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 » Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:59 am

Part 1 of 2

CHAPTER III. SURVEY OF MONUMENTS

The following survey of monuments is primarily based on attributions made in literary sources. The texts, the same as those which provide the events of the reign, are historical in nature and mention Firuz Shah’s architecture in passing. In a few cases, the authors briefly describe a particular foundation and disclose its purpose, but they reveal little about Firuz Shah’s motives for building it.

The entries of the survey are arranged typologically, starting with urban foundations, followed by mosques, madrasas, tombs, palaces, khanaqah, and waterworks (canals, bands or dams, and ba’olis or tanks). These are followed by a list of buildings to which Firuz Shah ordered repairs. The latter, entitled "acts of restoration to pre-existing monuments," is limited to those structures enumerated by the sultan in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. Whereas some categories appear incomplete, only those monuments which are mentioned in literary sources or whose attributions have been convincingly put forward by modern scholars are included. The task of ascribing the hundreds of canals, tanks, and dams which remain in India to specific patrons without definitive evidence is virtually impossible. For this reason, the list of waterworks may appear deficient when compared with the testimony of historians.

In the discussion of each monument, reference is made to the primary literary source which supports the attribution and provides a date. In a few instances, references are made to modern scholars who confirm or refute the attribution. Only those references which are relevant in establishing each attribution are given rather than a comprehensive survey of every mention of an individual monument in literary sources.

Many of the monuments in the survey are discussed according to their function although they are parts of larger complexes which include other structures with different purposes. These monuments are listed separately, according to their respective functions, in the survey and are examined more extensively is discussions of the complexes, to which they belong, in subsequent chapters. Individual monuments of these sites are designated in the survey accordingly: the jami masjid and lat pyramid of Firuzabad (*), the madrasa and associated structures of Hauz Khas (**), and the lat-ki mosque and palace of Hissar (***). The other monuments included in the survey, in various states of disrepair or problematic in their attributions, are not discussed elsewhere.

The monuments listed in the following pages are the known corpus of buildings attributed to Firuz Shah. Their attributions are based on the premise that Firuz Shah provided the funds for their construction and assumed some role in their concept and design. Although very little is known about the building process itself, architecture is the product of many laborers who remain unidentified. ‘Afif sheds some light on two of these individuals and provides some details about the building process in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi:1

Sultan Firoz excelled all his predecessors on the throne of Delhi in the erection of buildings, indeed no monarch of any country surpassed him. He built cities, forts, palaces, bands, mosques, and tombs, in great numbers.

Malik Ghazi Shahna was the chief architect, and was very efficient; he held the gold staff [of office]. Abd al-Haqq, otherwise Jahir Sundhar [was deputy, and] held the golden axe. A clever and qualified superintendent was appointed over every class of artisans.

The financial officer [diwan-i wizarat] examined the plan of every proposed building, and made provision so that the work should not be stopped for want of funds. The necessary money was issued from the royal treasury to the managers of the building, and then the work was begun. Thus it was that so many buildings of different kinds were erected in the reign of Firoz Shah.


If these administrators kept records, they have not survived. In addition, records of waqf, purported to have been kept, have also vanished. The only historical record of these buildings is found in literature and scant epigraphy. Likewise, there is no evidence that treatises on building, such as those which exist for Hindu, Ottoman, or European architectural traditions, were known or followed. Thus, our understanding of the patronage phenomenon of fourteenth century India must be derived from the physical forms themselves.

Urban foundations

Although Firishta credits Firuz Shah with establishing 200 towns, only a small number of urban foundations today trace their origin to him. ‘Afif singles out seven of his foundations in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi:

Of cities, there were Hisar Firozah and Fath-abad ...Firoz-abad, Firoz-abad Harni Khira, Tughlikpur-i Kasna, Tughlikpur-i Muluk-i Kamut, and Jaunpur, besides sundry other places and forts which he repaired and strengthened.2


Of the cities which ‘Afif’ mentions only a portion can be identified today.

1. Fathabad, Haryana, 752/1351

‘Afif reports that Firuz Shah founded Fathabad while enroute home from the Thatta campaign during which Muhammad bin Tughluq had died and Firuz Shah was elected to succeed him (Figure 1).3

The Sultan had left Sarsuti, and, having made several marches, had reached Ikdar, here he was joined by, and received homage from, Khan-i Jahan. Another pleasure which the Sultan received on the same day at this place was the birth of a son, who was named Fath Khan. The Sultan founded a town there, to which he gave the name of Fath-abad.


Little remains of Firuz Shah’s original foundation. At a later time a column, believed to be Asokan in origin, was erected on the site.4 [The column of Fathabad is published in Subhash Parihar, Muslim Inscriptions in the Punjab, Harayana, and Himachal Pradesh (1985), p. 18 (No. 3.6), but without transcription or translation of its inscription.] This probably occurred after the Asokan columns were brought to Delhi and placed beside the jami masjid and Kuskh Shikar, an event which took place in 764/1367.

The most remarkable feature of the Fatehabad lat is its inscription (fig. 5), one of the longest Indo-Islamic epigraphs of the Delhi sultanate; it is historical in content and specific to the Tughluq dynasty. The date of the lat's installation is not known or given in the epigraph, but specific historical events referred to in the epigraph support attribution to Firuz Shah. The bottom section of the lat appears to be part of an ancient pillar brought to the site during the Tughluq period. Although a Mauryan origin is unlikely, it is nevertheless reused.

-- The Monumental Pillars of Fīrūz Shāh Tughluq, by William Jeffrey McKibben, Ars Orientalis, Vol. 24 (1994), pp. 105-118 (14 pages), Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan


Today Fathabad is a populous and prosperous city. Firuz Shah’s lat is the only surviving remnant of his fourteenth century A.D. establishment.

2. Firuzabad, 755 A.H./1354 A.D.

Firuz Shah established his capital on the west bank of the Jumna River, nine kilometers north of Jahanpanah (Figure 2). The city stretched from Indrapat (site of Purana Qila today) to the Kuskh Shikar located just north of Shahjahanabad on the northern ridge. The city extended as far south as the Hauz Khas madrasa near Jahanpanah. ‘Afif writes:5

The Sultan having selected a site at the village of Gawin, on the banks of the Jumna, founded the city of Firozabad, before he went to Laknauti the second time. Here he commenced a palace...and the nobles of his court having also obtained [giriftand] houses there, a new town sprang up, five kos [1.8 miles x 5 = 9 miles] distant from Delhi. Eighteen places were included in this town, the kasba of Idarpat, the sarai of Shaikh Malik Yar Paran, the sarai of Shaikh Abu Bakr Tusi, the village of Gawin, the land of Khetwara, the land of Andhawali, the land of the sarai of Malika, the land of the tomb of Sultan Raziya, the land of Bhari, the land of Mahrola, and the land of Sultanpur. So many buildings were erected that from the kasba of Indarpat to the Kushk-i shikar, five kos apart, all land was occupied. There were eight public mosques, and one private mosque...The public mosques were each large enough to accommodate 10,000 supplicants.


Firuz Shah returned from Bengal (Lakhnauti) in 755/1354 and immediately commenced construction of his capital. ‘Afif reports that following his second campaign to Bengal, Firuz Shah was occupied with building and completed the kuskh at Firuzabad and began a second kuskh in the middle of the town.6 Sayyid Ahmàd Khan corroborates ‘Afif by placing the date of foundation to 755/1354.7 The kotla is heavily fortified by bastioned walls similar to those at Tughluqabad and its plan provides a prototype for Mughal forts of later centuries.8

Most of Firuzabad has disappeared. The only portion of Firuzabad remaining today is the kotla or citadel which has been ravaged, in part, by subsequent builders in the area. The walls of the kotla still stand. The ruined foundations of the palaces are entirely undefined. The masjid and lat pyramid are extant but have lost significant portions of their structures (noted below). The ba’oli (tank) is also extant but has lost parts of its upper structure.

3. Hissar, 757/1356

Located 130 kilometers northwest of Delhi, Hissar (or Hisar Firuza) supplanted nearby Hansi, an important Ghaznavid outpost, as the provincial city of the region (Figure 1). Hissar was built in part to accommodate pilgrims and travelers enroute between the subcontinent and Khurasan and the Arab Middle East. Firuz Shah’s attempt to develop it into a religious center was not particularly successful.

Firuz Shah began construction of Hissar in the second year (757/1356) after he returned from Bengal (755/1354). The building is reported to have taken the next two and a half years.9 The site is known for a number of projects which Firuz Shah undertook. In order to provide water to the fort he excavated two large canals from the Sutlej and Jumna Rivers. These fed water into a large ba’oli excavated inside the fort and battlements were constructed on top of the soil from the ba’oli excavation. Within the fort he built a mosque and a palace which, according to ‘Afif, had "no equal in the world." Firuz Shah is believed to have erected the column which stands in the courtyard of the mosque (the Lat-ki masjid) but no contemporary author refers to it.10 [The palace at Hissar is described by ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 299, but the Asokan column is not mentioned by any contemporary author] Today, both the palace and lat-ki mosque are extant and both are in good states of repair. The palace vaults are mostly intact, but entrance into the palace is restricted.

4. Jaunpur, 760/1359

While enroute to Bengal for the second time in 760/1359, Firuz Shah interrupted his campaign and stopped in the Awadh, founded a town, and took up residence there for six months before continuing eastward (Figure 1). ‘Afif reports the occasion in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi:11

The Sultan then marched through Kanauj and Oudh to Jaunpur. Before this time there was no town of any extent [shahr-i abadan] there, but the Sultan, observing a suitable site, determined upon building a large town. He accordingly stayed there six months, and built a fine town on the banks of the Kowah, to which he determined to give the name of Sultan Muhammad Shah, son of Tughlik Shah, and as that sovereign bore the name of Jaunan, he called the place Jaunanpur [Jaunpur].


Jaunpur grew into a flourishing town even before the Sharqi sultans established it as the center of an independent sultanate at the end of the fourteenth century.

Virtually no trace of fourteenth century construction remains in this thriving city. The only extant structures of Jaunpur which remain from Firuz Shah’s days are the foundations of the Atala mosque, which he had built on the foundation of a Hindu temple.12 [J. Burton-Page, "Djawnpur," Encyclopedia of Islam; Anton Führer, Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur (London 1909).] The mosque, however, is a product of Sharqi builders.

5. Firuzpur, 784/1382

Firishta attributes the foundation of Firuzpur to the year 762/1360 after Firuz Shah returned from his second campaign to Bengal and before he left for Sind.13 This same author places the town in the province of Sirhind, 14 miles from Badaon. The town has been alternately identified as the modern-day towns of Beoli and Firuzpur-Iklehri.14 On the other hand, Yahya Sihrindi places the foundation to the latter part of the reign in the year 784/1382. He remarks that the town acquired the name Pur-i Akhirin or "last town" because it was Firuz Shah’s last foundation.15 The town today has a canal and a large ba’oli remaining from the fourteenth century A.D.16 [In the course of excavating the canal, a prehistoric fossil, perhaps that of a mastadon, as well as human bones of extraordinary proportions, were discovered. See Firishta (Briggs), p. 262 and footnote. Briggs observed that the canal was no longer extant.]

6. Firozabad Hami Khira, date unknown, located in Haryana/Punjab region, pre-1357 A.D.

The town is referred to as the "fort of Firuz" by Timur in his Memoirs and in the Zafarnama.17 [Timur, Malfuzat-i Timuri, p. 427 and Zafarnama, p. 491. See Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, v. 1, p. 386.] The village of Harnikhera today is located twelve miles west of Sirsa. The Ghaggar (Kakkhar) canal was dug through the fort of Sarsuitt and continued to Harni Khira.18

7. Tughlikpur-i Kasna, date unknown

Identified as the modern village of Tughalpur, two miles from Kasna in the Bulandshabar district.19

8. Tughlikpur-i Muluk-i Kamut, date unknown

Identified as one of three modern villages with the name Dhulkot, one in Gurgaon district, a second in Ludhiana, and a third near Ambala Cantonment.

The physical remains of Firuz Shah’s towns do not correspond with the number given in written record. In the cases of his major foundations at Firuzabad, Hissar, and Jaunpur, modern urban growth has encroached upon the fourteenth century remains, and in some instances, have entirely replaced Firuz Shah’s structures. Nonetheless, fourteenth century A.D. descriptions of Firuzabad and Hissar are reflected in the ruined remains of these fortresses.

Mosques

The number of mosques built by Firuz Shah also does not correspond to the historical record. Firishta attributes 40 mosques, and an additional 30 which were attached to colleges, to him.20 ‘Afif is unusually silent about Firuz Shah’s mosques.21 Even in his lengthy discussions of Firuzabad and Hissar, he avoids comment except to remark that the Topra column was erected next to the jami masjid. Also, when ennumerating specific buildings erected by Firuz Shah, ‘Afif excludes any mention of mosques.

Large monumental pillars (lats) are connected to two of Firuz Shah’s mosques, at Firuzabad and Hissar. Two additional pillars are believed to have been raised by him and may possibly have been connected to mosques, however, their original contexts have been lost. Firishta credits Firuz Shah with erecting ten monumental pillars during his reign. If these lats were attached to mosques, then six of them are unaccounted for.

1. Lat, Fathabad, Hissar district, ca. 752/1351

Inside the precinct of the Idgah is a remnant of a lat, possibly Asokan in origin. The lat has been associated, in other cases, with a mosque and probably functioned as a type of minar, a concept which is examined in depth in the following chapter. The lat of Fathabad bears a Tughra Arabic inscription which is said to trace the genealogy of the Tughluq line.22 [The Fathabad column epigraph is long, consisting of 36 concentric bands of inscription. It is not known how much of the inscription is lost but, judging from the height of the column, it probably survives in almost its entirety. The lat inscription is published in Subhash Parihar, Muslim Inscriptions in the Punjab, Harayana, and Himachal Pradesh, 1985, p. 18 (No. 3.6) and illustration 7. A translation of it was allegedly done by Maulvi Ziyauddin Khan but it has not surfaced. See P. Horn "Muhammadan Inscriptions from the Suba of Delhi," Epigraphica Indica 2 (Delhi 1970), pp. 130-159 and 424-437; and H. B. W. Garrick, "Report of a tour in the Punjab and Rajputana, in 1883-84," A.S.J. Reports v. 23, Varanasi, n.d. Not all authors accept an Asokan origin for the Fathabad lat.]

The most remarkable feature of the Fatehabad lat is its inscription (fig. 5), one of the longest Indo-Islamic epigraphs of the Delhi sultanate; it is historical in content and specific to the Tughluq dynasty. The date of the lat's installation is not known or given in the epigraph, but specific historical events referred to in the epigraph support attribution to Firuz Shah. The bottom section of the lat appears to be part of an ancient pillar brought to the site during the Tughluq period. Although a Mauryan origin is unlikely, it is nevertheless reused.

-- The Monumental Pillars of Fīrūz Shāh Tughluq, by William Jeffrey McKibben, Ars Orientalis, Vol. 24 (1994), pp. 105-118 (14 pages), Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan


The lat is fragmented at its top and bottom but large portions of its inscription are decipherable. It sits within an enclosure probably not contemporary with it.

2. Masjid within the dargah of Hazrat Nizamuddin (also known as the Jam’at Khana Masjid), 754/1353

According to Sayyid Ahmad Khan the mosque was built by Firuz Shah around 754 A.H./1353 A.D.23 [Saiyid Ahmad Khan, "Descriptions des monuments de Delhi en 1852," Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), p. 406. "Il a écrit lui-même: "J’ai entièrement fait construire de nouveau cette mosquée (lieu de réunion); elle n’était pas située, dans l’origine, au même endroit." [Google translate: He himself wrote: "I have completely re-built this mosque (meeting place); it was not originally located in the same place."] Nath refutes the attribution to Firuz Shah. Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 41, fn. 10.] Firuz Shah is believed to mention the foundation in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi.24 But Shaima attributes its construction to Khizr Khan in the year 1325 A.D.25 Nizamuddin was a venerated place before Firuz Shah’s reign and a mosque probably already stood on the site. The statement which Firuz Shah makes in the Futuhat is that he built a "meeting room." On the basis of his statement Sayyid Ahmad Khan attributes the mosque to Firuz Shah. [???!!!]

Tomb of Sultan Kutbu-d din and the (other) sons of Sultan 'Alau-d din, viz., Khizr Khan, Shadi Khan, Farid Khan, Sultan Shahabu-d din, Sikandar Khan, Muhammad Khan, 'Usman Khan, and his grandsons, and the sons of his grandsons. The tombs of these I repaired and renovated.

I also repaired the doors of the dome, and the lattice work of the tomb of Shaikhu-l Islam Nizamu-l hakk wau-d din, which were made of sandal-wood. I hung up the golden chandeliers, with chains of gold in the four recesses of the dome, and I built a meeting room, for before this there was none.

-- XVII. Futuhat-i Firoz Shahi of Sultan Firoz Shah, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 374, 1871


The form of the mosque is unique. Its central domed chamber is joined on the north and south sides by arcades, each sporting a pair of domes. The plan of the mosque and the five dome configuration are not encountered elsewhere in Delhi at this time. Nath has observed affinities between the central chamber and the Alai Darwaza, a Khalji gateway located at the Quwwat al-Islam mosque.26 Quranic inscriptions in naksh and Kufic script are contained on the arches. The mosque has no dated epigraph except for a modern Persian inscription on the facade which identifies the death date of Nizam al-Din to be 725/1325.27 [Nizam al-Din was a Chisti saint and friend of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughluq. See Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 104.] The attribution to Firuz Shah is possibly spurious.

The mosque is still in use today. Its form has been altered and additions made which are probably not contemporary with its central chamber.


3. Khirki Masjid, ca. 1352-1354 A.D., Khirki village, south Delhi, near Jahanpanah

Khirki Masjid has traditionally been regarded as a product of the latter part of the reign of Firuz Shah. Sayyid Ahmad Khan attributes the mosque to sub-imperial patronage in the declining years of the reign. He counts it among the mosques founded by Khan-i Jahan, Firuz Shah’s vizier, and dates it to 789/1387.28 A. Welch and H. Crane attribute the uninscribed monument to Firuz Shah in the early years of the reign.29 A summary of the authors’ attribution is as follows. Between 755/1354 and 791/1388 Firuz Shah’s architectural activity was concentrated in Firuzabad (Hauz Khas being an exception). The population of Jahanpanah shifted away from the area after Firuzabad was begun and given the existence of a monumental mosque in the form of Muhammad bin Tughluq’s Jami masjid, the authors conclude that a mosque of the scale of Khirki would not have been erected after the foundation of Firuzabad. Instead the authors suggest that Khirki was ordered by Firuz Shah as a pious foundation in Jahanpanah where Firuz Shah resided upon his accession and represents the "earliest instance of Firuz Shah’s architectural patronage." The authors therefore attribute the mosque to royal patronage in the years ca. 1352-1354 A.D.

Khirki Masjid is an example of the cross-axial mosque.30 [Ibid., p. 138; Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period, p. 24. Brown does not identify the patron of the mosque but dates it to ca. 1375 A.D. The mosque is illustrated in Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Figure 5 and Plates 7, 8, and 9.] Built on a high plinth the square plan mosque is symmetrically arranged and subdivided into twenty-five units, four being open courtyards. Nine of the remaining units are covered with nine domes each. The flat roofs of the intermediary units mask the vaulting. The mihrab is located within a domed chamber which projects off the qibla side of the mosque. The other three sides of the mosque have domed gateways (pishtaq) which are symmetrically arranged and are identical to the qibla side. Four corner towers and each pishtaq is flanked by engaged minars which relate directly in their form to those at the Jahanpanah mosque in Begampur.

The mosque is extant and in a good state of repair.

* 4. Jami’ Masjid of Firuz Shah, Kotla Firuz Shah, 755/1354

Firuz Shah’s imperial mosque, located within the walled enclosure of the kotla was probably constructed contemporaneous with the foundation of the city upon his return from the first Bengal campaign in 755/1354. The mosque was the principal mosque of the city at the time of Timur’s capture of the city in 801/1398 when Timur had his khutba read in it.31 [Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), p. 407; Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), p. 447.]

Khutbah serves as the primary formal occasion for public preaching in the Islamic tradition. Such sermons occur regularly, as prescribed by the teachings of all legal schools. The Islamic tradition can be formally observed at the Dhuhr (noon) congregation prayer on Friday. In addition, similar sermons are called for on the two festival days and after Solar and Lunar Eclipse prayer.

-- Khutbah. by Wikipedia


According to both Barani and ‘Afif the mosque accommodated large assemblies.32 [Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 561-562; ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 303. ‘Afif includes it among the nine mosques of Firuzabad.] Firuz Shah makes no mention of the mosque in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. Sayyid Ahmad Khan refers to an octagonal dome which was inscribed with the Futuhat. However, the dome no longer existed in his day.33 [Sayyid Ahmad Khan reports that the dome still existed in Jahangir’s reign. He cites Firishta as his source. Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), p. 407.]

The mosque is of the two-storied plinth type and has a hypostyle plan. It is constructed of rubble core masonry faced with plaster. The mosque is extant but lost significant portions of its east end, all its prayer hall vaulting, and all ornamentation. The mosque will be discussed in greater detail in the Chapter IV.

** 5. Masjid at Hauz Khas Madrasa, ca. 755/1354

Being the mosque for Firuz Shah’s madrasa at Hauz Khas, it is attached to the madrasa on its northernmost point. The Archaeological Survey of India places its construction around the year 755/1354, contemporary with the madrasa. This attribution appears to be based on Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s Sanadid.34 Barani discusses the madrasa at length but does not refer to its mosque. However he mentions the observance of congregational prayer.35 Welch and Crane assign the mosque to the year 761/1360 however Firuz Shah was already on his way to Bengal and occupied with the foundation at Jaunpur at this time.36

The mosque is a simple hypostyle prayer hall arrangement with arcades on the north and south sides of the courtyard. Today, the prayer hall, part of the south arcade, and the gate are extant and are in need of repair. The mosque will be discussed further in Chapter V.

*** 6. Lat-ki Masjid, Hissar, 757 A.H./1356 A.D.

The lat-ki masjid is dated contemporaneously with the foundation of Hissar in 757/1356. Although Firuz Shah devoted two and a half years to the building of this provincial town in the Punjab, its mosque was probably one of the first edifices completed.37 [‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 298-299. ‘Afif discusses the canals, battlements and palace but does not mention the mosque.]

The form of the mosque is a simple prayer hall with an arcade extension on its north end. Situated on a high plinth the mosque sits above a catacomb of cells of uncertain purpose. A trench surrounds the structure and a ba’oli is sunk in the courtyard. An unidentified domed structure and Asokan lat stand in the courtyard. The lat is probably not contemporary with the building. It was most likely installed after 764/1367, the year in which Firuz Shah discovered and had transported two Asokan lats to Firuzabad.

The mosque is extant and in a good state of repair. The lat-ki masjid will be examined in Chapter VI.

7. Masjid, Jaunpur, Awadh, 760/1359

Firuz Shah founded Jaunpur in 760/1359 during his second Bengal campaign. He resided in the town for a period of six months and upon his return to it following the campaign, he launched a campaign to Orissa.38 The remains of Firuz Shah’s mosque, built on the foundation of a dismantled Hindu temple, have been integrated into a much larger mosque known as the Atala Masjid built by Ibrahim Sharqi in 810/1408.

Traces of fourteenth century A.D. construction are not discernable. The form of the present mosque belongs to idiom of Sharqi architecture, not Tughluq.39 [The Sharqi characteristics are the large iwans with domes. Large pyramidal gateways which resemble Egyptian pylons conceal the domes from the courtyard side. See Burton-Page, "Djawnpur," Encyclopedia of Islam, v. 2, pp. 498-499; Nath, Sultanate Architecture, pp. 96-107; A. Führer, Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur (London 1909).]

8. Mosque at the Tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud (the Sultan Ghari tomb), south Delhi, near Mahipalpur village, ca. 1360-1370 A.D.

The tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud, built by Iltutmish in 629/1231, suffered so much damage by Chaghatai attacks on it in the early fourteenth century A.D. that it required substantial repairs. In the process the mosque within its fortified walls was transformed. The rebuilding was undertaken by Firuz Shah in the decade of the 1360s and he records the restoration in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi.40 Sayyid Ahmad Khan corroborates the sultan’s statement.[???!!!]41

The form of the mosque is an anomaly.
It resembles a classical facade with fluted columns and a pedimented entablature.42 The source of inspiration is uncertain although some authors suggest that a traveller like Ibn Battuta, who was familiar with classical prototypes, may have provided a verbal description to the architect.43 The building materials were white marble and the epigraphy surrounding the mihrab may be contemporary with the restoration.44 [Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs, p. 89, no. CIX. Husain does not attribute the epigraphy to either Iltutmish or Firuz Shah.]

This wall mosque is in a good state repair today.

* 9. Lat pyramid, Kotla Firuz Shah, Firuzabad, 764/1367

Although not a mosque by itself, the lat pyramid stands next to and was originally connected with the jami masjid of Firuz Shah. Firuz Shah brought the Asokan lat from a site 130 kilometers from Delhi and designed the unique pyramidal-shaped structure to support it. The details of the discovery and transport of this Asokan lat are provided in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi and ‘Afif s Tarikh-i Firuz Shahi.45 [Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, in J. A. Page, A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah: Delhi, pp. 33-42; ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 350-353. ‘Afif mentions the transport of two columns, the second being placed in the kuskh-i shikar. Barani died in 1357 so his Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi provides no account of the event. [???!!!]] The event took place in 764/1367.

CHAPTER IV: THE JAMI MASJID AND LAT PYRAMID OF FIRUZABAD

Literary sources


Image
Plate I

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, along the west bank of the Jumna River (Figure 2) just to the north of Indrapat, the site of the sixteenth century Purana Qila, and south of the seventeenth century Shahjahanabad, site of the Red Fort and the Jami Masjid of present-day Delhi. Firuz Shah’s mosque is situated on the east perimeter of the kotla where it was protected by the Jumna River which flowed beside the citadel in the 14th century.

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. Following his return in 762/1360 from the second campaign to Bengal, Firuz Shah resumed the building of his capital but the mosque is believed to have been completed prior to this time.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.]

Since Almighty God had created the auspicious person of the Sultan of the age and the time, Firoz Shah al Sultan, as a mine of charities and source of good deeds and had made him a source of benefits for the public, therefore in the very beginning of his reign such buildings were constructed which had no parallel either in the capital of Delhi nor in other countries and those who had traversed lands and seas are wonderstruck by them. One such building is the main congregational mosque (Jami' Masjid)....

The second among the buildings of the lord of the world is the Madrasa-i Firoz Shahi, a wonderful building on the bank of Hauz-i Alai....

The third building is the structure of Balaband in the area of Siri which vies with the skies in height and in the matter of beauty of construction and purity of climate it is the envy of the buildings of the inhabited world and among the fine structures -- there is none like it....

Moreover, with the ever increasing power and authority of Firoz Shah, the fort of Firozabad had been built on the banks of the Jamuna on the best of sites. If I set to describe its soul-nourishing climate, its many excellencies and auspiciousness of the construction of the city of Firozabad, which will with the passage of time emerge as an envy of great cities, it would require a separate volume for the purpose. Another fort with the name of Fathabad had been constructed in between Hansi, Siristi and Firozabad. It is a stronger fort in the vicinity of Bhatnir. For the benefit of the people, canals have been excavated and brought from long distances, their water has been made to flow and it has been brought to the foot of these forts. With the help of this water, gardens and agriculture had been begun and deserts which were full of the thorns of acacia have now been turned into gardens and flower beds and the process is gaining ground day by day.

-- Chapter 6: The Sultan of the Age, One Who is Supported by God, Firoz Shah al Sultan, Excerpt from "Tarikh-I Firoz Shahi, An English Translation" [Written by Zia ud Din Barani], by Ishtiyaq Ahmad Zilli


The building activities began once more in 769/1367 with the erection of the lat pyramid. The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi records this event to have occurred during Muharram 769/September 1367 and reports that the lat was raised to its upright position on 4 Safar 769/30 September 1367.3 [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.]

-- 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


Ziauddin Barani (1285–1358 CE) was a Muslim political thinker of the Delhi Sultanate located in present-day Northern India during Muhammad bin Tughlaq and Firuz Shah's reign.

-- Ziauddin Barani, by Wikipedia


The form of the monument is unique. It is a  three-storied pyramid with a solid core. The periphery of each storey consists of rows of interconnected cells. The lat protrudes from the top and was originally capped by an elaborate finial. The lat is believed to have served as a minar for the adjacent mosque.

The pyramid is extant but is missing its corner towers (emphasizing its pyramidal profile) and its upper balustrade and cupolas. The lat is broken at its summit. The lat pyramid is discussed further in the Chapter IV.

10. Congregational mosque [jami masjid], Jahannuma, ca. 764/ 367

The Jahannuma palace is located on the northern ridge of Delhi and is believed to be the same as the kuskh shikar mentioned by contemporary historians. [so-called "historian," singular]

[x]
Facsimile of the inscription which was received by the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal from Colonel Polier, that James Prinsep used to translate one of the pillars.

I now proceed to lay before the Society the results of my application of the alphabet, developed by the simple records of Bhilsa, to the celebrated inscription on Feroz's column, of which facsimiles have been in the Society's possession since its very foundation, without any successful attempt having been made to decipher them.... "Round it" says the author of the Haftaklim, "have been engraved literal characters which the most intelligent of all religions have been unable to explain. Report says, this pillar is a monument of renown to the rajas or Hindu princes, and that Feroz Shah set it up within his hunting place: but on this head there are various traditions which it would be tedious to relate."

-- 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.


Image
Plate IV: Picturesque Elevation of the Shikar-Gah, & the Celebrated Pillar at Dehli in June, 1797

I have the pleasure of presenting to the Society a Book of Drawings and Inscriptions prepared under the inspection of their late member, Captain James Hoare, and intended by him (I have reason to believe) for the life of the Society.

Two of the drawings represent elevations, taken on the spot, of the stone building near Dehlee, called the Shikargah, or hunting place, of Feeroz Shah; with the pillar in the center, and above the summit of it, commonly known by the designation of Feeroz Shah’s Lat; and described, with an outline of the building and pillar, in the 21st paper of the 1st Vol. of the Society’s Transactions. The copy of the inscriptions on this pillar, which was received by our revered President and Founder from Colonel Polier, enabled him to exhibit a translation of one of them, as accurate as the imperfect state of the transcript would admit; but on comparing it with a more perfect copy made by Captain Hoare, it was found in several parts defective and inaccurate; and the date, instead of being 123 of the era of Vicramaditya, or A.D. 67, as appeared from the former copy, was clearly ascertained, from the present, to be 1220 of the above era, or A.D. 1164. ...

The author of the Huft Akleem, Mohummud Ameem Razee, who wrote his history of the world (or, as the title of his book imports, of the Seven Climes, into which the Mahommedans divide the universe) in the reign of Akbur,... adds the following passage, translated verbatim from his history.

“Among the places built by this King (Feeroz Shah) is a hunting place, which the populace call the Lat of Feeroz Shah. It is a house of three stories, in the centre of which has been erected a pillar of red stone, of one piece, and tapering upwards. ... Report says, this pillar is a monument of renown to the Rajuhs, (or Hindoo Princes,) and that Feeroz Shah set it up within his hunting place. But on this head there are various traditions, which it would be tedious to relate.”...


One of Captain Hoare’s drawings further represents the plans of the three stories of the Shikar-gah; and his Moonshee informs me, the current opinion is, that they were used partly for a menagery, and partly for an aviary, which the plans appear to confirm.

-- Translation of one of the Inscriptions on the Pillar At Dehlee, called the Lat of Feeroz Shah, Excerpt from Asiatic Researches, Volume 7, by Henry Colebrooke, Esq., With Introductory Remarks by Mr. Harington, P. 175-182, 1803


Image
Delhi-Meerut, Delhi ridge, Delhi (Pillar Edicts I, II, III, IV, V, VI; moved from Meerut to Delhi by Firuz Shah Tughluq in 1356, broken in pieces during transportation.

The next Asokan pillar at Delhi can be seen between the Chauburji-Masjid and Hindu Rao Hospital on the town of Mirath and set up by Firuz over the top of the three storeyed imposing Hunting Palace better known as Kushk-i-Shikar (now mass of ruins). According to Afif this pillar was removed by Sultan Firuz with similar skill and labour, and was re-erected on a hill on the Kushk-i-Shikr. After the erection of the pillar a large town sprang up and the nobles of the court erected their houses there. The hunting palace (Kushk-i-Shikar) was built by Firuz Shah Tughluq in A.H. 755 (A. D. 1354) and was originally a lofty rubble built structure in three storeys, having circular bastions at the corners, The apartments had many entrances of pointed arches on all sides. The bastions as well as top pavilions were covered with low domes of the Khalfi-Tughluq variety. The stone column was fixed on the top of the central structure which was flanked by two square pavilions of similar height....

The pillar of Kushk-i-Shikar, remained intact until it was damaged, and broken into five pieces on account of an explosion of the neighbouring powder magazine during the reign of Farrukhsiyar (A.D. 1713-19.) Its inscribed surface was later sawed off and sent to the Asiatic Society of Bengal at Calcutta wherefrom all the pieces were received back and re-set in 1867 by the British on the site of the dismantled palace on the bridge where it can be seen at present. The pillar now measures 10 m. in length.


-- A Study of Asokan Pillars: Re-Erected by Firuz Shah Tughluq, by W. H. Siddiqi, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 36 (1975), pp. 338-344 (7 pages), 1975


Image
Delhi-Meerut, Delhi ridge, Delhi (Pillar Edicts I, II, III, IV, V, VI; moved from Meerut to Delhi by Firuz Shah Tughluq in 1356, broken in pieces during transportation.

Firoz Shah is considered to be an early conservationist, with a keen interest in ancient buildings and objects. In addition to the Ashokan pillar that he moved from Topra in Haryana and had installed in his citadel in Firozabad, he moved a second pillar from nearby Meerut to be installed at what was soon to become his hunting lodge on the ridge, the Kushak-i-shikar. In the early seventeenth century, the pillar was described by an English traveller, William Finch, as one with a ‘globe and half-moon at top, and divers inscription upon it’. The pillar was severely damaged in an explosion during the reign of Mughal Emperor Farrukhsiyar (ad 1713–19) and disintegrated into five pieces. The five fragments were later restored to an upright position in 1866, but its inscribed portions were sawed off and sent to the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Later, the inscribed pieces were received back and joined together and this restored pillar was installed back at its current location in 1867. The current height of the pillar is 10 m. Inscribed in Brahmi script and written in the Prakrit language, the inscription of Ashoka contains his messages and instruction for promoting Dharma and the welfare and happiness of the people. At the base of the pillar, a plaque announces its history. Today, the pillar looks forlorn, standing alone in its fenced enclosure near a roundabout on the main ridge road in front of the gate of the Hindu Rao Hospital complex.

-- Ashoka Pillar, by Smit Sandhir, flickr.com


Image
Sikargah or Kushak Mahal, 14th-century hunting lodge built by Firoz Shah Tughlaq.

He brought 2 Ashokan Pillars from Meerut, and Topra near Radaur in Yamunanagar district of Haryana, carefully cut and wrapped in silk, to Delhi in bullock cart trains. He re-erected one of them on the roof of his palace at Firoz Shah Kotla. ...

One of his hunting lodges, Shikargah, also known as Kushak Mahal, is situated within the Teen Murti Bhavan complex, Delhi.

-- Firuz Shah Tughlaq, by Wikipedia


Image
The Kotla of Firoz Shah with the Ashokan pillar, View from the south of the Kotla. Author: Metcalfe, Sir Thomas Theophilus (1795-1853). Medium: Ink and colours on paper. Date: 1843.

Feroze (‘Propitious’) Shah’s (‘King’) Laut (‘Pillar. Club’) is situated in the immediate environs of the city on the High road from the Dehlie Gate towards Muttra. The building on which the Laut now stands was constructed by the Emperor Feroze Shah as a Shekargah or Hunting place.... The height of the pillar now visible above the building is about 37 feet, and its circumference where it forms the terrace is about 10 feet 4 inches; it is composed of a single stone, and tradition asserts that only 1/3 is visible, the remaining 2/3 being buried in the earth. The structure originally consisted of three stories, and used, accorded to current opinion, partly as a menagerie and partly as an aviary.

-- The Kotla of Firoz Shah with the Ashokan pillar, by British Library Online Gallery


Image
Pir Ghaib is a hunting lodge and Observatory built by Sultan Feroz Shah Tughlaq of Delhi in the 14th century

Feroz Shah, during one of his campaigns, was enthralled by the two spectacular monoliths – inscribed Ashokan pillars he saw, one at Topra near Ambala and the other near Meerut, till then undeciphered – and decided to shift them to his palatial Feruzabad palace in Delhi as "totemic embellishments". He shifted the pillars from these places and got them erected in Delhi; the former in his new capital and the latter on the ridge, near Pir-Ghaib, his hunting palace. The first pillar was erected in the 1350s, next to the Friday mosque in the new city of Feruzabad.).

-- Ashokan Edicts in Delhi, by Wikipedia




‘Afif provides the most detail [the only!] about this complex located on the northern fringe of Firuzabad a few kilometers north of the kotla.46 From what little is known about the complex, it consisted of a hunting palace, a mosque, a tomb, and an Asokan lat. The site is most noted for the Asokan lat brought to it in 764/1367, at the same time the lat was brought to the kotla mosque.

So many buildings were erected that from the kasha of Indarpat to the Kushk-i shikar, five kos apart, all the land was occupied....

Just at this time Maulana Ziau-d din Barni, the author of the Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi died, and the Sultan expressed to every learned man the great desire he felt for an historical record of the events of his own reign. When he despaired of getting such a work written, he caused the following lines, of his own composition (az zaban-i kkwesh), to be inscribed in letters of gold on the walls ('imarat) of the Kushk-i Shikar-rav, and on the domes of the Kushk-i nuzul, and the walls ('imarat) 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."...

This obelisk stood in the vicinity of the town of Mirat, in the Doab, and was somewhat smaller than the Minara-i zarin. This also was removed by Sultan Firoz, with similar skill and labour, and was re-erected on a hill in the Kushk-i Shikar ...

His palaces (kushk) were those of Firoz, Nuzul, Mahandwari, Hisar Firozah, Fath-abad, Jaunpur, Shikar, Band-i Fath Khan and Salaura....

The Brahmans of all the four cities then assembled and went to the Kushk-i Shikar, where the Sultan was engaged in building, and represented that the Brahmans had never before been called upon to pay the Jizya, and they wanted to know why they were now subjected to the indignity of having to pay it. They were determined to collect wood and to burn themselves under the walls of the palace rather than pay the tax. When these pleasant words (kalimat i pur naghmat) were reported to the Sultan, he replied that they might burn and destroy themselves at once, for they would not escape from the payment.

-- XVI. Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, of Shams-i Siraj 'Afif, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 269-364, 1871


The mosque may not be extant. It correspond to the so-called Pir Ghaib, one of two remaining structures located at the northwest corner of the site, but Pir Ghaib has also been identified as the Jahannuma palace.47 [Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood, p. 136; Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 152. Welch and Crane believe that Pir Ghaib is the remnant of the congregational mosque of Jahannuma.]The form of the mosque is impossible to decipher from the ruins of Pir Ghaib, a two-storied structure which is only part of a much larger edifice.48 [Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Plate 22.]

11. Masjid Chaurahiya in the dargah of Qadam Sharif, Paharganj, Delhi, 776/1374

Sayyid Ahmad Khan attributes the mosque to Firuz Shah on the basis that it is contemporary with the tomb at the site, 776/1374. Carr Stephen does not assign the mosque to a specific patron but remarks on its affinities to the mosques built by Firuz Shah’s vizier Khan Jahan.49 The form of the mosque is a simple prayer hall with a partially enclosed courtyard.

This wall mosque has been altered by later additions and restoration.

12. Mosque in the dargah of Shah ‘Alam at Wazirabad, ca. 1375 A.D.

The mosque and tomb of Makdum Shah ‘Alam are located in Wazirabad (Timurpur), eight and a half kilometers north of Firuzabad. Percy Brown mentions the mosque as one of the significant mosques of the period and places it around 1375 A.D.50 [Brown, Indian Architecture, p. 21. Brown includes the mosque with a group which he assigns to the decade beginning 1370 A.D. The group includes Kali Masjid (ca. 1370), Begumpuri Mosque at Jahanpanah (c. 1370), Khirki Masjid at Jahanpanah (c. 1375), and Kalan Masjid at Shahjahanabad (c. 1375).] Welch and Crane assign the mosque to Firuz Shah’s patronage on the basis of its type, a prayer hall with an open courtyard, a type favored by Firuz Shah.51 The prayer hall consists of five bays, three of which are domed.52

The mosque is extant and in good state of repair.

The mosques constructed by Firuz Shah display a variety of forms. In addition to those which stand independently, some were probably attached to madrasas or tomb structures, as wall mosques. Also, it is not certain which mosques were Friday mosques. The ones at Firuzabad and Hissar were undoubtedly intended for the Friday sabbath but the minbar is absent from the latter.

Madrasas

Barani discusses Firuz Shah’s madrasa at Hauz Khas at length, but ‘Afif does not mention it, or, for that matter, any of his colleges. Firishta attributes the sultan with building thirty colleges.

** 1. Madrasa of Firuz Shah at Hauz Khas, ca. 1352 A.D.

The madrasa was built by Firuz Shah at the location of a ba’oli initially excavated by ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji. Firuz Shah revitalized use of the ba’oli early in his reign and continued building activity at the site until his death. The site is an accretion of architectural forms, including the madrasa, a mosque, and several tombs. Most details about life at the madrasa are provided by Barani.53 The form of the madrasa is a continuous block of cells and arcades, covered by vaulted ceilings, and attached to a mosque and Firuz Shah’s mausoleum. Ancillary buildings include a convocation hall in the form of an open pavilion with cupola roof and several chhatri or pavilion tombs. The madrasa is discussed in Chapter V.

The madrasa has lost significant portions of its eastern block and a small section of its south block extension. Despite these losses, the remaining structures of the madrasa are in good states of repair.

2. Madrasa of Firuz Shah at Siri, before 1357 A.D.

Barani describes the atmosphere of the madrasa at Siri like the heavens.54 The madrasa was headed by Sayyid Nizam al-Din Samarqandi and is said to have been located in an beautiful setting but its exact location is not known. The monument does not survive and its form is unknown.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Fri Dec 03, 2021 6:03 am

Part 2 of 2

3. Madrasa of Sultan Shams al-Din Iltutmish, south Delhi, near Mahipalpur village, ca. 1370 A.D.

The madrasa, built by Iltutmish, was completely rebuilt by Firuz Shah according to the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi.55 The madrasa is identified as the madrasa-tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud (the Sultan Ghari tomb). Firuz Shah allegedly re-erected the madrasa without changing its form.56

The madrasa-tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud is in a good state of repair today.

4. Madrasa at the dargah of Qadam Sharif, ca. 776/1364

The madrasa was attached to the tomb of Fath Khan. The madrasa is probably contemporary with the tomb and mosque at the site which Sayyid Ahmad Khan assigns to the year of Fath Khan’s death in 776/1374.57

The madrasa is extant but later additions and alterations have obscured its original form.

Tombs

Despite the importance which Firuz Shah assigned to the practice of visiting the tombs of holy men and saints, ‘Afif neglects to identify them except in the most general terms. Firishta, who attributes large numbers of other types of structures to the sultan, claims that he built only five mausolea. This unusually small number suggests that the practice of building tombs was not regarded with the same prestige by the sultan as the construction of other religious or secular structures. Firuz Shah’s attention to repairing already existing tombs and revitalizing the tombs of former sovereigns as pilgrimage sites however attests to the importance he assigned to them.

** 1. Tomb of Firuz Shah, Hauz Khas madrasa, ca. 1388 A.D.

Firuz Shah’s mausoleum is identified by an inscription over the south doorway which records repairs to the tomb by Sikandar Shah Lodi in 913/1507-1508. The tomb was probably built in the latter part of the reign, ca. 1388. Its form is a square plan domed structure with battered walls, constructed of rubble masonry covered with plaster. The form emulates the earlier royal Tughluq tomb of Ghiyath al-Din at Tughluqabad. The interior of the tomb is inscribed with Quranic verses which constitute the only known body of inscriptions from the period.

The tomb is in a good state of repair today and, unlike other monuments of the period, its ornamentation is almost entirely intact. The tomb and its epigraphs are examined in Chapter V.

*** 2. Unidentified tomb, Lat-ki Masjid, Hissar, ca. 1356

The square plan domed structure located in the courtyard of the Lat-ki Mosque of Hissar has been commonly identified as a tomb however the structure probably functioned as a gate or portal for the Lat-ki Mosque on whose plinth it stands.

The structure is in a good state of repair. It is discussed further in Chapter VI.

3. Charburji Masjid, near Kushk Shikar, Delhi, date unknown

The structure known as the Chauburji Masjid (mosque of four towers) located on the northern ridge is generally believed to have been intended as a tomb.58 This two-storied structure has a central chamber with a smaller chamber on either side. The structure originally had four domes, from which it derives its name.

The monument is extant but is in an advanced state of ruin. Only one dome, which covers the upper level chamber, remains. The monument was altered in Mughal times.

4. Tomb of Fath Khan in the dargah of Qadam Sharif, Paharganj, Delhi, 776/1374

Firuz Shah allegedly had the mausoleum constructed for his own use but instead interred his son’s remains in it after the latter’s untimely death in 776/1374.59 The enclosure subsequently became the burial place of other members of Firuz Shah’s family. The square plan masonry tomb is located on a platform. A marble footprint of the Prophet (qadam sharif) was placed over Fath Khan’s grave by Firuz Shah.60 [Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, p. 344. Hodivala identifies the stone footprint as one which had been presented to Firuz Shah by the Egyptian Caliph, an act mentioned in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. See Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 387.] The dargah is in active worship today, particularly during a festival on 12 Rabi’ul-Awwal.

The greatest and best of honours that I obtained through God's mercy was, that by my obedience and piety, and friendliness and submission to the Khalifa, the representative of the holy Prophet, my authority was confirmed; for it is by his sanction that the power of kings is assured, and no king is secure until he has submitted himself to the khalifa, and has received a confirmation from the sacred throne. A diploma was sent to me fully confirming my authority as deputy of the khilafat, and the leader of the faithful was graciously pleased to honour me with the title of "Saiyidu-s Salatin.'' He also bestowed upon me robes, a banner, a sword, a ring, and a footprint as badges of honour and distinction.

-- XVII. Futuhat-i Firoz Shahi of Sultan Firoz Shah, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 374, 1871


The tomb’s present setting has been altered with the construction of the Masjid Chaurahiya (mosque no. 11 above), a madrasa (madrasa no. 4 above), a ba’oli (ba’oli no. 2 below), and the enclosure.

5. Tomb of Makdum Shah ‘Alam, Wazirabad, ca. 1375

The tomb belongs to the chhatri or pavilion type, frequently employed in early sultanate architecture.61 The tomb stands in the courtyard of the mosque of Shah ‘Alam (mosque no. 12 above). It is in good repair today.

6. Tomb and entrance gate, dargah of Hazrat Nasir al-Din Roshan, Chiragh-i Delhi, 775/1373

Shaikh Nasir al-Din Mahmud, the last of the great Chisti saints of Delhi and successor of Nizam al-Din Auliya, died in 757/1356.62 The saint was interred in a barahdari, a domed structure 30 feet square in plan with a masonry dome 40 feet in height. The structure is a domed chamber with twelve pillars. A dome was originally built by Firuz Shah in 749/1350 before the saint’s murder and was possibly replaced by a more permanent structure after the saint’s death. An inscription dated 775/1373 is contained on the marble arch of the domed entrance gate on the northeast corner of the enclosure.63

In the name of God! Auspicious is the mention of His name. The building of this glorious dome was [finished] in the reign of the august, strengthened with the help of the merciful, Abu al-Muzaffar Firoz Shah, Sultan; May God perpetuate his kingdom; in the year 775, date of the flight of the Messenger of God, on Whom be God’s blessing. Greeting.


The tomb has been renovated and altered.

In addition to the tomb structures listed, there are numerous structures, mostly belonging to the chhatri type, which are unattributed. Several chhatris located on the grounds of the Hauz Khas madrasa are believed to have been built under his direction. These, however, have also been assigned to the Lodi period. The attribution remains inconclusive.

Palaces

His palaces [kushk] were those of Firoz, Nuzul, Mahandwari, Hisar Firozah, Fath-abad, Jaunpur, Shikar, Bnand-i Fath Khan and Salaura.64


‘Afif’s list is intriguing because he suggests that the Nuzul palace was a structure separate from the palace of Firoz (Firuzabad). This has an important bearing on identifying the location of the inscriptions of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi which will be discussed in the following chapter. Also, the mention of the palace at Jaunpur ends speculation as to whether one had been built by Firuz Shah.[???!!!]

Little is known of Shams-i Siraj beyond what is gleaned from his own work....

The work has met with scarcely any notice, whilst every historian who writes of the period quotes and refers to Ziau-d din Barni. The reason of this may be... [due to] the fact of its having at a comparatively late period been rescued from some musty record room. The work, consisting of ninety chapters, contains an ample account of this Akbar of his time ...
[it] gives us altogether a better view of the internal condition of India under a Muhammadan sovereign than is presented to us in any other work, except the A'yin-i Akbari...

The streetlight effect, or the drunkard's search principle, is a type of observational bias that occurs when people only search for something where it is easiest to look. Both names refer to a well-known joke: A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is". The anecdote goes back at least to the 1920s, and has been used metaphorically in the social sciences since at least 1964, when Abraham Kaplan referred to it as "the principle of the drunkard's search". The anecdote has also been attributed to Nasreddin. According to Idries Shah, this tale is used by many Sufis, commenting upon people who seek exotic sources for enlightenment.

-- Streetlight effect, by Wikipedia

Sir H. Elliot desired to print a translation of the whole work... A portion of the work had been translated for him by a munshi, but this has proved to be entirely useless. The work of translation has, consequently, fallen upon the editor, and he has endeavoured to carry out Sir H. Elliot's plan by making a close translation of the first three chapters, and by extracting from the rest of the work everything that seemed worthy of selection....

Besides this history of Firoz Shah, the author often refers to his Manakib-i Sultan Tughlik, and he mentions his intention of writing similar memoirs of the reign of Sultan Muhammad, the son of Firoz Shah. Nothing more appears to be known of these works. Copies of the Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi are rare in India, and Colonel Lees, who has selected the work for publication in the Bibliotheca Indica, has heard only of "one copy in General Hamilton's library, and of another at Dehli, in the possession of Nawab Ziau-d din Loharu, of which General Hamilton's is perhaps a transcript." The editor has had the use of four copies. One belonging to Sir H. Elliot, and another belonging to Mr. Thomas, are of quite recent production. They are evidently taken from the same original, most probably the Dehli copy above mentioned. The other two copies belong to the library of the India Office, one having been lately purchased at the sale of the Marquis of Hastings's books. These are older productions; they are well and carefully written, and although they contain many obvious errors, they will be of the greatest service in the preparation of a correct text. None of these MSS. are perfect. The two modern copies terminate in the middle of the ninth chapter of the last book. The Hastings copy wants several chapters at the end of the first and the beginning of the second book; but it extends to the eleventh chapter of the last book, and has the final leaf of the work. The other MS. ends in the middle of the fifteenth chapter of the last book, and some leaves are missing from the fourteenth.


-- XVI. Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, of Shams-i Siraj 'Afif, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 269-364, 1871


1. Palace at Kotla Firuz Shah, Firuzabad, begun ca. 755/1354 and completed ca. 762/1360

The palace complex within the citadel or kotla was Firuz Shah’s permanent residence after he abandoned the Jahanpanah palace upon completion of the kotla. The palace is in such an advanced state of ruin that its plan and form cannot be deciphered. ‘Afif describes three palaces where Firuz Shah conducted durbar or sat in state.65 The first, mahal-i sahan-i gilin (palace of the clay court), also referred to as the mahal-i angur (palace of grapes,) was intended for the reception of "khans, maliks, amirs, officials and distinguished literary men." The mahal-i chhajja-i chobin (palace of the wooden gallery) was for the reception of the sultan’s personal attendants. The mahal-i bar-i ‘am (palace of the public court), also known as the sahn-i miyanagi (central quadrangle), was for general receptions.

Except for foundations and undefined ruins, all palaces of the kotla are lost.

2. Kuskh-i Shikar or Jahannuma palace, nothern ridge, Delhi, ca. 764/1367

The extant structure known as Pir Ghaib is possibly the only remnant of the Jahannuma (world showing) palace, also known as the Kuskh-i Shikar (hunting palace). The sultan was fond of hunting and is said to have spent much time at this hunting palace. Built early in his reign, the palace seems to have developed into an extensive complex. It contained a mosque and Pir Ghaib is Firuz Shah had one of two Asokan columns (the one from Meerut) which he brought back to Delhi erected at the site.66 Today only two architectural monuments (Pir Ghaib and Charburji masjid) stand near the fragment of the Asokan column. The column was seriously damaged in an explosion in the 18th century. Timur described the palace as "a fine building on top of a hill by the banks of the Jumna."67 [Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), p. 432.] Beglar identified the Pir Ghaib as the remaining portion of the Jahannuma palace and speculated that it originally extended east to the crest of ridge, over 110 feet, where he observed additional foundations.

Preparations for the Conquest of Dehli.

For my intended attack upon Dehli I arranged my forces in the following manner: The right wing I placed under the command of Prince Pir Muhammad Jahangir, Prince Rustam, Amir Sulaiman Shah, and ***; the left I gave to Sultan Mahmud Khan, Prince Khalil Sultan, Prince Sultan Husain, Amir Jahan Shah and ***. Under my own direction I kept the great tumans, the tumans of San-sir (?) of Amir Allah-dad, and *** the army, as thus distributed, extended over a distance of twenty kos. Being satisfied as to my disposition of the forces, I began my march to Dehli. On the 22nd of Rabi'uu-l awwal I arrived and encamped at the fort of the village of Aspandi. In answer to my enquiries about this place I found that Samana was distant seven kos. The people of Samana, and Kaithal, and Aspandi are all heretics, idolaters, infidels, and misbelievers.1 ["Kafiran wa mushrik wa be-din wa bad-kish."] They had now set fire to their houses and had fled with their children, and property, and effects, towards Dehli, so that the whole country was deserted. Next day, the 23rd of the month, I started from the fort of Aspandi, and after marching six kos arrived at the village of Tughlik-pur. I encamped opposite the fort bearing that name. The people of the fort on hearing of the approach of my army, had abandoned it, and had dispersed over the country. From the information supplied to me I learned that these people were called sanawi (fire-worshipers). Many of this perverse creed believe that there are two gods. One is called Yazdan, and whatever they have of good they believe to proceed from him. The other god they call Ahriman, and whatever sin and wickedness they are guilty of they consider Ahriman to be the author of. These misbelievers do not know that whatsoever there is of good or evil comes from God, and that man is the mere instrument of its execution. I ordered the houses of these heretics to be fired, and their fort and buildings to be razed to the ground.

On the following day, the 24th of the month, I marched to Panipat, where I encamped. I there found that in obedience to orders received from the ruler of Dehli the people had deserted all their dwellings and had taken flight. When the soldiers entered the fort they reported to me that they had found a large store of wheat amounting to some thousand mans. I ordered it to be weighed to ascertain the real weight, and then to be distributed among the soldiers. When it was weighed it was found to amount to 10,000 mans of the great weight (sang-i kalan), or 160,000 of the legal standard (sang-i shara'). On the following day I marched from Panipat six kos, and encamped on the banks of a river which is on the road. I marched from this place on Friday, the 26th of the month, and I gave orders that the officers and soldiers of my army should put on their armour, and that every man should keep in his proper regiment and place in perfect readiness. We reached a village called Kanhi-gazin and there encamped. I issued my commands that on the morrow, the 28th of the month, a force of cavalry should proceed on a plundering excursion against the palace of Jahan-numa, a fine building erected by Sultan Firoz Shah on the top of a hill by the banks of the Jumna, which is one of the large rivers of Hindustan. Their orders were to plunder and destroy and to kill every one whom they met. Next day, in obedience to my commands, the division marched and proceeded to the palace of Jahan-numa, which is situated five miles from Dehli. They plundered every village and place they came to, killed the men, and carried off all the valuables and cattle, securing a great booty. They then returned, bringing with them a number of Hindu prisoners, both male and female.

On the 29th I again marched and reached the river Jumna. On the other side of the river I descried a fort, and upon making inquiry about it, I was informed that it consisted of a town and fort, called Loni and that it was held by an officer named Maimun as kotwal on behalf of Sultan Mahmud. I determined to take that fort at once, and as pasture was scant where I was, on the same day I crossed the river Jumna. I sent Amir Jahan Shah and Amir Shah Malik and Amir Allah-dad to besiege the fort of Loni, and I pitched my camp opposite to the fort. They invested the fort which was under the command of the kotwal named Maimun. He made preparations for resistance. At this time a holy skaikk who dwelt in the town came out very wisely and waited upon me. Although the skaikh was greatly honoured by the people, still, they would not listen to his advice, but determined to fight rather than surrender to me. These people were Hindus and belonged to the faction of Mallu Khan. They despised the counsels of the venerable father and resolved to resist. When I was informed of it, I ordered all the amirs and soldiers to assemble and invest the fort. They accordingly gathered with alacrity round the fort, and in the course of one watch of the day they carried the place. It was situated in a doab between two rivers, one the Jumna, the other the Halin, the latter being a large canal which was cut from the river Kalini and brought to Firozabad, and there connected with the Jumna by Sultan Firoz Shah. Many of the Rajputs placed their wives and children in their houses and burned them, then they rushed to the battle and were killed. Other men of the garrison fought and were slain, and a great many were taken prisoners. Next day I gave orders that the Musulman prisoners should be separated and saved, but that the infidels should all be despatched to hell with the proselyting sword. I also ordered that the houses of the saiyids, skaikhs, and learned Musulmans should be preserved, but that all the other houses should be plundered and the fort destroyed. It was done as I directed and a great booty was obtained.

When my heart was satisfied with the conquest of Loni, I rode away from thence on the 1st Rabi'u-l akhir to examine the fords of the Jumna, and proceeded along the bank of the river. When I came opposite the palace Jahan-numa, I found some places where the river was passable. At the time of mid-day prayer, I returned to the camp. I gave orders to the princes and amirs, and then held a council about the attack upon Dehli and the operations against Sultan Mahmud.

-- XVIII. Malfuzat-I Timuri, or Tuzak-I Timur: The Autobiography of Timur, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 389-__, 1871


The area is being obscured today by encroaching urban development. The surviving ruins on the ridge have not been conclusively identified as to their functions. The Pir Ghaib is a two-storied fragment of a large building, now lost.68

*** 3. Palace, Hissar, ca. 757/1356

The palace of Hissar still stands within the fortress however its present condition restricts access to it. The palace was partly subterranean, built on and submerged into a summit of a hill. The plan was a complex labyrinth which gained legendary status. ‘Afif describes the complex corridors of the palace and the darkness of its inner chambers from which exit was necessarily conducted by trained attendants.69 The palace is a series of interconnected vaulted chambers supported on reused stone columns and rubble and plaster piers. ‘Afif notes that its reputation was unrivalled anywhere in the world. The palace is extant and most of its vaulting is intact. Access to it is limited today.

5. Mahal (Diwan Khana), Hissar, ca. 757/1356

This small mahal stands on top the fortress wall to the north of the palace. It is attributed to Firuz Shah on the basis of its style and its location near the fortress.

The mahal is in a good state of repair.

6. Palace, Jaunpur, ca. 760/1359

‘Afif’s reference to a palace at Jaunpur is the only evidence that one was built. The sultan founded Jaunpur and took up residence there for six months in 760/1359. The location of his palace is not known but it probably stood in the vicinity of the Atala mosque, the site of Firuz Shah’s original mosque. No palace structure survives but the Cihil Satun, a palace built by Firuz Shah’s governor, may be representative of palace architecture of the reign. The Cihil Satun was destroyed during the Mutiny but it was the subject of a sketch which fortunately survives. [???]70 The palace is not extant.

7. Kushk Mahal, Delhi (within Tin Murti House compound), ca. 1360 A.D.

Welch and Crane have identified four palaces (nos. 7-10) which the authors attribute to Firuz Shah’s patronage.71 None of the four contain epigraphs or are referred to in contemporary literature. The attributions are based on common stylistic elements, their locations in areas which Firuz Shah is known to have developed architecturally, and the premise that Firuz Shah was fond of hunting. The authors contend that none of the four were intended for prolonged residence. All four palaces are vaulted structures.

Kushk Mahal is extant.

8. Malcha Mahal, ca. 1360 A.D.72

Malcha Mahal is extant.

9. Bhuli Bhatiyari-ka Mahal, Delhi, 755/1354

Sayyid Ahmad Khan mentions this palace in the Athar al-Sanadid.73 It was the residence of Bu ‘Ali Bhatti, an individual of unknown status. It is located  today near the dargah of Saiyid Hasan Rasul-Numa, near a dam believed to have been built by Firuz Shah. It is the site of a Brahmanical festival of Pavan-Prchcha.

The mahal is extant.

10. Mahal in the village of Mahipalpur, south of Delhi, ca. 1360 A.D.

The mahal is extant.

11. Kushk-i Anwar or Kushk-i Mehndiyan, opposite the kotla near Jail-khana, ca. 755/1354

Popularly attributed to Firuz Shah because of its location near the kotla, its form is an arched basement under a plinth with five chhatris, one in each corner and one in the center of the plinth. Sayyid Ahmad Khan assigns it to the reign of Firuz Shah, but not to his patronage.74 The kushk was already in ruins by his time, but Sayyid Ahmad Khan relates that it was a site of celebration for the saint Sayyid Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani, popularly known as Bara Pir (great saint). A feast which was celebrated at the site included as part of the celebration a paper kiosk (mehndi) surrounded by lights, hence the name given to the palace.

The kushk is ruined and only one chhatri remains.

Palace architecture during the reign of Firuz Shah has suffered the most decay. Whereas religious structures were apparently more carefully preserved, palaces were simply rebuilt or altered. The small number of hunting pavilions which remain offer the only physical evidence about palace architecture of the period. Muhammad bin Tughluq’s palace at Jahanpanah (the so-called Bijai Mandel) may provide a prototype for those built by Firuz Shah, but the functions of spaces of that palace are not known.75

Khanaqah

He also built monasteries, and inns for the accommodations of travellers. One hundred and twenty khankahs [monasteries] were built in Delhi and Firozabad for the accommodation of the people of God, in which travellers from all directions were receivable as guests for three days. These one hundred and twenty buildings were full of guests on all the three hundred and sixty days of the year. Superintendents and officers of the Sunni persuasion were appointed to these khankahs, and funds for their expenses were furnished from the public treasury.76 [‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 354.]


According to the edicts, Ashoka took great care of the welfare of his subjects (human and animal), and those beyond his borders, spreading the use of medicinal treatments, improving roadside facilities for more comfortable travel, and establishing "officers of the faith" throughout his territories to survey the welfare of the population and the propagation of the Dharma.

-- Edicts of Ashoka, by Wikipedia


1. Khanaqah located at the tomb of Rukn al-Din, son of Sham al-Din, Malikpur

Firuz Shah mentions this khanaqah specifically in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi.77

No trace of this building survives.


Despite the 120 khanaqahs mentioned by ‘Afif, all of them have vanished. The khanaqah form suffered a vacillating existence in sultanate architecture of Delhi. Tolerance of Sufi orders brought a resurgence of the khanaqah as an architectural form, but the loss of Tughluq period khanaqahs leaves most questions about their form unanswered. One must turn to architecture of the Deccan for architectural examples of the khanaqah form.



Waterworks78

Canals:


Firuz Shah is credited with excavating the largest network of canals in India until the 19th century.79 [Raychaudhuri and Habib, Cambridge Economic History, p. 49.] Barani writes in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi:80 [Barani, Ta'rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), p. 567; translation given in Siddiqui, "Waterworks and Irrigation System in India during Pre-Mughal Times," Islamic Culture (Jan. 1984), p. 13.]

During the auspicious Firuz Shah’s reign, the canals, one hundred and twenty miles long, were led off from the rivers, the Jamuna and the Ganges. The water flowing through them irrigated the desert and desolate tracts where no well or lake existed [before]. The depth and width [of certain canals] has made the use of boats possible, people travel in boats covering distance from one to the other place.


During the auspicious reign of Firoz Shah, canals like those around the Jamuna and Ganges have been excavated from as far as 50-60 karoh (about two miles) [2 miles long] and made to flow in deserts and wastelands where there has never been any thing like a well (and these canals are so wide that) there arose a need for boats (to cross it).

-- Chapter 6: The Sultan of the Age, One Who is Supported by God, Firoz Shah al Sultan, Excerpt from "Tarikh-I Firoz Shahi, An English Translation" [Written by Zia ud Din Barani], by Ishtiyaq Ahmad Zilli


1. Rajab-wah canal, excavated from the Jumna to Hissar,81 [Both the Rajab-wah and Ulugh-khani canals are cited most frequently by contemporary authors as, for example, ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 300; Also see Banerjee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, p. 119 and p. 147, fns. 25-26.] ca. 1356

2. Ulugh-khani canal, excavated from the Jumna to Hissar, ca. 1356

3. Firuz-shahi (Firuzabad) canal, cut from the Sutlej River, ca. 1356

With its origin in the Sirmur and Mandali hills, it joined seven other canals and led to Hansi and Hissar.

4. Ghaggar (Kakkhar) canal

This Ghaggar flowed through the Sarsuitt fort to Harni Khira.

5. Nahr-i Ganj (Ganges) Canal

Located near Badaun, an area where Firuz Shah was fond of hunting
, its waters fed the Doab. Barani mentions this canal but ‘Afif and Sihrindi do not. 82 [Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), p. 567; Siddiqui, "Waterworks and Irrigation," cites the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, f. 790b.]

Yahya bin Ahmad Sirhindi (nisba of Sirhind) was a 15th century Indian chronicler who wrote Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi, a Persian language chronicle of the Delhi Sultanate. Written during the reign of Mubarak Shah, his work is an important source of information for the Sayyid dynasty.

Yahya expected to become a courtier of Mubarak Shah (r. 1431-1434), a ruler of the Delhi Sultanate. Therefore, he wrote Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi and presented it to the Sultan, hoping to win the royal patronage.

The book begins with the conquests of Muhammad of Ghor (1149-1206), and ends abruptly in 1434.  Several earlier royal chroniclers had written texts describing the 13th-15th century history of the Delhi Sultanate. For example, Minhaj-i-Siraj covered the period up to 1259 in his Tabaqat-i Nasiri, Ziauddin Barani covered 1259-1356, and Shams-i Siraj Afif covered 1356-1388. Yahya carried forward this chronology all the way to 1434.[3]

For the events up to 1351, Yahya selectively borrowed from the earlier writers, and arranged the material in a chronological order. For the events after 1351, he relied on personal memory and observations, besides the accounts of some trustworthy narrators.

-- Yahya bin Ahmad Sirhindi, by Wikipedia


6. Canal excavated from the Buddhi Jumna River which led to the Firuzabad reservoir.83 [Banerjee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, p. 142, mentions the Buddhi canal and cites Sihrindi as his source.]

This canal was cut from the old bed of the Jumna River.84 [See Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, v. 2, p. 148.]

Bands (Dams)

Bands: Fath Khan, Malja (into which he threw a body of fresh water [ab-i zamzam]), Mahpalpur, Shukr Khan, Salaura, Wazirabad, and other similar strong and substantial bands.85 [‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 354.]


To ‘Afif's list can be added the dam near the Bhuli Bhatiyari-ka Mahal (above) which Sayyid Ahmad Khan attributes to Firuz Shah. [???]86 [Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct-Nov 1860), p. 409.]

Ba’oli (tanks):

1. ba’oli, Kotla Firuz Shah Firuzabad,87 [Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 149, plan, section, and elevation illustrated in figure 9.] ca. 1354

The best-preserved ba’oli of the period, it has lost portions of its uppermost storey and crowning cupolas.

2. ba’oli. Tomb of Fath Khan in dargah of Qadam Sharif,88 [Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 39.] ca. 776/1374

3. ba’oli, Lat-ki Masjid, Hissar, ca. 757/1356

More than any other category of building types, those structures which were engineered for the accumulation of water reserves or to facilitate movement of water for purposes of irrigation and supply, are probably the most numerous. However, the task of identifying the engineer of numerous canals and dams, or builder of the many ba’olis, which remain in northern India, is ambitious, if not impossible. Nonetheless, Firuz Shah’s reputation for undertaking such projects on a grand scale led Firishta to claim 50 dams, 30 reservoirs, 5 wells, 150 bridges and 10 public wells to his credit. In the case of waterworks, such numbers are probably not exaggerated.

‘Afif points in nostalgic retrospect to the prosperity of his reign. His interpretation however must be cast in light of the fact that he wrote his Ta’rikh-i-Firuz Shahi when Delhi’s fortunes had turned bitter following the destruction of the city by Timur’s army. Although Firuz Shah’s reign is usually described as one of prosperity and abundance, and his compassion for the welfare of his people unprecedented, it is likely that such hyperbolic accounts were exaggerated and masked an otherwise grave economic situation. Indeed the economic condition of the Tughluq empire took a precipitous decline after Firuz Shah’s death....

Despite descriptions of apparent prosperity enjoyed during his reign, Firuz Shah did little to revive an economy which was already in decline from the time he inherited it from Muhammad bin Tughluq.... Under the severe taxation of Muhammad bin Tughluq, the peasant class had rebelled. A resultant famine lasted seven years and was recorded by Ibn Battuta in 1334-35 A.D....

The consumption of state revenue by the nobility, by the military and the massive slave population, and for the financing of the elaborate building projects undertaken by Firuz Shah has not been entirely evaluated but at least one author has questioned the practicality of "wholesale alienation of the revenues to the military and bureaucratic classes."...

The disturbance of the economy under Muhammad bin Tughluq, due to his ambitious campaigns, monetary reforms, and lavish distribution of wealth to the Mideast in the form of pious largesse and trade investments, produced a critical economic situation which left the imperial treasury nearly depleted. The mid-fourteenth century economic strain continued under Firuz Shah due to the loss of territories in Bengal and the Deccan and his public projects.
Although waqf permitted religious institutions to perpetuate their existence, the burden on the state treasury continued during Firuz Shah’s reign....

Firishta credits him with building 50 dams, 40 mosques, 30 colleges with attached mosques, 20 palaces, 100 carvanserais, 200 towns, 30 reservoirs, 100 hospitals, 5 mausolea, 100 public baths, 10 monumental pillars, 10 public wells, 150 bridges, and numerous gardens and pleasure houses.84 Such numbers of building projects are astonishing even in spite of his long reign but only a fraction of these structures are known today....Indeed, the character of his buildings, constructed primarily of rubble masonry and decorated with plaster in contrast to the polychromed stone of earlier Tughluq monuments, may be a reflection of the economic strain on the treasury....Except for Barani’s statement in the Fatawa-yi Jahandari, noted before [Barani’s advice is presented in the form of a paradigm for Muslim rulers. He does not cite Firuz Shah by name.], contemporary historians are silent about the details of expenditures involved in building construction.

Firuz Shah’s administrative talents permitted him to maintain control of a fragile economy. The prosperity so frequently noted by historians is a transient moment, albeit a prolonged one, in the early sultanate. Upon Firuz Shah’s death, the political and economic fate of the sultanate took a precipitous decline....


-- 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


Acts of restoration to pre-existing monuments

The list provided here replicates the list of restorations which Firuz Shah enumerates in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. Some can be identified with existing monuments today. These are noted in the list. The extent of Firuz Shah’s repairs is, for the most part, not detailed. Only those instances where his repairs have substantially changed the appearance of the monument are elaborated upon. In most cases however, Firuz Shah’s repairs were confined to replacing wooden doors, draperies, and no doubt mending breaks in the structures. ‘Afif writes:89

The Sultan also repaired the tombs of former kings ...It is a custom among kings while they are on the throne to appropriate villages and lands to religious men in order to provide means for the maintenance and repair of their tombs. But these endowments had all been destroyed, and the grantees being divested of them, were reduced to distress...The Sultan carefully repaired all the tombs and restored the lands and villages after bringing into cultivation such as had been laid waste. He sought out and restored the superintendents and officers of these endowments who had been driven out of them.


1. Masjid-i jama’ of old Delhi, built by Sultan Mu’izz al-Din Sam (Quwwat al-Islam Mosque)

2. Minara of Sultan Mu’izz al-Din Sam (Qutb Minar)

Firuz Shah’s repair of the Qutb Minar is noted by an inscription on the monument:90

This Manara was injured by lightning in the months of the year 770. By the divine grace of Firuz Sultani...built this place up with great care.


The author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi recalls that Firuz Shah was on a hunt at the place of origin of the Ganges canal when he received the sad news that lightning had struck the minar.91

Besides the works, particularly by Muslim historians referred to by Mr. Page in his Memoir, there exists another trustworthy and contemporary account of Firoz Shah's reign as narrated in the pages of Sirat-i-Firozshahi, a Persian manuscript in Nastaliq characters deposited in the Oriental Public Library at Bankipore and enlisted in its Catalogue as No. 547. From the Catalogue it appears that nothing is known about the author of Sirat-i-Firozshahi but the verse at the end of the manuscript assigns the work to A.H. 772 (A.D. 1370). i.e., the twentieth year of the reign of Firoz Shah. Sirat-i-Firozshahi thus chronicles the events of the earlier part of Firoz Shah's reign.
God said it, I believe it, That settles it.

-- Memoirs Of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 52: A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi, by J.A. Page, A.R.I.B.A., Late Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, With a Translation of Sirat-i-Firozshahi by Mohammad Hamid Kuraishi, B.A., Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, 1937
 

3. Mosque at the tomb of Sultan ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji and the abdarkhana, within the madrasa (located at the southwest corner of Quwwat al-Islam Mosque, no longer extant)

4. Tomb of Sultan Mu’izz al-Din Sam (located in Qila Rai Pithora, near Quwwat al-Islam Mosque, no longer extant)

5. Tomb located at the madrasa of Sultan Shams al-Din Iltutmish (Tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud or the so-called "Sultan Ghari" tomb)

6. Tomb of Sultan Mu’izz al-Din, son of Sultan Shams al-Din Iltutmish, Malikpur

7. Tomb of Sultan Rukn al-Din, son of Shams al-Din Iltutmish, in Malikpur

8. Tomb of Sultan Jalal al-Din

9. Tomb of Sultan ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji and the abdarkhana

10. Tomb of Sultan Kutb al-Din

11. Tomb of Khizr Khan, son of Sultan ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji

12. Tomb of Shadi Khan

13. Tomb of Farid Khan

14. Tomb of Sultan Shahab al-Din

15. Tomb of Sikandar Khan, son of Sultan ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji

16. Tomb of Muhammad Khan

17. Tomb of ’Usman Khan

18. Tombs of grandsons of Sultan ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji

19. Tombs of the sons of the grandsons of Sultan ’Ala’ al-Din Khalji

20. Tomb of Shaikh al-Islam Nizam al-Hakk wa al-Din and meeting room

21. Tomb of Malik Taj al-Mulk Kafuri, the vizier of Sultan ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji

22. Dar al-aman or House of Rest. (This monument has been identified as the tomb of Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq)92 [Saiyid Ahmad Khan identifies the dar al-aman as the tomb of Tughluq Shah and Muhammad bin Tughluq. Tughluq Shah’s tomb is well known but few modern scholars accept that Muhammad bin Tughluq is interred in this spot. See also Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 35.]

23. Hauz-i ‘Alai or tank of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji (Hauz Khas)

24. Hauz-i Shamsi or tank of Iltutmish

25. Jahanpanah

26. All the fortifications of the former sovereigns of Delhi (Qila Rai Pithora, Lalkot, Siri, Tughluqabad, and ‘Adilabad)

Firuz Shah concentrated his restorative measures to the numerous tombs and shrines in the area around Delhi. His interest in restoring the monuments of his predecessors attests to his concern that the architectural legacy of the Delhi sultans be preserved. The list he provides undoubtedly falls short of the scope of his endeavors [???!!! but it demonstrates the sultan’s regard for architectural traditions of the past.

The monuments listed above constitute the known corpus of Firuz Shah’s architectural legacy. [???!!!] From this group of individual monuments, several which belong to larger complexes, have been selected for closer examination. The basis for their selection is three-fold. First, they are in relatively good states of repair and essentially unaltered since the fourteenth century A.D. Second, they are considered to be Firuz Shah’s most significant undertakings. Third, they possess physical characteristics which are representative of Firuz Shah’s building style and provide clues about possible motives for their construction. The first complex, consisting of the jami masjid and lat pyramid, is believed to have been Firuz Shah’s imperial mosque. The second complex, the madrasa and its associated religious and funerary structures at Hauz Khas, served as the educational center of the state. The third complex at Hissar, over a hundred kilometers northwest of Delhi, was the base of the provincial government in that region, and represents the frontier settlement. Each of these three complexes provides evidence, in their physical remains, of Firuz Shah’s motives as a patron, his role as an architect, and manifest the style which is identified with him.

_______________

Notes:

1 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 354-355.

2 Ibid., p. 354.

3 Ibid., p. 283.

4 The column of Fathabad is published in Subhash Parihar, Muslim Inscriptions in the Punjab, Harayana, and Himachal Pradesh (1985), p. 18 (No. 3.6), but without transcription or translation of its inscription.

5 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 302-303. The jami masjid was probably one of the nine mosques mentioned by ‘Afif. Others which have been identified are Masjid Khas, probably located near the Kotla and intended for the sultan’s harem; Masjid Naib Barbak, patronized by the sultan’s brother; Masjid Bahre-i Shahnah, possibly patronized by Malik Bahr, master of the sultan’s elephants; Masjid Nizam al- Mulk, brother-in-law to the sultan; a mosque in the Kushk-i Shikar on the ridge; a mosque in the village of Andabhata or Indrapat; and two erected by the sultan’s vizier Khan Jahan probably identified as Kalan Masjid and one near the Jajnagar gate. See Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, v. 2, pp. 124-125.

6 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 317.

7 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, "Descriptions des monuments de Delhi en 1852," Journal Asiatique (June 1860), pp. 533-535.

8 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 129.

9 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 298-300.

10 The palace at Hissar is described by ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 299, but the Asokan column is not mentioned by any contemporary author.

11 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 307.

12 J. Burton-Page, "Djawnpur," Encyclopedia of Islam; A. Führer, Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur (London 1909).

13 Firishta (Briggs), p. 262.

14 Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, v. 1, p. 389.

15 Sihrindi, Ta’rikh-i Mubarak Shahi (Bibliotheca Indica) p. 142; Banerjee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, p. 189, places the date to 1385 A.D.

16 In the course of excavating the canal, a prehistoric fossil, perhaps that of a mastadon, as well as human bones of extraordinary proportions, were discovered. See Firishta (Briggs), p. 262 and footnote. Briggs observed that the canal was no longer extant.

17 Timur, Malfuzat-i Timuri, p. 427 and Zafarnama, p. 491. See Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, v. 1, p. 386.

18 See Ahmad, "Diyauddin Barani's Perception of Irrigation as an Agent of Change in Society," Islamic Culture 61 (1982), p. 68.

19 Indo-Muslim History, V. 1, p. 136.

20 Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 270.

21 'Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 350 and pp. 354-355.

22 The Fathabad column epigraph is long, consisting of 36 concentric bands of inscription. It is not known how much of the inscription is lost but, judging from the height of the column, it probably survives in almost its entirety. The lat inscription is published in Subhash Parihar, Muslim Inscriptions in the Punjab, Harayana, and Himachal Pradesh, 1985, p. 18 (No. 3.6) and illustration 7. A translation of it was allegedly done by Maulvi Ziyauddin Khan but it has not surfaced. See P. Horn "Muhammadan Inscriptions from the Suba of Delhi," Epigraphica Indica 2 (Delhi 1970), pp. 130-159 and 424-437; and H. B. W. Garrick, "Report of a tour in the Punjab and Rajputana, in 1883-84," A.S.J. Reports v. 23, Varanasi, n.d. Not all authors accept an Asokan origin for the Fathabad lat.

23 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, "Descriptions des monuments de Delhi en 1852," Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), p. 406.

[quote]Il a écrit lui-même: "J’ai entièrement fait construire de nouveau cette mosquée (lieu de réunion); elle n’était pas située, dans l’origine, au même endroit." [Google translate: He himself wrote: "I have completely re-built this mosque (meeting place); it was not originally located in the same place."]

Nath refutes the attribution to Firuz Shah. Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 41, fn. 10

24 Sultan Firoz, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 384. Firuz Shah remarks that he repaired the tomb of Shaikh al-Islam Nizam al-Hakk wa al-Din and built a "meeting room."

25 Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood, p. 116.

26 Nath, Sultanate Architecture, p. 49.

27 Nizam al-Din was a Chisti saint and friend of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji and Muhammad bin Tughluq. See Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 104.

28 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), p. 415; Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 40; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 149. Carr Stephen includes the Khirki Mosque with six other mosques of Khan Jahan, an attribution based on Sayyid Ahmad Khan.

29 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 138 and p. 162, footnote 59.

30 Ibid., p. 138; Brown, Indian Architecture: Islamic Period, p. 24. Brown does not identify the patron of the mosque but dates it to ca. 1375 A.D. The mosque is illustrated in Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Figure 5 and Plates 7, 8, and 9.

31 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), p. 407; Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), p. 447.

32 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 561-562; ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 303. ‘Afif includes it among the nine mosques of Firuzabad.

33 Sayyid Ahmad Khan reports that the dome still existed in Jahangir’s reign. He cites Firishta as his source. Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), p. 407.

34 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), p. 397; Archaeological Survey of India, Lists of Monuments, v. 3, p. 180, no. 310; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 83. Carr Stephen discusses the madrasa but makes no mention of the mosque. The cathedral mosque mentioned by Ibn Battuta during his visit to Hauz Khas must be a pre-Firuz Shah structure.

35 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 562-564.

36 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 140. Firuz Shah departs for Bengal in 760/1359. Although it is possible that he ordered the mosque to be built during his absence, it is unlikely that he permitted its construction without his closest supervision.

37 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 298-299. ‘Afif discusses the canals, battlements and palace but does not mention the mosque.

38 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 307.

39 The Sharqi characteristics are the large iwans with domes. Large pyramidal gateways which resemble Egyptian pylons conceal the domes from the courtyard side. See Burton-Page, "Djawnpur," Encyclopedia of Islam, v. 2, pp. 498-499; Nath, Sultanate Architecture, pp. 96-107; A. Führer, Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur (London 1909).

40 Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 383. Firuz Shah also rebuilt the madrasa which had been completely destroyed.

41 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), pp. 392-393. The attribution stands entirely on the basis of Firuz Shah’s testimony.

42 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Plate 25.

43 Ibid., p. 139.

44 Husain, A Record of All the Quranic and Non-historical Epigraphs, p. 89, no. CIX. Husain does not attribute the epigraphy to either Iltutmish or Firuz Shah.

45 Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, in J. A. Page, A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah: Delhi, pp. 33-42; ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 350-353. ‘Afif mentions the transport of two columns, the second being placed in the kuskh-i shikar. Barani died in 1357 so his Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi provides no account of the event.

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

47 Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood, p. 136; Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 152. Welch and Crane believe that Pir Ghaib is the remnant of the congregational mosque of Jahannuma.

48 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Plate 22.

49 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), p. 412; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 148.

50 Brown, Indian Architecture, p. 21. Brown includes the mosque with a group which he assigns to the decade beginning 1370 A.D. The group includes Kali Masjid (ca. 1370), Begumpuri Mosque at Jahanpanah (c. 1370), Khirki Masjid at Jahanpanah (c. 1375), and Kalan Masjid at Shahjahanabad (c. 1375).

51 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," pp. 139-140 and Plate 10.

52 Within the mosque in a rear corner is the earliest example of a zanana gallery. See Burton-Page, "Dihli," Encyclopedia of Islam, v. 2, p. 262.

53 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 561-565.

54 Ibid., p. 565.

55 Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 383.

56 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 154.

57 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860), pp. 411-412.

58 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 152; Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 144.

59 Sharma, Delhi and Its Neighborhood, p. 133.

60. Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, p. 344. Hodivala identifies the stone footprint as one which had been presented to Firuz Shah by the Egyptian Caliph, an act mentioned in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. See Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 387.

61 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Plate 10.

62 Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 145.

63 Ibid., p. 146 footnote.

64 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 354.

65 Ibid., p. 343.

66 Ibid., p. 353.

67 Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), p. 432.

68 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Plate 22.

69 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 299.

70 Burton-Page, "Djawnpur," Encyclopedia of Islam, pp. 498-499 and Plate VIII.

71 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 152.

72 A plan of Malcha Mahal is reproduced by Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 153, figure 10, and plate 23.

73 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860) p. 409; Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 38.

74 Saiyid Ahmad Khzn, Journal asiatique (Oct.-Nov. 1860) pp. 408-409; Nath, Monuments of Delhi, pp. 37-38; Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 122.

75 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," Plates 20 and 21.

76 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 354.

77 Firuz Shah, Futuhat (Elliot and Dowson), p. 383-384.

78 Most canals and structures built to convey and store water are still in use today. For this reason, their present conditions are not noted.

Many waterworks of the Delhi sultanate are surveyed and photographs of their remains reproduced in Tatsuo Yamamoto, Matsuo Ara, Tokifusa Tsukinowa, and Taichi Oshima, Delhi: Architectural Remains of the Delhi Sultanate Period (in Japanese), University of Tokyo, 1967-1970.

79 Raychaudhuri and Habib, Cambridge Economic History, p. 49.

80 Barani, Ta'rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), p. 567; translation given in Siddiqui, "Waterworks and Irrigation System in India during Pre-Mughal Times," Islamic Culture (Jan. 1984), p. 13.

81 Both the Rajab-wah and Ulugh-khani canals are cited most frequently by contemporary authors as, for example, ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 300; Also see Banerjee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, p. 119 and p. 147, fns. 25-26.

82 Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), p. 567; Siddiqui, "Waterworks and Irrigation," cites the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, f. 790b.

83 Banerjee, History of Firuz Shah Tughluq, p. 142, mentions the Buddhi canal and cites Sihrindi as his source.

84 See Hodivala, Studies in Indo-Muslim History, v. 2, p. 148.

85 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 354.

86 Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Journal asiatique (Oct-Nov 1860), p. 409.

87 Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 149, plan, section, and elevation illustrated in figure 9.

88 Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 39.

89 ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 354-355.

90 Bendrey, A Study of Muslim Inscriptions, p. 105.

91 Siddiqui "Waterworks and Irrigation," p. 14 and footnote 74 cites the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi (f. 790b).

92 Saiyid Ahmad Khan identifies the dar al-aman as the tomb of Tughluq Shah and Muhammad bin Tughluq. Tughluq Shah’s tomb is well known but few modern scholars accept that Muhammad bin Tughluq is interred in this spot. See also Nath, Monuments of Delhi, p. 35.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:59 am

Part 1 of 10

CHAPTER IV: THE JAMI MASJID AND LAT PYRAMID OF FIRUZABAD

Literary sources


Image
Plate I

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, along the west bank of the Jumna River (Figure 2) just to the north of Indrapat, the site of the sixteenth century Purana Qila, and south of the seventeenth century Shahjahanabad, site of the Red Fort and the Jami Masjid of present-day Delhi. Firuz Shah’s mosque is situated on the east perimeter of the kotla where it was protected by the Jumna River which flowed beside the citadel in the 14th century.

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.

Minaret, (Arabic: “beacon”) in Islamic religious architecture, the tower from which the faithful are called to prayer five times each day by a muezzin, or crier. Such a tower is always connected with a mosque and has one or more balconies or open galleries....

Minarets are constructed in a wide variety of forms ranging from thick, squat, spiral ramps, as at Samarra, Iraq (built 848–852), to soaring, delicate, pencil-thin spires. Often the minaret is square at the base, where it is attached to the mosque. Above this square base it may rise in a series of circular, hexagonal, or octagonal stages, each marked by a projecting balcony. At the top is a bulbous dome, an open pavilion, or a metal-covered cone. The upper parts of the minaret are usually richly decorated with carving. The steps may be internal or external. The number of minarets per mosque also varies, from one to as many as six. These towers were built to be “landmarks of Islam”—to be visible from afar and to stamp a site with Islamic character.

-- Minaret, by Britannica


The height of Qutb Minar is 72.5 meters, making it the tallest minaret in the world built of bricks. The tower tapers, and has a 14.3 metres (47 feet) base diameter, reducing to 2.7 metres (9 feet) at the top of the peak.  It contains a spiral staircase of 379 steps....

Qutb Minar was an inspiration and prototype for many minarets and towers built. The Chand Minar [The Chand Minar or the Tower of the Moon is a medieval tower in Daulatabad, India. The tower is located in the state of Maharashtra near the Daulatabad-Deogiri fort complex. It was erected in 1445 C.E. by King Ala-ud-din Bahmani. -- Chand Minar, by Wikipedia [Covered with the Persian blue tiles, Chand Minar has 24 arched chambers and a small mosque at its base. It has 4 floors with helical stairs inside with 80 steps for every floor & 6 ventilator windows along with a circular balcony is present after every floor. -- Top 5 famous minars of India, by India TV News Desk.] to commemorate his capture of the fort. Chand Minar bears resemblance to the Qutb Minar of Delhi and was inspired from it.] and Mini Qutub Minar [The Mini Qutub Minar is a minaret tower in Hastsal village in Uttam Nagar, West Delhi, India. It was built in the 1650 by Mughal emperor, Shah Jahan (reign, 1628-1658) near his hunting lodge in Hasthal. The three storeyed tower is 16.87 meters (55 feet) tall and stands on a raised octagonal platform. The minar is built with bricks and clad with red sandstone. The tower structure and design resembles the Qutub Minar of Delhi and was inspired by it.... The steps that lead up to the octagonal platform have disappeared.] bear resemblance to the Qutb Minar and inspired from it.

-- Qutb Minar, by Wikipedia


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.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.] 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. Following his return in 762/1360 from the second campaign to Bengal, Firuz Shah resumed the building of his capital but the mosque is believed to have been completed prior to this time.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.]

Since Almighty God had created the auspicious person of the Sultan of the age and the time, Firoz Shah al Sultan, as a mine of charities and source of good deeds and had made him a source of benefits for the public, therefore in the very beginning of his reign such buildings were constructed which had no parallel either in the capital of Delhi nor in other countries and those who had traversed lands and seas are wonderstruck by them. One such building is the main congregational mosque (Jami' Masjid)....

The second among the buildings of the lord of the world is the Madrasa-i Firoz Shahi, a wonderful building on the bank of Hauz-i Alai....

The third building is the structure of Balaband in the area of Siri which vies with the skies in height and in the matter of beauty of construction and purity of climate it is the envy of the buildings of the inhabited world and among the fine structures -- there is none like it....

Moreover, with the ever increasing power and authority of Firoz Shah, the fort of Firozabad had been built on the banks of the Jamuna on the best of sites. If I set to describe its soul-nourishing climate, its many excellencies and auspiciousness of the construction of the city of Firozabad, which will with the passage of time emerge as an envy of great cities, it would require a separate volume for the purpose. Another fort with the name of Fathabad had been constructed in between Hansi, Siristi and Firozabad. It is a stronger fort in the vicinity of Bhatnir. For the benefit of the people, canals have been excavated and brought from long distances, their water has been made to flow and it has been brought to the foot of these forts. With the help of this water, gardens and agriculture had been begun and deserts which were full of the thorns of acacia have now been turned into gardens and flower beds and the process is gaining ground day by day.

-- Chapter 6: The Sultan of the Age, One Who is Supported by God, Firoz Shah al Sultan, Excerpt from "Tarikh-I Firoz Shahi, An English Translation" [Written by Zia ud Din Barani], by Ishtiyaq Ahmad Zilli


The building activities began once more in 769/1367 with the erection of the lat pyramid. The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi records this event to have occurred during Muharram 769/September 1367 and reports that the lat was raised to its upright position on 4 Safar 769/30 September 1367.3 [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.] [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.]

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....

‘Afif mentions the transport of two columns, the second being placed in the kuskh-i shikar. Barani died in 1357 so his Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi provides no account of the event. [???!!!]] The event took place in 764/1367.


-- 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


Ziauddin Barani (1285–1358 CE) was a Muslim political thinker of the Delhi Sultanate located in present-day Northern India during Muhammad bin Tughlaq and Firuz Shah's reign.

-- Ziauddin Barani, by Wikipedia


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.4 [Barani, Ta’rikh (Bibliotheca Indica), pp. 561-562. (Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, 1862, Asiatic Society of Bengal, in Persian) ‘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.]

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.'' 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.] ‘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’..."6 [‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 350.] ‘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.

After Sultan Firoz returned from his expedition against Thatta, he often made excursions in the neighbourhood of Dehli. In this part of the country there were two stone columns. One was in the village of Tobra, in the district (shikk) of Salaura and Khizrabad, in the hills (koh-payah); the other in the vicinity of the town of Mirat. These columns had stood in those places from the days of the Pandavas, but had never attracted the attention of any of the kings who sat upon the throne of Dehli, till Sultan Firoz noticed them, and, with great exertion, brought them away. One was erected in the palace (kushk) at Firozabad, near the Masjid-i jama', and was called the Minara-i zarin, or Golden Column, and the other was erected in the Kushk-i Shikar, or Hunting Palace, with great labour and skill.

-- XVI. Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, of Shams-i Siraj 'Afif, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 269-364, 1871


The events surrounding the discovery of the two lats are mentioned by ‘Afif in the ninth chapter of the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi'7 [‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 350-353.]

After Sultan Firoz returned from his expedition against Thatta, he often made excursions in the neighborhood of Delhi. In this part of the country there were two stone columns. One was in the village of Tobra, in the district [shikk] of Salaura and Khizrabad, in the hills [koh-payah]; the other in the vicinity of the town of Mirat. These columns had stood in those places from the days of the Pandavas, but had never attracted the attention of any of the kings who sat upon the throne of Delhi, till Sultan Firoz noticed them, and, with great exertion, brought them away. One was erected in the palace [kushk] at Firozabad, near the masjid-i jama’, and was called the minara-i zarin, or Golden Column, and the other was erected in the kushk-i shikar, or Hunting Palace, with great labour and skill...When Firoz Shah first beheld these columns, he was filled with admiration, and resolved to remove them with great care as trophies to Delhi.

Khizrabad is ninety kos [162 miles] from Delhi, in the vicinity of the hills. When the Sultan visited that district, and saw the column in the village of Tobra, he resolved to remove it to Delhi, and there to erect it as a memorial to future generations.


‘Afif goes on to describe the lowering of the lat onto a bed of silk cotton and the removal of a large square stone at its base. The lat was then wrapped with reeds and raw skins and transported by carriage to a boat on the Jumna which carried it downstream to Firuzabad. The task required the labor of thousands of men.

When the pillar was brought to the palace, a building was commenced for its reception, near the jami' masjid, and the most skillful architects and workmen were employed. It was constructed of stone and chunam, and consisted of several stages or steps [poshish]. When a step was finished the column was raised on to it, another step was then built and the pillar was again raised, and so on in succession until it reached the intended height. On arriving at this stage, other contrivances had to be devised to place it in an erect position...

The square stone, before spoken of, was placed under the pillar. After it was raised, some ornamental friezes of black and white stone were placed round its two capitals [do sar-i an], and over these there was raised a gilded copper cupola, called in Hindi kalas. The height of the obelisk was thirty-two gaz; eight gaz was sunk in its pedestal, and twenty-four gaz was visible. On the base of the obelisk there were engraved several lines of writing in Hindi characters. Many Brahmans and Hindu devotees were invited to read them, but no one was able. 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 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. The author continues:

Every great king took care during his reign to set up some lasting memorial of his power. So Sultan Shams al-Din Iltutmish raised the large pillar in the masjid-i jama' at old Delhi, the history of which is well known.

In these days, in the year 801 H (1398 A.D.), Amir Timur, of Khurasan, has marched into India, and by the will of fate has subdued the empire of Hindustan. During his stay of some days in Delhi, he inspected all the monuments of former kings,...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.


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. ‘Afif wrote the Ta’rikh around 1400, after Timur’s capture of Delhi in 801/1398-1399, over thirty years after the event. He also mentions that he was only twelve years of age when he witnessed the raising of the lat but his recollection of it concurs for the most part with another account in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi.8 [‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 351.] This text also describes Firuz Shah’s discovery, removal and erection of the lat in the kotla.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. [1600 A.D.] and refers to to the twentieth regnal year of Firuz Shah (772/1370).] In fact, the Sirat notes that Firuz Shah saw the pillar for a second time before deciding to move it. 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 author also does not mention any details concerning the construction of the mosque, its existence being implied. Instead, he concentrates on details of the construction of the lat pyramid.

The King of Islam now prayed to the Almighty God that he may be enabled to remove the stone pillar and re-erect it near the Jum’ah mosque of the Javan [Jumna]. The sages and wise men of the time were simply astonished at the sight, and though they dived deep into the sea of thought they succeeded not in bringing out the pearl of the solution of these secrets -- namely whence and how this heavy and lofty stone monolith was brought to this place and what were the exact engineering methods employed in its erection here. Verily such an achievement could hardly have been accomplished by human beings for the simple reason that it is beyond the powers of Man...

Such were the things which the King heard; [but] as he was determined to remove the pillar he said "By the grace of the Creator, who sees and hears everything, we shall remove this lofty pillar and make a minar of it in the Jum’ah Mosque of Firozabad where, God willing, it shall stand as long as the world endures.” So the King ordered the engineers and all the wise, shrewd, and ingenuous men of the time to devise, each according to his own intelligence, understanding and ingenuity, the means of taking down the pillar, its removal to Firozabad, which is the resort of all the occupants of the inhabited quarters, and its re-erection in the Jum’ah Mosque of Firozabad and to let the king know of the various methods they would suggest.


But, the author continues to say that the wisest men were not able to advise the king and only Firuz Shah possessed the "sound knowledge and perfect wisdom" to achieve the task deemed impossible by them.

Although the author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi is unknown, his detailed account of virtually every step of the process and his understanding of the complicated engineering skill involved indicate that he was an eye-witness. His deference to the sultan’s talents suggests that he was also close to the court.10 [Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 33.]

As the managing director of political messaging firm, Cambridge Analytica explained to a supposed client, things don’t “need to be true, as long as they’re believed . . . . It’s all about emotion, it’s all about emotion” (Golgowski, 2018).

When emotion trumps evidence, gullibility ensues. And like the “crafty serpent” in the creation story, said Pope Francis, fake news uses mimicry (of real news)—a “sly and dangerous form of seduction that worms its way into the heart.” One wonders if he had a certain master manipulator in mind when quoting Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov: “People who lie to themselves and listen to their own lie come to such a pass that they cannot distinguish the truth within them, or around them, and so lose all respect for themselves and for others.”...

Public gullibility ... is partly explained by the power of mere repetition. Much as mere exposure to unfamiliar stimuli breeds liking, so mere repetition can make things believable (Dechêne et al., 2010; Moons et al., 2009; Schwarz, Newman, & Leach, 2017). In elections, advertising exposure helps make an unfamiliar candidate into a familiar one, which partially explain why, in U.S. congressional elections, the candidate with the most money wins 91 percent of the time (Lowery, 2014).

Hal Arkes (1990) has called repetition’s power “scary.” Repeated lies can displace hard truths. Even repeatedly saying that a claim is false can, when discounted amid other true and false claims, lead older adults later to misremember it as true (Skurnik et al., 2005). As we forget the discounting, our lingering familiarity with a claim can also make it seem credible....

Moreover, falsehoods fly fast. On Twitter, lies have wings. In one analysis of 126,000 stories tweeted by 3 million people, falsehoods—especially false political news—“diffused significantly farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth” (Vosought, Roy, & Aral, 2018). Compared to true stories, falsehoods often are more emotionally dramatic, novel, and seemingly newsworthy. As Jonathan Swift (1710) anticipated, “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it” (or in later renditions, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes”).

Retractions of previously provided information also rarely work—people tend to remember the original story, not the retraction
(Ecker 2011; Lewandowsky 2012). Courtroom attorneys understand this, which is why they will say something that might be retracted on objection, knowing the jury will remember it anyway. Better than counteracting a falsehood is providing an alternative simple story—and repeating that several times (Ecker 2011; Schwarz 2007).

Mere repetition of a statement not only increases our memory of it, but also serves to increase the ease with which it spills off our tongue. And with this increased fluency comes increased believability (McGlone & Tofighbakhsh, 2000). Other factors, such as rhyming, further increase fluency and believability. “Haste makes waste” says nothing more than “rushing causes mistakes,” but it seems more true. What makes for fluency (familiarity, rhyming) also makes for believability. O. J. Simpson’s attorney understood this when crafting his linguistic slam dunk: “If [the glove] doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”

In his astonishingly perceptive Novum Organuum, published in 1620, Francis Bacon anticipated the modern science of gullibility by identifying “idols” or fallacies of the human mind. Consider, for example, his description of what today’s psychological scientists know as the availability heuristic—the human tendency to estimate the commonality of an event based on its mental availability (often influenced by its vividness or distinctiveness):

The human understanding is most excited by that which strikes and enters the mind at once and suddenly, and by which the imagination is immediately filled and inflated. It then begins almost imperceptibly to conceive and suppose that everything is similar to the few objects which have taken possession of the mind.


As Gordon Allport (1954, p. 9) said, “Given a thimbleful of [dramatic] facts we rush to make generalizations as large as a tub.”...

Bacon’s human fallacies also included our tendency to welcome information that supports our views, and to discount what does not:

The human understanding, when any proposition has been once laid down (either from general admission and belief, or from the pleasure it affords), forces everything else to add fresh support and confirmation....


Again, Bacon foresaw the point: “The human understanding is no dry light, but receives an infusion from the will and affections. . . . For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes.”...

Human intuition has powers, but also perils. “The first principle,” said physicist Richard Feynman (1974), “is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” In hundreds of experiments, people have overrated their eyewitness recollections, their interviewee assessments, and their stock-picking talents. Often we misjudge reality, and then we display belief perseverance when facing disconfirming information. As one unknown wag said, “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.” For this gullibility, our statistical intuition is partly to blame....

“The human understanding,” said Bacon, is “prone to suppose the existence of more order and regularity in the world than it finds.” In our eagerness to make sense of our world, we see patterns. People may perceive a face on the Moon, hear Satanic messages in music played backward, or perceive Jesus’ image on a grilled cheese sandwich. It is one of the curious facts of life that even in random data, we often find order (Falk 2009; Nickerson, 2002, 2005)....

As determined pattern-seekers, we therefore sometimes fool ourselves. We see illusory correlations. We perceive causal links where there are none. We may even make sense out of nonsense, by believing that astrological predictions predict the future, that gambling strategies can defy chance, or that superstitious rituals will trigger good luck. As Pascal recognized, “All superstition is much the same . . . deluded believers observe events which are fulfilled, but neglect and pass over their failure, though it be much more common.”...

Human gullibility feeds on fake news, mere repetition, vivid anecdotes, self-confirming assessments, self-justification, and statistical misinformation, and is then further amplified as people network with like-minded others. In one of my early experiments with George Bishop, high- and low-prejudice high school students were grouped with kindred spirits for discussion of racial issues, such as a case of property rights clashing with open housing. Our finding, and that of many other experiments since, was that like minds polarize (Figure 5; Myers & Bishop, 1970). Separation + conversation [leads to] polarization....

Within this echo-chamber of the like-minded, group polarization happens. Therefore, what begins as gullibility may become toxic. Views become more extreme. Suspicion may escalate into obsession. Disagreements with the other tribe can intensify to demonization. Disapproval may inflate to loathing....

The result of gullibility-producing biases and polarization is overconfidence in one’s own wisdom. Such overconfidence—what researchers have called cognitive conceit—comes naturally. For example, when people’s answers to factual questions—“Which is longer, the Panama or the Suez Canal?” “Is absinthe a liqueur or a precious stone?”—are 60 percent of the time correct, they will typically feel 75 percent confident (Fischhoff 1977; Metcalfe, 1998).

Overconfidence—the bias that Daniel Kahneman (2015), if given a magic wand, would most like to eliminate—feeds political misjudgment. Philip Tetlock (1998, 2005) gathered 27,000+ expert predictions of world events, such as whether Quebec would separate from Canada, or the future of South Africa. His finding: Like stock brokers, gamblers, and everyday citizens, they were more confident than correct. The experts’ predictions, made with 80 percent confidence on average, were right less than 40 percent of the time.

Citizens with a shallow understanding of complex proposals, such as cap-and-trade or a flat tax, may nevertheless express strong views. As the now-famous Dunning-Krueger effect reminds us, incompetence can ironically feed overconfidence (Krueger & Dunning, 1999). The less people know, the less aware they are of their own ignorance and the more definite they may sound. Asking them to explain the details of these policies exposes them to their own ignorance, which often leads them to express more moderate views (Fernbach 2013). “No one can see his own errors,” wrote the Psalmist (19:12, GNB). But to confront one’s own ignorance is to become wiser....

Science encourages a marriage of open curiosity with skepticism. “If you are only skeptical,” noted Carl Sagan (1987), “then no new ideas make it through to you.” But a smart mind also restrains gullibility by thinking critically. It asks, “What do you mean” and “How do you know”? “Openness to new ideas, combined with the most rigorous, skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, sifts the wheat from the chaff,” Sagan (1996, p. 31) added. Education is an antidote to what Sagan (1996, p. 25) feared—a future for his grandchildren in which “our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.” Happily, education works. It can train people to recognize how errors and biases creep into their thinking (Nisbett, 2015; Nisbett & Ross, 1980). It can engage analytic thinking: “Activate misconceptions and then explicitly refute them,” advise Alan Bensley and Scott Lilienfeld (2017; see also Chan et al., 2017). It can harness the powers of repetition, availability, and the like to teach true information (Schwarz 2017). And thus, at the end of the day, it can and does predict decreased gullible acceptance of conspiracy theories (van Prooijen, 2017)....

Truth matters.

-- Psychological Science Meets a Gullible Post-Truth World, by David G. Myers


This pillar, high as the heaven, is made of a single block of stone and tapers upward, being broad at the base and narrow at the top.

Seen from a hundred farsang it looks like a hillock of gold, as the Sun when it spreads its rays in the morning.

No bird -- neither eagle, nor crane -- can fly as high as its top; and arrows, whether khadang or khatai, cannot reach to its middle.

If thunder were to rage about the top of this pillar, no one could hear the sound owing to the great distance [between the top of the pillar and the ground].

O God! how did they lift this heavy mountain [i.e., the pillar]?; and in what did they fix it [so firmly] that it does not move from its place?

How did they carry it to the top of the building which almost touches the heavens and place it there [in its upright position]?

How could they paint it all over with gold, [so beautifully] that it appears to the people like the golden morning!

Is it the lote-tree of paradise [tuba] which the angels may have planted in this world or is it the heavenly ''sidrah" which the people imagine to be a mountain?

Its foundations have been filled with iron and stone; and its trunk and branches [i.e., shaft and capital] are made of gold and corals.

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 ...

Hyperbolic descriptions of the monument’s height given in verses of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi are clearly exaggerated ...

Viewed from a distance, the monument appears to sweep upward, no doubt a desired effect and
one which conforms to the exaggerated descriptions of its height in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi.


Neither Khwajah Nizamuddin Ahmad Bakshi [1551-1621 CE] or Firishta [1560-1620 CE] [or Ziauddin Barani (1285–1358 CE )] were aware of ‘Afif's Tarikh-i Firuz Shahi [or Mr. Anonymous’ Sirat-i Firuz Shahi] ...

The Asokan column is not mentioned by any contemporary author ...

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 ...
 
The details of the discovery and transport of this Asokan lat are provided in the Sirat-i Firuz Shah /// ‘Afif mentions the transport of two columns, the second being placed in the kuskh-i shikar ...
 
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 ['Afif and Anonymous of the Sirat] corroborate that it functioned as a minar for the adjacent mosque ...
 
‘Afif mentions in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi that neither Brahmans or Hindu devotees of Topra were able to decipher them /// The author of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi concurs that the inscriptions were "unintelligible."…
 
The Sirat mentions that the discovery of the lat occurred in 769/1367, after the conquest of Sind /// ‘Afif mentions the transport of two columns, the second being placed in the kuskh-i shikar, the event taking place in 764/1367 ...
 
‘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 /// The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi also makes several references to the Topra column as a minar ...


-- 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


From the Catalogue it appears that nothing is known about the author of Sirat-i-Firozshahi but the verse at the end of the manuscript assigns the work to A.H. 772 (A.D. 1370). i.e., the twentieth year of the reign of Firoz Shah. Sirat-i-Firozshahi thus chronicles the events of the earlier part of Firoz Shah's reign.
God said it, I believe it, That settles it.

-- Memoirs Of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 52: A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi, by J.A. Page, A.R.I.B.A., Late Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, With a Translation of Sirat-i-Firozshahi by Mohammad Hamid Kuraishi, B.A., Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, 1937


The Sirat provides a long detailed account of the process of lowering the pillar and placing it on a cart in order to move it to the riverbank. Devices contrived of ropes and pulleys are described to the smallest detail. The lat was successfully loaded onto the boat which carried it to Firuzabad. The following extracts from this narrative are examples of the author’s penchant for detail.11 [Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, pp. 38-39.]

From the boat [the King ordered that], the pillar should be removed and carried to the mosque at Firozabad, just in the same way as it had been carried on the cart before and shiftôl from the cart on to the boat; so that by the grace of God Almighty the pillar may be erected in the mosque; and whatever the King had wished or intended God was gracious enough to grant.

The King of Islam ordered that a large pit sixty-one yards square be dug to a depth of seven yards, and that it be filled in with stone and mortar [masonry], until the masonry is level with the ground surface, where it should measure only 60 yards square. To these dimensions it [the plinth] should be raised to a height of three yards of which the lower yard may be left out of consideration and the top of the remaining two yards considered as the floor of a series of arched chambers. Thus the walls of the chambers shall commence at a height of three yards [from the ground surface] and raised to a height of six yards and a half, the roof being eight yards wide and serving as the floor of the second storey.

Above this should be constructed on [intersecting] arches, the second or middle storey forty-four yards square, six yards and a half in height with its roof eight yards wide and forming the floor of the third storey.

And the third storey of this building should be 28 yards square in plan. Of this, a space of nine yards in width on all four sides should be covered by eight domes, leaving a space of ten yards square in the centre where the pillar shall have to be erected. On this central space should be constructed, very carefully, a pakka masonry platform with stone and mortar. The third storey should also be six yards and a half in height, the total height of all the three stories together being 22 yards and a half.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Fri Dec 17, 2021 7:04 am

Part 2 of 10

Image
Plate II

Image


Image
Plate III

Image
Plate IV

Image
Plate V

The Sirat passages were accompanied by nine illustrations, believed to be copied from illustrations in an original fourteenth century manuscript.

These illustrations are schematic renderings, from bird’s-eye perspective, of the steps of the process. Four of them, which include architectural plans, are presented here. One (Plate II) depicts the arrival of the pillar on its cart in front of the mosque of Firuzabad. The ground plan of the mosque and its gate are shown in disproportionate scale. However the ground plans represented in these illustrations are remarkably similar to the actual structure. A second illustration (Plate III) depicts the pillar being raised to the first storey of the pyramidal foundation. Two other illustrations (Plates IV and V) represent the second and third floors respectively.

The height of these three stories and the column is described in the Sirat as forty-two and a half yards from the ground level. A capital was placed on top of the pillar which brought the total height of the monument to an even fifty yards. The capital, made of colored stones, consisted of a pedestal, a myrobalam-shaped ornament, a globe, and a crescent.12

[Fn. 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 finial, 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.


end of FN. 12]

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


At the four corners of the third storey were placed four figures of lions, each measuring 4 yards square and 5 yards in height. Neither these lions nor the capital mentioned in the Sirat survive. The sculpted lions are not mentioned in any other account but the capital is referred to by several observers. [???] The Sirat also mentions that the pillar was polished and gilded and describes the splendor of the lat in poetic terms: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.]

This pillar, high as the heaven, is made of a single block of stone and tapers upward, being broad at the base and narrow at the top.

Seen from a hundred farsang it looks like a hillock of gold, as the Sun when it spreads its rays in the morning.

No bird -- neither eagle, nor crane -- can fly as high as its top; and arrows, whether khadang or khatai, cannot reach to its middle.

If thunder were to rage about the top of this pillar, no one could hear the sound owing to the great distance [between the top of the pillar and the ground].

O God! how did they lift this heavy mountain [i.e., the pillar]?; and in what did they fix it [so firmly] that it does not move from its place?

How did they carry it to the top of the building which almost touches the heavens and place it there [in its upright position]?

How could they paint it all over with gold, [so beautifully] that it appears to the people like the golden morning!

Is it the lote-tree of paradise [tuba] which the angels may have planted in this world or is it the heavenly ''sidrah" which the people imagine to be a mountain?

Its foundations have been filled with iron and stone; and its trunk and branches [i.e., shaft and capital] are made of gold and corals.


The lat was raised on the north side of the monument which was closed in after the lat was firmly implanted in its base.

Another characteristic common to many religions is identified as atonement: "Man has always felt the need for clemency. This is the origin of the frightening penances to which the bonzes, brahmins, and fakirs subject themselves" (p. 205). For the Indian cult of the lingam, he also found Mediterranean counterparts in "the procession of the phallum of the Egyptians and the priapus of the Romans" (p. 205). Voltaire thought it "probable that this custom was introduced in times of simplicity and that at first people only thought of honoring the divinity through the symbol of the life it gave to us" (p. 205). These interpretations show how eager Voltaire was to find vestiges of monotheism even in ideas and cults that not so long ago would have elicited harsh words of condemnation or ridicule....
Would you believe that among so many extravagant opinions and bizarre superstitions these Indian heathens all recognize, as we do, an infinitely perfect being? Whom they call the being of beings, the sovereign being, invisible, incomprehensible, formless, creator, and preserver, just and merciful, who deigns to impart himself to the people to guide them to eternal happiness? These ideas are contained in the Vedam, which is the book of the ancient brachmanes. They are spread in modern books of the brahmins. (p. 206)...

In fact, the ideas mentioned by Voltaire -- "the being of beings, the sovereign being, invisible, incomprehensible, formless, creator, and preserver, just and merciful, who deigns to impart himself to the people to guide them to eternal happiness" -- were culled in almost identical sequence from a longer passage in La Croze, which reads as follows (words taken over by Voltaire are italicized):
The infinitely perfect Being is known to all these gentile pagans. They call it in their language Barabara Vastou, that is, the Being of Beings. Here is how they describe it in one of their books. "The Sovereign Being is invisible and incomprehensible, immobile and without shape or exterior form. Nobody has ever seen it; time has not included it: his essence fills all things, and all things have their origin from him. All power, all wisdom, all knowledge [science], all sanctity, and all truth are in him. He is infinitely good, just, and merciful. It is he who has created all, preserves all, and who enjoys to be among men in order to guide them to eternal happiness, the happiness that consists in loving and serving him." (La Croze 1724:452)

With regard to the lingam cult Voltaire also followed La Croze and indirectly Ziegenbalg. La Croze had explained that "the lingum ... is a symbolic representation of God ... but only represents God as he materializes himself in creation," (p. 455) while Voltaire speculated that this cult "was introduced in times of simplicity and that at first people only thought of honoring the divinity through the symbol of the life it gave to us" (Voltaire 1756:3.205).

At this point, Voltaire leaned toward India as the earliest human civilization (1756:1.30) and believed that the most ancient text of this civilization was called Vedam and contained a simple and pure monotheism. So he must have been elated when a reader of his 1756 Essai, Louis-Laurent de Federbe, Chevalier (later Comte) DE MAUDAVE (1725-77), wrote to him from India two or three years after publication of the Essai. Maudave had left in May 1757 for India and in 1758 participated in the capture of Fort St. David and the siege of Madras (Rocher 1984:77). While stationed in South India, Maudave had gotten hold of French translations from the Vedam and decided to write a letter to Voltaire. Having read the Japan chapter of the 1756 Essai, he knew how interested Voltaire was In finding documentation for ancient Indian monotheism through the Vedam. In the margin of a page of his Ezour-vedam manuscript (which he later passed on to Voltaire), Maudave scribbled next to two prayers to God: "Copy these prayers in the letter to M. de Voltaire" (p. 80).32 Though these prayers are nor found in the extant fragment of Maudave's letter, it is likely that Maudave included them in order to document the existence of pure monotheism in the Vedam. The second major point of Voltaire's 1756 Essai that Maudave addressed in his letter was the cult of the lingam.33 In his discussion, Maudave quoted the Ezour-vedam as textual witness and offered to send Voltaire a replica of a Linga and a copy of the Ezour-vedam (Rocher 1984:48).

-- The Birth of Orientalism, by Urs App


A pavement of marble, red, and black stones was laid at its base and a corridor (sabat) was then constructed between the lat (south side) and the north side of the mosque. This corridor has disappeared but, despite skepticism about its existence, a nineteenth century watercolor rendering of the mosque and pyramid depicts it (Plate VI).[???!!!] 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.]

Image
Plate VI

[From 'Reminiscences of Imperial Delhi’, an album consisting of 89 folios containing approximately 130 paintings of views of the Mughal and pre-Mughal monuments of Delhi, as well as other contemporary material, with an accompanying manuscript text written by Sir Thomas Theophilus Metcalfe (1795-1853), the Governor-General’s Agent at the imperial court. Acquired with the assistance of the Heritage Lottery Fund and of the National Art-Collections Fund.]

Image
The Kotla of Firoz Shah with the Ashokan pillar viewed from the west, with the gateway of the adjacent mosque. Author: Metcalfe, Sir Thomas Theophilus (1795-1853). Medium: Ink and colours on paper. Date: 1843.

[The Kotla of Firoz Shah with the Ashokan pillar viewed from the west, with the gateway of the adjacent mosque. Firoz Shah Kotla, the citadel of the city of Firuzabad, was founded by Feroz Shah Tughlaq (r.1351-88) in 1354. Firuzabad extended from Hauz Khas to the banks of the Yamuna. Only some ramparts and ruined structures survive. The remains of a pyramidical structure, topped by the Ashokan pillar, stands out. The pillar was brought here by Feroz Shah from Ambala, and is the second column of Mauryan Emperor Ashoka (r.c.272-31). It was the first Ashokan pillar to be deciphered by James Princep in 1837, giving the key to the Brahmi script.]  

Inscribed: naqsha-i kotla-i Firuz Shah Badshah. Mazhar ‘Ali Khan.

Feroze (‘Propitious’) Shah’s (‘King’) Laut (‘Pillar. Club’) is situated in the immediate environs of the city on the High road from the Dehlie Gate towards Muttra. The building on which the Laut now stands was constructed by the Emperor Feroze Shah as a Shekargah or Hunting place. He reigned at Dehlie between the years AD 1351 and 1388 in the last of which he died at the age of 90. But the pillar must have been erected as a Hindoo Monument at a much earlier period, for one of the inscriptions records a date of 1220 of the Hindoo Era, corresponding with AD 1164, or 29 years before the conquest of Dehlie by Shahabodeen (‘Strength of the Faith’) Ghoree [Mu'izz ad-Din Muhammad born Shihab ad-Din] (‘name of a particular family or dynasty’). The height of the pillar now visible above the building is about 37 feet, and its circumference where it forms the terrace is about 10 feet 4 inches; it is composed of a single stone, and tradition asserts that only 1/3 is visible, the remaining 2/3 being buried in the earth. The structure originally consisted of three stories, and used, accorded to current opinion, partly as a menagerie and partly as an aviary.

The Emperor’s reign of 38 years though not brilliant in other respects was distinguished for the enlightened spirit of his Regulations and the extent and utility of his Public Works amongst the latter and the greatest of all is the canal from the Jumna to the district of Hansie and Hissar and still called by his name.

Image
The Kotla of Firoz Shah with the Ashokan pillar, View from the south of the Kotla. Author: Metcalfe, Sir Thomas Theophilus (1795-1853). Medium: Ink and colours on paper. Date: 1843.

[View from the south over the ruined palace and mosque of the Kotla on the river bank, towards the Ashokan pillar. Once the largest mosque in Delhi, now only the rear wall survives. It is believed that Timur, the Mongol conqueror, who sacked Delhi in 1398, came to this mosque for his prayers.]

Inscribed: naqsha-i qil‘a-i kotla-i Firuz Shah bar lab-i darya.

The second view represents a portion of the old Palace built by the same Emperor, but now past falling into decay. On my first arrival in Dehly in 1813, and indeed for many years subsequent, the Hall of Audience here represented was in perfect condition. The roof has of late fallen in with part of the front walk, and a portion of the room in which the Emperor Alumgeer the 2nd was murdered, and by the door way nearest to the river (as shown in the drawing) stills exists, through which the lifeless body of the Emperor was cast out upon the sand, where it lay for several days uninterred and almost unnoticed.

In the background are seen the minarets of the Zeenut ool Musajid (vide page 33 [f. 36]) and the Bridge of Boats constructed by the local authorities over the River Jumna. The Emperor Ahmud (‘Praiseworthy’) Shah {‘King’) having been deposed and blinded in July AD 1734 [i.e. 1754], by Ghaziodeen (‘the Hero of the Faith’) his commander in chief, one of the Princes of the Blood Royal, a son of the former Emperor Jahandar

-- The Kotla of Firoz Shah with the Ashokan pillar, by British Library Online Gallery


In the concluding paragraphs of the Sirat chapter, the author writes:15 [Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 42.]

And after it had remained an object of worship of the polytheists and infidels for so many thousands of years, through the efforts of Sultan Firoz Shah and by the grace of God, it became the minar of a place of worship [masjid] for the Faithful...

And from the taking down of this heavy pillar from its old site to its reerection at Firozabad, none but his Majesty, whose rule be perpetuated, had any say in the matter of general plans or particular details.

 
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. From evidence presented in ‘Afif's Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi and the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, the lat pyramid was constructed simply to provide a foundation plinth for the lat and to raise it to a position from which it could be seen. Both authors corroborate that it functioned as a minar for the adjacent mosque.

The Hindus and idol-worshipers had agreed to pay the money for toleration (zar-i zimmiya) and had consented to the poll tax (jizya), in return for which they and their families enjoyed security. These people now erected new idol temples in the city and the environs in opposition to the Law of the Prophet which declares that such temples are not to be tolerated. Under Divine guidance I destroyed these edifices, and I killed those leaders of infidelity who seduced others into error, and the lower orders I subjected to stripes and chastisement, until this abuse was entirely abolished. The following is an instance: — In the village of Maluh there is a tank which they call kund (tank). Here they had built idol-temples, and on certain days the Hindus were accustomed to proceed thither on horseback, and wearing arms. Their women and children also went out in palankins and carts. There they assembled in thousands and performed idol worship. This abuse had been so overlooked that the bazar people took out there all sorts of provisions, and set up stalls and sold their goods. Some graceless Musulmans, thinking only of their own gratification, took part in these meetings. When intelligence of this came to my ears my religious feelings prompted me at once to put a stop to this scandal and offence to the religion of Islam. On the day of the assembling I went there in person, and I ordered that the leaders of these people and the promoters of this abomination should be put to death. I forbad the infliction of any severe punishments on the Hindus in general, but I destroyed their idol temples, and instead thereof raised mosques. I founded two flourishing towns (kasba), one called Tughlikpur, the other Salarpur. Where infidels and idolaters worshiped idols, Musulmans now, by God's mercy, perform their devotions to the true God. Praises of God and the summons to prayer are now heard there, and that place which was formerly the home of infidels has become the habitation of the faithful, who there repeat their creed and offer up their praises to God.

Information was brought to me that some Hindus had erected a new idol-temple in the village of Salihpur, and were performing worship to their idol. I sent some persons there to destroy the idol temple, and to put a stop to their pernicious incitements to error.

Some Hindus had erected a new idol-temple in the village of Kohana
, and the idolaters used to assemble there and perform their idolatrous rites. These people were seized and brought before me. I ordered that the perverse conduct of the leaders of this wickedness should be publicly proclaimed, and that they should be put to death before the gate of the palace. I also ordered that the infidel books, the idols, and the vessels used in their worship, which had been taken with them, should all be publicly burnt. The others were restrained by threats and punishments, as a warning to all men, that no zimmi could follow such wicked practices in a Musulman country.

-- XVII. Futuhat-i Firoz Shahi of Sultan Firoz Shah, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 374, 1871


In 1000, the first wave of Muslim invasions began, when Mahmud of Ghazni swept down from Afghanistan into the Indus plains and plundered the Hindu temples of their vast wealth of jewellery, money and golden images.  

It was too easy and too profitable, and he came back year after year for more. In 1024, greedy and emboldened, he marched as far as Somnath, on the west coast in what is now the state of Gujarat.

Somnath, it is said, possessed the richest and most magnificent Hindu temple in India, where every day 1,000 Brahmins worshipped the enormous lingam or phallus, emblem of the god Shiva, 13.5ft high and 4.5ft in circumference, while 300 men and women danced before it.

When they learned that Mahmud was heading their way, the Hindus persuaded themselves that Shiva had lured him to Somnath only to punish him, and they put up only feeble and unorganised resistance.


In the ensuing massacre, according to nationalist historians, 50,000 Hindus were killed and the temple was razed to the ground. The holy lingam was smashed and carried to Ghazni in fragments, which were embedded, with vicious symbolism, in the steps of the chief mosque.


A ritual of invasion, depredation and humiliation was under way. After Mahmud, there was no end to it: Muizzu'd Din in the 12th century, the Turkish "slave" dynasty and the Delhi Sultanate in the 13th, the Tughluqs in the 14th.

In 1398, Timur the Lame, known more familiarly to us as Tamberlaine, a devout Muslim, the "scourge of God", roared in from the north-west and laid north India to waste. In the space of six months he is believed to have been responsible for 5 million deaths.

And so it went on. When the Mughal Empire was founded in Delhi in 1526, Mughals, of course, being Muslims, too, the Mongol descendants of Timur and Ghengis Khan, Islamic looting and plundering had become as much a fact of north-Indian life as the sun going down.

-- Why can't Hindus and Muslims get along together? It's a long story, by Peter Popham, 01 June 1998, independent.co.uk


A significant indentation on the middle section of the pillar, approximately 4 m (13 ft) from the current courtyard ground level, has been shown to be the result of a cannonball fired at close range. The impact caused horizontal fissuring of the column in the area diametrically opposite to the indentation site, but the column itself remained intact. While no contemporaneous records, inscriptions, or documents describing the event are known to exist, historians generally agree that Nadir Shah is likely to have ordered the pillar's destruction during his invasion of Delhi in 1739, as he would have considered a Hindu temple monument undesirable within an Islamic mosque complex.

-- Iron pillar of Delhi, by Wikipedia
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Fri Dec 17, 2021 9:03 am

Part 3 of 10

During his conquest of Delhi, Timur visited the mosque and is said to have had the khutba recited in it. [???!!!] Timur writes in the Malfuzat-i Timuri, his memoirs: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.]

I started from Delhi and marched three kos [5.4 miles] to the fort of Firozabad, which stands on the banks of the Jumna, and is one of the edifices erected by Sultan Firoz Shah. There I halted and went in to examine the palace. I proceeded to the masjid-i jami', where I said my prayers and offered up my praises and thanksgivings for the mercies of the Almighty. Afterwards I again mounted, and proceeded to pitch my camp near the palace of Jahannuma.


Although he does not refer specifically to Firuz Shah’s mosque in the kotla, he admired the monuments of the Delhi sultans and desired to emulate their building projects in Samarqand. [???!!!] 17 [Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 448-449.]

I ordered that all the artisans and clever mechanics, who were masters of their respective crafts, should be picked out from among the prisoners and set aside and accordingly some thousands of craftsmen were selected to await my command. All these I distributed among the princes and amirs who were present, or who were engaged officially in other parts of my dominions. I had determined to build a masjid-i jami' in Samarkand, the seat of my empire, which should be without a rival in any country; so I ordered that all builders and stone-masons should be set apart for my own especial service.


PAGES 445-451

Sack of the City of Dehli.

On the 16th of the month some incidents occurred which led to the sack of the city of Dehli, and to the slaughter of many of the infidel inhabitants. One was this. A party of fierce Turk soldiers had assembled at one of the gates of the city to look about them and enjoy themselves, and some of them laid violent hands upon the goods of the inhabitants. When I heard of this violence, I sent some amirs, who were present in the city, to restrain the Turks. A party of soldiers accompanied these amirs into the city. Another reason was that some of the ladies of my harem expressed a wish to go into the city and see the palace of Hazar-sutun (thousand columns) which Malik Jauna [Muhammad bin Tughluq] built in the fort called Jahan-panah. I granted this request, and I sent a party of soldiers to escort the litters of the ladies.
Muhammad bin Tughluq (also known as Prince Fakhr Malik Jauna Khan , Ulugh Khan); c. 1290 – 20 March 1351) was the Sultan of Delhi from 1325 to 1351. He was the eldest son of Ghiyas-ud-Din-Tughlaq, the founder of the Tughluq dynasty. Ghiyas-ud-din sent the young Muhammad to the Deccan to campaign against king Prataparudra of the Kakatiya dynasty whose capital was at Warangal in 1321 and 1323. Muhammad has been described as an "inhuman eccentric" with bizarre character by the accounts of visitors during his rule, he is said to have ordered the massacre of all the inhabitants of the Hindu city of Kannauj. He is also known for wild policy swings. Muhammad ascended to the Delhi throne upon his father's death in 1325. He was interested in medicine and was skilled in several languages — Persian, Arabic, Turkish and Sanskrit. Ibn Battuta, the famous traveler and jurist from Morocco, was a guest at his court and wrote about his suzerainty in his book.

-- Muhammad bin Tughluq, by Wikipedia

Another reason was that Jalal Islam and other diwans had gone into the city with a party of soldiers to collect the contribution laid upon the city. Another reason was that some thousand troopers with orders for grain, oil, sugar, and flour, had gone into the city to collect these supplies. Another reason was that it had come to my knowledge that great numbers of Hindus and gabrs, with their wives and children, and goods, and valuables, had come into the city from all the country round, and consequently I had sent some amirs with their regiments (kushun) into the city and directed them to pay no attention to the remonstrances of the inhabitants, but to seize and bring out these fugitives. For these several reasons a great number of fierce Turki soldiers were in the city. When the soldiers proceeded to apprehend the Hindus and gabrs who had fled to the city, many of them drew their swords and offered resistance. The flames of strife were thus lighted and spread through the whole city from Jahanpanah and Siri to Old Dehli, burning up all it reached. The savage Turks fell to killing and plundering. The Hindus set fire to their houses with their own hands, burned their wives and children in them, and rushed into the fight and were killed. The Hindus and gabrs of the city showed much alacrity and boldness in fighting. The amirs who were in charge of the gates prevented any more soldiers from going into the place, but the flames of war had risen too high for this precaution to be of any avail in extinguishing them. On that day, Thursday, and all the night of Friday, nearly 15,000 Turks were engaged in slaying, plundering, and destroying. When morning broke on the Friday, all my army, no longer under control, went off to the city and thought of nothing but killing, plundering, and making prisoners. All that day the sack was general. The following day, Saturday, the 17th, all passed in the same way, and the spoil was so great that each man secured from fifty to a hundred prisoners, men, women, and children. There was no man who took less than twenty. The other booty was immense in rubies, diamonds, garnets; pearls, and other gems; jewels of gold and silver; ashrafis, tankas of gold and silver of the celebrated 'Alai coinage; vessels of gold and silver; and brocades and silks of great value. Gold and silver ornaments of the Hindu women were obtained in such quantities as to exceed all account. Excepting the quarter of the saiyids, the 'ulama, and the other Musulmans, the whole city was sacked. The pen of fate had written down this destiny for the people of this city. Although I was desirous of sparing them I could not succeed, for it was the will of God that this calamity should fall upon the city.

On the following day, Sunday, it was brought to my knowledge that a great number of infidel Hindus had assembled in the Masjid-i jami' of Old Dehli, carrying with them arms and provisions, and were preparing to defend themselves. Some of my people who had gone that way on business were wounded by them. I immediately ordered Amir Shah Malik and 'Ali Sultan Tawachl to take a party of men and proceed to clear the house of God from infidels and idolaters. They accordingly attacked these infidels and put them to death. Old Dehli then was plundered.

I ordered that all the artisans and clever mechanics, who were masters of their respective crafts, should be picked out from among the prisoners and set aside, and accordingly some thousands of craftsmen were selected to await my command. All these I distributed among the princes and amirs who were present, or who were engaged officially in other parts of my dominions. I had determined to build a Masjid-i jami' in Samarkand, the seat of my empire, which should be without a rival in any country; so I ordered that all builders and stonemasons should be set apart for my own especial service.

By the will of God, and by no wish or direction of mine, all the three cities of Dehli, by name Siri, Jahan-panah, and Old Dehli, had been plundered. The khutba of my sovereignty, which is an assurance of safety and protection, had been read in the city. It was therefore my earnest wish that no evil might happen to the people of the place. But it was ordained by God that the city should be ruined. He therefore inspired the infidel inhabitants with a spirit of resistance, so that they brought on themselves that fate which was inevitable.

When my mind was no longer occupied with the destruction of the people of Dehli, I took a ride round the cities. Siri is a round city (shahr). Its buildings are lofty. They are surrounded by fortifications (kala'h), built of stone and brick, and they are very strong. Old Dehli also has a similar strong fort, but it is larger than that of Siri. From the fort of Siri to that of Old Dehli, which is a considerable distance, there runs a strong wall, built of stone and cement. The part called Jahanpanah is situated in the midst of the inhabited city (shahr-i abadan). The fortifications of the three cities have thirty gates. Jahan-panah has thirteen gates, seven on the south side bearing towards the east, and six on the north side bearing towards the west. Siri has seven gates, four towards the outside and three on the inside towards Jahan-panah. The fortifications of old Dehli have ten gates, some opening to the exterior and some towards the interior of the city. When I was tired of examining the city I went into the Masjid-i jami', where a congregation was assembled of saiyids, lawyers, skaikhs, and other of the principal Musulmans, with the inhabitants of their parts of the city, to whom they had been a protection and defence. I called them to my presence, consoled them, treated them with every respect, and bestowed upon them many presents and honours. I appointed an officer to protect their quarter of the city, and guard them against annoyance. Then I re-mounted and returned to my quarters.

Campaign against the Infidels after the conquest of Dehli.

I had been at Dehli fifteen days, which time I had passed in pleasure and enjoyment, holding royal Courts and giving great feasts. I then reflected that I had come to Hindustan to war against infidels, and my enterprize had been so blessed that wherever I had gone I had been victorious. I had triumphed over my adversaries, I had put to death some lacs [lac = 100,000] of infidels and idolaters, and I had stained my proselyting sword with the blood of the enemies of the faith. Now this crowning victory had been won, and I felt that I ought not to indulge in ease, but rather to exert myself in warring against the infidels of Hindustan.

Having made these reflections on the 22nd of Rabi'u-l akhir, I again drew my sword to wage a religious war. I started from Dehli and marched three kos [5.8 miles] to the fort of Firoz-abad, which stands upon the banks of the Jumna and is one of the edifices erected by Sultan Firoz Shah. There I halted and went in to examine the place. I proceeded to the Masjid-i jami', where I said my prayers and offered up my praises and thanksgivings for the mercies of the Almighty. Afterwards I again mounted, and proceeded to pitch my camp near the palace of Jahan-numa. On this day Saiyid Shamsu-d din Turmuzi and 'Alau-d din, naib-karkari, whom I had sent on an embassy to Bahadur Nahir at the city of Kutila,1 [See note infra page 455.] returned to my camp, and presented to me a letter which Bahadur had most respectfully written to me to the following effect: "I am one of the most insignificant servants of the great amir, and will proceed to his court to wait upon him." The ambassadors informed me that Bahadur Nahir would arrive at my court on Friday. Bahadur Nahir sent to me as a tribute two white parrots which could talk well and pleasantly. The envoys presented them to me, and told me that these two parrots had belonged to Sultan Tughlik Shah, and that they had lived at the courts of the Sultans ever since. The sight of these parrots and the sound of their voices gave me great satisfaction, so I gave directions that they should be brought before me in their cages every day that I might listen to their talk.

Next day I crossed the Jumna and marched six kos [10.8 miles] to the village of Mudula. There I halted and encamped. On the following day, Friday, I again marched, and after going five or six kos [9-10 miles], arrived at the village of Katah,2 [Or "Kanah."] where I pitched my camp. Bahadur Nahir, with his eldest son, named Kalnash,3 [The different MSS. of the Zafar-hama have "Kaltash," "Katash," and "Katlagh tash."] arrived to pay their respects, and I received them with due courtesy. They brought rare and suitable presents from Hindustan, but I looked upon the two parrots as the best of their gifts. After I had ascertained their sincerity from their words and actions, I honoured them with my royal favour and bounty, and having raised their dignity, I removed all doubt and apprehension from their minds. On the following day I marched, and, after going six kos [10.8 miles], I arrived at the town of Baghpat, where I encamped. Next day, Sunday the 26th, I again moved, and, after travelling five kos [9 miles], arrived at the village of Asar, which is situated in a tract called doab. [39 miles total]

Capture of Mirat.

I now learned that there was in the vicinity a city called Mirat, having a very strong fort. The fortress was one of the strongest in Hindustan, and it was under the command of Ilyas Afghan and his son, Maula Ahmad Thanesari. There was also a gabr named Safi, who, with a large body of gabrs, had gone into the fort to aid in its defence. They had also plenty of the munitions and implements of war. When I heard all this, I instantly sent Prince Rustam, Amir Taghi Bugha, Amir Shah Malik, and Amir Allah-dad against this fort of Mirat, with orders to grant terms to the place if the inhabitants showed due submission and obedience; but if not, to inform me and proceed to invest the place. These officers marched on the 26th of the month, and, arriving at Mirat, delivered my message, calling upon the inhabitants to capitulate, and to trust their lives, property, and honour to my protection. They replied that Tarmsharin Khan, with a host beyond all number and compute, had assailed their fort, but had retired from it baffled. My envoys reported to me the defiant answer of the inhabitants, and when I read the insolent reference they made to Tarmsharin Khan, who was a great king, my anger was roused, and I mounted my horse and gave orders for my forces to march against Mirat. On that same day, the 28th of the month, after mid-day prayer, I started with 10,000 picked horsemen. Halting one night upon the road, I accomplished the distance of twenty kos [36 miles], and arrived at Mirat on the 29th. [total 75 miles]

In the afternoon I ordered my officers to set the men of their divisions1 [The word used is "morchal," which would imply that there was a special party or corps of sappers.] to sap holes under the walls of the fortifications. In execution of this order they set to work, and in the course of one night each party had pushed their mine twelve yards forward under the defences. When the besieged discovered this, they lost all nerve and were quite cast down and bewildered. At this time the devoted regiments (kushun) of Amir Allah-dad Kuchin assaulted the gate of the fort, rushing against it shouting their war-cry. Sarai Bahadur, son of Kalandar Bahadur, one of the followers (naukar) of Amir Allah-dad, was the first to bring up a scaling ladder, attach it to the walls, and mount to the summit. A number of brave men rallied to support him, and, with the aid of their ladders and ropes, they mounted the walls and entered the fort. They then spread themselves in the interior, and, fighting vigorously and bravely, Rustam Birlas at length encountered Ilyas Afghan and his son, Maulana Ahmad Thanesari. He fought valiantly, and made them both prisoners; then, binding their hands to their necks, he brought them to my presence. Safi, who had fought well, was killed. The braves and soldiers of my army spread themselves over every part of the fortifications, and put all the gabrs and people of the place to death. Their wives and children were made prisoners, and all their property was plundered. When my mind was set at rest by this conquest of Mirat, I gave orders that the wood used as props to support the mines under the walls should be set on fire, and that all the towers and walls should be levelled with the ground. The houses of the gabrs were set on fire, and the great buildings were razed. Divine favour had thus enabled me to obtain an easy victory over Mirat, a place which Tarmsharin Khan, a prince of great dignity and power, had besieged with an enormous army and failed to capture. With a small force I had made a rapid march upon the place, and my brave fellows, by sheer courage and determination, had planted their ladders and scaled the walls in broad daylight, and had carried the place at the point of the sword. For this signal success I offered my devout thanks to the Almighty.

-- XVIII. Malfuzat-I Timuri, or Tuzak-I Timur: The Autobiography of Timur, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 389-_, 1871


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. [???!!!]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.] 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.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.] In another passage he again refers to Firuz Shah’s mosque "on the stones of which he had inscribed the history of his reign."20 [Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 286.] The inscribed slabs were allegedly located on the eight sides of an octagonal drum which supported a dome, the location of which is uncertain. But the suggestion that it was located in the center of the courtyard is archaeologically tenuous.21 [Page, A Memoir on the Kotla., p. 6.]

"The centre of the courtyard was marked by a deep pit which seems originally to have been a well, not improbably connected by galleries with the apartments on the river front, the water level being reached by some form of ghat.” An attempt was made in 1914-15 to explore this pit but as the sides proceeded to tumble in, it was thought advisable to fill it up. Thus its present treatment does not purport to indicate what previously existed here. It has been suggested that the pit formed a shaft sunk to support the foundation of a domed structure erected above it — the octagonal building bearing the engraved marble slabs recording the ordinances of the emperor and referred to by the historians of the time.

[Ferishta’s statement is as follows: — “ He caused his regulations to be carved on the masjid of Firozabad of which the following may be taken as an example. It has been usual in former times to spill Mahomedan blood on trivial occasions and, for small crimes, to mutilate and torture them, by cutting off the hands and feet, and noses and ears, by putting out eyes, by pulverising the bones of the living criminals with mallets, by burning the body with fire, by crucifixion, and by nailing the hands and feet, by flaying alive, by the operation of hamstringing, and by cutting human beings to pieces. God in his infinite goodness having been pleased to confer on me the power, has inspired me with the disposition to put an end to these practices. It is my resolution, moreover, to restore, in the daily prayers offered up for the royal family, the names of all those princes, my predecessors, who have reigned over the empire of Dehly, in hopes that these prayers being acceptable to God, may in some measure appease his wrath, and ensure his mercy towards them. It is also hereby proclaimed, that the small and vexatious taxes, under the denomination of Cotwally, etc., payable to the public servants of government, as perquisites of offices, by small traders; that licenses for the right of pasturage from shepherds, on waste lands belonging to the crown; fees from flower-sellers, fish-sellers, cotton-cleaners, silk-sellers and cooks and the precarious and fluctuating taxes on shopkeepers and vintners, shall henceforward cease throughout the realm; for it is better to relinquish this portion of the revenue than realise it at the expense of so much distress occasioned by the discretionary power necessarily vested in tax-gatheres and officers of authority; nor will any tax hereafter be levied contrary to the written law of the book. It has been customary to set aside one-fifth of all property taken in war for the troops, and to reserve four-fifths to the government. It is hereby ordered, that in future four-fifths shall be distributed to the troops, and one-fifth only reserved for the crown. I will on all occasions cause to be banished from the realm, persons convicted of the following crimes: Those who profess atheism, or who maintains schools of vice; all public servants convicted of corruption, as well as persons paying bribes. I have myself abstained from wearing gaudy silk apparel and jewels, as an example to my subjects. I have considered it my duty to repair every public edifice of utility, constructed by my predecessors, such as caravansarais, musjids, wells, reservoirs of water, aqueducts, canals, hospitals, alms-houses, and schools and have alienated considerable portions of the revenue for their support. I have also taken pains to discover the surviving relations of all persons who suffered from the wrath of my late Lord and master, Mahomed Toghluk, and having pensioned and provided for them, have caused them to grant their full pardon and forgiveness to that Prince in the presence of the holy and learned men of his age, whose signatures and seals as witnesses are affixed to the documents the whole of which, as far as lay in my power, have been procured, and put into a box, and deposited in the vault in which Mahomed Toghluk is entombed. I have gone and sought consolation from all the most learned and holy men within my realm, and have taken care of them. Whenever my soldiers have been rendered inefficient for service, by wounds or by age, I have caused them to be pensioned on full pay for life. Two attempts have been made to poison me, but without effect." Vide Briggs, Ferishta, Vol. I, pp. 462-464. Fanshawe thinks that this structure may have resembled the sunken octagonal chamber at the tomb of Sultan Ghari, Mahipalpur Delhi Past and Present (1902) p. 226.]

It is possible that the well was covered by some form of chattri as is usual in such cases, and remains of capitals found near the mouth of the well help to substantiate this theory. Franklin (As. Res.) who saw the building in 1793 describes it as bearing four cloisters, the domed roofs of which were supported by two hundred and sixty stone columns, each about 16' in height. There was an octangular dome of brick and stone in the centre of the mosque and about 25' in height.

-- A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi, Memoirs Of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 52, by J.A. Page, A.R.I.B.A., Late Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, With a Translation of Sirat-i-Firozshahi by Mohammad Hamid Kuraishi, B.A., Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, 1937


It is not certain whether Firishta ever visited Delhi but his emphasis on the inscribed dome and his neglect in mentioning the monument containing the lat, which had attracted so much attention, [???!!!] suggests that his account was probably secondhand. One eighteenth century witness, Captain Franklin, describes an octangular dome of brick and stone approximately 25 feet in height located it in the center of the mosque but the only traces of such a structure are six capitals found at the site in the nineteenth century. 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.]

In the Athar al-Sanadid, 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. He dates the mosque to 755/1354, which coincides with the founding of Firuzabad.23 [Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), p. 407.] He also identifies Firuz Shah’s mosque as the one in which Timur had the khutba recited when he captured the city in 801/1398-99.[???!!!]

By the will of God, and by no wish or direction of mine, all the three cities of Dehli, by name Siri, Jahan-panah, and Old Dehli, had been plundered. The khutba of my sovereignty, which is an assurance of safety and protection, had been read in the city. It was therefore my earnest wish that no evil might happen to the people of the place. But it was ordained by God that the city should be ruined.

-- XVIII. Malfuzat-I Timuri, or Tuzak-I Timur: The Autobiography of Timur, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 389-_, 1871


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.) but does not cite his source.24 [Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), 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.] In addition to this historical note, Sayyid Ahmad Khan is the earliest author to identify the Topra lat with the emperor Asoka. 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. The Asokan inscription on the column is repeated on pillars at Allahabad, Mattia, and Radhia. See James Prinsep, "Interpretation of the most ancient inscriptions on the pillar called the lat of Feroz Shah, near Delhi, and the Allahabad, Radhia and Mattitdi 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.]

In my ten months journey between Aleppo and this court, I spent just three pounds sterling, yet fared reasonably every day; victuals being so cheap in some of the countries through which I travelled, that I often lived competently for one penny a-day. Of that three pounds, I was actually cozened out of ten shillings, by certain evil Christians of the Armenian nation; so that in reality I only expended fifty shillings in all that time. I have been in a city of this country called Delee,3 [This is obviously a misprint for Delee, meaning Delhi; but it is more probable that Alexander never was beyond the Punjab.—E.] where Alexander the Great joined battle, with Porus king of India, and defeated him; and where, in memory of his victory, he caused erect a brazen pillar, which remains there to this day. At this time I have many irons in the fire, as I am learning the Persian, Turkish, and Arabic languages, having already acquired the Italian. I have been already three months at the court of the Great Mogul, and propose, God willing, to remain here five months longer, till I have got these three languages; after which I propose to visit the river Ganges, and then to return to the court of Persia.

-- 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 Kerry, F.R.S. & F.A.S. Edin., Illustrated by Maps and Charts, Vol. IX, 1824


Image
Sirhind / Patiala / Delhi / Kannauj / "Pataliputra"

Delu is said to have been a prince of uncommon bravery and generosity; benevolent towards men, and devoted to the service of God. The most remarkable transaction of his reign is the building of the city of Delhi, which derives its name from its founder, Delu. In the fortieth year of his reign, Phoor, a prince of his own family, who was governor of Cumaoon, rebelled against the Emperor, and marched to Kinoge, the capital. Delu was defeated, taken, and confined in the impregnable fort of Rhotas.

Phoor immediately mounted the throne of India, reduced Bengal, extended his power from sea to sea, and restored the empire to its pristine dignity. He died after a long reign, and left the kingdom to his son, who was also called Phoor, and was the same with the famous Porus, who fought against Alexander.

The second Phoor, taking advantage of the disturbances in Persia, occasioned by the Greek invasion of that empire under Alexander, neglected to remit the customary tribute, which drew upon him the arms of that conqueror. The approach of Alexander did not intimidate Phoor. He, with a numerous army, met him at Sirhind, about one hundred and sixty miles to the north-west of Delhi, and in a furious battle, say the Indian historians, lost many thousands of his subjects, the victory, and his life. The most powerful prince of the Decan, who paid an unwilling homage to Phoor, or Porus, hearing of that monarch's overthrow, submitted himself to Alexander, and sent him rich presents by his son. Soon after, upon a mutiny arising in the Macedonian army, Alexander returned by the way of Persia.


-- The History of Hindostan, In Three Volumes, Volume I, by Alexander Dow, Esq., Lieutenant-Colonel in the Company's Service, 1812


Asoka’s Lat. —  

The next object of interest in the palace of Firoz Shah is the pillar on which Asoka, king of Magadha, published his tolerant edicts to the world. It was put up here by Firoz Shah, in the year 757 A.H. (1356 A D.) It stands on a pyramidal building of rubble stone, with domes of rubble stone irregularly set in mortar of admirable quality, and arches with ribs. [Beglar.]  

The pyramid consists of terraces standing on an exterior platform, on the top-most of which the pillar stands; these terraces have cells with arches all round. [Muhammad Anim Razi in his Haft-i-Kalim, describes the pillar, as it was in the time of Akbar, as standing on a house three-storeyed high, being “a monolith of red-stone tapering upwards.” “The three storeys,” says Franklin, “were partly a menagerie, and partly an aviary.” From where this idea was got hold of, I am unable to say.] I agree with Mr. Beglar that there was not another storey over the highest storey now in existence; the presence of two stumps of pillars near the edge of the upper-most storey does not argue, as a matter of even strong probability, that they were parts of pillar- supports, but I am of opinion, that the addition of another storey which would serve to dwarf the size of the pillar would be an ill advised addition for men who were setting up a lofty monument to the glory of their king. The fact that the domes over the four corner towers of the third storey are on a level with the present main roof, is decidedly in favour of the theory that the building was never higher than it is now. “Vertically beneath the base of the pillar, a gallery has been broken through in the top-most storey, disclosing a sort of rough chamber, covered by a rubble dome 4 feet in diameter, on which consequently, the entire weight of the pillar rests. [ Beglar.]  

Asoka, king of Magadha, subsequently known as Dhammasoka, was the son of Bindusara, and grandson of Chandra Gupta, “the king of Hindusthan, from Kashmir to Kanauj.” He was born in the orthodox faith, and was a worshipper of Shiva, but became a convert to Bhuddism, and a powerful propagandist of his new faith. He commemorated his conversion and his desire that his new faith should be spread over his empire, by the promulgation of edicts which still stand as undying memorials of his faith, on granite pillars which were erected from Kabul to Orissa. Asoka is the Piyadasi of the pillar inscriptions and Pali records; the contemporary of Antiochus Theos, and his age may be placed between 325-200 B.C.  

The pillar under notice is a sand-stone monolith, 42 feet 7 inches high, of which the upper portion of 35 feet is polished and the rest is left rough; the buried portion of the pillar is 4 feet 1 inch long. [Beglar.] Its upper diameter is 25-3 inches and its lower diameter 38-8 inches, the diminution being -39 inches per foot. [Cunningham.] The pillar is supposed to weigh 27 tons. The colour of the stone is pale pink, having black spots outside, something like dark quartz. The usual amount of inaccuracies has found its way in the measurements of this pillar: Major Burt, who examined it in 1837, gives its length as about 35 feet, and diameter as 3-1/4 feet; Franklin gives 50 feet as its length; Von Orlich, 42 feet; William Finch, 24 feet; Shams-i-Siraj, 24 gaz or 34 feet, and its circumference 10 feet. As regards the material of the monolith and the inscriptions it bears, some very curious mistakes have also been made: the Danish Councillor, de Laet, describes it as “a very high obelisk (as some affirm) with Greek characters and placed here (as it is believed) by Alexander the Great;" the eccentric Tom Coryat also ascribes the pillar to Alexander and describes it as “brazen;" the confiding Chaplain Edward Terry, who was so charmed with Coryat’s improbable stories, improves on his informant and calls it a "very great pillar of marble” of Alexander the Great; but strange to say, that the observant Bishop Heber describes it as a pillar of “cast metal,” and, that the description was not an ordinary slip of the pen, is evident from the fact that the Bishop refers to it, to explain the material of the Iron Pillar, both being, in his lordship’s opinion, of “cast metal."  

-- Archaeology and Monumental Remains of Delhi, by Carr Stephen, 1876


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....

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.


-- 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




Modern scholarship on the jami masjid and lat pyramid is tilted in favor of the latter structure. Discussions of the lat pyramid have focussed on the relationship between textual sources and the formal features of the monument. 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 Ciane, "The Tughluqs," Muqarnas I (1983), p. 133.] The structure is singled out by nearly every historian and art historian in studies of Firuz Shah as his supreme achievement in building, but it is hardly representative of his building projects or Tughluq architecture. Modern scholars have generally avoided drawing conclusions about its symbolic content or meaning in Indo-Islamic architecture.

Sheet Anchor Date

Professor Max Muller improved upon the work of Sir William Jones by trying to correlate the Indian history with Greek history. One ancient event the date of which is well known in the Christian era is the invasion of Alexander. However, there is no mention whatsoever of Alexander or anything connected with his invasion in any Purana or any other ancient Indian account including the Buddhist Chronicles.

Professor Max Muller then searched the Greek accounts and the narrations of the other classical European writers for the name of any Indian ruler who could be located. One such name is Sandrocottus. He is said to have succeeded Xandramese who was a contemporary of Alexander. Sir William Jones had suggested that Chandragupta of Mudra Rakshasa could be the Sandrocottus of Greek history. Professor Max Muller confirmed this identification. His main purpose was to arrive at a chronology acceptable to the intellectuals of the nineteenth century. In fact his motives and methods are best described in his own words. In his “History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (Allahabad Edition 1859 A.D)” Professor Max Muller writes as follows …

There is but one means through which history of India can be connected with that of Greece, and its chronology be reduced to its proper limits. Although we look in vain in the literature of the Brahmanas or Buddhists for any allusion to Alexander’s conquest, and although it is impossible to identify any of the historical events, related by Alexander’s companions, with the historical traditions of India, one name has fortunately been preserved by classical writers who describe the events immediately following Alexander’s conquest, to form a connecting link between the history of the East and the West. This is the name of Sandrocottus or Sandrocyptus, the Sanskrit Chandragupta.

We learn from classical writers Justin, Arrian, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Quintus Curtius and Plutarch, that in Alexander’s time, there was on the Ganges a powerful king of the name of Xandramese, and that soon after Alexander’s invasion, a new empire was founded there by Sandrocottus who was succeeded by Sandrocyptus. These accounts of the classical writers contain a number of distinct statements which could leave very little doubt as to the king to whom they referred.

Indian historians, it is true, are generally so vague and so much given to exaggeration, that their kings are all very much alike, either all black or all bright. But nevertheless, if there ever was such a king of the Prasii, a usurper, residing at Pataliputra, called Sandrocottus; it is hardly possible that he should not be recognized in the historical traditions of India. The name of Chandragupta and the resemblance of this name with the name of Sandrocottus was first, I believe, pointed out by Sir William Jones. Dr. Wilford, Professor Wilson and Professor Lassen have afterwards added further evidence in confirmation of Sir William Jone’s conjecture; and although other scholars and particularly M. Troyer, in his edition of the Rajatarangini, have raised objections, we shall see that the evidence in favor of the identity of Chandragupta and Sandrocyptus is such as to admit of no reasonable doubt.


From this identification, the coronation of Mourya Chandragupta around the year 327 B.C. was taken as the sheet anchor date for Indian chronology. Though most of the modern scholars of Indian history do not know it, all the dates of ancient Indian history have been arrived at by calculating backward and forward from this sheet anchor date. For example Lord Buddha (according to some of the Buddhist chronicles) was born nearly 340 years before the coronation of Mourya Chandragupta. Accordingly his year of birth was fixed as 567 B.C.

-- Historical Dates From Puranic Sources, by Prof. Narayan Rao


I now proceed to lay before the Society the results of my application of the alphabet, developed by the simple records of Bhilsa, to the celebrated inscription on Feroz's column, of which facsimiles have been in the Society's possession since its very foundation, without any successful attempt having been made to decipher them. This is the less to be wondered at when we find that 500 years before, on the re-erection of the pillar, perhaps for the second or third time, by the emperor Feroz [r. 1351–1388)], the unknown characters were just as much a mystery to the learned as they have proved at a later period — "Round it" says the author of the Haftaklim, "have been engraved literal characters which the most intelligent of all religions have been unable to explain. Report says, this pillar is a monument of renown to the rajas or Hindu princes, and that Feroz Shah set it up within his hunting place: but on this head there are various traditions which it would be tedious to relate."

Neither Muhammed Ami'n the author of the Haftaklim [Muhammad Amin Razi, [x], vide Amin Ahmad, author of the Haft Aklim -- The Oriental Biographical Dictionary], nor Ferishteh, in his account of Feroz's works alludes to the comparatively modern inscription on the same pillar recording the victories of Visala Deva king of Sacambhari (or Sambhar) in the 12th century, of which Sir William Jones first ... [XXI. Inscriptions on the Staff of Firuz Shah, translated from the Sanscrit, as explained by Radha Canta Sarman, Asiatic Researches, Volume 1, 1788, P. 315-317.],...

OM. In the year 1230, on the first day of the bright half of the month Vaisach (a monument) of the Fortunate Visala Deva Son of the Fortunate Amilla Deva, King of Sacambhari.

II.

The next, which is engraved as a specimen of the character, consists of two stanzas in four lines; but each hemistich is imperfect at the end, the two first wanting seven, and the two last five, syllables. The word Sacambhari in the former inscription enables us to supply the close of the third hemistich.

OM.

As far as Vindhya, as far as Hsinadri, (the Mountain of Snow,) he was not deficient in celebrity ... making Aryaverta (the Land of Virtue, or India) even once more what its name signifies ... He having departed, Prativahaamana Tilaca (is) king of Sacambhari: (Sacam only remains on the monument.) By us (the region between) Himawat and Vindhya has been made tributary.

In the year from Sri Vicramaditta 123 [A.D. 67], in the bright half of the month Vaisach ... at that time the Rajaputra Sri Sallaca was Prime Minister....

The date 123 is here perfectly clear; at least it is clear that only three figures are written, without even room for a cypher after them; whence we may guess that the double circle in the former inscription was only an ornament, or the neutral terminal am; if so, the date of both is the year of Christ sixty-seven; but if the double circle be a Zero, the monument of Visala Deva is as modern as the year 1174, or nineteen years before the conquest of Delhi by Shihabuddin.


-- XXI. Inscriptions on the Staff of Firuz Shah, translated from the Sanscrit, as explained by Radha Canta Sarman. Excerpt from Asiatic Researches, Volume 1, P. 315-317, 1788


Now the age of Vicramaditya is given; and if we can fix on an Indian prince contemporary with Seleucus, we shall have three given points in the line of time between Rama, or the first Indian colony, and Chandrabija, the last Hindu monarch who reigned in Bahar; so that only eight hundred or a thousand years will remain almost wholly dark; and they must have been employed in raising empires or states, in framing laws, improving languages and arts, and in observing the apparent motions of the celestial bodies. A Sanscrit [Sanskrit] history of the celebrated Vicramaditya was inspected at Benares by a Pandit, who would not have deceived me, and could not himself have been deceived; but the owner of the book is dead, and his family dispersed; nor have my friends in that city been able, with all their exertions, to procure a copy of it....

I cannot help mentioning a discovery which accident threw in my way, though my proofs must be reserved for an essay which I have destined for the fourth volume of your Transactions. To fix the situation of that Palibothra (for there may have been several of the name) which was visited and described by Megasthenes, had always appeared a very difficult problem, for though it could not have been Prayaga, where no ancient metropolis ever stood, nor Canyacubja, which has no epithet at all resembling the word used by the Greeks; nor Gaur, otherwise called Lacshmanavati, which all know to be a town comparatively modern, yet we could not confidently decide that it was Pataliputra, though names and most circumstances nearly correspond, because that renowned capital extended from the confluence of the Sone and the Ganges to the site of Patna, while Palibothra stood at the junction of the Ganges and Erannoboas, which the accurate M. D'Anville had pronounced to be the Yamuna; but this only difficulty was removed, when I found in a classical Sanscrit book, near 2000 years old, that Hiranyabahu, or golden armed, which the Greeks changed into Erannoboas, or the river with a lovely murmur, was in fact another name for the Sona itself; though Megasthenes, from ignorance or inattention, has named them separately. This discovery led to another of greater moment, for Chandragupta, who, from a military adventurer, became like Sandracottus the sovereign of Upper Hindustan, actually fixed the seat of his empire at Pataliputra, where he received ambassadors from foreign princes; and was no other than that very Sandracottus who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator; so that we have solved another problem, to which we before alluded, and may in round numbers consider the twelve and three hundredth years before Christ, as two certain epochs between Rama, who conquered Silan a few centuries after the flood, and Vicramaditya, who died at Ujjayini fifty-seven years before the beginning of our era.

-- Discourse X. Delivered February 28, 1793, P. 192, Excerpt from "Discourses Delivered Before the Asiatic Society: And Miscellaneous Papers, on The Religion, Poetry, Literature, Etc. of the Nations of India", by Sir William Jones
 

... and Mr. Colebrooke afterwards, ['Translation of one of the Inscriptions on the Pillar at Delhi, called the Lat of Firuz Shah, by Henry Colebrooke, Esq., With Introductory Remarks by Mr. Harrington,' Asiatic Researches, Vol. VII, 1803, P. 175-182] published translations in the first and seventh volumes of the [Asiatic] Researches.

I have the pleasure of presenting to the Society a Book of Drawings and Inscriptions prepared under the inspection of their late member, Captain James Hoare, and intended by him (I have reason to believe) for the life of the Society.

Two of the drawings represent elevations, taken on the spot, of the stone building near Dehlee, called the Shikargah, or hunting place, of Feeroz Shah; with the pillar in the center, and above the summit of it, commonly known by the designation of Feeroz Shah’s Lat; and described, with an outline of the building and pillar, in the 21st paper of the 1st Vol. of the Society’s Transactions. The copy of the inscriptions on this pillar, which was received by our revered President and Founder from Colonel Polier, enabled him to exhibit a translation of one of them, as accurate as the imperfect state of the transcript would admit; but on comparing it with a more perfect copy made by Captain Hoare, it was found in several parts defective and inaccurate; and the date, instead of being 123 of the era of Vicramaditya, or A.D. 67, as appeared from the former copy, was clearly ascertained, from the present, to be 1220 of the above era, or A.D. 1164. An accurate translation of this inscription has therefore been furnished by Mr. Henry Colebrooke, (who has distinguished himself as a Sanscrit scholar by his version of the Hindoo Law Digest, compiled under the superintendence of Sir William Jones,) and is now submitted to the Society, with the original Sanscrit in Roman letters.

-- Translation of one of the Inscriptions on the Pillar At Dehlee, called the Lat of Feeroz Shah, Excerpt from Asiatic Researches, Volume 7, by Henry Colebrooke, Esq., With Introductory Remarks by Mr. Harington, 1803


This was in quite a modern type of Nagari; differing about as much from the character employed on the Allahabad pillar to record the victories of Chanara and Samudra-gupta, as that type is now perceived to vary from the more ancient form originally engraven on both of these pillars; so that (placing Chandra-gupta, in the third or fourth century, midway between Visala, in the Samvat year 1220 [1276], and the oldest inscription) we might have roughly deduced an antiquity of fourteen or fifteen centuries anterior to [before] Visala's reign for the original lat alphabet, from the gradual change of form in the alphabetical symbols, had we no better foundation for fixing the period of these monuments.

But in my preceding notice, I trust that this point has been set at rest, and that it has been satisfactorily proved that the several pillars of Delhi, Allahabad, Mattiah and Radhia were erected under the orders of king Devanampiya Piyadasi of Ceylon, about three hundred years before the Christian era.


-- 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
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Fri Dec 17, 2021 9:30 am

Part 4 of 10

Whereas the lat pyramid has received much attention by modern scholars, Firuz Shah’s mosque has been largely neglected. 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.] Discussions of mosque architecture of the period concentrate on Khirki Masjid, Kalan Masjid, or the Begampur mosque (Muhammad bin Tughluq’s mosque of Jahanpanah), as representative examples. 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.

Ashoka had almost been forgotten, but in the 19th century James Prinsep contributed in the revelation of historical sources. After deciphering the Brahmi script, Prinsep had originally identified the "Priyadasi" of the inscriptions he found with the King of Ceylon Devanampiya Tissa. However, in 1837, George Turnour discovered an important Sri Lankan manuscript (Dipavamsa, or "Island Chronicle") associating Piyadasi with Ashoka:

"Two hundred and eighteen years after the beatitude of the Buddha, was the inauguration of Piyadassi, .... who, the grandson of Chandragupta, and the son of Bindusara, was at the time Governor of Ujjayani." — Dipavamsa

-- Ashoka, by Wikipedia




Description of the Archaeological Remains

Image
Plate VII

Image
Plate VIII

Image
Plate IX

Image
Plate X

Image
Plate XI

Image
Plate XII

Image
Plate XIII

Image
Plate XIV

Image
Figure 3. Kotla Feroz Shah: Delhi. Perspective of River Front.

The jami masjid of Firuz Shah (Plates VII and VIII) is a two-storied plinth mosque.28 [Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 130.] The lower storey or plinth provides an elevated foundation for the worship area which occupies the second storey. The plinth is rectangular in plan and consists of a solid rubble core with an exterior perimeter of vaulted bays. These bays occur on all four sides of the mosque and are separated by wide arches which form a continuous corridor (Plates IX and X) completely around the mosque’s ground level. Entrance into the corridor is gained through a number of arched openings on all four sides of the plinth. This corridor in turn gives access to a series of interior cells embedded in the solid core of the plinth. These cells, oblong in plan and covered by corbelled ceilings, are distributed on all four sides of the plinth. The eleven exterior openings of the ground level give access to nine interior cells on both the east and west sides of the mosque; the arches at the corners lead directly into the corridor along the north and south sides of the plinth. The west wall (qibla) of the mosque (Plate XI) is intact; each of the eleven arched openings on the ground level of the facade is contained within a recessed rectangular frame. Although the wall of the east end of the mosque (Plates XII and XIII) has fallen away exposing the inner cells of the plinth, it probably reflected a similar configuration. A drawing of the east side of the mosque (Figure 3) reconstructs the east facade along the riverfront. The north and south (Plate XIV) walls are also nearly similar in elevation.

The ground-level corridor, constructed of rubble walls and covered by groin vaults, may possibly have been covered with plaster. The walls and ceilings of the interior cells were originally finished with plaster. The purpose of the cells in the plinth is uncertain but analogies can be made with monuments outside the Indian subcontinent. For example, the Rustem Pasha Mosque in Istanbul, an Ottoman mosque, has similar cells which were occupied by merchants, whose profits provided waqf revenue for the mosque. Modern scholars suggest that the cells in Firuz Shah’s mosque may have had a similar function or alternatively, may have served as a madrasa. 29 [Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," 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.]

Image
Plate XV

Image
Plate II

There are several entrances to the upper level of the mosque. The main entrance, emphasized by a monumental portal, is located on the north side of the mosque (Plate XV). An additional pair of stairs is located within the ground level corridor on the north side, to either side of the portal. A similar pair is in the south corridor. The location of the portal on the north was probably necessitated by the mosque’s location next to the river but it is unusual because it does not allow an axial approach as would be the case if the gate was opposite the qibla wall as, for example, in the mosque at Jahanpanah.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.] The portal of Firuz Shah’s mosque, the primary entrance to the mosque, was probably built at the same time the mosque was completed and is depicted in the ground plan in one of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi illustrations (Plate II).

The portal (Plate XV) survives nearly intact. It is a square-plan domed chamber and is similar in its plan and form to the portal of Muhammad bin Tughluq’s mosque at Jahanpanah. 31 [The Jahanpanah gate is illustrated in Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 132, Plate 3.] The structure extends 20 feet 3 inches from the north wall and is 27 feet wide. The dimensions of the interior chamber are 14 feet 6 inches square and the diameter of the dome is the same dimension. It is constructed of rubble and ashlar walls faced with plaster. In its original state its plastered walls most likely would have been whitewashed.

Image
Plate XVI

Image
Figure IV

Image
Figure V

Image
Plate XVII

The gateway sits at the level of the sahn or courtyard and is approached by stairs on its north and west sides. The exterior facades on the north, east, and west sides of the structure are similar. Each exterior facade consists of a raised rectangular frame. This frame contains a recessed arch whose spandrels are set back. The arch is in turn pierced by a smaller arched opening. The facade on the south opens into the courtyard of the mosque (Plate XVI). The facades of the gateway originally contained carved stone work, possibly inscribed, but these were removed. 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.] The portal is crowned with a low hemispherical concrete and rubble dome, which sits on an octagonal drum, supported by squinches. The walls and drum are crowned with a crenelated parapet. Today the courtyard (sahn) of the mosque is a large open space measuring 154 feet x 131 feet (Plate VIII and Figure 4). However, a reconstruction drawing (Figure 5), based on archaeological evidence and analogous structures, reveals the presence of vaulted enclosures surrounding the sahn. If this rendering is accurate, then the north, south, and east sides of the mosque consisted of rows of domed bays, three deep. [???] The prayer hall on the west wall (qibla) was two bays deep. However, 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.[???]

Although the evidence[???!!!] which is brought forward in these sketches is conflicting, one can surmise that the enclosures did surround all four sides of the courtyard and were probably covered with domes, much like the prayer hall of the Jahanpanah or Khirki mosques (Plate XVII).
The qibla side was emphasized either by a greater number of bays or bays of higher elevations. Franklin describes the mosque in 1793 A.D. as having four cloisters with domed roofs supported on 260 stone columns, sixteen feet high.33 [Franklin, Asiatic Researches, v. 8, plate IV. Citation in Page, A Memoir on Kotla, p. 7.] The actual plan of the prayer hall and surrounding enclosures (Figure 4) can be more specifically determined by archaeological evidence.

The restored pavement of the courtyard today defines what is believed to be the perimeter of the prayer hall. From this evidence, the dimensions of the open courtyard are determined to have been originally 76 feet x 52 feet. The courtyard was therefore modest in scale compared to its present size and probably was more akin to the scale of the courtyards of the Khirki Masjid (Plate XVII) than to the vast open court of the Jahanpanah mosque.

Image
Plate XVIII

The qibla wall (Plates XI and XVIII) survives but the enclosed prayer hall which covered the west end of the mosque has disappeared. The qibla is oriented toward the west as dictated by the direction of prayer toward Mecca.

Inside a mosque, the qibla is usually indicated by a mihrab, a niche in its qibla-facing wall. In a congregational prayer, the imam stands in it or close to it, in front of the rest of the congregation. The mihrab became a part of the mosque during the Umayyad period and its form was standardised during the Abbasid period; before that, the qibla of a mosque was known from the orientation of one of its walls, called the qibla wall.

-- Qibla, by Wikipedia


Image
Plate XIX

The elevation of the exterior facade (Plate XI) shows a high massive wall supported by the arcade of the plinth. The wall is battered, a characteristic feature of Tughluq architecture, and its surface is undecorated and uninterrupted except for tiny light wells which admit light into an extremely narrow passageway (zanana) located within it above the level of the floor (Plate XIX). The zanana is entered by stairs located in the northwest and southwest corners of the prayer hall. A wide projected portion of the exterior facade emphasizes the location of the mihrab (prayer niche) area of the mosque. The qibla wall is thick, constructed of rubble and ashlar masonry and faced with plaster. 34 [The mosque was also whitewashed. 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.[???!!!] 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.] The overall impression of the exterior is that of a fortress wall. However, its foundation in this respect is in doubt since the mosque was already protected by the defensive walls of the kotla.

Delhi

Delinum was reached in six days after leaving Maturanum. It is a very great and very rich city, built near the Jomanis, and has been the capital of India from the time of the Christian kings. After their fall it was the seat of the Patan kings. Emaumus,148 [Humayum] the father of Zelaldinus, was very fond of it, residing here during his lifetime and meeting here his tragic death. He is buried in a tomb built by his son Zelaldinus. This tomb is of great size, and is surrounded by beautiful gardens. One of his wives149 [This refers to Haji Begum and not to Mah Jujak, mother of Hakim. Haji Begum was put in charge of Humayun's tomb in Delhi (Blochmann, I 465).] the mother of Mirsachimus, king of Chabulum, who was then fighting against Zelaldinus, had loved Emaumus so faithfully that she had had a small house built close by the tomb and had watched there till the day of her death. Throughout her widowhood she devoted herself to prayer and to alms-giving. Indeed she maintained five hundred poor people by her alms. Had she only been a Christian, hers would have been the life of a heroine. For, as some writer has wisely said, the Musalmans are the apes of the Christians. In many ways they imitate the piety of the Christians, though without gaining the reward of that piety; for they have wandered away from the true faith and the true charity.

Delinum is noteworthy for its public buildings, its remarkable fort (built by Emaumus), its walls, and a number of mosques, especially the one said to have been built by king Peruzius.150 [Feroz Shah Tuglak—a king noted for his many works of public utility.] 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. Peruzius, who was by race a Patan, was much devoted to piety; for he gave orders that throughout his dominions, at intervals of every two miles, resting-places should be built, in which a shady tree should be planted, a well dug whence man and beast might get water, and a mosque built, where travellers might pray. He also planted trees in a long avenue on both sides of the roads, wherever there was room, in order that tired wayfarers might find shelter. He built bridges over torrents, rivers and ditches. He reduced the gradients on the roads, and paved them in soft and marshy places. In short he omitted nothing which might contribute to the public convenience and to his own magnificence. In a valley three miles from Delinum he built a wonderfully beautiful and very costly palace. On the terrace in front of it he set a solid marble column151 [The reference is to the Asoka Lat.] all in one piece, thirty feet high and about five feet thick.[???!!!] He also had a subterranean passage152 ["Sultan Firuz (1351-88) gave his name to a large town which he founded and by a cutting from the Jumna brought its water to flow by. He likewise built another palace at a distance of 3 kos from Firuzabad, named Jahannuma (the world-view). Three subterranean passages were made wide enough to admit of his passing along in mounted procession with the ladies of the harem; that towards the river 5 Jaribs in length, the second towards the Jahannuma, 2 kos, and the third, to old Delhi, 3 kos." (Jarret, II 279.)] made to Old Delinum, where the Christian Kings are believed to have lived, (a distance of nearly forty stadia )153 [One stadium = 606 ft 9 in. English.] [4.5 miles] in order that he might withdraw unattended from the Court and from state business, as often as he had leisure, and refresh himself in the solitude of his country-seat there. Many stories are told of his kindly actions, which —if they are true—would have exalted him to heaven, if only he had been a Christian.

Delinum is inhabited by substantial and wealthy Brachmanae, and of course by a Mongol garrison. Hence its many fine private mansions add considerably to the magnificence of the city. For the neighbourhood is rich in stone and lime, and the rich men construct for themselves well-built, lofty and handsomely decorated residences. Thanks to Emaumus. who was devoted to architecture and loved fine buildings and broad roads, the streets of the city are more imposing and impressive than in other Musalman towns. They are planted down the middle with beautiful green trees which cast a grateful shade. Time fails me to describe the lovely parks and the many residential districts on both sides of the Jomanis, which passes close by the city on the east. The parks and gardens are filled with a rich profusion of fruit and flowers; for the climate is mild, and the land around Delinum is very rich and fertile. The ruined towers and half-fallen walls of old Delinum may still be seen. They show it to have been a populous city. It is situated at a distance of about thirty-two stades [3.6 miles] from the new city, to the westward.


Two days later Sonipatum154 [Sonepat, 28 miles N. VV, of Delhi (See Note 100.)] was reached—a small town, but more famous than many a city on account of the swords, scimitars, daggers, poniards, and steel points for spears, pikes and javelins, which are skilfully manufactured here and exported to all parts of the empire. For there is in that region great store of iron and steel, the ore for which is mined in the neighbouring spurs of the Himalayas, and very many manufacturers of this kind of weapon live here.

-- The Commentary of Father Monserrate, S.J. On his Journey to the Court of Akbar, Translated from the Original Latin by J.S. Hoyland, M.A., Hislop College, Nagpur, and annotated by S.N. Banerjee, M.A., Professor of History, Mahindra College, Patiala, 1922



Today only portions of the north and south walls of the jami masjid (Plates VIII and XIX) survive and the east wall has disappeared. The elevations of the north and south walls were similar. Each was pierced by arched openings on the plinth level which lead into the corridor which circumambulates the mosque, and above by smaller arched openings on the second level. The arches on both levels are contained in rectangular recesses (Plates XIV and XIX). The upper portion of the walls were solid except for the area closest to the qibla. Here the upper portions of the wall were pierced by additional large arched openings (almost twice the size of those of the lower row) which admitted light, as a clerestory would, into the ends of the prayer hall. One surviving portion of the north wall, visible in Plate XIX, shows this configuration in the wall elevation toward the west end of the mosque. The bridge which connected the lat pyramid and the mosque probably intersected the north wall of the mosque at this point. Its location coincided with a subterranean tunnel, an opening to which is still visible below the north wall.

The interior facades of the mosque walls reveal the elevation of the prayer hall and surrounding enclosures. The interior facade of the north and south walls were similarly divided at regular intervals into a series of interconnected bays which surrounded the courtyard. The domes of the roof of these sections would probably have been supported by arcuated construction, evidence of which is seen in the areas of the ruined walls which have broken away. The domes of the roof were probably supported by squinches.

Image
Plate XX

The qibla wall is divided into eleven bays (Plate XVIII). The five central bays contain five niches or mihrabs. Remains of the roof structure on the north end (Plate XX) indicate that the west prayer hall had a higher roof elevation than the enclosures on the north and south sides of the mosque. The high vaulted ceiling appears to have extended the length of the qibla wall. The bays at the northwest and southwest corners were probably emphasized by higher domes, similar to those which occur in a contemporary mosque in Hissar which will be examined later.

Image

Plate XXI

The walls of the bays between the corner bays and the five central bays each possess a two-storey elevation (Plate XXI). The lower part of the wall is a series of small niches, two per bay. The upper part of the wall of each bay contains a large single blindarch niche, similar to the open clerestory arch of the north wall mentioned earlier. Small openings from the zanana gallery occur at the uppermost portion of the bay wall, just beneath the point of the vault. The report of the Archaeological Society of Delhi in 1847 indicates that a floor of an apartment, approximately six feet above the prayer hall floor, existed in the three bays on the north end of the prayer hall and three bays at the south end. 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.] These apartments, which are believed to have joined with the zanana gallery within the qibla wall have entirely disappeared. It is not known how far east these upper apartments extended. The clerestory window of the north wall may have admitted light to the apartment in the northwest corner. The upper apartments may have served as maqsuras for the sultan. Similar structures occur in the the mosques at Jahanpanah and Hissar.

Image

Plate XXII

Image
Plate XXIII

The five central bays of the qibla wall (Plate XXII) were covered by a higher roof elevation. The elevated maqsura at the corners of the prayer hall did not extend over the central five bays. Each bay contains a mihrab, small and simple in design, recessed in rectangular borders which in turn are recessed within larger arched frames. The spandrels of these arches are also recessed in the wall. The central mihrab (Plate XXIII) is not distinguished from the other five in scale. However, its altered appearance today provides no clue to its original profile. It is unknown whether the prayer hall was enclosed by a screen wall similar to those at the Quwwat al-Islam mosque or the Ardha’i-din- ka-Jhonpra mosque in Ajmer. Both of these mosques had a screen wall with a large central iwan in the center, possibly an influence from Seljuk architecture.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.] The five central bays may have been visible through a large central iwan and the side apartments masked by the screen wall on either side of it. However, if a screen wall shielded the prayer hall, it probably did not reflect the two-storey elevation of the interior. It is most likely that Firuz Shah’s mosque resembled other Tughluq mosques whose facades consisted of rows of identical arched openings, like the Khirki or Kalan mosques. The Jahanpanah mosque possesses a large central iwan, part of a four-iwan Iranian mosque plan, but it is unlikely that Firuz Shah borrowed this element as he did others from it.

The qibla facade of Firuz Shah’s mosque was constructed of a rubble core which would have been faced with plaster. The plaster is mostly gone today and the rough surface of the core is exposed. The small openings of the zanana do not occur in the five central bays. It is likely that qibla wall was enriched with some inscriptional and decorative motifs in stucco relief but these are lost. Also, any epigraphs which may have once adorned the mihrabs have disappeared. The overall decoration of the mosque was probably spare, conforming to the austere treatment of surface decoration typical of most of Firuz Shah’s monuments. Unfortunately the loss of all architectural embellishment on the mosque leaves this conclusion tentative.
The compilers of the 1847 report of the Archaeological Society of Delhi observed on the north wall two round plaster ornaments, each containing an inscription of the Muslim creed.37 [The report of the Archaeological Society of Delhi (1847) cited in Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 127.]

A well is located in the center of the courtyard of the mosque. The depth was determined to be approximately 25 feet. The remains of six (of eight) column capitals were found in the debris that was strewn around this area when surveyors first examined the monument. These capitals were described to be the type used in chhatri or pavilion structures. The surveyors expressed doubts about the well’s function and subsequent attempts to excavate it were stopped by its unstable walls. Page suggested that the well may have been connected by a gallery to the river side of the mosque but no archaeological evidence supports his observation.

Image
Plate XXIV

Image
Plate XXV

Image
Plate XXVI

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.

Image
Plate VI

Image
Plate XXVII

Image
Plate XXVIII

The pyramidal structure provides a foundation for the lat or column (Plates XXVII and XXVIII) whose base is buried in the solid core of the monument. The lat extends several feet above the roof level and was visible for great distances. The profile of the monument has changed from its original appearance. Low domed chambers containing stairwells, which once stood at the corners, have fallen away (Plate VI). The elaborate capital which once sat on top of the pillar has disappeared and the column itself is broken near its top.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.]



The lat, originally a monument of the Buddhist religion, is incorporated by Firuz Shah into a monument of the Islamic faith. This Asokan lat and others like it are attributed to the Mauryan emperor Asoka who, upon conversion to then Buddhist faith, commemorated his religious belief by having them erected throughout northern India.39 [John Irwin, "‘Asokan’ Pillars: a reassessment of the evidence - Part I," Burlington Magazine (November 1973), pp. 714-715.]

The Major Inscriptions of the Mauryan period, which are explicitly and repeatedly declared to have been erected by a king known as Devanampriya Priyadarsi, are the very first inscriptions known to have been created in India. They are also the first datable examples of actual Indian writing....

However, the Major Inscriptions are generally believed to be only a subset of a much larger set of well over two dozen Mauryan inscriptions, large and small, most of which are explicitly concerned with Buddhism -- not Early Buddhism, but Normative Buddhism. Virtually all of them -- that is to say, all inscriptions of any kind in early Brahmi script and Prakrit language, including the Major Inscriptions and the others -- are now attributed not only to the Mauryan period, but specifically to a Mauryan ruler known from traditional Indian "histories" as Asoka....

Unfortunately, this determination is extremely problematic at best. Absolutely no careful scientific epigraphical or palaeographical study of the inscriptions themselves has ever been done in the century and a half since their first decipherment. No one knows what such a study would reveal. Careful preliminary examination indicates that the traditional view is partly or even wholly incorrect...

There is unquestionable Old Persian influence on the Major Inscriptions, including language (Old Persian ni-pis "to write"); textual formulae -- most notably the usual third-person introduction "King x says" followed by the king's proclamation in first person; the Kharosthi alphabet (derived from Persian Imperial Aramaic script) used in the northwestern inscriptions, the area formerly under Achaemenid Persian rule; and the "Persepolitan" (Achaemenid Persian) style of the pillars and the capitals that graced them. All of this goes back to the period when "Sindhu and Gandhara belonged to the Persian Empire." [Hultzsch (1925: xlii). The Achaemenid Persian presence there is firmly established by the Persian royal inscriptions and by provincial travel reports to and from Gandhara in the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, as noted in the Prologue, as well as by numerous Achaemenid sites in Sindh and Gandhiira (J. Choksy, p.c., 2013).] One must add to these points the simple fact of creating monumental inscriptions at all, which was done for the first time in India, in blatantly Persian style, on both rocks and columns. They were erected along royal roads built and provided with rest houses, exactly as the early Achaemenids had done. On these roads Achaemenid royal emissaries made annual "tours of inspection" -- exactly as the Mauryans were to do, as we know from the Major Inscriptions themselves. Moreover, just as the inscriptions of Darius are a litany of praise and thanks to Ahura Mazda (God), the inscriptions of Devanampriya Priyadarsi are a litany of praise and thanks -- not to Brahma (God) but to the Dharma.8 [Olivelle (2012: 174) says, "I propose that in the case of Asoka's civil religion, the place of 'God' is taken by 'Dharma'." However, he then states that "like 'God', Dharma was a vacuous concept into which individuals and groups could read whatever content they desired." This is highly unlikely, as are his and other scholars' arguments in favor of Asoka's view of Dharma as "civil religion". Against it may be mentioned the regular Greek translation of dharma as eusebeia "piety, holiness", which he cites (Olivelle 2012: 175). Interestingly, Dharma is translated into Aramaic once as qsyt' (qassita) 'truth' in the Kandahar II/III Inscription (Ito, 1966), and Clement of Alexandria says that Buddhists (Sramattas) are those "who practiced the truth (ten aletheian askousi)" (Parker 2012: 320). Significantly, 'my Dharma' is translated in the Aramaic inscription from Taxila (Parker 2012: 325n24) as dty 'my data', using the Old Persian word for 'divine law' used by Darius and others for the "Law of God". Olivelle (2012: 170-171) states flatly, "we can dismiss the early view that Asoka's Dharma was, in fact, the Buddhist Dharma, and we can agree fully with Romila Thapar ... that 'Asoka's Dhamma did not conform to the religious policy of any one of the existing religions of his time'." This claim is predicated upon the belief that the "religions of his time" are in fact well known, but that is not the case. The received view of "the existing religions of ['Asoka's'] time" has hitherto been based exclusively on the Normative Buddhism of Saka-Kushan or later sources, which has been demonstrated to be, in large part, a development of those or later centuries.] This is one of the strongest indications that the ruler's Dharma was, in fact, a form of Early Buddhism, in which the structural place for God is apparent, but it is unoccupied....

[D]espite the fact that Megasthenes visited Pataliputra in 305-304 BC and remarked that the Indians in that country did not know writing, and despite the fact that no "Asokan Inscription" has ever been found there....

The absolutely unprecedented, specifically Persian character of the earliest Indian inscriptions, as well as the complete failure of post-Mauryan Indians to erect inscriptions that are even remotely similar to them, as frequently noted by scholars, tells us that their creator must have been impressed by things Persian through firsthand experience....

Contradictions in the texts themselves indicate that all of the Mauryan inscriptions could not have been erected by the same person, but it is clear -- and explicit in those very texts -- that all of the genuine Major Inscriptions were in fact erected by one and the same Mauryan ruler, Devanampriya Priyadarsi. It is most plausible, on the basis of the chronology inferrable from the inscriptions' record of contemporaneous Hellenistic rulers' names, and on other historical grounds, that he is to be identified with ... [Sandrocottous's] son, Amitrochates ... He actually proclaimed the authentic edicts of the Major Inscriptions on rocks and pillars and is responsible for the deeds recorded in them. Both Amitrochates ... and his father had close political relations with the Greeks, as we know very well from Greek sources; both are historical and datable, if only somewhat roughly....

As for the minor monuments henceforth referred to as the "Buddhist Inscriptions", including the Minor Rock Edicts and Minor Pillar Edicts ... they could not in fact have been inscribed until much later.

Unfortunately, we do not have rich, reliable historical sources for the Mauryas. We have only extremely tenuous information about them -- most of it about "Asoka" -- from very late Buddhist "histories", which are in large part fantasy-filled hagiographies having nothing to do with actual human events in the real world. Moreover, as Max Deeg has argued, not only did the inscriptions remain in public view for centuries, but their script and language remained legible to any literate person through the Kushan period (at least to ca. AD 250). This strongly suggests that the inscriptions influenced the legendary "histories" of Buddhism that began to develop at about that time. That would explain why the story of Devanampriya Priyadarsi's conquest of Kalinga, his subsequent remorse, and his turning to the Dharma is all repeated in the Buddhist "histories", though they attribute the events to "Asoka"...

-- Appendix C: On The Early Indian Inscriptions, Excerpt from Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter With Early Buddhism in Central Asia, by Christopher I. Beckwith, 2015
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Sat Dec 18, 2021 12:35 am

Page 5 of 10

Firuz Shah assimilated them into Islam by ordering them installed into Muslim edifices on at least four occasions. [???]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.]

Contemporary historians relate that the third century B.C. inscriptions of Asoka were undecipherable to the people of the fourteenth century.41 [‘Afif, Ta’rikh, p. 352; Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 34.] It is interesting to note, however, that the inscriptions on the pillar were not effaced by Firuz Shah. Rather, like those on the iron pillar of the Quwwat al- Islam mosque, they remain intact on the column to the present day.

As noted, Firuz Shah brought the Asokan column to Firuzabad from the vicinity of Topra, over 100 miles away in the Punjab. In a series of articles about the pillars of Asoka, John Irwin confirms Alexander Cunningham’s identification of the site and the latter’s contention, as well as Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s belief, that the Topra column was Asokan in origin. 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.] In fact, Irwin goes so far as to classify the Topra column into "Method A" category pillars, based on the method of installation into stone bases which they share. Irwin points out that a stone base removed by Firuz Shah’s men is mentioned in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi.43 [Irwin, "‘Asokan’ Pillars - Part 2," Burlington Magazine (December 1974), p. 720.]

[T]he so-called Seventh Pillar Edict on the Delhi-Topra pillar is spurious...

It is well known that some of these Persian-style pillars of the Mauryas were left uninscribed. It seems not to have been noticed, however, that those which were inscribed were done in a very curious fashion. Specifically, the pillar inscriptions are not inscribed around the cylindrical columns, as might perhaps be expected, but are instead placed in geographically oriented north, south, east, and west "faces".9 [Hultzsch (1925: xvi, 119-137); e.g., the Delhi-Topra pillar, Edicts I-VI. The so-called Seventh Pillar Edict, most of which is inscribed all around the circumference of the column, is found only on the Delhi-Topra column, and is in this and other respects a glaringly obvious later addition to the authentic synoptic edicts already inscribed on the stone. This is clearest in the rubbings in Hultzsch (1925), but is visible upon careful inspection of available photographs in Sircar (1957: the second plate between pages 24 and 25) and Falk (2006: 216 figure 4, 217 figure 6). Olivelle (2012: 160-161) says that on the Allahabad Pillar, "the inscriptions were carved in a circular manner while the pillar was erect; the same is true with regard to P[illar] E[dict] 7 at [Delhi-]Topra" (i.e., the pillar now in Delhi and known as the Delhi-Topra pillar). Unfortunately, neither the very poor photographs in Falk (2006) nor any posted online allow one to actually see very clearly how the Allahabad Pillar is inscribed, but close examination of the rubbing in Hultzsch (1925: 156) shows that the text does not in fact run circularly all around the column, though it does go partway around (how far is unclear). There is a space at the beginning and end of the lines in the rubbing; which shows that the lines do not continue in a continuous string the way the "Seventh Pillar Edict" on the Delhi-Topra column uniquely does. Salomon (1998: 139) remarks, "The Allahabad-Kosam pillar contains, in addition to the six principal edicts, two brief additional inscriptions", namely the "Queen's Edict" and "the so-called Schism Edict, addressed to the mahamatras at Kosambi (Kausambi), which refers to the punishment to be inflicted on monks or nuns who cause schisms within the Buddhist samgha." Examination of the rubbing in Hultzsch (1925) of the "Queen's Edict" on the same column clearly shows that it too was not written all the way around it, but in a panel with rather short lines.] Together it is clear that the pillars were erected first, uninscribed, and that the inscriptions were added later....

Finally, the Delhi-Topra pillar includes a good version of the six synoptic Pillar Edicts, which are genuine Major Inscriptions, but it is followed by what is known as the "Seventh Pillar Edict". This is a section that occurs only on this particular monument -- not on any of the six other synoptic Pillar Edict monuments. It is "the longest of all the Asokan edicts. For the most part, it summarizes and restates the contents of the other pillar edicts, and to some extent those of the major rock edicts as well." In fact, as Salomon suggests, it is a hodgepodge of the authentic inscriptions. It seems not to have been observed that such a melange could not have been compiled without someone going from stone to stone to collect passages from different inscriptions, and this presumably must have involved transmission in writing, unlike with the Major Rock Edict inscriptions, which were clearly dictated orally to scribes from each region of India, who then wrote down the texts in their own local dialects -- and in some cases, their own local script or language; knowledge of writing would seem to be required for that, but not actual written texts. For the Delhi-Topra pillar addition, someone made copies of the texts and produced the unique "Seventh Pillar Edict"....

Why would anyone go to so much trouble? The answer is to be found in the salient new information found in the text itself. It mentions a category of mahamatra officers unmentioned anywhere else, saying that they are in charge of the different sects: it names the Samgha 'Buddhists' and the Brahmanas 'Brahmanists', but also (uniquely) the Ajivikas and Nirgranthas (Jains), and "various other sects" who are unnamed. Most incredibly, the Buddhists are called the "Samgha" in this section alone, but it is a Normative Buddhist term; the Early Buddhist term is Sramana, attested in the genuine Major Inscriptions. Throughout the rest of the "Seventh Pillar Edict" Buddhists are called Sramanas, as expected in texts copied from genuine Mauryan inscriptions. There can be no doubt that this great pastiche was created for a single purpose: to acquire "grandfathered" legal protection for two sects -- the Ajivikas and Jains -- which were perhaps under pressure by the government of the day. Which government might that have been? One imagines the Kushans, under whom Normative Buddhism developed and flourished.

Yet it is not only the contents of the text that are a problem. It has been accepted as an authentic Mauryan inscription, but no one has even noted that there is anything formally different about it from the other six edicts on the same pillar. At least a few words must therefore be said about this problem.

The "Seventh Pillar Edict" is palaeographically distinct from the text it has been appended to. It is obvious at first glance. The physical differences between the text of the "Seventh Pillar Edict", as compared even to the immediately preceding text of the Sixth Pillar Edict on the East Face, virtually leap out at one. The style of the script,76 [For an obvious example, compare the different shape of the syllable form [x] dhi in the First Pillar Edict (line 6) on the Delhi-Topra column and in the "Seventh Pillar Edict" (lines 13 and 14) on the same column.] the size and spacing of the letters, the poor control over consistency of style from one letter to the next,77 [Note the many shapes of the letter [x] (ja), including some that look like Greek € (e.g., line 26).] and the many hastily written, even scribbled, letters are all remarkable. These characteristics seem not to have been mentioned by the many scholars who have worked on the Mauryan inscriptions.

The text begins as an addition to the synoptic Sixth Pillar Edict, which occupies only part of the East Face "panel". After filling out the available space for text on the East Face, the new text incredibly continues around the pillar, that is, ignoring the four different "faces" already established by the earlier, genuine edicts. This circum-pillar format is unique among all the genuine Mauryan pillar inscriptions.

Another remarkable difference with respect to the genuine Major Inscriptions on pillars is that the latter are concerned almost exclusively with Devanampriya Priyadarsi's Dharma, but do not mention either the Sramanas ''Buddhists' or the Brahmanas 'Brahmanists' by name. This is strikingly unlike the Major Inscriptions on rocks, which mention them repeatedly in many of the edicts. In other words, though the Pillar Edicts are all dated later than the Rock Edicts, for some reason (perhaps their brevity), Devanampriya Priyadarsi does not mention the Sramanas or the Brahmanas in them. The "Seventh Pillar Edict" is thus unique in that it does mention the Buddhists (Sramanas) and Brahmanists (Brahmanas) by name, but the reoccurrence of the names in what claims to be the last of Devanampriya Priyadarsi's edicts suggests that the text is not just spurious, it is probably a deliberate forgery. This conclusion is further supported by the above-noted unique passage in the inscription in which the Buddhists are referred to as the "Samgha". This term occurs in the later Buddhist Inscriptions too; but it is problematic because it is otherwise unknown before well into the Saka-Kushan period.79 [This is one of the many reasons for dating all of the Buddhist Inscriptions to the Saka-Kushan period at the earliest.]

The one really significant thing the text does is to add the claim that Devanampriya Priyadarsi supported not only the Buddhists and the Brahmanists but also the Ajivikas and Jains. However, all of the Jain holy texts are uncontestedly very late (long after the Mauryan period). The very mention of the sect in the same breath as the others is alone sufficient to cast severe doubt on the text's authenticity.

The "Seventh Pillar Edict" claims that it was inscribed when Devanampriya Priyadarsi had been enthroned for twenty-seven years; that is, only one year after the preceding text (the sixth of the synoptic Pillar Edicts), which says it was inscribed when Devanampriya Priyadarsi had been enthroned for twenty-six years. The "Seventh Pillar Edict" text consists of passages taken from many of the Major Inscriptions, both Rock and Pillar Edicts, in which the points mentioned are typically dated to one or another year after the ruler's coronation, but in the "Seventh Pillar Edict" the events are effectively dated to the same year. Most puzzling of all, why would the king add such an evidently important edict to only a single one of the otherwise completely synoptic pillar inscriptions?

Perhaps even more damning is the fact that in the text itself the very same passages are often repeated verbatim, sometimes (as near the beginning) immediately after they have just been stated, like mechanical dittoisms. Repetition is a known feature of Indian literary texts, but the way it occurs in the "Seventh Pillar Edict" is not attested in the authentic Major Inscriptions. Moreover, as Olivelle has noted, the text repeats the standard opening formula or "introductory refrain" many times; that is, "King Priyadarsin, Beloved of the Gods, says" is repeated verbatim nine times, with an additional shorter tenth repetition. "In all of the other edicts this refrain occurs only once and at the beginning. Such repetitions of the refrain which state that these are the words of the king are found in Persian inscriptions. However, this is quite unusual for Asoka." In fact, this arrangement betrays the actual author's misunderstanding of the division of the authentic Major Inscriptions into "Edicts", and his or her consequent false imitation of them using repetitions of the Edict-initial formula throughout the text in an attempt to duplicate the appearance of the authentic full, multi-Edict inscriptions on rocks and pillars.

In short, based on its arrangement, palaeography, style, and contents, the "Seventh Pillar Edict" cannot be accepted as a genuine inscription of Devanampriya Priyadarsi. The text was added to the pillar much later than it claims and is an obvious forgery from a later historical period. These factors require that the "Seventh Pillar Edict" be removed from the corpus of authentic inscriptions of Devanampriya Priyadarsi.

-- Appendix C: On The Early Indian Inscriptions, Excerpt from Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter With Early Buddhism in Central Asia, by Christopher I. Beckwith, 2015


Although no top emblem was discovered by Firuz Shah or mentioned in the Sirat, Irwin suggests that one probably existed. In particular, it may have been a lion(s) depicted in a heraldic style based on ancient near eastern motifs. He bases this supposition on his belief that other Asokan columns of "Method A" group possess lion capitals of this style. The reference in the Sirat to sculptures of four lions which stood at the four corners of the upper floor of Firuz Shah’s monument is a curious observation in light of this hypothesis. But, as the author of the Sirat points out, Firuz Shah had a non-figural capital placed on top of the column.

Hyperbolic descriptions of the monument’s height given in verses of the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi are clearly exaggerated
but its elevated position provided an unobstructed view of the column from all vantages in and outside the kotla (Plate XXIX). The column was clearly meant to be seen. The actual height of the pyramid is 46 feet 6 inches from the ground to the roof level, the point where the lat becomes visible. A balustrade with cupolas (chhatris) originally raised the height of the structure an additional 16 feet. J.A. Page gives the dimensions of the lat as 42 feet 7 inches in height and 25.3 inches in diameter at the top and 38.3 inches in diameter at the base.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 [49.3 feet] with 8 gaz [12.3 feet] sunk into the pedestal leaving only 24 gaz [37 feet] 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 [66 feet] in length, 20 [60 feet] 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.] The lat is buried an additional 4.1 feet beneath the roof of the structure. The stone of the upper portion of the column is finely polished. The lower unpolished base of the lat is believed to have been originally buried at Topra. The height of the lat is now less than it was originally because the elaborate capital which Firuz Shah put on top of the column is now absent.

1. This pillar, high as the heaven, is made of a single block of stone and tapers upward, being broad at the base and narrow at the top.

2. Seen from a hundred farsang1 [A farsang varies from 2-1/2 to 8 miles.] it looks like a hillock of gold, as the Sun when it spreads its rays in the morning.

3. No bird— neither eagle, nor crane— can fly as high as its top; and arrows, whether Khadang or Khatai2, [Khadang-poplar, hence arrows made of indigenous poplar. Khatai-arrows imported from Khata. Distances were sometimes counted in arrowshots m those days.] cannot reach to its middle.

4. If thunder were to rage about the top of this pillar, no one could hear the sound owing to the great distance (between the top of the pillar and the ground).

5. O God! how did they lift this heavy mountain (i.e., the pillar)?; and in what did they fix it (so firmly) that it does not move from its place?

6. How did they carry it to the top of the building which almost touches the heavens and place it there (in its upright position)?

-- A Memoir on Kotla Firoz Shah, Delhi, Memoirs Of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 52, by J.A. Page, A.R.I.B.A., Late Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, With a Translation of Sirat-i-Firozshahi by Mohammad Hamid Kuraishi, B.A., Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India, 1937


Image
Figure 6

Image
Figure 7

Image
Plate III

The present-day pyramidal foundation conforms closely to the description of it in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi. The structure is a solid rubble core surrounded by a series of vaulted cells on each level. The lowest or ground level plan (Figure 6) is 118 feet square. The ground level consists of a series of interconnected vaulted cells, two in depth, with arched openings providing access to each cell along the perimeter. The Sirat illustration (Plate III) depicting the plan of the first storey shows multiple entrances along each side which open into long corridors. This latter plan approximates the actual plan of the building. A cross-section of the monument (Figure 7) also shows the double row of cells of the ground level. The floor of the first storey was originally raised above ground level and the respective entrances were approached by stairs. Cells at the corners contained stairs which provided access to the upper levels and subterranean tunnel. The cells are constructed of ashlar masonry and vaulted. The purpose of this complex of cells, like those in the ground level of the mosque, is uncertain.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.]

[A]s far as hunting of wild beasts and of birds is concerned, in fact Sultan Firoz Shah could not live without hunting throughout the year -- something which is given only to the asylum of the world. On the few occasions when he went hunting in those regions, he neither left the lions in the bushes nor spared any of the wolves or antelope or kozan or deer in those lands. I also don't see the birds flying in the air or alight on some waterbody. Due to the great quantity of meat of hunted animals, the meat would reach the camp of the army and for a long time the butchers did not have any need to slaughter cows and goats and remained idle. This continues to happen even now. Due to the excessive indulgence of the lord of the world in this matter, the amirs of Shikar have attained a very high position which had never been achieved by them in any age and they are greatly honoured. Keepers of falcons, other officers of this department and still others associated with keeping of falcons have come to lead a life of great luxury. A very large number of them have been recruited and arrogance has nestled in their heads. All the falcon keepers of the capital city have been employed in falconry. Countless hawks and falcons have been gathered in the royal falconry and animals are continuously supplied for their feeding.

-- Chapter 6: The Sultan of the Age, One Who is Supported by God, Firoz Shah al Sultan, Excerpt from "Tarikh-I Firoz Shahi, An English Translation" [Written by Zia ud Din Barani], by Ishtiyaq Ahmad Zilli, 2015


Image
Figure 8

Image
Plate VI

Image
Plate XXV

Image
Plate XXX

The second floor plan of the lat pyramid (Figure 8 and Plate XXX)) is 85-86 feet square. Foundations of four corner chambers indicate that originally the stairwells were enclosed at this level. These no longer survive except for fragments at the southwest and southeast corners (Plate XXV). A nineteenth century Company artist’s rendering of the structure before the Mutiny of 1857 A.D. (Plate VI) depicts the corner towers of the monument intact.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.] Also, other nineteenth century illustrations of the lat pyramid reveal that the low flat domes of these chambers were still intact.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.]

Image
Figure 9

Image
Plate XXX

A reconstructed elevation (Figure 9) perhaps best illustrates the profile of the monument with its corner chambers. The condition of the monument today is considerably dilapidated from its original form. The corner towers were 20 feet square in plan and the vaulted cells on this level are much larger with wider arched openings (Plate XXX). The cells, only one deep on this level, are interconnected with wider passageways so that the effect is that of a continuous chamber, 45 feet 4 inches long and 9 feet 9 inches wide. Stairs permitting access to the upper storey are located at the four corners of this level. Narrow openings at the left of each facade allowed access to the stairwells but the corners where these stairs were located have crumbled away. 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. 48 [Archaeological Survey of India, List of Monuments, v. 2, p. 72.]

Image
Plate XXXI

The third level (Plate XXXI) is 54-55 feet square in plan and consists of a ring of eight cells, three per side (one on each of the four sides and the four corner cells). Each cell is interconnected and is entered through an arched opening. The size of each cell on this level is 9 feet 9 inches square. All three stories are constructed of rough ashlar masonry. Any traces of plaster facing are gone and it is likely that the monument was not intended to have a finished plaster surface although the Archaeological Survey speculated that it was plastered with chunam (the same type of plaster which faces the mosque) or, less probable, faced with red sandstone.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.[???[]

PAGE 49

Kutb Minar (p. 88).—

The Kutb Minar is over 238 feet in height, but feet and inches convey little impression of height, which can best be gauged by comparison with familiar objects. It is nearly eighty feet higher than the Nelson Column in Trafalgar Square; if erected on the floor of St. Paul's Cathedral, a few feet would project into the lantern of the dome. It was started in A.D. 1200, under the auspices of Kutb-ud-dln I-bak, Viceroy of the conqueror of India, some five hundred years before Wren's magnificent work was undertaken.

Other features are bands of writing around, carved flutings, carried in varied design through three stories, and the excellently conceived designs of the carvings on the underside of the balconies. It has more than once been damaged

PAGE 50

by lightning and earthquake, but sustained no ill effect from the earthquake of 1905, which was felt somewhat severely in Delhi.

The red sandstone, with which it is faced, cannot be obtained nearer than Agra. The marble in the two topmost stories was, probably, a later addition, in the time of Firoze Shah, and came from Makrana, hundreds of miles away. These facts may give some idea of the cost of this great monument.

An ascent of 379 steps to the top discloses a great panorama, which, however, is better observed from the first balcony, which affords freer movement. The first glance is naturally directed towards modern Delhi, where the white domes of the Jama Masjid gleam through the haze, ten miles away, almost in a line with the dome of Safdar Jang's tomb. Then the white marble dome of Humayun's tomb catches the eye, and, to the right of this, the mosque at Begampur and the Bedi Mandal are prominent. Next, two white domes almost in a line mark, the nearer the shrine of Roshan Chiragh Delhi, the further a Hindu temple of Kalika, on a hill. In a grove of trees, towards which an earthen wall extends, is the mosque of Khirki, well worthy of an inspection, but somewhat out of the way. The line of a broad road points almost directly to a

PAGE 51

marble dome over the tomb of Tughlak Shah, near his city of Tughlukabad; this city was built, nearly six hundred years ago, of massive stones, some of which weigh several tons. Just to the right of this city is the fort of Adilabad, built on a hill by Tughlak's son, who is buried with him. Close under the minar now, and to the right, is an old tomb, converted into a country residence by Sir Thomas Metcalfe, in 1844, but burnt, like his other house, in 1857. In a line with the ruined house is the Jamali Masjid, slightly to the left of which is the ruined tomb of Balban. From the other side of the balcony the tomb of Adham Khan is very conspicuous, built on the walls of Old Delhi, while among some trees to the left of this is the shrine of a Mahomedan saint, Kutb-ud-din.


Close under the minar there is the square court, surrounded by cloisters, of the first mosque to be built in Delhi, the Kuwwat-ul-Islam; an iron pillar stands in the court, and a fine row of arches marks the front of the mosque proper, which occupied the western portion. This line of arches was afterwards extended on both sides, and outer colonnades were added, up to a line indicated by a small portion still standing outside the eastern entrance to the court of the mosque. The ruins of a second very large minaret, carried

PAGE 52

up to the height of eighty feet and then abandoned, show on what scale a further extension of the mosque was planned by Ala-ud-din, who died before he could completely carry out his plans. He was able, however, to add a gateway, which is close to the Kutb Minar, and some colonnades, which extend to the east of it. At one end of the line of arches is the tomb of this king, at the further end that of Altamsh, builder of the first additions to the mosque.

From the balcony can be traced the walls of four cities. First of all, some walls start from the tomb of Adham Khan, and can easily be followed to a commanding bastion, where they stop abruptly, but were once continued to the road, which runs to Tughlukabad: these bounded the citadel of Old Delhi, which was first made about the middle of the eleventh century, by a Hindu raja, and was restored or improved by the Mahomedans. From the north-west angle of the citadel, the outer wall of the city ran across to the garden, which was passed on the road, a mile away; after that it is only traced with some difficulty, though never more than a mile distant. The Jamali Mosque, however, stands near the line, which becomes more distinct as it approaches Adham Khan's tomb, and completes the circuit. What look like light sand-hills to the north are the remains of one wall of Jahanpanah, the ''refuge of the world," built to join up the walls of Siri, two miles away, to those of the old city; the wall on the other side of Jahanpanah runs from a clump of trees which surround the Lado Sarai, towards the village of Khirki. This wall also served as a dam, to hold up water for the needs of the cities. We have thus traced the walls of Old Delhi, Siri, Jahanpanah, and Tughlukabad.

Alai Gateway (p. 92). —

Near the foot of the minar is the entrance gateway of Ala-ud-din, built in 1310. This is an example of the beautiful ornamentation, in which the early Mahomedan rulers delighted, but which gave way later to severe designs: the blending of marble and red sandstone in the exterior decoration, the pierced screens to the windows, the diaper pattern inside, all remind one of the decoration of the palace of the Alhambra at Granada, built over a century later. But, while the Moors had to be content with stucco, the work here is in stone, and very much more effective.

Tomb of Imam Zamin (p. 93). — 

Close to the gate is the square tomb of the Imam Zamin; this dates from the middle of the sixteenth century, and was possibly copied from other tombs

PAGE 54

of similar design, which may be found on the plains within the limits of Jahanpanah.

Mosque (p. 94). —

The Kuwwat-ul-Islam, or strength of Islam, Mosque is now unused; it is entered from the east by a short flight of steps, the original ones leading to a Hindu temple, which once occupied this site. Those who have seen the beautiful Jain temples of Dilwara, on Mount Abu, will perceive the resemblance in the arrangement of the pillars, which divide the roof of the surrounding colonnades into small compartments, each section being differently ornamented. The old Mahomedan kings, while they could not approve of the carving of images, prohibited by their Koran, were quite willing to use the materials of Hindu temples to build their mosques: there are examples of this at Ajmere, in the "Arhai din ki Jhonpri" Mosque, and at Mahaban, about six miles from Muttra. But the figure carvings were defaced, and covered with plaster, which has now fallen off: fortunately some figures were left intact, especially those in two raised rooms at the corners. It may be mentioned that the prohibition against the making of images is not taken so seriously in these days, for the ivory miniature paintings of Delhi are done by Mahomedan artists. These pillars are

PAGE 55

certainly eight hundred years old, but are not in their original positions, having been rearranged by the Mahomedans.  

Iron Pillar (p. 96). —

In the court of the mosque is that most interesting object, the Iron Pillar, nearly twenty-four feet long, and a marvellous piece of forging, weighing about six tons; such a piece of work would not have been possible in Europe in the days in which it was made, or indeed until many centuries after, for the age of this pillar may be as much as sixteen centuries. It has often been doubted whether the material is really iron, and not a mixture of metals, for one would have thought that it would long ago have rusted away, but analysis has shown it to be composed of pure malleable iron. It is not a natural phenomenon, as the ornamented top will show; a dent made by a cannon-ball, fired at it, so tradition says, by Ghulam Kadir, shows that the workmanship is good, for the blow was only sufficient to crack the pillar.

Great Arches (p. 97). —

The central arch, behind the Iron Pillar, was restored by the orders of Lord Mayo, Viceroy of India from 1869 to 1872, in which year he fell by an assassin's hand in the Andaman Islands, the penal settlement of India, to which offenders are transported across

PAGE 56  

the ''Black water." Behind the line of arches used to be the covered mosque, but only a few pillars remain, supported by various expedients; the "kiblah-gah," or place turned to at prayer, has completely disappeared, and a path runs over the site. Behind this have been excavated some turquoise-coloured tiles, and it is supposed that here stood the "Blue Palace" of an early Mahomedan king.

Tomb of Altamsh (p. 97). —

A detour to the right leads to the tomb of Shams-ud-din Altamsh, second Mahomedan king of India, who died in 1236: there is no other tomb anywhere extant of earlier date. The carving of the interior is exquisite, and in very much the same style as that of the work on the great arches; it was probably carried out by the same artisans, or by their pupils. A triple prayer-niche on the west is specially beautiful, but marble cannot have been considered of great account in those days, for traces of painting are still clear on the carving at the top. The tomb is roofless, and it cannot be stated with certainty if it ever possessed one, but it is doubtful if they could have undertaken a dome of twenty-eight feet span in those days. Not the least of the difficulties would have been the centerings: Tavernier states that the centerings of the tomb

PAGE 57
 
of Taj Mahal, at Agra, cost as much as the rest of the building.


-- The Seven Cities of Delhi, by Gordon Risley Hearn, 1906
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:28 am

Part 6 of 10

Image
Figure 7

Image
Figure 9

An arcade is thought to have once surrounded the lat on its top storey. This level provides the roof to the web of cells beneath it and is the point at which the column becomes visible at its base. The arcade (Figures 7 and 9) no longer exists except for the bases of two of the columns. The four corners of the arcade were accentuated by four cupolas (chhatris). Beglar indicated that a gallery in the uppermost storey had been broken through disclosing an inner chamber covered by a dome, four feet in diameter.50 [J.D. Beglar, Archaeological Survey of India, Reports, TV (1874). See also Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 129.]  

He alleges that the pillar stood on top of this dome. If such a chamber existed, it is now sealed. [!!!!!!]

Asoka’s Lat. —

The next object of interest in the palace of Firoz Shah is the pillar on which Asoka, king of Magadha, published his tolerant edicts to the world. It was put up here by Firoz Shah, in the year 757 A.H. (1356 A D.) It stands on a pyramidal building of rubble stone, with domes of rubble stone irregularly set in mortar of admirable quality, and arches with ribs. [Beglar.]

The pyramid consists of terraces standing on an exterior platform, on the top-most of which the pillar stands; these terraces have cells with arches all round. [Muhammad Anim Razi in his Haft-i-Kalim, describes the pillar, as it was in the time of Akbar, as standing on a house three-storeyed high, being “a monolith of red-stone tapering upwards.” “The three storeys,” says Franklin, “were partly a menagerie, and partly an aviary.” From where this idea was got hold of, I am unable to say.] I agree with Mr. Beglar that there was not another storey over the highest storey now in existence; the presence of two stumps of pillars near the edge of the upper-most storey does not argue, as a matter of even strong probability, that they were parts of pillar-supports, but I am of opinion, that the addition of another storey which would serve to dwarf the size of the pillar would be an ill advised addition for men who were setting up a lofty monument to the glory of their king. The fact that the domes over the four corner towers of the third storey are on a level with the present main roof, is decidedly in favour of the theory that the building was never higher than it is now. “Vertically beneath the base of the pillar, a gallery has been broken through in the top-most storey, disclosing a sort of rough chamber, covered by a rubble dome 4 feet in diameter, on which consequently, the entire weight of the pillar rests. [Beglar.]

Asoka, king of Magadha, subsequently known as Dhammasoka, was the son of Bindusara, and grandson of Chandra Gupta, “the king of Hindusthan, from Kashmir to Kanauj.” He was born in the orthodox faith, and was a worshipper of Shiva, but became a convert to Bhuddism, and a powerful propagandist of his new faith. He commemorated his conversion and his desire that his new faith should be spread over his empire, by the promulgation of edicts which still stand as undying memorials of his faith, on granite pillars which were erected from Kabul to Orissa. Asoka is the Piyadasi of the pillar inscriptions and Pali records; the contemporary of Antiochus Theos, and his age may be placed between 325-200 B.C.

The pillar under notice is a sand-stone monolith, 42 feet 7 inches high, of which the upper portion of 35 feet is polished and the rest is left rough; the buried portion of the pillar is 4 feet 1 inch long. [Beglar.] Its upper diameter is 25-3 inches and its lower diameter 38-8 inches, the diminution being -39 inches per foot. [Cunningham.] The pillar is supposed to weigh 27 tons. The colour of the stone is pale pink, having black spots outside, something like dark quartz. The usual amount of inaccuracies has found its way in the measurements of this pillar: Major Burt, who examined it in 1837, gives its length as about 35 feet, and diameter as 3-1/4 feet; Franklin gives 50 feet as its length; Von Orlich, 42 feet; William Finch, 24 feet; Shams-i-Siraj, 24 gaz or 34 feet, and its circumference 10 feet. As regards the material of the monolith and the inscriptions it bears, some very curious mistakes have also been made: the Danish Councillor, de Laet, describes it as “a very high obelisk (as some affirm) with Greek characters and placed here (as it is believed) by Alexander the Great;" the eccentric Tom Coryat also ascribes the pillar to Alexander and describes it as “brazen;" the confiding Chaplain Edward Terry, who was so charmed with Coryat’s improbable stories, improves on his informant and calls it a "very great pillar of marble” of Alexander the Great; but strange to say, that the observant Bishop Heber describes it as a pillar of “cast metal,” and, that the description was not an ordinary slip of the pen, is evident from the fact that the Bishop refers to it, to explain the material of the Iron Pillar, both being, in his lordship’s opinion, of “cast metal."

When Timur visited Firozabad and saw the pillar in Firozabad and in the Kushak Shikar, “he declared that of all the countries he had traversed he had never seen any monument comparable to those,” and the praise lavished on them by contemporary writers is equally warm and extravagant.
 
The transport of the pillar from Nahera, a village on the bank of the Jumna, in the vicinity of Khizrabad, about 120 miles from Delhi must be given in the words of the historian, Shams-i-Siraj, who was 12 years of age when the pillar was erected in Firozabad. [The village where the pillar originally stood is variously called Salara, Jawara, Tahera, Tohra, Tapera and Nahera. I have followed Syud Ahmed Khan.]
“After Sultan Firoz returned from his expedition against Thatta, he often made excursions in the neighbourhood of Delhi. In this part of the country there were two stone columns. One was in the village of Tobra, in the district (Shikk) of Salaura and Khizrabad, in the hills (koh-payah); the other in the vicinity of the town of Mirat. These columns had stood in those places from the days of the Pandavas, but had never attracted the attention of any of the kings who sat upon the throne of Delhi, till Sultan Firoz noticed them, and, with great exertion, brought them away. One was erected in the palace (Kushk) at Firozabad, near the Masjid-i-Jam’a, and was called the Minara-i-Zarin, or golden column, and the other was erected in the Kushk-i-Shikar, or Hunting-palace, with great labor and skill. The author has read in works of good historians, that these columns of stone had been the walking sticks of the accursed Bhim, a man of great stature and size. The annals of the infidels record that this Bhim used to devour a thousand man of food daily, and no one could compete with him. In his days all this part of Hind was peopled with infidels, who were continually fighting and slaying each other. Bhim was one of five brothers, but he was the most powerful of them all. He was generally engaged in tending the herds of cattle belonging to his wicked brothers, and he was accustomed to use these two stone pillars as sticks to gather the cattle together. The size of the cattle in those days was in proportion to that of other creatures. These five brothers lived near Delhi, and when Bhim died, these two columns were left standing as memorials of him. When Firoz Shah first beheld these columns, he was filled with admiration and resolved to remove them with greater care as trophies to Delhi.”

“Khizrabad is 90 kos from Delhi, in the vicinity of the hills. When the Sultan visited that district, and saw the column in the village of Tabra, he resolved to remove it to Delhi, and there erect it as a memorial to future generations. After thinking over the best means of lowering the column, orders were issued commanding the attendance of all the people dwelling in the neighbourhood, within and without the Doab, and all soldiers, both horse and foot. They were ordered to bring all implements and materials suitable for the work. Directions were issued for bringing parcels of the cotton of the Sembal (silk cotton tree). Quantities of this silk cotton were placed round the column, and when the earth at its base was removed, it fell gently over on the bed prepared for it. The cotton was then removed by degrees, and after some days the pillar lay safe upon the ground. When the foundations of the pillar were examined, a large square stone was found as a base, which also was taken out. The pillar was then encased from top to bottom in reeds, and raw skins, so that no damage might accrue to it. A carriage, with forty-two wheels, was constructed, and ropes were attached to each wheel. Thousands of men hauled at every rope and after great labor and difficulty the pillar was raised on to the carriage. A strong rope was fastened to each wheel, and 200 men pulled at each of these ropes. By the simultaneous exertions of so many thousand men, the carriage was moved, and was brought to the banks of the Jumna. Here the Sultan came to meet it. A number of large boats had been collected, some of which could carry 5,000 and 7,000 maunds of grain, and the least of them 2,000 maunds. The column was very ingeniously transferred to these boats, and was then conducted to Firozabad, where it was landed and conveyed into the Kushk with infinite labor and skill.”

“At this time the author of this book was twelve years of age, and a pupil of the respected Mir Khan. When the pillar was brought to the palace, a building was commenced for its reception near the Jam’a Masjid, and the most skilful architects and workmen were employed. It was constructed of stone and chunam, and consisted of several stages or steps (poshish). When a step was finished the column was raised on to it, another step was then built and the pillar was again raised, and so on in succession until it reached the intended height. On arriving at this stage, other contrivances had to be devised to place it in an erect position. Ropes of great thickness were obtained, and windlasses were placed on each of the six stages of the base. The ends of the ropes were fastened to the top of the pillar, and the other ends passed over the windlasses, which were firmly secured with many fastenings. The wheels were then turned, and the column was raised about half a gaz. Logs of wood and bags of cotton were then placed under it to prevent it sinking again. In this way by degrees, and in the course of several days, the column was raised to the perpendicular. Large beams were then placed round it as supports, until quite a cage of scaffolding was formed. It was thus secured in an upright position, straight as an arrow, without the smallest deviation from the perpendicular. The square stone, before spoken of, was placed under the pillar. After it was raised, some ornamental friezes of black and white stone were placed round its two capitals (do sar-i-an) and over these there was raised a gilded copper cupola called in Hindi kalas. The height of the obelisk was thirty-two gaz; eight gaz was sunk in its pedestal, and twenty-four gaz was visible. On the base of the obelisk there were engraved several lines of writing in Hindi characters. Many Brahmans and Hindu devotees were invited to read them, but no one was able. It is said that certain infidel Hindus interpret them, 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.”

When William Finch saw the pillar in 1611 A.D., it had “on the top a globe surmounted by a crescent.” Its gilt pinnacle, which Shams-i-Siraj also mentions, gave the pillar the name of Minar Zarin or the Golden Pillar. The top of the pillar has since been injured by lightning, or cannon balls. Besides several minor records of pilgrims and travellers, ranging from the first century of the Christian Era to the present century, the two most important inscriptions on the pillar are, first that of king Asoka, containing his edicts which were promulgated in the middle of the third century before Christ, and are engraved in the ancient Pali or the spoken language of the day; the second, records in Sanskrit, the victories of the Chohan Prince Visala Deva, who ruled over the country lying between the Himalayas and the Vindhya hills; this inscription was engraved in Samwat 1220 (1163 A.D.) in modern Nagri character. Of the first Cunningham remarks, that it is the longest, the most important of all the pillar inscriptions of Asoka; he then continues: “The alphabetical characters, which are of the oldest form that has yet been found in India, are most clearly and beautifully cut, and there are only a few letters of the whole record lost by the peeling off of the surface of the stone.... The record consists of four distinct inscriptions on the four sides of the column facing the cardinal points, and of one long inscription immediately below, which goes completely round the pillar.... The last ten lines of the eastern face, as well as the whole of the continuous inscription round shaft are peculiar to the Delhi pillar. There is a marked difference also in the appearance of this part of the inscription. The characters are all thinner and less boldly cut, the vowel marks are generally sloping instead of being horizontal or perpendicular, and the letters j, t, s and h are differently found from those of the preceding part of the inscription.”

[Fn: English translation of the inscription on the East face of the column: —
“Thus spake king Devanampiya Piyadasi: — In the twelfth year of my anointment,  a religious edict was published for the pleasure and profit of the world; having destroyed that document, and regarding my former religion as sin, I now, for the benefit of the world, proclaim the fact. And this among my nobles, among my near relations, and among my dependants, whatsoever pleasures I may thus abandon I therefore cause to be destroyed; and I proclaim the same in all the congregations; while I pray with every variety of prayer for those who differ from me in creed, that they, following after my proper example, may, with me, attain unto eternal salvation; wherefore, the present edict of religion is promulgated in this 27th year of my anointment.

“Thus spake King Devanampiya Piyadasi; — 18 Kings of the olden time have gone to heaven under these very desires. How then, among mankind, may religion or growth in grace be increased, yea, through the conversion of the humbly born shall religion increase?

"Thus spake King Devanampiya Piyadasi: — The present moment and the past have departed under the same ardent hopes. How by the conversion of the royal- born, may religion be increased? Through the conversion of the lowly-born, if religion thus increaseth, by how much more through the conviction of the high- born, and their conversion, shall religion increase? (a: The last word in the 11th line is a part of the following sentence: ye atikata / ataraon rajanne, hesa hevam ichh asu. Cunningham reads atikata as atikantam.) Among whomsoever the name of God resteth, verily this is religion or verily virtue shall there increase.

"Thus spake King Devanampiya Piyadasi: -- Wherefore, from this very hour I have caused religious discourses to be preached; I have appointed religious observances, that mankind, having listened thereto shall be brought to follow in the right path, and give glory unto God Agni? (The last line ends thus: Etam jane suta anupati pajisati / agnim namisati. Cunningham reads agnim as abhyum.)

South face.
“Thus spake King Devanampiya Piyadasi: — In the twenty-seventh year of my anointment. The following animals shall not be put to death; the parrot, the maina (or thrush), the wild duck of the wilderness, the goose, the bull-faced owl, the vulture, the bat, the Ambaka, Pillika, the raven, and the common crow, the Vedaveyaka, the adjutant, Son Kujamava, the Kadhat asyaka, the l’anasasesimala, the Sandaka, the Okapada, those that go in pairs, the white dove and the domestic pigeon. Among all four-footed beasts the following shall not be for food, they shall not be eaten: the she-goat of various kinds, and the sheep, and the sow, either when heavy with young or when giving milk. Unkilled birds, birds of every sort for the desire of their flesh, shall not be put to death. The same being alive shall not be injured, whether because of their uselessness, or for the sake of amusement they shall not be injured. Animals that prey on life shall not be cherished.

“In the three four monthly periods (of the year) on the evening of the full moon, during the three (holy) days, namely, the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the first day after conjunction, in the midst of the Uposatha ceremonies (or strict fasts) unkilled things (or live fish) shall not be exposed for sale. Yea, on these days, neither the snake tribe, nor the feeders on fish (alligators) nor any living beings whatsoever shall be put to death.

“On the eight days of the paksha (or half month), on the fourteenth, on the fifteenth, on the days when the moon is in the mansions of tirsha and Punarvasuna; on these several days in the three four monthly periods, the ox shall not be tended; the goat, the sheep, and the pig, if indeed any be tended; (for domestic use) shall not be tended. On the tirsha and the Punarvasuna of every four months, and, of every paksha or semi-lunation of the four months, it is forbidden to keep (for labour) either the horse or the ox.”

West face.
“Thus spake King Piyadasi, beloved of the Gods: — In the twenty-seventh ye.ar of my anointment, 1 have caused to be promulgated the following religious edict. My devotees, in very many hundred thousand souls, having (now) attained unto knowledge; I have ordained (the following) fines and punishments for their transgressions. Wherever devotees shall abide around, (or circumambulate) the holy fig trees for the performance of pious duties, the benefit and pleasure of the country, and its inhabitants shall be (in making) offering: and according to their generosity or otherwise shall they enjoy prosperity or adversity, and they shall give thanks for the coming of the faith. Whatever villages with their inhabitants may be given or maintained for the sake of the worship, the devotees shall receive the same and for an example unto my people they shall follow after, or exercise (solitary) austerities. And likewise, whatever blessing they shall pronounce, by these shall my devotees accumulate for the worship (?) Furthermore the people shall attend in the night the great myrobalan tree and the holy fig tree. My people shall foster (accumulate) the myrobalan. Pleasure is to be eschewed as intoxication (?)

“My devotees doing thus for the profit .nd pleasure of the village, whereby they (coming) around the beauteous and holy fig tree may cheerfully abide in the performance of pious acts. In this also are fines and punishments for the transgression of my devotees appointed much to be desired is such renown! According to the measure of the offence (the destruction of viyo or happiness) shall be the measure of the punishment, but (the offender) shall not be put to death by me. Banishment shall be the punishment of those malefactors deserving of imprisonment and execution. Of those who commit murder on the highroad (dacoits?) even none whether of the poor or of the rich shall be injured (tortured) on my three special days (?). Those guilty of cruelly beating or slaughtering living things, having escaped mutilation (through my clemency) shall give alms (as a deo-dand) and shall also undergo the penance of fasting. And thus it is my desire that the protection of even the workers of opposition shall send to (the support of) the worship; and (on the other hand) the people whose righteousness increases in every respect shall spontaneously partake of my benevolence.”

North face.
“Thus spake King Devanampiva Pyadasi: — In the twenty- seventh year of my anointment I have caused this religious edict to be published in writing. I acknowledge and confess the faults that have been cherished in my heart. From the love of virtue, by the side of which all other things are as sins, from the strict scrutiny of sin, and from a fervent desire to be told of sin: by the fear of sin and by very enormity of sin — by these may my eyes be strengthened and confirmed (in rectitude).

“The sight of religion and the love of religion of their own accord increase and will ever increase, and my people whether of the laity, (grihist) or of the priesthood (ascetics) — all mortal beings are knit together thereby, and prescribe to themselves the same path; and above all having obtained the mastery over their passions, they become supremely wise. For this is indeed true wisdom. It is upheld and bound by (it consists in) religion — by religion which cherishes, religion which teaches pious acts, religion that bestows (the only true) pleasure.

“Thus spake king Devanampiya Piyadasi: — In religion is the chief excellence, but religion consists in good works: — in the non-omission of many acts: mercy and charity, purity and chastity; — (these are) to me the anointment of consecration. Towards the poor and the afflicted, towards bipeds and quadrupeds, towards the fowls of the air and things that move in the waters, manifold have been the benevolent acts performed by me. Out of consideration for things inanimate even many other excellent things have been done by me. To this purpose is the present edict promulgated: let all pay attention to it (or take cognizance thereof); and let it endure for ages to come: and he who acts in conformity thereto, the same shall attain eternal happiness, (or shall be united with sugato.)

‘‘Thus spake King Devanampiya Piyadasi: — Whatever appeareth to me to be virtuous and good, that is so held to be good and virtuous by me, and not the less if it have evil tendency, is it accounted for evil by me or is it named among the asinave (the nine offences)? Eyes are given (to man) to distinguish between the two qualities (between right and wrong); according to the capacity of the eyes so may they behold. The following are accounted among the nine minor transgressions: mischief, hard-heartedness, anger, pride, envy. These evil deeds of nine kinds shall on no account be mentioned, They should be regarded as opposite (or prohibited). Let this (ordinance) be impressed on my heart, let it be cherished with all my soul.”

Round the Column.
“Moreover along with the increase of religion, opposition will increase: for which reason I have appointed sermons to be preached, and I have established ordinances of every kind; through the efficacy of which, the misguided, having acquired true knowledge, shall proclaim it on all sides (?) and shall become active in upholding its duties. The disciples too, flocking in vast multitudes, (many hundred thousand souls) let these likewise receive my command — in such wise do ye too address on all sides (or address comfortably) the people united in religion. King Devanampiya Piyadasi thus spake: -- Thus among the present generation have I endowed establishments, appointed men very wise in the faith, and done . . . for the faith.

“King Devanampiya Piyadasi again spake as follows: — Along the highroads I have caused fig trees to be planted, that they may be for shade for animals and men: I have (also) planted mango trees: and at every half kos I have caused wells to be constructed, and (resting-places?) for the night to be erected. And how many taverns (or serais) have been erected by me at various places, for the entertainment of man and beast? so that as the people, finding the road to every species of pleasure and convenience in these places of entertainment, these new towns (nayapuri) rejoiceth under my rule, so let them thoroughly appreciate and follow after the same (system of benevolence). This is my object and thus have I done. Thus spake King Devanampiya Piyadasi: — Let the priests deeply versed in the faith (or let my doctrines ?) penetrate among the multitude of the rich capable of granting favors, and let them penetrate alike among the unbelievers, whether of ascetics or of householders: and let them penetrate into the assemblies (?) for my sake. Moreover let them for my sake find their way among the brahmans and the most destitute: and among those who have abandoned domestic life, for my sake, let them penetrate: and among various uubelievers for my sake let them find their way: yea, use your utmost endeavours among these several classes, that the wise men, these men learned in religion, or these doctrines of my religion) may penetrate among these respectively, as well as among all other unbelievers.

“Thus spake King Devanampiya Piyadasi; — And let these (priests) and others the most skilful in the sacred offices penetrating among the charitably disposed of my queens, and among all my secluded women discreetly and respectfully use their most persuasive efforts (at conversion), and acting on the heart and on the eyes of the children for my sake penetrate in like manner among the charitably disposed of other Queens and Princes for the purpose (of imparting) religious enthusiasm and thoroughly religious instruction. And this is the true religious devotion (viz.) that it shall increase the mercy and charity, the truth and purity, the kindness and honesty of the world.

“Thus spake King Devanampiya Piyadasi: — And whateversoever benevolent, acts have been done by me, the same shall be prescribed as duties to the people who follow after me; and in this (manner) shall their influence and increase be manifest, by doing service to father and mother; by doing service to spiritual pastors; by respectful demeanour to the aged and full of years— and by kindness and condescension to brahmans and sramanas, to the orphan and destitute, to servants and the minstrel tribe.

“King Devanampiya Piyadasi again spake: — And religion increaseth among men by two separate processes, — by performance of religious offices, and by security against persecution. Accordingly that religious offices and immunities might abound among multitudes, I have observed the ordinance myself as the apple of my eye (?) as testified by all these animals which have been saved from slaughter, and by manifold other virtuous acts performed on my behalf.

“And that the religion may be free from persecution of men, increasing through the absolute prohibition to put to death living beings, or to sacrifice ought that draweth breath. For such an object is all this done, that it may endure to my sons, and their sons’ sons -- as long as the sun and moon shall last. Wherefore let them follow its injunctions and be obedient thereto — and let it be had in reverence and respect. In the twenty-seventh year of my reign have I caused this edict to be written; so sayeth (Devanampiya): — Let stone and pillars be prepared and let this edict of religion be engraven thereon, that it may endure unto the remotest ages."

William Penn and the Indians

The King of England gave all the land in Pennsylvania to William Penn. The King made Penn a kind of king over Pennsylvania. Penn could make the laws of this new country. But he let the people make their own laws.

Penn wanted to be friendly with the Indians. He paid them for all the land his people wanted to live on. Before he went to Pennsylvania he wrote a letter to the Indians. He told them in this letter that he would not let any of his people do any harm to the Indians. He said he would punish anybody that did any wrong to an Indian. This letter was read to the Indians in their own language.

Soon after this Penn got into a ship and sailed from England. He sailed to Pennsylvania. When he came there, he sent word to the tribes of Indians to come to meet him.

The Indians met under a great elm tree on the bank of the river. Indians like to hold their solemn meetings out of doors. They sit on the ground. They say that the earth is the Indian's mother.

When Penn came to the place of meeting, he found the woods full of Indians. As far as he could see, there were crowds of Indians. Penn's friends were few. They had no guns.

Penn had a bright blue sash round his waist. One of the Indian chiefs, who was the great chief, put on a kind of cap or crown. In the middle of this was a small horn. The head chief wore this only at such great meetings as this one.

When the great chief had put on his horn, all the other chiefs and great men of the Indians put down their guns. Then they sat down in front of Penn in the form of a half-moon. Then the great chief told Penn that the Indians were ready to hear what he had to say.

Penn had a large paper in which he had written all the things that he and his friends had promised to the Indians. He had written all the promises that the Indians were to make to the white people. This was to make them friends. When Penn had read this to them, it was explained to them in their own language. Penn told them that they might stay in the country that they had sold to the white people. The land would belong to both the Indians and the white people.

Then Penn laid the large paper down on the ground. That was to show them, he said, that the ground was to belong to the Indians and the white people together.

He said that there might be quarrels between some of the white people and some of the Indians. But they would settle any quarrels without fighting. Whenever there should be a quarrel, the Indians were to pick out six Indians. The white people should also pick out six of their men. These were to meet, and settle the quarrel.

Penn said, "I will not call you my children, because fathers sometimes whip their children. I will not call you brothers, because brothers sometimes fall out. But I will call you the same person as the white people. We are the two parts of the same body."

The Indians could not write. But they had their way of putting down things that they wished to have remembered. They gave Penn a belt of shell beads. These beads are called wampum. Some wampum is white. Some is purple.

They made this belt for Penn of white beads. In the middle of the belt they made a picture of purple beads. It is a picture of a white man and an Indian. They have hold of each other's hands. When they gave this belt to Penn, they said, "We will live with William Penn and his children as long as the sun and moon shall last."

-- William Penn and the Indians, by HeritageHistory.com

Five detached short lines.
“ By the mandate of Devanampiya, at all times the great truth (Mahamata) is appointed to be spoken. These also, (namely) mango trees and other things are the gift of the second princess (his) queen. And these for ................ of Kichhigani, the third princess the general (daughter’s ...................?). Of the second lady thus let the act redound with triple force.”

end footnote]

The first four inscriptions are enclosed in frames and each is complete in itself. The four edicts are repeated verbatim on the pillars at Allahabad, Mattia, Radhia aud the Kushak-Shikar on the ridge near Delhi.  

The second inscription belongs to the year 1161 A.D., and records the victories of King Visala Deva of Sakambhari, and is said to have been engraved by the order of Rai Pithora, who professed to be a descendant of the Chohan conqueror of the Tuars. This inscription consists of two portions, the shorter one is above and the longer one below the edicts of Asoka. The upper portion is engraved in much larger characters than the lower, and is on the south-west side of the pillar; and in the translation of the inscription given below in the foot note it is the first paragraph. The second portion of the inscription, which consists of two stanzas, is very defective. The two first hemistichs are wanting in seven, and the two last in five syllables. Cunningham suggests that the rendering of chahumanatilaka into “Chief of the Chohans” is more forcible than that of Colebrooke’s into “most eminent of the tribe which sprang from the arms” [of Brahma]. He further believes, that there is an error in referring the origin of the Chohans to Brahma, preferring the version of Mukji, the Bard of the Khichi Chohans, who derives them from the Anal Kund, or the fire-spring on Mount Abu. Agreeing with Mr. Edward Thomas, General Cunningham suggests that the name of the Prime Minister should be read Sri Sallakshana, and not Sri Mad Lakshana.

[Fn: English translation of the inscription
“In the year 1220 or [A.D. 1163] on the 15th day of the bright half of the month of Vaisakh (this moon:) of the fortunate Visala Deva, son of the fortunate Vella Deva, king of Sakambhari.

As far as the Vindhiya, as far as the Himadri, having achieved conquest in the course of travelling to holy places; resentful to haughty kings, and indulgent to those whose necks are humbled; making Aryavarta once more what its name signifies, by causing the barbarians to be exterminated; Visala- Deva, supreme ruler of Sakambhari and Sovereign of the earth, is victorious in the world. This conqueror, the fortunate Vigraha Raja, King of Sakambhari, most eminent of the tribe which sprang from the arms (of Brahma) now addresses his own descendants: By us the region of the earth between Himavat and Vindhya has been made tributary; let not your minds be void of exertion to subdue the remainder. Tears are evident in the eyes of the enemy’s consort; blades of grass are perceived between thy adversaries’ teeth; thy fame is predominent throughout space; the minds of thy foes are void (of hope); their route is the desert where men are hindered from passing; O Vigraha Raja Deva! in the jubilee occasioned by thy march. May thy abode, O Vigraha, sovereign of the earth be fixed, as in reason it ought, in the bosoms (akin to the mansion of dalliance) of the women with beautiful eyebrows who were married to thy enemies! There is no doubt of thy being the highest of embodied souls. Didst thou not sleep in the lap of Sri whom thou didst seize from the ocean, having churned it? In the year of the fortunate Vikramaditya 1220, on Thursday the 15th day of the bright half of the month Vaisakh. This was written in the presence of and by Sri-pati, the son of Mahava Akhyastha of a family in Ganda at this time the fortunate Lakshana Pala. a Rajaputra, is prime minister. Siva the Terrible, and the universal Monarch".]  

The less important inscriptions are, however, of different ages, the more ancient must have been on the pillar before it was removed by Firoz Shah. One of the oldest is the name of Sri Bhadra Mitras or Subhadra Mitra, this and two other inscriptions of the Gupta period are in very small letters. In larger letters, of a somewhat later date, are several short inscriptions of which the most legible is Surya Vishna Subarnakakana. A second begins with Hara Singht Subarna Kakana, the remainder being illegible with the exception of the word Kamara. A third reads Charma Subanak, the second letter being somewhat doubtful. This record is extended in another place to Charma Sabana shara. Of a much later date is the name of Siddh Bhayan Karnath Jogi. On the northern face of the pillar there are two inscriptions in modern Nagri, both bearing date Wednesday 13th, waning- moon of Chaitra Samvat 1581[ 1524 A.D.] The longer inscription contains the name of Suritan Ibrahim, being Sultan Ibrahim Lodi. [Cunningham’s Archaeological Reports, Vol. I., page 167.]

From the top of the pyramid, on which the pillar of Asoka stands, may be seen the ruins of Firozabad; they present a scene of desolation which has not been surpassed, even in a tract of country where seven different capitals have been successively abandoned to decay, or entombed in their own ruins. To the east of this site flows the Jumna, on the old bank of which river Firozabad was built; to the west, north, and south the ground is covered with dismantled buildings; half of a wall, two sides of an enclosed square, a detached domed room and a cluster of five or six such buildings surround the pillar of Asoka. Further on, a round enclosure of cells, more or less complete, stands close by a corner tower of the citadel, and another tower which lies in a heap of debris. The foundations of a series of buildings, running in parallel lines, cover several acres of ground, and mark the most crowded part of the citadel. The ruins are heaped up close together nearer the river, but are less numerous as they extend further in-land.

Kushak-i-Shikar or Jahannuma and Asoka's Second Pillar. —

This palace was built by Firoz Shah Tughlaq in the year 755 A.H. (1354 A.D.) on the top of the hill to the north-west of Modern Delhi, and outside the city of Firozabad. It was the hunting palace of Firoz Shah, and its site is now identified with the ground round and about the two half-dilapidated buildings known as Char Burji and Pir Gaib, and where the second pillar of Asoka has since been put up.[???] Prince Timur, who plundered the palace, describes it as “a fine building on the top of a hill by the banks of the Jumna.” “Firoz Shah,” says Yazdi, the obsequious historian of Prince Timur, “had given the name of Jahannuma by inspiration, as it was to become illustrious by the visit of the Sovereign of the world.”

The second pillar of Asoka “was removed by Sultan Firoz,” says Shams-i-Siraj, “with similar skill and labour, and was re-erected on a hill in the Kushak-i-Shikar (amid great feasting and rejoicing.) After the erection of the pillar, a large town sprang up and the nobles of the Court built houses there.”
 
The hunting palace, or “hunting seat” as Finch calls it, has been identified by tradition with the half-ruined building, popularly known as the Pir Gaib, used as a Great Trigonometrical Survey Station. The portion of the palace that is still standing is an oblong of 66 feet by 58, but I have no doubt that it extended to the east as far the crest of the ridge, — for fully over a hundred and ten feet, — on which may yet be seen the ruins of walls “resembling those still existing in material, workmanship, and in the great slope or batter which appears to have been a characteristic of the period.” [Beglar.]

The approach to the building, which is double-storeyed, is from the north, and you enter it thro’ what looks like a gateway, but which is evidently the remains of an arched, square, but roofless room in front of which are the remains of the floor of some building, an oblong of 50 feet by 30. To the right of this dismantled room is a buttress, which is carried up to the roof of the upper floor, and over it are the walls of a square room with arched openings; on its east is a stone pillar and on its west the upper half of the buttress supporting the arch. Behind the roofless room is a second room, of the same size as the first, but completely covered. The eastern wall of the front room, which forms part of the extreme north-eastern face of the building, indicates, as remarked before, the extension of the building on that side; and on the west of the room is the buttress already mentioned. The front room, which resembles a gateway, stands out three or four feet from the line of the northern wall of the building. This wall, so far as it belongs to the lower storey, rises to the level of the supposed gateway, and is about 18 feet wide at the base, but loses about three feet when it reaches the roof of the lower storey. The wall has no window or door in it.

On the corner of the wall is an octagonal buttress, which, as it reaches the upper storey, becomes circular. The eastern face of the building is hardly more intelligible; its northern face here assumes the appearance of a small two-storeyed tower attached to this, in the lower storey, are three arched but roofless openings, 3 feet wide and 10 feet high. On the upper storey, surmounting these openings, are a square and an arched doorway; the rest of this side of the building presents a dead wall. Turning round to the south, we come to a low but broad and arched doorway now walled up, but when open, it formed the southern entrance of a passage through the whole building from the north to the south. To the west of this doorway, there are two flights of masonry steps with a ten feet wide dead wall between them; these steps conduct the visitor to the top of the building and are divided into two flights, the first consisting of 14, and the second of 18 steps. The western face of the building is remarkable for nothing more interesting than a very heavy gateway with a low arched entrance; above this entrance, there is a dead wall with buttresses flanking the gateway and the corners of the wall. Standing under this gateway, we can see through the whole building from the west to the east, the distance being made up of the two passages and two rooms. Through a hole, about a foot in diameter, in the centre of the roof of the room nearest to this gate and the room above it, the sky is visible.

Returning to the northern entrance, which I have supposed to be the main entrance of the building, on our right, as we enter the place, is a flight of 25 steps which takes us to the second storey. As we reach the second floor on our right is a masonry monument, the grave itself being under the right hand wall of the staircase. To the left of the monument are the mehrabs of a mosque, with this peculiarity worthy of notice, that while the centre Mehrab and its right arch are in the western wall, its left arch is in the northern wall and at right angles to the wall which contains the centre mehrab. The second storey consists of two rooms. On the roof of these rooms, which is protected by a plain parapet 2-1/2 feet high reached by the steps already described on the south of the house, there are the remains of the walls of a third storey. On the roof of the southern room there is a hollow masonry cylinder, about 4 feet high and 2-1/2 feet in diameter, with an arched hole on either side of it, and covered by a slab of granite a little over 4 inches in diameter, through which the sky may be seen from the ground floor. Whether the hole in the upper roof, and the corresponding hole in the roof of the lower storey, were intended for scientific purposes or not, it is impossible to say.

Asoka’s Pillar II.—

At a short distance to the south of the Pir Gaib, on the ridge, stands the second pillar of Asoka, which was put up by Firoz Shah in his Kushak Shikar, about four miles from the first Lat. It was thrown down by an accidental explosion of a powder magazine, in the reign of Farokhsir, and was broken into five pieces, an occurrence which is no longer accepted on the sole authority of tradition. Padre Tieffenthaler, who resided in India between 1743 and 1776, corroborates the native account; he was informed by the people of Delhi that it was standing erect not long before his visit to that place. When Burt, who visited Delhi in 1833, put the five pieces in order for a sketch, the monolith measured 33 feet long, and about 3 feet 2 inches in diameter. Burt believes that about two feet of stone was lost at the top of the pillar. Although smaller than the pillar in the palace of Firozabad, it is larger in diameter. The following measurements are taken from General Cunningham’s reports: — the whole length of the five pieces is 32-3/4 feet, the portion of the shaft below the inscription measures 18 feet and that above it 12 feet, upper diameter 29-1/2 inches and lower diameter 35-82 inches; the rough thick end is about 38 inches in diameter, the diminution of the pillar is just one-fifth of an inch per foot.[

In 1838, Hindu Rao, who seems to have purchased the pillar with Mr. Fraser’s house, in the grounds of which the broken pieces were lying, made it a present to the Asiatic Society of Bengal. The Executive Engineer of Delhi, who was requested to remove the pillar, found it too expensive to send it down to Calcutta, and at the suggestion of Burt, and with the sanction of the Asiatic Society, he sawed off the inscribed portion of the pillar and sent it to that learned body, by whom it was placed under the bust of the lamented Mr. James Prinsep, the greatest antiquarian of India. In 1866, the inscription was returned to Delhi, and a year later, the broken pieces were joined together and the restored pillar was again put up by Mr. Campbell. It now stands on a granite plinth of two terraces, the first is 10 feet square and three feet high, and the second 7-1/3 feet square and feet high. The five pieces in which the pillar was broken may be easily distinguished; on the fourth piece from the bottom is the inscription, which however is hardly visible, but when examined by Mr. Prinsep was found to be the exact duplicate of the other inscriptions. The following is engraved in English on the granite plinth of the pillar:

"This pillar was originally erected at Meerut In the third century B.C. by King Asoka.

It was removed thence and set up in the Koshuk Shikar Palace near this, by the Emperor Firoz Shah, A.D. 1356.

Thrown down and broken into five pieces by the explosion of a powder magazine, A.D. 1713 — 1719, it was restored and set up in this place by the British Government, A.D. 1867.”
 
Char Burji or Four Towers. —

Tradition ascribes this building to the Kushak Shikar of Sultan Firoz Shah. It is evidently a mausoleum, although the name of the dead is unknown. It is undeniably a Firoz Shahi building, possessing all the characteristics of that period, and stands close to, if not within, the hunting palace of Firoz Shah. The building is an oblong of 61 feet by 56; it is double-storeyed, built of stone and mortar, and covered with lime plaster. It is entered through a small masonry doorway facing the south, the wall above which is pierced by three square openings; on each side of the door is an arched entrance not more than five and a half feet high. On the eastern face of the building there are three arched doors, the centre one being larger than those on its sides; above these the wall is pierced by seven loophole-style openings, each protected by a small but heavy looking and pointed weathering. The northern face of the building is like its eastern face; on the western inner wall of the ground floor is a mosque, which consists of a single mehrab or an arched recess, which represents the qiblah. The ground floor of the building consists of nine rooms, the largest is in the centre and contains a grave; on each corner there is a small room and a middle room on each side. The middle room on the west was used as a mosque, as already mentioned; the monument over the grave has been so effectually removed, that there is not the slightest sign of the room having ever been used for a mortuary purpose; but the second monument on the roof of the upper storey is still in existence.

On either side of the main entrance, in the southern wall of the building, there are two staircases which lead to the upper floor. On each corner of the upper storey is a small domed room, or burj; three of these rooms are standing; that on the N.W. corner is believed to have been struck down by lightning, which is also said to have laid bare the bones in the grave. Connecting the towers on the S.E. and the S.W. corners of the tomb, and right over its main gateway, is a small, narrow, room with three arched openings facing the north and corresponding with the three square openings in the back wall. Between the S.E. and N.E. towers, and the N.E. and N. towers, there are bare walls pierced by openings like those described in the eastern wall. On the west, corresponding with the mosque below, there is a small room; in the centre of the roof of the upper storey is a masonry monument corresponding with the grave in the ground floor.  

-- Archaeology and Monumental Remains of Delhi, by Carr Stephen, 1876


The overall impression of the lat pyramid today is that of an open pavilion. Although the loss of the corner chambers has diminish[ed] the monument’s massive profile, the repetitive arched openings along the facades conceal the solid mass of its core. The pyramidal shape and the profusion of arches lend visual emphasis to the height of the column. Viewed from a distance, the monument appears to sweep upward, no doubt a desired effect and one which conforms to the exaggerated descriptions of its height in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi. [???]51 [Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 33.]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Sat Dec 18, 2021 2:08 am

Part 7 of 10

Inscriptions and the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi

No Muslim inscriptions are known to survive in the physical remains of the mosque but, as already noted, the Archaeological Society of Delhi noticed two roundels of stucco decoration which contained inscriptions of the Muslim creed. On the other hand, 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. One of two nagari epigraphs dated Samvat 1581/1524 A.D. names Suritan Ibrahim, identified as Sultan Ibrahim Lodi.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[s] 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 Subharnaka 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.] Much attention has been directed to these lat inscriptions by modern historians but they have little if any relevance to Firuz Shah. ‘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."53 [‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 352.] ‘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. Following the example of Qutb al-Din Aibek, who ordered the erection of the iron column in the Quwwat al-Islam mosque, 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. The omission of inscriptions related to Firuz Shah on the lat itself by no means excludes the possibility that epigraphs existed elsewhere on the foundation.
Image

On the uppermost part of the fort, there is an Idgah. In the precinct of this Idgah, there is a thick lofty pillar in the centre. Constructed with the mixture of Balua soil, red marble, white marble and iron, the pillar is 15.6 feet in height, and six feet in circumference. Verses from the Koran and some brief information about the Tughlaq dynasty have been carved out on 36 slabs of the pillar. Some historians claim this pillar to be the "Kirti Stambha" of Ashoka the Great. The Hisar gazetteer also mentions that the pillar seemed to have been constructed by some Hindu king as words from Sanskrit language have also been found on the slabs. Besides this, the artistic work on the two mosques in this fort also resemble the work on the ancient Hindu temples. These historians believe that the pillar was constructed during the Ashoka period and was given touches of Muslim art by Firoz Shah Tughlaq during 14th century. In the same Idgah, on the west side of the pillar, there is an inscription. On this has been engraved in Arabian language that the Mughal emperor Humanyun came here and constructed a mosque at this place.

-- Fatehabad: A town steeped deep in history, by Sushil Manav, 1999

***

This mosque known as Humayun’s mosque was built by the Mughal emperor Humayun (1529-1556 AD) at a place where the Lat erected by the Delhi Sultan Firoz Shah Tughlaq was already standing. The mosque consists of an oblong open courtyard. To the west of this mosque is a screen made of Lakhauri bricks. The screen contains a mihrab flanked by two arched recesses on either side. An inscription praising emperor Humayun was found here.

History and description: Standing at a height of over 6 metres, the Lat appears to be a portion of one of the pillars erected by Emperor Ashoka possibly at Agroha or Hansi. The Ashokan epigraph that was once engraved on the pillar was apparently very systematically chiseled off for writing the Tughlaq inscription, recording the genealogy of Firoz Shah in beautiful Tughra-Arabic characters carved in high relief.[!!!!!!] This Lat (the pillar) stands in the centre of what now looks like an ancient walled Idgah.

-- Lat of Feroz Shah, by fatehabad.nic.in

***

Image
Pillar, Fatehabad.

Image
Detail of pillar inscription, Fatehabad

The most remarkable feature of the Fatehabad lat is its inscription, one of the longest Indo-Islamic epigraphs of the Delhi sultanate; it is historical in content and specific to the Tughluq dynasty. Shookoohy, Haryana I, 15-22 and pls. 1-70. The date of the lat's installation is not known or given in the epigraph, but specific historical events referred to in the epigraph support attribution to Firuz Shah. The bottom section of the lat appears to be part of an ancient pillar brought to the site during the Tughluq period. Although a Mauryan origin is unlikely, it is nevertheless reused. [John Irwin expresses doubt about an Asokan origin for the Fatehabad lat.]

-- The Monumental Pillars of Fīrūz Shāh Tughluq, by William Jeffrey McKibben, Ars Orientalis, Vol. 24 (1994), pp. 105-118 (14 pages), Published by: Freer Gallery of Art, The Smithsonian Institution and Department of the History of Art, University of Michigan

***

1. Lat, Fathabad, Hissar district, ca. 752/1351

Inside the precinct of the Idgah is a remnant of a lat, possibly Asokan in origin. The lat has been associated, in other cases, with a mosque and probably functioned as a type of minar, a concept which is examined in depth in the following chapter. The lat of Fathabad bears a Tughra Arabic inscription which is said to trace the genealogy of the Tughluq line. [A translation of it was allegedly done by Maulvi Ziyauddin Khan but it has not surfaced.]

-- 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

It is unfortunate that no religious epigraphs survive in the mosque. The two inscriptions observed by early surveyors provide the only clues to what the epigraphs might have contained. A similar group of epigraphs, expressions of the Muslim creed, appear in the mosque at Jahanpanah but these constitute the extent of inscriptions known to exist in it.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."] Other mosques of the period, such as those at Tughluqabad and ‘Adilabad, do not survive. The Quwwat al-Islam mosque, built by the Muizzi and Khalji sultans, provides one precedent for religious epigraphy on mosques of early sultanate Delhi. The combined epigraphs of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque, the Alai Darwaza, and the Qutb Minar are the only surviving corpus of mosque epigraphs prior to the Tughluqs. 55 [Page, An Historical Memoir on the Qutb: Delhi, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 22 (1970), Appendix II.] It is known that Firuz Shah regarded these monuments highly. In the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi he records that he restored them and when the Qutb Minar was struck by lightning he is reported to have been saddened by the report and ordered the minar repaired.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.] It is likely that he looked to the inscriptions of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque as a model in terms of content for the epigraphy intended to enrich his own mosque at Firuzabad. The inscriptions on the Qutb Minar, from the Qur'an and hadith, warn against idolatry and polytheism and emphasize the monotheism of the Islamic religion.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.] The mosque inscriptions, on the other hand, emphasize the importance of prayer and encouraged adherence to Islam and observance of obligatory practices incumbent on all Muslims. Anthony Welch has interpreted the epigraphs of the Qutb Minar, which are directed to non-Muslims, as marking a symbolic appropriation of Hindustan to the Dar al-Islam.58 [Ibid., p. 257.] The inscriptions of the qibla screen of the Quwwat al- Islam mosque, he believes, were intended for Muslims. Further, Welch determined that, based on the contents of the inscriptions on the Qutb Minar and Quwwat al-Islam mosque, these monuments served a different purpose than the Ghaznavid and Ghurid minars at Ghazni and Jam, antecedents of the Qutb Minar.

Although the scope of the inscriptional program of Firuz Shah’s mosque is unknown, historical accounts are contradictory in regard to it. 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: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.]
...caused the following lines, of his own composition [az zaban-i khweesh], to be inscribed in letters of gold on the walls [’imarat] of the Kushk-i Shikar-rav, and on the domes of the kushk-i nuzul, and the walls [‘imarat] 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."

On the basis of ‘Afif’s statement, these verses are believed to be extrapolated from the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi but they do not appear in the text which remains today.60 [These specific verses do not appear in Elliot and Dowson’s translation but are thought to be extrapolations [extrapolation: the action of estimating or concluding something by assuming that existing trends will continue or a current method will remain applicable.] from the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. [!!!]]

The sixteenth century historian, Nizam al-Din Ahmad Bakhshi, states in the Tabaqat-i Akbari, completed in 1001/1592-1593, that eight chapters of Firuz Shah’s history were inscribed on eight sides of the dome of the jami masjid.
61 [Khwajah Nizamuddin Ahmad Bakshi, Tabaqat-i Akbari, translated by B. De, Bibliotheca Indica series, vol. 1 (1927), p. 257.] Firishta, who wrote his Ta’rikh in 1015/1606-1607 and refers to both Barani and Nizam al-Din as his authorities, also refers to inscriptions being on the Firuzabad mosque. 62 [Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 268; P. Hardy, "Firishta," Encyclopedia of Islam, V. 2, pp. 921-922.] According to Firishta’s testimony, Nizam al-Din had stated that Firuz Shah introduced "many excellent laws...He caused his regulations to be carved on the Masjid of Ferozabad, of which the following may be taken as an sample ... "63 [Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 268.] Firishta then recites recognized passages from the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi. It is not known for certain if Nizam al-Din or Firishta were aware of ‘Afif's Tarikh-i Firuz Shahi but neither of them appears to have had knowledge of it.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.] Later, 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.65 [Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860) p. 407.]
As a historical source, Firishta's account is suspect and his references to the architecture of Delhi are probably secondhand....

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. See Hardy, "Firishta," Encyclopedia of Islam 2 (1966), pp. 921-922.


-- 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

Summary:

Barani is silent about inscriptions of the mosque. ‘Afif does not reference any inscriptions on the mosque but reports that Firuz Shah, from his "composition" ("thought to be the Futuhat"), caused the following lines to be inscribed on the walls of the Kushk-i Shikar-rav, on the domes of the kushk-i nuzul, and the walls of the minarets of stone 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." 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 also refers to inscriptions on the Firuzabad mosque. Nizam al-Din says that Firuz Shah caused his regulations to be carved on the Masjid of Ferozabad. Firishta then recites recognized passages from the Futuhat.  

The confusion surrounding the location of the inscription of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi has produced contradictory interpretations. Modern scholars traditionally look to Sayyid Ahmad Khan as an authority for these details but a number of facts[???!!!] can be put forward to refute the common belief that the text of the Futuhat was located in the mosque. First, Barani’s silence on the matter corroborates ‘Afif's assertion that the Futuhat was composed and therefore inscribed after his death.[???!!!] Also, the author of the Sirat does not mention the Futuhat or any inscriptions in the mosque. The inscribing of the mosque must have taken place during ‘Afif’s lifetime[???!!!] and since he states that he witnessed the construction of the lat pyramid in 770/1359 he certainly would have known the inscribed dome referred to by these later historians.66 [‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 351.] It is unlikely that, if Firuz Shah’s words were inscribed on the imperial mosque of Firuzabad, ‘Afif would choose to ascribe its location to alternate locations. No authority before the end of the 16th century, when Nizam al-Din wrote the Tabaqat-i Akbari, places the location of this inscription in the jami masjid.
Librarian's Comment: The article's author displays a touching devotion to a likely forgery. Employing rhetorical sleight of hand where necessary, for example, turning Birani's silence into "corroboration" of Afif's account, the author stumps doggedly for Afif, ignoring the questionable origins of a work that is useful precisely because it provides "facts" absent from all other contemporaneous accounts. More searching under the streetlight for the key that was lost in the closet.

Little is known of Shams-i Siraj ['Afif] beyond what is gleaned from his own work....
The work has met with scarcely any notice, whilst every historian who writes of the period quotes and refers to Ziau-d din Barni. The reason of this may be... [due to] the fact of its having at a comparatively late period been rescued from some musty record room.

-- XVI. Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, of Shams-i Siraj 'Afif, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 269-364, 1871

Neither Firishta nor Nizam al-Din corroborate ‘Afif's statement in the Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi and it is likely that neither was aware of its existence. ‘Afif was not regarded with the same esteem as Barani and it is possible that his testimony was considered less reliable or more probably his Ta'rikh was not known to later historians. ‘Afif's patron and his relationship to the court are unknown and much of his account was compiled from collective memories, but many details contained in the Ta’rikh are still eye-witness accounts.

non sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. "His weird mixed metaphors and non sequiturs."

He would at least be aware of any inscription of the sultan if one had occupied such a prominent position as the Futuhat is claimed to have occupied.[!!!] Written after Tughluq sovereignty had waned, ‘Afif’s work may have disappeared into obscurity, only to resurface after the sixteenth century. Otherwise it is difficult to explain why details that ‘Afif gives regarding the location of Firuz Shah’s "composition" escaped the notice of Firishta or Nizam al-Din. Firishta, who wrote under the patronage of Ibrahim ‘Adil Shah of Bijapur in 1018/1609-1610, probably never visited the jami masjid in Firuzabad. Nizam al-Din, on the other hand, wrote under the patronage of the Mughal emperor Akbar and is known to have derived many of his facts from earlier historical works.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."]

The location of a dome in the mosque complicates the problem further. According to Sayyid Ahmad Khan’s testimony, Firishta is imprecise about its location except to say that it crowned the mosque.68 [Saiyid Ahmad Khan, Athar in Journal asiatique (October-November 1860), p. 407.] The only extant dome is the dome covering the portal. It is unlikely that the epigraphs would have been inscribed on this dome because of its low profile and the virtual invisibility of its drum. It is more likely that the dome referred to by Firishta was situated in a central location within the courtyard or over the prayer hall on the qibla side of 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.69 [Page, Memoir on Kotla, pp. 6-7.] In 1793 A.D., 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.70 [Ibid., p. 7. Franklin’s account originally appeared in Asiatic Researches.]
In another passage he again refers to Firuz Shah’s mosque "on the stones of which he had inscribed the history of his reign."20 [Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 286.] The inscribed slabs were allegedly located on the eight sides of an octagonal drum which supported a dome, the location of which is uncertain. But the suggestion that it was located in the center of the courtyard is archaeologically tenuous.21 [Page, A Memoir on the Kotla., p. 6.]

-- 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

The Archaeological Society of Delhi reported finding six capitals in the debris scattered around the mouth of the well.71 [Carr Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, pp. 126-128.]

Sayyid Ahmad Khan also states that the dome of the mosque was still intact during the reign of Jahangir (r. 1605-1627 A.D.), but he does not cite his source.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.]
Campaign against the Infidels after the conquest of Dehli.

I had been at Dehli fifteen days, which time I had passed in pleasure and enjoyment, holding royal Courts and giving great feasts. I then reflected that I had come to Hindustan to war against infidels, and my enterprize had been so blessed that wherever I had gone I had been victorious. I had triumphed over my adversaries, I had put to death some lacs [lac = 100,000] of infidels and idolaters, and I had stained my proselyting sword with the blood of the enemies of the faith. Now this crowning victory had been won, and I felt that I ought not to indulge in ease, but rather to exert myself in warring against the infidels of Hindustan.
 
Having made these reflections on the 22nd of Rabi'u-l akhir, I again drew my sword to wage a religious war. I started from Dehli and marched three kos [5.8 miles] to the fort of Firoz-abad, which stands upon the banks of the Jumna and is one of the edifices erected by Sultan Firoz Shah. There I halted and went in to examine the place. I proceeded to the Masjid-i jami', where I said my prayers and offered up my praises and thanksgivings for the mercies of the Almighty.  Afterwards I again mounted, and proceeded to pitch my camp near the palace of Jahan-numa. On this day Saiyid Shamsu-d din Turmuzi and 'Alau-d din, naib-karkari, whom I had sent on an embassy to Bahadur Nahir at the city of Kutila,1 [See note infra page 455.] returned to my camp, and presented to me a letter which Bahadur had most respectfully written to me to the following effect: "I am one of the most insignificant servants of the great amir, and will proceed to his court to wait upon him." The ambassadors informed me that Bahadur Nahir would arrive at my court on Friday. Bahadur Nahir sent to me as a tribute two white parrots which could talk well and pleasantly. The envoys presented them to me, and told me that these two parrots had belonged to Sultan Tughlik Shah, and that they had lived at the courts of the Sultans ever since. The sight of these parrots and the sound of their voices gave me great satisfaction, so I gave directions that they should be brought before me in their cages every day that I might listen to their talk.

Next day I crossed the Jumna and marched six kos [10.8 miles] to the village of Mudula. There I halted and encamped. On the following day, Friday, I again marched, and after going five or six kos [9-10 miles], arrived at the village of Katah,2 [Or "Kanah."] where I pitched my camp. Bahadur Nahir, with his eldest son, named Kalnash,3 [The different MSS. of the Zafar-hama have "Kaltash," "Katash," and "Katlagh tash."] arrived to pay their respects, and I received them with due courtesy. They brought rare and suitable presents from Hindustan, but I looked upon the two parrots as the best of their gifts. After I had ascertained their sincerity from their words and actions, I honoured them with my royal favour and bounty, and having raised their dignity, I removed all doubt and apprehension from their minds. On the following day I marched, and, after going six kos [10.8 miles], I arrived at the town of Baghpat, where I encamped. Next day, Sunday the 26th, I again moved, and, after travelling five kos [9 miles], arrived at the village of Asar, which is situated in a tract called doab. [39 miles total]

-- XVIII. Malfuzat-I Timuri, or Tuzak-I Timur: The Autobiography of Timur, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 389-_, 1871

[Fn cont'd: 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.] If this evidence is accepted, then Nizam al-Din would be expected to describe it with more precision.[???] But the testimonies of the sixteenth century historians are irreconcilable with those of the fourteenth century historians.[???]
Summary:

Barani [1285–1358 CE ] is silent about inscriptions of the mosque. ‘Afif [?-?] does not reference any inscriptions on the mosque but reports that Firuz Shah, from his "composition", caused the following lines to be inscribed on the walls of the Kushk-i Shikar-rav, on the domes of the kushk-i nuzul, and the walls of the minarets of stone 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." Nizam al-Din Ahmad Bakhshi [1551-1621 CE] states that eight chapters of Firuz Shah’s history were inscribed on eight sides of the dome of the jami masjid. Firishta [1560-1620 CE] also refers to inscriptions on the Firuzabad mosque. Nizam al-Din says that Firuz Shah caused his regulations to be carved on the Masjid of Ferozabad. Firishta then recites recognized passages from the Futuhat.  

Sayyid Ahmad Khan [1817-1898 CE] states that the dome of the mosque was still intact during the reign of Jahangir (r. 1605-1627 A.D.). The moment of the destruction of the buildings of Firuzabad is unknown. That the mosque was destroyed by Timur [1336-1405 CE] is unlikely.

The preponderance of literary evidence, together with the lack of indisputable archaeological evidence, suggests that the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi was not inscribed on the jami masjid and the very existence of the dome is spurious.[???!!!] ‘Afif's statement that Firuz Shah’s composition was engraved on the palace at Fimzabad -- more specifically, the dome of the Kushk-i Nuzul (in front of the audience hall in the kotla) and the Kushk-i Shikar (on the northern ridge) and on the stone minarets of the Kushk-i Shikar -- becomes the most credible resolution.[???!!!]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.]

Besides the question of its location, the content of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi is unusual for a mosque inscription. It has been stated by modern scholars that "the only Tughluq mosque with extensive epigraphy was limited to a highly personal, though piously Sunni, statement."74 [Welch and (Trane, "The Tughluqs," pp. 158-159.] The Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi is unusual in that its content consists of a narrative of the events of the reign, although it is certainly personal and piously Sunni.Whether it is was intended for a Muslim religious monument, however, is doubtful.[???] Fortunately, the text of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi survives in manuscript form.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.] It is a unique historical document and its personalized narrative lends credence to the alleged authorship of the sultan himself. [???!!!] This fact is generally undisputed.76 [Roy, "Futuhat-i Firuzshahi," JRASB Letters VII (1941), pp. 62-63.]
This little work, the production of the Sultan Firoz Shah, contains a brief summary of the achievements of his reign... Sir H. Elliot was unable to obtain a copy of it, but considered its recovery very desirable, "as everything relating to the noble character of Firoz is calculated to excite attention." Colonel Lees also speaks of it, but he had never seen it... Mr. Thomas was more fortunate, for he possesses a copy which purports to have been written in 1139 H. (1726 A.D.), but it is quite modern; the date therefore must be that of the MS. from which it was copied. ...The editor has translated the whole of it, with the exception of a few lines in the preface laudatory of the prophet.

-- XVII. Futuhat-i Firoz Shahi of Sultan Firoz Shah, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 374-, 1871[/url]

You would be mistaken if you thought art forgery was a recent thing. In fact, for as long as art works have been coveted, they have been forged, faked and fobbed off on untrained eyes. There are even examples of Romans forging ancient Greek sculptures to turn a fast buck.

In 1496, Michelangelo himself faked a piece of sculpture and sold it to Cardinal Riario of San Giorgio. The piece was a sleeping cupid figure, which Michelangelo treated with sour earth to make it seem ancient. When the Cardinal later learned of the fraud he demanded his money back.


For many centuries, copying another artist's work was done more for practice and as a tribute than in order to deceive a buyer. Many old masters -- Rembrandt for one -- taught their pupils by getting them to copy works in their style. In return for their tuition, the teacher was then allowed to sell those works as their own. This caused significant confusion to art historians who had to decipher which works were genuine old masters', and which merely produced under their tutelage.

The most infamous forgeries have taken place in the 20th century, for one, the "Etruscan" terracotta warriors that were sold to the New York Met between 1915 and 1921. These sculptures were passed off as work by ancient Etruscan artisans, but were in reality created by two Italian brothers and their sons.

Pio and Alfonso Ricardi began their career as art forgers when Roman art dealer Domenico Fuschini hired them to forge ancient ceramics for him to sell. They proved so adept at the techniques used by ancient civilisations that they were soon creating much larger fakes. In 1908, the British Museum bought a large bronze chariot that the brothers claimed they had found in an Etruscan fort near Orvieto.

In 1915, the Ricardis enlisted aid of sculptor Alfredo Fioravanti and created a two-metre statue of a warrior which was then sold to the New York Met. The same museum also bought their next two pieces of work, the Colossal Head, in 1916, and the Big Warrior, designed by Pio's eldest son Ricardo, in 1918 -- this piece alone cost the museum $40,000.


The three warrior statues were exhibited together in 1933, but in the years that followed various art historians voiced concern about their legitimacy. Finally, in 1960, a chemical test indicated that the black glaze used on the sculptures contained manganese, which was never used by the Etruscans. In January 1961, Alfredo Fioravanti came clean, signing a full confession at the US consulate in Rome.

One artist whose fraudulent paintings have come to light is John Myatt, whose versions of paintings by artists such as Marc Chagall, Le Corbusier, Jean Dubuffet, Alberto Giacometti, Matisse, Ben Nicholson and Graham Sutherland were sold at major auction houses.

What made these fakes difficult to spot was the paper trail that was created by Myatt's associates to lend credence to their genuineness, including certificates of authenticity and invoices of previous sales. Erroneous material -- letters, pages of art catalogues featuring fakes was even inserted into archives in case anyone checked up on what was being offered for sale....

-- The history of fraud - art, by guardian.co.uk, 2011

How can we be sure that the historical events that we learn about in school or from books really took place? Maybe some of them are simply fairy tales that, because of some mysterious circumstances, are considered now to be historical facts.

The fundamental question that should be asked is what is the origin of our historical knowledge.... even in our lifetime some of the recent historical events that we witnessed are not always described in the way we remember them. How can we be sure that the description of the events that took place centuries ago is accurate? Moreover, why should we believe that these historical events really happened at the time and place that is allocated to them? In order to answer these questions we must look at the history of history.

The early historians (for example Thucydides, Herodotus, Ssu-ma Ch'ien and others) were describing history of small territories over short periods of time. Ancient and medieval manuscripts that are available today usually present accounts of events in separate countries over a time scale of no more than one or two centuries. The fundamental problem encountered by historians in 16th and 17th centuries working on reconstruction of the global history of mankind was putting together in chronological order all of the manuscripts, chronicles and other historical documents to obtain a unified and consistent account of all historical events. This was an extremely difficult problem for that time. The main obstacle was that most of the manuscripts were not dated, or used an unknown or archaic system of dating, and contained only a description of a sequence of successive events. It should be stressed out that the most of historical documents that we have today, related to ancient and medieval times, are not original but only copies made some time ago, often under suspicious circumstances....

The official historical chronology, presently commonly acknowledged, was originated by the Italian theologian and scientist I. Scaliger (1540-1609). He determined the exact dates of the most important historical events like the Peloponnesian War, Trojan War, founding of Rome, etc., but did not prove none of his dates. His followers continued this work and it is commonly accepted that the official chronology was given its final shape by D. Petavius (1583-1652). It is strange that other historians, in spite of the scientific advantages, very rarely modified the dates of the basic historical events assigned by Scaliger and Petavius....

[A]ccording to Scaliger, Petavius and their followers, the events of the ancient world took place from about 3,500 years B.C. till the fifth century A.D. As their results were never independently confirmed, there is an outstanding question of the credibility of this chronology....


[N]ot all contemporaries of Scaliger and Petavius, supported their chronology. For example, in the sixteenth century D. Arcilla, a professor of Salamanca University in Spain, claimed that all ancient history was a fabrication made in the middle ages. The director of the French Royal Library, Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) declared that practically all the antiquities and ancient texts were created (or falsified) after 12th century. The most famous scientist of that epoch, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), was also against the chronology of Scaliger and Petavius. Newton published a large monograph entitled "The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended," in which he re-dated key ancient events by shifting them several hundreds years forward. There were many more scientists, philologists, historians, and jurists who objected to the chronology of Scaliger and Petavius.


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

Firishta’s statement that Firuz Shah "caused his regulations to be carved on the masjid...,'' implies that the Futuhat was drafted for that sole purpose.[???]77 [Firishta, Ta’rikh (Briggs), p. 268.] ‘Afif, familiar with the circumstances surrounding the writing of the verses, asserts Firuz Shah’s authorship but ascribes the location of the sultan’s composition to secular buildings. The absence of any mention of it in the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi casts doubt on its existence in the mosque.[???] By examining the contents of the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi, one may more clearly determine its propriety for a Muslim religious structure.[???]

The prose of the Futuhat is unsophisticated and could easily be read by literate Muslims in contrast to the highly stylized epigraphs of later Muslim builders which were often undecipherable even to literate Muslims.[!!!] The sequence of events listed here is the same order in which they appear in the surviving text.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.] Firuz Shah opens the Futuhat with laudatory praises of the Prophet and deference to the Creator who:
...gave me a disposition for discharging my lawful duties and my moral obligations...My desire is that, to the best of my human power, I should recount and pay thanks to the many blessings He has bestowed upon me, so I may be found among the number of His grateful servants. First I would praise Him because when irreligion and sins opposed to the Law prevailed in Hindustan, and men’s habits and dispositions were inclining towards them, and were averse to the restraints of religion, He inspired me His humble servant with an earnest desire to repress irreligion and wickedness.

Firuz Shah then enumerates his deeds or victories over irreligion. The Futuhat covers a range of topics. The first includes his successful efforts to alleviate hardships on fellow Muslims. First he stopped the persecution of Muslims which had occurred in previous reigns. He stopped unlawful killing, the inflicting of torture, and adjudicated punishments according to the Qur’an. He restored the practice of reciting the names of former sovereigns in the khutba during the Friday sabbath and feast days. He abolished taxes which were not prescribed by the Qur’an, in particular, taxes levied for services and products in the marketplace. He also lessened the amount of spoil appropriated for the public treasury following conquest to the one-fifth portion dictated by Muslim law. In these first four edicts Firuz Shah encouraged adherence to Muslim Law (shar’ia) and stopped practices which ran counter to Muslim religious authority.

Firuz Shah then turned his attention to sectarian issues and heretical practices. He reprimanded Shi’as for proselytizing, punishing the most zealous, and ordering their books burnt. He suppressed the practices of heretics (mulhid) and sectarians (abahtiyan) which included wine drinking and carnal debauchery. He imprisoned atheists, in particular a certain Ahmad Bahari, who claimed himself to be a prophet, and banished his followers. Rukn al-Din, who claimed to be a Mahdi and was charged with heresy by the 'ulama', suffered a horrible death by having his bones broken by members of the ‘ulama’. He also punished ’Ain Mahru, a shaikh in Gujarat, for fasad (innovation). In all cases Firuz Shah leveled severe punishments against the leaders and showed leniency toward their followers whom he encouraged to embrace Islam. He abolished the custom of pilgrimage by Muslim women to tombs because the practice was unauthorized by Muslim law and because many had been victims of "rakes and wild fellows of unbridled passions and loose habits."

In the next passages, Firuz Shah turned his attention to infidels. He ordered the demolition of Hindu temples and executed the leaders of Hindu groups who "seduced others into error." He ordered payment of the zar-i zimmiya and jizya, taxes levied against non-believers in return for their protection. Although he ordered the execution of Hindu leaders of Maluh village, he states, "I forbad the inflicting of severe punishments on the Hindus in general, but I destroyed their idol temples, and instead thereof raised mosques." Besides Maluh, he enacted similar punitive measures against the inhabitants of the villages of Tughlikpur, Salarpur, Salihpur, and Kohana.

In accordance with his orthodoxy, he enacted measures which affected court life. He prohibited the use of gold and silver vessels and substituted bone for gold and jewels in arms. He also prohibited the wearing of ornamented garments, paintings of figures and devices on horse trappings and tents, vessels, and all objects. He ordered pictures and portraits, which had been painted on the doors and walls of the palaces, effaced. He restricted the customary wearing of robes of honor and silk and gold brocade garments by men of the court.

Firuz Shah then reflects at length upon his achievements in erecting public buildings and restoring those of his predecessors, enumerated in Chapter III above. Few monuments constructed by the early sultans escape his notice. He revived old endowments and set up new waqfs for their maintenance. He revitalized pilgrimage sites and founded a hospital (Dar al-shifa).

In an extraordinary move to reconcile his predecessor’s transgressions, he offered gifts to the families of Muslims who had been persecuted or executed by Muhammad bin Tughluq. From them he exacted deeds of their assuagement and placed these beside that sultan’s tomb. In a similar spirit, he reinstated lands which had been confiscated during former reigns to rightful claimants.

He encouraged infidels to embrace Islam and states that great numbers did so. He protected Muslims’ land and property and attended to the needs of the poor and needy. He particularly looked after the needs of religious recluses (fakirs). He encouraged the elderly to repent their sins and to prepare for the afterlife. He assured employment to the sons of faithful servants.

Firuz Shah’s final thoughts turned to the occasion of the arrival of an emissary from the caliph in Egypt who confirmed his authority as deputy of the caliph and granted him the title of Sayyid al-Salatin.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/I (1950), pp. 66-71.] Firuz Shah concluded the Futuhat with the words:

My object in writing this book has been to express my gratitude to the All-bountiful God for the many and various blessings He has bestowed upon me. Secondly, that men who desire to be good and prosperous may read this and learn what is the proper course. There is this concise maxim, by observing which, a man may obtain God’s guidance: Men will be judged according to their works, and rewarded for the good that they have done.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


-- Matthew 7:16-20, King James Version

The Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi is indeed an extraordinary document.

The sequence of events is not always fluid; in fact, the text seems to be a collection of nonsequiturs. The author’s message at times becomes lost in the profusion of details. Adherence to the Muslim Law (Shar'ia) is a recurrent theme and the author states that he composed the verses for others to emulate. The Futuhat is therefore a form of advice (nasihat) to all man [who] aspire to a proper life. Firuz Shah’s thanksgiving to God and his prescribed course of action is an expression of his piety. The propriety of placing such a statement in the epigraphs of a religious edifice would be in keeping with his desire to publicly affirm his piety, but the historical and archaeological evidence to support this supposition is absent.[???!!!]

It must be pointed out that Firuz Shah nowhere mentions in the Futuhat that he intended to have its verses engraved on any architectural monument. Indeed the text is long and only a summary of its contents could have been engraved in stone. The text is a curious one for religious epigraphy; he lists his deeds as prescribed by the Law, but he does not cite the Law itself.[???]
The personalized version of orthodoxy presented in the Futuhat is the very quality which makes it inappropriate for a religious monument.[???]
Instead, the text was probably more suitable for a secular palace, where personal aphorisms were appropriate.
Firuz Shah should be given all credit for the discovery and preservation of five Mauryan pillars. It is recorded that the scholars of his time had failed to decipher the Asokan edicts. But it is nowhere mentioned why Firuz attached so much importance to these, otherwise simple monolithic stone pillars. It is also not known why he decided to re-erect these columns inside or in front of mosques. It seems that after the re-erection of the Delhi-Topra pillar some Indian scholar of his time had informed him about some of the purports of the inscriptions.
On the base of the obelisk there were engraved several lines of writing in Hindi characters. Many Brahmans and Hindu devotees were invited to read them, but no one was able. 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, etc., etc.

-- XVI. Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, of Shams-i Siraj 'Afif, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 269-364, 1871

This becomes more probable when we consider that Firuz Shah caused to be inscribed memories (Futuhat-i-Firuz Shahi), i.e. records of his achievements or regulations to be inscribed on the eight sides of the octagonal cupola in the Jami Mosque of Firuzabad, next to the pyramidal structure of the Delhi-Topra pillar. It is also not understood why Firuz erected his inscribed cupola before the Asokan pillar. Moreover one can find many parallels in the Asokan pillar edict of Kotla-Firuz Shah and in the Futuhat [K. A. Nizami, "The Futuhat i-Firuz as a Medieval Inscription, Proceedings of the Seminar on Medieval Inscriptions (Aligarh, 7974), pp, 28-33, where he compares the text of the Futuhat with the Delhi-Topra Pillar Edicts of Asoka and observes many striking similarities in both the texts.] which recorded Firuz's regulations, public works love of people, abolition of inhuman punishments, and harsh taxes, foundations of hospitals, colleges, towns, gardens, public baths, minarets, excavation of tanks, wells, construction of bridges, canals, preservation of ancient monuments and books (some of them translated from Sanskrit), extension of cultivation; and attempts of raising the morals of the people.

-- A Study of Asokan Pillars: Re-Erected by Firuz Shah Tughluq, by W. H. Siddiqi, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 36 (1975), pp. 338-344 (7 pages), 1975

Firuz Shah’s lat pyramid ... functions as an emblem appropriated from an infidel religion, in the manner of the iron pillar, and also has symbolic associations like the Qutb Minar. The lat was probably intended by Firuz Shah to have a symbolic function. By incorporating it into a Muslim religious structure, Firuz Shah appropriated and adapted an emblem of the pagan world for Islamic purposes and, in a symbolic sense, converted the dar al-harb (the pagan world) to the dar al-islam....In this manner, the Firuzabad lat, a pre-Islamic emblem which had lost meaning in fourteenth century Indian society, gained new meaning....

The Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi of ‘Afif and the Sirat-i Firuz Shahi both mention popular beliefs about the column ... 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...[!!!!!!]

Firuz Shah allowed the inscriptions to remain intact ... but since the inscriptions were undeciphered, they probably posed no threat or embarrassment to him.

-- 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

The date of the Futuhat is not determined. Most of the events which Firuz Shah records escape the notice of Barani and ‘Afif. ‘Afif claims that Firuz Shah commenced writing his composition after Barani’s death in 758/1357. In addition, the year of the repair to the Qutb Minar, known by an inscription on that monument to be 770/1369, is implied by the Futuhat to be in the past. Since Firuz Shah mentions the repairs to Qutb Minar in his list of restorations, he must have completed the Futuhat after 770/1369. But the absence of any mention of his most important campaigns -- the two expeditions to Bengal and one to Sind -- and the absence of any mention of the campaigns of jihad to the temples of Puri (Orissa) and Nagarkot (Kangra) are inexplicable. Other events of importance that fail to get mentioned include the erection of the lat pyramid in 769/1367. In fact, none of his major architectural achievements are noted. Rather he simply states, "I built many mosques, colleges, and monasteries." It is not unreasonable to assume that Firuz Shah began his career as patron of architecture before he came to the throne. If this scenario is accepted, then the Futuhat was composed early in his reign (ca. 1357-60 A.D.). If he composed the verses for inclusion on the palaces at Firuzabad, then he would have done so around the time they were built, that is, early in the reign. But, the inclusion of a reference to his repair of the Qutb Minar in the text casts doubt on an early date. The questions surrounding the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi are not likely to be resolved.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

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

Postby admin » Sat Dec 18, 2021 4:33 am

Part 8 of 10

The Lat Pyramid: Form and Meaning

The lat pyramid is an extraordinary structure, unique not only to India, but to Muslim architecture generally. Although contemporary authorities shed some light on the purpose of this peculiar monument, 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.80 [‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 350-351, 353.] ‘Afif refers to both columns as lasting memorials of the sultan’s power. 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).81 [Malfuzat-i Timuri (Elliot and Dowson), pp. 448-449; ‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 353.] The Sirat-i Firuz Shahi also makes several references to the Topra column as a minar.82 [Sirat-i Firuz Shahi, p. 34 and p. 42.] Firishta, however, is silent about the lat.

The combined testimonies of these historians leave little doubt that the mosque and the lat were conceived to be part of one mosque complex. The discovery of the lat was a propitious occasion for the sultan who undoubtedly saw in it an opportunity to rival the famed Qutb Minar, a product of an earlier legacy.[???!!!]

The Qutb Minar was built over the ruins of the Lal Kot, the citadel of Dhillika. Qutub Minar was begun after the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque, which was started around 1192 by Qutb-ud-din Aibak, first ruler of the Delhi Sultanate.

Image
Kuttull Minor, Delhi. The Qutb Minar, 1805.

It is usually thought that the tower is named for Qutb-ud-din Aibak, who began it. It is also possible that it is named after Khwaja Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki a 13th-century sufi saint, because Shamsuddin Iltutmish was a devotee of his.

The Minar is surrounded by several historically significant monuments of the Qutb complex. Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque, to the north-east of the Minar was built by Qutub-ud-Din Aibak in A.D. 1198. It is the earliest extant mosque built by the Delhi Sultans. It consists of a rectangular courtyard enclosed by cloisters, erected with the carved columns and architectural members of 27 Hindu and Jaina temples, which were demolished by Qutub-ud-Din Aibak as recorded in his inscription on the main eastern entrance. Later, a lofty arched screen was erected, and the mosque was enlarged, by Shams-ud- Din Itutmish (A.D. 1210-35) and Ala-ud-Din Khalji. The Iron Pillar in the courtyard bears an inscription in Sanskrit in Brahmi script of fourth century A.D., according to which the pillar was set up as a Vishnudhvaja (standard of god Vishnu) on the hill known as Vishnupada in memory of a mighty king named Chandra....

In 1505, an earthquake damaged Qutub Minar; it was repaired by Sikander Lodi. On 1 September 1803, a major earthquake caused serious damage. Major Robert Smith of the British Indian Army renovated the tower in 1828 and installed a pillared cupola over the fifth story, creating a sixth. The cupola was taken down in 1848, under instructions from The Viscount Hardinge, who was the Governor General of India at the time. It was reinstalled at ground level to the east of Qutb Minar, where it remains. This is known as "Smith's Folly"....

Qutub Minar and Smith’s Folly: An Architectural Disaster
by Rangan Datta
August 15, 2012

Image
Smith’s Folly, with Qutub Minar in the background

It is said that lightning never strikes a place twice, but tall structures like the Qutub Minar have always been exceptions. There are several records of the tower being struck by lightning, and other natural calamities have taken their toll on the highest stone tower in the world. But the string of disasters has left the minar unscathed except for a slight tilt, some two feet of the perpendicular.

The first recorded lightning strike on the Qutub Minar happened in 1368, when a lightning strike severely damaged the top storey of the Qutub Minar. Sultan Firoz Shah Tughluq replaced the fallen storey with with two floors and crowned it with a cupola. [cupola, in architecture, small dome, often resembling an overturned cup, placed on a circular, polygonal, or square base or on small pillars or a glassed-in lantern. It is used to crown a turret, roof, or larger dome. The inner vault of a dome is also a cupola. Cupolas, usually bulbous or pointed, first saw widespread use in Islāmic architecture in about the 8th century. They often topped minarets but were also built over the central space or on the corners of mosques as well as on domestic buildings in the Middle East and India. -- cupola, by Britannica] The restoration also introduced white marble into the otherwise red and buff sandstone.

Sikandar Lodi also carried out some repairs on the Qutub Minar in 1503 but the nature and extent of damage is not recorded.

The next major damage happened during the earthquake of 1803. Although much lesser in magnitude than the 1368 lightning the damage was significant enough to destroy Firoz Shah’s cupola permanently.

The body of historical epigraphy which identifies Firuz Shah as builder is confined to one inscription on the gate of the enclosure of the tomb of the Chisti saint Nasir al-Din Mahmud Chiragh in Delhi.91 [Stephen, Archaeology and Monumental Remains, p. 146, fn.]

"In the name of God! Auspicious is the mention of His name. The building of this glorious dome was [finished] in the year of the august, strengthened with the help of the merciful, Abu al-Muzaffar Firoz Shah, Sultan; May God perpetuate his kingdom; in the year 775, date of the flight of the Messenger of God, on whom be God's blessing. Greeting."

The inscription attributes that foundation to Firuz Shah but the monument to which it is attached is an accretion of forms which belong to several later time periods.

The other important inscription is one found on the Qutb Minar which identifies Firuz Shah as the person who repaired the minar after it had been struck by lightning.92

[The Persian inscription given in the text in located on the doorway of the fifth storey. Firuz Shah’s repairs to the Qutb Minar have been been the topic of much discussion. Page, Historical Memoir on the Qutb, pp. 19-20, indicates that the fourth and fifth stories of the minar were probably Firuz Shah’s construction. Besides the Persian inscription, two nagari inscriptions on the minar refer to repairs in 1369 A. D. Page (pp. 34 and 42-43) gives the following translations from the Archaeological Survey’s reports. The first nagari inscription (on the 8th course of the third balcony):

"On Thursday, the 15th day of the dark fortnight of Phalguna in the year Samvat 1425 (i.e., 1369 A.D.) lightning fell. The [monument] was [then] repaired in the year Samvat 1425. The architects were Nana, Salha, Lola and Lashmana."

The second nagari inscription (on the left abutment of the fourth balcony):

"Om. In the auspicious reign of the illustrious Firoz Shah Sultan on Friday the 5th of the bright fortnight of Phalguna in the year Samvat 1426, the restoration of the Minar was carried out in the palace or temple of Visvakarman. The architect was the maternal grandson of the son of Chahadadevapala; the measuring cord was drawn and the foundation laid."

end footnote]

These two examples directly associate [???!!!] surviving structures with Firuz Shah. All other buildings thus far attributed to his patronage are missing foundation inscriptions. In addition, other restoration projects such as the unique qibla portico on the madrasa-tomb of Nasir al-Din Mahmud (the "Sultan Ghari" tomb) are attested to by the sultan in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi but not by inscription.93 [Welch and Crane, "The Tughluqs," p. 154.]

The virtual absence of historical epigraphy associated with Firuz Shah leaves a number of questions about his role as patron unanswered.


-- 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

Faced with an incomplete Minar, the then British Governor-General of India, Lord Wellesly authorized Major Robert Smith, the hitherto respected builder of the St. James’ Church, Delhi, to carry out the necessary repairs. These works were completed in 1828 at the not-insignificant sum of Rs. 17,000 of the time.

Only, Major Smith exceeded his brief by re-inventing what he had been asked to re-create. He had replaced an Indo-Islamic cupola with a Bengali style chatthri! The glorious tower of Islamic dominance had been capped with a Hindu cupola!

The prospect was so ridiculous, and the cupola so out of place, that Lord Hardinge eventually had it taken down in 1848 and placed it on the outer lawns of the Qutub Complex, where it still lies, like an impure, adulterated crown that has fallen off the Minar’s head. It has been called Smith’s Folly ever since.


Reference:

* World Heritage Series: Qutb Minar & Adjoining Monuments (Archeological Survey of India)
* The story of Smith’s Folly

The height of Qutb Minar is 72.5 meters, making it the tallest minaret in the world built of bricks. The tower tapers, and has a 14.3 metres (47 feet) base diameter, reducing to 2.7 metres (9 feet) at the top of the peak. It contains a spiral staircase of 379 steps....

At the foot of the tower is the Quwat Ul Islam Mosque.
 

-- Qutb Minar, by Wikipedia


He was also certainly aware that ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji aspired to erect a minar which would surpass the height of the Qutb Minar but it never rose past the first stage. The Qutb Minar and the truncated foundation of ‘Ala’ al-Din Khalji’s minar stood as reminders of the ambitions of these early Delhi sultans.

‘Afif points out that Firuz Shah emulated Iltutmish, who he claims set up the iron pillar which stands in situ today in the courtyard of the Quwwat al-Islam mosque. The iron pillar is remarkably similar in form and concept to Firuz Shah’s newly acquired lat.83 [The iron pillar is discussed by Page, An Historical Memoir on the Qutb: Delhi, p. 10 and Appendix III.] Dating from the Gupta period, it bears an inscription describing the conquests of Chandra (identified recently as the Gupta king Samudragupta). In addition, several other inscriptions are carved on its surface, the oldest being a Persian inscription dated 964/1556.84 [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.] It has already been pointed out that the inscription was not effaced and no additions were made by Qutb al-Din Aibek who is believed to have placed it in its present site or by any Muizzi or Khalji sultan. Although the origin of the Gupta period pillar is not known, it is believed to have been a dhvaja-stambha for a Vaishnava temple, perhaps the Hindu temple upon whose foundation the Quwwat al-Islam mosque was erected.85 [Ibid., p. 6; Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, pp. 12, 31-32.] Firuz Shah’s retrieval of the Topra pillar and raising it next to his mosque was clearly a conscious act of emulating Iltutmish.[???]86 [‘Afif, Ta’rikh (Elliot and Dowson), p. 353.]

Image

The iron pillar of Delhi is a structure 23 feet 8 inches (7.21 metres) high with a 16-inch (41 cm) diameter that was constructed by Chandragupta II (reigned c. 375–415 CE), and now stands in the Qutb complex at Mehrauli in Delhi, India. It is famous for the rust-resistant composition of the metals used in its construction. The pillar weighs over three tonnes (6,614 lb) and is thought to have been erected elsewhere, perhaps outside the Udayagiri Caves, and moved to its present location by Anangpal Tomar in 11th century....

The pillar carries a number of inscriptions of different dates, some of which have not been studied systematically despite the pillar's prominent location and easy access.

The oldest inscription on the pillar is that of a king named Chandra (IAST: Candra), generally identified as the Gupta emperor Chandragupta II....

It contains verses composed in Sanskrit language, in shardulvikridita metre. It is written in the eastern variety of the Gupta script. The letters vary from 0.3125″ to 0.5″ in size, and resemble closely to the letters on the Allahabad Pillar inscription of Samudragupta. However, it had distinctive mātrās (diacritics), similar to the ones in the Bilsad inscription of Kumaragupta I....

The text has some unusual deviations from the standard Sanskrit spelling, such as:

• pranśu instead of praṃśu: the use of dental nasal instead of anusvāra
• mūrtyā instead of mūrttyā: omission of the second t
• kīrtyā instead of kīrttyā: omission of the second t
• śattru instead of śatru (enemy): an extra t

In 1831, the East India Company officer William Elliott made a facsimile of the inscription. Based on this facsimile, in 1834, James Prinsep published a lithograph in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. However, this lithograph did not represent every single word of the inscription correctly. Some years later, British engineer T. S. Burt made an ink impression of the inscription. Based on this, in 1838, Prinsep published an improved lithograph in the same journal, with his reading of the script and translation of the text.

Decades later, Bhagwan Lal Indraji made another copy of the inscription on a cloth. Based on this copy, Bhau Daji Lad published a revised text and translation in 1875, in Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. This reading was the first one to correctly mention the king's name as Chandra.
In 1888, John Faithfull Fleet published a critical edition of the text in Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum.

In 1945, Govardhan Rai Sharma dated the inscription to the first half of the 5th century CE, on paleographic grounds. He observed that its script was similar to the writing on other Gupta-Era inscriptions, including the ones discovered at Bilsad (415 CE), Baigram (449 CE), and Kahanum (449 CE). R. Balasubramaniam (2005) noted that the characters of the Delhi inscription closely resembled the dated inscriptions of Chandragupta II, found at Udayagiri in Madhya Pradesh.

The inscription is undated, and contains a eulogy of a king named Candra, whose dynasty it does not mention....

The king is now generally identified with the Gupta King Chandragupta II.[19] This identification is based on several points:

• The script and the poetic style of the inscription, which point to a date in the late fourth or early fifth century CE: the Gupta period.
• The inscription describes the king as a devotee of the God Vishnu, and records the erection of a dhvaja ("standard", or pillar) of Vishnu, on a hill called Viṣṇupada ("hill of the footprint of Viṣṇu"). Other Gupta inscriptions also describe Chandragupta II as a Bhagavata (devotee of Vishnu). The names of the places mentioned in the inscription are also characteristic of the Gupta Era. For example, Dakṣiṇa Jalanidhi (the Indian Ocean) and Vaṅga (the Bengal region).
• The short name ‘Candra’ is inscribed on the archer-type gold coins of Chandragupta II, while his full name and titles appear in a separate, circular legend on the coin.
• A royal seal of Chandragupta's wife Dhruvadevi contains the phrase Śrī Viṣṇupada-svāmī Nārāyaṇa (“Nārāyaṇa, the lord of the illustrious Viṣṇupada”).

As the inscription is a eulogy and states that the king has abandoned the earth, there has been some discussion as to whether it is posthumous, i.e. whether King Chandra was dead when the record was created....

J. F. Fleet's 1888 translation is as follows:
(Verse 1) He, on whose arm fame was inscribed by the sword, when, in battle in the Vanga countries (Bengal), he kneaded (and turned) back with (his) breast the enemies who, uniting together, came against (him); – he, by whom, having crossed in warfare the seven mouths of the (river) Sindhu, the Vahlikas were conquered; – he, by the breezes of whose prowess the southern ocean is even still perfumed; –

(Verse 2) He, the remnant of the great zeal of whose energy, which utterly destroyed (his) enemies, like (the remnant of the great glowing heat) of a burned-out fire in a great forest, even now leaves not the earth; though he, the king, as if wearied, has quit this earth, and has gone to the other world, moving in (bodily) from to the land (of paradise) won by (the merit of his) actions, (but) remaining on (this) earth by (the memory of his) fame; –

(Verse 3) By him, the king, attained sole supreme sovereignty in the world, acquired by his own arm and (enjoyed) for a very long time; (and) who, having the name of Chandra, carried a beauty of countenance like (the beauty of) the full-moon,-having in faith fixed his mind upon (the god) Vishnu, this lofty standard of the divine Vishnu was set up on the hill (called) Vishnupada....

The inscription has been revisited by Michael Willis in his book Archaeology of Hindu Ritual, his special concern being the nature of the king's spiritual identity after death. His reading and translation of verse 2 is as follows:
The residue of the king's effort – a burning splendour which utterly destroyed his enemies – leaves not the earth even now, just like (the residual heat of) a burned-out conflagration in a great forest.

He, as if wearied, has abandoned this world, and resorted in actual form to the other world – a place won by the merit of his deeds – (and although) he has departed, he remains on earth through (the memory of his) fame (kīrti).

Willis concludes:
Candragupta may have passed away but the legacy of his achievement is so great that he seems to remain on earth by virtue of his fame. Emphasis is placed on Candragupta's conquest of enemies and the merit of his deeds, ideas which are also found in coin legends: kṣitim avajitya sucaritair divaṃ jayati vikramādityaḥ, i.e. "Having conquered the earth with good conduct, Vikramāditya conquered heaven". The king's conquest of heaven combined with the description of him resorting to the other world in bodily form (gām āśritasyetarāṃ mūrtyā), confirms our understanding of the worthy dead as autonomous theomorphic entities.

One short inscription on the pillar is associated with the Tomara king Anangpal [1051 – c.1081 CE]  although it is hard to decipher. Alexander Cunningham (1862–63) read the inscription as follows:
In Samvat 1109 [1052 CE], Ang [Anang] Pāl peopled Dilli....

Buddha Rashmi Mani (1997) read it as follows:
Anangpal tightened the nail [iron pillar] in Samvat 1109....

Take a look at the painting below, now on view in the exhibition Monumental Lhasa: Fortress, Palace, Temple. It depicts the demoness said to be lying across the whole of Tibet. If you look closely you’ll see that prominent structures pin her to the ground and both natural and man-made landscapes form her anatomy.

Image
The Demoness of Tibet; Tibet; late 19th–early 20th century; Pigments on cloth; Rubin Museum of Art; C2006.1.1 (HAR 65719)

What is this painting about? How did the demoness get to be pinned to the earth? What are the buildings on her body?...

The image of the supine demoness comes from the history of the Jokhang Temple—regularly recounted from the eleventh century onwards in texts such as the Pillar Testament and the Compendium of Manis. Emperor Songtsen Gampo sought to found a tutelary temple to his patron Buddhist deity Chenresik to mark his marriage to his Nepalese bride Tritsun. The project did not go unhindered, however: every day his workers built the foundation walls of the temple, but found them destroyed the next morning.

In consternation, the emperor turned to his Chinese wife, Wengchen Kongjo, recently arrived from the courts of Tang dynasty China. Skilled in feng shui, Kongjo consulted the Portang divination charts, and declared that the Lhasa Valley was filled with inauspicious signs that hindered the building of such a kingly temple: that the land of Tibet itself was like a she-demon (sinmo) lying on her back; that the Ö-Thang Lake upon which the temple was built was her heart blood; that the three great hills of Lhasa were her breasts and sternum; that Central Tibet itself was her body; and that her limbs stretched far into the hinterlands of the Plateau, from Amdo in the North and the Himalayas in the South to Kashmir in the West.

In its present state, Kongjo declared, the land of Tibet remained wild and untamed, an absolute obstacle to the building of the royal temple and the future of the king’s religion....

To reverse the negative influences, reveal the auspicious ones, and thereby allow the completion of the Jokhang, the emperor followed Kongjo’s advice to first build twelve temples to “nail down” the limbs and body of the demoness.  These can be seen on the painting, marking the “fire veins” (mé-tsa) of her body: four central district temples to nail down her shoulders and hips, four border temples for her elbows and knees; and four “further taming” temples to subdue her feet and hands amongst the surrounding border tribes....
 

-- The Demoness of Tibet, by Dr. Martin A. Mills, October 28, 2016

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 [9 miles]. 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.

-- 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

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.

-- 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

A significant indentation on the middle section of the pillar, approximately 4 m (13 ft) from the current courtyard ground level, has been shown to be the result of a cannonball fired at close range. The impact caused horizontal fissuring of the column in the area diametrically opposite to the indentation site, but the column itself remained intact. While no contemporaneous records, inscriptions, or documents describing the event are known to exist, historians generally agree that Nadir Shah is likely to have ordered the pillar's destruction during his invasion of Delhi in 1739, as he would have considered a Hindu temple monument undesirable within an Islamic mosque complex.

-- Iron pillar of Delhi, by Wikipedia


Firuz Shah’s lat pyramid, however, is a synthesis of two architectural monuments in the Quwwat al-Islam mosque. It functions as an emblem appropriated from an infidel religion, in the manner of the iron pillar, and also has symbolic associations like the Qutb Minar. The lat was probably intended by Firuz Shah to have a symbolic function.87 [Nath, History of Sultanate Architecture, pp. 34-35.] By incorporating it into a Muslim religious structure, Firuz Shah appropriated and adapted an emblem of the pagan world for Islamic purposes and, in a symbolic sense, converted the dar al-harb (the pagan world) to the dar al-islam.88 [Grabar, Formation of Islamic Art, p. 114.] Firuz Shah’s minar had similar symbolic connotations as the iron pillar and the Qutb Minar, both of which were intended to mark the dar al-islam.89 [A. Welch, "Qur’an and Tomb," p. 257.] In this manner, the Firuzabad lat, a pre-Islamic emblem which had lost meaning in fourteenth century Indian society, gained new meaning. Despite its unusual form, 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.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Ancien Regime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests