be imported to southern and eastern India. With their very tall limbs and equally tall neck they have a strange and exotic appearance, especially when standing upright and browsing a tree. This is confirmed by a frieze from Andhra Pradesh on which the 'giraffe' is accompanied by adult dromedaries. Dromedaries, together with horses, were imported into the south to be used in warfare, but without much success.
Personal note:
Carvings of "giraffes" on same building structure seem quite differentfrom camels to me... with prominent S-shaped necks & clear humps, against raised necks & sloped backs. Not to mention the hump is also present on young camels.
It’s very normal to see stone carvings of wildlife such as tiger, wild pig, elephant, bonnet macaque, snakes and others animals in Indian temples. It shows the relationship of animals (both wild and domesticated) with people. But I was highly intrigued to see the carving of what mostly looks like a giraffe in the Saavira Kambada Basadi, a Jain temple in Moodbidre, in southern India. The construction of this enchanting temple was initiated in the year 1430 CE and took 31 years to complete. The shape, height, neck, face, hooves, ossicones (cartilage covered with skin), tail all indicate that it’s a giraffe. More interesting is that it’s depicted as a draught animal for ploughing! I am not sure if giraffes have ever been domesticated and used in their native homeland as draught animals. Why did they carve a giraffe in an Indian temple? Had the craftsmen seen a giraffe as the proportions of this carved exotic animal is quite accurate (except for the tail)? Though this was the first time I noticed a giraffe in an Indian temple, there are a couple of more such documentation in other temples.
Note on Giraffe Sculptures in India
---------------------------------------------
Taken from: Animals in Stone: Indian Mammals Sculptured Through Time By Alexandra Anna Enrica van der Geer
The earliest possible evidence in stone of a giraffe has been recognized on the southern plinth of the platform of the Sun temple at Konarak, Orissa (c. 1238–1258). Konarak was an important harbour at India's eastern coast at that time and foreign ships surely passed by. The scene in Konarak has been explained as a foreign delegation with a giraffe. Admittedly, the animal's neck is extremely long and its back slopes. On the other hand, the animal is too small, no coat pattern is indicated, and the presence of horns is not sure, though there is a lot of erosion in that area. If indeed such a delegation ever took place at the port of Konarak, then the artist never saw the animal, and modelled the relief upon a description or a drawing. Though it cannot be entirely excluded that the animal is a giraffe or okapi indeed, other explanations should be considered as well.
The size and overall appearance fits a young dromedary equally well with its relatively longer neck than in the adult. Dromedaries naturally do not occur in eastern India and would have presented an equally exotic but surely less expensive gift. Dromedaries were not portrayed on Orissan temples, which indicates that they were indeed unknown and therefore exotic. The relief on the Sun Temple has been restored, and the much eroded animal of the original panel resembles a giraffe much less than the restored panel.
The second reference to a 'giraffe' is provided by the exterior wall of the Mallikarjuna temple at Srisailam, Andhra Pradesh (sixteenth century). Among a row of animals, the two to the left are giraffe-like with their long neck, steeping back short tail, but they are followed by dromedaries with badly depicted hump, which is too flat, too elongated, giving the impression of a high back. The size of the 'giraffe' is too small with a withers' height of only about 1.5 time that of the accompanying man; the horns are further lacking, and no coat pattern seems to have been indicated. The identification is therefore not sure. Most likely, the frieze simply figures a caravan consisting of adult dromedaries with their young, walking from the port to their destination. Dromedaries had to be imported, because they do not occur naturally in eastern and southern India. It can therefore reasonably be expected that the depicted specimens are not very realistic. A similar long-necked, medium-sized animal with steep back, and no horns is seen on the Hosabasti at Mudbidri, Karnataka (first half of the fifteenth century) and on the basis of the western wall of the peristyle of the Vitthalasvamin temple at Hampi.
Is it possible that a giraffe, a strictly African mammal, has been portrayed on the Indian subcontinent? Some scholars are convinced that this is indeed the case, but studying the history and examining the evidences carefully, this is hard to prove. It appears that the rare examples of giraffes in medieval Indian painting are copied from Arabian bestiaries.
The even more rare stone depictions are, if not mythical, at their best interpretations of giraffe descriptions, in which only the typical long neck and steeping hindquarters survived. It is far more likely, however, that these strange giraffe-like animals in stone are just young dromedaries. They, too, had to be imported to southern and eastern India. With their very tall limbs and equally tall neck they have a strange and exotic appearance, especially when standing upright and browsing a tree. This is confirmed by a frieze from Andhra Pradesh on which the 'giraffe' is accompanied by adult dromedaries. Dromedaries, together with horses, were imported into the south to be used in warfare, but without much success.
Personal note:
Carvings of "giraffes" on same building structure seem quite differentfrom camels to me... with prominent S-shaped necks & clear humps, against raised necks & sloped backs. Not to mention the hump is also present on young camels.
