09-25-2010, 09:16 PM
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='25 September 2010 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1285412190' post='108477']
if you look at the jain temples from gujarat and rajastan ,you also observ that they have domes from 11-12 century,before mughal occupation.
however the technique of construction is different from more western counterparts .
indian domes are made in "fake" arch ,meaning that layers of stone are horizontal not angular as in the case of "real" arch.
the fake arch doesnt have lateral pressure ,but also it cant be made to large.
the real arch can produce large internal expansion.
some architects believe that dome or arch and jain micro-decorations(imitation of arab mosaics) was influenced by muslim architecture before the invasion of mughals based on the fact that they usually appear after 10 century when muslims advance as far as Indus,while others believe that it was an internal development.
the foiled arch was born near Baghdad but the inventor was either a arab according to one theory ,either a indian architect living there.
[/quote]
Dear HareKrishna,
Thank you for your remarks, and especially for the Stupa with the monolithic pillars at the Gates of the sanctuary. That again stresses the fact that monolithic and especially cylindrical towers or pillars scattered over E-Iran, Afghanistan, Central-Asia and the subcontinent fromAshoka's time on, mostly close to a sanctuary, have their origins in monolithic Bauddha, Jaina, Shaiva, Vaishnava, etc. Stambhas, whether as Vijaya-, Mana-, Dipa-, Brahma-/Garuda-etc. Stambhas.
The information in standard works always barks on arches, especially true and foiled arches having been introduced in India by Muslims. Nothing is farther from the truth. Even clear instances of really indigenous occurrences have never been mentioned by these works and their scholars showing acute amnesia. Below I have commented on arches, which is from my Part II. on Mughal or Muslim architecture. (to be posted as soon as I have finished putting in right order all the quotes and notes)
Arches
1. Pointed arches
Standard works make these an invention of non-Indians introduced by Muslims in India. But see Buddhist chaitya cave in India: "the rock-cut pointed arch-type facade that is carved as if it were wooden construction", The top girders and beams are laid on the pillars of the sarcophagus, small posts supporting small beams stand on the girder, the ends of purlins are carved along the curved rafter, then a ridgepole on the top. See the Lomash Rishi Cave at Barabar Hill, 3rd century BC http://www.kamit.jp/07_lycia/xbaraba.htm
At the facade of the Buddhist chaitya caves in India, the extrados of the arch is cusped with a horn on top, , but its intrados form is semicircular, except a few examples like the Barabar cave. The semicircular shape reminds us of a "true arch" made of laid stones or bricks. But in fact, the inside of the arch is completely carved like a wooden construction with the rafters and purlins. Upper part of a Chaitya cave, Baja (India) , 1st century B.C.
http://www.kamit.jp/07_lycia/xbaja.htm
Indian masons certainly knew the technique before the birth of Muhammad. There are many examples of these in Indian temples.
2. Foiled arches
They are clearly an indigenous development, already witnessed in Bauddha, Gupta period and Hindu Shahi period temples and later. The came into existence as arched niches were moulded after the head and shoulders of statues placed in these
a. trefoiled arches can be seen in pre-Muslim structures of for instance Hindu Shahi period, before any Muslim entered their soil.
b. cusped arches It is a development of the "horse-shoe" arch (gable window) which has rightly been regarded as of Indian, pre-Muhammadan invention, as per Rivoira, Moslem Architecture, p. 110f quoted by Coomaraswamy (see quote below).
Cusped arches are found already in Java by the eighth century (Borobudur); there is an excellent example at the Gal Vihari, Palonnaaruva, Ceylon. . They can also be seen in Hindu Shahi, Vangi and Gurjari architecture of pre-Muslim periods. The Hindu shastras have names for each part of the cusped arches. Says Coomaraswami: "Mukherji, Antiquities of the Lalipur District, I, p. 9, gives the Indian terminology; the "parts of the so-called Saracenic (five-foiled) arch, are all Hindu." These names are, for the spring of the arch, naaga (cf. Naaga-bandha, in the sense of chamfer-stop); for the foils or cups, kaTora; and for the top, cuukaa (? = cuulikaa, q.v. in Dictionary)."
