architectural histories entwined: the rudra-mahalaya ... · dynasty (ca. 950-1303/4 ce). this...

Architectural Histories Entwined

The Rudra-Mahalaya/Congregational Mosque of Siddhpur, Gujarat

ALKA PATEL Marina del Rey, California

At the time of its construction in ca. 1140 cE,

the Rudra-

mahalaya of Siddhpur was one of the largest and most

important temple complexes of Gujarat.1 Its patron was the emperorJayasimha Siddharaja (r. 1094-1144 CE), whose

reign marked a period of great prosperity for the Chaulukya dynasty (ca. 950-1303/4 CE). This dynasty held sway over the

region now encompassed within the modem states of Gujarat and Rajasthan in western India (Figure 1).2 The Rudra-maha-

laya was dedicated to Shiva, and since the Chaulukya family affiliation was with this deity, their patronage of this major Shaiva complex has been interpreted as an act of dynastic legitimization.3 Moreover, the earlier existence ofa Shaiva temple at the site, removed at Siddharaja's order to make way for his larger complex, placed the ruler in a long and continuous line of

Chaulukya royal patronage in the city. Preliminary surveys of the complex by Alexander Kinloch Forbes in the nineteenth

century,4 and Henry Cousens in the early twentieth,' were inconclusive as to the exact dimensions of the various elements

comprising the complex. Nevertheless, the standing remnants indicate that the mid-twelfth-century foundation was conceived on a grand scale, with a multistory principal temple, a large open hall, and several gateways (Figure 2). Three minor shrines

standing to the west, at the back of the main temple, were

among many associated with it.6 Since the Rudra-mahalaya's consecration during the

mid-twelfth century, it has undergone much more than the effects of the passage of time. The complex was dismantled

during the first quarter of the fifteenth century by the forces

of the Muslim sultan Ahmad Shah I (r. 1410/11-1444) of the Muzaffarid dynasty, and many of its components were incorporated into the congregational mosque erected in its

place (Figure 3). The mosque consists of a large courtyard and a spacious prayer area (Figures 4, 5). Two of the stand-

ing minor shrines of the Rudra-mahalaya were integrated into the mosque wall that faced Mecca and determined the direction of prayer (the qibla) (Figure 6). The third remained semidetached and had its own small portico (Fig- ure 7). The two integrated shrines were connected by a rub- ble wall and were faced with several rows of plaques carved with alternating vase-and-foliage and meandering-vine motifs (Figure 8), iconographic elements well known from the surviving architecture of the region.

Unlike other Islamic buildings in India constructed with older materials, where the exact sources of the recycled components can only be hypothesized, the origins of the fragments forming the fabric of Ahmad Shah's congregational mosque at Siddhpur are more certain.' Rather than supporting the generalized characterization in previous scholarship of reused building materials simply as spolia-with the attendant connotations of this terms-the traceability of the older materials in this example furnishes a unique opportunity to examine the process of construct- ing a "new" building with old components.

What is historically and historiographically most significant about the Rudra-mahalaya is its dual relevance to what have been considered, until now, two disparate schol-

, Kiradu

IndusR. R

Siddhpure Pafan*J IDAP iIDA

Bhadresva Ahmadabad

holka

Khambhambhat

*Bharuch Junagadh aruch

SMangrol

Somanatha-pattana

Figure 1 Map of Gujarat

Figure 2 Rudra-mahalaya/congregational mosque

complex, Siddhpur, Gujarat, ca. 1140 and 1414 CE,

plan

THE RUDRA-MAHALAYA/CONGREGATIONAL MOSQUE 145

Plate 6

* . Plate 11

SI I I 4 r. " "It

Plate 4 Plate 7

Plate 10 (ceiling).

Figure 3 Rudra-mahalaya/congregational mosque complex. Detail of the conversion of the temple

complex into a mosque

Figure 4 Rudra-mahalaya/congregational mosque, prayer area, as entered from the east

146 JSAH / 63:2, JUNE 2004

Figure 5 Rudra-mahalaya/

congregational mosque, prayer area


congregational mosque, west

perimeter (qibla) with its two

integrated shrines

arly discourses. Due to the extent of the remains, and ref- erences to them in both the Sanskrit and Persian histories from Gujarat, the complex is important to Indic as well as Islamic scholarship. The Indo-Muslim architectural history of northern India, particularly that of the pre-Mughal or Sultanate period (ca. 1193-1526), claims the complex as one of the many instances of reuse-if not deliberate destruction and spoliation-of temples or their fragments in mosque construction. Concurrently, the Rudra-mahalaya is considered fundamental to the development of Maru-Gurjara

architecture, a style now surviving mostly in Hindu temples and practiced during the late tenth through fifteenth centuries in modern-day Gujarat and Rajasthan.9 This collection of partially standing structures, columns, ceilings, and

sculptures clearly belongs to one complex. But the same set of materials-reconfigured over time for varying religious purposes-has been separately incorporated into two diver-

gent trajectories of architectural history. These paradigms have operated seemingly unaware of each other, delineated as if they were virtually unconnected.


The disadvantages of this bifurcation are methodological as well as material. First, treating the complex from two

nonintersecting perspectives is dissonant with the physical remains themselves, as indeed these are one and the same

regardless of intellectual constructs that place them in different categories. Second, the strict historiographical sepa- ration of Indic and Islamic architectural histories can

prevent us from discerning the physical and historical connections between buildings housing different religious practices, and the architectural innovations ensuing from the

application of established forms of building to new social and ritual functions.

Furthermore, rupture has been the framework most often invoked in historical studies of medieval India. It has

generally been assumed that all newly forming Muslim

principalities of northern India from the late twelfth century onward were primarily occupied with severing ties with their dynastic predecessors, especially if the latter were Hindus. In architectural history, the dynastic deity thesis

proposes that Muslim sultans carefully chose the sites of desecration based on their status as embodiments of their Hindu forebears. Selective eradication would leave the area in question renewed and prepared to accept Muslim rule.10

However, assumptions about six hundred years of architectural recycling by Muslim military forces, beginning in the late twelfth century and continuing through the

seventeenth, in regions as historically and culturally distinct as Gujarat, Delhi, and the Deccan,"1 beg for a closer look at

Figure 7 Rudra-mahalaya/congregational mosque, semidetached

shrine associated with the prayer area, viewed from the east


congregational mosque,

qibla wall surface. Detail of

covering slabs

148 JSAH / 63:2, JUNE 2004

the specific circumstances pertaining to each area. One can

then decide whether rupture, continuity, or another para-

digm would be the most consistent with the surviving evi-

dence. This investigation of Gujarat will demonstrate that

regional specificity is not only beneficial methodologically, but also requisite in determing the applicability of the con-

cept of rupture to medieval northern India.

I propose to treat the Rudra-mahalaya/congregational mosque within the scholarly narratives of both the archi-

tectural history of Islamic buildings in western India and

that of Maru-Gurjara architecture. The Rudra-mahalaya had a definite place within the Maru-Gurjara style, but the

complex's fragments were given new contexts and functions

in the mosque. Having been practiced in the region for at

least three centuries,12 the western Indian style of mosque construction was equally influential in the use and placement of the recycled materials. It is hoped that the results of this examination will suggest new methodological possi- bilities for future studies of the many such buildings sur-

viving from pre-Mughal India. A word of caution must be interjected here. The com-

plex still has two standing double-story halls, and two gate-

ways east of the principal temple (see Figure 2). Since these

structures at least partially overlap with the spaces that would have been occupied by the large open hall, it is worth con-

sidering that they were arrangements of available fragments erected sometime between the temple's fifteenth-century transformation by Ahmad Shah, and Cousens's early-twentieth-century documentation of the site. Furthermore, the seismic activity of Gujarat very possibly contributed to the

structures' dilapidation over the centuries.'3 Indeed, James

Burgess, the nineteenth-century archaeologist who first pub- lished the ruins of Siddhpur, mentioned that the 1819 earth-

quake "[had thrown] down two of the loftiest columns."'4 Due to the complex's continued activity as a mosque

until the late 1970s, it must be assumed that maintenance

and repair of various sections had also been carried out. The

complex, then, has by no means remained "true" to its state

after Ahmad Shah's 1414-15 intervention and the integration of the fragments into the mosque. One must proceed

carefully in an analysis of the Rudra-mahalaya/congregational mosque: it would be naive to see it as a static monu-

ment preserving the traces of only selected past phenomena, like a historical snapshot.'5

Historiographical Issues

Siddhpur was not the capital city of the Chaulukyas, despite the impression that Siddharaja's lavish royal patronage of

buildings there created. The capital of Aiahillavlida (mod-

ern Patan) lay ten miles south of Siddhpur (see Figure 1), and according to surviving inscriptional evidence, also

received much architectural patronage from both courtly and lay circles since its founding in the early ninth century.16 Siddhpur was, however, prominent as a pilgrimage center, not only for Shaivism but also for the separate religious creed of Jainism; indeed, many Jain monastic orders were based in the city."7 Thus the Shaiva significance of Siddhpur was shared with the economically important Jain commu-

nity, which was integral to the stability of the Chaulukya empire.18 Siddhpur's sacred geographical importance and its proximity to the Chaulukya capital together explain why, at least in part, Siddharaja devoted significant resources to

the construction of the complex there. A long span of Muslim rulership began in the region

with the defeat of the Chaulukyas in 1303/4'19 by the Khalji dynasty (1290-1320) and the designation of Gujarat as a

province of Delhi. Eventually the Tughluq dynasty (1320-ca. 1400)-another Muslim family based in Delhi-

ousted the Khaljis and deputed their own governors there.

