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.
And I would like to add to this: Suchindram (Tamil Nadu, South India), Thanumalayan Temple (16th century).
Hosabasti at Mudbidri, Karnataka Sun temple at Konarak, Orissa
Mallikarjuna temple at Srisailam