The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, by William Jeffrey

That's French for "the ancient system," as in the ancient system of feudal privileges and the exercise of autocratic power over the peasants. The ancien regime never goes away, like vampires and dinosaur bones they are always hidden in the earth, exercising a mysterious influence. It is not paranoia to believe that the elites scheme against the common man. Inform yourself about their schemes here.

Re: The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, by William Jeffr

Postby admin » Sat Dec 18, 2021 6:11 am

Part 9 of 10

The Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi of ‘Afif and the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi both mention popular beliefs about the column but nothing in the contemporary accounts indicates that Firuz Shah or members of his court had any knowledge of the column’s former association with Asoka.90 [‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 350; Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, pp. 33-34. The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi mentions that the pillar was traditionally thought to have been located next to a temple erected some four thousand years in the past.]
One has to recall that after the Hyphasis mutiny, Alexander gave up his plans to march further east, and to commemorate his Indian expedition he erected twelve massive altars of dressed stone. Arrian writes:
He then divided the army into brigades, which he ordered to prepare twelve altars to equal in height the highest military towers, and to exceed them in point of breadth, to serve as thank offerings to the gods who had led him so far as a conqueror, and also as a memorial of his own labours. After erecting the altars he offered sacrifice upon them with the customary rites, and celebrated a gymnastic and equestrian contest. (V.29.1-2)

Curiously, unlike most writers who place the altars on the right bank of the river, Pliny places them on the left or the eastern bank:
The Hyphasis was the limit of the marches of Alexander, who, however, crossed it, and dedicated altars on the further bank. (Plin. HN 6.21)

Pliny’s crucial hint suggests a reappraisal of the riddle of the altars. Precisely how far east had Alexander and his men come? Although Bunbury holds that the location of the altars cannot be regarded as known even approximately, the Indian evidence sheds new light. Masson places the altars at the united stream of the Hyphasis and Sutlez. McCrindle also writes that the Sutlez marked the limit of Alexander’s march eastward; and this is precisely the locality from where Feroze Shah brought the pillar to Delhi.

-- An Altar of Alexander Now Standing at Delhi [EXPANDED VERSION], by Ranajit Pal, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, India. January, 2006

The Great Altar was by far the largest sculptural complex created in the ancient world, a work so grandiose and imposing that the author of the Biblical Book of Revelation later called it "Satan's seat." It was erected as a memorial to the war against the Gauls.

The Altar was erected some 50 years after the Attalid Group. It stood on a 20-foot-high platform, surrounded by an Ionic colonnade. It originally stood within the elaborate enclosure in the open air.

Image
Present remains of the Great Altar of Zeus, Pergamon. Most of the material excavated by Carl Humann (1839-96) in the late 1870s and early 1880s was transported to Berlin

Running round the base was a sculptural frieze (only part of which survives) some 7.5 feet high and, in all, more than 300 feet long.

The first and larger frieze is devoted to a battle between gods and giants, the gods being the full height of the relief slabs and the giants even bigger, only their huge menacing torsos being visible. Muscles swell in great hard knots, eyes bulge beneath puckered brows, teeth are clenched in agony. The writhing, overpowering figures seem contorted, stretched, almost racked, into an apparently endless, uncontrolled (in fact, very carefully calculated) variety of strenuous, coiling postures to which the dynamic integration of the whole composition is due. Rhythmic sense is felt very strongly a plastic rhythm so compelling that the individual figures and complex groups are all fused into a single system of correspondences throughout the whole design. Deep cutting and under-cutting produce strong contrasts of light and dark which heighten the drama. The naturalism is extreme and is taken to such lengths that some of the figures break out of their architectural frame altogether and into the spectator's space.

Image
Altar of Zeus, from Pergamon. c. 175 BCE. Marble, reconstructed and restored. (Staatliche Museen, Berlin)

This mythical battle between pre-Greek Giants and Greek Olympians recurs in Hellenistic art partly as a result of renewed threats to Greek supremacy. Unlike the Classical version, however, Pergamon's reveled in melodrama. frenzy, and pathos. King Attalus I defeated the invading Gauls in 238 BCE, making Pergamon a major political power. Later, under the rule of Eumenes II (197 - c. 160 BCE), the monumental altar dedicated to Zeus was built to proclaim the victory of civilization over the barbarians.

-- Pergamon [The Pergamon Altar of Zeus], 175 BCE, by Christopher L.C.E. Witcombe

[Fn cont'd.: The absence of any mention of a temple[???] reinforces the hypothesis that Asokan columns frequently stood alone. Other popular beliefs about the column given in the Sirat include a story about a certain Biswal Deva, Chohan, Rai of Sambhal, an idol worshipper. The coincidental mention of a Chohan prince named Visala Deva in one of the inscriptions suggests that the men of the day were able to read at least part of one epigraph.[!!!!!!] Also, the Sirat relates the story that Mongol kings tried to split the pillar by fire, unsuccessfully. ‘Afif relates that these pillars were walking sticks of a giant, Bhim, who lived during the time of the Pandavas, an age equivalent to the Homeric Age of Greece.] Instead, the pillar was associated, on the popular level, with immortals of superhuman strength and intellect. Any mortal, they believed, who was able to move it possessed exceptional qualities and divine inspiration. Both ‘Afif and the Sirat emphasize that Firuz Shah was able to move the pillar because it was God’s will that he do so. Firuz Shah’s act is thus a mark of divine sanction bestowed on the Tughlug ruler. The mystique surrounding the pillar and the difficulty of removing it to Firuzabad enhanced Firuz Shah’s reputation to heroic proportions.

FIVE CONSPIRATORS PLUS BARANI

No. / Author / Book / Origin / Players / Edition 1 / Edition 2 / Edition 3

1. / Shams-i Siraj 'Afif / Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi / Nawab Zia al-Din Loharu / Gen. Hamilton, Mr. Thomas, India Office, Marquis of Hastings, Sir H. Elliot & his munshi, Col. Lees selected it for public. In Bibliotheca Indica, / Abstracts by Lieut. Henry Lewis in Journal of Archaeological Society of Delhi, 1849 / Elliot & Dowson English, 1871 / Bibliotheca Indica edition, edited by Maulavi Vilayat Husain, 1891
2. / Anonymous / Sirat-I Firozshahi / Persian manuscript deposited in Oriental Public Library at Bankipore (No. 547), dated 1593 A.D., verse at end assigns work to 1370 A.D. / Mohammad Hamid Kuraishi, B.A., Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India translated portion concerning transport of Ashokan column from Topra to Firuzabad / J.A. Page Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1937
3. / Sultan Firoz Shah [???] / Futuhat-i Firoz Shahi / date of the Futuhat is not determined (after 1369), Mr. Thomas possessed a copy which purports to have been written 1726 A.D., but is quite modern, so 1726 must be the date of the MS, from which it was copied / Mr. Thomas, Sir. H. Elliot, Col. Lees, Editor John Dowson translated it / Elliot & Dowson English, 1871
4. / James Prinsep / Interpretation of the most ancient of the inscriptions on the pillar called the lat of Feroz Shah, near Delhi, and of the Allahabad, Radhia [Lauriya-Araraj (Radiah)] and Mattiah [Lauriya-Nandangarh (Mathia)] pillar, or lat, inscriptions which agree therewith / 5 orig. manuscript plates of Capt. Hoare which engravings published in the Researches were copied from, plus 2 larger drawings of the 1st and last inscriptions of the series, with actual dimensions, supposed to be the originals presented to William Jones by Col. Polier, but not as faithful as Capt. Hoare’s copy / James Prinsep, His pandit Kamalakanta, and other unknown “pandits” / VI.—Interpretation of the most ancient of the inscriptions on the pillar called the lat of Feroz Shah, near Delhi, and of the Allahabad, Radhia [Lauriya-Araraj (Radiah)] and Mattiah [Lauriya-Nandangarh (Mathia)] pillar, or lat, inscriptions which agree therewith, by James Prinsep, Sec. As. Soc. &c., 1837
5. / George Turnour / An Analysis of the Dipawanso: An examination of the Pali Buddhistical Annals / George Nadoris, modliar, formerly Kapagama thero and George Nadoris de Silva and a previous copy obtained from the ancient temple at Mulgirigalla, near Tangalle. / George Nadoris de Silva, and he is now a modliar or chief of the cinnamon department at Colombo, the priests of the Utaru wihare at Anuradhapura, the ancient capital of Ceylon. / An Analysis of the Dipawanso: An examination of the Pali Buddhistical Annals, No. 4, by the Honorable George Turnour, Esq., Ceylon Civil Service, 1838
6. / Ziaud Din Barni [Ziauddin Barani] / Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi / Nawab of Tonk / edited by Saiyid Ahmad Khan under supervision of Capt. W. Nassau Lees and Maulavi Kabir al-Din (Maulvi Kabiruddin Ahmed), Sir H. Elliot / 1st Persian text Ahmed Khan w/Maulvi Kabiruddin Ahmed, published by Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1862 / Bibliotheca Indica edition, 1862 / Elliot & Dowson edition, based on Bibliotheca Indica edition, 1871 (only 2 chapters of Firuz Shah’s reign) / Ishtiyaq Ahmed Zilli edition, 2015


Librarian's Comment:

This means that the real author of the Futuhat is some person or corporate body forging an "autobiography" using James Prinsep's so-called "translation" of the Delhi-Topra edict. Since it is not actually a "translation," but rather a story cobbled together by Prinsep and his pandits, the striking parallels between Firuz Shah's "Futuhat," and James Prinsep's tale of Ashoka highlight the unlikelihood of two different dynasties having identical or almost identical dynasty functions, as noted by Krawcewicz, Nosovskij and Zabreiko:
... besides coincidence of the dynasty functions, the other numerical functions confirm with very high probability that these dynasties are indeed the same. It brings us to a suspicion that in fact we are dealing with repetitions in the conventional version of the history....But, there are no more such coincidences in the history of the better-documented epochs, for example starting from the 16th century.

-- Investigation of the Correctness of the Historical Dating, by Wieslaw Z. Krawcewicz, Gleb V. Nosovskij and Petr P. Zabreiko

The Sirat suffers from similarly suspicious redundancies:
Other popular beliefs about the column given in the Sirat include a story about a certain Biswal Deva, Chohan, Rai of Sambhal, an idol worshipper. The coincidental mention of a Chohan prince named Visala Deva in one of the inscriptions suggests that the men of the day were able to read at least part of one epigraph...

-- The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University, by William Jeffrey McKibben, B.A., M.A., 1988

Thus, contrary to Jeffrey’s contention that "men of the day were able to read at least part of one epigraph," the forgers of the Sirat accidentally left a clue as to their very own time-period (post 1837), because everyone admitted that no one could read early Brahmi until Prinsep convinced credulous Orientalists that he had figured out the language of some pillar inscriptions. We must question what it means to read Brahmi. Even assuming you have decoded the phonetic alphabet, without a wide source of reading material or an actual dictionary, you will never get beyond making meaningless verbalizations. But it is well-known that whatever language the “Ashokan” pillars have scratched into them, it has no clear linguistic origins, and appeared suspiciously fully-developed for a language no one knew how to speak.

Prinsep's reliance upon George Turnour's so-called "secondary material" (the Dipavamsa, itself a forgery) is another example of the "streetlight effect," the human tendency to seek for evidence where it is convenient rather than where it will be meaningful. Indeed, it is hard to reconcile the status quo conclusion that Prinsep's identification of Ashoka as Devanampriya Priyadasi is solid with Prinsep's own admission that, before he saw Turnour's Dipavamsa, he had published his conclusion that Devanampriya Priyadasi was a Ceylonese king. Since the Dipavamsa has now been downgraded from its former status as a genuine chronicle, it is impossible to comprehend how Prinsep both reversed his prior conclusion based on it, and then built the entire Ashoka legend upon it. By providing Turnour's fantasy with a purported archaeological basis, he gave life to a deception that has now inveigled generations of scholars in its meshes.


How are languages deciphered?
by Dexter
linguistics.stackexchange.com
Accessed: 12/19/21

How do archaeologists, cryptoanalysts and linguists decipher extinct languages? Has there been a case in history where this was successfully accomplished, without the means of something like the Rosetta stone or people that still speak a similar variant of the language in question?

Obviously you start out by collecting statistics. How often do characters appear, how often do certain characters appear together, etc. But what do you then do with those statistics? How does it help knowing that A E I O U are vowels, or that u almost always follows q and that h frequently follows t in English?

If you were to discover English, without knowing anything about it (except for maybe that it is an alphabetical language), or any related languages, how would you go about deciphering it? To simplify things let's assume a fairly simplified version of English with only abstract concepts like squares or triangles. If you had books full of sentences like "A square consists of two triangles", "A triangle consists of three lines intersecting with each other", etc. how could one extract the meaning of those sentences without prior knowledge of the language?... how can you "extract" the meaning out of sentences?

***

A1. This is a fascinating question. It’s somewhat related to the (possibly future) study of alien languages. Say we intercept radio excerpts of an alien language. This may be even harder than trying to figure out the meaning of unknown characters. Also, your example of mathematical texts reminds me of Carl Sagan's reasoning about communication with extraterrestrial civilizations. He says (in Pale blue dot, I believe) that science must be fairly universal, and it will provide the basis to understanding each other. – rberaldo, Nov 11 '11 at 21:43

A2. You should read Peter T. Daniels' 1996 article "Methods of decipherment" in an excellent book, The world's writing systems, eds. Daniels and Bright. New York: Oxford University Press. He has a really nice table, "Typology of decipherment" (adapted from Gelb 1973, 1975).....

Most, if not all, languages are in contact with each other, i.e. there are borrowings. Secondly, there are extra-linguistic cues, e.g. a place where your text was found (thus, you may expect words for certain concepts, like certain types of trees or animals). People who spoke that unknown language should have contacts with other civilizations, thus, you may find certain proper names or concepts mentioned in an already known language.

In your example, there might be drawings of triangles and squares etc. All that might help make educated guesses and it could be a good start.

Indeed, there are some (still) undeciphered languages, because either there isn't enough material to (credibly) decipher them or nothing is known about their linguistic affinity.

A3. The short answer is that, in the scenario you give, It's currently not possible.

All of the decipherments to date have depended on some secondary reference, be it a version of the text in a known language, some illustrations, or some other clues as to the content of the text.

In the example you give, just plain text describing abstract geometric figures, would need diagrams included to be deciphered.


The symbolism of the Firuzabad pillar has attracted the attention of a number of modern scholars. Nath suggests that the sultanate minars, in particular the Qutb Minar, were commemorative monuments because the call to prayer was not performed from them.91 [Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, p. 33.] He adds that categorically the minars of the Turks in India were "entirely and wholly symbolic." Nath assigns Firuz Shah’s lat to this group. He proposes that at the time of its inception, and throughout its early development, the minar was conceived of as a symbolic device much as the Hindu dhvaja-stambha represented. The origin of the pillar (stambha), however, he traces to an earlier epoch when pan-Buddhist influences were ubiquitous throughout Central and West Asia (Parthia, Bactria, Uttarapatha).92 [Ibid., p. 33 and footnote 65. Nath uses the term Hindu dhvajastambha in a categorical sense, including Jain, Buddhist, and Brahmanical aspects.] He claims, and probably correctly, that the predominantly Hindu population of the fourteenth century accepted the idea of symbolic content, albeit Muslim, because they were predisposed to it.

In addition, Nath sees similarities of a general sort between plans of Muslim monuments like Firuz Shah’s mosque and lat pyramid and plans of Buddhist viharas and Hindu temples. But in strictly formal terms he cites precedents for the Qutb Minar in the Ghazni and Jam minars of present-day Afghanistan and refutes the theory first proposed by Sayyid Ahmad Khan that the first stage of the Qutb Minar was a Hindu monument converted to Muslim purpose.93 [Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (August-September 1860), pp. 245- 246. His theory was upheld by Beglar, A.S.I. Reports IV, p. 41 and 48-58. Cunningham refutes the theory. Cunningham, A.S.I. Reports I, pp. 189-194, and IV, pp. v-x. See also Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 32 and footnote 16.]

In the broader context of the Islamic world, the minar also had formal precedents and carried symbolic associations as well. Grabar suggests that the minaret or minar was "a symbolic expression of the presence of Islam directed primarily at the non- Muslims."94 [Grabar, Formation of Islamic Art, p. 114.] This symbolism, he contends, is broadened to include symbolic expressions of social, imperial, or personal prestige. In some contexts, the minar even acquires significance as an aesthetic device. Ettinghausen and Grabar assert an Iranian origin for the minars of Afghanistan and India. The form was translated to stone in India although its purpose, according to these authors, remains uncertain.95 [Ettinghausen and Grabar, The Art and Architecture of Islam 650-1250, p. 273 and p. 291.] Some minars of Khurasan and Central Asia had funerary commemorative associations while others were victory monuments.96 [The funerary associations of these towers derives from the tomb towers or gumbads of Khurasan and Central Asia, such as the Samanid period tomb of Gumbad-i Qabus (1006 A.D.)] Yet others may have been symbolic markers of certain families or quarters of a town. In rarer cases the minar served as a lighthouse or beacon to travelers in remote regions.97 [The Arabic word manara, from which minar is derived, means "lighthouse."] The authors go further in suggesting that the shape and purposes of the great minars of Ghazni and Jam in Afghanistan were "monumental expressions of individuals’ devotion" because of their epigraphic emphasis on the patron’s piety.

The Ghaznavid minars at Ghazni (attributed to Mas’ud III, ca. 1114-1115 A.D. and Bahram Shah, ca. 1117-1153 A.D.) and the Ghurid minar of Jam (ca. 1153-1203 A.D.) are thought to have been isolated monuments, not associated with mosques.98 [The Ghazni towers are published in S. Flury, "Das Schriftband an der Ture des Mahmud von Ghazna, 998-1030," Der Islam 8 (1918), pp. 214-227; S. Flury, "Le Décor épigraphique des monuments de Ghazna, " Syria 6 (1925), pp. 61-90; J. Sourdil-Thomine "Deux minarets d’époque Seljoukide en Afghanistan," Syria 30 (1953), pp. 108-136; and U. Scerrato, "The first two excavation Campaigns at Ghazni, 1957-1958," East and West NS10 (March-June 1959), pp. 23-55.] Although commonly referred to as victory towers, at least one of these minars (Jam) is in a remote area. Proclamations of victories would be obscured by their inaccessible locations.99 [Maricq remarks that when he "discovered" the minar at Jam in 1957 that he caught sight of it only after he was practically on top of it. The minaret at Jam has been published by A. Maricq and G. Wiet, "Le minaret de Djam. Le découverte de la capitale des sultans ghorides (XII-XIII siècles)," Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan 16 (1959), Paris. Further studies of it have been published by Judi Moline, "The Minaret of Gam (Afghanistan)," Kunst des Orients 9 (1973-74), pp. 131-148; and William Trousdale "The Minaret of Jam: A Ghorid Monument in Afghanistan," Archaeology 18 (June 1865), pp. 102-108.] The minar at Khwaja Siah Posh, the most probable formal prototype for the Qutb Minar, is believed to have stood beside a mosque.100 [The Khwajah Siah Posh monument is published in F.R. Allchin and Norman Hammond (Ed.), The Archaeology of Afghanistan, New York, 1978. Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, p. 25 and plate XXVII. The possible prototype for the Khwaja Siah Posh minar is one at Nad-i Ali, since collapsed. It is described by Fischer in Archaeology of Afghanistan (Ed. by Allchin and Hammond), p. 366, and G P. Tate, Seistan, Calcutta, 1912, p. 202.] A. Welch concluded, on the basis of its epigraphs, however, that the purpose of the Qutb Minar was not the same as the Ghaznavid and Ghurid minars. Rather, the epigraphic message of the Qutb Minar was directed to the predominantly non-Muslim population of India and addressed a set of political and societal circumstances unique to the Indian subcontinent.  

Minars did not occur in Tughluq architecture prior to Firuz Shah’s lat. The presence of the lat pyramid and its minar was highly unusual in Tughluq mosques. Mimetic minars, which mirror the Qutb Minar, appear in the portals of Iltutmish’s Ardha’i-din-ka-Jhonpra mosque in Ajmer and in the Khirki and Jahanpanah mosques of Delhi. Firuz Shah’s detached minar can also be interpreted conceptually as a mirror of the Qutb Minar. It served the same purpose for the Firuzabad mosque as the Qutb Minar did for the Quwwat al-Islam mosque, that is, it commemorated the expanding boundary of the dar al-islam and its physical form was a constant reminder to non-Muslims of the Muslim presence. The function and monographic meaning of Firuz Shah’s lat, therefore, was related to the Qutb Minar, but its form was one more familiar to the indigenous population. Hindus were able to relate to its meaning because of a long-standing tradition of pillar symbolism. Although the Qutb Minar and Firuz Shah’s minar are formally different, they are, thus, conceptually the same.

‘Afif’s comment that every great king erected some lasting memorial of his power is therefore manifested in the lat pyramid.101 [‘Afif, Ta'rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 353.] Firuz Shah surely recognized the impact which an architectural monument impressed upon the populace. His decision to place the lat next to his imperial mosque was undoubtedly intended to emphasize his authority and the triumph of Islam. Because earlier sultans had erected similar monuments to commemorate the dominance of Islam, Firuz Shah continued the tradition and thereby established himself as their legitimate successor. Welch and Crane corroborate the theory that Firuz Shah’s minar was a trophy, but also feel it to be a symbol of Tughluq dynastic legitimacy.102 [Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 127.] Firuz Shah’s act of emulating the earlier sultans of Delhi represented an accepted step in the legitimization process. In addition to these purposes, however, it also served as a public affirmation of his piety.

In the context of the Islamic world, the minar carried symbolic connotations of Muslim authority and piety. Firuz Shah’s ability to accomplish the extraordinary feat was regarded by the author of the Sirat as an act of piety.103 [Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 41.]
...every one of these works was done exactly according to the orders and suggestions of His Majesty the King, the refuge of Faith, may God give him power always to preserve and establish pious institutions [for public welfare].

The act of constructing architectural edifices to house religious institutions and to accommodate religious practice such as prayer was seen as a pious gesture to the Muslim community. Such acts served to preserve religious practice and insure stability of the framework of Islamic society. As sultan, Firuz Shah’s responsibilities included the spiritual as well as material well-being of his subjects. In this regard the sultan’s role as protector of the religion was manifested, in part, through his building projects. By building, therefore, he was able to underscore his legitimacy.