Among the Tughluq deputies was Zafar Khan, who was

eventually crowned the first, albeit reluctant, ruler of the

sultanate of Gujarat as Muzaffar Shah I.20 His grandson and successor Sultan Nasir al-Din Ahmad Shah I

(r. 1410/11-1444) took over the Muzaffarid sultanate with a forceful vision, using violence and perhaps even patricide in the name of power.2' While the Khalji and Tughluq governors of Gujarat had been content to remain at the old

Chaulukya capital of Patan, Ahmad Shah shifted the sultanate's capital to the newly founded city of Ahmadabad (see

Figure 1) almost immediately upon assuming royal prerogatives in 1410/11.

The reign of Ahmad Shah I was treated by at least one

contemporaneous Persian author, and by perhaps as many as five sixteenth-century writers.22 The Tdrikh-e Ahmad

Shahi, a Persian historical poem by Hulvi Shirazi (the "poet chronicler of Ahmad Shah I"23), survives only in quotations

by the famous Sikandar ibn Muhammad 'urf Manjhu (1554-after 1617) in his Mir'at-e Sikandarl.24 In the later Persian histories of the Muzaffarid sultanate, the chroni-

clers' preferred literary tropes for portraying Ahmad Shah's

dominating personality included the scholar and patron of the arts, but also the unswerving iconoclast generally intol- erant toward the non-Muslims within his domains.25

Surviving Sanskrit and Persian inscriptions temper the

admiring Persian historical texts' portrayal of the sultan. This epigraphical evidence suggests that Ahmad Shah faced

many of the same challenges of territorial consolidation that had plagued his Chaulukya, Khalji, and Tughluq predecessors.26 Like them, he engaged throughout his reign in cam-


paigns against local ruling groups who attempted to appropriate power and resources. The outlying territories of the Saurashtra peninsula (see Figure 1), as well as those sur-

rounding the former capital of Patan, required constant mil-

itary and diplomatic attention.27 In October 1414, the sultan returned to the mainland after the first of several campaigns to subjugate the intermittently rebellious princes of Saurashtra. This conflict was resolved through negotiation rather than military confrontation, when the Hindu ruler

ofJunagadh, Ra Malag, agreed to recognize Ahmad Shah's

overlordship and pay tribute.28 Evidently, the sultan was not averse to negotiation, even with non-Muslim rebels who

flagrantly disregarded both his ambitions and his growing political and military power.

In 1414 or early 1415, shortly after the treaty with Ra

Malag, Ahmad Shah marched to the northern areas of the territories he was continually trying to control, and besieged the city of Siddhpur. A description of the campaign in the

late-sixteenth-century Mir'dt-e Sikandari, the earliest available Persian text, relates that the sultan's forces rallied around the banner of Islamic iconoclasm and desecrated the

Rudra-mahalaya. The complex's conversion into the city's congregational mosque is portrayed in the text as a violent, propagandistic act, signaling that Ahmad Shah was defeat-

ing his political and military foes not only for the sake of state building, but also for the glory of Islam.21 In Ahmad- abad too, large-scale foundations dating to the sultan's

reign-namely the mosque now known as the Ahmad Shah

mosque (1411), the mosque of Haibat Khan (1415), and the

congregational mosque (1424)-also demonstrate extensive reuse of older components,3" at least some of which came from earlier temples.3'

For interpretations of this widespread architectural

reuse, scholars have relied primarily on the Persian histories' descriptions of events and attitudes during the reigns of medieval Indian Muslim rulers, deemphasizing the sur-

viving epigraphical evidence. Ahmad Shah's reign is no

exception. This sultan's architectural patronage has been

interpreted in line with the texts' descriptions of the ruler as zealous yet savvy, willing to use Islam as a political and mil-

itary weapon.32 The buildings constructed of older materials during his reign, then, are generally interpreted as

propagandistic. While the textual histories of the Muzaffarid sultans

may be informative about some aspects of their reigns, they are not enlightening about changes in the architectural landscape. The Mir'at's description of Ahmad Shah's intervention at Siddhpur is not much more than a quotation of the verses composed by Hulvi Shirazi to commemorate the

occasion."33 Hulvi was the panegyrist of Ahmad Shah I, and

Manjhu the panegyrist of the Muzaffarid dynasty in general. Their writings evince a tendency to pass over certain events with little or no detainment, such as those which the authors deemed unimportant, and particularly those reflect-

ing unfavorably on the rulers. Many aspects of their reports have been modified or contradicted by other evidence.34

Manjhu claims that all of the idols found at the Rudra-

mahalaya were made of gold and silver; the verses of Hulvi are also concerned with the material wealth of the Rudra-

mahalaya and its centrality for idolaters.3" However, in these

writings there is no description of the physical transformation of the Rudra-mahalaya into a congregational mosque, a process that must have been protracted and involved, given the extent of the temple complex. A physical under-

standing of this metamorphosis can be instructive regarding the application of conventional temple forms to the reli-

gious functions of Islam, and perhaps also concerning the historical circumstances leading to this phenomenon.

Siddharaja's Rudra-mahalaya and Ahmad Shah's Congregational Mosque Since excavations at Siddhpur in the late 1970s by the

Archaeological Survey of India were prematurely termi-

nated, they did little to remedy Forbes's and Cousens's initial lack of detailed information about the Rudra-mahalaya's dimensions. The actual size of the complex and its individual components can be listed here only from pre-excavation data as recorded by Burgess and Cousens and their assis-

tants, along with additional information extrapolated by scholars from similar large-scale temple foundations. Exam- ination of the excavated remains has yielded many estimates for the mid-twelfth-century complex's principal temple, ranging from 125 by 84 feet to 275 by 210 feet. Despite these differences in calculations, it is generally agreed that the temple itself was multistoried. The preceding hall was

likely two stories, its upper level supported by an inner octa-

gon of columns rising higher than the outer supports, and its inner ceiling measuring approximately 33 feet in diameter.36

Siddharaja's mid-twelfth-century temple complex has dominated both historical and contemporary accounts of the site. Its prominence in the lay and scholarly imagina- tions has prevented any serious investigation into the possibility that earlier structures existed there. However, this line of inquiry has potential significance for our understanding of both pre-Mughal temple complexes in western India and the patterns of dynastic patronage that gave rise to them. Tracing the history of worship at Siddhpur before the construction of Siddharaja's Rudra-mahalaya may pro-

150 JSAH / 63:2, JUNE 2004

vide a context for understanding the subsequent use of the

temple, even when that use consisted of a different ritual

practice, that is, its reconsecration as a mosque. The Rudra-mahalaya was not the first such foundation

at the site. The copper-plate inscription recording the Kam-

boika land grant of 986/7 CE mentions in passing that the

first Chaulukya ruler, Mularaja I (r. 941/2-996/7 CE) had

"bathed on the day of an eclipse of the sun at Sristhalaka

[Siddhpur] in the water of the eastern Sarasvati, [and] wor-

shipped the lord of the gods, the deity of the Rudra-maha-

laya."37 The reference suggests that there had been a shrine

at this location. This possibility is supported by some minor

but noteworthy archaeological evidence: the floor level of

the principal temple was too low for a structure its size, a

discrepancy that is consistent with the low height within the

sanctum of the main Shaiva cult object, the phallic lingam.

Moving the lingam was proscribed by ritual literature even

if the enclosing temple was rebuilt.38 These data indicate, then, that there was a temple at

the site, which Siddharaja ordered completely removed for

the construction of his own complex. None of the temple's remains were utilized in the later construction, its only trace

being the placement of the lingam and the level of the floor.

Since no tenth-century fragments have been recovered, it is

difficult to say whether the earlier structure was constructed

during the time of Mularaja. It is also possible that, since

the site held great sanctity for centuries, a Shaiva temple

may already have graced it. In this case, the shrine where

Mularaja worshiped would have antedated his reign.