But it could be bad representation.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Heavily criticized because its conclutions about the origin of lions at India, the book "Exotic Aliens" from Valmik Thapar and others is still an excelent source of information about the comerce of animals from many contries to India. If we check it we can see that many African mammals were transported in large number to India, including giraffes and zebras.
Based no that, it is no surprise that this kind of animals is recorded in India history.
I recomend to check that book again, just ignore the conclution of the "lions from Mozambike" issue, the rest is historic gold.
It’s very normal to see stone carvings of wildlife such as tiger, wild pig, elephant, bonnet macaque, snakes and others animals in Indian temples. It shows the relationship of animals (both wild and domesticated) with people. But I was highly intrigued to see the carving of what mostly looks like a giraffe in the Saavira Kambada Basadi, a Jain temple in Moodbidre, in southern India. The construction of this enchanting temple was initiated in the year 1430 CE and took 31 years to complete. The shape, height, neck, face, hooves, ossicones (cartilage covered with skin), tail all indicate that it’s a giraffe. More interesting is that it’s depicted as a draught animal for ploughing! I am not sure if giraffes have ever been domesticated and used in their native homeland as draught animals. Why did they carve a giraffe in an Indian temple? Had the craftsmen seen a giraffe as the proportions of this carved exotic animal is quite accurate (except for the tail)? Though this was the first time I noticed a giraffe in an Indian temple, there are a couple of more such documentation in other temples.
Note on Giraffe Sculptures in India
---------------------------------------------
Taken from: Animals in Stone: Indian Mammals Sculptured Through Time By Alexandra Anna Enrica van der Geer
The earliest possible evidence in stone of a giraffe has been recognized on the southern plinth of the platform of the Sun temple at Konarak, Orissa (c. 1238–1258). Konarak was an important harbour at India's eastern coast at that time and foreign ships surely passed by. The scene in Konarak has been explained as a foreign delegation with a giraffe. Admittedly, the animal's neck is extremely long and its back slopes. On the other hand, the animal is too small, no coat pattern is indicated, and the presence of horns is not sure, though there is a lot of erosion in that area. If indeed such a delegation ever took place at the port of Konarak, then the artist never saw the animal, and modelled the relief upon a description or a drawing. Though it cannot be entirely excluded that the animal is a giraffe or okapi indeed, other explanations should be considered as well.
The size and overall appearance fits a young dromedary equally well with its relatively longer neck than in the adult. Dromedaries naturally do not occur in eastern India and would have presented an equally exotic but surely less expensive gift. Dromedaries were not portrayed on Orissan temples, which indicates that they were indeed unknown and therefore exotic. The relief on the Sun Temple has been restored, and the much eroded animal of the original panel resembles a giraffe much less than the restored panel.
The second reference to a 'giraffe' is provided by the exterior wall of the Mallikarjuna temple at Srisailam, Andhra Pradesh (sixteenth century). Among a row of animals, the two to the left are giraffe-like with their long neck, steeping back short tail, but they are followed by dromedaries with badly depicted hump, which is too flat, too elongated, giving the impression of a high back. The size of the 'giraffe' is too small with a withers' height of only about 1.5 time that of the accompanying man; the horns are further lacking, and no coat pattern seems to have been indicated. The identification is therefore not sure. Most likely, the frieze simply figures a caravan consisting of adult dromedaries with their young, walking from the port to their destination. Dromedaries had to be imported, because they do not occur naturally in eastern and southern India. It can therefore reasonably be expected that the depicted specimens are not very realistic. A similar long-necked, medium-sized animal with steep back, and no horns is seen on the Hosabasti at Mudbidri, Karnataka (first half of the fifteenth century) and on the basis of the western wall of the peristyle of the Vitthalasvamin temple at Hampi.
Is it possible that a giraffe, a strictly African mammal, has been portrayed on the Indian subcontinent? Some scholars are convinced that this is indeed the case, but studying the history and examining the evidences carefully, this is hard to prove. It appears that the rare examples of giraffes in medieval Indian painting are copied from Arabian bestiaries.
The even more rare stone depictions are, if not mythical, at their best interpretations of giraffe descriptions, in which only the typical long neck and steeping hindquarters survived. It is far more likely, however, that these strange giraffe-like animals in stone are just young dromedaries. They, too, had to be imported to southern and eastern India. With their very tall limbs and equally tall neck they have a strange and exotic appearance, especially when standing upright and browsing a tree. This is confirmed by a frieze from Andhra Pradesh on which the 'giraffe' is accompanied by adult dromedaries. Dromedaries, together with horses, were imported into the south to be used in warfare, but without much success.
Personal note:
Carvings of "giraffes" on same building structure seem quite differentfrom camels to me... with prominent S-shaped necks & clear humps, against raised necks & sloped backs. Not to mention the hump is also present on young camels.
But it could be bad representation.