A.K. Coomaraswamy: Indian Architecture. JAOS, vol. 48, no. 3, september 1928. Pp. 254
Perhaps the word "cuukaa" is also the name of the topmost important stone of the radiating true arch construction of the ancient temples.
3. true arches
These are definitely known to Indian masons, before any pagan Arab called himself a Muslim. See for instance the true arch at Buddhist Stupa at Guldara, Afganistanãâ¬Â3rd to 4th century ( from "The Art of Ancient India" by Susan L. Huntington) http://www.kamit.jp/07_lycia/xguldara.htm
True arches were known to Birmese structures. This Birmese (Pagan)style was influenced by Indian masonry style of Bengal (and Bihar). Shri Lanka also knows true arches, which may have been from the same tradition as that of India.
Perhaps one of the oldest examples we still have of the true arches with an older technique of constructing these is of the Nongarh Jamui temple on which was built a stupa of the 1st century BCE-1st century CE. The stupa was excavated by Mr. Beglar, assistent to Cunningham. He concludes that the principle of true arches were known and used in that period in India! From: Bihar and Orissa District Gazetteers: Monghyr by L.S.S. O'Malley, New Delhi, 1926 reprinted 2007. Logos Press, page 251
Hindu Shahi "Salt Range temples ââ¬â Amb, Kalar, Katas, Nandana and the two groups of temples in north and south Kafirkot, near Chashma on the Indus are equally remarkable not only for their links to Gandhara, but also for the employment of true arches, vaults and domes, using a cementing lime or gypsum mortar." By Kamil Khan Mumtaz, architect of Lahore, see: http://www.kamilkhanmumtaz.com/index.php...&Itemid=73
The problem is that Muslims in their first period of conquests confiscated previous temples with these features, both in India and abroad.
4. vaulted arches
Multivaulted arches were also known to Indian masons. See an example of multi-vaulted muqarna-like, pointed and horse-shaped arches in the entrance arch at http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/ipc/img/15800.jpg
This is from the period of 270 B.C.E.
Domes
Arch techniques described above were applied to entrances, etc. Different dome techniques, all indigenous, are described in the previous post. Additional example: The Shitaleshvara Mahadeva temple at Chandravati of 689-690 has a ribbed bulbous dome from a slightly later Hindu period. See also the Hindu Shahi bulbous domes.
Thus
We have to remember that when the Arabs conquered South Sindh and Multan and only held later on the last, they had already taken with them many Hindus, including stonecutters/masons to West-Asia. The influence and reputation of Hindu masons was very high in Asia!
Also we have to keep in mind that when the Ghaznavids rose to power in the 10th century, they were a a huge imperial power, dominating large parts of Iran, Central-Asia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They captured many Hindu masons, employed in their empire to construct buildings or to convert preexisting Zoroastrian, Bauddha, Shaiva, etc. structures in those areas into Islamic ones. During Khalifa Harun-al Rashid many Indian scholars, masons, etc. were invited to Baghdad.
We only have to recall the awe or amazement of Arabs, Mahmud Ghaznavi, Al Biruni (who had seen many areas, cities and structures of Asia), Timur, etc. with reference to Hindu structures and the abilities of Hindu masons. That is why they killed all men, but captured women and boys (for their pleasure) and masons (for their skills). And these masons built structures in foreign countries.
Also we have to keep in mind the fact that India had many seats of higher learning or universities, like N: Sharadapitha in West Kashmira (POK); NW: Takshashila in Panjab; E: Varanasi seat, Nalanda and Vikramashila in Bihar; Jagaddala in Bangal, Somapura in Bangladesh; SE: Odantapuri, Ratnagiri and Pushpagiri in Orissa; SW: Valabhi in Gujarat; S: Manyakheta in Karnataka, Nagarjunakond in Andhra and Kanchipuram in Tamilnadu.