Although there are no tenth-century fragments at

Siddhpur, evidence exists from the eleventh century in the

form of column parts. According to Madhusudhan Dhaky, these elements are now incorporated within the central bay of the mosque's prayer area (discussed at greater length below). Although they have been summarily labeled as

"spoils brought from some early eleventh century shrines,"'39 it is plausible that they were salvaged from a previous tem-

ple at the same site. Regardless of whether such a temple had been constructed by Mularaja toward the end of the

tenth century or before, the structure would have required renovation and constant maintenance. Indeed, until its

complete reconstruction by Siddharaja during the mid-

twelfth century, it could have been refurbished and even

rebuilt more than once, given its location in a city whose

importance as a pilgrimage center for both Shaivas and Jains is well known.40 The eleventh-century columns now in the

congregational mosque's prayer area could have come from

routine repairs or reconstruction of the complex carried out

during the preceding century. The continual upkeep and rebuilding of temple com-

plexes was by no means unusual. In fact, in the same way that the layout and form of the Siddhpur congregational mosque was largely predetermined by the Rudra-mahalaya, many other reconstructions of temple complexes were in

this sense directed by their predecessors. Repeated recon-

structions were carried out, for example, at the legendary Somnath temple in the coastal city of Somanatha-pattana (now Prabhasa Patan). This temple bears the significant

advantage of having been excavated without interruption

during the mid-twentieth century.4' The archaeological work unearthed the remains of at least two stone temple foundations, the earliest of which dated to ca. 960 CE, falling within the reign of Mularaja. Due to the long-standing

importance of the site as a pilgrimage center, however, it is

likely that a shrine existed there prior to the tenth century, and was either incorporated into or replaced entirely by the

later temple. The mid-tenth-century temple was the struc-

ture encountered by Ghaznavid forces and sacked in

1025-26. After the raid, it was rebuilt by the Chaulukya ruler Bhimadeva I (r. 1021/2-1063/4) on top of the mid-

tenth-century base.42

While Bhimadeva I's new Somnath temple was neces-

sitated by the Ghaznavid raid, a subsequent reconstruction

by the Chaulukya ruler Kumarapala (r. 1144-1173/4) in the

1160s was carried out under more ambiguous circum-

stances. According to the chronicler Merutunga (late thir-

teenth-early fourteenth century), Kumarapala's motive

was "the diffusion of [his] fame [and its endurance] till

the end of the Kalpa." In his dynastic history of the

Chaulukyas-the Prabandhacintamani of 1304 CE-

Merutunga recounts the genesis of this project: when the

Chaulukya ruler asked his Jain minister, Hemacandra

(1089-1172), how he might attain perpetual renown, Hemacandra replied that reconstruction of the Somnath

temple would not only ensure worldly glory, but also bestow

spiritual merit upon the executor of such an accomplish- ment. Merutunga's account further relays that, after the new

Somnath temple was completed, both Kumarapala as well as

his adviser Hemacandra worshiped Shiva there.43 The supposed motivation for Kumarapala's interven-

tion at Somnath is, however, countered by the Bhava Bri-

haspati epigraph of 1169 CE.44 This inscription records that

the Shaiva priest of Somnath, Brihaspati, convinced

Kumarapala to rebuild the temple because it was in a state

of complete dilapidation. In gratitude for such a pious sug-

gestion, the ruler conferred on Brihaspati the title of prin-

cipal priest, thereby making him the leading Shaiva

authority in the area. The evidence of the inscription seems

to provide the historically more convincing version of the

events leading to Somnath's reconstruction, as Merutunga's

THE RUDRA-MAHALAYA/CONGREGATIONAL MOSOUE 151

account echoes stories already present in Jain sacred and didactic literature, which he may have put to self-serving ends.4"

The factuality of these incidents is not important here, for whether Hemacandra participated in Shaiva worship or

not, epigraphical and other evidence indicates that since the

beginning of Chaulukya ascendancy in the region, there was

an intertwining of the Shaiva inclinations of the dynasts with those of the economically powerful Jain communities in their realm.46 Hemacandra was a revered figure in the

writings ofJainism, and his purported obeisance to Shiva is

significant for a general comprehension of Chaulukya ruler-

ship. Hemacandra's acceptance of Kumarapala's creed was

reciprocated, for the sovereign was an important patron of

Jain foundations and reportedly worshiped at Jain temples. This mutual participation in the practices of the other hints

at meanings of religion and community identification that

are not always acknowledged in modern academic frame-

works. Recent works in the history of religion point out that

the notion of exclusive religious adherence is a modern con-

struct imposed on nonmodern social relations, which were

likely more flexible in their expression.47 As probably occurred at Siddhpur, the eleventh-cen-

tury Somnath temple was torn down, and in its place a much larger, multistory temple with several attendant

shrines was constructed. This structure was 140 feet long and 118 feet wide, in its size comparable to the Rudra-

mahalaya at Siddhpur. It could be suggested that Kumara-

pala's commission of the new Somnath temple was based on

emulation of his illustrious predecessor Siddharaja, both in

the act of replacing an already existing and important tem-

ple, as well as the scale on which this was done.

Considering the example of the temple of Somnath, it

would not be unreasonable to propose that the Rudra-

mahalaya had also undergone a series of reconstructions. A

long history of worship at the site is historically plausible due to its sanctity, and its location in Siddhpur-a prominent Shaiva and Jain pilgrimage center-suggests that it and

other temples there most likely received extensive mainte-

nance through the centuries. The subsequent appropriation of the complex by Ahmad Shah and its conversion into the

congregational mosque of Siddhpur, though consecrated

for the different ritual practice of Islam, essentially did lit-

tle at variance with established patterns of renovation and even reconstruction that had taken place at the site possibly several times before.

The reuse of materials from the Rudra-mahalaya in the

Siddhpur congregational mosque would seem to imply that

the previous complex's contours were radically altered to

create a layout suitable for Islamic worship. However, the

deployment of the numerous older components and fragments not only from the Rudra-mahalaya, but also evi- denced by many other mosques of the region,48 belies this

assumption. Instead, the presence of small as well as large carved components from subsequent mosques demonstrates the appreciable adaptability of the existing materials for

meeting the needs of differing ritual spaces. Ahmad Shah's "new" mosque for Siddhpur, constructed

with the remains of the temple complex probably soon after his military campaign in 1414-15, deployed many of the elements from the previous foundation in similar types of locations. As indicated above, three minor shrines were

incorporated into the prayer area (see Figures 6, 7), which was apparently constructed almost entirely of columns and

ceilings of a pre-fifteenth-century date (see Figure 5). In

turn, these reused materials determined the size and other

aspects of the mosque. Certainly, the length of the prayer area was dictated by the distance between the two wholly incorporated minor shrines, approximately 78 feet. The

third, though not entirely integrated into the prayer area, was nonetheless spatially associated (see Figure 7).

The depth of the bays was also determined by the pre-

existing materials. It is clear that the principal ceilings (Fig- ure 9) were taken either from the Rudra-mahalaya or from

other twelfth-century Jain or Brahmanical temples in the

vicinity. While the diameter of the ceiling of the principal hall of the Rudra-mahalaya is assumed to have been 3 3 feet, the surrounding shrines' ceilings were considerably smaller. Three ceilings of approximately the same dimensions were

incorporated into the prayer area. Since the Rudra-maha-

laya's main hall likely provided only one-moreover, one that was too big-it is probable that the ceilings came from other minor shrines or even other temple complexes in the

city.

Along with the larger ceilings over the principal bays, a series of smaller ceilings, also reused, caps an aisle in front

of the qibla (Figure 10). Like their larger counterparts, these

lithic elements required a substructure of thick walls, and

probably issued from another group of shrines that were

either part of the Rudra-mahalaya or other, nearby temple

complexes of Siddhpur. The overall depth of the prayer

area--including the projections of the two minor shrines

on the western wall as markers of the foci of prayer within

(mihr~abs)-is approximately 31 feet.49

The qibla is punctured by three apertures, two of which were probably windows providing the prayer area with light and ventilation. The third provides a threshold framed by slender pilasters at the center of the western wall. Its shape echoes the

mih.rabs at either end (see Figure 6). It is unclear

whether this small archway always served as an entrance

152 JSAH / 63:2, JUNE 2004

Figure 9 Rudra-mahalaya/congregational mosque prayer area. Central bay, principal ceiling

Figure 10 Rudra-mahalaya/congregational mosque prayer area, ceilings capping the qibla aisle


into the prayer area as it does presently. If it was not part of

the original scheme, access to this area would have been

from the east (see Figure 4). Indeed, it is unusual in north

Indian mosques to have an entrance on the qibla wall, so the

possibility of an intervention in recent times is likely. Once

again, the constantly changing state of "monuments" dur-

ing nonmodern times-and even now in parts of the world

where old buildings are not perceived as static-must be

kept in mind.

Understanding the Transformation

According to recent reinterpretations of architectural reuse

in medieval South Asia, the reconfiguration of the Rudra-

mahalaya as Siddhpur's congregational mosque was not an

act of random destruction by Muslim iconoclasts.50 These

works have challenged the Persian dynastic histories' por-

trayal of architectural reuse as exclusively propagandistic, with Siddhpur as one among numerous examples attesting to the reputation of Muslim rulers and their forces as unfor-

giving and steadfast idol-smashers. Instead, the studies have

proposed that there was a discernible pattern among the

desecrations. Recent analyses propose that beginning in the twelfth

century and continuing through the next several centuries,

newly forming Muslim rulerships in South Asia were

focused on the eradication of symbolic and political presence of their Hindu (including Shaiva and Vaishnava) predecessors in the region they aimed to dominate. It is

claimed that, toward this end, Muslim rulers carefully selected the Hindu foundations they disturbed, limiting themselves to the principal sites of Hindu dynastic patron-

age. These sites were dedicated to the previous dynasty's

representative deity, or rdshtra-devata, and had supposedly served as the embodiments of the past rulership's power. By

eliminating the architectural representations of a Hindu

dynasty and its deity, ties with these institutions would be

severed, facilitating the installation of Muslim hegemony. Ahmad Shah's transformation of the Rudra-mahalaya into

the congregational mosque of Siddhpur has been integrated into this dynastic deity interpretation: the Muzaffarid sultan

supposedly chose the temple complex for conversion into a

mosque because it had been dedicated to Shiva, the

Chaulukyas' dynastic deity. By dismantling the Rudra-

mahalaya and reconsecrating it as a mosque, Ahmad Shah

replaced the dynastic symbols of the Chaulukyas with those of the Muzaffarids.51

While these studies have been welcome departures from oversimplifying works on the architectural history of

pre-Mughal India,52 they would also benefit from more

detailed and critical analysis. In the case of the Muzaffarids, for example, it should be emphasized that the dynasts directly preceding them were not the Hindu Chaulukyas, but rather the Muslim Tughluqs. The congregational mosques of such cities as Bharuch (1321), Khambhat (modern Cambay, 1325), and Dholka (1333, 1360) (see Figure 1) were symbolically representative of the Tughluqs, and their desecration would have been the Muzaffarids' most effective attack on their predecessors' dynastic symbols. These

mosques, however, were left undisturbed by Ahmad Shah and later Muzaffarid sultans.