*This image is copyright of its original author
Heavily criticized because its conclutions about the origin of lions at India, the book "Exotic Aliens" from Valmik Thapar and others is still an excelent source of information about the comerce of animals from many contries to India. If we check it we can see that many African mammals were transported in large number to India, including giraffes and zebras.
Based no that, it is no surprise that this kind of animals is recorded in India history.
I recomend to check that book again, just ignore the conclution of the "lions from Mozambike" issue, the rest is historic gold.
Ditto for what Valmik Thapar said about the Asiatic cheetah. It's as if he wasn't aware that the Asiatic lion and cheetah were present in countries from where they could naturally spread to India, especially Iran, even ignoring genetic tests that show that the lion and cheetah spread from Africa to Eurasia at least tens of thousands of years ago, a very long time before people in ancient or medieval times, such as Alexander the Great or the Mughals, could transport them around.
@BorneanTiger, the petroglyphs which show african animals found in Ratnagiri from Maharashtra are from 10,000 BC or so and there is no way those animals could have been brought over to India at that time in history. In fact, they are consistent with cave paintings and petroglyphs found at Bhimbetka in Madhya Pradesh and in Kurnool in Andhra Pradesh. The chances of a group of African origin people settling down at this point in history and drawing these seems unlikely because Bhimbetka has rock art from 290,000 years ago, later oil paintings from 30,000 years ago and petroglyphs about 15,000-10,000 years old.
(11-05-2019, 06:03 PM)Ashutosh Wrote: @BorneanTiger, the petroglyphs which show african animals found in Ratnagiri from Maharashtra are from 10,000 BC or so and there is no way those animals could have been brought over to India at that time in history. In fact, they are consistent with cave paintings and petroglyphs found at Bhimbetka in Madhya Pradesh and in Kurnool in Andhra Pradesh. The chances of a group of African origin people settling down at this point in history and drawing these seems unlikely because Bhimbetka has rock art from 290,000 years ago, later oil paintings from 30,000 years ago and petroglyphs about 15,000-10,000 years old.
So you think that it's more likely that Indians travelled to Africa and then back to make these petroglyphs at least 12,000 years ago, rather than Africans themselves migrated to India and settled there to make them?
11-06-2019, 12:19 AM( This post was last modified: 11-06-2019, 12:22 AM by Ashutosh )
First of all, the petroglyphs in Ratnagiri show only the animals present in the subcontinent today except the hippopotamus. So, the discussion could be why only hippopotamus and not giraffe or other African animals?
Secondly, researchers unearthed a tooth about 9000 years old in Madhya Pradesh which belongs to a Hippoptamus or hippo like species if you will (Ratnagiri petroglyphs are 12000 years old). Here’s evidence to show that they lived in this region for millions of years but died out during the ice age. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/history-of-indias-last-known-hippo/article26037560.ece
Thirdly, the Indian subcontinent’s coastline you see today is vastly different than before the ice age which means the coastal ports of today were inland settlements of those days. Just in case, there is also a possibility of trade between people and someone who went to africa, saw hippos and came back and drew them. Highly unlikely, but possible.
(11-05-2019, 06:03 PM)Ashutosh Wrote: @BorneanTiger, the petroglyphs which show african animals found in Ratnagiri from Maharashtra are from 10,000 BC or so and there is no way those animals could have been brought over to India at that time in history. In fact, they are consistent with cave paintings and petroglyphs found at Bhimbetka in Madhya Pradesh and in Kurnool in Andhra Pradesh. The chances of a group of African origin people settling down at this point in history and drawing these seems unlikely because Bhimbetka has rock art from 290,000 years ago, later oil paintings from 30,000 years ago and petroglyphs about 15,000-10,000 years old.
So you think that it's more likely that Indians travelled to Africa and then back to make these petroglyphs at least 12,000 years ago, rather than Africans themselves migrated to India and settled there to make them?
(11-06-2019, 12:19 AM)Ashutosh Wrote: First of all, the petroglyphs in Ratnagiri show only the animals present in the subcontinent today except the hippopotamus. So, the discussion could be why only hippopotamus and not giraffe or other African animals?
Secondly, researchers unearthed a tooth about 9000 years old in Madhya Pradesh which belongs to a Hippoptamus or hippo like species if you will (Ratnagiri petroglyphs are 12000 years old). Here’s evidence to show that they lived in this region for millions of years but died out during the ice age. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/history-of-indias-last-known-hippo/article26037560.ece
Thirdly, the Indian subcontinent’s coastline you see today is vastly different than before the ice age which means the coastal ports of today were inland settlements of those days. Just in case, there is also a possibility of trade between people and someone who went to africa, saw hippos and came back and drew them. Highly unlikely, but possible.
We have reason to believe that there was trade between ancient India with Egyptian & Abyssinia (horn of Africa) via maritime routes since bronze age. Keep in mind that 5000 years ago Sahara was much smaller, with those northern areas having similar flora & fauna as today's east Africa.