The minar was perceived by Muslims differently than in the context of Hindu society, whose symbolic expressions were unfamiliar to Muslims. The reuse of building materials by Muslims derived from the temples of unbelievers and appropriation of pre- Islamic sites to Muslim purposes was also an old and long-lived practice in the Muslim world.104 [Appropriation of pre-Buddhist symbols and architectural forms into the Buddhist religion marks an indigenous tradition of appropriation in India. The pre- Buddhist pillar cults were gradually assimilated into Buddhist practices. See Irwin, "'Asokan’ Pillars - Part I," Burlington Magazine (November 1973), pp. 715-717. Irwin also states that the "custom of erecting shrines on spots already made sacred by earlier cults has been common throughout India and was followed even by the Muslims who, in this same area, often founded cemeteries on top of stupas." He cites the Muslim graveyard on top of the mound at Vaisali as an example.] Despite its unique form, the lat pyramid conceptually fits with Islamic tradition. Formally, however, the monument resembles no other building in either the Muslim or Hindu architectural tradition.105 [Similarities can be seen between Firuz Shah’s lat and the pillar tombs of Malindi and Mambruti on the east African coast. See James Kirkman, "The Great Pillars of Malindi and Mambruti," Oriental Art NS IV, 2 (1958), pp. 55-67. Ironically, these pillar tombs marked the graves of leaders of African descent, in contrast to those of Arab or non-African ancestry. The latter were interred in domed chambers, a form ubiquitous in the Islamic world, or pavilions (chhatris). The similarity of architectural forms between east coastal Africa and the Indian subcontinent has been pointed out (pp. 56-57) and may be a result of active sea contact.] Firuz Shah’s lat pyramid is, thus, an idiosyncratic monument, unique in all Muslim architecture.

However, in order to fully comprehend the lat pyramid as a monument belonging to the tradition of Islamic architecture, it must be recalled that the form of the jami masjid to which it was attached, falls within the known canons of Islamic architecture.106 [Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 133.] Although the mosque form too is anomalous in Indo-Muslim tradition because it is raised on a plinth, its worship area conforms to a standard hypostyle arrangement. The plinth is a form which is typical, if not unique to buildings of Firuz Shah. Whether the plinth had practical applications or only symbolic associations is not known. The plinth was possibly adapted from a long-standing tradition of plinth architecture in India, particularly in the north, where Hindu temples were frequently raised on plinths forming a structure resembling a mountain and symbolizing Mt. Kailash, the home of Hindu gods, but precedents for plinth mosques also exist in the architecture of the western Islamic world such as the Ottoman mosque of Rustem Pasha in Istanbul. In India, many mosques were erected upon the foundations of demolished Hindu temples, as for instance the Quwwat al-Islam mosque. There is however, no mention by historians that the jami masjid of Firuzabad was constructed on a pre-existing foundation. Firuz Shah’s adoption of a standard hypostyle plan for his imperial mosque, similar to the Quwwat al-Islam mosque and the Ardha’i-din-ka-Jhonpra mosque in Ajmer, suggests that he looked to Muslim precedents for the plan of his mosque.

The austere appearance of the Firuzabad mosque however contrasts the elaborately carved stonework and elegant decorative motifs of these former mosques. The Quwwat al-Islam mosque and the Ajmer mosque are constructed with stone indigenous to the region while the facades of Firuz Shah’s foundations are covered with undecorated plaster, concealing a rubble core. [/b][/size] The military character, so often noted in Tughluq buildings, is as much endemic to the construction materials Firuz Shah favored as to the militarized circumstances of the age. 107 [J.C. Harle, The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent (1986), p 425.] The mosque has the massive battered walls typical of Tughluq architecture. The vaulted enclosures, with their low hemispherical domes and the heavy massive appearance of the mosque characterizes Tughluq mosques like Khirki, Jahanpanah, and Kalan Masjid, rather than earlier prototypes.

After the Tughluq period, the two-storey mosque form is abandoned. The lat pyramid was not replicated by any subsequent ruler of the Delhi sultanate. In fact, the minar, in subsequent periods of the sultanate, does not attain the striking proportions or retain its symbolic associations to the degree it had in these early monuments. The custom of appropriating sites and reusing construction materials, practiced on such a wide scale by the early sultans, is also less frequent in the following periods. After the demise of the Tughluqs and following the Timurid conquest, the rulers of Delhi turned away from the fundamental messages expressed on these early monuments and turned to expressions of power and empire.

Summary:

Firuz Shah built a large jami masjid or congregational mosque (Plate I) within the kotla (citadel) in Firuzabad. Because of its prominent location in proximity to the palace, it is considered to be his imperial mosque, the one in which he fulfilled his personal religious obligations. The kotla is located a few kilometers to the north of Jahanpanah, Muhammad bin Tughluq’s foundation…

The jami masjid is a remarkable structure not so much because of the mosque proper but because of a peculiar structure, the lat pyramid, which is located on its north side. The lat or pillar which is embedded in it is believed to have served as a minar to the mosque….

Although the mosque and lat pyramid are conceived as a single mosque complex, they were built at two different times. Firuz Shah ordered the construction of the mosque early in his reign. Following his return to Delhi in 755/1354-1355 after the first campaign to Bengal, he selected the site and commenced the building of Firuzabad. The date of the jami masjid, inferred from historical references, coincides with the founding of the city. ‘Afif does not mention the construction of the mosque specifically but implies its existence when he discusses the addition of the lat pyramid fifteen years later. The mosque contains no surviving historical epigraphs. ‘Afif records that upon arrival into Delhi from Bengal, the town of Firuzabad was "not yet populous" and the kushk (palace) and fort were not yet constructed….

Literary references to the mosque are few. Barani, who died in 758/1357 before the celebrated occasion of the construction of the monument is, of course, silent about the lat pyramid in his Tarikh-i Firuz Shahi but he mentions the jami masjid in Firuzabad briefly, noting that during the sabbath it housed a congregation so large that no space remained in the lower or upper stories nor in the courtyard….

The contemporary historians mention the mosque only in passing and instead concentrate on the extraordinary lat pyramid. In describing the foundation of the city of Firuzabad, ‘Afif writes in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, "There were eight public mosques and one private mosque,...The public mosques were each large enough to accommodate 10,000 supplicants.'… ‘Afif surely includes the congregational mosque within the kotla among the nine mosques he enumerates. In a later chapter the author devotes much attention to the lat. He relates that after returning from the expedition to Thatta, Firuz Shah discovered two stone columns during an excursion north of Delhi. "One was erected in the palace (kushk) at Firozabad, near the Masjid-i jama’..." ‘Afif infers in this statement that construction of the kotla mosque was already finished and that the lat pyramid was not part of its original conception…

‘Afif then describes the removal of the second lat from Mirat and its erection on a hill in the kushk-i shikar. He does not mention however any mosque in connection with it….

In these passages ‘Afif offers several reasons for the sultan’s actions: to provide a minar for his mosque, to acquire a trophy, to erect a memorial to future generations, and to erect a memorial of his power…. He also mentions that he was only twelve years of age when he witnessed the raising of the lat… The author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi reiterates ‘Afif’s assertion that the pillar was transported and erected in the Firuzabad mosque after that mosque had been built….

The Sirat contends that the lat was to serve as a minar and was consciously adopted from serving an infidel purpose for use in a Muslim edifice…. Both authors corroborate that it functioned as a minar for the adjacent mosque….

Timur visited the mosque and is said to have had the khutba recited in it….

The seventeenth century historian Firishta, who wrote his Ta’rikh or Gulshan-i Ibrahimi in distant Bijapur, also mentions the Firuzabad mosque but not the lat pyramid. He identifies it as the mosque which Timur so admired and desired to replicate in Samarqand that he took the same architects and masons to build it….

Firishta states that Firuz Shah "caused his regulations to be carved on the Masjid of Ferozabad" and refers to an octagonal dome which crowned the mosque that contained eight slabs inscribed with the ordinances of the sultan, now believed to be the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. In another passage he again refers to Firuz Shah’s mosque "on the stones of which he had inscribed the history of his reign." The inscribed slabs were allegedly located on the eight sides of an octagonal drum which supported a dome, the location of which is uncertain…. Firishta emphasizes the inscribed dome and neglects to mention the monument containing the lat…

One eighteenth century witness, Captain Franklin, describes an octangular dome of brick and stone approximately 25 feet in height located in the center of the mosque…

Sayyid Ahmad Khan identifies the ruined structure which lay beside the Asokan lat in the Kotla Firuz Shah as the "Jami’-i-Firozi" or the congregational mosque of Firuz Shah Tughluq….

In Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s day the mosque was in ruins and stripped of its epigraphs. The stone slabs which, according to Firishta’s testimony, bore the contents of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shah, had disappeared. Sayyid Ahmad Khan asserts however that the dome was still intact during the reign of Jahangir (r. 1605-1627 A.D.)…

Sayyid Ahmad Khan is the earliest author to identify the Topra lat with the emperor Asoka…

Whereas the lat pyramid has received much attention by modern scholars, Firuz Shah’s mosque has been largely neglected…. The present condition of Firuz Shah’s mosque limits discussions about its original form, which is determined, in part, from the physical forms of these other mosques….

The plan of the mosque included in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi (Plate II) suggests that only a single row of bays occurred on the east, north and south sides, but the prayer hall, if interpreted correctly, was three bays deep and eight bays long….

Franklin describes the mosque in 1793 A.D. as having four cloisters with domed roofs supported on 260 stone columns, sixteen feet high….

Father Monserrate [1582], who visited the city during the reign of the Mughal emperor Akbar, described Firuz Shah’s mosque: "Delinum [Delhi] is noteworthy for its public buildings, its remarkable fort (built by Emaumus [Hamayun]), its walls and a number of mosques, especially the one said to have been built by king Peruzius [Feroze Shah Tughlaq].[???] This mosque is constructed of wonderfully polished white Marble,. the exterior is covered with brilliant whitewash, made by mixing lime with milk, instead of water. It shines like a mirror; for this mixture of lime and milk is not only of such remarkable consistency that no cracks appear in it anywhere, but also when polished it shines most magnificently." The existence of marble, referred to by Monserrate, is spurious. Monserrate does not mention the lat or dome, alleged to have been inscribed with Firuz Shah’s ordinances…

The qibla facade of Firuz Shah’s mosque was constructed of a rubble core which would have been faced with plaster….

A well is located in the center of the courtyard of the mosque. The depth was determined to be approximately 25 feet….

The lat pyramid (Plates XXIV, XXXV, and XXVI) has received more attention by contemporary historians and modern scholars than the mosque itself. It is a peculiar monument of Indo-Muslim architecture, not only in form but also in function. The lat pyramid is a square plan three-storey structure which sits to the north of the mosque near the gate or portal. The plan of the structure is symmetrical so each facade is virtually a mirror of the other three….

The inscriptions on the pillar were not effaced by Firuz Shah….

The corridor which connected the lat pyramid to the mosque originally probably joined the former at its south side near the west end of this storey, but the Archaeological Survey has expressed doubts as to whether a bridge existed at all….

No Muslim inscriptions are known to survive in the physical remains of the Mosque…

The lat is inscribed with several epigraphs which date as early as the third century B.C. and as late as the sixteenth century A.D. Unfortunately none of the lat inscriptions belongs to Firuz Shah…. The earliest inscription in Pali is believed to be Asokan in origin (third century B.C.)….

‘Afif mentions in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi that neither Brahmans or Hindu devotees of Topra were able to decipher them but he writes, "It is said that certain infidel Hindus interpreted them as stating that no one should be able to remove the obelisk from its place till there should arise in the latter days a Muhammadan king, named Sultan Firoz." ‘Afif clearly points out that Firuz Shah and members of his entourage were suspicious of this interpretation.

The author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi concurs that the inscriptions were "unintelligible."…

Firuz Shah allowed the inscriptions to remain intact but, more curiously, he did not add any Muslim inscriptions to the column. Firuz Shah left the surface of the Firuzabad column unaltered, but since the inscriptions were undeciphered, they probably posed no threat or embarrassment to him….

Barani is silent about inscriptions of the mosque. ‘Afif also does not make specific reference to any inscriptions on the mosque but he reports that Firuz Shah caused the following lines, of his own composition, to be inscribed on the walls of the Kushk-i Shikar-rav, and on the domes of the kushk-i nuzul, and the walls of the minarets of stone which are within the kushk-i shikar-rav at Firozabad: "I made a great hunt of elephants, and I captured so many; I performed many glorious deeds; and all this I have done; That in the world and among men; in the earth and among mankind, these verses; May stand as a memorial to men of intelligence, and that the people of the world, and the wise men of the age, may follow the example."… These verses are believed to be extrapolated from the Futuhat, but they do not appear in the text which remains today.

The sixteenth century historian, Nizam al-Din Ahmad Bakhshi, states that eight chapters of Firuz Shah’s history were inscribed on eight sides of the dome of the jami masjid…Firishta, who refers to both Barani and Nizam al-Din as his authorities, also refers to inscriptions being on the Firuzabad mosque…. According to Firishta’s testimony, Nizam al-Din had stated that Firuz Shah caused his regulations to be carved on the Masjid of Ferozabad, of which the following may be taken as an sample, then recites recognized passages from the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi….  

Neither Nizam al-Din or Firishta were aware of ‘Afif's Tarikh-i Firuz Shahi…

Banerjee states that Nizam al-Din’s sources appear to be Barani and ‘Afif, but that Firishta does not include ‘Afif. Given his ignorance of the lat pyramid, it is probable that Nizam al-Din was unfamiliar with ‘Afif's Ta’rikh…. Sayyid Ahmad Khan, on the basis of the testimony of Firishta, also places the words of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi on the dome of Firuz Shah’s jami masjid….

Firishta is believed to have depended heavily on Barani’s Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, but he seems to be unaware of ‘Afif's work….

The author of the Sirat does not mention the Futuhat or any inscriptions in the mosque….

Sayyid Ahmad Khan says Firishta says the dome crowned the mosque…

J.A. Page relates that the center of the courtyard was thought to contain the foundation for a domed structure on top of a cistern or well shaft….

Franklin described an octangular dome of brick and stone, 25 feet high, situated in the center of the mosque, but he makes no mention of any inscriptions on it…. Sayyid Ahmad Khan also states that the dome of the mosque was still intact during the reign of Jahangir (r. 1605-1627 A.D.)… The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi makes no mention of Firishta’s statement that Firuz Shah "caused his regulations to be carved on the masjid...,''

The lat pyramid is an extraordinary structure, unique not only to India, but to Muslim architecture generally. It is an anomalous monument in Indo-Muslim architecture. In the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, ‘Afif states that Firuz Shah brought back two pillars to Firuzabad. One of these was erected in the palace (kushk) at Firozabad, near the jami masjid, and was designated the Minara-i zarin, or Golden Column, and the second pillar was erected in the kushk-i shikar, although it is not known to have been located by a mosque. He also testifies that Timur inspected all the monuments of the Muslim sovereigns..."and among them these two obelisks, when he declared that in all the countries he had traversed he had never seen any monuments comparable to these," but there is no specific mention of the lat pyramid in Timur’s memoirs (Malfuzat-i Timuri)…. The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi also makes several references to the Topra column as a minar… Firishta, however, is silent about the lat….

The lat pyramid could have functioned as a minaret. The muezzin would have been able to ascend to an elevated position on the roof of the pyramid above the level of the adjacent mosque walls in order to call the faithful to prayer but the lat itself, of course, could not be climbed….

The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi mentions that the pillar was traditionally thought to have been located next to a temple erected some four thousand years in the past….

Also, the Sirat relates the story that Mongol kings tried to split the pillar by fire, unsuccessfully. ‘Afif relates that these pillars were walking sticks of a giant, Bhim, who lived during the time of the Pandavas, an age equivalent to the Homeric Age of Greece….

Nath refutes the theory first proposed by Sayyid Ahmad Khan that the first stage of the Qutb Minar was a Hindu monument converted to Muslim purpose. His theory was upheld by Beglar, A.S.I. Reports IV, p. 41 and 48-58….

Minars did not occur in Tughluq architecture prior to Firuz Shah’s lat. The presence of the lat pyramid and its minar was highly unusual in Tughluq mosques….

The mosque form is anomalous in Indo-Muslim tradition because it is raised on a plinth. The plinth was possibly adapted from a long-standing tradition of plinth architecture in India, particularly in the north, where Hindu temples were frequently raised on plinths forming a structure resembling a mountain and symbolizing Mt. Kailash, the home of Hindu gods, In India, many mosques were erected upon the foundations of demolished Hindu temples, as for instance the Quwwat al-Islam mosque. There is however, no mention by historians that the jami masjid of Firuzabad was constructed on a pre-existing foundation….

The austere appearance of the Firuzabad mosque contrasts with the elaborately carved stonework and elegant decorative motifs of former mosques.

The Quwwat al-Islam mosque and the Ajmer mosque are constructed with stone indigenous to the region while the facades of Firuz Shah’s foundations are covered with undecorated plaster, concealing a rubble core….

There were two columns ["Asokan" pillars] brought to Delhi but the author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi mentions only one. ‘Afif discusses both columns....

After the Tughluq period, the two-storey mosque form is abandoned. The lat pyramid was not replicated by any subsequent ruler of the Delhi sultanate. In fact, the minar, in subsequent periods of the sultanate, does not attain the striking proportions or retain its symbolic associations to the degree it had in these early monuments. The custom of appropriating sites and reusing construction materials, practiced on such a wide scale by the early sultans, is less frequent in the following periods.

-- The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University, by William Jeffrey McKibben, B.A., M.A., 1988
[/quote]
 
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, by William Jeffr

Postby admin » Sat Dec 18, 2021 6:40 am

Part 10 of 10

_______________

Notes to Chapter IV:

1 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 302-303; Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 260; Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar al-Sanadid in Journal asiatique (June 1860), p. 407; R. Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 37.

2 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 317. ‘Afif records that the sultan passed his time pursuing three interests: hunting, directing affairs of state, and building. He also states that upon arrival into Delhi from Bengal, the town of Firuzabad was "not yet populous" and the kushk (palace) and fort were not yet constructed. Firuz Shah returned to the Kushk-i-Humayun, the palace of Jahanpanah, since only one kabba or public pavilion was built.

3 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, pp. 33-42. The Sirat, pp. 35 and 41, mentions that the discovery of the lat occurred in 769/1367, after the conquest of Sind. Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 129 places the event in 757/1356 citing as his source J.D. Beglar, Archaeological Survey of India, Report, v. IV (1874). This date is repeated in the Archaeological Survey’s Lists of Monuments, v. 2 Delhi Zail (1919), p. 74. Sayyid Ahmad Khan assigns the event to 770/1368. Athar al-Sanadid in Journal asiatique (August-September 1860), p. 231.

4 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 561-562. ‘Afif states that Barani’s death occurred just upon Firuz Shah’s return from the second Bengal campaign, in 758/1357. See ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 316.

5 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 303; See also Hodivala, Studies in Indo- Muslim History, v. 2, pp. 124-125 and page 91, footnote 5 above.

6 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 350.

7 Ibid., pp. 350-353.

8 Ibid., p. 351.

9 Passages from the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi are cited from a partial translation by Mohammad Hamid Kuraishi in Page, A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi, pp. 33-42. Kuraishi based his translation of a sixteenth century Persian manuscript in the Oriental Public Library (No. 547), Bankipore, Patna, which is believed to have been copied from a fourteenth century original. The manuscript contains a colophon date 1002 A.H. and refers to to the twentieth regnal year of Firuz Shah (772/1370).

10 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 33.

11 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, pp. 38-39.

12 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 39 and p. 41. The author describes the capital twice in his text. The second description is more detailed:

...a gilt fmial, seven and a half yards in height, and consisting of a pedestal (kursi), a myrobalan-shaped ornament (halila), a flat moulding (tas), a dentil reel, a vase (subu), a second reel and smaller vase (subuchah) and a third reel, a flask (surahi) and a crescent (mah), was put up on the top of the pillar as the crowning ornament.


William Finch describes the lat and its capital after his visit to the lat pyramid in 1611, during the reign of Jahangir. His account is included in Robert Kerr, Voyages and Travels (1824), vol. 8, p. 292:

Delhi is situated in a fine plain; and about 2 coss from thence are the ruins of a hunting seat, or mole, built by Sultan Bemsa (Firuz),[???] a great Indian sovereign. It still contains much curious stone-work; and above all the rest is seen a stone pillar, which, after passing through three several stories, rises twenty-four feet above them all, having on the top a globe, surmounted by a crescent. It is said that this stone stands as much below in the earth as it rises above, and is placed below in the water, being all one stone. Some say Naserdengady, a Patan king, wanted to take it up, but was prevented by a multitude of scorpions. It has inscriptions. In divers parts of India the like are to be seen.


This month of January 1611, the king was providing more forces for the Deccan war, although the king of that country offered to restore all his conquests as the price of peace.

The Deccan sultanates were five late-medieval Indian kingdoms—on the Deccan Plateau between the Krishna River and the Vindhya Range—that were ruled by Muslim dynasties: namely Ahmadnagar, Berar, Bidar, Bijapur, and Golconda. The sultanates had become independent during the break-up of the Bahmani Sultanate. In 1490, Ahmadnagar declared independence, followed by Bijapur and Berar in the same year. Golconda became independent in 1518, and Bidar in 1528.

Although the five sultanates were all ruled by Muslims, their founders were of diverse, and often originally non-Muslim, origins: the Ahmadnagar Sultanate was of Hindu-Brahmin origins; the Berar Sultanate by a Kanarese-Hindu convert; the Bidar Sultanate was founded by a Georgian slave; the Bijapur Sultanate was founded by a Georgian slave purchased by Mahmud Gawan; and the Golconda Sultanate was of Turkmen origin.

Although generally rivals, the sultanates did ally with each other against the Vijayanagara Empire in 1565, permanently weakening Vijayanagara in the Battle of Talikota. Notably, the alliance destroyed the entire city of Vijayanagara, with important temples, such as the Vitthala Temple, being razed to the ground.

The Vijayanagara Empire, also called Karnata Kingdom, was based in the Deccan Plateau region in South India. It was established in 1336 by the brothers Harihara I and Bukka Raya I of the Sangama dynasty, members of a pastoralist cowherd community that claimed Yadava lineage. [The Yadavas (literally, descended from Yadu) were an ancient Indian people who believed to be descended from Yadu, a legendary king. The community was formed of four clans, being the Abhira, Andhaka, Vrishni, and Satvatas, who all worshipped Krishna.] The empire rose to prominence as a culmination of attempts by the southern powers to ward off Islamic invasions by the end of the 13th century. At its peak, it subjugated almost all of South India's ruling families and pushed the sultans of the Deccan beyond the Tungabhadra-Krishna river doab region, in addition to annexing modern day Odisha (ancient Kalinga) from the Gajapati Kingdom thus becoming a notable power. It lasted until 1646, although its power declined after a major military defeat in the Battle of Talikota in 1565 by the combined armies of the Deccan sultanates. The empire is named after its capital city of Vijayanagara, whose ruins surround present day Hampi, now a World Heritage Site in Karnataka, India. The wealth and fame of the empire inspired visits by and writings of medieval European travelers such as Domingo Paes, Fernão Nunes, and Niccolò de' Conti. These travelogues, contemporary literature and epigraphy in the local languages and modern archeological excavations at Vijayanagara has provided ample information about the history and power of the empire.