Furthermore, if the Muzaffarids' principal goal was the eradication of Shaiva symbols, they would have desecrated

only Shaiva temples. The Persian histories list the defile- ment of only the most prominent and quasi-legendary pilgrimage sites, such as Somanatha-pattana and Siddhpur.s3 But sacred sites were shared by many religious sects housed in various temples and complexes located in the same urban area. The surviving temples at Somanatha-pattana, for

example, included those consecrated to non-Shaiva deities such as Surya and Varaha.s4 Although Hulvi and Manjhu mention only Ahmad Shah's disturbance of the Rudra-

mahalaya at Siddhpur, the city was sacred to both Shaivas and Jains, and was studded with complexes devoted to both. In fact, Siddharaja himself had founded a Jain temple at

Siddhpur immediately following his commissioning of the

Rudra-mahalaya.55 Although the Persian histories do not specify the pre-

cise religious affiliations of the desecrated sites, other texts do. Medieval Jain texts record that Jain temples were disturbed by Khalji and Tughluq armies, and most likely by the Muzaffarids as well. For example, Khalji troops attacked the famed Jain temples of Shatrunjaya (Saurashtra) in 1312/13 CE. 56 Siddhpur's temples also included important Jain establishments, and it is possible that only the Rudra-

mahalaya is mentioned in the Persian histories because its fame surpassed that of the Jain complexes that probably received similar treatment. Consequently, the desecration Ahmad Shah I and his successors periodically inflicted on

Shaiva, Vaishnava, or Jain complexes would not have had the motivation proposed by the dynastic deity thesis.

The patterns of Chaulukya patronage also suggest that the connection between deity and dynasty was not clear- cut. As discussed above, Chaulukya political consolidation did not rely exclusively on the patronage of Shaiva temples and complexes, but encompassed Jain establishments as well. Beginning with Mularaja I (r. 941/2-996/7) and continuing through the reigns of Jayasimha Siddharaja (r. 1094-1144), Kumarapala (r. 1144-74), and beyond, the Chaulukyas' religious inclusiveness extended beyond

154 JSAH / 63:2, JUNE 2004

employing Jain ministers in their administrations." The

rulers reportedly also participated in the rituals that were

significant for the Jain community within their protection, and underpinned the political and social stability of their

realm. It is also noteworthy that the Chaulukya capital of

Anahillavrida was associated with a Jain foundation myth: in

addition to being the dynastic center, the city was also the

seat of the most prominent and influential Jain monastic

order of the region.18 Since the Jains of Gujarat were important contributors

to the region's commercial and overall economic prosperity, the Chaulukyas' sectarian catholicity was politic. Never-

theless, patronage by the Chaulukyas of sites and sects not

associated with their dynastic lineage questions the assumption that one creed embodied the family's political identity. Reexamination of the sectarian and political life of a specific region calls for plausible motivations for desecration

other than eradication of a dynastic deity, at least for the

Muzaffarid rulers of Gujarat.

By turning back to Chaulukya patronage of large reli-

gious complexes, we can gain insight into the significance of

the temple complex and its social and political fabric. More

specifically, alternative reasons behind the Rudra-mahalaya's attractiveness for the Muzaffarids also begin to emerge. This perspective is particularly necessary since the Rudra-

mahalaya predetermined the congregational mosque in sev-

eral ways. It is true that the temple complex's physical

components-such as ceilings, columns, and shrines-were

useful for the construction of the congregational mosque. But the Rudra-mahalaya's social and political significance for the inhabitants of Siddhpur, as well as those of nearby Patan, was also valuable for the coalescing Muzaffarid

sultanate. The histories of many medieval states in northern India

record the allocation of vast financial resources such as land,

labor, and production to temple complexes during the sev-

enth through the twelfth centuries. Even during the declin-

ing years of Chaulukya rule during the mid- to late

thirteenth century, for example, the temple complex of

Somnath continued to receive major structural additions.

The temple was not rebuilt, but in 1217 Bhimadeva II

(r. 1178-1241/2) added a two-story hall.s" Siddhpur's

Rudra-mahalaya was another complex on which comparable royal attentions were bestowed. As we have seen, the

Chaulukyas were generous patrons ofJain foundations as well as Shaiva complexes.

While some scholars have interpreted these donations

as demonstrations of royal largesse during debilitated eco-

nomic and social conditions,60 others have suggested that

they were far more than mere displays of power.61 It can be

argued, for instance, that generous patronage was essential

for the intertwining of otherwise disparate social and political contingents of society. The repercussions of construc-

tion or enlargement of temples and monastic complexes were felt far and wide, as they encouraged economic activ-

ity in the form of endowments by other parties. The sizable allocations to both new and established institutions were fundamental to the consolidation and dissemination of cen-

tralized authority, and ultimately contributed to a regional and political cohesiveness.62

Virtually innumerable inscriptions record large and small grants of immovable property-such as villages and

parcels of land-to individual temples and complexes on

their original foundations and later additions. There are

equally numerous epigraphs recording smaller endowments of cash as well as gifts in kind. The grants were not made

exclusively by the Chaulukya royalty and nobles; albeit on

a smaller scale, other groups such as merchants, ascetics, and stoneworkers were equally generous. Those control-

ling volatile or small-scale resources could also create inter-

est-bearing endowments whose effects continued over

subsequent centuries.63 During Chaulukya rule, temples were not the only

foundations eligible for these grants. According to surviving inscriptions, mosques also received land, villages, and gifts in kind for their operation and maintenance.64 Close analysis of the surviving epigraphical evidence suggests that

though the Chaulukyas themselves did not contribute to

Islamic foundations as they did to Jain establishments, the

resulting integration of communities around the building was no less efficacious. The Sanskrit version of the bilin-

gual Arabic-Sanskrit Somnath-Veraval inscription of 1264

CE, for example, clearly details the various artisan groups and officials responsible for maintaining a mosque in a

proper state of repair. Moreover, the local non-Muslim

leaders were charged with the stipulated disbursement of

the proceeds from the endowment's financial interests,

including the forwarding of any surplus to the holy cities of

Mecca and Medina. Thus, whether an endowment served a

temple complex or a mosque, the societal integration it set

in motion, sanctioned by the rulership's central authority,

ultimately contributed to the contractual intertwining of

social and occupational groups.6s

Important and long-established pilgrimage sites such as the Rudra-mahalaya and the Somnath temple attracted

the generosity of many individuals and groups throughout their existence, and their endowments provided them with

sufficient if not ample means of support. In the end, these

centers were the proprietors of vast movable and immov-

able resources, both in wealth as well as social focus and loy-


alties. Outright destruction of these complexes, which were

so intricately embedded within communities near and far, would have resulted in a violent disruption of economic and

social life in the area, possibly alienating the pilgrimage sites

from their numerous possessions and, more important, rel-

egating the latter to a liminal and ultimately useless admin-

istrative status. The complexes as conduits of social interaction in

urban centers, and their generation of revenue and solidifi-

cation as established during Chaulukya rulership, had sur-

vived the larger political changes wrought by the Khalji and

Tughluq annexations of Gujarat.66 During the Muzaffarid

sultanate's consolidation in the early fifteenth century, the

modified appropriation of these resources was certainly more beneficial than the unforeseeable ends of random

destruction. Just as these complexes had served edifying and

unifying purposes for the Chaulukyas (and perhaps also the

Khaljis and the Tughluqs), their "conversion" to similar

ends for the Muzaffarid house was infinitely more produc- tive than their sudden discontinuation.

Furthermore, it is quite possible that the transforma-

tion of the Rudra-mahalaya into Siddhpur's congregational

mosque was the only way the temple complex's abundant

resources could be dissociated from it and appropriated by the Muzaffarid treasury, even if only temporarily, to be sub-

sequently redistributed as the sultan and his administrators

deemed most advantageous. The social and political nexus

of the immediate area would experience less disturbance

from transformation than annihilation.67 I would propose, then, that the transformation from Rudra-mahalaya to con-

gregational mosque, rather than symbolizing a complete

rupture with the institutions established by the Chaulukyas of Gujarat, was an attempt on the part of the newly form-

ing Muzaffarid sultanate to create an adapted continuity with them.

