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.
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.
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.
[/quote]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