The empire's legacy includes monuments spread over South India, the best known of which is the group at Hampi. Different temple building traditions in South and Central India were merged into the Vijayanagara architecture style. This synthesis inspired architectural innovations in the construction of Hindu temples. Efficient administration and vigorous overseas trade brought new technologies to the region such as water management systems for irrigation. The empire's patronage enabled fine arts and literature to reach new heights in Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, and Sanskrit with topics such as astronomy, mathematics, medicine, fiction, musicology, historiography and theater gaining popularity. The classical music of Southern India, Carnatic music, evolved into its current form. The Vijayanagara Empire created an epoch in the history of Southern India that transcended regionalism by promoting Hinduism as a unifying factor.

-- Vijayanagara Empire, by Wikipedia

In 1574, after a coup in Berar, Ahmadnagar invaded and conquered it. In 1619, Bidar was annexed by Bijapur. The sultanates were later conquered by the Mughal Empire: Berar was stripped from Ahmadnagar in 1596; Ahmadnagar was completely taken between 1616 and 1636; and Golconda and Bijapur were conquered by Aurangzeb's 1686–87 campaign.

-- Deccan sultanates, by Wikipedia


Azam Khan was appointed general, who went off at the head of 20,000 horse, with whom went Mohabet Khan, another great captain, together with a vast treasure. With these forces went John Frenchman and Charles Charke,3 [This Charles Charke I have spoken with since in London, after having served several years in India. — Purch.] engaged in the king's service for these wars.

Samuel Purchas (c. 1577 – 1626) was an English Anglican cleric who published several volumes of reports by travellers to foreign countries.... Purchas himself never travelled "200 miles from Thaxted in Essex where I was borne." Instead, he recorded personal narratives shared with him by the sailors, who returned to England from their voyages. He added these accounts to a vast compilation of unsorted manuscripts, which were left to him by Richard Hakluyt and were later published as Purchas's third – and final – book....

In 1614 he published Purchas His Pilgrimage: or Relations of the World and the Religions observed in all Ages and Places discovered, from the Creation unto this Present. In this work, intended as an overview of the diversity of God's creation from an Anglican world-view, he presented several abbreviated travel stories he would later publish in full. The book achieved immediate popularity and went through four editions between 1613 and 1626, the year of Purchas's death.

His second book, Purchas his Pilgrim or Microcosmus, or the Historie of Man. Relating the Wonders of his Generation, Vanities in his Degeneration, Necessities of his Regenerations, was published in 1619.

In 1625 Purchas published Hakluytus Posthumus, or Purchas his Pilgrimes, a massive four-volume collection of travel stories that can be seen as a continuation of Richard Hakluyt's Principal Navigations and was partly based on manuscripts left by Hakluyt, who had died in 1616. Although the work is not methodically organized, it may be thematically divided into four volumes:

• Volume I explores ancient kings, beginning with Solomon, and records stories of circumnavigation around the African coast to the East Indies, China, and Japan.
• Volume II is dedicated to Africa, Palestine, Persia, and Arabia.
• Volume III provides history of the North-East and North-West passages and summaries of travels to Tartary, Russia, and China.
• Volume IV deals with America and the West Indies.
The fourth edition of the Pilgrimage (published in 1626) is usually catalogued as the fifth volume of the Pilgrimes, but the two works are essentially distinct. Purchas himself said of the two volumes:

"These brethren, holding much resemblance in name, nature and feature, yet differ in both the object and the subject. This [i.e. the Pilgrimage] being mine own in matter, though borrowed, and in form of words and method; whereas my Pilgrimes are the authors themselves. acting their own parts in their own words, only furnished by me with such necessities as that stage further required, and ordered according to my rules.

Purchas died in September or October 1626, according to some in a debtors' prison, nearly ruined by the expenses of his encyclopedic labor. Others believe the patronage of Dr. King, Bishop of London, which provided him with the Rectory of St Martin, Ludgate, and made him Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury, relieved him from his financial troubles. In addition, his move to London allowed Purchas to expand his research. None of his works was reprinted till the Glasgow reissue of the Pilgrimes in 1905–1907.

As an editor and compiler Purchas was often injudicious, careless and even unfaithful; but his collections contain much value and are frequently the only sources of information upon important questions affecting the history of exploration.

Purchas his Pilgrimes became one of the sources of inspiration for the poem Kubla Khan by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. As a note to Coleridge's poem explains, "In the summer of the year 1797, the Author, then in ill health, had retired to a lonely farm-house between Porlock and Linton, on the Exmoor confines of Somerset and Devonshire.

In consequence of a slight indisposition, an anodyne had been prescribed, from the effects of which he fell asleep in his chair at the moment that he was reading the following sentence, or words of the same substance, in Purchas's Pilgrimes: “In Xaindu did Cublai Can build a stately palace, encompassing sixteen miles of plaine ground with a wall, wherein are fertile meddowes, pleasant springs, delightful streams, and all sorts of beasts of chase and game, and in the middest thereof a sumptuous house of pleasure.”

Kubla Khan (Or, a vision in a dream. A Fragment.)
by Samuel Taylor Coleridge
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.
So twice five miles of fertile ground
With walls and towers were girdled round;
And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,
Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree;
And here were forests ancient as the hills,
Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.

But oh! that deep romantic chasm which slanted
Down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover!
A savage place! as holy and enchanted
As e’er beneath a waning moon was haunted
By woman wailing for her demon-lover!
And from this chasm, with ceaseless turmoil seething,
As if this earth in fast thick pants were breathing,
A mighty fountain momently was forced:
Amid whose swift half-intermitted burst
Huge fragments vaulted like rebounding hail,
Or chaffy grain beneath the thresher’s flail:
And mid these dancing rocks at once and ever
It flung up momently the sacred river.
Five miles meandering with a mazy motion
Through wood and dale the sacred river ran,
Then reached the caverns measureless to man,
And sank in tumult to a lifeless ocean;
And ’mid this tumult Kubla heard from far
Ancestral voices prophesying war!
The shadow of the dome of pleasure
Floated midway on the waves;
Where was heard the mingled measure
From the fountain and the caves.
It was a miracle of rare device,
A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice!
A damsel with a dulcimer
In a vision once I saw:

It was an Abyssinian maid
And on her dulcimer she played,
Singing of Mount Abora.
Could I revive within me
Her symphony and song,
To such a deep delight ’twould win me,
That with music loud and long,
I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome! those caves of ice!
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair!
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.


-- Samuel Purchas, by Wikipedia

The 9th January, 1611, 1 departed from Agra for Lahore, to recover some debts, and carried with me twelve carts laden with indigo, in hopes of a good price.4 [It has not been deemed necessary to retain the itinerary of this journey, consisting of a long enumeration of the several stages and distances, the names of which are often unintelligible.[???!!!] Any circumstances of importance are however retained. — E.] In seven days journey, I arrived at Delhi, eighty-one coss from Agra. On the left hand is seen the ruins of old Delhi,5 [There are said to be four Delhis within five coss. The oldest was built by Rase; who, by advice of his magicians, tried the ground by driving an iron stake, which came up bloody, having wounded a snake. This the ponde or magician said was a fortunate sign. The last of this race was Rase Pethory; who, after seven times taking a Patan king, was at last by him taken and slain. He began the Patan kingdom of Delhi. The Patans came from the mountains between Candahar and Cabul. The second Delhi was built by Togall Shah, a Patan king. The third was of little note. The fourth by Sher-shah-selim, and in it is the tomb of Humaion.— Purchas.] called the Seven Castles and Fifty-two Gates, now only inhabited by Gogars, or cattle herds. A short way from Delhi is a stone bridge of eleven arches, over a branch of the Jumna, whence a broad way, shaded on each side with great trees, leads to the tomb of Humaion, grandfather of the present king. In a large room spread with rich carpets, this tomb is covered by a pure white sheet, and has over it a rich stmiane, or canopy. In front are certain hooks on small tressels, beside which stand his sword, turban, and shoes; and at the entrance are the tombs of his wives and daughters. Beyond this, under a similar shaded road, you come to the king’s house and moholl, now ruinous. The city is two coss in extent, between gate and gate, being surrounded by a wall which has been strong, but is now ruinous, as are many goodly houses. Within and around the city, are the tombs of twenty Patan kings, all very fair and stately. All the kings of India are here crowned, otherwise they are held usurpers. Delhi is situated in a fine plain; and about two coss [3.6 miles] from thence are the ruins of a hunting seat, or mole, built by Sultan Bemsa, a great Indian sovereign [NOT "Togall Shah"]. It still contains much curious stone-work; and above all the rest is seen a stone pillar, which, after passing through three several stories, rises twenty-four feet above them all, having on the top a globe, surmounted by a crescent. It is said that this stone stands as much below in the earth as it rises above, and is placed below in water, being all one stone. Some say Naserdengady, a Patan king, wanted to take it up, but was prevented by a multitude of scorpions. It has inscriptions.6 [Purchas alleges that these inscriptions are in Greek and Hebrew; and that some affirm it was erected by Alexander the Great.—E.] In divers parts of India the like are to be seen.

It is remarkable, that the quarries of India, and especially those near Futtipoor, are of such a nature that the rock may be cleft like logs, and sawn like planks of great length and breadth, so as to form the ceilings of rooms and the roofs of houses. From this monument, which is two coss [3.6 miles] from Delhi, there is said to be a subterraneous passage all the way to Delhi castle. This place is now all in ruins, and abounds in deer. From Delhi, in nine stages, I reached Sirinam, or Sirhind, where is a fair tank with a pleasure- house in the middle, to which leads a stone bridge of fifteen arches. From thence is a canal to a royal garden, at the distance of a coss, with a paved road forty feet broad, overshaded by trees on both sides. This garden is square, each side a coss or more in length, enclosed with a brick wall, richly planted with all kinds of fruits and flowers, and was rented, as I was told, at 40,000 rupees. It is crossed by two main walks forty feet broad, raised on mounds eight feet high, having water in the middle in stone channels, and thickly planted on both sides with cypress trees. At the crossing of these walks is an octagon moholl, with eight chambers for women, and a fair tank in the middle, over which are other eight rooms, with fair galleries all round. The whole of this building is of stone, curiously wrought, with much fine painting, rich carving, and stucco work, and splendid gilding. On two sides are two other fine tanks, in the midst of a fair stone chounter? planted round with cypress trees; and at a little distance is another moholl, but not so curious.

From Sirhind, in five stages, making forty-eight coss [86.4 miles], I came to a serai called Fetipoor, built by the present king Shah Selim, in memory of the overthrow of his eldest son, Sultan Cussero, on the following occasion. On some disgust, Shah Selim took up arms in the life of his father Akbar, and fled into Purrop, where he kept the strong castle of Alobasse7 [Purrop, or Porub, has been formerly supposed the ancient kingdom of Porus in the Punjab, and Attobass, here called Alobasse, to have been Attock Benares. — E.] but came in and submitted about three months before his father’s death. Akbar had disinherited Selim for his rebellion, giving the kingdom to Sultan Cussero, Selim’s eldest son. But after the death of Akbar, Selim, by means of his friends, got possession of the castle and treasure. Cussero fled to Lahore, where he raised about 12,000 horse, all good Mogul soldiers, and getting possession of the suburbs, was then proclaimed king, while his father was proclaimed in the castle. After twelve days came Melek Ali the Cutwall against him, beating the king’s drums, though Selim was some twenty coss in the rear; and giving a brave assault, shouting God save King Selim, the prince’s soldiers lost heart and fled, leaving only five attendants with the prince, who fled and got thirty coss beyond Lahore, in his way to Cabul. But having to pass a river, and offering gold mohors in payment of his passage, the boatman grew suspicious, leapt overboard in the middle of the river, and swam on shore, where he gave notice to the governor of a neighbouring town. Taking fifty horse with him, the governor came to the river side, where the boat still floated in the stream; and taking another boat, went and saluted Cussero by the title of King, dissemblingly offering his aid and inviting him to his house, where he made him prisoner, and sent immediate notice to the king, who sent to fetch him fettered on an elephant. From thence Selim proceeded to Cabul, punishing such as had joined in the revolt; and on his return with his son a prisoner, at this place, Fetipoor, where the battle was fought, as some say, he caused the eyes of Cussero to be burnt out with a glass, while others say he only caused him to be blindfolded with a napkin, tied behind and sealed with his own seal, which yet remains, and carried him prisoner to the castle of Agra. Along all the way from Agra to Cabul, the king ordered trees to be planted on both sides; and in remembrance of the exploit at this place, he caused it to be named Fetipoor, or Heart’s Content, as the city formerly mentioned had been named by Akbar in memory of his birth.3 [There are several places in India of this name, but that in the text at this place is not now to be found in our maps, on the road between Delhi and Lahore. — E.]

From hence I went to Lahore, twenty-nine coss, in three stages, arriving there on the 4th of February, 1611. The 28th there arrived here a Persian ambassador from Shah Abbas, by whom I learnt that the way to Candahar was now clear, having been impassable in consequence of the war occasioned by Gelole, a Turk, who had tied to Persia with 10,000 Turks, when, having got a jagheer on the frontiers, he endeavoured to make himself independent, but was overthrown, and lost his head.
 
-- A General History and Collection of Voyages and Travels, Arranged in Systematic Order: Forming a Complete History of the Origin and Progress of Navigation, Discovery, and Commerce, By Sea and Land, From the Earliest Ages to the Present Time, by Robert Kerr, F.R.S. & F.A.S. Edin., Vol. VIII, 1824


13 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, pp. 41-42. The verses included in the Sirat are considered to be by the poet Maulana Mutahir of Karra, whose work was freely borrowed by the author without attribution. See Riazual Islam, "The Age of Firoz Shah," Medieval India Quarterly (1950) i/I, pp. 32-33. The poet’s description is based on the column’s actual attributes. Firuz Shah’s stepped pyramidal form does resemble the slopes of a mountain and the elevated position of the lat made it visible at great distances. Its light color and its polished surface reflect the sunlight and earned its reputation as the Minar-i zarin or golden minar. The lat and its pyramidal foundation thus embody the physical characteristics of height, solid form, and luminescence which the poet describes. The poet’s allusion to the universal axis (axis mundi) and the form of a mountain are symbols commonly attributed to pillars, albeit Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim. ‘Afif, Ta’rikh, p. 350, states that the column was designated the Minar-i zarin, or golden column, because of its gold finial. The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi (p. 41) states, probably incorrectly, that the column itself was gilded.

14 The watercolor is contained in "Reminiscences of Imperial Delhie," also known as the "Delhie Book," the diary of Sir Thomas Metcalfe which has been recently published in The Golden Calm, edited by M. M. Kaye.

15 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 42.

16 Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 448-449. Firuz Shah’s mosque is commonly regarded as the one in which Timur had his khutba recited and the one that the latter desired to copy in Samarqand. But the Malfuzat-i Timuri does not make this clear. In fact, Timur was impressed by several remains of Delhi, including the Quwwat al-Islam mosque in Qila Rai Pithora, which he designates "Old Delhi," Jahanpanah, and Siri. When he says he had the khutba read in the city, he does not distinguish which city he is referring to. See Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 444-447 and Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments, v. 2, p. 73. Sayyid Ahmad Khan identifies Firuz Shah’s mosque as the one in which Timur had his khutba recited. Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (August-September 1861), p. 407.

17 Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 448-449.

18 Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 286. Timur’s imperial mosque, the Bibi Khanum Mosque, was located in Samaqand. Ibn ‘Arabshah also mentions that Timur built a jami' or mosque in "the Indian style" in Samaqand. See Pederson, "Masdjid," Encyclopedia of Islam, first edition, p. 355, who cites Ibn ‘Arabshah, Vita Timuri, Ed. Manger, 1767, p. 444 sqq.

In addition, the Bengal sultan, Sikandar Ilyas Shah, is believed to have sought to emulate Firuz Shah in constructing the Adina Masjid in Pandua. See Dani, Muslim Architecture in Bengal, p. 58.

The dearth of architectural monuments immediately following the Timurid sack of Delhi may be in part due to his confiscation of the skilled labor force.

19 Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 268; See also Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), p. 407 and Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 37.

20 Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 286.

21 Page, A Memoir on the Kotla, p. 6.

22 Page, A Memoir on the Kotla, p. 7. Page cites the account of Franklin in 1793 A.D. The whereabouts of these capitals today is uncertain.

23 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), p. 407.

24 Ibid., p. 407. It is possible that Sayyid Ahmad Khan refers to Finch’s account of his visit to the court of Jahangir in 1611 but Finch does not mention a dome, rather the globe and crescent on top the lat.

25 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (August-September 1860), pp. 229-233. Alexander Cunningham first identified the village of Topra in the Punjab as the site referred to in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi. Cunningham, Report of the Archaeological Survey of India XIV (1882), p. 78. [size=120[]he Asokan inscription on the column is repeated on pillars at Allahabad, Mattia, and Radhia. [/size] See James Prinsep, [url=http://survivorbb.rapeutation.com/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=4204&start=534]"Interpretation of the most ancient inscriptions on the pillar called the lat of Feroz Shah, near Delhi, and the Allahabad, Radhia and Mattiah pillar, or lat, inscriptions which agree therewith," Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal VI (1837), pp. 566-609.

Tom Coryat and Whittaker, early travelers to Delhi, attribute the column to Alexander the Great, who erected it, they say, as a memorial to his victories in India. This story is a fabrication and has no archaeological basis.[???] See Robert Kerr, Voyages and Travels, 1824, v. 9, p. 423.

26 The earliest mention of the lat pyramid in literature is Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s Athar al-Sanadid in Journal asiatique (August-September 1860) pp. 229-233; Prinsep, "Interpretations of the most ancient inscriptions on the pillar called the lat of Feroz Shah," JASB 6 (1837), pp. 566-609; Archaeological Survey of India, Reports Vol. I, p. 145,161f.; Vol. IV, pp. 1ff., 72; Journal of the Archaeological Society of Delhi (1850), p. 73; Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains (1876), pp. 129-139; Cooper, Handbook for Delhi, p. 47; Fanshawe, Delhi: Past and Present (1902), pp. 222-225; Hearn, Seven Cities of Delia (1906), p. 66, 124. A more complete list of early literary references is appended to the discussion of the structure in A.S.I., Lists of Monuments II: Delhi Zail (1919), pp. 74-80, no. 117.

The lat pyramid is also discussed in Marshall, "Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History of India in (1928), pp. 590-591, Plate X, Figure 18; Page, A Memoir on Kotla Firuz Shah, Mémoires of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 52 (1937), pp. 3-5; Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period (1942), pp. 23-24.

More recent references include: Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam II (1966), p. 258; Majumdar (Ed.), History and Culture of the Indian People, Vol. VI The Delhi Sultanate, 2nd Edition (1967), p. 680; Banerjee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq (1967), pp. 186-187; Yamamoto, Ara, and Tsukinowa, Delhi: Architectural Remains of the Delhi Sultanate I (1967); Chatterji, Architectural Glories of Delhi (1969), pp. 35-40; Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood, 2nd Edition (1974), p. 131; Husain, Tughluq Dynasty (1976), pp. 411-420; Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture (1978), pp. 34-35; Grover, Architecture of India: Islamic (1981), pp. 40-41; Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Muqarnas I (1983), p. 133.

27 See Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains (1876), pp. 126-128. A list of early references to the mosque is given in Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments II Delhi Zail (1919), pp. 72-74, no. 116. See Marshall, "Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History of India III (1928), pp. 590-591; Page, A Memoir of Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 52 (1937), pp. 6-7.

See also Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam II (1966), p. 158; Yamamoto, Ara, and Tsukinowa, Delhi: Architectural Remains, I (1967); Banerjee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq (1967), p. 186; Majumdar (Ed.), Delhi Sultanate (1967), p. 680; Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood (1974), pp. 130-131; Nath, Sultanate Architecture (1978), p. 67; Nath, Monuments of Delhi (1979), p. 37; Welch and Crâne, "The Tughluqs," (1983), p. 130.

28 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 130.

29 Ibid., p. 130 and footnote 48. Also see Hearn, Seven Cities of Delhi, p. 56. Hearn suggests that the plinth may have been intended to accommodate uneven terrain of the site.

30 A precedent for a non-axial mosque plan is seen in the position of the Alai Darwaza, a portal in ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji’s extension of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque. The Alai Darwaza sits on the south side of that mosque.

31 The Jahanpanah gate is illustrated in Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 132, Plate 3.

32 Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 127. Stephen cites the report of a committee of the Archaeological Society of Delhi who investigated the mosque and lat in 1847. A summary of their report is published by Stephen (pp. 126- 128) but the plans which accompanied the report were destroyed in the 1857 Mutiny. The authors mention the removal of stone work from the gate but do not say whether it was inscribed. See also, A.S.I. Lists of Monuments, v. 2, p. 72.

33 Franklin, Asiatic Researches, v. 8, plate IV. Citation in Page, A Memoir on Kotla, p. 7.

34 The mosque was also whitewashed. Father Monserrate, who visited the city during the reign of the Mughal emperor Akbar, described Firuz Shah’s mosque:

Delinum [Delhi] is noteworthy for its public buildings, its remarkable fort (built by Emaumus [Hamayun]), its walls and a number of mosques, especially the one said to have been built by king Peruzius [Feroze Shah Tughlaq].[???] This mosque is constructed of wonderfully polished white marble, the exterior is covered with brilliant whitewash, made by mixing lime with milk, instead of water. It shines like a mirror; for this mixture of lime and milk is not only of such remarkable consistency that no cracks appear in it anywhere, but also when polished it shines most magnificently.


The existence of marble, referred to by Monserrate, is spurious.[???] It is also interesting to note that Monserrate does not mention the lat or dome, alleged to have been inscribed with Firuz Shah’s ordinances. See The commentary of Father Monserrate, S. J., on his journey to the Court of Akbar. Translated from the Latin by J. S. Hoyland and annotated by S. N. Banerjee. London (Oxford University Press), pp. 96-97.

35 The report of the Archaeological Society of Delhi is cited in Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, pp. 126-128. See footnote 32 above.

36 Tsukinowa Tokifusa, "The Influence of Seljuq Architecture on the Earliest Mosques of the Delhi Sultanate Period in India, Acta Asiatica 43 (1982), pp. 37-60.

37 The report of the Archaeological Society of Delhi (1847) cited in Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 127.

38 The lat was damaged at an undetermined time, perhaps as suggested, a result of lightning or a canon ball. In a photograph of the monument Illustrated in Hearn, The Seven Cities of Delhi (1906), the pillar appears unbroken but missing its capital.

39 John Irwin, "‘Asokan’ Pillars: a reassessment of the evidence - Part I," Burlington Magazine (November 1973), pp. 714-715.

40 Two lats were installed in Firuzabad, one in the lat pyramid and the other one in the Kushk-i Shikar. See ‘Afif, Ta’rikh, pp. 351-353. Two other lats have been attributed to Firuz Shah - one in Hissar and a second in Fathabad. See Subhash Parihar, Muslim Inscriptions in the Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, p. 18, No. 3.6, and plate 7. Irwin expresses doubt about the Fathabad attribution. See Irwin, "‘Asokan’ Pillars - Part 4" Burlington Magazine (November 1976), p. 744, footnote 47.

41 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh, p. 352; Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 34.

42 John Irwin, "‘Asokan’ Pillars: a reassessment of the evidence," Burlington Magazine 115 (November 1973), pp. 706-720; "‘Asokan’ Pillars: a reassessment of the evidence. Part II: Structure," Burlington Magazine 116 (December 1974), pp. 712-727; "‘Asokan’ Pillars: a reassessment of the evidence. Part III: Capitals," Burlington Magazine 117 (October 1975): pp. 631-643; "‘Asokan’ Pillars, a reassessment of the evidence. Part IV: Symbolism," Burlington Magazine 118 (November 1976): pp. 734- 753.

43 Irwin, "‘Asokan’ Pillars - Part 2," Burlington Magazine (December 1974), p. 720.

44 Page, A Memoir on the Kotla, p. 3 and p. 5; Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 130; and Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments, V. 2, p. 79. The height of the lat (excluding its pyramidal foundation) has been variously described as ranging from 24 feet to 50 feet ‘Afif describes the height of the obelisk as 32 gaz with 8 gaz sunk into the pedestal leaving only 24 gaz visible (The gaz is equivalent to 18 1/2 inches). ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 352.

The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 39, describes the lat as 22 yards in length, 20 of which were exposed. The building is reported to be 21-1/2, bringing the total to 41-1/2, not 42-1/2 which the author states. However the combined height of the pyramid and lat is about 88 feet.


45 One unusual explanation was offered by Muhammad Anim Razi, author of the Haft-i-Kalim, who stated that the structure served as a menagerie and aviary during the reign of Akbar. See Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 129, second footnote.

46 The painting is contained in the "Delhie Book," a diary of Sir Thomas Metcalfe, published in The Golden Calm, edited by M. M. Kaye.

47 Early renderings are included in Asiatick Researches (1802) and Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1797). The latter journal published a sketch, geometrical elevation and plan of the lat pyramid. A drawing by E. Therond, reproduced in H. K. Kaul, Historic Delhi: An Anthology (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1985) shows the lat pyramid with only one dome (on the southeast corner of the uppermost level) intact. A drawing published by Husain, Tughluq Dynasty, plate facing p. 421, is possibly mistakenly identified as the kushk-i shikar. It represents a structure, with corner domed chambers intact, identical to the lat pyramid.

48 Archaeological Survey of India, List of Monuments, v. 2, p. 72.

49 Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments, v. 2, p. 80. Hearn, The Seven Cities of Delhi, pp. 54-55, mentions a sketch showing the red sandstone facing but the whereabouts of this drawing is uncertain.

50 J.D. Beglar, Archaeological Survey of India, Reports, IV (1874). See also Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 129.

51 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 33.

52 The earliest inscription in Pali is believed to be Asokan in origin (third century B.C.). Two sanskrit inscriptions in nagari script are dated Samvat 1220/1163 A.D. One describe the victories of a certain Chohan Prince Visala Deru of Sakambhari. The second names Sri Bhadra Mitras (or Subhadra Mitra). There are two Gupta period inscriptions and several short inscriptions of a later date, the most legible name Surya Vishnu Subhamaka Kana, Hara Singht Subarna Kakana, Charma Subanak (Charma Sabana Shara), and Siddh Bhayan Kamath Joji. One of two inscriptions bearing the date Samvat 1581/1524 A.D. contains the name Suritan Ibrahim. See Cunningham, Reports, Archaeological Survey of India I, p. 167; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, pp. 134-138 footnotes; J.A. Page, A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi, pp. 26-29.

53 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 352.

54 Husain, A Record of All Quranic and Non-historical Inscriptions, p. 84; Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 158. These inscriptions, in plaster, are located in roundels in the spandrels of the arches. They include "God" (Allah) and "God is sufficient for me."

55 Page, An Historical Memoir on the Qutb: Delhi, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 22 (1970), Appendix II.

56 Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 383; Siddiqui, "Waterworks and Irrigation," p. 14 and fn 74. Siddiqui cites Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, f. 790b.

57 A. Welch, "Qur’an and Tomb," p. 257; "Islamic Architecture and Epigraphs in Sultanate India," A.K. Narain (Ed.), Studies in South Asian Art and Archaeology, forthcoming.

58 Ibid., p. 257.

59 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 316. ‘Afif states that Firuz Shah wrote his composition (thought to be the Futuhat) after he failed in his efforts to find a replacement for the esteemed historian Barani.

60 These specific verses do not appear in Elliot and Dowson’s translation but are thought to be extrapolations from the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi.

61 Khwajah Nizamuddin Ahmad Bakshi, Tabaqat-i Akbari, translated by B. De, Bibliotheca Indica series, vol. 1 (1927), p. 257.

62 Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 268; P. Hardy, "Firishta," Encyclopedia of Islam, V. 2, pp. 921-922.

63 Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 268.

64 Banerjee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, pp. 209-210. Banerjee states that Nizam al-Din’s sources appear to be Barani and ‘Afif, but that Firishta does not include ‘Afif. Given his ignorance of the lat pyramid, it is probable that Nizam al-Din was unfamiliar with ‘Afif's Ta’rikh.

65 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860) p. 407.

66 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 351.

67 Hardy, Historians of Medieval India, p. 1 and 94. For example, Nizam al-din Ahmad also drew upon the Futuh al-Salatin of Isami as a source for Tabaqat-i Akbari. The Futuh was written 7 or 8 years before Barani’s Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi and independently, under the patronage of a ruler who had "thrown off the rule of Delhi." 407.

68 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), p. 407.

69 Page, Memoir on Kotla, pp. 6-7.

70 Ibid., p. 7. Franklin’s account originally appeared in Asiatic Researches.

71 Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, pp. 126-128.

72 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal Asiatique (October-November 1860), p. 407. The moment of the destruction of the buildings of Firuzabad is unknown. Whether the mosque was ravaged by a conqueror or deteriorated from the effects of age and climate is uncertain. The suggestion that the mosque was destroyed by Timur is unlikely. See Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 448-449. That it was quarried by Sher Shah or Shah Jahan in their subsequent building projects is equally improbable. If the mosque had been destroyed prior to the seventeenth century A.D., then Neither Nizam al- Din nor Firishta would to have been able to see the epigraphs in situ if they had desired to do so.

73 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 316; Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, p. 339, clarifies Elliot and Dowson’s translation of the Kushk-i Shikar as Kushki Shikar-rav. Hodivala also claims that the kushk was derived from Central Asian origins, where it was a movable wooden house used by the Uzbegs. Several kushk or "towers of wood" were built for Muhammad bin Tughluq, and later Humayun and were kept ready for emergencies. The kushk of Firuzabad were probable more permanent structures, in particular, the term becomes synonymous with the palace. See Hodivala, Studies in Indo- Muslim History, Supplement v. 2, pp. 110-111.

74 Welch and (Trane, "The Tughluqs," pp. 158-159.

75 Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 374-388. The Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi survives in the form of two manuscripts, both of which form appendices to ‘Afif’s Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi. One manuscript is in the British Library (Or. 2039) and the other is located in the library at Aligarh University. The two manuscripts are nearly identical. See N.B. Roy, "Futuhat-i-Firuzshahi," JRASB Letters, Vol. VII (1941), pp. 61-62.

76 Roy, "Futuhat-i Firuzshahi," JRASB Letters VIII (1941), pp. 62-63.

77 Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 268.

78 References to the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi made in the next few paragraphs are cited from Elliot and Dowson, History of India as Told By Its Own Historians, v. 3, pp. 375-388.

79 The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi also discusses Firuz Shah’s investiture. An English translation was done by Sh. Abdur Rashid, "Firoz Shah’s Investiture by the Caliph," Medieval India Quarterly Aligarh i/1 (1950), pp. 66-71.

80 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 350-351, 353.

81 Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 448-449; ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 353.

82 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 34 and p. 42.

83 The iron pillar is discussed by Page, An Historical Memoir on the Qutb: Delhi, p. 10 and Appendix III.

84 Ibid., Appendices III (a) and III (b). The 964/1556 inscription contains the name ‘Ali Asghar Husain, an unknown individual. The remaining post-Gupta inscriptions are in nagari script and dated in the Samvat era. They belong to a period after 1556 A.D.

85 Ibid., p. 6; Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, pp. 12, 31-32.

86 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 353.

87 Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, pp. 34-35.

88 Grabar, Formation of Islamic Art, p. 114.

89 A. Welch, "Qur’an and Tomb," p. 257.

90 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 350; Sirat-i Firiiz Shahi, pp.33-34. The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi mentions that the pillar was traditionally thought to have been located next to a temple erected some four thousand years in the past. The absence of any mention of a temple reinforces the hypothesis that Asokan columns frequently stood alone. [???]

Other popular beliefs about the column given in the Sirat include a story about a certain Biswal Deva, Chohan, Rai of Sambhal, an idol worshipper. The coincidental mention of a Chohan prince named Visala Deva in one of the inscriptions suggests that the men of the day were able to read at least part of one epigraph.
Also, the Sirat relates the story that Mongol kings tried to split the pillar by fire, unsuccessfully. ‘Afif relates that these pillars were walking sticks of a giant, Bhim, who lived during the time of the Pandavas, an age equivalent to the Homeric Age of Greece.

91 Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, p. 33.

92 Ibid., p. 33 and footnote 65. Nath uses the term Hindu dhvajastambha in a categorical sense, including Jain, Buddhist, and Brahmanical aspects.

93 Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (August-September 1860), pp. 245- 246. His theory was upheld by Beglar, A.S.I. Reports IV, p. 41 and 48-58. Cunningham refutes the theory. Cunningham, A.S.I. Reports I, pp. 189-194, and IV, pp. v-x. See also Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 32 and footnote 16.

94 Grabar, Formation of Islamic Art, p. 114.

95 Ettinghausen and Grabar, The Art and Architecture of Islam 650-1250, p. 273 and p. 291.

96 The funerary associations of these towers derives from the tomb towers or gumbads of Khurasan and Central Asia, such as the Samanid period tomb of Gumbad-i Qabus (1006 A.D.)

97 The Arabic word manara, from which minar is derived, means "lighthouse."

98 The Ghazni towers are published in S. Flury, "Das Schriftband an der Ture des Mahmud von Ghazna, 998-1030," Der Islam 8 (1918), pp. 214-227; S. Flury, "Le Décor épigraphique des monuments de Ghazna, " Syria 6 (1925), pp. 61-90; J. Sourdil-Thomine "Deux minarets d’époque Seljoukide en Afghanistan," Syria 30 (1953), pp. 108-136; and U. Scerrato, "The first two excavation Campaigns at Ghazni, 1957-1958," East and West NS10 (March-June 1959), pp. 23-55.

99 Maricq remarks that when he "discovered" the minar at Jam in 1957 that he caught sight of it only after he was practically on top of it. The minaret at Jam has been published by A. Maricq and G. Wiet, "Le minaret de Djam. Le découverte de la capitale des sultans ghorides (XII-XIII siècles)," Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan 16 (1959), Paris. Further studies of it have been published by Judi Moline, "The Minaret of Gam (Afghanistan)," Kunst des Orients 9 (1973-74), pp. 131-148; and William Trousdale "The Minaret of Jam: A Ghorid Monument in Afghanistan," Archaeology 18 (June 1865), pp. 102-108.

100 The Khwajah Siah Posh monument is published in F.R. Allchin and Norman Hammond (Ed.), The Archaeology of Afghanistan, New York, 1978. Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, p. 25 and plate XXVII. The possible prototype for the Khwaja Siah Posh minar is one at Nad-i Ali, since collapsed. It is described by Fischer in Archaeology of Afghanistan (Ed. by Allchin and Hammond), p. 366, and G. P. Tate, Seistan, Calcutta, 1912, p. 202.

101 ‘Afif, Ta'rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 353.

102 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 127.

103 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 41

104 Appropriation of pre-Buddhist symbols and architectural forms into the Buddhist religion marks an indigenous tradition of appropriation in India. The pre- Buddhist pillar cults were gradually assimilated into Buddhist practices. See Irwin, "‘Asokan’ Pillars - Part I," Burlington Magazine (November 1973), pp. 715-717. Irwin also states that the "custom of erecting shrines on spots already made sacred by earlier cults has been common throughout India and was followed even by the Muslims who, in this same area, often founded cemeteries on top of stupas." He cites the Muslim graveyard on top of the mound at Vaisali as an example.

105 Similarities can be seen between Firuz Shah’s lat and the pillar tombs of Malindi and Mambruti on the east African coast. See James Kiikman, "The Great Pillars of Malindi and Mambruti," Oriental Art NS IV, 2 (1958), pp. 55-67. Ironically, these pillar tombs marked the graves of leaders of African descent, in contrast to those of Arab or non-African ancestry. The latter were interred in domed chambers, a form ubiquitous in the Islamic world, or pavilions (chhatris). The similarity of architectural forms between east coastal Africa and the Indian subcontinent has been pointed out (pp. 56-57) and may be a result of active sea contact.

106 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 133.

107 J.C. Harle, The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent (1986), p. 425.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, by William Jeffr

Postby admin » Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:30 pm

Part 1 of 3

CHAPTER V. HAUZ KHAS MADRASA AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES

Firuz Shah’s madrasa in literature


During the reign of Firuz Shah, Hauz Khas (Plate XXXII) was an important center of Muslim learning. The complex is located beside a large ba’oli or reservoir known as Hauz-i Alai and consists of a number of edifices, including a madrasa or college, a mosque, several tombs and the mausoleum of Firuz Shah himself, the founder of the madrasa. Under Firuz Shah the madrasa gained prominence, even overshadowing the reputed madrasa of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji located next to the Quwwat al-Islam mosque at Qila Rai Pithora and the madrasa built by Iltutmish located at the mausoleum of Nasir al-Din Mahmud in Mahipalpur.1 [Firuz Shah rebuilt the madrasa of Iltutmish which had been destroyed and ordered repairs to the madrasa of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji. Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 383-384.]

Hauz Khas, or Hauz-i Alai, was an important site for the Tughluqs, being the battleground on which Ghiyath al-Din defeated Khusraw Khan, usurper of the Khalji throne, and set up Tughluq rule.2 [ Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), p. 477. In 752/1351, on the occasion of Muhammad bin Tughluq’s death, Firuz Shah returned to Delhi to find Muhammad’s vizier in refuge at Hauz-i Alai following his unsuccessful attempt at placing Muhammad’s son on the throne. The vizier acquiesced his claim but met with an untimely death soon after. ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 278-280, and Barani, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 266-267.] Despite the political associations of the site, the reputation of Hauz Khas rests primarily upon the madrasa which Firuz Shah built and the religious climate which he fostered. Although the madrasa of Firuz Shah became one of the leading centers of Muslim learning of early sultanate India, little is known about its development, its disciples, or its disciplines.

Upon his accession Firuz Shah first established his capital in old Delhi.3 [Firuz Shah established his capital in Delhi, perhaps as a result of pressure by the nobility and ‘ulama’. Muhammad bin Tughluq had forced members of these groups to relocate to his southern capital of Daulatabad in the Deccan, a move which caused great discontent among them. But Muhammad bin Tughluq lost Daulatabad from his territories when he later returned his capital to Delhi. His abandonment of the city resulted in the rise of local potentates and its eventual absorption into the domains of the Bahmani sultans. Firuz Shah desired but never moved to regain his predecessor’s territories in the Deccan.] He is believed to have occupied the palace at Jahanpanah (Kuskh-i Humayun, possibly the structure known today as the Bijai Mandai) built by Muhammad bin Tughluq until his own palace was completed at Firuzabad.4 [‘Afif relates that Firuz Shah occupied the Kuskh-i Humayun when he lived in Jahanpanah and abandoned residence there when the palace at Firuzabad was completed. See ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 316 and p. 343.] Jahanpanah had been infrequently used by Muhammad. Its proximity to the Hauz-i Alai may have affected Firuz Shah’s decision to build the madrasa there. The transformation of Hauz Khas into a center of learning appears to have progressed quickly and the madrasa rapidly gained a widespread reputation as the foremost college of Delhi of the time.

Firuz Shah’s choice of a site near the centers of old Delhi and earlier Tughluq foundations was no coincidence.5 [The designation Delhi or Old Delhi referred to Qila Rai Pithora and sometimes included Siri. Tughluq foundations were Tughluqabad and ‘Adilabad (built by Ghiyath al-Din), and Jahanpanah (built by Muhammad bin Tughluq).] Hauz Khas is located on the southernmost fringe of Firuzabad several kilometers south of the kotla (Figure 2), situated off the main road between Qila Rai Pithora, Siri, and Firuzabad. ‘Afif reports that this road accommodated heavy traffic and descriptions of it indicate that it was actively used before Firuz Shah had his madrasa built.6 [‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 303.]

The chronology of the site is not revealed in epigraphs or in contemporary literature. Historians indicate that building activity probably occurred over a long period of time. The sequence started with the construction of the ba'oli during the reign of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji. The mosque and the madrasa buildings on the east side of the ba’oli were probably completed in the early part of Firuz Shah’s reign. Additions were made to the madrasa at different times during the reign, probably first at the southeast corner and then an extension of the madrasa on the south side of the ba'oli. These latter additions, which include Firuz Shah’s tomb (the tomb of the founder) and portions of the madrasa contiguous to it, were probably completed in the latter part of the reign. A number of chhatri buildings, mostly ancillary tombs, and other structures were added at undetermined times, perhaps as late as the reigns of subsequent Lodi rulers. But without epigraphic evidence or waqf documents the chronology remains inconclusive. The site has subsequently undergone restorative measures by the Archaeological Survey of India.

The foundation of the ba'oli has been attributed to ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji in 695/1295.7 [Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar al-Sanadid, translated by M. Garcin de Tassy, "Description des monuments de Delhi en 1852," Journal asiatique, 5th ser. (October- November 1860), p. 397; R. Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 30.] The large ba’oli, which became known as the Hauz-i Alai after the ruler, is said to have spanned an area of more than 100 bighas.8 [Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 83. Stephen remarks that the ba’oli was approximately 70 acres in area.] Firuz Shah had the tank dredged and the stone embankments repaired.9 [Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 383; Also see Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), p. 397. The tank was known as the Hauz-i Alai (Tank of ‘Ala’ al-Din) after ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji who had it dug. It was also known as the Hauz Khas (imperial pool/tank/lake) even before Firuz Shah reactivated its use. Ibn Battuta refers to it as the "private tank."]

The Hauz-i ’Alai, or tank of ‘Ala al-Din, had no water in it, and was filled up. People carried on cultivation in it, and had dug wells, of which they sold the water. After a generation [karn] had passed I cleaned it out, so that this great tank might again be filled from year to year.


It is described by Ibn Battuta as one of the two major tanks in Delhi, the other one being the Shamsi tank west of Mehrauli.10 [Firuz Shah also opened the blocked channels which fed the Hauz-i Shamsi. Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 383.] Ibn Battuta describes the site, after his visit to it during the reign of Muhammad bin Tughluq as a place of festive celebration and religious observance.11 [Ibn Battuta visited India in 734/1333 - 743/1342 and recorded his experiences in a rihla or travel book. He served as a qadi in Muhammad bin Tughluq’s court in Delhi. Ibn Battuta, The Travels of Ibn Battuta, H.A.R. Gibb (tr. and ed.) vol. 3 (1971), pp. 624-625 and footnote 27.]

Between Dilhi and the ‘Abode of the Caliphate’ is the ‘private tank’, which is larger than that of the Sultan Shams al-Din. Along its sides there are forty pavilions, and round about it live the musicians. Their place is called Tarab Abad [‘City of Music’] and they have there a most extensive bazaar, a cathedral mosque, and many other mosques besides. I was told that the singing girls living there, of whom there are a great many, take part in a body in the tarawih prayers in these mosques during the month of Ramadan, and the imams lead them in these prayers. The male musicians do the same. I myself saw the male musicians on the occasion of the wedding of the amir Saif al-Din Ghada son of Muhanna, when each one of them had a prayer mat under his knees, and on hearing the adhan [call to prayer] rose, made his ablutions and performed the prayer.


Hauz Khas was already inhabited during the time of Ibn Battuta’s visit and the presence of mosques and the observance of prayer during the month of Ramadan which he describes indicates that it was used for religious practice early on. The madrasa’s seclusion in a garden setting and its religious ambiance made it an ideal location.

The transition from the Tarab Abad or city of music described by Ibn Battuta to the center of Muslim devotion described by Barani seems to have occurred rapidly. Barani writes before his death in 1357 A.D. in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi:12 [Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 562-565. Translation cited from "A Medieval Indian Madrasah," Studies in Medieval Indian History, edited by Khaliq Ahmad Nizami, Aligarh Muslim University, pp. 75 and 78-79. Barani also makes reference to a second madrasa built by Firaz Shah at Siri, whose head was Sayyid Najm al-Din Samaqandi. Firuz Shah is also credited with founding a third madrasa, the Madrasa-i Shahzada Firuz Khan.]

Because this madrasah is a monument of good works and public benefaction, prayers, obligatory and superogatory, are constantly being offered within its precincts. The five compulsory prayers are offered in congregation according to the Sunna. The Sufis offer the chasht prayer [offered between sunrise and meridian], ishraq [prayer offered soon after sun-rise], fay al-zuwal [prayer offered immediately before mid-day], awabin [prayer offered immediately after sunset] prayers, and tahajjud [prayer offered in the latter part of the night] prayers, praise God night and day and send benediction on and sing the praises of the Sultan constantly. People who know the Quran by heart recite the full text every day; the travellers raise their voices to the heavens when they cry Allahu Akbar. Through the endowments of Sultan Firuz Shah, these people get stipends, inams, allowances and charities in cash, and every day tables covered with delicious dishes are spread before the people. Whosoever from amongst the pious men, scholars, men who have learnt the Quran by heart, members of the congregation, devotees and persons engaged in religious practices and whosoever from amongst the worshipers of God chooses to go to or enter the Madrasah-i Firuz Shahi, attains comfort and ease and with an easy mind devotes himself day and night to the task of praying for the long life of the king of Islam.

Its magnificence, architectural proportions and pleasant air make it unique among the great buildings of the world such that it would be justifiable if it claimed superiority over the khwarnaq built by Sinmar or the palace of Kisra.


Barani attributes the foundation of the madrasa to Firuz Shah. The fact that it bears his name and that he is interred in the central tomb supports his attribution. The attribution is confirmed by a number of other authorities. The author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi assigns the madrasa to Firuz Shah and states, "Its academic reputation traveled far and wide and people flocked to it from different parts of the country."13 [Translation of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi is cited from Nizami, "A Medieval Indian Madrasah,", p. 73 and footnote 6.] Sihrindi places its construction in the year 753/1352.14 [Sihrindi, Ta’rikh-i Mubarak Shah (Elliot & Dowson), p. 7.] Timur mistakenly attributes ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji’s tank to Firuz Shah and mentions the presence of buildings around it. He does not, however, identify the buildings as a madrasa but he identifies the tomb on the banks of the tank as Firuz Shah’s.15 [Timur, Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), p. 441.] Sharaf al-Din Yazdi repeats the same information in the Zafarnama.16 [Yazdi, Zafarnama (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 500-501.] ‘Afif is silent about the madrasa in his Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi.

Sayyid Ahmad Khan corroborates Barani’s attribution and also identifies the central tomb as containing the grave of Firuz Shah. However he attributes the construction of the tomb to the year 792/1389, assigning it to the patronage of Nasir al- Din Muhammad Shah, the son and successor of Firuz Shah, an attribution which has not been widely accepted.17 [Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), pp. 415-416. Marshall was the first author to refute Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s attribution of the tomb to Muhammad Shah. See Sir John Marshall, "The Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History of India, v. 3 (1928), edited by Sir Wolseley Haig, p. 591. The attribution to Firuz Shah is accepted by Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs on The Protected Monuments in the Delhi Province, Memoirs o f the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 47 (1936), p. 74; Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, p. 41; Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam, p. 258; and A. Welch and H. Crane, "The Tughluqs," Muqarnas 1 (1983), p. 146.] It is unlikely that Nasir al-Din possessed the ingenuity, the time, or the financial resources to undertake such a venture. The tomb is carefully located in the plan of the madrasa; its position is not an afterthought. The attribution to Firuz Shah must be based upon historical and stylistic grounds in light of the unfortunate absence of a historical inscription.

The madrasa is described by Barani as a center of intellectual activity and the congregations in its jami masjid were so large that no space remained within the mosque or courtyard.18 [Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 561-564.] Barani elaborates on the cosmopolitan atmosphere of the center when he describes its accommodations as including hostels for both teachers and students, guest houses for casual visitors, and rooms for imams, muazzins, hujrahs, and for those who wished to spend their time in religious devotions and meditations. The relationships which developed between teachers, students and alumni were encouraged and continued a long tradition of the Muslim learning process.

The principal of the madrasa, Maulana Jalal al-Din Rumi is recognized by Barani as a celebrated scholar of his time.19 [Ibid., p. 564.] Maulana Jalal al-Din was said to have been educated in all four schools of Muslim law and was knowledgeable in the fourteen sciences. In addition, he was able to recite the Qur’an according to the seven accepted methods and had mastered the five standard collections of hadith.

Barani provides these few details about the disciplines taught at the college. The primary disciplines which he identifies were tafsir (Quranic exegesis), hadith (The Traditions of the Prophet), and fiqh (jurisprudence). From what is known about Maulana Jalal al-Din’s background, it is conceivable that the curriculum also included many nonreligious sciences including ilm-i nujoom (astronomy), ilm-i riyadi (mathematics), ilm-i tabibi (physical sciences), ilm-i tibb (medicine), khatt (calligraphy), nahv-i sarf (grammar), maani-i bayan (rhetoric), and ilm-i nazri (speculative sciences).20 [Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 564-565. See also Banerjee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, p. 183 and fn 28.]

Sayyid Ahmad Khan also identifies Sayyid Yusuf bin Jamal Husaini as a principal professor (mutawali or sadr mudarris) of the madrasa. Sayyid Yusuf, who died in 780/1388, is buried at the site. Husain identifies the grave located on the south side of the southern block of the madrasa buildings as his tomb.21 [Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), p. 398; Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs, p. 77.]

The atmosphere cultivated at the madrasa has been described to have been pleasant and well-suited to the purpose of the institution. Barani remarks that "travellers who came from outside entered into this building and forgot all their worries and fatigue... as if they were in the heavens."22 [Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), p. 565. Barani also makes reference to a second madrasa built by Firuz Shah at Siri which possessed a similar ambiance.] Mutahhar of Kara, a poet of the time, eulogizes the madrasa in similar terms.23 [Mutahhar, Diwan-i Mutahhar, Translation cited from Nizami, "A Medieval Indian Madrasah," p. 74.]

The moment I entered this blessed building through the gate, I saw an even space as wide as the plain of the world. The courtyard was soul-animating and its expanse was life-giving. Its dust was musk-scented and its fragrance possessed the odour of amber. There was verdue everywhere and hyacinths, basils, roses and tulips were blooming and were beautifully arranged so far as the human eye could reach. It seemed as if the last year’s produce had in advance the current year’s fruits, such as pomegranites, oranges, guavas, quinces, apples and grapes. Nightingales, so to say, were singing their melodious songs everywhere. It appeared as if they had guitars in their talons and flutes in their beaks.


The garden which he described was carefully laid out and a large platform, 10 or 11 feet in height and 40 cubits square crowned with a cupola roof, was located in the center of it. An extant structure, an open pavilion with three cupolas (Plate LXXVI), which is thought to have served as a convocation hall for the madrasa, may be the same one mentioned by Mutahhar.24 [Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, p. 62. Nath suggests that the source of the form of the convocation hall at Hauz Khas is the Jaina mandapa or pillared hall.] The poet describes the walls of the madrasa as smooth and lustrous with reflective surfaces, like talc or mica, and hues of vermilion, and its gold domes and terraces, which were reflected in the lake, dazzled spectators.25 [Mutahhar, Diwan-i Mutahhar, cited in Nizami, "A Medieval Indian Madrasah," p. 75.] Carpets from Shiraz, Yemen and Damascus were spread throughout the buildings and the teachers and students wore religious garb similar to the Syrian jubbah and the Egyptian dastar. Mutahhar even describes the food which was served.26 [Ibid., p. 78. Mutahhar writes: "Pheasants, partridges, herons, fish, roasted fowl and bulky kids, fried loaves, sweets of different kinds, and other things, were heaped everywhere in large quantities. Pomegranate syrup, prepared with the mixture of sorrel, was served as a drink. Betel nuts were brought in gold and silver dishes after the meal."] In spite of poetic liberties, Mutahhar probably captures the quality of life at the madrasa. The buildings, situated in an attended garden were no doubt a splendid environment and among the finest structures of the day.

The Hauz Khas madrasa is mentioned in nearly every study of Firuz Shah, but surprisingly, it is only briefly mentioned in discussions of his architecture.27 [Firuz Shah’s madrasa is published by Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Athar al-Sanadid, in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), pp. 397-398; Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains (1876), p. 83; Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments III Mahrauli Zail (1922), pp. 179-180, no. 309; Marshall, "Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History of India m (1928), p. 591, Plate X, Figure 19; Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey No. 47 (1936), pp. 76-77, No. LXXVII; and Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period (1942), p. 24. More recent references are included in Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam n (1966), p. 258; K. A. Nizami, "A Medieval Indian Madrasah," Studies in Medieval Indian History and Culture (1966); Majumdar (Ed.), Delhi Sultanate (1967), p. 680; Banerjee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq (1967), pp. 191-192; Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood (1974), pp. 80-81; Nath, Sultanate Architecture (1978), p. 62; Nath, Monuments of Delhi (1979), p. 62; Grover, Architecture of India: Islamic (1981), pp. 44- 45; and Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Muqarnas I (1983), p. 140.] Instead, the tomb of Firuz Shah is frequently referred to by modern scholars as the most representative monument of his reign, as well as a typical example of the sultanate mausoleum.28 [The tomb of Firuz Shah is published by Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Athar al- Sanadid in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), pp. 415-416; Archaeological Survey of India, Reports Vol. IV, p. 65; XX, pp. 151-152; Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal XXXIX, p. 81; Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains (1876), pp. 157-158; Fanshawe, Delhi: Past and Present (1902) p. 252; Hearn, Seven Cities of Delhi (1906), p. 199; Other early references are given in A.S.I. Lists of Monuments III Mahrauli Zail (1922), pp. 178-179, no. 308; Marshall, "Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History of India III (1928), p. 591, 634; Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs (1936), pp. 74-76, No. LXXVI; and Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period, pp. 24-25. More recent references include Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam II (1966), p. 258; Majumdar (Ed.), The Delhi Sultanate (1967), pp. 680-681; Yamamoto, Ara, and Tsukinowa, Delhi: Architectural Remains, Vol. II (1968); Burton-Page, "Hind," El III (1971), p. 442; Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood (1974), p. 80; Nath, Sultanate Architecture (1978), pp. 61-62; Nath, Monuments of Delia (1979), p. 41; Grover, Architecture of India: Islamic (1981), p. 44; and Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Muqarnas I (1983), p. 146.] The tomb is often cited as an example of the eclectic style and unusual building materials found in Firuz Shah’s monuments. The remaining structures of the site -- the mosque, chhatris, and a few subsidiary structures -- are virtually ignored by modern scholars.29 [The Hauz Khas mosque is published in Archaeological Survey Lists of Monuments III Mahrauli Zail (1922) p. 180, no. 310; A.S.I. Reports XX, p. 151; Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood, p. 81; Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 140. The Hauz Khas chhatris have been published by Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs, pp. 77-78, Nos. LXXXIX-LXXXIV; Nath, Sultanate Architecture, p. 62]

Description of the Archaeological Remains

The Hauz Khas complex consists of several buildings, not all of which belong to the period of Firuz Shah. The masjid, the madrasa buildings and the tomb of Firuz Shah have been attributed to his reign, however other buildings and ancillary tombs, may possibly belong to the later Lodi period.

The plan of the site reveals that the buildings of the complex were arranged along two sides of the large ba’oli (Plate XXXII and Figure 11). The madrasa overlooks the south and east sides of the tank and the two wings of the expansive structure are joined at the southeast corner at the tomb of Firuz Shah. The two-storey madrasa is built on a sloping hill. The east and south sides face gardens, level with its upper storey. The north and west sides face the ba’oli, which extends from the foundation of the lower storey. Both stories on the north and west facades are open, offering a view of the reservoir (Plate XXXIII). Access to the ba’oli is gained by stairs which lead down to the level of the tank at several points along the foundation.

Mosque

The masjid (Plates XXXIV and XXXV) is located on the north end of the complex and is joined to the east block (the portion of the madrasa which lies to the east of the ba’oli). Entrance into the mosque from the upper level gardens is on the south side of the courtyard. The remains of a domed structure at the southeast corner of the mosque (Plate XXXVI) probably functioned as a gate. This structure, which measures 26 feet 6 inches in its exterior dimensions, houses an inner chamber 17 feet square. The structure is a smaller version of other gateways of the Tughluq period, in particular that of Firuz Shah’s mosque at the kotla and of the Jahanpanah mosque built by Muhammad bin Tughluq.

The Hauz Khas mosque, oriented to the west, is a hypostyle structure with a covered prayer hall surrounding three sides of an open courtyard (Plate XXXVII and Figure 12). The courtyard measures 43 feet 4 inches by 39 feet 8 inches. The east end was not enclosed by an arcade and extended from the mosque to a distance defined by the gate at the southeast corner and a circular bastion at the northeast corner, approximately 42 additional feet. The courtyard today extends even further.

Much of the prayer hall has collapsed. The remaining foundations reveal that the prayer hall had vaulted bays on the north, south, and west sides of the courtyard. The north bays are completely gone. The north and south arcades were originally four bays wide (39 feet 8 inches) and two bays deep (19 feet 3 inches). Each bay was covered by a groin vault. The west prayer hall, mostly intact, consists of nine bays, one deep, and measures 81 feet 3 inches in length along the north-south axis and 12 feet 7 inches wide. Each bay is longer on its east-west axis than wide. The pair of bays at the northwest and southwest corners are separated from the central five bays by wider passages and join the north and south arcades.

The qibla wall is pierced by windows which open to the exterior (Plates XXXVIII and XXXV).30 [Archaeological Survey of India, List of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments: Delhi Province (1922) v. 3 Mahrauli Zail, pp. 178-180. The authors (p. 180) remark on the unusual features of the qibla wall of the Hauz Khas mosque.] The center bay opens onto a balcony which extends 9 feet 3 inches from the exterior wall and permits access to the ba’oli below by stairs which descend from it. The balcony is covered by a cupola. The location of this balcony is unorthodox, occupying the position normally reserved for the central mihrab. Instead of a central mihrab, two mihrabs are located in bays which immediately flank the central bay (Plate XXXIX) shows, on the left, the central bay with its currently blocked entrance, and the bay to its right containing a mihrab). Two additional mihrabs are located in the end bays. Stairs concealed in the south wall give access to the roof of the prayer hall and a parallel set of stairs on the exterior of the south wall descend to the ba’oli.

The mosque is dated by the Archaeological Survey of India to circa 755/1354 or the beginning of the reign of Firuz Shah, at the same time that building activity at the kotla was underway.31 [Ibid., p. 180.] The cathedral mosque described by Ibn Battuta may be the one located on the north end of the madrasa since no other mosques of this magnitude are in proximity to the site. But if this is the case, then the mosque would have to pre-date Firuz Shah since Ibn Battuta visited Hauz Khas during his predecessor’s reign. However the form and building materials of the mosque are consistent with other monuments built under Firuz Shah. The mosque is constructed of roughly dressed ashlar and rubble masonry and faced with plaster, materials preferred by Firuz Shah’s builders. The mosque therefore would seem to belong to the early years of Firuz Shah’s reign, before Barani’s death in 758/1357.

The hypostyle arrangement of its plan (Figure 12) is a com m on form of early Indian mosques, but the form of the Hauz Khas mosque has no specific antecedent The battered profile and raised center of its west exterior facade (qibla) is similar to the west facade of Firuz Shah’s jami masjid in the kotla. But, other decorative elements of the facade are unique; in particular, its central balcony. Instead of the uninterrupted surface found on the exterior of the kotla mosque, the west facade of the Hauz Khas mosque is characterized by the domed balcony and a pair of descending stairs. Additional features, such as the raised windows, enclosed by pierced stone screens and resting on corbelled supports, are reminiscent of indigenous Indian forms rather than Muslim forms. Firuz Shah typically experimented with new forms and these unusual architectural elements of the Hauz Khas mosque are representative of the type of innovation he tested. However, the unique elements found on the Hauz Khas mosque are not repeated in other mosques of his reign.32 [Muhammad bin Tughluq also experimented with architectural form but his innovations fell within the canons of Muslim architecture as established elsewhere in the Muslim world. For example, in the jami masjid at Jahanpanah he adopts a four-iwan plan. See A. Welch and H. Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 159.]

The madrasa - central block

The madrasa of Firuz Shah was located within the two-storey structure which spans the length of the east and south edges of the ba’oli (hereafter designated as the eastern and southern blocks) and joined at the southeast corner at the tomb of the founder, Firuz Shah (Plate XL and Figure 11). The madrasa consisted of a series of interconnecting cells and passages along both stories. These are believed to have served as living quarters as well as classroom spaces for the college. The facades facing the ba’oli are pierced by openings on the two levels which offer a view of the ba’oli. The opposite facades are only open on the upper level, along the garden. The lower storey cells are accessible from the upper level by stairs located at several points in the structure.

The core of the madrasa (Plate XLI), located at the southeast corner of the expanse of structures at a point where the east and south blocks of the L-shaped plan join, seems to represent one phase of construction. Its symmetrical plan and integrated architectural units indicate that it was conceived as a structural entity. The portions of the madrasa contiguous with the tomb of Firuz Shah are symmetrical. Each side spans a length of 82 feet from the central tomb. The central tomb and the two adjacent wings of the madrasa are connected by passageways off the respective north and west walls of the central tomb. These passageways open into square plan domed chambers approximately one-third the scale (15 feet 3 inches square) of the central tomb. These chambers in turn open into a colonnade of fifteen bays (Plates XLII and XLIIII), three aisles wide and 5 bays long, each covered by a corbelled vault. The bays of the central aisle are wider (5 feet 8 inches) than those of the side aisles and emphasize the central axis of the monument. The bays of the central aisle are covered by octagonal corbelled vaults. The bays of each side aisle are 5 feet square and are covered by corbelled hexagonal vaults. Each colonnade terminates in a domed chamber identical to the one contiguous with the central tomb. The end chamber of the north wing has broken away revealing its construction (Plate XLIV). The wall of the upper level square chamber graduates through means of corbelled squinches to form a nearly rounded base on which the dome would have sat The walls are constructed of rubble and faced with plaster (chunam). The upper level floor was supported beneath on a domical vault formed from roughly cut ashlar and rubble. The arcuated construction of these chambers is emphasized on the roof by domes, in contrast to the flat roof over the trabeated bays in between.

The corridors on the lower level (Plates XLV and XLVI) reflect the plan of the upper storey - a series of connected bays. The ceiling of this level is an arcuated system and supports the floor of the level above. The arcade consists of three rows of columns located along its long axis. While the exterior row is double, the central row is a single file of columns. The innermost columns are engaged, separating niches recessed in the interior wall. The columns of this arcade, like those of the upper level, are square, with undecorated bases and capitals.33 [Other mosques in the area, for example, the Quwwat al-Islam mosque and the Jahanpanah mosque, reused pillars from dismantled Hindu temples. There is no evidence that this occurred at Hauz Khas.] The arches which spring from them are high and their spandrels are decorated with single rosettes. The arcade terminates, like the corresponding upper level, into larger chambers, identical to those at the opposite end, next to the central tomb. These chambers are formed from massive piers which provide the foundation for the floor above. The ceilings are low domical vaults constructed from rough ashlar and mbble masonry, and were originally plastered and decorated. The end chamber on the west side still retains traces of plastered ceiling which is divided by a linear design of silhouettes of intersecting domes (Plate LXXIII).

The north (Plates XLVII and XLVIII) and west (Plates XLIX and L) facades of the central block of the madrasa are open on both stories. The facade consists, from bottom to top, of a high foundation, the lower storey arcade, the upper storey colonnade, and a flat roof with two domes at its ends. The lower storey consists of five pointed arches which spring from a row of square columns. The spandrels of the arches, each decorated with a single rosette motif, are recessed. Each arch is framed by vertical and horizontal pilasters, an element which emphasizes the compartmentalization of the interior space. The columns are undecorated and have plain bases and capitals. The upper level colonnade consists of five openings, corresponding to the lower level, separated by square columns. The superstructure appears heavy and massive and masks the vaulting of the interior.

The flanking chambers are also open on both upper and lower levels. The lower storey window is a simple arched opening with a slightly protruding floor supported on corbels. The upper storey window, on the other hand, is a raised balcony (Plate XLIX and L). It sits forward from the wall similar to the balcony on the mosque facade. The floor is supported by corbelled brackets and each balcony is covered by a half-domical vault and chajjas (eaves) supported on columns. Chajjas appear over the upper storey colonnade as well.

Whereas the west and north facades (the ba’oli side) of this section of the madrasa are symmetrical, the east and south facades (the opposite side) are different. The south facade (Plate LI) is pierced by four entrances, one in each of the two domed chambers, one between these, and one in the passage between the madrasa and Firuz Shah’s tomb. The entrances are simple post and lintel construction and over each is an arched opening with a recessed panel of stone lattice. The roofline of this facade has remnants of a crenelated parapet. The east facade (Plate LII) reflects a similar configuration except that the central colonnade is open.

The construction materials used throughout the madrasa are rubble and ashlar masonry, materials typically used in buildings of Firuz Shah’s reign. Although many surfaces of the facades are exposed today, the surfaces were probably originally covered by plaster and whitewashed. Architectural elements, such as raised balconies, relieved the otherwise austere facades. Decoration was kept to a minimum, such as the simple rosettes found in the spandrels of arches. Also found in the spandrels are medallions inscribed with words of the Muslim creed like those in the upper chamber of the north end (Plate LIII).

The central block of the madrasa has undergone restoration by the Archaeological Survey of India and is in a better state of preservation than the remaining sections. The symmetrical arrangement of this part of the madrasa and its proximity to the tomb suggest that it should be assigned to a later phase of construction, at a time when the tomb was built. The careful placement of the tomb in relationship to the madrasa buildings next to it indicates that this section was conceived as a single unit. It is possible that Firuz Shah continued building onto the madrasa toward the end of his reign when he devoted himself more to religious pursuits. On the other hand, it is equally possible that Firuz Shah built his tomb far in advance of his death.34 [The tomb of Fath Khan at the dargah of Qadam Sharif is believed to have already been built by Firuz Shah for his own use, but upon the unexpected death of his son. Path Khan, in 776/1374, he interred the latter's remains in it. It is conceivable that Firuz Shah planned his tomb at Hauz Khas earlier in his reign.]

Madrasa - east block

The sections of the madrasa in the east block, beyond the central block, are incongruent with the remaining structure and probably represent separate phases of construction. The remainder of the east block (Plate LIV), on the east side of the ba’oli, is in an advanced state of disrepair. It spans a length of 220 feet and is situated between the madrasa building just discussed and the mosque. This section is joined, on its north end, to the mosque but, on its south end, it is separated from the madrasa for a length of 47 feet. A continuous foundation however suggests that these units were originally joined. This section of the madrasa spans a length of approximately 173 feet and represents a separate phase of construction. The standing walls of the lower storey possess the massive character and pronounced batter of Tughluq monuments. The remains of the ground storey indicate that the east block consisted of a long corridor with individual cells along its interior. Each cell is entered through a simple trabeate opening over which an arched window was placed (Plate LV).

The east section of the madrasa was originally two-storied but only a fragment of the upper storey survives. The ground storey served as a foundation for the upper level which is nearly obliterated except for a wall segment on the south end of the section (Plate LVI). The configuration of the upper storey is unknown but it is believed to have been a series of vaulted bays. On the basis of similar construction materials and the recognizable Tughluq features -- the battered wall and rubble masonry -- the structure belongs to Firuz Shah’s reign. Its proximity to the mosque suggests that it was built in the early part of the reign, before the time when the sections adjacent to Firuz Shah’s tomb were completed.

Madrasa - south block

The south block of the madrasa (Plate LVII) also extends beyond the central block (82 feet) for another 133 feet, bringing the length of the entire block from the central tomb to 215 feet. This portion of the block (Plate LVIII) represents yet another phase of building activity. The widened foundation (Figure 11), nearly twice (47 feet) that of the central core (26 feet), and its location at the extremity of the wing supports this hypothesis.

The extension of the south block is dominated by a two-storied domed chamber similar to the domed chambers of the central core. The foundation of the entire extension is closer to the ba’oli, therefore breaking the alignment of the wing from the rest of the madrasa (Plate LIX). It is connected to the rest of the block but it is uncertain what the original intention of the builder was. The transition between this section and the remaining block is not smooth and the axis, manifested elsewhere in the continuous corridor of the madrasa, is interrupted here.

The south extension consists of a series of cells on two levels, symmetrically arranged on either side of the central chamber. The ground level plan (Plate LX), like that in the east block, is an arrangement of individual cells off a passageway. The remains of an arcade on the upper storey probably reflects an equivalent plan in the opposite east block. The purpose of the domed chamber is not known, but it is most likely part of the madrasa -- perhaps functioning as a classroom -- rather than a tomb.

The chamber is approximately 20 feet square in plan. Its north facade (Plate LVIII) is nearly identical to the domed chambers of the adjacent section of the madrasa. Both stories have openings with raised balconies suspended on corbelled brackets. The similarity between this facade and the other facades in the block suggests that they were intended to match but the difference in scale and its position closer to the ba’oli, refutes this belief. In addition, the ribs on the exterior of the dome differ from the smooth profiles of the other domes and also indicate that the extension belongs to different time of construction.

The south facade of the chamber (Plate LXI) has a raised surface which contains a named recessed arch. This arch is pierced by a doorway with a small arched opening above its lintel. Additional entrances, simplified versions of the center entrance, occur on either side of the facade.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, by William Jeffr

Postby admin » Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:31 pm

Part 2 of 3

Tomb of Firuz Shah

The tomb of Firuz Shah (Plates LXII and LXIII), located in a central position, dominates the site by its scale and height The tomb is 44 feet 6 inches square in plan (Figure 13) and its dome rises to over twice the elevation of the adjacent domed chambers of the madrasa. The tomb is oriented to the south and its four walls are pierced with openings. The north and west walls open into the respective wings of the madrasa but direct access is screened by a wall which breaks the axis, a measure which provides more privacy for the tomb chamber. The east wall provides entry directly from the grounds of the site but the south entrance, preceded by a veranda surrounded by a low wall and railing, is the primary entrance to the tomb. Of the four unmarked cenotaphs within, the central one is commonly identified as Firuz Shah’s.35 [Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), pp. 415-416. Sayyid Ahmad Khan identifies the central cenotaph to be the grave of Firuz Shah. Two others have been assigned to Nasir al-Din Muhammad Shah and ‘Ala’ al-Din Sikandar Shah, the son and grandson of Firuz Shah, but Sayyid Ahmad Khan identifies their graves elsewhere in the compound without giving their specific locations. The fourth cenotaph of rubble construction is unidentified.] None of the cenotaphs is inscribed.

The tomb is constructed of rubble masonry faced with plaster. The building materials of the tomb are modest compared to the materials of its prototypes, the tomb of Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq at Tughluqabad and Lai Gumbad (presumably Muhammad bin Tughluq’s tomb) near Jahanpanah, which were faced with red, speckled sandstone.36 [Husain, Tughluq Dynasty, pp. 500-502; Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 143 and p. 162, fn 69.]

The tomb is elevated above ground level by means of a low plinth, making it level with the madrasa. The plinth extends on the cast side of the tomb (Plate LXIV) on the same level as the floor of the tomb, providing a platform whose function is unknown. The south veranda (Plate LXII) extends from the tomb below the level of the plinth and is enclosed by a low wall faced with stone and surmounted by a low balustrade with a double row of horizontal rails. The veranda measures 39 feet by 28 feet.37 [The railing has affinities with railings of Buddhist monuments of Sanchi. This poses the possibility that native craftsmen who were familiar with the Sanchi monuments, were imported from the area around Sanchi, perhaps Daulatabad. See Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, p. 61, and A. Welch and H. Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 146.]

The south and east sides of the tomb are the only two with exposed facades. The facades are almost identical. The central portion of each is raised and heightened from the tomb walls and marked by a band of stone ornament along its base. This band does not continue along the rest of the exterior wall. The walls possess the batter of Tughluq architecture although it is not as pronounced as that of the tomb of Ghiyath al-Din. The top of each facade is decorated with a stringcourse carved with a crenelated parapet; each crenelation contains a single rosette motif. The stringcourse rests on top of a narrow band of red and white stone.38 [The parapets are believed to have been added in the course of repairs to the monument ordered by Sikandar Shah Lodi in 913/1507-08. See Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments, v. 3, p. 178, and Marshall, Cambridge History of India, v. 3, p. 591.]

The east and south facades of the tomb contain entrances within recessed arches. The jambs of the entrances rest on square bases and support layered corbelled lintels which form an arched configuration similar to the one in the chamber of the south block extension (Plate LXI). The top lintel supports a smaller arched opening inset with a panel of stone lattice of star-shaped and circular voids (Plate LXV). The spandrels of the arch contain rosettes. The arch itself is ornamented with a double line naksh inscription incised in stucco, parts of which are lost.39 [Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments: Delhi Province, v. 3 Mahrauli Zail, p. 178.] The east entrance is blocked at its base by a solid stone rail which is low enough to cross. The arch of the east entrance is devoid of inscription. The north and west facades (Plate LXVI) both contain a pair of blind recessed-arch niches high on the wall. These niches do not occur on the other two facades and they help relieve the undecorated surfaces of these facades.

The tomb is crowned by a hemispherical dome which rests on a high octagonal drum. A variation of the crenelated stringcourse (a triple-lobed parapet) is located on the top rim of the drum. Each lobe of the crenelation contains a floral motif or roundel inscribed with the Muslim creed (Plate LXVII).

The interior of the tomb is a square chamber (28 feet 7 inches) capped by a domical ceiling (Figure 13 and Plates LXVIII and LXIX). The lower portions of the walls of the interior are unadorned and each contains a central opening. The south and east walls open onto the gardens. The north and west walls give access to the contiguous buildings of the madrasa. The recessed arch in the west wall (Plates LXX and LXXI), where the mihrab is normally placed, contains a passage to the south block. The entrance is not direct; rather by turning left, one is able to pass through the niche. The absence of a mihrab, usually encountered in sultanate tombs, is inexplicable. That one must tread through the mihrab could be construed as blasphemy.

The transition between the four walls to the circular base of the dome is accomplished by a series of squinches and pendentives (Plates LXIX and LXX).40 [Ibid., p. 178.] Eight arched squinches transform the wall into an octagon which in turn expands to sixteen sides. The corbels exhibit a rudimentary muqarnas. Each arch contains a double layer decorative motif, the lower an arabesque and the upper a line of Quranic verse in naksh script. The spandrels of each arch contain medallions of verse and at the center of each arched recess is a roundel with a decorative motif. The medallions are repeated in the intrados of the dome (Plate LXXII). The dome bears a band of inscription within the circumference of its base and a concentric band of inscription near its apex. The intrados of the dome is subdivided by interlocking bands which form trapezoidal areas, each decorated with stuccoed medallions with incised epigraphs. The design of the intrados probably derives from a motif of interlocking silhouettes of domes, seen elsewhere in the madrasa (Plate LXXIII). The tomb is copiously inscribed. The content of its epigraphs are examined below.

Miscellaneous buildings at Hauz Khas

Most of the remaining structures of the Hauz Khas complex are tombs of prominent men v/hose associations with the madrasa warranted commemoration. At the southwest corner of the site are two domed structures, one of which is identified as the tomb of Sayyid Yusuf bin Jamal Husaini, a principal (mutawali or sadr mudarris) of the madrasa (Plate LXXIV). The tomb is believed to have been constructed around 780/1388, the year of his death and coincidently the same year of Firuz Shah’s death. It is a square plan domed chamber stylistically similar to the other buildings of the madrasa and is contained within an enclosure. Its construction at the end of the reign of Firuz Shah represents the last phase of Tughluq building on the site. A second domed structure (Plate LXXV) is unidentified but probably is a tomb or a residence.41 [Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood, p. 81.] The old entrance into the compound, located on the west, is now closed. Entry into the enclosure today is through a gate situated on the east side.

Little is known about the unidentified chhatri monuments which are located within the compound wall today. One chhatri structure, possessing three cupolas, is thought to have been a convocation hall (Plate LXXVI). The remaining five chhatris (Plate LXXVII) have been commonly identified as tombs and have been assigned to both Tughluq and Lodi patronage.42 [Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs, pp. 77- 78; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 158. Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November I860), p. 416. Sayyid Ahmad Khan identifies one chhatri as belonging to Shihab al-Din Taj Khan and Sultan Abu Sa‘id. He also states that the tombs of Nasir al-Din Muhammad Shah and ‘Ala’ al-Din Sikandar Shah were located in the compound. Nath reproduces one inscription in Monuments of Delhi, inscription no. 24.] Their proximity to the graveyard at the northeast corner of the compound (Plate LXXVIII) supports this identification. The Lodi sultans built several mausolea in the area, some in close proximity to Hauz Khas.43 [Mausolea in the Delhi area built under Lodi patronage include the Shish Gumbad and Bara Gumbad in the Lodi Garden, the Chhote-Khan-Ka Gumbad in Kotla Mubarakpur, and Dadi’s Gumbad and Khan-i Alam-Ka Gumbad near Hauz Khas. See Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, pp. 76-83, for a discussion of these monuments.] Although the form of the chhatri was employed from the time of the Muizzi sultans, its form remained virtually unchanged, making attributions on the basis of style impossible.44 [Early examples of chhatri tombs include those of Rukn al-Din Firoz Shah and Mu’iz al-Din Bahram Shah, located next to the Tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud (Sultan Ghari) and the tomb of Firuz Shah-period tomb of Makdum Shah ‘Alam (ca. 1375) in the courtyard of the mosque in Wazirabad (north of Firuzabad).] None of the chhatri tombs at Hauz Khas bear historical inscriptions, only Quranic.

During the decade following Firuz Shah’s death, subsequent Tughluq rulers were in power for only brief periods. Royal foundations subsequent to Firuz Shah seem to have been virtually non-existent except for minor graves. Firuz Shah’s son and grandson were interred at Hauz Khas, possibly in his mausoleum. None of the later Tughluq rulers is known to have built his own mausoleum.

The sudden eclipse of imperial patronage no doubt brought hard times to the madrasa of Firuz Shah. It had depended on revenue from the imperial treasury as well as waqfs. The day-to-day functions of the madrasa were most likely curtailed and indeed its very survival may have been jeopardized. After the demise of the Tughluqs and the Timurid sack of Delhi at the end of the fourteenth century, the successive Sayyid and Lodi rulers moved their capitals away from the city and the area around Hauz Khas became a vast necropolis.45 [Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam, v. 2 (1966), p. 258.] Virtually nothing is known about the madrasa institution patronized by the Sayyid and Lodi rulers. Sikandar Lodi visited Hauz Khas and ordered repairs to its buildings during his reign, an event noted by an inscription dated 913/1507- 08 located on the tomb of Firuz Shah (Plate LXV), but the repairs were probably confined to structural repairs and some additional embellishment. Although the rich epigraphy inside the mausoleum of Firuz Shah has been attributed to Sikandar Lodi’s patronage it seems unlikely that this sultan would have ordered this type of extensive refurbishment The epigraphy is generally accepted to coincide with the construction of the mausoleum.46 [Marshall attributes the color plaster decoration to Sikandar Lodi. Carr Stephen and Percy Brown accept the attribution. Husain does not accept the epigraphy to have been added by Sikandar Lodi. Welch and Crane refute Marshall’s attribution and also assign the epigraphy to Firuz Shah. Marshall, Cambridge History of India, p. 591; Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 158; Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period, p. 22; Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs, p. 74; A. Welch and H. Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 159.] Sikandar Lodi’s additions were therefore probably mostly cosmetic in nature: for example, the parapet on the mausoleum. Waiting Tughluq patronage and the necessity of repairs to the buildings of the site indicate the distressed financial circumstances of the madrasa by 913/1507-08, a hundred years after Tughluq rule.

Inscriptions

The tomb of Firuz Shah is an epigraphically rich monument. The embellishment of tomb and commemorative architecture with inscriptional messages was a longstanding Muslim tradition. In fact, calligraphy was preferred as a basic form of decoration on most architectural monuments.47 [Epigraphy on Islamic monuments is discussed by a number of authors. See A. Welch Calligraphy in the Arts of the Muslim World, 1979; W. E. Begley Monumental Islamic Calligraphy from India, 1985; Erica Cruikshank Dodd and Shereen Khairallah, The Image of the Word, 1981; Richard Ettinghausen, "Arabic Epigraphy: (Communication or Symbolic Affirmation," Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and History: Studies in Honor of George C. Miles, edited by Dickran K. Kouymjian, 1974; and A. Welch, "Epigraphs as Icons: The role of the Written Word in Islamic Art," The Image and the Word (1977), pp. 63-74.] The tomb of Firuz Shah is inscribed predominantly with verses from the Qur’an and with hadith. The only historical inscription, set in place by Sikandar Lodi in 913/1507-08, is located over the south doorway (Plate LXV). This fragmentary inscription, in naksh script incised in plaster, identifies this structure as the burial place of Firuz Shah:48 [The Lodi period inscription on the mausoleum is published in Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments, v.3, p. 178; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 158; Husain, A Record of All Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs, p. 74; and Zafar Hasan "Inscriptions of Sikandar Shah Lodi in Delhi, VIII Mausoleum of Firuz Shah 913 H." Epigraphica Indo-Moslemica 1919-20 (1924)]  

...Kings Sultan, Sikandar, son of the king of kings Sultan Bahlol Shah, may God perpetuate his reign and kingdom and exalt his glory, on the 20tii of the August month of Ramazan, the year 913...Kings Sultan Firoz Shah, may his dust be sanctified and paradise be his resting place...


Sikandar ordered repairs to the monument in 913/1507-08. In addition to this inscription of Sikandar Lodi, the only other epigraphs on the exterior of the monument are contained in small circular medallions. These record the name of God (Allah).

The interior of the tomb on the other hand contains numerous inscriptions, most from the Qur'an and a few consisting of hadith or Traditions of the Prophet. The inscriptions are confined to the upper portions of the walls and domed ceiling and are all in naksh script. The walls and cenotaphs are devoid of any epigraphic embellishment, which was probably the original intent of the builder. The eight arches which form the zone of transition to the dome are filled with Quranic verse cut into the plaster surface. The arch over the south entrance contains verses from sura 3: 95-96 preceded by an invocation (basmallah):49 [All quotations from the Qur’an, with slight modifications, are taken from The Holy Qur’an, translated and commented on by Maulana Muhammad Ali (sixth edition) Chicago (through special arrangement with Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha’at Islam, Lahore, Pakistan). Husain uses an earlier edition of Ali’s translation in his A Record of All the Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs on the Protected Monuments in the Delhi Province. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 47 Calcutta, 1936. Husain’s record and sequence of inscriptions of the Tomb of Firuz Shah, pp. 74-76, are followed here for the most part.]

In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful

Certainly the first house appointed for men is the one at Bakkah [Mecca], blessed and a guidance for die nations

In it are clear signs: [It is] the Place of Abraham; and whoever enters it is safe; and pilgrimage to the House is a duty which men owe to God -- whoever can find a way to it.


The placement of these verses at the entrance is appropriate. The custom of visiting the shrines and tombs of holy men and past sovereigns was practiced by Firuz Shah himself, as ‘Afif notes, prior to undertaking any prolonged campaign.50 [‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 321.] The sultan likewise considered such tombs and shrines important enough to order restoration to them.51 [Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 383-384.] The Quranic reference to pilgrimage at the entrance of Firuz Shah’s mausoleum suggests that his tomb was meant to function as a pilgrimage site.52 [The reference to Bakkah in these verses is equivalent to makkah, a word which connotes a "crowding together of men" and may also refer to Mecca, the site of Muslim pilgrimage and believed to be the first house of worship. See Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 467, footnote 157.] Earlier tombs, for example, the heavily inscribed tomb of Iltutmish (ca. 1235 A. D.) and the tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud (the Sultan Ghari tomb, 1231 A.D.) are believed to have served as pilgrimage sites also. Both are inscribed with the identical sura as that in found in Firuz Shah’s tomb and in all three cases, delete the final line of the verse.53 [A. Welch, "Qur’an and Tomb," p. 261. Welch remarks that a similar omission occurs on the qibla screen of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque. He concludes that its use on the wall of the direction of prayer is inappropriate. Its use in these tombs is equally inappropriate. The omitted line is "And whoever believes surely Allah is above need of the worlds." Pickthall renders a different emphasis: "As for him who disbelieveth (let him know that) lo! Allah is Independent to non-Muslims." See Marmaduke Pickthall The Glorious Koran, p. 77 (verse 97).] The deliberate omission of the last line of this verse, a reference to non-believers, is an unusual phenomenon. Like the two earlier mausolea, the location of Firuz Shah’s tomb within the confines of a Muslim institution would attract few non-Muslim visitors, except in cases where they intended to desecrate the tomb.

The inscription contained in the arch at the southeast corner is from sura 59:21 and is also preceded by the basmallah:54 [The sequence of verses followed here replicates Husain’s study. No specific sequence of verse or path of worship is intended.]

In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful

Had we sent down this Qur’an on a mountain, thou wouldst certainly have seen it falling down, splitting asunder because of the fear of God, And We set forth these parables to men that they may reflect.

The east and northeast arches continue sura 59: 22-24:

He is God besides Whom there is no God: The Knower of the unseen and the seen; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful.

He is God, besides Whom there is no God; the King, the Holy, the Author of Peace, the Granter of Security, Guardian over all, the Mighty, the Supreme, the Possessor of greatness. Glory be to God from that which they set up [with Him]!

He is God; the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner: His are the most beautiful names. Whatever is in the heavens and the earth declares His glory; and He is the Mighty, the Wise.


These verses, which contain references to the Qur'an, its revelation, and the omnipotence of God, also appear in the tomb of Iltutmish and the Tughluq tomb of Zafar Khan located in the fortified enclosure of Ghiyath-al Din’s tomb.55 [Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs, pp. 72-74; A. Welch and H. Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 158 and footnotes 68 and 104.]

The north and northwest arches of Firuz Shah’s mausoleum contain the Throne verse, sura 2:255 preceded by a basmallah:

In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful

God -- there is no god but He, the Ever-living, the Self-subsisting by Whom all subsist. Slumber overtakes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him but by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them. And they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of them both tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Great.


The Throne verse, which stresses Muslim monotheism, is probably used more often than any other in Muslim architectural epigraphy throughout the Islamic world. Besides its appearance on the tombs of Iltutmish and Nasir al-Din Mahmud, it is employed on other types of monuments such as the Qutb Minar. Its use in India has been deemed especially appropriate in view of the political circumstances which resulted in Muslim sultans supplanting Hindu kings.56 [A. Welch, "Qur’an and Tomb," p. 259.] The Throne verse appears twice in the tomb of Firuz Shah, on these arches and again in the dome, the most prominent location in the mausoleum.

The west and southwest arches of the tomb contain sura 3: 25-26 preceded by an invocation:

In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful

Say: O God, Owner of the Kingdom, Thou givest the kingdom to whom Thou pleasest, and takest away the kingdom from whom Thou pleasest, and Thou exaltest whom Thou pleasest and abasest whom Thou pleasest. In Thine hand is the good. Surely, Thou art Possessor of power over all things.

Thou makest the night to pass into the day and Thou makest the day to pass into the night; and Thou bringest forth the living from the dead and Thou bringest forth the dead from die living; and Thou givest sustenance to whom Thou pleasest without measure.


These verses also appear in the tomb of Iltutmish and stress divine power, with particular reference to God’s power as the one who gives and takes away life on Judgment Day. Each of the arches is framed by spandrels which contain plaster medallions inscribed with the shahada:

There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Prophet of God.

The verses contained in the eight arches are considered appropriate ones for a mausoleum. The reference to the sanctuary of God and pilgrimage at the entrance, to the revelation of the Qur’an and the omnipotence of God in the east and northeast arches, to God’s omnipotence and monotheism on the north and northwest arches, and the continued focus on divine power and Judgment Day on the west and southwest arches complete the epigraphic message of the arches.

The dome of the tomb is also heavily inscribed in the interior (Plate LXXII). Each inscription is in naksh script and cut into the plaster surface. The drum of the dome is from the Qur’an, sura 59:22-23:

In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful

He is God the Most High

He is God besides Whom there is no god: The Knower of the unseen and the seen; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful.

He is God, besides Whom there is no god; the King, the Holy, the Author of Peace, the Granter of Security, Guardian over all, the Mighty, the Supreme, the Possessor of greatness.

And He is the All-Hearing and the All-Seeing, the Best Master and the Best Helper


Many of the asma’ al-husna, the ninety-nine attributes or names of God, have fallen away. These Quranic verses appear here for the second time. They also occupy positions on the east and northeast arches below and are a statement of divine power. These verses, along with the asma’ al-husna, collectively emphasize the very essence of god. They appear twice also on Iltutmish’s tomb.

At the center of the intrados of the dome in a concentric band of Quranic inscription is the repeated Throne Verse (sura 2: 255-257) in naksh script cut in the plaster:

God -- there is no god but He, the Ever-living, the Self-subsisting by Whom all subsist. Slumber overtakes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him but by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them. And they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of them both tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Great.

There is no compulsion in religion -- the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error. So whoever disbelieves in the devil and believes in God, he indeed lays hold on the firmest handle which shall never break. And God is Hearing, Knowing.

God is the Friend of those who believe -- He brings them out of darkness into light. And those who disbelieve, their friends are the devils who take them out of light into darkness. They are the companions of the Fire, therein they abide.


The intrados of the dome is decorated with three concentric rows of eight plaster medallions, each inscribed with verses from the Qur’an and hadith. Several of them cannot be deciphered because of their deterioration. Some include "God" or the shahada. The larger tear-shaped medallions in the row above the base of the dome include the following hadith:

He who missed a prayer wilfully became an infidel.

The world is a prison to the believer and paradise to the unbeliever.

The world is a cursed [place] and...God is Ever-living.

The prayer is the ascent [to heaven] to a believer.


These hadith, which refer to mortal existence as a prison and stress the importance of prayer as a means of escape, are unique to this monument.57 [Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 159. The authors remark that these four hadith do not appear anywhere in north India.] The theme of salvation is carried further in a fifth tear-shaped medallion which contains the verse from sura 6:1:

Praise be to God, Who created the heavens and the earth, and made darkness and light. Yet those who disbelieve set up equals to their Lord.


A sixth medallion contains sura 1:1-7 followed by the shahada. It reiterates the theme of the Day of Judgment and the consequences to those who have fallen from the faith.

Praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds.
The Beneficent, the Merciful,
Master of the day of Requital.
Thee do we serve and Thee do we beseech for help.
Guide us on the right path.
The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favours,
Not those upon whom wrath is brought down, nor those who go astray.
There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Prophet of God.


The seventh medallion, from sura 97: 1-5, deals with the Revelation. It is preceded by the invocation:

In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Surely We revealed it on the Night of Majesty --
And what will make thee comprehend what the Night of Majesty is?
The Night of Majesty is better than a thousand months
The angels and the Spirit descend in it by the permission of their Lord --
for every affair --
Please! it is till the rising of the morning.


The bottom row of medallions therefore sends a message to non-believers: the choice of acceptance or infidelity. The implied idea of conversion occupies an unusual position in the mausoleum. It is normally encountered near the entrance.

The center row of medallions are also only partially decipherable. One is from sura 109:1-6:

Say: O disbelievers,
I serve not that which you serve.
Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve.
Nor shall I serve that which ye serve.
Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve.
For you is your recompense and for me my recompense.


A second medallion contains verses from sura 108: 1-3 preceded by invocation. These verses also appear in the tomb of Iltutmish.

In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Surely We have given thee abundance of good.
So pray to thy Lord and sacrifice.
Surely thy enemy is cut off [from good].


A third is from sura 114:1-5:

Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of men.
The King of men.
The God of men,
From the evil of the whisperings of the slinking [devil],
Who whispers into the hearts of men.


The Quranic verse from sura 3: 25, contained in another medallion, appears elsewhere in the tomb, on the west arch:

Say: O God, Owner of the Kingdom, Thou givest the kingdom to whom Thou pleasest, and takest away the kingdom from whom Thou pleasest, and Thou exaltest whom Thou pleasest and abasest whom Thou pleasest. In Thine hand is the good. Surely, Thou art Possessor of power over all things.