Finally, it must not be forgotten that Ahmad Shah I

established his new capital city of Ahmadabad in 1411, only three years before the Siddhpur campaign. This act of royal

prerogative attempted to recast the political geography of

the region, with the center of power shifting from Patan in

the north to Ahmadabad in south-central Gujarat. The

region next to the area ofJunagadh in Saurashtra, northern

Gujarat, and particularly the holdings of the local rulers of

Idar had been the most persistent loci of rebellion during the past several centuries. But with the reduction (if not

elimination) of Siddhpur's centrality as a Shaiva and Jain pil-

grimage site, the processes of location and consolidation of

political and economic power in Ahmadabad were that much more complete.

The most influential Jain monastic order of Gujarat

during Chaulukya rule had been centered at Patan, only ten miles south of Siddhpur. The prominence of Patan's Jain monastic order had continued unabated even during the establishment of Khalji presence in the city in the first decade of the fourteenth century. In fact, it lingered throughout Tughluq suzerainty and was still in place at the

beginning of the fifteenth century.68 Although Patan had

already been relegated to the status of a provincial settle- ment soon after the foundation of Ahmadabad, dislodging the influence of its Jain monastic orders most likely required some perseverance. With Patan's proximity to Siddhpur, and the latter's prominence as a Shaiva and Jain pilgrimage site, northern Gujarat surely continued to compete with Ahmadabad in political and religious importance.

In light of these realities, Ahmad Shah's dismantling of the important Shaiva and Jain temple complexes of Siddh-

pur could have been a drastic measure to dislodge the political and religious power of the city and of northern Gujarat in general. With the shift of the political and economic center from the north to Ahmadabad in south-central Gujarat, the geography of Jainism also had to change. While on a

political level the Siddhpur campaign likely served to legit- imate the establishment of the Muzaffarid dynasty, on a concomitant pragmatic level it also fomented the solidifi- cation of Ahmadabad as Gujarat's new capital. It is plausible, then, that Ahmad Shah undertook his mission to Siddhpur, at least in part, to aid in refocusing the Jain community's energies from north Gujarat to the vicinity of Ahmadabad. The sultan's efforts were evidently successful, as the Jain monastic order of Ahmadabad did indeed appropriate the influence previously belonging to Patan and the north.69

Reception of the Transformation

Scholarly analyses of architectural reuse have focused on the treatment of the phenomenon in Persian dynastic histories and the possible motivations behind Muslim rulers' desecration of important Hindu sites. The fragments result-

ing from this apparently thoughtless destruction were further mutilated before or during the process of incorporation into Islamic buildings, indicating the victors' disdain for the

vanquished.70 Thus far, interpretations have assumed that the majority of the population, including both Hindus and Muslims, perceived the destruction of standing buildings by Muslim elites as a violent, propagandistic act.

The textual sources, produced primarily for courtly cir- cle, are not informative about the reception of architectural reuse among nonruling echelons of medieval Indian society. Studies of Indo-Persian chronicles have rightly pointed out the imbrication in these works of their authors' politi-

156 JSAH / 63:2, JUNE 2004

cal and personal motives, which together with the abun- dance of literary tropes renders them less than transpar- ent.71 Nevertheless, a close examination of the physical traces of the Rudra-mahalaya's transformation into the con-

gregational mosque provides important insights into the

reception of the change by at least one segment of the nonelite population-the stoneworkers who executed the work.

During nonmodern times, religious creed was not divi- sive among the artisanal and laboring strata of Gujarati soci-

ety. Within Hinduism, occupations were largely caste based, and conversion to Islam did little to shake loose this associ-

ation, which persisted in a family for generations. Muslims and non-Muslims would then work side-by-side in their inherited occupation.72 Moreover, inscriptions from the mid-thirteenth century and afterward indicate that many Islamic buildings were constructed and maintained by both Hindu and Muslim craftsmen. Indeed, the mixture of creeds in many occupational guilds remained largely unchanged for the next several centuries, as inscriptions from the reign of Ahmad Shah I also record that Hindu stoneworkers were

employed in the construction of Islamic buildings." There-

fore, both Muslim and Hindu stoneworkers may have participated in the transformation of the Rudra-mahalaya.

The method of reuse of large, structurally integral components such as the ceilings from the temple complex yields important information about responses to the transformation process, both among the stoneworkers and others. The ceilings were carved (Figure 11), with pieces fitting together like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. In the event that these pieces sustained damage, they would have to be recarved if the ceiling were to be structurally functional, which was inefficient both economically and temporally. Blind destruction would have been counterproductive to the successful extraction of the various pieces of a ceiling or

any other structurally important component. It is more

likely that buildings incorporating older components were the result of salvage rather than pillage, careful dismantling rather than random destruction.

The integration of the Rudra-mahalaya's minor shrines into the congregational mosque is perhaps the most informative example of how the complex's transformation into a

"new" place of worship was received by the stoneworkers. As indicated above, three minor shrines were not only incorporated into the mosque's prayer area, but the two fully integrated ones became the foci of the worshipers' prayers along the qibla. Based on the shrine entrances giving onto the interior of the prayer area today (Figure 12), it would seem that much of the iconography of the jambs and lintels of these entrances was left intact. On the lower jambs,

Figure 11 Rudra-mahalaya's principal temple (ca. 1140), ceiling

fragment

the unfinished-rather than effaced-portions are clearly visible. There is little evidence of the token effacement of

figural imagery that usually took place when temple elements were recycled. It is possible that these frames served as supports for mihrdbs made of perishable materials, which were fastened onto them, as has been suggested for the

mihrdbs of other Gujarati buildings.7 Thus, in keeping with the requisites of Islamic worship, the surviving iconography would have been concealed from view.

The full incorporation of the two Rudra-mahalaya shrines into the congregational mosque's prayer area has

important formal precedents. As noted by other scholars, it is probable that these projections on the western wall were architectural conventions "imported" by the immigrant Muslim communities of western India. Due to the differ-

ing ritual practices according with the requirements of Islam, which made new or rare demands on the skills of


Figure 12 Rudra-mahalaya/congregational mosque prayer area.

Uncovered entrance to the southern shrine, incorporated into prayer area

locally trained stoneworkers, it is more than likely that the latter relied on their patrons for descriptions of what they were to build or carve. The recently settled Muslims would have communicated to the workers the forms that were not

only appropriate for their own ritual needs, but probably also most familiar to them from memories of their home- lands. The exterior projections of the mih4rabs on Indian

mosques, then, have been compared with similar projections on mosques in southwestern Iran, whence many of the settlers hailed.75

Recent studies have analyzed western India's architectural practices and their application to Islamic buildings, concluding that this application continued unabated from the mid-twelfth through the fifteenth century and probably later.76 By the fifteenth century, the canons of mosque

Figure 13 Tomb of Ibrahim, Bhadredvar (Kachh), Gujarat, mid-twelfth-

century. Exterior, qibla wall

construction were fully integrated within the Maru-Gur-

jara tradition. The Vrksdarava, an architectural treatise from western India that codified generations of building experience, contains a chapter describing the construction of a

mosque according to the Maru-Gurjara tradition.77 Numer- ous other architectural treatises also specify the requirements governing residential, civic, and temple architecture, indicating a continued demand for these other types of

buildings as well. The architectural knowledge of this

region, then, was applied to and itself benefited from the construction of Islamic buildings.

The stoneworkers were evidently left to their own devices for the actual fashioning of newly introduced architectural designs. The exteriors of the mid-twelfth-century mihrab projections at Bhadresvar (Figure 13), as well as

158 JSAH / 63:2, JUNE 2004

Figure 14 Congregational mosque, Bharuch, Gujarat, ca. 1325.

Exterior, western wall (qibla)

those in subsequent centuries throughout western India

(Figure 14), all carry the essential elements of a temple sanctum's elevation": this includes a standard three-mold-

ing sequence of the "hoof," "inverted pot," and torus mold-

ing, along with an overhanging cornice, a plain wall frieze, and an abbreviated springing of the superstructure.79 In

temple architecture, the whole elevation is the culmination of the main axis and the pinnacle of sanctity in the shrine. This overlaps with the mihrdb as the most sacred focal point in an Islamic ritual building. While the newly constructed

mosques at Bhadre'var and later foundations were given mihrab projections devoid of the figural iconography that would have been present on a temple elevation, these projections possessed other important markers of the latter. It would appear that these most sacred points in a mosque

plan were conceptualized and executed as the analogous locations in temples.

It should be noted that there is evidence of token effacement of figural elements on the Siddhpur shrines' sur-

faces, perhaps a consequence of the fact that the removal of iconism would have rendered the minor shrines structurally unstable. It must also be borne in mind that at least some of this effacement might have taken place long after the

mosque's construction around 1415, since Islamic worship continued at the site until the last quarter of the twentieth

century. Thus, the incorporation of the Rudra-mahalaya's

minor shrines into the qibla of the congregational mosque (see Figure 6) is an actualization of the visual reference made by the mihrdb projections discussed above. At Siddh-

pur, the skeletal morphemes of the three-molding sequence, along with the additional aniconic elements of earlier

mihr.ab projections (see Figures 13, 14), were effectively

filled in with the teeming figural programs of a Shaiva com-

plex. This literalization of what was previously an analogous structural device says much about the relationship between the stoneworkers and the fruits of their labors: in essence, this incorporation was consistent with the long accepted conventions for mosque construction in western India.

Conclusions

This investigation has attempted to show that the paradigm of historical rupture, which has generally been applied to Islamic buildings exhibiting architectural reuse, has not taken all of the surviving evidence into account. Indeed, the evidence taken as a whole suggests that, both historically and historiographically, a framework of modified continu-

ity would be more fitting than one of complete rupture for the analysis of surviving examples of reuse from medieval India.

A reexamination of the surviving physical and epigraphical evidence from Gujarat suggests that a complete break with past institutions would have been neither fully possible nor advantageous for the Muzaffarids. The large architectural foundations of the Chaulukya rulers had created vast and intricate societal nexuses, maintained by subsequent royal and lay patronage. Indeed, these webs of social, political, occupational, and religious connections among communities were valuable for the new dynasts. These links continued to generate revenue and comprise the bases of political support for the rulers and their regional governors. The refocusing of financial resources and social loyalties toward a new ruling power required a modified continuity with past institutions. One method of


achieving this was by means of the transformation of prominent temple complexes such as the Rudra-mahalaya into

mosques. The transformation did not destroy all the social

networks created by the complex, but rather redirected

them toward the new regional hegemony of the Muzaf-

farids.

Historiographically, the combination of the divergent

trajectories of Indic and Islamic architectural history proves beneficial in understanding the creation of Siddhpur's con-

gregational mosque. Many of the characteristics of the tem-

ple complex were instrumental in shaping the physical

components and measurements of the mosque. More

important, however, temple iconography was also essential

in understanding how standing elements of the temple

complex could have been incorporated into the mosque as

its most sacred and focal point. In light of the long-stand-

ing presence on exterior mihrab elevations of elements from

Indic architectural iconography, the integration of actual

minor shrines as the minhrabs of the Siddhpur mosque does

not appear as jarring as might be assumed. The construction

of Islamic buildings in India seems not to be an endeavor so

alien to temple architecture as to warrant a completely separate scholarly discourse. Indeed, the mutual benefit ensu-

ing from a convergence of Indic and Islamic architectural

histories, particularly in analyses of architectural reuse, can-

not be overestimated. In the end, Hulvi and Manjhu's reports of Ahmad

Shah's campaign to Siddhpur were, in broad contours, representative of the historical results of the act while simulta-

neously serving panegyric purposes. The sultan did indeed

gain tremendously after his appropriation and redeploy- ment of the architectural and economic resources of the

city. Although he most likely did not add "idols of gold and

silver" per se to his treasury, he did garner something much

more enduring and influential, namely more of the political and economic capital necessary to establish the longevity of the Muzaffarid house in Gujarat.

Notes I am grateful to the Michigan Society of Fellows at The University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor, for supporting this work. I also thank the police com-

missioner and constables of Siddhpur (Mehasana District, Gujarat), whose

cooperation made the essay possible.

1. Madhusudhan Dhaky, "The Chronology of the Solanki Temples of

Gujarat," Madhya Pradesh Itihasa Parishad 3 (1961), 45.

2. Ashok Majumdar, Chaulukyas of Gujarat (Bombay, 1956), 67ff.

3. See Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya, The Making of Early Medieval India

(Delhi, 1994), 22, 30-37, for the link between legitimization of dynastic lin-

eages and patronage of sectarian establishments; and Richard M. Eaton,

"Temple Desecration and Indo-Muslim States," in David Gilmartin and Bruce Lawrence, eds., Beyond Turk and Hindu: Shaping Indo-Muslim Identity in Pre-Modern India (Gainesville, 2000), 246-81. 4. Sir Alexander Kinloch Forbes, Ras Mala: Hindoo Annals of the Province of Goozerat in Western India, ed. H. G. Rawlinson, 2 vols. (London, 1924), vol.

1, 165ff., figs. 3, 4.

5. James Burgess and Henry Cousens, The ArchitecturalAntiquities of North- ern Gujarat, More Especially of the Districts Included in the Baroda State, vol. 9,

Archaeological Survey of Western India (Calcutta, 1903). 6. Since the Rudra aspect of Shiva was divided into eleven minor aspects or rudras (known collectively as the ekaddsa rudra), it is possible that the minor shrines could have numbered up to eleven. See T. A. Gopinatha Rao, Ele- ments ofHindu Iconography, 2 vols., 2d ed. (Varanasi, 1971), vol. 2, pt. 2, 386-92. Without thorough excavation of the site, it is difficult to determine the original number of these minor shrines. 7. Although architectural recycling seems to have been especially common between the late twelfth and fifteenth centuries, there is virtually no evidence indicating the precise origins of the reused fragments. Only specific elements in a given building have been identified, and these are based on

speculation. See J. M. Nanavati and M. A. Dhaky, The Ceilings in the Tem-

ples of Gujarat, ed. B. L. Mankad, Bulletin of the Museum and Picture Gallery, Baroda, special issue, vols. 16-17 (Baroda, 1963), esp. pls. 2, 4, 22, 33-3 5, 58, 60, 61, 66, 67, 70-73, 83, 89-92, 94. 8. See Beat Brenk, "Spolia from Constantine to Charlemagne: Aesthetic Versus Ideology," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 41 (1987), esp. 103, where it is

explained that the derivation of the word spolia from the Latin spolium still bears implications of the original meaning: "removed hide of an animal, soldier's booty or spoils of war." 9. See esp. Dhaky, "Chronology," 45-50; and M. A. Dhaky, "The Genesis and Development of Maru-Gurjara Temple Architecture," in Pramod

Chandra, ed., Studies in Indian Temple Architecture (Varanasi, 1975), 114-65. 10. See Richard H. Davis, "Indian Art Objects as Loot," Journal of Asian Studies 52, no. 1 (1993), 22-48, expanded to include some treatment of the Ghaznavid incursions into northern India in Richard H. Davis, The Lives of Indian Images (Delhi, 1997). Eaton, "Temple Desecration," focuses exclu-

sively on Muslim desecrations of Hindu sites. See also Sheldon Pollock,

"Ramayana and Political Imagination in India," Journal ofAsian Studies 52, no. 2 (1993), 261-97. 11. Eaton's paradigm has been applied most recently in a study of architectural reuse by Phillip B. Wagoner and John Henry Rice, "From Delhi to the Deccan: Newly Discovered Tughluq Monuments at Warangal-Sultanpur and the Beginnings of Indo-Islamic Architecture in Southern India," Art-

ibusAsiae 61, no. 1 (2001), 77-117. 12. See R. Nath, "On the Theory of Indo-Muslim Architecture," in Anna Libera Dallapiccola, ed., Shastric Traditions in Indian Arts (Stuttgart, 1989),

esp. 200; and Alka Patel, Building Communities in Gujarat: Architecture and

Society during the Twelfth through Fourteenth Centuries (Leiden, 2004), ch. 3. 13. See C. P. Rajendran and Kusala Rajendran, "Characteristics of Defor-

mation and Past Seismicity Associated with the 1819 Kutch Earthquake,

Northwestern India," Bulletin of the Seismological Society ofAmerica 91, no. 3

(2001), 407-26; and C. P. Rajendran, Kusala Rajendran, and Biju John,

"Surface Deformation Related to the 1819 Kachch Earthquake: Evidence

for Recurrent Activity," Current Science 75, no. 6 (1998), 623-26. I am grateful to Dr. Peter Wilf in the Department of Geological Sciences, Pennsyl-

vania State University, for his initial suggestion that seismic disturbances

could provide at least one source of recyclable materials.

14. Burgess and Cousens, Antiquities, 64.

15. As Bernard S. Cohn noted, in the context of objects, in "The Transfor-

mation of Objects into Artifacts, Antiquities, and Art in Nineteenth-Cen-

160 JSAH / 63:2, JUNE 2004

tury India," in Cohn, Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge (Delhi, 1997), 76-105. Of course, this important historicization can also be applied to

buildings. 16. See Kantilal E Sompura, The Structural Temples of Gujarat, vol. 4, The-

sis Publication Series (Ahmadabad, 1968), 91, 98, 120, 153 n. 151, 161, 184.

17. See John E. Cort, Jains in the World (Delhi, 2001), 34-40; and G. Biih-

ler, On the Indian Sect of the Jainas, trans. James Burgess (London, 1903),

esp. 79.

18. See Patel, Building Communities, ch. 2.

19. The annexation of Gujarat as a province was attempted twice by the

Khalji forces of Delhi, once in ca. 1300 and again in 1303. Most chroni-

clers mention only one Khalji military campaign against Gujarat in

1298-99. However, the more accurate date for the first Khalji incursion

may be 1300. See Zia' al-Din Barani (ca. 1285-after 1360), Tarikh-e

Firuzshahi, ed. Syed Ahmad Khan, Bibliotheca Indica: Collection of Ori-

ental Works (Bengal, 1862), 74-76; Isami (fl. ca. 1350), Futuh al-Salatin, ed.

A. S. Usha, Madras University Islamic Series 9 (Madras, 1948); and G. Biih- ler, "AJain Account of the End of the Vaghelas of Gujarat," Indian Antiquary 26 (1897), 194-95. A bilingual Persian-Sanskrit inscription of 704 AH/1304

CE confirms that Gujarat reverted to Vaghela rulership after Ala al-Din

Khalji's first offensive in 1300, requiring a second Khalji campaign in

1303/4. See Z. A. Desai, "A Persian-Sanskrit Inscription of Karna Deva

Vaghela of Gujarat," Epigraphia Indica, Arabic and Persian Supplement (1975), 13-20.

20. Differing textual accounts have led to confusion surrounding the dec-

laration of the Gujarat sultanate. The Tughluq governor Zafar Khan was

reluctant to assume royal insignias while his overlord, the virtually power- less Nusrat Shah Tughluq, was still alive. However, his son Tatar Khan was

apparently impatient for royal prerogatives, and imprisoned his father after

declaring himself Sultan Nasir al-Din Muhammad Shah in 1404. The lat-

ter painfully arranged for the assassination of his son. But Tatar Khan had

begun an irreversible process, so that two months later, Zafar Khan de facto

assumed the title of Sultan Muzaffar Shah I. See Z. A. Desai, "Inscriptions of the Sultans of Gujarat from Saurashtra," Epigraphia Indica Arabic and Per-

sian Supplement (1953-54), 52-53; and S. C. Misra, The Rise of Muslim Power

in Gujarat (New York, 1963), 151-65.

21. As in the case of his grandfather, there is doubt concerning the year of

Ahmad Shah I's accession. Muzaffar Shah I maintained a certain loyalty to

his deceased eldest offspring in spite of the latter's deception. Eventually he appointed Tatar Khan's first-born son, Ahmad Khan, as heir. Ahmad

Khan might have inherited the overwhelming ambition of his father, and it

is possible that he facilitated the demise of his grandfather in 1410, in order

to assume royal titles and prerogatives as Sultan Ahmad Shah I. Other

accounts, however, state that due to a protracted illness, Muzaffar Shah I

appointed his grandson Sultan before his death in 1411. See Desai, "Inscrip- tions of the Sultans of Gujarat," 52-53; Z. A. Desai, "Khalji and Tughluq

Inscriptions from Gujarat," Epigraphia Indica Arabic and Persian Supplement

(1962), 32-34; and Misra, Rise of Muslim Power, 151-65.

22. The later texts include the Ma'asir-i Mahmud Shahi by 'Abd al-Husain

Tuni (from Khurasan), covering the period ending in 1486; the Tarikh-i

Gujardt by Sharaf al-Din Muhammad Bukhari (d. 1515); another Tarikh-e

Gujardt by Mir Abui Turab Vali, starting with 1525; Sayyid Mahmiid

Bukhanri's Tarikh-e Saldttn-e Gujardt (late sixteenth century); and the Mir'adt- e Ahmadi by Mirza Muhammad Hasan, composed during the eighteenth

century. One sixteenth-century Arabic history also survives: Zafar al- Wadlih bi Muzaffar wa dlih, written by'Abd Allah Muhammad ibn 'Umar al-Makki

al-Asafi al-Ulughkhani. None of these texts details the reign of Ahmad Shah

I. See S. A. I. Tirmizi, Some Aspects ofMedieval Gujarat (Delhi, 1968), 15-17, 24-34.

23. Tirmizi, Medieval Gujarat, 29.

24. Sikandar ibn Muhammad 'urf Manjhu (1554-after 1617), Mir'adt-e

Sikandari, ed. S. C. Misra and M. L. Rahman, Department of History Series

3 (Baroda, 1961), 43-46; and The Local Muhammadan Dynasties: Gujarat, trans. Sir Edward Clive Bayly (1886) in Nagendra Singh, ed., The History of India as Told by Its Own Historians (Delhi, 1970). Hulvi's work was per-

haps also consulted by Bukhari, in his late sixteenth-century Tarikh-e

Salatin-e Gujarat. See Tirmizi, Medieval Gujarat, 28-31.

25. For the conventions of portraying a royal patron, see Peter Hardy, His-

torians of Medieval India: Studies in Indo-Muslim Historical Writing (London,

1960); Tirmizi, Medieval Gujarat, 10-11; and Misra, Rise of Muslim Power, 175-76. 26. For the Chaulukya campaigns in Saurashtra, and the reversion of terri-

torial "conquests" to the local rulers, see G. Biihler, "Eleven Land-Grants

of the Chaulukyas of Anahilawada," Indian Antiquary 6 (1877), 190ff; and D.

B. Diskalkar, "Inscriptions of Kathiawad," New Indian Antiquary 1

(1938-39), 579.

27. Zafar Khan (later Muzaffar Shah I) had to subjugate Idar at least three

times, even though his center of authority was nearby, at Patan. He also

made forays into Saurashtra. Ahmad Shah I inherited equally restive ter-

ritories: he went to Idar and Saurashtra several times for similar reasons.

See Misra, Rise of Muslim Power, 146ff, 168-70, 174-75; Desai, "Inscrip- tions of the Sultans of Gujarat"; and Diskalkar, "Inscriptions of Kathi-

awad," 579-80.

28. See Misra, Rise of Muslim Power, 174.

29. Manjhu, Mir'adt, 43-46; and Local Muhammadan Dynasties, 98-99.

30. For these three foundations, see George Michell and Snehal Shah, eds.,

Ahmadabad (Bombay, 1988), 32-39, 42-43.

31. A Sanskrit inscription of ca. 1251, found on a pillar in the Ahmad Shah

mosque, records a donation to the temple of Uttaresvara at Mahimsaka.

This evidence suggests that the column once belonged to this temple. See

J. E. Abbott, "Ahmadabad Inscription of Visaladeva, Samvat 1308,"

Epigraphia Indica 5, no. 13 (1898-99), 102-3. See infra in main text.

32. See esp. Michell and Sah, Ahmadabad, 32-39.

33. Manjhu, Mir'dt (1960) 44-46.

34. For example, Manjhu reports the battle between Ahmad Shah I and

Maharwal Gopinath of Dungarpur in 1433 with some restraint. Although he attributes victory to the sultan, the Antri inscription of 1468 CE claims

that Gopinath was victorious. See Local Muhammadan Dynasties, 120, 527.

35. Manjhu (quoting Hulvi), Mir'at, 44, 45. Both Manjhu and Hulvi Shirazi

seem to have continued in the descriptive vein established at least two cen-

turies earlier. The multivolume work by the Mamluk-period historian Ibn

al-Athir (d. 1234), al-Kimilfi-t-Tdrikh (Beirut, 1989), vol. 6, 14-19, provides a long account of the temple of Sumnat (Somnath) and the riches

plundered there by Mahmud Ghaznavi. See Alka Patel, "A Note on Mah- mud Ghaznavi, Somanatha, and the Building of a Reputation," paper pre- sented at Conference of South Asian Archaeology, Paris, 1-4 July 2001.

36. Dhaky, "Chronology," 44-47 (see n. 1); Sompura, Temples, 136.

37. Biihler, "Eleven Land-Grants," 191-93 (see no. 16); and Harihar Vit-

thal Trivedi, Chaulukyan Inscriptions (Bhopal, 1994), 27-28.

38. See Dhaky, "Chronology," 46-47 (see n. 26); and Sompura, Temples, 135-36.

39. Dhaky, "Chronology," 49, my emphasis. 40. The twelfth-century Dvyasrayakavyd of Hemacandra notes that

Jayasimha Siddharaja commissioned a Mahavira temple at Siddhpur. See

Satya Pal Narang, Hemacandra's "Dvyasrayakavya": A Literary and Cultural

Study (New Delhi, 1972), 21; also Sompura, Temples, 141-42, who mentions

fifteenth-century sources, most notably the Somasaubhagya-kavyd (1468 CE) of Somapratisthasuri, which describes surviving Jain temples at Siddhpur.


41. The excavation findings are set out in M. A. Dhaky and H. P. Shastri,

The Riddle of the Temple of Somanatha (Varanasi, 1974). 42. Ibid., 16-18.

43. Merutungacarya, The Prabandhacintamani or Wishing-Stone ofNarratives, trans. C. H. Tawney (Delhi, 1982, reprint), 126, 131-32.

44. Vajeshankar G. Ozha, "The Somnathpattan Prasasti of Bhava Brihas-

pati," Vienna Oriental Journal 3 (1889), 1-19.

45. Merutunga was most likely inspired by a similar story from the Prab-

havakacarita (ca. 1250), which describes Kumarapala and Hemacandra's

involvement in the Somnath temple. See G. Biihler, The Life of Hemacan-

dracarya, trans. Manilal Patel (Santiniketan, 1936, German original 1889).

I am indebted to Dr. Phyllis Granoff of McMaster University for this ref-

erence.

46. As the first Chaulukya ruler, Mularaja I established this pattern of royal

patronage ofJain complexes (see M. A. Dhaky, "Some Early Jain Temples

in Western India," in U. P. Shah, ed., Shri MahavirJain Vidyalaya Golden

Jubilee Volume (Bombay, 1968), esp. 284. Inscriptions from the reigns of

Karnadeva I (r. 1065-94), Jayasimha Siddharaja, Kumarapala, and Arju- nadeva (r. 1261-75) all attest to the patronage ofJain establishments by the

later Chaulukyas. This participation in Jain foundations seems to have been

reciprocated: after the Ghurid desecration of the Somesvara temple at

Kiradu (Barmer district, Rajasthan) in ca. 1172, a new image of Shiva was

given by the wife of Tejahpala to the temple in 1178. Tejahpala was the Jain minister of one of the feudatories of Bhimadeva II. See Trivedi, Chaunlkyan

Inscriptions. 47. See Peter Van der Veer, "The Foreign Hand: Orientalist Discourse in

Sociology and Communalism," in Carol A. Breckenridge and Peter Van der

Veer, eds., Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament (Philadelphia, 1993),

29-30; Peter Van der Veer, Imperial Encounters: Religion and Modernity in1

India and Britain (Princeton, 2001), esp. 3-29; and Richard King, Oriental-

ism and Religion (New Delhi, 1999). 48. Architectural reuse is evident in Gujarati mosques and tombs particu-

larly of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. For the buildings constructed

with older materials during Muzaffarid rule, see Michell and Shah, Ahnmad- abad (see n. 30). 49. Nanavati and Dhaky, Ceilings, pls. 60-61 (see n. 7), identify one of the

principal ceilings, namely that of the southernmost bay, as having come

directly from "one of the minor shrines behind [the] Rudra-mahalaya," as

well as one of the two smaller ceilings above the ornately carved stone min-

bar (pl. 94). 50. See Davis, "Indian Art Objects"; Davis, Lives of Indian Images (see n.

10); Eaton, "Temple Desecration" (see n. 10); and Pollock, "Ramayana and

Political Imagination" (see n. 3). 51. For the Rudra-mahalaya specifically, see Eaton, "Temple Desecration,"

table 10.1 no. 34.

52. See Robert Hillenbrand, "Political Symbolism in Early Indo-Islamic

Mosque Architecture: The Case of Ajmir," Iran 26 (1988), 105-17; and

Anthony Welch, "Architectural Patronage and the Past: The Tughluq Sul-

tans of Delhi," Muqarnas 10 (1993), 311-22.

53. The Mir'at only mentions "the temple of Sidhpur [sic], the idols of

which were all made of silver and gold" (Local Muhammadan Dynasties,

98-99 [see n. 24]). However, there is extensive epigraphical evidence ofJain

temples in Siddhpur. See Sompura, Structural Temples (see n. 16), 141-42;

and Misra, Rise of Muslim Power, 174-75 (see n. 20).

54. See Sompura, Temples, 147, for sun worship at Somanfitha-pattana. 55. Trivedi, Chaulukyan Inscriptions, 62ff.

56. This was reported in the Samra-rasu by an anonymous author (ca. 1315);

in Jinaprabhasuri's Vividhatirthakalpa (1333); and the Nabhinandan-jinod-

dharprabandha by Kakkasuri (1336-37). The desecration caused widespread

protest among the economically powerful Jain communities of north India.

The weight of the outcry was such that Alp Khan, the Khalji governor of

Gujarat (r. 1300-15), attempted to remedy the situation not only by giving

permission to repair the temples, but also by contributing to the cause. See

Misra, Rise of Muslim Power, 68 n. 2, 68-70.

57. Karnadeva I made grants to a Jain temple. Siddharaja eventually repaired the Jain temple of Neminatha at Raivtaka, and made endowments to the

famed Jain site of Satrunjaya (Saurashtra). See Narang, "Dvyasrayakavya," 126 (see n. 40). 58. Prabandhdcintdmani, 16-18 (see n. 43); and Cort, Jais, 35-36, 39 (see n. 17). 59. The other addition to the Somnath complex, a commemorative gateway, was commissioned by the priest Tirupantaka. See Dhaky and Shastri, Rid-

dle, 27-28 (see n. 41); G. Biihler, "The Cintra Prasasti of the Reign of

Sarangadeva," Epigraphia Indica 1 (1888-91), 271-86; and G. Biihler and

Vajeshankar G. Ozha, "Sridhara's Devapattana Prasasti," Epigraphia Indica

(1894), 437-46.

60. For the interpretation of medieval Indian patronage as the theory of

Indian feudalism, see D. D. Kosambi, An Introduction to the Study of Indian

History (Bombay, 1956); and R. S. Sharma, Indian Feudalism, c. 300-1200

(Calcutta, 1965). 61. Recent reexaminations of these allocations are found in Chattopadhyaya,

Early Medieval India (see n. 3); and Chattopadhyaya, "State and Economy in

North India: Fourth Century through Twelfth Century," in Romila Thapar,

ed., Recent Perspectives of Early Indian Histoly (Bombay, 1995), esp. 311-25,

334ff.

62. See Chattopadhyaya, Early Medieval India.

63. These endowments were made in perpetuity, as explicitly stated in many of the royal grants. See Bbhler, "Eleven Land-Grants" (see n. 26). For

endowments made by the merchant and laboring classes, see esp. Diskalkar,

"Inscriptions of Kathiawad," 687, 691, 695 (see n. 26). An ascetic's grant is

found in Biihler, "Cintra Prasasti"; and Chattopadhyaya, Early Medieval

India, 143-44.

64. For a mosque in the port city of Somnath, see Z. A. Desai, "Arabic

Inscriptions of the Rajput Period from Gujarat," Epigraphia Indica Arabic

and Persian Supplement (1961), 10-15; E. Hultzsch, "A Grant of Arjunadeva of Gujarat, Dated 1264 A.D.," Indian Antiquary 2 (1882), 241-45; and D.C.

Sircar, "Veraval Inscription of Chaulukya-Vaghela Arjuna, 1264 A.D.,"

Epigraphia Indica (1961), 141-50. For a donation to the congregational

mosque of Khambhat during the early fourteenth century, see Desai, "Per-

sian-Sanskrit Inscription" (see n. 19). 65. See Hultzsch, "Grant of Arjunadeva"; Sircar, "Veraval Inscription"; and

Alka Patel, "Communities in Collaboration: The Somanatha-Veraval

Inscription of 1264 CE (Gujarat)," in Carla M. Sinopoli and Grant R. Parker,

eds., Ancient India and Its Wider World (Ann Arbor, 2004). 66. Misra, Rise ofIMuslim Power.

67. The economic history of the Muzaffarids has been investigated only for

the later period of the sultanate. See Z. A. Desai, "An Untapped Eight-

eenth-Century Persian Source for the Administrative-cum-Economic His-

tory of Gujarat," author's manuscript, n.d. The measures taken during the

consolidation of their power are not known well enough to explore this

hypothesis thoroughly. But it is nevertheless necessary to pose the idea, as

previous explanations for architectural reuse have fallen short of encom-

passing the social and economic consequences of the phenomenon. Unfor-

tunately, information regarding the continued function of large temple

complexes, such as Kumbhariya and Ranakpur, has not yet come to light.

68. Misra, Rise of Muslim Power, 66-67.

69. Cort, Jains, 39 (see n. 17).

70. See Hillenbrand, "Political Symbolism" (see n. 52); and Welch, "Archi-

tectural Patronage" (see n. 52).

162 JSAH / 63:2, JUNE 2004

71. For an analysis of the Persian and Arabic histories of Gujarat dating from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries, see Tirmizi, Medieval

Gujarat, 18-44 (see n. 22). The texts produced in the Delhi region between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries were also analyzed with similar historicization by Hardy, Historians of Medieval India (see n. 25). 72. For the association between caste and occupation, see M. N. Srinivas, Collected Essays (Delhi, 2002), 363. For epigraphical analysis, see Patel, "Somanatha-Veraval Inscription." 73. The foundation inscription of a mosque in Prabhasa Patan dates to 1428

during the reign of Ahmad Shah I, and names Shivdas, a Hindu, as the stoneworker. See Z. A. Desai, Arabic, Persian and Urdu Inscriptions of West India: A Topographical List (New Delhi, 1999), 122. 74. Mehrdad Shokoohy, Bhadreivar, the Oldest Islamic Monuments in India, Studies in Islamic Art and Architecture 2 (Leiden, 1988), 16ff. 75. Shokoohy, Bhadreivar, 16-17. 76. See Patel, Building Communities (see n. 12); and M. A. Dhaky, "Renais-

sance and the Late Maru-Gurjara Temple Architecture," Journal of the Indian Society of OrientalArt, special number, Western Indian Art (1965-66), 4-22. 77. For discussion of this treatise, see R. Nath, "Rehmana-Prasada: A Chap- ter on the Muslim Mosque from the Vrks~rnava," Vishveshvaranand Indo-

logical Journal 15, no. 2 (1977), 238-44; Nath, "On the Theory of Indo-Muslim Architecture" (see n. 12); and Patel, Building Communities, ch. 3. 78. See Patel, Building Communities, chs. 3-5. 79. See Dhaky, "Genesis," fig. j (see n. 9).

Illustration Credits Figure 1. Misra, Rise of Muslim Power, frontispiece Figures 2, 3. Burgess and Cousens, Antiquities, pl. 38

Figures 4-14. Photographs and illustrations by the author


architectural histories entwined: the rudra-mahalaya ... · dynasty (ca. 950-1303/4 ce). this...

Documents