These seats of higher learning taught for instance the catuhshashti kalas or 64 arts. Some of these above mentioned were universities with world-renowned reputation, where foreigners from afar used to come to learn something on high level.
Thus, not only the Hindus went abroad freely or were forced to move, but also their high level knowledge. Where in standard works dealing on architecture can you find this fact mentioned? Can any Muslim country compete with these numbers and their high level? One can sure blame Muslims with the destructions of these seats and the forcefully deportation of the skilled ones to their countries where these former Indians were Islamized and built like Titans.
Those Daiva (or sacred) temples which were too heavily ornamented or unconvertable, were destroyed. The standard works only concentrate on temple architecture, look at heavily ornamented Hindu temples that did survive, but ignore simpler executed Daiva temples or Daiva temples converted into mosques, and totally ignore non-temple structures as palaces (of royal people) and huge lofty mansions (of wealthy merchants and nobles).
Those Bhauma (a better word than secular) structures and simpler Daiva edifices which were clearly not heavily ornamented, having a more free architectural execution, etc. were converted either in tombs of Muslim royal people or nobles or Sufi saints. (some royal mansions could have a double function as Bhauma and Kula Daiva edifices)
The so-called fusion in Indo-Islamic art (a psec appeasing approach), concerning structures called Islamic and showing features of Hindu hand (masons) and symbolism, are actually structures which were former or contemporary built Hindu Daiva or Bhauma edifices worthwhile to retain (for their beauty, for disecrating a former Hindu sanctuary and denigrading its followers or rulers, etc.) and claim as their own with court formulations like 'built by the great Sultan or Padishah X of such grandeur, as no ruler in the seven climes of the world has witnessed or created'.
The greatest, most complex, beautiful and largest constructions labelled as Islamic are still Indian designed and built lofty edifices. Therefore, the most truthful correction to Bishop Heber's 19th century statement is: "Hindus designed like Titans (built like Giants) and finished like jewellers."
if you look at the jain temples from gujarat and rajastan ,you also observ that they have domes from 11-12 century,before mughal occupation.
however the technique of construction is different from more western counterparts .
indian domes are made in "fake" arch ,meaning that layers of stone are horizontal not angular as in the case of "real" arch.
the fake arch doesnt have lateral pressure ,but also it cant be made to large.
the real arch can produce large internal expansion.
some architects believe that dome or arch and jain micro-decorations(imitation of arab mosaics) was influenced by muslim architecture before the invasion of mughals based on the fact that they usually appear after 10 century when muslims advance as far as Indus,while others believe that it was an internal development.
the foiled arch was born near Baghdad but the inventor was either a arab according to one theory ,either a indian architect living there.
[/quote]
Dear HareKrishna,
Thank you for your remarks, and especially for the Stupa with the monolithic pillars at the Gates of the sanctuary. That again stresses the fact that monolithic and especially cylindrical towers or pillars scattered over E-Iran, Afghanistan, Central-Asia and the subcontinent fromAshoka's time on, mostly close to a sanctuary, have their origins in monolithic Bauddha, Jaina, Shaiva, Vaishnava, etc. Stambhas, whether as Vijaya-, Mana-, Dipa-, Brahma-/Garuda-etc. Stambhas.
The information in standard works always barks on arches, especially true and foiled arches having been introduced in India by Muslims. Nothing is farther from the truth. Even clear instances of really indigenous occurrences have never been mentioned by these works and their scholars showing acute amnesia. Below I have commented on arches, which is from my Part II. on Mughal or Muslim architecture. (to be posted as soon as I have finished putting in right order all the quotes and notes)
Arches
1. Pointed arches
Standard works make these an invention of non-Indians introduced by Muslims in India. But see Buddhist chaitya cave in India: "the rock-cut pointed arch-type facade that is carved as if it were wooden construction", The top girders and beams are laid on the pillars of the sarcophagus, small posts supporting small beams stand on the girder, the ends of purlins are carved along the curved rafter, then a ridgepole on the top. See the Lomash Rishi Cave at Barabar Hill, 3rd century BC http://www.kamit.jp/07_lycia/xbaraba.htm
At the facade of the Buddhist chaitya caves in India, the extrados of the arch is cusped with a horn on top, , but its intrados form is semicircular, except a few examples like the Barabar cave. The semicircular shape reminds us of a "true arch" made of laid stones or bricks. But in fact, the inside of the arch is completely carved like a wooden construction with the rafters and purlins. Upper part of a Chaitya cave, Baja (India) , 1st century B.C.
http://www.kamit.jp/07_lycia/xbaja.htm
Indian masons certainly knew the technique before the birth of Muhammad. There are many examples of these in Indian temples.
2. Foiled arches
They are clearly an indigenous development, already witnessed in Bauddha, Gupta period and Hindu Shahi period temples and later. The came into existence as arched niches were moulded after the head and shoulders of statues placed in these
a. trefoiled arches can be seen in pre-Muslim structures of for instance Hindu Shahi period, before any Muslim entered their soil.
b. cusped arches It is a development of the "horse-shoe" arch (gable window) which has rightly been regarded as of Indian, pre-Muhammadan invention, as per Rivoira, Moslem Architecture, p. 110f quoted by Coomaraswamy (see quote below).
Cusped arches are found already in Java by the eighth century (Borobudur); there is an excellent example at the Gal Vihari, Palonnaaruva, Ceylon. . They can also be seen in Hindu Shahi, Vangi and Gurjari architecture of pre-Muslim periods. The Hindu shastras have names for each part of the cusped arches. Says Coomaraswami: "Mukherji, Antiquities of the Lalipur District, I, p. 9, gives the Indian terminology; the "parts of the so-called Saracenic (five-foiled) arch, are all Hindu." These names are, for the spring of the arch, naaga (cf. Naaga-bandha, in the sense of chamfer-stop); for the foils or cups, kaTora; and for the top, cuukaa (? = cuulikaa, q.v. in Dictionary)."
A.K. Coomaraswamy: Indian Architecture. JAOS, vol. 48, no. 3, september 1928. Pp. 254
Perhaps the word "cuukaa" is also the name of the topmost important stone of the radiating true arch construction of the ancient temples.
3. true arches
These are definitely known to Indian masons, before any pagan Arab called himself a Muslim. See for instance the true arch at Buddhist Stupa at Guldara, Afganistanãâ¬Â3rd to 4th century ( from "The Art of Ancient India" by Susan L. Huntington) http://www.kamit.jp/07_lycia/xguldara.htm
True arches were known to Birmese structures. This Birmese (Pagan)style was influenced by Indian masonry style of Bengal (and Bihar). Shri Lanka also knows true arches, which may have been from the same tradition as that of India.
Perhaps one of the oldest examples we still have of the true arches with an older technique of constructing these is of the Nongarh Jamui temple on which was built a stupa of the 1st century BCE-1st century CE. The stupa was excavated by Mr. Beglar, assistent to Cunningham. He concludes that the principle of true arches were known and used in that period in India! From: Bihar and Orissa District Gazetteers: Monghyr by L.S.S. O'Malley, New Delhi, 1926 reprinted 2007. Logos Press, page 251
Hindu Shahi "Salt Range temples ââ¬â Amb, Kalar, Katas, Nandana and the two groups of temples in north and south Kafirkot, near Chashma on the Indus are equally remarkable not only for their links to Gandhara, but also for the employment of true arches, vaults and domes, using a cementing lime or gypsum mortar." By Kamil Khan Mumtaz, architect of Lahore, see: http://www.kamilkhanmumtaz.com/index.php...&Itemid=73
The problem is that Muslims in their first period of conquests confiscated previous temples with these features, both in India and abroad.
4. vaulted arches
Multivaulted arches were also known to Indian masons. See an example of multi-vaulted muqarna-like, pointed and horse-shaped arches in the entrance arch at http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/ipc/img/15800.jpg
This is from the period of 270 B.C.E.
Domes
Arch techniques described above were applied to entrances, etc. Different dome techniques, all indigenous, are described in the previous post. Additional example: The Shitaleshvara Mahadeva temple at Chandravati of 689-690 has a ribbed bulbous dome from a slightly later Hindu period. See also the Hindu Shahi bulbous domes.
Thus
We have to remember that when the Arabs conquered South Sindh and Multan and only held later on the last, they had already taken with them many Hindus, including stonecutters/masons to West-Asia. The influence and reputation of Hindu masons was very high in Asia!
Also we have to keep in mind that when the Ghaznavids rose to power in the 10th century, they were a a huge imperial power, dominating large parts of Iran, Central-Asia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They captured many Hindu masons, employed in their empire to construct buildings or to convert preexisting Zoroastrian, Bauddha, Shaiva, etc. structures in those areas into Islamic ones. During Khalifa Harun-al Rashid many Indian scholars, masons, etc. were invited to Baghdad.
We only have to recall the awe or amazement of Arabs, Mahmud Ghaznavi, Al Biruni (who had seen many areas, cities and structures of Asia), Timur, etc. with reference to Hindu structures and the abilities of Hindu masons. That is why they killed all men, but captured women and boys (for their pleasure) and masons (for their skills). And these masons built structures in foreign countries.
Also we have to keep in mind the fact that India had many seats of higher learning or universities, like N: Sharadapitha in West Kashmira (POK); NW: Takshashila in Panjab; E: Varanasi seat, Nalanda and Vikramashila in Bihar; Jagaddala in Bangal, Somapura in Bangladesh; SE: Odantapuri, Ratnagiri and Pushpagiri in Orissa; SW: Valabhi in Gujarat; S: Manyakheta in Karnataka, Nagarjunakond in Andhra and Kanchipuram in Tamilnadu.
These seats of higher learning taught for instance the catuhshashti kalas or 64 arts. Some of these above mentioned were universities with world-renowned reputation, where foreigners from afar used to come to learn something on high level.
Thus, not only the Hindus went abroad freely or were forced to move, but also their high level knowledge. Where in standard works dealing on architecture can you find this fact mentioned? Can any Muslim country compete with these numbers and their high level? One can sure blame Muslims with the destructions of these seats and the forcefully deportation of the skilled ones to their countries where these former Indians were Islamized and built like Titans.
Those Daiva (or sacred) temples which were too heavily ornamented or unconvertable, were destroyed. The standard works only concentrate on temple architecture, look at heavily ornamented Hindu temples that did survive, but ignore simpler executed Daiva temples or Daiva temples converted into mosques, and totally ignore non-temple structures as palaces (of royal people) and huge lofty mansions (of wealthy merchants and nobles).
Those Bhauma (a better word than secular) structures and simpler Daiva edifices which were clearly not heavily ornamented, having a more free architectural execution, etc. were converted either in tombs of Muslim royal people or nobles or Sufi saints. (some royal mansions could have a double function as Bhauma and Kula Daiva edifices)
The so-called fusion in Indo-Islamic art (a psec appeasing approach), concerning structures called Islamic and showing features of Hindu hand (masons) and symbolism, are actually structures which were former or contemporary built Hindu Daiva or Bhauma edifices worthwhile to retain (for their beauty, for disecrating a former Hindu sanctuary and denigrading its followers or rulers, etc.) and claim as their own with court formulations like 'built by the great Sultan or Padishah X of such grandeur, as no ruler in the seven climes of the world has witnessed or created'.
The greatest, most complex, beautiful and largest constructions labelled as Islamic are still Indian designed and built lofty edifices. Therefore, the most truthful correction to Bishop Heber's 19th century statement is: "Hindus designed like Titans (built like Giants) and finished like jewellers."