The last readable inscription in the larger circular medallions is from Sura 3: 143:

And Muhammad is but a messenger -- messengers have already passed away before him. If then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels?


Each of these large circular medallions contain floral or inscriptional designs in its center. The inscriptions include "God," or "O, God," or "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Prophet of God." This row of medallions continues the warning to disbelievers found in the first row of medallions and the theme of divine power to give and take life and repeats the plea for salvation.

The top row of medallions, near the apex of the dome, contain inscriptions from hadith which reiterate the supremacy of God and give the the names of the Prophets.58 [Ibid., p. 159. The authors add the name of the prophet Yusuf which is not included by Husain.]

There is no god but God, Abraham is the friend of God.
There is no god but God, Jesus is the Spirit of God.
There is no god but God, Moses is the Speaker to God.
There is no god but God, Muhammad is the Prophet of God.
And God has full control over His affair, but most people know not
Kingdom is for God
And may God confer blessings on Muhammad, the best of His creation and all has family. By Thy mercy, O Most Merciful of the merciful.


The inscriptions contained in the twenty-four medallions on the dome, directly above the cenotaphs, may reflect the sultan’s wishes for salvation.59 [Ibid., p. 159.]

The domical inscriptions present a slightly different message than the inscriptions of the arches. Those on the arches are concerned with divine power and do not contain admonitions to non-believers. The verses stressing monotheism and divine power which are repeated emphasize the purpose for which mankind is on earth, that is to serve God. The choices made by an individual in his lifetime determined the rewards and punishments of the afterlife. The downplaying of the warnings to non-believers by relegating them to less visible positions (in the medallions of the dome), is probably incongruent with the primary function of the monument. Since these warnings typically appear on the exterior entrances of tombs and in highly visible public monuments like the Qutb Minar, the omission of explicit references to non-believers inside the tomb was probably deliberate.

Some Quranic verses which one would expect to encounter in a tomb are absent in the epigraphy of Firuz Shah’s mausoleum. The strong condemnation of idolaters and the promise of the rewards of paradise (sura 48:1-6) for those who adhere to the Muslim faith which appear on the mihrab of the tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud and the tomb of Zafar Khan are not included. In addition, descriptions of paradise (sura 56: 10-28) and the promise of paradise for the faithful (sura 18: 107-110) which occupy prominent positions in the tomb of Iltutmish are lacking in Firuz Shah’s tomb. The omission of sura al-mulk (sura 67) which sets forth the most emphatic warnings to infidels who refuse to accept God’s revelations is also strangely absent. The sura al-mulk appears on the tombs of Iltutmish and Nasir al-Din Mahmud. The large number of non-believers in India made the sura al-mulk a popular epigraph on Indo-Muslim monuments.60 [Welch, "Quran and Tomb," p. 265.] Whoever was responsible for selecting the epigraphs for Firuz Shah’s tomb was certainly aware of these other tombs. The function of the mausoleum as a monument to the ruler’s achievements for Islam and as a prelude to paradise is not entirely realized in Firuz Shah’s mausoleum.61 [Ibid., p.265.] However, the garden setting for the tomb at Hauz Khas is probably to be understood as an antecedent of the paradisal garden symbolism found in later Mughal tombs.62 [Wayne E. Begley, "The Myth of the Taj Mahal and a New Theory of Its Symbolic Meaning," Art Bulletin 61 (March 1979), pp. 7-37; Glenn D. Lowry, "Humayun’s Tomb: Form, Function, and Meaning in Early Mughal Architecture, " Muqarnas 4 (1987), pp. 133-148.]

Another unusual feature of the tomb of Firuz Shah is the absence of a mihrab in the qibla wall (Plates LXX and LXXI).63 [Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period, p. 22. Brown indicates the presence of an arched mihrab sunk into the west wall. The central location on the west wall however is occupied by a door.] Instead this important position is occupied by the opening into the attached madrasa. This is a unique phenomenon in the context of the other surviving tombs of the period. The walls of the tomb of Iltutmish (ca. 1235 A. D.), for example, are covered with a dense field of epigraphy surrounding three mihrabs on the qibla wall. The qibla of the tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud (1231 A. D.) is also emphasized by epigraphy around its mihrab. The elaborate marble portico surrounding the mihrab of this tomb is believed to have been added by Firuz Shah himself in the course of restoration. The Tughluq tombs of Ghiyath al-Din the Lai Gumbad, immediate predecessors of the tomb of Firuz Shah, also contain mihrabs on their qibla walls.

The inscriptions of the tomb of Firuz Shah provide a rare glimpse at epigraphy of this period. Besides the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi, allegedly inscribed in his imperial mosque, the tomb of Firuz Shah offers the only surviving corpus of religious epigraphy of his reign. The madrasa itself is devoid of historical or religious inscriptions except for those contained in scattered plaster medallions which contain the invocations: "O God;" "God is enough for me;" "Praise be to God;" "Kingdom is for God."

The chhatris located on the grounds of the Hauz Khas complex, to the east of the tomb of Firuz Shah, are also inscribed. The first chhatri has inscriptions from the Qur’an 59:21-24, preceded by the basmallah, in naksh script cut in plaster on its drum:64 [The sequence and numbering of the chhatris follows the order given by Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs, pp. 77-78.]

In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful

Had We sent down this Qur’an on a mountain, thou wouldst certainly have seen it falling down, slipping asunder because of the fear of God. And We set forth these parables to men that they may reflect

He is God, besides Whom there is no god: The Knower of the unseen and the seen; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful.

He is God, besides Whom there is no god; the King, the Holy, the Author of Peace, the Granter of Security, Guardian over all, the Mighty, the Supreme, the Possessor of greatness. Glory be to God firom that which they set up [with Him]!

He is God; the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner: His are the most beautiful names. Whatever is in the heavens and the earth declares His glory; and He is the Mighty, the Wise.

There is no god but God, the King, the Truth, the Manifest; Muhammad is God’s Prophet, the chief, the truthful, the verifier, the trusty.


These verses also occur in the tomb of Firuz Shah.

A second chhatri also contains fragmentary inscriptions from sura 59:22, preceded by the basmallah and followed by the asma’ al-husna, the ninety-nine attributes of God, most of which are missing.

In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful

He is God besides Whom there is no god: The Knower of the unseen and the seen; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful

The King, the Holy., .the Guide, the Eternal

May God confer blessings on Muhammad, the best of His creation, and all his family, and bestow Ifis peace (on them) in abundance.


The epigraphs of the third chhatri are nearly identical to the previous, including the asma' al-husna:

In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful

He is God besides Whom there is no God: The knower of the unseen and the seen; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful


The fourth chhatri is also inscribed with verses 21-24 from sura 59. These epigraphs are identical to those of the first chhatri with the exception that the preceding basmallah and the names from the asma’ al-husna are deleted. Sura 59: 21-24 are popular here, appearing, in full or in part, on four chhatri monuments and also in the epigraphs of the tomb of Firuz Shah -- on the drum of the dome and repeated on the southeast, east, and northeast arches. These particular verses emphasize the revelation of the Qur’an and stress the omnipotence of God. The expressed theme of monotheism in the verses of the sura 59 are particularly appropriate and commonly used in epigraphs of commemorative monuments.

The inscriptions on the fifth chhatri are from the Qur’an (sura 3:17):

God bears witness that there is no god but He, and [so do] the angels and those possessed of knowledge, maintaining justice. There is no god but He, the Mighty, the Wise.


The sixth chhatri is inscribed with a fragmented epigraph which is thought to be identical to the epigraphs of the second chhatri described above. The inscriptions on all the chhatris express divine power and are consistent with the message of the epigraphs of Firuz Shah’s tomb. The replication of verses on the chhatris makes clear that they were duplicated in not only their forms but iconographic content.

The tomb of Yusuf bin Jamal, located on the west side of the compound, is inscribed with his name only, an epigraph not contemporary with its construction.

Conclusion

The madrasa of Firuz Shah at Hauz Khas is one of the most unusual surviving monuments of the Tughluq period. Although earlier madrasas existed in India, they have disappeared, and knowledge about their forms and functions has been largely lost. Religious learning frequently took place in the mosques but the madrasa was the crux of Muslim learning. The construction of madrasas required significant patronage and, in addition, the consolidation of a respected body of learned scholars and 'ulama' depended on the political and social status of the patron. Rulers like Iltutmish, ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji, and Firuz Shah Tughluq were able to provide sustained patronage and they encouraged the establishment of waqfs to provide ongoing support of their institutions. Few madrasas enjoyed the level of patronage which Firuz Shah made available to his madrasa at Hauz Khas and few attained the esteemed reputation it earned. Although Firuz Shah’s patronage may have been excessive, it was in keeping with a long tradition of imperial perogative. Muslim learning was perpetuated through the institutions of mosque and madrasa, and the sultan’s patronage of these religious institutions is a reflection of his responsibility to the religious community, upon whose consent his authority rested, to assure the continuation of religious education and practice. In return for his charitable support, the learned body of scholars who passed through the halls of the madrasa and endured its disciplines collectively formed the very foundation of the sultan’s political authority. This legitimacy conferred by the 'ulama' was surely one of the key devices employed by Firuz Shah both to secure his position as sultan and to perpetuate the religious community which he led.

The madrasa of Firuz Shah at Hauz Khas is probably representative of madrasa forms of the early sultanate period. The institution of the madrasa eludes a standardized form, a problem endemic to its very nature. To complicate the problem more, the madrasa form represented at Hauz Khas was determined to a certain extent by the topography and upon the indigenous building forms and techniques the builder adopted. For example, the pavilion (chhatri) used for the convocation hall and tombs, or the open arcades of the madrasa, forms foreign to Muslim architecture, were preferred in the hot climate of India. The buildings of the madrasa were intended to provide comfortable housing for residents of the college as well as classrooms for teaching.

The garden setting of the site is perhaps the earliest surviving example in India. Later, Mughal tombs were situated in vast gardens whose char bagh plans alluded to paradise.65 [See James Dickie (Yaqub Zaki), "The Mughal Garden: Gateway to Paradise," Muqarnas 3 (1985), pp. 128-137. Also see fn 59 above.] The association between the tomb and the garden, a metaphor of paradise, became prevalent in India but at Hauz Khas, it is unlikely that such allusions were intended. The garden simply provided a pleasant environment for the college. In fact, among the known Tughluq tombs, only Firuz Shah’s is known to have been located in a garden setting. The fortified enclosure containing the tomb of Ghiyath al-Din represents a striking contrast to the garden of the Hauz Khas tomb.66 [Other mausolea at Multan are also barricaded with high defensive walls. See Ahmad Nabi Khan Multan: History and Architecture. Islamabad 1403/1983.] Although the form of Ghiyath al-Din’s mausoleum is a prototype for Firuz Shah’s tomb, its protective enclosure defies the very idea which commemorative monuments and pilgrimage sites embody. Political circumstances had changed since Ghiyath al-Din’s time and the defensive walls which surround his tomb were not deemed necessary at Hauz Khas, but the form of the tomb itself remained virtually unchanged. The square-plan tomb crowned with a dome was preferred for imperial mausolea during the early period of Delhi sultans. The form is continued through the end of the Tughluq period but is adopted for sub-imperial use. In later periods the octagonal-plan tomb is preferred for sultans’ mausolea.67 [Examples of octagonal royal tombs in the Delhi area include the tomb of Muhammad Sayyid located in the Lodi Garden, the tomb of Mubarak Sayyid located in Mubarakpur, and the tomb of Sikandar Lodi also in the Lodi Garden.]

The epigraphs of Firuz Shah’s tomb are the only group of religious inscriptions known to date from his reign, in contrast to the historical narrative of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. Whereas the latter promoted the reputation of the sultan as a doer of good deeds and who acted in accordance with Muslim Law, the tomb epigraphs reflect a pious man whose concerns were focused on religion and salvation. The Futuhat is believed to have been written early in the reign when the sultan was concerned more about political authority. The tomb epigraphs, on the other hand, were likely selected toward the end of his reign when his attention was directed to otherworldly concerns. The appearance of the Futuhat on a public monument, regardless of whether it was a religious or secular building, served to publicly declare his achievements in a way that the population at large was called to witness his deeds. The sultan’s request for their remembrance of him in their prayers was a plea for their approval of his course of action. In this way Firuz Shah obtained the recognition which would legitimize his political position. Such public affirmations of faith manifested on public monuments became part of a ruler’s legacy. Firuz Shah followed the examples of his predecessors and, in turn, his example would serve as a paradigm for his successors. Through his public avowal expressed in his public monuments, Firuz Shah was able to affirm his legitimacy.

In his tomb, he emphasized a religious message more strongly than he did in the Futuhat. The acts of persecution of heretics and non-Muslims referred to in the Futuhat reflected the sultan’s worldly attempts to uphold Islam. But by quoting line and verse of the Qur'an and certain hadith in his tomb, he transcended the mundane level of the Futuhat and affirmed at least formally, his piety on a higher level. Inscribed in the final years of his reign, the epigraphs of his tomb emphasize the supremacy of God and salvation. His concentration on the afterlife is a sign of his submission (islam) to God and a reflection of his personal piety. The affirmation of these beliefs in the epigraphy of an architectural monument publicly demonstrated the extent of his piety. His concern for his personal salvation is indicated by repetitious references to the afterlife and the rewards of devotion. The emphasis on the supremacy of God was simply an affirmation of his acceptance of divine power and a plea for a place in paradise. In the Futuhat, he stated this concern more directly, by asking for prayers in his behalf. Such direct statements on his part would perhaps have been considered inappropriate for his tomb, which theoretically should have been an unmarked grave.68 [The marking of the grave was proscribed by Islamic doctrine. See Grabar, "The Earliest Commemorative Structures, Notes and Documents," Ars Orientalis VI (1966), p. 8.] The religious verses selected to be inscribed in the tomb were a more universal message than the specific personalized narrative of the Futuhat. Despite the divergent means of approach, these two bodies of epigraphy served similar purposes. They both were statements of the sultan’s piety and they both succeeded in establishing his legitimacy.

The madrasa at Hauz Khas was perhaps Firuz Shah’s greatest achievement in religious architecture. His sustained patronage up until his death demonstrates his concern for proper religious education of the community. The demise of the madrasa after his reign seems to have occurred rapidly, for even Timur who camped on its embankment only a decade after the sultan’s death, makes no mention of the madrasa. The alienation of the 'ulama' during the reigns of Firuz Shah’s successors may have been due, in part, to their failure to maintain the level of patronage that Firuz Shah maintained. Activity at the site seems to have been only briefly revived under Lodi rule as attested to by the inscription of Sikandar Lodi on Firuz Shah’s mausoleum. The Lodis built many tombs in the vicinity and it is likely that the entire area, whose earlier cities were abandoned by the Sayyid and Lodi rulers, functioned as nothing more than a cemetery for the aristocracy.

_______________
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, by William Jeffr

Postby admin » Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:32 pm

Part 3 of 3

Notes:

1 Firuz Shah rebuilt the madrasa of Iltutmish which had been destroyed and ordered repairs to the madrasa of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji. Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 383-384.

2 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), p. 477. In 752/1351, on the occasion of Muhammad bin Tughluq’s death, Firuz Shah returned to Delhi to find Muhammad’s vizier in refuge at Hauz-i Alai following his unsuccessful attempt at placing Muhammad’s son on the throne. The vizier acquiesced his claim but met with an untimely death soon after. ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 278-280, and Barani, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 266-267.

3 Firuz Shah established his capital in Delhi, perhaps as a result of pressure by the nobility and ‘ulama’. Muhammad bin Tughluq had forced members of these groups to relocate to his southern capital of Daulatabad in the Deccan, a move which caused great discontent among them. But Muhammad bin Tughluq lost Daulatabad from his territories when he later returned his capital to Delhi. His abandonment of the city resulted in the rise of local potentates and its eventual absorption into the domains of the Bahmani sultans. Firuz Shah desired but never moved to regain his predecessor’s territories in the Deccan.

4 ‘Afif relates that Firuz Shah occupied the Kuskh-i Humayun when he lived in Jahanpanah and abandoned residence there when the palace at Firuzabad was completed. See ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 316 and p. 343.

5 The designation Delhi or Old Delhi referred to Qila Rai Pithora and sometimes included Siri. Tughluq foundations were Tughluqabad and ‘Adilabad (built by Ghiyath al-Din), and Jahanpanah (built by Muhammad bin Tughluq).

6 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 303.

7 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar al-Sanadid, translated by M. Garcin de Tassy, "Description des monuments de Delhi en 1852," Journal asiatique, 5th ser. (October- November 1860), p. 397; R. Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 30.

8 Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 83. Stephen remarks that the ba’oli was approximately 70 acres in area.

9 Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 383; Also see Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), p. 397. The tank was known as the Hauz-i Alai (Tank of ‘Ala’ al-Din) after ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji who had it dug. It was also known as the Hauz Khas (imperial pool/tank/lake) even before Firuz Shah reactivated its use. Ibn Battuta refers to it as the "private tank."

10 Firuz Shah also opened the blocked channels which fed the Hauz-i Shamsi. Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 383.

11 Ibn Battuta visited India in 734/1333 - 743/1342 and recorded his experiences in a rihla or travel book. He served as a qadi in Muhammad bin Tughluq’s court in Delhi. Ibn Battuta, The Travels of Ibn Battuta, H.A.R. Gibb (tr. and ed.) vol. 3 (1971), pp. 624-625 and footnote 27.

12 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 562-565. Translation cited from "A Medieval Indian Madrasah," Studies in Medieval Indian History, edited by Khaliq Ahmad Nizami, Aligarh Muslim University, pp. 75 and 78-79. Barani also makes reference to a second madrasa built by Firaz Shah at Siri, whose head was Sayyid Najm al-Din Samaqandi. Firuz Shah is also credited with founding a third madrasa, the Madrasa-i Shahzada Firuz Khan.

13 Translation of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi is cited from Nizami, "A Medieval Indian Madrasah,", p. 73 and footnote 6.

14 Sihrindi, Ta’rikh-i Mubarak Shah (Elliot & Dowson), p. 7.

15 Timur, Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), p. 441.

16 Yazdi, Zafarnama (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 500-501.

17 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), pp. 415-416. Marshall was the first author to refute Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s attribution of the tomb to Muhammad Shah. See Sir John Marshall, "The Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History of India, v. 3 (1928), edited by Sir Wolseley Haig, p. 591. The attribution to Firuz Shah is accepted by Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs on The Protected Monuments in the Delhi Province, Memoirs o f the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 47 (1936), p. 74; Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, p. 41; Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam, p. 258; and A. Welch and H. Crane, "The Tughluqs," Muqarnas 1 (1983), p. 146.

18 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 561-564.

19 Ibid., p. 564.

20 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 564-565. See also Banerjee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, p. 183 and fn 28.

21 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), p. 398; Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs, p. 77.

22 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), p. 565. Barani also makes reference to a second madrasa built by Firuz Shah at Siri which possessed a similar ambiance.

23 Mutahhar, Diwan-i Mutahhar, Translation cited from Nizami, "A Medieval Indian Madrasah," p. 74.

24 Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, p. 62. Nath suggests that the source of the form of the convocation hall at Hauz Khas is the Jaina mandapa or pillared hall.

25 Mutahhar, Diwan-i Mutahhar, cited in Nizami, "A Medieval Indian Madrasah," p. 75.

26 Ibid., p. 78. Mutahhar writes:

Pheasants, partridges, herons, fish, roasted fowl and bulky kids, fried loaves, sweets of different kinds, and other things, were heaped everywhere in large quantities. Pomegranate syrup, prepared with the mixture of sorrel, was served as a drink. Betel nuts were brought in gold and silver dishes after the meal.


27 Firuz Shah’s madrasa is published by Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Athar al-Sanadid, in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), pp. 397-398; Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains (1876), p. 83; Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments III Mahrauli Zail (1922), pp. 179-180, no. 309; Marshall, "Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History of India m (1928), p. 591, Plate X, Figure 19; Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey No. 47 (1936), pp. 76-77, No. LXXVII; and Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period (1942), p. 24.

More recent references are included in Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam n (1966), p. 258; K. A. Nizami, "A Medieval Indian Madrasah," Studies in Medieval Indian History and Culture (1966); Majumdar (Ed.), Delhi Sultanate (1967), p. 680; Banerjee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq (1967), pp. 191-192; Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood (1974), pp. 80-81; Nath, Sultanate Architecture (1978), p. 62; Nath, Monuments of Delhi (1979), p. 62; Grover, Architecture of India: Islamic (1981), pp. 44- 45; and Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Muqarnas I (1983), p. 140.

28 The tomb of Firuz Shah is published by Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Athar al- Sanadid in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), pp. 415-416; Archaeological Survey of India, Reports Vol. IV, p. 65; XX, pp. 151-152; Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal XXXIX, p. 81; Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains (1876), pp. 157-158; Fanshawe, Delhi: Past and Present (1902) p. 252; Hearn, Seven Cities of Delhi (1906), p. 199; Other early references are given in A.S.I. Lists of Monuments III Mahrauli Zail (1922), pp. 178-179, no. 308; Marshall, "Monuments of Muslim India," Cambridge History of India III (1928), p. 591, 634; Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs (1936), pp. 74-76, No. LXXVI; and Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period, pp. 24-25.

More recent references include Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam II (1966), p. 258; Majumdar (Ed.), The Delhi Sultanate (1967), pp. 680-681; Yamamoto, Ara, and Tsukinowa, Delhi: Architectural Remains, Vol. II (1968); Burton-Page, "Hind," El III (1971), p. 442; Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood (1974), p. 80; Nath, Sultanate Architecture (1978), pp. 61-62; Nath, Monuments of Delia (1979), p. 41; Grover, Architecture of India: Islamic (1981), p. 44; and Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Muqarnas I (1983), p. 146.

29 The Hauz Khas mosque is published in Archaeological Survey Lists of Monuments III Mahrauli Zail (1922) p. 180, no. 310; A.S.I. Reports XX, p. 151; Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood, p. 81; Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 140.

The Hauz Khas chhatris have been published by Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs, pp. 77-78, Nos. LXXXIX-LXXXIV; Nath, Sultanate Architecture, p. 62

30 Archaeological Survey of India, List of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments: Delhi Province (1922) v. 3 Mahrauli Zail, pp. 178-180. The authors (p. 180) remark on the unusual features of the qibla wall of the Hauz Khas mosque.

PAGE xi

REFERENCE

No. = Number of monument, Mahrauli Zail.
a = Name of monument.
b = Situation.
c = Owner.
d = Class
The following classification of monuments has been laid down by the Government of India, and they are so classified in the margins of the different lists of Antiquarian remains issued by the Archaeological Department, as well as in the various Progress reports: --
I. -- Those monuments which from their present condition and historical or archaeological value ought to be maintained in permanent good repair.
II. -- Those monuments which it is now only possible or desirable to save from further decay by such minor measures as the eradication of vegetation, the exclusion of water from the walls and the like.
III. -- Those monuments which from their advanced stage of decay or comparative unimportance it is impossible or unnecessary to preserve.
The monuments in classes I and II are further subdivided thus --
I (a) and II (a) -- Monuments in the possession or charge of Government, or in respect of which Government must undertake the cost of all measures of conservation.
I (b) and II (b) -- Monuments in the possession or charge of private bodies or individuals.
No comment is necessary upon class I, but in class II it will often be found necessary to carry out sufficient initial repairs over and above those specified, to put a building in such a state that those minor measures will afterwards suffice to keep it in a tolerably fair condition.
Because a building is put into class III, on account of its very dilapidated condition, it does not follow that there should be any unseemly haste in converting it into road metal. It may still be a monument of interest as long as it keeps together.
e = Date.
f = Inscriptions.
g = Condition.
h = Whether Protected by Act VII of 1904 (Ancient Monuments Preservation Act). "Unnecessary" signifies that Protection by this Act is unnecessary.
j = Notes on, and description, etc.
k = Bibliographical references.
l = Numbers of photo negatives of the building in the office of the Superintendent, Muhammadan and British Monuments, Archaeological Survey of India, Northern Circle, Agra.

PAGE 177

HAUZ KHAS.
No. 306.

(a) Hauz Khas tank.
(b) Immediately to the west of the village.
(c) Government.
(d) IIa.
(e) Circa 695 A.H. (1295 A.D.).
(f) None.
(g) Ruinous.
(h) Protected.  
(j) The tank was built by Alauddin Khalji after whom it was originally known as Hauz Alai. It is said to have been enclosed by masonry walls. Firoz Shah Tughlaq made extensive repairs to it, which he records in Fatuhat-i Firoz Shahi as follows: —

“The Hauz Alai, which had been filled up and become dry, and in which people carried on cultivation, dug wells and sold the water thereof, was after a generation excavated by me so that this great tank might be filled with water from year to year.”


The same emperor built a college on its south and east sides (see No. 309). The tank subsequently became known as the Hauz Khas.

Timur after defeating Mahmud Tughlaq and his general Mallu Khan encamped at Hauz Khas, and his historian Sharfuddin Yazdi writes the following about the tank: —
“Hauz Khas is a lake constructed by Firoz Shah, and is so large that an arrow cannot be shot from one side to the other. It is filled by rain water in the rainy season and all the people of Delhi obtain water from it all the year round.”

This description of the tank is repeated in Malfuzati Timuri, where the emperor adds “It is faced all round with stone and cement.”

The Hauz Khas is ruined and filled with earth, its area being now used for cultivation. In the year 1916 an excavation was carried out at its S.E. corner which resulted in the exposure of the original flights of steps of local grey stone. These steps were found singularly intact beneath the soil level.
(k) Fatuhati Firoz Shahi, folio 8 (b).
Zafar Namah, 109.
Elliot, III, 441, 501.
Asar, Chap. III, 27.
Carr Stephen, 83.
Fanshawe, 232, 274.
Hearn, 104, 189.
A.P.R., 1916, 10.
A.S.I., IV, 18, 65; XX, 157.
Rodgers, 87.
Babar Namah, 176.
(l) 3538, 3539, 3560, 3561, 3562, 380D, 393D, 478D.  

PAGE 178

No. 307.
(a) Enclosure containing the group of buildings at the tank.
(b) On the south and east sides of the tank (No. 304).
(c) Government.
(d) IIa.
(e) Firoz Shah Tughlaq’s reign.
(f) None.
(g) Poor.
(h) Protected.
(j) The enclosure which is irregular in plan was originally enclosed by rubble walls, of which only that on the south now exists. This wall crowned with battlements is relieved by arched recesses. Some 40 yards to the east of the tank is a small doorway facing north, which probably served as an entrance to this enclosure.
(l) 388D.  

No. 308.
(a) Tomb of Firoz Shah Tughlaq.
(b) At the S. E. angle of the Hauz Khas tank (No. 304).
(c) Government.
(d) Ia.
(e) Circa 790 A.H. (1358 A.D.).
(f) On the south doorway incised in plaster.
[x] Translation.
“ ............................... Kings Sultan, Sikandar, son of the king of kings Sultan Bahlol Shah, may God perpetuate his reign and kingdom and exalt his order and glory, on the 20th of the August month of Ramazan, the year 913 ............. Kings Sultan Firoz Shah, may his dust be sanctified and paradise be his resting place ........................”
(g) Good.
(h) Protected. (j) The tomb which is a domed structure rises prominently above the group of Hauz Khas buildings. It measures 44' 6" square, and stands on a grey stone plinth 2' high, the superstructure being of rubble masonry plastered. The walls, which have a slight batter, are ornamented with a projecting string course of red stone and marble surmounted by battlements of red stone carved with pleasing floral designs; the battlements of the drum from which the dome springs being of kangura design inscribed with the name of God. Contiguous with the tomb at its north and west wings are of an old college

PAGE 179

constructed by Firoz Shah (see No. 309), while its east and south facades are open to view, each broken by an archway which encloses a doorway of local stone. The main entrance is on the south before which lies a court 39' by 28'. The latter is surrounded by a grey stone wall 2' high and surmounted by the railings of the same material 3' in height. The inscription which is incised in plaster over the archway of the south door is much obliterated. It is dated 913 A.H. (1507-8 A.D.) in the reign of Sikandar Lodi and probably refers to the repairs done by that emperor.

Internally the tomb measures 28' 7" and is paved with grey stone slabs. At the drum level the square merges into an octagon by deeply recessed arched pendentives and thence into the circular outline of the dome. The arched pendentives are ornamented with Quranic inscriptions in incised plaster, while the intrados of the dome is embellished with coloured bands intersecting each other, the points of intersection being marked by incised plaster discs. In the side walls of the north and west recesses are narrow arched openings giving access to the college buildings referred to above.

Inside the building are four uninscribed graves, of which three are of marble, the fourth which lies near the east door being of rubble and plaster and in a very dilapidated state. The central grave seems to have been that of Firoz Shah. [???] It measures 9' 3" by 5' 8" and is 2' 4" in height. The other two marble graves which are similar to the central one are ascribed by Sayyid Ahmad Khan to Nasiruddin Muhammad Shah and Alauddin Sikandar Shah, the son and grandson of Firoz Shah.
(k) Asar, Chap. III, 40-1.
Carr Stephen, 157-8.
Fanshawe, 252.
Hearn, 199.
A.S.I., IV, 65, XX, 151-2.
J.A.S.B., XXXIX, 81.
Poole, 235, 237.
Rodgers, 88.
(l) 1776, 1777, 3509, 3510, 3619.

No. 309.
(a) College of Firoz Shah.
(b) Immediately to the north and west of Firoz Shah’s tomb (No. 308) bordering the Hauz Khas (No. 306).
(c) Government.
(d) IIa.
(e) Circa 755 A.H. (1354 A.D.)
(f) None.
(g) Ruinous, the chambers adjacent to the tomb of Firoz Shah being in fair condition. The monument has been conserved.
(h) Protected.
(j) The college was built by Firoz Shah in the year 753 A.H. (1352-3 A.D.) on the south and east banks of Hauz Khas. It is constructed of rubble masonry and dressed stone, and originally consisted of a range of double-storeyed buildings extending from the tomb of Firoz Shah

PAGE 180

to a distance of 148' and 215' respectively north and west of the tomb. But most of these buildings have become totally ruined and are marked only by fragments of their walls and arches. The best preserved portions of the college are the two chambers adjacent to the tomb. They are double storeyed and contain arched dalans and projecting windows on the tank side. The building is in such a ruined state that it is difficult to say anything about its arrangement. It has, however, been rescued from further dilapidation by extensive measures of conservation lately carried out by the Archaeological Department.

Sayyid Ahmad Khan notices the college in connection with Hauz Khas. He remarks that it was built by Firoz Shah, its head teacher being Sayyid Yusuf, who died in 790 A. H. (1388 A.D.) and was buried in its courtyard.

(k) Elliot, IV, 7.
A.S.I., XX, 151.
Asar, Chap. III, 27.
Carr Stephen, 83.
(l) 1864, 3612, 3613, 3614, 367D, 368D, 369D, 370D, 371D, 372D, 373D, 374D, 377D, 378D, 387D.
No. 310. (a) Mosque (nameless).
(b) At the northern extremity of the college (No. 309).
(c) Government.
(d) IIa.
(e) Circa 755 A.H. (1354 A.D.).
(f) None.
(g) Poor.
(h) Protected.
(j) The mosque consists of a central courtyard 43' 4" by 39' 8" surrounded by arched dalans on the west and south, those on the north having disappeared. The prayer chamber on the west which measures 81' 3" by 12' 7" I. M. is divided into 9 bays one bay deep. The west wall of the prayer chamber is broken by mihrab recesses and arched window openings alternately, three of the latter together with the openings in the side wails having projecting balconies outside. The openings in the west wall of the prayer chamber are a very unusual feature in a mosque. The central balcony projects 9' 3" from the face of the wall and has a flight of steps on the north and south leading down to the tank. A third stairway descends from the outside of the mosque, and access to it is gained through a doorway in the south wing, which contains three compartments. Another stairway in the inner wall of this wing gives access to the roof of the building.

Some 19' to the east of the south wing is a domed structure, which was apparently the gateway of the mosque. Opposite to this gateway, on the north, is a circular bastion, which seems to have been originally connected with the north wing now ruined. The mosque was attached to the college for the use of its students and the staff. (k) A.S.I., XX, 151.

PAGE 181

No. 311.
(a) A domed chattri.
(b) Some 20 yards to the east of Firoz Shah’s tomb (No. 308).
(c) Government.
(d) III.
(e) Tughlaq.
(f) None.
(g) Fair.
(h) Protected.
(j) It is octagonal in plan diam. 13' 3", and surmounted by a plastered dome raised on 8 local grey stone pillars. The purpose of the building is not certain, presumably it was a tomb.

No. 312.
(a) A domed chattri. (b) Some 30 yards to the north of No. 311.
(c) Government.
(d) III.
(e) Tughlaq.
(f) None.
(g) Fair.
(h) Protected.
(j) It is similar to No. 311 in style and dimensions.

No. 313.
(a) Tomb (unknown).
(b) Some 20 yards to N.E. of No. 311.
(c) Government.
(d) II.
(e) Tughlaq.
(f) None.
(g) Good.
(h) Protected.
(j) The tomb is a massive structure constructed of grey stone and crowned with a plastered dome. It consists of a hexagonal pavilion (diam. 19' 6"), standing on a plinth some 3' high, and containing double pillars at each of the angles of the hexagon. Over the chajja, which is carried on red sandstone brackets, is a grey stone frieze crowned by decorative red stone battlements with a minaret at each of the six corners. The dome rises from a 12-sided drum ornamented with battlements of kangura design. The intrados of the dome at the drum level is ornamented with a band of Quranic inscription incised in plaster. No trace of any grave is to be found inside the building.  

No. 314.
Tomb (unknown).
(b) Some 6 yards to the north of No. 313.

PAGE 182

(c) Government.
(d) IIa.
(e) Tughlaq.
(f) None.
(g) Good.
(h) Protected.
(j) The tomb is octagonal in plan, diam. 25' 10", but in other respects it is similar to No 313. Inside is a grave of red sandstone measuring 6' by 2' 1".
No. 315. (a) Tomb (unknown).
(b) Some 7 yards to the west of No. 314.
(c) Government.
(d) II.
(e) Tughlaq.
(f) None.
(g) Good.
(h) Protected. (j) The tomb, which measures 24' square E. M., contains 12 pillars supporting a dome. In other details it is similar to Nos. 313 and 314. Inside there is a red sandstone grave, but it is partly broken.  
No. 316. (a) Tomb (unknown).
(b) Some 30 yards to the north of No. 312.
(c) Government.
(d) IIa.
(e) Tughlaq.
(f) None.
(g) Good.
(h) Protected.
(j) The tomb consists of an open colonnaded hall 81' by 22', which runs from north to south with a projection of some 26' from the centre to the west. This projection and the compartments at the north and south ends of the hall are crowned with hemispherical domes each supported on 12 grey stone pillars. The space between the end chambers of the hall is divided by similar pillars into smaller compartments roofed by stone slabs. The material used is local grey local stone except in the domes which are of rubble coated with plaster. The building stands on a plinth 2' high and is approached by ascending 3 steps.

Locally it is related that there were many graves inside the building which were removed by the villagers who used it for residential purposes before its acquisition by the Government.  
(j) The tomb is a domed structure 29' square and constructed of rubble masonry. Three of its sides are broken by doorways, while on the west is a mihrab. The roof is battlemented and the dome is raised on an octagonal drum. The building is used by the villagers as a fodder store.

No. 323.
(a) A domed building.
(b) Some 8 yards N.E. of No. 322.
(c) Shamilat Deh.
(d) III.
(e) Tughlaq.
(f) None.
(g) Poor.
(h) Should be protected.  
(j) The building 16' square is constructed of rubble masonry plastered, and contains a doorway on each of its four sides. It is roofed with a fluted dome. The building seems to have been originally a gateway giving access to the mosque and tomb Nos. 321 and 322, but at present it is used as a fodder store.
Near the S. E. corner of the building is a rubble built well which is now dry.

No. 324.
(a) Tomb known as Bijri Khan’s gumbad.
(b) Nearly half mile to the north of No. 321, and one mile to the west of the village.
(c) Shamilat Deh.
(d) II.
(e) Pathan.
(f) None.
(g) Fair.
(h) Should be protected.
(j) The tomb is a massive building some 59' square E. M. constructed of rubble masonry plastered. Externally its walls are relieved with arched panels, while each of the north, south and east facades is broken by an arch pierced in the centre by a doorway of local grey stone superimposed by an arched opening. On the west is a mihrab recess. The north and south doorways are flanked by smaller openings, while in both side walls of the eastern door is an archway giving access to stairs which lead to the roof. The dome springs from a sixteen-sided drum and is crowned with a red sandstone and marble pinnacle.

Inside there are many graves of rubble masonry, but none of them is inscribed or of any interest. The building is used as a fodder store.

PAGE 186

No. 325.
(а) Tomb (unknown).
(b) Immediately to S.E. of No. 324.
(c) Shamilat Deh.
(d) III.
(e) Pathan.
(f) None.
(g) Fair.
(h) Should be protected.
(j) The tomb is a domed structure with sloping walls and measuring 17' 3'' square E.M. It is constructed of rubble masonry coated with plaster, and contains doorways on three sides, on the west being a mihrab. Externally the dome rises directly from the roof which is square in plan, while internally it springs from an octagon to which the square is reduced by arched pendentives in the corners. The tomb contains an unknown dilapidated grave of rubble masonry, and is used as a fodder store.
At a short distance to the east of the building is a high mound containing s ome three unknown graves.
No 326. Munda Gumbad (Roofless dome).  
(b) Some 250 yards to N.W. of No. 310.
(c) Shamilat Deh.
(d) IIb.
(e) Pathan.  
(f) None.
(g) Fair.
(h) Should be protected.
(j) The building seems to have been originally a pavilion built in the centre of Hauz Khas. It is constructed of rubble, and measures 34' square E.M. Each of the four sides of the building is pierced by an arched doorway giving access into the interior. In the side walls of the doorways are staircases leading to the roof on which are to be found grey stone bases of pillars apparently belonging to an upper storey now disappeared. This upper storey was presumably crowned with a dome, the disappearance of which has given the building its name.  

-- List of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments, Volume III, by Mahrauli Zail, 1922


31 Ibid., p. 180.

32 Muhammad bin Tughluq also experimented with architectural form but his innovations fell within the canons of Muslim architecture as established elsewhere in the Muslim world. For example, in the jami masjid at Jahanpanah he adopts a four-iwan plan. See A. Welch and H. Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 159.

33 Other mosques in the area, for example, the Quwwat al-Islam mosque and the Jahanpanah mosque, reused pillars from dismantled Hindu temples. There is no evidence that this occurred at Hauz Khas.

34 The tomb of Fath Khan at the dargah of Qadam Sharif is believed to have already been built by Firuz Shah for his own use, but upon the unexpected death of his son. Path Khan, in 776/1374, he interred the latter's remains in it. It is conceivable that Firuz Shah planned his tomb at Hauz Khas earlier in his reign.

35 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), pp. 415-416. Sayyid Ahmad Khan identifies the central cenotaph to be the grave of Firuz Shah. Two others have been assigned to Nasir al-Din Muhammad Shah and ‘Ala’ al-Din Sikandar Shah, the son and grandson of Firuz Shah, but Sayyid Ahmad Khan identifies their graves elsewhere in the compound without giving their specific locations. The fourth cenotaph of rubble construction is unidentified.

36 Husain, Tughluq Dynasty, pp. 500-502; Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 143 and p. 162, fn 69.

37 The railing has affinities with railings of Buddhist monuments of Sanchi. This poses the possibility that native craftsmen who were familiar with the Sanchi monuments, were imported from the area around Sanchi, perhaps Daulatabad. See Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, p. 61, and A. Welch and H. Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 146.

38 The parapets are believed to have been added in the course of repairs to the monument ordered by Sikandar Shah Lodi in 913/1507-08. See Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments, v. 3, p. 178, and Marshall, Cambridge History of India, v. 3, p. 591.

39 Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments: Delhi Province, v. 3 Mahrauli Zail, p. 178.

40 Ibid., p. 178.

41 Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood, p. 81.

42 Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs, pp. 77- 78; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 158. Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November I860), p. 416. Sayyid Ahmad Khan identifies one chhatri as belonging to Shihab al-Din Taj Khan and Sultan Abu Sa‘id. He also states that the tombs of Nasir al-Din Muhammad Shah and ‘Ala’ al-Din Sikandar Shah were located in the compound. Nath reproduces one inscription in Monuments of Delhi, inscription no. 24.

43 Mausolea in the Delhi area built under Lodi patronage include the Shish Gumbad and Bara Gumbad in the Lodi Garden, the Chhote-Khan-Ka Gumbad in Kotla Mubarakpur, and Dadi’s Gumbad and Khan-i Alam-Ka Gumbad near Hauz Khas. See Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, pp. 76-83, for a discussion of these monuments.

44 Early examples of chhatri tombs include those of Rukn al-Din Firoz Shah and Mu’iz al-Din Bahram Shah, located next to the Tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud (Sultan Ghari) and the tomb of Firuz Shah-period tomb of Makdum Shah ‘Alam (ca. 1375) in the courtyard of the mosque in Wazirabad (north of Firuzabad).

45 Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam, v. 2 (1966), p. 258.

46 Marshall attributes the color plaster decoration to Sikandar Lodi. Carr Stephen and Percy Brown accept the attribution. Husain does not accept the epigraphy to have been added by Sikandar Lodi. Welch and Crane refute Marshall’s attribution and also assign the epigraphy to Firuz Shah. Marshall, Cambridge History of India, p. 591; Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 158; Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period, p. 22; Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs, p. 74; A. Welch and H. Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 159.

47 Epigraphy on Islamic monuments is discussed by a number of authors. See A. Welch Calligraphy in the Arts of the Muslim World, 1979; W. E. Begley Monumental Islamic Calligraphy from India, 1985; Erica Cruikshank Dodd and Shereen Khairallah, The Image of the Word, 1981; Richard Ettinghausen, "Arabic Epigraphy: (Communication or Symbolic Affirmation," Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and History: Studies in Honor of George C. Miles, edited by Dickran K. Kouymjian, 1974; and A. Welch, "Epigraphs as Icons: The role of the Written Word in Islamic Art," The Image and the Word (1977), pp. 63-74.

48 The Lodi period inscription on the mausoleum is published in Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Muhammadan and Hindu Monuments, v.3, p. 178; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 158; Husain, A Record of All Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs, p. 74; and Zafar Hasan "Inscriptions of Sikandar Shah Lodi in Delhi, VIII Mausoleum of Firuz Shah 913 H." Epigraphica Indo-Moslemica 1919-20 (1924)

49 All quotations from the Qur’an, with slight modifications, are taken from The Holy Qur’an, translated and commented on by Maulana Muhammad Ali (sixth edition) Chicago (through special arrangement with Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha’at Islam, Lahore, Pakistan). Husain uses an earlier edition of Ali’s translation in his A Record of All the Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs on the Protected Monuments in the Delhi Province. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 47 Calcutta, 1936. Husain’s record and sequence of inscriptions of the Tomb of Firuz Shah, pp. 74-76, are followed here for the most part.

50 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 321.

51 Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 383-384.

52 The reference to Bakkah in these verses is equivalent to makkah, a word which connotes a "crowding together of men" and may also refer to Mecca, the site of Muslim pilgrimage and believed to be the first house of worship. See Ali, The Holy Qur’an, p. 467, footnote 157.

53 A. Welch, "Qur’an and Tomb," p. 261. Welch remarks that a similar omission occurs on the qibla screen of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque. He concludes that its use on the wall of the direction of prayer is inappropriate. Its use in these tombs is equally inappropriate.

The omitted line is "And whoever believes surely Allah is above need of the worlds." Pickthall renders a different emphasis: "As for him who disbelieveth (let him know that) lo! Allah is Independent to non-Muslims." See Marmaduke Pickthall The Glorious Koran, p. 77 (verse 97).

54 The sequence of verses followed here replicates Husain’s study. No specific sequence of verse or path of worship is intended.

55 Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs, pp. 72-74; A. Welch and H. Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 158 and footnotes 68 and 104.

56 A. Welch, "Qur’an and Tomb," p. 259.

57 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 159. The authors remark that these four hadith do not appear anywhere in north India.

58 Ibid., p. 159. The authors add the name of the prophet Yusuf which is not included by Husain.

59 Ibid., p. 159.

60 Welch, "Quran and Tomb," p. 265.

61 Ibid., p.265.

62 Wayne E. Begley, "The Myth of the Taj Mahal and a New Theory of Its Symbolic Meaning," Art Bulletin 61 (March 1979), pp. 7-37; Glenn D. Lowry, "Humayun’s Tomb: Form, Function, and Meaning in Early Mughal Architecture, " Muqarnas 4 (1987), pp. 133-148.

63 Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period, p. 22. Brown indicates the presence of an arched mihrab sunk into the west wall. The central location on the west wall however is occupied by a door.

64 The sequence and numbering of the chhatris follows the order given by Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-Historical Epigraphs, pp. 77-78.

65 See James Dickie (Yaqub Zaki), "The Mughal Garden: Gateway to Paradise," Muqarnas 3 (1985), pp. 128-137. Also see fn 59 above.

66 Other mausolea at Multan are also barricaded with high defensive walls. See Ahmad Nabi Khan Multan: History and Architecture. Islamabad 1403/1983.

67 Examples of octagonal royal tombs in the Delhi area include the tomb of Muhammad Sayyid located in the Lodi Garden, the tomb of Mubarak Sayyid located in Mubarakpur, and the tomb of Sikandar Lodi also in the Lodi Garden.

68 The marking of the grave was proscribed by Islamic doctrine. See Grabar, "The Earliest Commemorative Structures, Notes and Documents," Ars Orientalis VI (1966), p. 8.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36125
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Previous

Return to Ancien Regime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests